Another fatal dog attack

[windswoo]

I wonder why people in the UK are so opposed to dog licensing? My 3 are all licensed, microchipped (and registered to me on the database) as required by law. We have an active and dedicated local dog warden who is accessible and efficient, it all works.

Because as with everything else the people who look after their dogs and are respectful, always have to carry the can for the idiots that don't. The people who's dogs are aggressive and dangerous are the same people who will not be registering their dogs and as others have said, until more is done about stopping the dog on dog (or other animal) attacks first, nothing will change as you can bet any dog that has attacked a human has attacked another animal first.
There was only the big media thing about the police horse attack, because it was a police horse being attacked - it wouldn't have got half the attention if they had been two normal riders

 

[Cortez]

Because as with everything else the people who look after their dogs and are respectful, always have to carry the can for the idiots that don't. The people who's dogs are aggressive and dangerous are the same people who will not be registering their dogs and as others have said, until more is done about stopping the dog on dog (or other animal) attacks first, nothing will change as you can bet any dog that has attacked a human has attacked another animal first.
There was only the big media thing about the police horse attack, because it was a police horse being attacked - it wouldn't have got half the attention if they had been two normal riders

Not sure what any of that has to do with licensing?

 

[SadKen]

Nobody has suggested a blanket requirement to muzzle all breeds, only those easily capable of ripping out the throat of an adult.

What is a light cage muzzle actually inhibiting other than biting other dogs and people?

But we have already discussed the fact that it is impossible to insist on muzzling large breeds only, for the same reasons as bans on breeds don’t work.

Define ‘large dog’? You think people are going to measure their dogs? You think prosecutions are going to occur and stick on that basis? What about dogs on the cusp? When are the measurements done ie what age? Who signs it off, vets? It doesn’t work for banned breeds - pits are illegal, XL bully which is much larger are not - because of measurements. Which are needed for enforcement. That is all before we get to the fact that the people who need to muzzle their dogs will not, small dogs can still attack and cause fear and injury. Then the fact there is no appetite to enforce current legislation never mind this legislation, which is so open to challenge.

It only ‘works’ if your desired result is is ‘something must be done’. It doesn’t work if your desired result is fewer attacks in public by dogs, for the reasons above. It certainly doesn’t work if your desired result is fewer deaths by XL bully. As such, it is not legislation which would either effective or fair.

A muzzle inhibits a dog’s ability to defend itself by removing its primary method of defence. That is why my dogs will not be wearing one. And despite owning GSD for 20+ years, none of mine have ever bitten anyone, or threatened to do so. My second one however was repeatedly attacked on lead for no reason by different dogs and if he had been muzzled he would have been injured or worse. It is my choice, I choose no. If you wish to out muzzles on your dogs, you are free to do so.

 

[Chucho]

I wonder why people in the UK are so opposed to dog licensing? My 3 are all licensed, microchipped (and registered to me on the database) as required by law. We have an active and dedicated local dog warden who is accessible and efficient, it all works.

Don't know. Ours are licensed here (Canada) and it's no big deal. Some counties you have to pay a fee but where we are currently it's free, but you have to register them and get sent a tag. I guess it's a deterrent in that it becomes an extra law broken if the dog/owner is found to have done something wrong.

I'm not sure how to add a quote from @windswoo but I don't agree with a blanket assumption that any dog that attacks a human will have attacked another animal first. It will depend on the individual and what was driving the behaviour in the first place and dogs don't necessarily generalise like that. We fostered one who was great with animals but terrified of strange men. Equally, one of our bitches was attacked unprovoked by a rottweiler who leapt over an 8 foot stone wall to get at her. We found out where it lived, contacted the police who visited the dog at home and who then had the temerity to call us to let us know that it was a lovely dog, they'd had a wonderful time scratching its tummy. The owner refused to pay the vet bill.

 

[Red-1]

A muzzle inhibits a dog’s ability to defend itself by removing its primary method of defence. That is why my dogs will not be wearing one. And despite owning GSD for 20+ years, none of mine have ever bitten anyone, or threatened to do so. My second one however was repeatedly attacked on lead for no reason by different dogs and if he had been muzzled he would have been injured or worse. It is my choice, I choose no. If you wish to out muzzles on your dogs, you are free to do so.

But if they were all muzzled, what would your dog need to defend himself from?

Plus, it sounds like your dog did retaliate when other dogs bit? To keep himself safe? It is the only explanation I can think of for you saying that he would have been injured if muzzled. If all were muzzled, this would be safer for all.

I muzzled my GSD latterly, because he was attacked by an unruly pack of 5. They bit him and he did his very best to shake them off without biting back, but eventually, when he could not shake them off, the owner claimed one of hers had a bite and wanted me to pay the vets bill. Personally, I think one of her dogs bit another, in the heat of the chase, as I had watched mine intently and didn't see him do anything other than yelp repeatedly and try to shake them off.

After that day, he was defensive when meeting other dogs and I was not sure of his steadfastness, so I muzzled him in public, even though I don't think he did anything wrong. It would have been great if they could all be muzzled, as we walked a heck of a lot less after that as I didn't trust other dogs not to provoke him. We bought a house with land shortly after and could dictate who he met and when after that.

 

[SadKen]

Red, they will never all be muzzled. Ever. Look at the thousands of posts on the irresponsible owners thread. THOUSANDS. The ones that should be, will never be, and I will not put mine at a disadvantage against those dogs. My boy that got attacked became defensive. He never, ever went for other dogs, and actually never bit any, but would make a racket if off lead dogs pelted up and got in his face. I deemed him to be within his rights to defend himself then. He was always on a lead around other dogs, which was mitigation enough. My current old boy was attacked in a pub beer garden by a staffie - a small one. The dog got loose, dashed over and grabbed him by the neck. Took three of us to get it off. My boy did not retaliate and thanks to his thick fur , the fact the staff only got a pinch, not a full mouth round his throat before locking, and us intervening immediately, had only puncture wounds. What if he had needed to retaliate to survive and he’s got a muzzle on despite being the friendliest dog in the world? I’m supposed to watch that happen and say ‘oh well, he’s seriously injured or dead, I prevented him being able to defend himself for no reason at all except ‘something must be donners’ demanded stupid legislation, and the attacker didn’t bother and at most got a slap on the wrist, but hey ho I followed the law’. Some comfort. No. Flat no.

In an ideal world no dog would need a muzzle. The ideal world doesn’t exist.

 

[splashgirl45]

We did have licensing here but they decided to stop it. It was 7shillings and sixpence , so a VERY long time ago. Our family dogs were always licensed but I’m not sure if there were any check ups as I was a child then.. I would support licensing as long as the revenue went to providing more dog wardens to police it

 

[Red-1]

We did have licensing here but they decided to stop it. It was 7shillings and sixpence , so a VERY long time ago. Our family dogs were always licensed but I’m not sure if there were any check ups as I was a child then.. I would support licensing as long as the revenue went to providing more dog wardens to police it

It was more recent than that... When I got our first family dog, a setter from the RSPCA, I got one from the post office on the way home! That would be around 1984.

ETA - just looked it up - abolished in 1987.

Not that I remember they used it at all, but they could do with licences/passports/ chips more easily now.

The thing with muzzles is that it is easy to see if a dog is wearing one or not. If not, they could be confiscated and/or the owners fined.

When enough people are killed/maimed, I guess that is when something will be introduced.

I seem to recollect a similar ho-ha when seatbelts were made compulsory. So many people claiming they could kill if you went into water were trapped, or that they wouldn't wear one as they didn't think they needed to. Some said it was uncomfortable or against their freedom. That as well as the others (like me) who rode in the back with no seatbelt as kids, in the boot, laid on the back seat or whatever. "Never harmed us."

But, enough were killed or maimed that it was eventually made law. That was to protect the individual as well, not for the safety of others. While it is mainly dogs attacking dogs, it will be ignored. But, more and more, dogs are injuring and killing people and that will, I hope, cause legislation.

Being told to conform to a new law caused upset and fuss, but now, it is natural to get in the car and belt up.

 

[windswoo]

Not sure what any of that has to do with licensing?

If you haven't got people to police the licensing of dogs, then you can bet there will be quite a few people who won't do it. Who are you going to put the onus on to police it? The vets - are they going to turn round and say sorry I won't treat your dog if it's not licensed?
By all means bring it in and I'll happily have mine done, but usually as with any antisocial behaviour (and having a dangerous dog is just that), people who don't give a flying won't have their dogs on any database and pay money to have it licensed.
If it is bought back, does it then just become another tax, where the Government may just say "you know what how about you have to pay every year?"

 

[SadKen]

But Red, as per upthread, muzzles would not have prevented 8 of the 10 deaths. The other two which did happen in public may well have happened at another time because both people killed regularly interacted with the dogs. Therefore the seatbelt analogy is a false equivalence.

In order to prove benefit you would need to demonstrate that muzzles save lives at a rate that warrants their imposition. You can’t. Because they don’t. And then if they were introduced it would have to be a blanket muzzle law for all dogs everywhere for the reasons mentioned. That’s excessive. Then you have the issue of enforcement. Which won’t happen. Current legislation isn’t enforced. Blanket muzzle laws won’t be enforced. Which means bad people won’t comply. Which renders it useless.

So why have that legislation? To help people feel like ‘something has been done’. Even though the something is utterly useless and takes the focus off doing anything that might actually help.

 

[rara007]

Many many of these dogs would slip through the licensing net. They’re not registered at vets, rarely leave the house, and are owned by people with little regard for these things. They don’t ‘come’ microchipped, which is a legal requirement. I doubt the impact would be great unfortunately.

 

[Cortez]

If you haven't got people to police the licensing of dogs, then you can bet there will be quite a few people who won't do it. Who are you going to put the onus on to police it? The vets - are they going to turn round and say sorry I won't treat your dog if it's not licensed?
By all means bring it in and I'll happily have mine done, but usually as with any antisocial behaviour (and having a dangerous dog is just that), people who don't give a flying won't have their dogs on any database and pay money to have it licensed.
If it is bought back, does it then just become another tax, where the Government may just say "you know what how about you have to pay every year?"

Which is why we have dog wardens, with legal powers, who check licences, impound strays, etc. The dog license fee isn’t a tax, it goes towards paying for the people who enforce it. Of course there are people who don’t license their dogs, and they are taken to court and fined if they are caught, just like anyone else who doesn’t comply with the law.

 

[Caol Ila]

Whenever any new regulation/law is proposed, (i.e. gun control in the US), people always wing in the argument that it won't stop the ubiquitous 'certain segments of society' from getting dangerous dogs/guns, so why bother. If the new law won't stop every single death/serious injury caused by that thing, then it's not worth having at all. The zero sum game argument against new regulations.

It's unrealistic, however, to think legislation can stop every single death/serious injury caused by the thing you're legislating for. The seatbelt analogy is pretty good. Requiring seatbelts doesn't 100% prevent death/injury in car crashes, but the evidence is pretty good that it saves many lives. Just not every single one, sadly. But it doesn't mean it's not worth having.

If you pass a law, i.e.dog licensing, or banning breeds associated with a statistically significant number of fatal attacks, -- of course making sure it is enforceable -- and then it saves some lives, isn't that worth talking about? You have to ask yourself, do the public safety benefits of banning certain breeds or requiring dog licenses outweigh the impingement on rights, like not paying the county $15 per year, or being able to own whatever breed you damn well please? Can you find evidence of public safety benefits?

'Will it stop every fatal dog attack from ever occurring' is the wrong question. Obviously not.

The US can't find its a*rse with both hands and a flashlight on gun licensing, but some states/cities/counties are pretty on it with dog licensing. https://bouldercolorado.gov/services/dog-licensing

Here's some more data:

"Q: Do breed-specific laws work?​

Well enforced breed-specific pit bull laws absolutely reduce damaging attacks by pit bulls. In our ongoing report, Cities with Successful Pit Bull Laws; Data Shows Breed-Specific Laws Work, we document these results in the U.S. and Canada. The most dramatic results are often seen in jurisdictions that ban pit bulls because a ban reduces the breeding and the importation of new pit bulls into a community. There have been excellent results with other types of ordinances as well.

After Aurora, Colorado adopted a pit bull ban ordinance in 2005, attacks by pit bulls decreased 73% (from 2005 to 2014). After Pawtucket, Rhode Island adopted a pit bull ban in 2004, the city released 13 years of bite data showing that in the 4 years leading up to the ban, there were 52 pit bull attacks on people. In the 10 years after the ban, there were only 13. After the city was forced to lift its longstanding ban in late 2013, pit bull bites increased by over a ten-fold in just 5 years.5


The dramatic reduction in pit bull attacks on people and pets are not the only benefits. Over the same period in Aurora, pit bull euthanasia dropped 93%. In Pawtucket, the Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RISPCA) had "regularly" convened vicious dog hearings for pit bulls before the ban ordinance. During the ban years, the RISPCA never saw another one from Pawtucket. Other cities report a substantial reduction in vicious dog designations as well.


After Springfield, Missouri adopted a pit bull ordinance in 2006, impoundments of pit bulls were quickly cut in half, freeing up shelter space. In the year before the ordinance, 502 pit bulls were impounded, by 2007 only 252 and by 2017 only 140.7 When breed-specific laws are combined with an anti-chaining element, as was done in Little Rock's pit bull ordinance, excellent outcomes also resulted: The commonality of seeing a pit bull chained in its owner's yard disappeared.8

Peer-reviewed abstracts and studies​

In 2017, the first report evaluating breed specific legislation in the United States showed that from 2001 to 2016, 5.7% of bites in Denver -- the largest jurisdiction in the United States that banned pit bulls -- were attributed to pit bull-type dogs compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States.9 Peer-reviewed studies from parts of two different countries, Canada and Spain, show that breed-specific regulations resulted in a significant decrease of dog bite injury hospitalizations.

• A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature, by Chad Bailey, MD, Katharine Hinchcliff, MD, and Lee Pu, MD, PhD, FACS, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open, 2017 Abstract Supplement, Presentations at the American Society of Plastic Surgeons' Annual Meeting: Plastic Surgery The Meeting 2017, 2017 Sep; 5(9 Suppl): 172-173.
• Effectiveness of Breed-Specific Legislation in Decreasing the Incidence of Dog-Bite Injury Hospitalisations in People in the Canadian Province of Manitoba, by Malathi Raghavan, Patricia J Martens, Dan Chateau, and Charles Burchill, Injury Prevention, Published Online First, June 30, 2012 (View related post).
• Decline in Hospitalisations Due to Dog Bite Injuries in Catalonia, 1997–2008. An Effect of Government Regulation?, by Villalbí JR, Cleries M, Bouis S, Peracho V, Duran J and Casas C, Injury Prevention, 2010 Dec;16(6):408-10."

Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) FAQ - Legislating Dogs

Our Breed-Specific Legislation FAQ answers the most frequently asked questions about pit bull ordinances, the effectiveness of these ordinances and much more.

www.dogsbite.org

 

[ycbm]

If you haven't got people to police the licensing of dogs, then you can bet there will be quite a few people who won't do it. Who are you going to put the onus on to police it? The vets - are they going to turn round and say sorry I won't treat your dog if it's not licensed?

The licence fee pays for the policing of licence fees by dog wardens.

 

[SadKen]

It seems people think dog wardens if funded are going to police the type of people and dogs that actually need policing.

I can only guess that many of you haven’t actually met anyone in that category. A theme that seems to run through this thread along with the ‘ideal world’ take on life; I find this incredibly naive, although it perhaps goes a long way towards explaining the polar views on this issue.

‘If we impose a law it will solve the problem because everyone will obey the law’. Close to where I live is a fairly deprived area, and I can tell you that even the police think twice about whether or not to intervene. A dog warden on 25k a year is not going to take the very, very real risk of injury and abuse to stop a group of youths or even one! walking a big dog without a muzzle. You think the dog warden on 25k a year would have been stopping the guy with the 3 pits in the video for them not being muzzled? You think he would give his name and address and meekly take his punishment, say sorry and not do it any more? Really? They’ll potentially police a chihuahua in an affluent area but as I have said, that won’t stop the issue. But Something Has Been Done, I guess.

can any supporters provably demonstrate the benefit outweighs the imposition… requiring that the legislation will be actively enforced? You can’t because it doesn’t and won’t. a Reminder: the two idiots who owned ‘beast’ which killed 10yo Jack Lis (in their home, not in public) got 4 and 3 years respectively and will be out in half.

Focussing on a muzzle law that won’t work negates the opportunity to explore what might actually work. That’s another reason it’s a problem. Do you want a solution or do you want Something Done. From this thread it seems quite a few of you prefer the latter, which I find illogical.

I have harped on about this quite a bit now, so I’ll stop talking about it as I don’t think there is anything more to add.

 

[stangs]

Whenever any new regulation/law is proposed, (i.e. gun control in the US), people always wing in the argument that it won't stop the ubiquitous 'certain segments of society' from getting dangerous dogs/guns, so why bother. If the new law won't stop every single death/serious injury caused by that thing, then it's not worth having at all. The zero sum game argument against new regulations.

It's unrealistic, however, to think legislation can stop every single death/serious injury caused by the thing you're legislating for. The seatbelt analogy is pretty good. Requiring seatbelts doesn't 100% prevent death/injury in car crashes, but the evidence is pretty good that it saves many lives. Just not every single one, sadly. But it doesn't mean it's not worth having.

If you pass a law, i.e.dog licensing, or banning breeds associated with a statistically significant number of fatal attacks, -- of course making sure it is enforceable -- and then it saves some lives, isn't that worth talking about? You have to ask yourself, do the public safety benefits of banning certain breeds or requiring dog licenses outweigh the impingement on rights, like not paying the county $15 per year, or being able to own whatever breed you damn well please? Can you find evidence of public safety benefits?

'Will it stop every fatal dog attack from ever occurring' is the wrong question. Obviously not.

The US can't find its a*rse with both hands and a flashlight on gun licensing, but some states/cities/counties are pretty on it with dog licensing. https://bouldercolorado.gov/services/dog-licensing

Here's some more data:

"Q: Do breed-specific laws work?​

Well enforced breed-specific pit bull laws absolutely reduce damaging attacks by pit bulls. In our ongoing report, Cities with Successful Pit Bull Laws; Data Shows Breed-Specific Laws Work, we document these results in the U.S. and Canada. The most dramatic results are often seen in jurisdictions that ban pit bulls because a ban reduces the breeding and the importation of new pit bulls into a community. There have been excellent results with other types of ordinances as well.

After Aurora, Colorado adopted a pit bull ban ordinance in 2005, attacks by pit bulls decreased 73% (from 2005 to 2014). After Pawtucket, Rhode Island adopted a pit bull ban in 2004, the city released 13 years of bite data showing that in the 4 years leading up to the ban, there were 52 pit bull attacks on people. In the 10 years after the ban, there were only 13. After the city was forced to lift its longstanding ban in late 2013, pit bull bites increased by over a ten-fold in just 5 years.5


The dramatic reduction in pit bull attacks on people and pets are not the only benefits. Over the same period in Aurora, pit bull euthanasia dropped 93%. In Pawtucket, the Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RISPCA) had "regularly" convened vicious dog hearings for pit bulls before the ban ordinance. During the ban years, the RISPCA never saw another one from Pawtucket. Other cities report a substantial reduction in vicious dog designations as well.


After Springfield, Missouri adopted a pit bull ordinance in 2006, impoundments of pit bulls were quickly cut in half, freeing up shelter space. In the year before the ordinance, 502 pit bulls were impounded, by 2007 only 252 and by 2017 only 140.7 When breed-specific laws are combined with an anti-chaining element, as was done in Little Rock's pit bull ordinance, excellent outcomes also resulted: The commonality of seeing a pit bull chained in its owner's yard disappeared.8

Peer-reviewed abstracts and studies​

In 2017, the first report evaluating breed specific legislation in the United States showed that from 2001 to 2016, 5.7% of bites in Denver -- the largest jurisdiction in the United States that banned pit bulls -- were attributed to pit bull-type dogs compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States.9 Peer-reviewed studies from parts of two different countries, Canada and Spain, show that breed-specific regulations resulted in a significant decrease of dog bite injury hospitalizations.

• A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature, by Chad Bailey, MD, Katharine Hinchcliff, MD, and Lee Pu, MD, PhD, FACS, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open, 2017 Abstract Supplement, Presentations at the American Society of Plastic Surgeons' Annual Meeting: Plastic Surgery The Meeting 2017, 2017 Sep; 5(9 Suppl): 172-173.
• Effectiveness of Breed-Specific Legislation in Decreasing the Incidence of Dog-Bite Injury Hospitalisations in People in the Canadian Province of Manitoba, by Malathi Raghavan, Patricia J Martens, Dan Chateau, and Charles Burchill, Injury Prevention, Published Online First, June 30, 2012 (View related post).
• Decline in Hospitalisations Due to Dog Bite Injuries in Catalonia, 1997–2008. An Effect of Government Regulation?, by Villalbí JR, Cleries M, Bouis S, Peracho V, Duran J and Casas C, Injury Prevention, 2010 Dec;16(6):408-10."

Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) FAQ - Legislating Dogs

Our Breed-Specific Legislation FAQ answers the most frequently asked questions about pit bull ordinances, the effectiveness of these ordinances and much more.

www.dogsbite.org

Colorado BSL came up on a different thread already. E.g., Denver's BSL was associated with a decrease in dog bites generally, not just pit bulls, so clearly other law and management was at play. Not to mention - it cost millions of dollars to police, and there's not that kind of money for dog wardens in the UK.

People keep banging on about how different places in the US (always the US - other European countries have had research done on how their BSL didn't work) banned the pitbull and then attacks decreased. It's a great line of thinking until you remember that we already banned the pitbull here. We already have BSL to reduce attacks and look how well that's working.

 

[Red-1]

It seems people think dog wardens if funded are going to police the type of people and dogs that actually need policing.

I can only guess that many of you haven’t actually met anyone in that category. A theme that seems to run through this thread along with the ‘ideal world’ take on life; I find this incredibly naive, although it perhaps goes a long way towards explaining the polar views on this issue.

‘If we impose a law it will solve the problem because everyone will obey the law’. Close to where I live is a fairly deprived area, and I can tell you that even the police think twice about whether or not to intervene. A dog warden on 25k a year is not going to take the very, very real risk of injury and abuse to stop a group of youths or even one! walking a big dog without a muzzle. You think the dog warden on 25k a year would have been stopping the guy with the 3 pits in the video for them not being muzzled? You think he would give his name and address and meekly take his punishment, say sorry and not do it any more? Really? They’ll potentially police a chihuahua in an affluent area but as I have said, that won’t stop the issue. But Something Has Been Done, I guess.

can any supporters provably demonstrate the benefit outweighs the imposition… requiring that the legislation will be actively enforced? You can’t because it doesn’t and won’t. a Reminder: the two idiots who owned ‘beast’ which killed 10yo Jack Lis (in their home, not in public) got 4 and 3 years respectively and will be out in half.

Focussing on a muzzle law that won’t work negates the opportunity to explore what might actually work. That’s another reason it’s a problem. Do you want a solution or do you want Something Done. From this thread it seems quite a few of you prefer the latter, which I find illogical.

I have harped on about this quite a bit now, so I’ll stop talking about it as I don’t think there is anything more to add.

This made me LOL. You have no idea what I have or have not done, and you seem to think I am one of the ones who is naïve.

Believe me, I have worked in the areas and with the people you say. I have stood between the good and the bad, and been knocked down on several occasions. I spent 5 years not being able to ride as a result of my one of my injuries, yet was back doing the job after 6 months, to the best of my ability.

Did you know that the Police only get under 27K on completion of training, not moving up to over 27K until after another 12 months. Believe me, they will be dealing with more than asking about dog licences in the intervening time.

Some people do the jobs they do because they believe in doing what is right.

PCSOs have limited powers. If they come across someone who won't take a fine, they call a Police Officer. Yes, sometimes one isn't available and the moment is lost. But what is the alternative? Throw our hands into the air and wail because nothing is perfect? Or, do what we can within the parameters of what (very little) we have?

I like the idea of muzzles. For someone working in 'those areas' it would mark out who is law abiding and who is not. Like a badge!

I am sad that you think all dog wardens would only stop a chihuahua in an affluent area. I think you judge people's nature from a place of doom. Yes, some would. But that would not be a reason to discount a whole system.

I personally wish we still had tax discs. In 'those areas' they were a bright badge to investigate further. Opportunities have been lost. Did all PCSOs stop to talk with every gang with no tax and risk themselves in a no won situation, with no backup? Nope, but they would have put intelligence in about it, not because people were overly concerned with tax, but because of the beacon of non law compliance.

No system is perfect. Yes, muzzles would impact more dogs that don't need them, than do. Is that a failure of "Do Something" people, as you categorise them? I don't think so, if it keeps our playgrounds and streets safe. Most attacks don't end in fatalities and most don't get reported. An owner was attacked by a Bully in a local playground a couple of weeks ago. Enough to make you shudder, but you would not include them in your figures.

 

[ycbm]

It seems people think dog wardens if funded are going to police the type of people and dogs that actually need policing.

I can only guess that many of you haven’t actually met anyone in that category.

The vast majority of them are just ignorant, not hardened criminals. It's as much in their own interests (given that most dogs that kill are killing people they know) to be educated by a dog warden as it is everyone else's.

 

[Goldenstar]

Too many people too many dogs on a overfilled island
People who know diddly squat about animals and are not inclined to learn .
licences won’t stop a dog from biting someone or any of the above .
However it’s clear or it seems clear that these deaths appear to centre on certain types of dogs should we attempt to ban them if so how ?

 

[DabDab]

Another thing to remember, repeating myself I know, is that people are getting hung up on the 'bull' element. Which provides the brute strength and size.

The tenacity and fighting spirit, the bit that makes the dog keep going and going and going (see the fawn dog in the video that could not be stopped) comes from the terrier. Nobody likes to think about that, but there it is.
A big dog with no desire or drive isn't in itself, a massive danger.

I love me a terrier, I think they're marvellous, but I do firmly believe that there is a good reason, over and above being able to fit down holes, that traditionally they were kept to a limited size.

A staffy came after me on one of my mares a few weeks back (owners just let it out of the front door, not sure why, they had dressing gowns etc on, but it's one of the new executive houses in the village so maybe they are from in town and didn't realise the dog would chase a horse). I shouted at it and it stopped in its tracks for a moment, and then it carried on and launched for her tail, so I jumped off, grabbed it by the scruff of the neck and projected it a couple of metres back across the road. Whereupon it shook itself and scampered back to its house.

And that to my mind is the maximum size for a terrier...terriers are kn*bheads, and they do randomly take notions even when well trained and generally placid in nature. If, in a heat of the moment type situation, the average adult can't hoik a terrier away from what it's doing by the scruff of the neck then it's too big

 

[rara007]

Guess it depends on your area as to the owners backgrounds…! There’s no chance these guys feel they need education down here. They don’t want any interference. The dog warden is 9-5 when not on annual leave. I don’t think the dog warden even visits the district without police support- we don’t.

 

[SadKen]

Red, you can’t *ask* or expect a dog warden to take those risks as part of their job. You chose to take the risk. Also The police are well aware of the risks, have lengthy training, have enforcement powers, have weaponry of various kinds, backup via a direct radio, body cams, work in teams, wear body armour, legal protection from impedance etc. it’s not the same as a civilian job. You can’t ask or expect a dog warden to take those risks. Most won’t, in the real world.

Also do you really feel this is a good use of police time? Vs all the other crimes? Do you think they will actually police it when they don’t really take an interest in existing legislation due to higher priorities?

Idealism solves nothing.

 

[Red-1]

Red, you can’t *ask* or expect a dog warden to take those risks as part of their job. You chose to take the risk. Also The police are well aware of the risks, have lengthy training, have enforcement powers, have weaponry of various kinds, backup via a direct radio, body cams, work in teams, wear body armour, legal protection from impedance etc. it’s not the same as a civilian job. You can’t ask or expect a dog warden to take those risks. Most won’t, in the real world.

Also do you really feel this is a good use of police time? Vs all the other crimes? Do you think they will actually police it when they don’t really take an interest in existing legislation due to higher priorities?

Idealism solves nothing.

I would say defeatism solves nothing too.

Many, many people take risks as part of their job. They volunteer to take the job in the first place. RSPCA inspectors take risks (one nearby yesterday, in a yard I would not want to go to). Council workers who go to serve notices on bad tenants. Parking enforcers for private firms. A TA in a special needs setting. Many jobs, many risks.

I don't expect them to do the job of police. They are free to withdraw in case of trouble, and are never expected to hands on arrest. Hence not needing gas, baton, guns, taser, etc etc. They are not expected to be able to do that.

I have to go out now but I don't get your arguments.

You say there is no need for muzzling as the public is not at risk but then say you need to muzzle so your dog can defend itself from the bite risk.

 

[SadKen]

I have never said that I or anyone needs to muzzle so my dog can defend himself from a bite risk so I don’t know where you got that from. I have said that I don’t agree with blanket muzzle laws either for all dogs or on the basis of breed because it won’t work (as I have argued throughout) and that I will not muzzle my dog, because without a muzzle he can defend himself from other dogs. Because a blanket muzzle law won’t work and the dogs that would most need it will remain unmuzzled.

You didn’t answer my points re the use of police time to enforce this.

It’s not defeatist. It’s pointing out that *this proposal* wont work and that focussing on it takes attention from *trying to find a solution that will work*.

 

[ycbm]

I have never said that I or anyone needs to muzzle so my dog can defend himself from a bite risk so I don’t know where you got that from

That's exactly what you described, at some length!

 

[conniegirl]

Its very Clear the SADKEN is one of these who has a dog as an object to intimidate others and any threat to their ability to make others feel uncomfortable is in their opinion clearly heinous and unworkable.

I'd be happy to muzzle my dog in public if a blanket ban came in. She is a tiny border terrier who is an angel with all people and is happiest when being mauled by small children but if it makes even one more person feel comfortable i'd do it.

I'd also happily get a dog license if that license fee was ring fenced for dog wardens/enforcement of dog legislation.

I grew up with dogs, had dogs all my life. We were often last chance saloon for dogs with issues that rescues couldn't foster elsewhere. I've been bitten several times, i've dealt with dogs that were very reactive and ones that had decided the best form of defense was attack, i've had to use yard brooms to defend myself from dogs in the past.

None of those dogs ever made me feel as uncomfortable, intimidated and downright fearful as the XL bully that was fixedly watching me and my little girl, we left the play park because of it and went straight home.

Whilst Terriers do have that instinct to attack and keep going a well placed leather boot or grabbing by the scruff/back legs is normally enough to make them stop and your average person is more than capable of lifting them clean off their feet, often with one hand. Their bite is also less powerful and much much smaller so likely to do a lot less damage to an adult than a 60kg dog will.

I'd take on an angry JRT any day if the alternative is a bully XL.

 

[Clodagh]

Its very Clear the SADKEN is one of these who has a dog as an object to intimidate others and any threat to their ability to make others feel uncomfortable is in their opinion clearly heinous and unworkable.

I’m really not seeing that, although SK needs some training in ‘not problems, solutions’. No offence intended SK.
I would be strongly opposed to a blanket muzzle law.
I don’t disagree with breed specific legislation. See the Denver stuff above. If banning ABTs and XL bullies saves one person from life changing injuries or death then it’s worth it.
I’ve said it so many times, but in Australia they have a dog license that pays for many dog wardens. It is enforced. It works.
The odd time I’ve watched rescue tv over there they pts anything that fails a temperament test. Sometimes that’s unfair but better one dog dies unnecessarily than one person.
They don’t allow van loads of poorly bred imports.

 

[stangs]

Its very Clear the SADKEN is one of these who has a dog as an object to intimidate others and any threat to their ability to make others feel uncomfortable is in their opinion clearly heinous and unworkable.

Not a nice to say about someone whose posts, to me, simply suggest that they’re worried about their dog’s safety.

If banning ABTs and XL bullies saves one person from life changing injuries or death then it’s worth it.

So what’s the balance of importance between a dog’s life and a human’s?

In 2015, for example, Battersea alone had to PTS almost 100 pitbull types - according to them, 70% of those would have been rehomeable. Is 70 dead dogs worth it for the sake of saving a single human life?

 

[Clodagh]

Not a nice to say about someone whose posts, to me, simply suggest that they’re worried about their dog’s safety.


So what’s the balance of importance between a dog’s life and a human’s?

In 2015, for example, Battersea alone had to PTS almost 100 pitbull types - according to them, 70% of those would have been rehomeable. Is 70 dead dogs worth it for the sake of saving a single human life?

Probably yes. I love dogs, and don’t like people all that much but these pits are bred to fight. Why do golden retrievers carry sticks in the park? Genetic heritage. These pits are bred to have a high pain threshold and to grip and rag. Ideal family pets they are not.

 

[Clodagh]

Stangs, I understand you are a bull/fighting breed fan but do you agree they need some controls? Or that all dogs need some controls? Or are you ok with the current situation?