It's rarely the owners dying - it's their children, parents, and friends that are being killed. Don't think it's appropriate for you to mock them for dying in a stupid way unless you think you would somehow survive an attack?
And the good responsible owners who want this type of dog are unlikely to take a chance on a history unknown dog of this type.
Muzzling dogs in public only stops attacks in public.
I agree that those people would not have been protected by muzzles, but then people do have a choice to stay away from those dogs, apart from kids.
The trouble is it’s impossible to clarify what breed they are. So all dogs would have to be muzzled and leashed.
Babies and children are killed by many different breeds - you’d have to have them all muzzled around children, from Akita to JRT, if you wanted to truly guarantee children’s safety. And how would you police dogs being muzzled when a friend’s kid comes over?
Last month, on a new walk route, I met two bullies who were very friendly but not boisterous, and one Presa who kept watching me, tail up, until I was out of sight. Definitely wouldn’t have called him cuddly.
Blatant NIMBYism. You own a breed that many people are afraid of, and that can easily injure someone or someone’s pet, but you think any fool should be able to buy one? Do you think it’s fair for intelligent breeds to be owned by people who know nothing about dogs, just because you don’t want to pay for a license?
I think the problem is that Hope Rescue (and a lot of rescues) have a mission statement that says 'We do not discriminate against the dogs we help based on their breed, age or medical condition. No adoptable dog is unnecessarily euthanised due to space or time constraints'. So they can't refuse to treat/help one type of dog, and probably if they were found to be PTS healthy bull breeds (or ones with minor medical issues) there would be public outcry - rescues can't really win.
I already said repeatedly that muzzles aren’t the answer. I said Red had a good case, I didn’t say I agreed, and I don’t. But it would be a good case, ie ‘muzzle all xl bullies’ would make the ‘must do something’ crowd happy, which would probably be the option taken by those making legislation if it was practicable - see banned breeds for an example - but it isn’t practicable, and as I said only a couple of posts up, muzzling wouldn’t have saved the people who have died anyway. You can read my other posts on this topic to check if you like.
What do you mean "don't drag mastiffs into it"? This is a thread on fatal dog attacks, and several mastiffs and mastiff-crosses (Neapolitan, American bulldog, Bullmastiffs, Presas, etc.) have killed people in the UK. They have "standoffishness to strangers" in their breed standard. They were bred to be dogs that could guard, and therefore kill if necessary. I have nothing against mastiffs - my favourite breeds are all mastiffs - but they're very powerful animals and should be considered accordingly.
I’d pay for a licence if a) reasonably priced, 12 quid is fine b) ring fenced for dog related improvements c) the legislation for not having one had teeth and tied to the microchip.And anyone without a licence isn’t insured for their dog for healthcare, the punishment if your dog injures another dog or human is infinitely more severe.
Again, can you provide a reason for this?
You might not like this, but everyone’s fear is theirs to manage; it is not up to dog owners to take action to lessen other people’s fear. It IS up to them to control their dog and ensure it doesn’t interact with anyone or anything it isn’t supposed to. If the dog is a bite risk it should be muzzled. If it has no recall it should be on a lead. Dog owners have a moral duty to ensure their dogs are trained. But it doesn’t have to be muzzled unnecessarily because you are frightened, nor should it. Everyone has different fears and fear doesn’t give a right to impose on other people’s lives beyond the law. I know a couple of people locally are frightened of horses, they would like to stop the horses going on a local train track due to their fear. Not reasonable, the rights of the riders take priority over those people’s fears.