Another fatal dog attack

SilverLinings

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 August 2017
Messages
3,170
Visit site
Thank you for highlighting the program. I just watched it, it was interesting.
Sorry if this is spoiler (idk how to do the banner thing) but I thought William’s outcome was telling.
At the end of the day it’s dickheads that need banning but the law is a blunt instrument and this may at least give some breathing space. Not that the breathing space will be utilised in a constructive manner by government.
Rather mangling an old quote ‘the desire to own an XL bully should preclude you from being qualified to do so’.
I agree re. William, although I wish they'd been a bit more blunt and said he'd shown aggressive tendencies (as that's what they seemed to be vaguely implying) rather than emphasising that it was for his welfare, like it had nothing to do with him. I'm glad the rescue were responsible, but another poor dog resulting from stupid human behaviour (the desire to breed this type).
 

Clodagh

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 August 2005
Messages
26,849
Location
Devon
Visit site
I agree re. William, although I wish they'd been a bit more blunt and said he'd shown aggressive tendencies (as that's what they seemed to be vaguely implying) rather than emphasising that it was for his welfare, like it had nothing to do with him. I'm glad the rescue were responsible, but another poor dog resulting from stupid human behaviour (the desire to breed this type).
Well they did say they had to prioritise the safety Of their staff, but I agree it was a bit hedgey. It showed that stress will bring out genetic tendencies (to my mind). Eg My Red lived in a kennel for 4 years but did not get aggressive as a result.
 

I'm Dun

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 May 2021
Messages
3,364
Visit site
Well they did say they had to prioritise the safety Of their staff, but I agree it was a bit hedgey. It showed that stress will bring out genetic tendencies (to my mind). Eg My Red lived in a kennel for 4 years but did not get aggressive as a result.

I thought exactly the same. And if the ban wasnt coming and they had rehomed him quickly, those aggressive tendencies could have been coming out in a home where someone else might have ended up dead.
 

Errin Paddywack

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 June 2019
Messages
6,928
Location
West Midlands
Visit site
The final pictures they showed of William showed that his eyes had changed, he no longer looked a 'kind' dog but one I would have been very wary of. When they were showing him being all sweet and playful he was still very young and they seem to change as they mature. Even with correct upbringing and training there have been cases of them turning without warning. I hate to demonise any breed but these scare me rigid.
 

inandout

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 November 2023
Messages
65
Visit site
Well the bans going great isnt it!

The definition has been tighented and its been stated that other breeds are not covered. So xls will become american bulldogs with unusual colours within the next 3 weeks. Breeders have already moved on to larger tougher none bullbreeds and there is now very significant opposition to the ban. 11 mps are supporting a prayer motion to stop the ban. The subject has been debated in parliment and the group mounting a legal challenge raised 150000 quite easily considering the ecomony to start this.



If the ban comes in (prayer motion and legal challenge aside of course) what will then happen. The police will be responsible for enforcing it. This will require specially trained officers to identify type dogs and thats just the start of the probems. The police will not have the rescources to seize 1000s of dogs and the courts will not be abe to process it. The police will feel pressured to attempt this though and this will take away there rescources from other aspect of dog law. Essentially how will you feel when a dog kills your dog/attacks your horse/puts you in hospitial because the police were too busy investigating xls than responding to out of control dog reports that would have prevented the incident. Thats if the police can do anything at all of course. It seems likely that they wont.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-xl-dog-ban-protest-owners-meet-coventry.html as correctly pointed out in this article the police often do not respond to calls about burlgaries so are unlikely to respond to every xl call they get.

All the comments about xls and large breeds in general being dangerous cause of there size can equally be applied to horses. If large dogs dropping into instinctive predatory/defensive behaviour and being capable of doing significant damage then so are horses, but perhaps more so. Statistically more people are killed by horses than dogs yearly despite far fewer horses. Be careful what you wish for tbh. Riding and road safetly campaigns seem to focus on the lack of complete control of horses. Imagine if dog owners ran a simialr campaign
'Give dogs two meters space cause they might lunge at you out of fear and injure you' can you imagine the public reaction to that but essentially thats the case with horses on roads. Btw I must of ridden 1000s of miles on roads in my life. Ultimately supporting the banning or restriction of large dog breeds is just a way of losing public access with horses when the inevitable comparisions are made and long term as most people are killed by there own horses losing the right to own them as well.



Additionally dogs dont have to be big to kill you. Pits which arguable started the whole bsl thing are medium dogs about the weight of a collie. Certainly less than a labrador.
 

CorvusCorax

'It's only a laugh, no harm done'
Joined
15 January 2008
Messages
59,567
Location
End of the pier
Visit site
This can only end with a ban on all dogs over certain weight and size criteria except under strictly controlled licence.

Bring it on.

How many attacks are carried out/how many people are injured by breeds like St Bernards, Newfoundlands, etc, both literal life-savers, or Bernese and Pyrenees Mountain Dogs etc, which would no doubt come under height and size criteria.

That's as daft as telling people they shouldn't own a Clydesdale or a Shire.
 

marmalade76

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 April 2009
Messages
6,946
Location
Gloucestershire
Visit site
Well the bans going great isnt it!

The definition has been tighented and its been stated that other breeds are not covered. So xls will become american bulldogs with unusual colours within the next 3 weeks. Breeders have already moved on to larger tougher none bullbreeds and there is now very significant opposition to the ban. 11 mps are supporting a prayer motion to stop the ban. The subject has been debated in parliment and the group mounting a legal challenge raised 150000 quite easily considering the ecomony to start this.



If the ban comes in (prayer motion and legal challenge aside of course) what will then happen. The police will be responsible for enforcing it. This will require specially trained officers to identify type dogs and thats just the start of the probems. The police will not have the rescources to seize 1000s of dogs and the courts will not be abe to process it. The police will feel pressured to attempt this though and this will take away there rescources from other aspect of dog law. Essentially how will you feel when a dog kills your dog/attacks your horse/puts you in hospitial because the police were too busy investigating xls than responding to out of control dog reports that would have prevented the incident. Thats if the police can do anything at all of course. It seems likely that they wont.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-xl-dog-ban-protest-owners-meet-coventry.html as correctly pointed out in this article the police often do not respond to calls about burlgaries so are unlikely to respond to every xl call they get.

All the comments about xls and large breeds in general being dangerous cause of there size can equally be applied to horses. If large dogs dropping into instinctive predatory/defensive behaviour and being capable of doing significant damage then so are horses, but perhaps more so. Statistically more people are killed by horses than dogs yearly despite far fewer horses. Be careful what you wish for tbh. Riding and road safetly campaigns seem to focus on the lack of complete control of horses. Imagine if dog owners ran a simialr campaign
'Give dogs two meters space cause they might lunge at you out of fear and injure you' can you imagine the public reaction to that but essentially thats the case with horses on roads. Btw I must of ridden 1000s of miles on roads in my life. Ultimately supporting the banning or restriction of large dog breeds is just a way of losing public access with horses when the inevitable comparisions are made and long term as most people are killed by there own horses losing the right to own them as well.



Additionally dogs dont have to be big to kill you. Pits which arguable started the whole bsl thing are medium dogs about the weight of a collie. Certainly less than a labrador.

The most dangerous animals in this country are cattle, do you think they'll be banned? There's also quite a few differences between horses and dogs - most horse owners understand and accept the potential dangers that go with them rather than insisting that they're just big babies that wouldn't hurt a fly. We don't tend to keep them in our homes, with our children and expect them to mix with with visitors, etc. We also don't take them to public parks and the like and purposefully turn them loose.
 

ycbm

Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
58,860
Visit site
All the comments about xls and large breeds in general being dangerous cause of there size can equally be applied to horses.

What an utterly ridiculous thing to write.



Statistically more people are killed by horses than dogs yearly despite far fewer horses.

You've heard the expression "lies, damned lies and statistics"?

People are not killed by their horses attacking them or strangers, except in very rare cases.
.
 
Last edited:

ycbm

Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
58,860
Visit site
How many attacks are carried out/how many people are injured by breeds like St Bernards, Newfoundlands, etc, both literal life-savers, or Bernese and Pyrenees Mountain Dogs etc, which would no doubt come under height and size criteria.

That's as daft as telling people they shouldn't own a Clydesdale or a Shire.

I'm not saying that nobody should own large dogs. But in the end, if the law can't distinguish between a large dangerous dog and a large non dangerous dog, then all large dogs will need to be properly licenced in order to have one.

What other solution is there?

Why are people reacting as if I said ban them when I said licence them?
.
 

inandout

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 November 2023
Messages
65
Visit site
The most dangerous animals in this country are cattle, do you think they'll be banned? There's also quite a few differences between horses and dogs - most horse owners understand and accept the potential dangers that go with them rather than insisting that they're just big babies that wouldn't hurt a fly. We don't tend to keep them in our homes, with our children and expect them to mix with with visitors, etc. We also don't take them to public parks and the like and purposefully turn them loose.
That was makes my point though. Dogs kill fewer people than horses and cows despite the average person having far more contact with dogs on a daiy basis. If you dont own a dog you still have daily contact with them if you go out in public. Far less so with horses and even less so with cows.

What an utterly ridiculous thing to write.





You've heard the expression "lies, damned lies and statistics"?

People are not killed by their horses attacking them or strangers, except in very rare cases.
.
It doest matter if your killed by an attack or not your still dead.

All dogs should have to be licensed as they used to be years ago but it would need to be enforced and that is where everything falls down.
That is the system the people opposed to the xl ban that have raised 150000 to fight it are proposing. They call it the calgary system and its the only legislation in the world shown to effectively reduce dog bites. dog licenses were dropped in uk due to lack of uptake. I believe all the current research indicates that wud be a problem if reintroduced. Calgary works because people buy into the system and want it to work. Any law in reality is not 100% enforceable and there is always a large element of compliance needed.


I'm not saying that nobody should own large dogs. But in the end, if the law can't distinguish between a large dangerous dog and a large non dangerous dog, then all large dogs will need to be properly licenced in order to have one.

What other solution is there?

Why are people reacting as if I said ban them when I said licence them?
.

I have suggested that the calgary system will fail in the uk due to lack of uptake and instead the licensing shud be directed at the current banned and potentially banned breeds (pits dogos toasa filas and potentially xls) if this was shown to work it cud be applied gradually to other controversial breeds and eventually all dogs if people wished. By then the public may have brought into it as a solution which is what makes it effective. This is still bsl of course which many are opposed to in princple and can also have many similar issues as a ban eg a dog isnt classed as a licensed breed in the same way its not classed as a banned breed and of course general enforcement. License by weight/size has similar issues. My skinny pit doesnt need a license but my friends fat labrador does for example. People will aso breed dogs just outside of the law atm there are many banned breed dogs in the uk that have been bred to not look like the breed (dna testing is not really as effective as the companies selling want you to think for identifying breed lol). In a license by size scenario people wud simply breed/keep there dogs under the weight. I worked with many medium dogs who due to there drive and intensity were at least as effective in attack work as larger breeds, the obvious example is malinois (medium) v gsd (large)

£150,000 that could be used for exemption certificates and neutering costs instead of using charity funds.

Lots of charities are already doing that, most dog charities r opposed to the ban and made this very clear at the efra meeting. It can be argued that as the ban is just a dog that looks a certain way dogs will be impacted by it for years, pits banned 30 years ago and still being typed and seized now. By preventing the ban not only do they prevent that scenario repeating but as all the research into bsl in uk shows it hasnt worked and has made things worse they may well prevent alot of deaths.

 

CorvusCorax

'It's only a laugh, no harm done'
Joined
15 January 2008
Messages
59,567
Location
End of the pier
Visit site
I'm not saying that nobody should own large dogs. But in the end, if the law can't distinguish between a large dangerous dog and a large non dangerous dog, then all large dogs will need to be properly licenced in order to have one.

What other solution is there?

Why are people reacting as if I said ban them when I said licence them?
.

Christ me. People have been repeatedly suggesting alternatives since the start of the thread, but we keep going back to the British default of 'ooh that's too hard, lets have a blunt instrument that penalises everyone, instead'.

I've suggested licencing for all dogs repeatedly but you'd think I'd said 'cut their legs off', it's apparently only acceptable when other people say it.
 

skinnydipper

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 February 2018
Messages
7,206
Visit site
I'm not saying that nobody should own large dogs. But in the end, if the law can't distinguish between a large dangerous dog and a large non dangerous dog, then all large dogs will need to be properly licenced in order to have one.

So now you want ALL large breed dogs muzzled?
 

marmalade76

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 April 2009
Messages
6,946
Location
Gloucestershire
Visit site
How many attacks are carried out/how many people are injured by breeds like St Bernards, Newfoundlands, etc, both literal life-savers, or Bernese and Pyrenees Mountain Dogs etc, which would no doubt come under height and size criteria.

That's as daft as telling people they shouldn't own a Clydesdale or a Shire.

I sort of agree with both of you, there are breeds that IMO should only be in the hands of professionals/working homes, that are simply not suitable family pets, even collies which is the breed I own! There should be BSL but restrictions rather than bans.
 

DabDab

Ah mud, splendid
Joined
6 May 2013
Messages
12,816
Visit site
And the only way BSL works in any context (whether that is to ban breeds or for variable licensing conditions) is if you also ban cross breeding. BSL of any description makes no sense at all unless you have nothing but purebred dogs, which is where you get this 'type' nonsense coming in.
 

CorvusCorax

'It's only a laugh, no harm done'
Joined
15 January 2008
Messages
59,567
Location
End of the pier
Visit site
What is different in UK to other parts of Europe? I have not heard of this problem, at least certainly not to this extent anywhere else.

There is a problem in these islands with the way people conduct the breeding, keeping, registering and licencing of pet animals, there are widespread issues with the refusal to consider rules and accountability and also the way dogs are viewed as commodities and accessories.
So when the problem drags on and action is finally required, only overkill will do. People will say 'ban these awful dogs' but be fine with going and paying £kkk for a poorly bred, genetic shitshow from out of someone's car boot, from two dogs with no papers, bred back to back twice a year, and pat themselves on the back because it doesn't have a flat face, when it all feeds into the same problem.

Now I predict that some people will get offended and say 'waaah, but it's better than x, y, z a country.
 

I'm Dun

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 May 2021
Messages
3,364
Visit site
Sometimes you have to be realistic though. Banning isnt a great way to deal with this, but its something. If one persons life is saved due to it then its worth it. Its not going to be a proper fix, but it will massively reduce the number of these dogs in pet homes, or being rehomed for cheap on gumtree. Sadly when you cant get a GP appointment, or the police wont come out when youve been burgled, and councils are going bust, I'm quite surprised that anything at all has been done.
 

marmalade76

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 April 2009
Messages
6,946
Location
Gloucestershire
Visit site
I sort of agree with both of you, there are breeds that IMO should only be in the hands of professionals/working homes, that are simply not suitable family pets, even collies which is the breed I own! There should be BSL but restrictions rather than bans.

That said I agree with this Bully ban, I can see no reason for creating these dogs other than to have a weapon/ look hard, etc. If you like that type, there were already plenty of established breeds to choose from.
 

KittenInTheTree

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 October 2014
Messages
2,882
Visit site
The final pictures they showed of William showed that his eyes had changed, he no longer looked a 'kind' dog but one I would have been very wary of. When they were showing him being all sweet and playful he was still very young and they seem to change as they mature. Even with correct upbringing and training there have been cases of them turning without warning. I hate to demonise any breed but these scare me rigid.
I do wonder if there's neurological deterioration involved, as with what happened to a lovely young dog of ours some years ago. Broke our hearts and the vet's, but by the end of things, euthanasia was the kindest option for him.
 

skinnydipper

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 February 2018
Messages
7,206
Visit site
What harm does it do the dog?

I'm sorry that you need to ask.

Canine enrichment. Some dogs like to play with a ball or frisbee. They can't do that in a muzzle.

Stress relief. Other dogs like to carry a ball and gently bite on it. Think of it like a baby with a dummy. Can't do that in a muzzle.

Some dog/dog interactions would be hampered by a muzzle.
 
Top