Another fatal dog attack

[SadKen]

There’s a piece in the Mail today from a guy who wrote about his mother being attacked by the family JRT 40+ years ago, which he feels makes him an authority.

His point is that all dogs should be licensed. Even though he acknowledges that the attack his mother suffered was from a family pet in the home, and wouldn’t have been prevented by a licence. Or any activity that a licence would pay for. He says that the licence will allow breeders and types/numbers of dogs to be identified. How does that stop attacks? And is he really so naive to think that ‘it’s the law’ is going to matter to the people who actually cause the problems? No - but it allows further intrusion into the private lives and control of the general public.

The piece seems designed to demonise dogs in general with a long lurid description of the attack and aftermath, and terrify the reader completely, especially given that his point was completely invalid. The heavily curated comments do the same.

I find this extremely worrying in terms of the general consequences for dog ownership and authority overreach. If laws are to be brought in that interfere with private citizens, require the dissemination of personal data, and require a fee - they need to be evidenced as useful in the most robust fashion.

STEPHEN POLLARD: Our family Jack Russell bit my mother's face off

Some 50 years on, that scream of pain and terror still reverberates in my mind. Every so often the memory jumps unbidden into my brain and flattens me.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Cortez]

There’s a piece in the Mail today from a guy who wrote about his mother being attacked by the family JRT 40+ years ago, which he feels makes him an authority.

His point is that all dogs should be licensed. Even though he acknowledges that the attack his mother suffered was from a family pet in the home, and wouldn’t have been prevented by a licence. Or any activity that a licence would pay for. He says that the licence will allow breeders and types/numbers of dogs to be identified. How does that stop attacks? And is he really so naive to think that ‘it’s the law’ is going to matter to the people who actually cause the problems? No - but it allows further intrusion into the private lives and control of the general public.

The piece seems designed to demonise dogs in general with a long lurid description of the attack and aftermath, and terrify the reader completely, especially given that his point was completely invalid. The heavily curated comments do the same.

I find this extremely worrying in terms of the general consequences for dog ownership and authority overreach. If laws are to be brought in that interfere with private citizens, require the dissemination of personal data, and require a fee - they need to be evidenced as useful in the most robust fashion.

STEPHEN POLLARD: Our family Jack Russell bit my mother's face off

Some 50 years on, that scream of pain and terror still reverberates in my mind. Every so often the memory jumps unbidden into my brain and flattens me.

www.dailymail.co.uk

My dogs are all licensed, I don't feel interfered with or controlled, and I'm happy to be able to contribute to the general welfare of dogs in general.

 

[tristar]

Jeexz, bring kids as what? A sacrifice?

Sorry if this has been discussed but I don't come on this thread very often. I've read the posts on how to act if you are attacked by a dog. Does anyone have any ideas on what to do if my dog is attacked by a dog that I couldn't fight off? She is about 20kg and knee high so wouldn't stand a chance. I also wouldn't stand a chance. The thought crossed my mind as I arrived at the normally quiet park the other day, saw an xl bully in there and noped right out of there immediately.

this is the question i want answered. what does one do or use in defence,? these things happen suddenly, out of of nowhere

a gun has crossed my mind as `useful and effective`

if i pick my small J T R the attacker is not going to stop judging by recent events

never mind banning them as urgent, guidence for people approached by these dogs is needed now

that video of the woman letting the dog jump up her is a prime example of lack of responsibility even i know the first thing a dog should learn is not to jump up, those bullys could knock you over then you have had it basically once you are on the floor


i mean those dogs are not guard dogs, they are not bred to protect, they are bred to attack, to be aggressive, violent, and they are volatile and unreliable they are a ticking time bomb with massive jaws that lock on, and frankly have a proven bloodlust, killing people is bloodlust

realistically they have no place in a domestic situation where the possibilities of them escaping is too great

 

[skinnydipper]

The best advice seems to be to choke it off. Even if you managed to do this, I don't know what you would then do with 60+ kg of adrenaline fueled dog.

 

[paddy555]

My dogs are all licensed, I don't feel interfered with or controlled, and I'm happy to be able to contribute to the general welfare of dogs in general.

but what does it achieve? a muzzle may stop a dog biting, a microchip will allow it to be identified. Of course all should be chipped and addresses kept up to date. However if a dog is found/attacks etc etc the fact that the owner has a piece of paper at home achieves nothing.

rather than pay for a licence I would rather owners paid for a lead and preferably attached it to the dog.

firearms owners have licences. In theory all of them, except of course the "problem" owners. why would it be any different for dogs

 

[SadKen]

My dogs are all licensed, I don't feel interfered with or controlled, and I'm happy to be able to contribute to the general welfare of dogs in general.

Great, I guess, but I believe you’re in a country which has required licensing for decades, so this wouldn’t be new legislation to you anyway.

It would be in the UK, and as with any new legislation especially involving personal data, there should be a proven need and significantly measurable benefit (beyond increased coffers, which is a tax).

With the gun example above there are plenty of times where licensed owners have gone mad. So that doesn’t work - and there are strict police regulated criteria to fulfil to get a gun licence, there won’t be anything like that to get a dog licence.

 

[ArklePig]

Just a reminder that there is a jurisdiction of the UK that requires dog licenses

It funds the dog warden, who has been very helpful to me previously, so I'm happy to pay it.

Surely it would be worth raising money via license to actually enforce some of the dog legislation?

 

[CorvusCorax]

Nope, there is dog licencing in at least one part of the UK also.

It's a revenue raiser and good for flagging up where problems may exist and you do get people in the departmental court from time to time.

 

[SadKen]

So it’s a tax. Is it ring fenced for the dog warden? NI only, so new to every other part of the uk, would require legislation if introduced, which is a lot of people. I stand by what I said about the burden of evidence for new legislation.

Edit to say it looks like chipping was supposed to replace licences for the purpose of ID and management of dogs. If that didn’t work and it’s on the dog, why would a licence?

 

[CorvusCorax]

So you mean Great Britain, not the UK.

You need a microchip to have a licence in the first place, to tie it to the dog, then you can go after the owner for not having one. The chipping replaced the need for visible tags.

 

[SadKen]

So you mean Great Britain, not the UK.

You need a microchip to have a licence in the first place, to tie it to the dog, then you can go after the owner for not having one. The chipping replaced the need for visible tags.

Sure, I heartily apologise for my lack of specificity upthread even though it had no impact on the core of my argument, it’s clearly very important. I stand by what I said, but for absolute clarity, please substitute Great Britain for UK in that place I said it up above. Mea culpa.

So is it ring fenced in NI for the dog warden, as a tax/revenue raiser?

And what is the licence going to do that the chip doesn’t do, except raise revenue? It’ll have the same issues chips do, no?

 

[paddy555]

Sure, I heartily apologise for my lack of specificity upthread even though it had no impact on the core of my argument, it’s clearly very important. I stand by what I said, but for absolute clarity, please substitute Great Britain for UK in that place I said it up above. Mea culpa.

So is it ring fenced in NI for the dog warden, as a tax/revenue raiser?

And what is the licence going to do that the chip doesn’t do, except raise revenue? It’ll have the same issues chips do, no?

exactly. Just a revenue raiser. A tax on having a dog.
impossible to enforce. The manpower would be overwhelming. What happens if someone is found not to have a licence? fine them? waste court time on them? As with most things the law abiding will buy a licence but then they are not usually the problem anyway. The rest won't. If someone gets an X bully based on it being a fighting dog which they may intend to make use of will they be getting a licence? possibly not.

is a dog warden going to be very keen to investigate the question of licensing of a fighting bully? can they be expected to put themselves into that situation where they could be attacked?

 

[CorvusCorax]

Sure, I heartily apologise for my lack of specificity upthread even though it had no impact on the core of my argument, it’s clearly very important. I stand by what I said, but for absolute clarity, please substitute Great Britain for UK in that place I said it up above. Mea culpa.

So is it ring fenced in NI for the dog warden, as a tax/revenue raiser?

And what is the licence going to do that the chip doesn’t do, except raise revenue? It’ll have the same issues chips do, no?

It's relevant in that it's been a thing in part of the UK for many years and it works OK, could be better but so could a lot of things. I'm not sure of your first question but I can find out.

People are brought to court and fined for not having a licence, allowing their dogs to stray, foul, attack people, other dogs etc, the full price of a licence in NI is I think 12-13 quid with concessions for pensioners and neutered dogs. Certain councils are more active in pursuing prosecutions than others and it's good for flagging up frequent flyers/problem customers.

Not a hardship in the grand scheme of things in terms of dog ownership and costs.

 

[Pinkvboots]

Pink pigment doesn't have anything to do with being a Pitbull specifically, does it? I thought that was purely just color genetics of any breed. May be more common in some though.

I don't know I put it on here incase somebody knew it's just it's very common in pit bull so just was guessing really

 

[SilverLinings]

Dog licensing used to exist in England too, I don't know when it stopped but I know in the 1980s my mother had to pay for our family dog's licence.

I would support the reintroduction of dog llicensing if the money was spent on dog wardens and the policing of stray and aggressive dogs. IMO dog wardens would need the power to seize dogs, and to take straight forward cases (like keeping a dog when previously banned, dog straying, lack of license or chip etc) to court quickly and easily. Previous infractions (severe enough to deserve a fine) could be linked to the license and after x points (like a driving license) you're banned from dog ownership for either a set period or for life. This would hopefully address some of the cruelty and neglect that never quite reaches the threshold for sentencing under current laws.

Of course this would have to be put into practice properly, and as the police are currently unable to attend shoplifting and burglaries I doubt they would be available to assist dog wardens, and I can see why dog wardens may not feel comfortable confronting a certain type of dog owner. There are enough dog owners now though that surely even a relatively small license fee would raise enough to pay for a lot more wardens, but they would need the power to act.

 

[islander]

We used to have dog licenses long after the UK stopped, now it is just microchips as law.

 

[Parrotperson]

Dog licensing used to exist in England too, I don't know when it stopped but I know in the 1980s my mother had to pay for our family dog's licence.

I would support the reintroduction of dog llicensing if the money was spent on dog wardens and the policing of stray and aggressive dogs. IMO dog wardens would need the power to seize dogs, and to take straight forward cases (like keeping a dog when previously banned, dog straying, lack of license or chip etc) to court quickly and easily. Previous infractions (severe enough to deserve a fine) could be linked to the license and after x points (like a driving license) you're banned from dog ownership for either a set period or for life. This would hopefully address some of the cruelty and neglect that never quite reaches the threshold for sentencing under current laws.

Of course this would have to be put into practice properly, and as the police are currently unable to attend shoplifting and burglaries I doubt they would be available to assist dog wardens, and I can see why dog wardens may not feel comfortable confronting a certain type of dog owner. There are enough dog owners now though that surely even a relatively small license fee would raise enough to pay for a lot more wardens, but they would need the power to act.

I like the idea I really do but the current government (and let's face it any other that we elect next year) won't want the stress of this. Even if a licencing bill gets through parliament the money won't be ring fenced (road tax isn't but should be)

And as for taking straightforward case to court quickly it ain't gonna happen not in a world where it takes 3 years for a rape case to be heard and shop lifters get off with a warning time and again (there was a guy on the BBC news website recently who said he deals with shoplifters up to 9 times a DAY and the police won't do anything. They haven't got the resources anymore) because the courts are as broken as the rest of the country.

To think that 2012 was only 11 years ago. Life seemed simpler, less stress, more happiness.

 

[SilverLinings]

I like the idea I really do but the current government (and let's face it any other that we elect next year) won't want the stress of this. Even if a licencing bill gets through parliament the money won't be ring fenced (road tax isn't but should be)

And as for taking straightforward case to court quickly it ain't gonna happen not in a world where it takes 3 years for a rape case to be heard and shop lifters get off with a warning time and again (there was a guy on the BBC news website recently who said he deals with shoplifters up to 9 times a DAY and the police won't do anything. They haven't got the resources anymore) because the courts are as broken as the rest of the country.

To think that 2012 was only 11 years ago. Life seemed simpler, less stress, more happiness.

I completely accept that it's a good idea in theory but unlikely to be carried out. It's one of those frustrating things that is a good idea in theory but bureaucracy prevents from happening

 

[bonny]

A licence is a piece of paper, we need to do something meaningful to get rid of dangerous dogs not make people go to their nearest post office and fill in a form.

 

[Cortez]

I know our local dog wardens. The dog licence fee goes to paying for their salaries, the recent building of new kennels, and the running of the vehicles, etc. Because of them we don't have a significant stray dog problem in the area, and properly microchipped and registered dogs which are picked up can be returned to their owners almost immediately. If my dog goes missing I can phone the warden and let him know. They have a fb page on which stray, unchipped dogs are shown. I can also call them if I am concerned about cruelty, although the ISPCA is more likely to take on any rehabilitation and rehoming in those longer term cases. They also check on licenses. I am very happy to pay my license fee, I think the system works well.

 

[CorvusCorax]

I know of one case, bite incident occurred last September, conviction secured a few weeks ago. Things seem to go through the county courts a lot quicker. Same with TV licences. Nobody likes new rules when they first come in (see seatbelts and indoor smoking) but most people get used to them.

 

[Clodagh]

I CBA to say it again. Dog licensing works well if properly enforced. The chances of that happening in England are zero, zilch and sweet FA. We couldn’t actually manage to get a drink on a pub at the moment, with our leaders.

 

[CorvusCorax]

Then, as mentioned, they're not going to be able to enforce a breed ban (for a dog which isn't a breed), so one is as useless a suggestion as the other.

Licencing at least has a chance as the initial power and ability to prosecute is with the local authority rather than a police force already on its arse.
Local authorities can also apply for relevant grants to help employ wardens, officers etc.

Animal welfare officers aren't police either but they do a difficult and important job.

 

[paddy555]

I know our local dog wardens. The dog licence fee goes to paying for their salaries, the recent building of new kennels, and the running of the vehicles, etc. Because of them we don't have a significant stray dog problem in the area, and properly microchipped and registered dogs which are picked up can be returned to their owners almost immediately. If my dog goes missing I can phone the warden and let him know. They have a fb page on which stray, unchipped dogs are shown. I can also call them if I am concerned about cruelty, although the ISPCA is more likely to take on any rehabilitation and rehoming in those longer term cases. They also check on licenses. I am very happy to pay my license fee, I think the system works well.

there is a great difference between a dog warden returning a dog to a caring owner and a dog warden dealing with some of the real problems of Xbullies and similar.

If you were the warden and a bully/pit/or similar was reported to be running around a garden frightening neighbours would you be happy to walk up to the front door with the risk of attack and that is only from the dog. Some owners are going to be far worse than their dogs. Demand to see the dog licence?
get close enough to dog to check the chip?
the police would need to accompany the warden and they would need to have at least a taser. They may need armed back up. Where is the police time coming from?

If we want to raise revenue let's just call it a tax on dogs, (or budgies, cats, guinea pigs or anything else) I'm not sure why we should tax dog owners when for example bike owners are not taxed nor are E scooters and many other things.

Dog licensing used to exist in England too, I don't know when it stopped but I know in the 1980s my mother had to pay for our family dog's licence.

IMO dog wardens would need the power to seize dogs, and to take straight forward cases (like keeping a dog when previously banned, dog straying, lack of license or chip etc) to court quickly and easily. Previous infractions (severe enough to deserve a fine) could be linked to the license and after x points (like a driving license) you're banned from dog ownership for either a set period or for life.

is there plenty of court time available? Banned from dog ownership for any period would be pointless.

Years ago I took in a couple of seriously hurt horses. Called the RSPCA and they sent a vet out. Agreed with me. They were owed by someone who was banned for life. The vet had been part of the original prosecution and gave me the details which were appalling. Told me it was one of the worst cruelty cases he had dealt with. Yet these horses were still in reality owned by the same cruel person just held in a different location by someone else under another name.
Ban someone and the dog will be held in another person's name.

Licence's will not stop dog attacks which is the real problem. ie attacks by dogs which kill or maim people which is the current problem.
Banning bully's won't either because of the problem of what one is and if we ban those a different "breed" will be concocted.T

 

[Cortez]

there is a great difference between a dog warden returning a dog to a caring owner and a dog warden dealing with some of the real problems of Xbullies and similar.

If you were the warden and a bully/pit/or similar was reported to be running around a garden frightening neighbours would you be happy to walk up to the front door with the risk of attack and that is only from the dog. Some owners are going to be far worse than their dogs. Demand to see the dog licence?
get close enough to dog to check the chip?
the police would need to accompany the warden and they would need to have at least a taser. They may need armed back up. Where is the police time coming from?

If we want to raise revenue let's just call it a tax on dogs, (or budgies, cats, guinea pigs or anything else) I'm not sure why we should tax dog owners when for example bike owners are not taxed nor are E scooters and many other things.


is there plenty of court time available? Banned from dog ownership for any period would be pointless.

Years ago I took in a couple of seriously hurt horses. Called the RSPCA and they sent a vet out. Agreed with me. They were owed by someone who was banned for life. The vet had been part of the original prosecution and gave me the details which were appalling. Told me it was one of the worst cruelty cases he had dealt with. Yet these horses were still in reality owned by the same cruel person just held in a different location by someone else under another name.
Ban someone and the dog will be held in another person's name.

Licence's will not stop dog attacks which is the real problem. ie attacks by dogs which kill or maim people which is the current problem.
Banning bully's won't either because of the problem of what one is and if we ban those a different "breed" will be concocted.T

You are determined to be a miserablist, aren't you? Some information from real life: our dog warden, John, is trained and capable with a catchpole and tells me they have successfully removed 8 agressive pitbull-type dogs so far this year, from some less than compliant owners in a couple of cases. They sometimes have to get back-up from the police, but not often.

 

[ecb89]

There’s a piece in the Mail today from a guy who wrote about his mother being attacked by the family JRT 40+ years ago, which he feels makes him an authority.

His point is that all dogs should be licensed. Even though he acknowledges that the attack his mother suffered was from a family pet in the home, and wouldn’t have been prevented by a licence. Or any activity that a licence would pay for. He says that the licence will allow breeders and types/numbers of dogs to be identified. How does that stop attacks? And is he really so naive to think that ‘it’s the law’ is going to matter to the people who actually cause the problems? No - but it allows further intrusion into the private lives and control of the general public.

The piece seems designed to demonise dogs in general with a long lurid description of the attack and aftermath, and terrify the reader completely, especially given that his point was completely invalid. The heavily curated comments do the same.

I find this extremely worrying in terms of the general consequences for dog ownership and authority overreach. If laws are to be brought in that interfere with private citizens, require the dissemination of personal data, and require a fee - they need to be evidenced as useful in the most robust fashion.

STEPHEN POLLARD: Our family Jack Russell bit my mother's face off

Some 50 years on, that scream of pain and terror still reverberates in my mind. Every so often the memory jumps unbidden into my brain and flattens me.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I’m on a couple of other forums. There are some absolute dog haters who won’t be happy unless all dogs are muzzled all times, have to be on their lead if outside the house even if in the middle of nowhere with no else else around. I even read a post from someone saying all dogs should be put down

 

[SadKen]

It's relevant in that it's been a thing in part of the UK for many years and it works OK, could be better but so could a lot of things. I'm not sure of your first question but I can find out.

People are brought to court and fined for not having a licence, allowing their dogs to stray, foul, attack people, other dogs etc, the full price of a licence in NI is I think 12-13 quid with concessions for pensioners and neutered dogs. Certain councils are more active in pursuing prosecutions than others and it's good for flagging up frequent flyers/problem customers.

Not a hardship in the grand scheme of things in terms of dog ownership and costs.

in some ways, as it exists in NI there is a good control group.

It should be easy to assess what value the licence adds, how many have it, how many don’t, how much goes to the warden, what the impact is in reducing dog attacks in animals and humans, how many cases go to court, whether that is directly due to the dog licence, what the punishments are, whether they work… and whether the revenue generated by the dog licence makes any difference to dog and human welfare.

I wonder if that’s been done, as it would seem an obvious thing to do to prove value if it exists.

It’s less the cost as that’s not much, it’s more the intrusion, data collection and potential criminalising of people to no discernible benefit (and lots of cost and effort, if it’s to actually be policed in any meaningful way) that’s the concern. I wouldnt mind paying £12 extra on my dog insurance if it actually went to proper use, to compensate victims, support training, that kind of thing (like the motor insurance bureau which supports victims of those). No need for legislation to raise funds.

 

[CorvusCorax]

in some ways, as it exists in NI there is a good control group.

It should be easy to assess what value the licence adds, how many have it, how many don’t, how much goes to the warden, what the impact is in reducing dog attacks in animals and humans, how many cases go to court, whether that is directly due to the dog licence, what the punishments are, whether they work… and whether the revenue generated by the dog licence makes any difference to dog and human welfare.

I wonder if that’s been done, as it would seem an obvious thing to do to prove value if it exists.

It’s less the cost as that’s not much, it’s more the intrusion, data collection and potential criminalising of people to no discernible benefit (and lots of cost and effort, if it’s to actually be policed in any meaningful way) that’s the concern. I wouldnt mind paying £12 extra on my dog insurance if it actually went to proper use, to compensate victims, support training, that kind of thing (like the motor insurance bureau which supports victims of those). No need for legislation to raise funds.

Well I mean I'm not doing the legwork, but I think each council reports quarterly if not monthly via various committees.

If you're a ratepayer, have an internet connection and a credit card, I don't know what the problem is with data collection, your information is held anyway, your dog's microchip details should already be held on a database, the vets, insurance company have all your info, etc etc etc.

NI councils take lots of dog-related prosecutions as well as breach of licence (usually dealt with by a fine in the first instance), just off the top of my head, attacks on other dogs, humans, horses etc.
A recent one was a suspended sentence and destruction order after a woman was dragged off her bike by a GSD.
I think the fines for fouling are going up too.

 

[paddy555]

You are determined to be a miserablist, aren't you?

not at all. I just cannot see the point. Glad your dog warden is so good. Ours was useless when I reported a dog that ran into the road and bit me. I know he was useless because a few weeks later same dog, same road and bit me again
All the dog owner details should be on the microchip provided that system is accurately policed.

 

[AmyMay]

This is brilliant!