Another fatal dog attack

skinnydipper said:
Okay, I give up :).
Click to expand...

It's not a fight/about giving up. It's a discussion. Say there's children in a class with no dogs in the home with low literacy levels or kids from a minority community with not the best reading comprehension. Books might help but something like a talk could be more engaging. It's 'plus' not 'instead of'.
 
CorvusCorax said:
It's not a fight/about giving up. It's a discussion. Say there's children in a class with no dogs in the home with low literacy levels or kids from a minority community with not the best reading comprehension. Books might help but something like a talk could be more engaging. It's 'plus' not 'instead of'.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I meant 'I give up, I don't have a solution'
 
I have vague recollections of a Goldie turning up at my infant school too😀. I think it belonged to the school secretary. We used to cuddle it I think.

I will add it was a very small school with just one or two classes.
 
skinnydipper said:
Man seriously injured as 5 attacked at holiday park

www.walesonline.co.uk

Man seriously injured as five attacked by dog at holiday park

The dog was seized and two men were arrested in connection with the incident
www.walesonline.co.uk www.walesonline.co.uk
Click to expand...
Once again a delay because they want to find out what breed it is. It doesn’t matter put it down and punish the owner, we are too wet in this country, we need prompt action and harsher penalties for anyone whose dog attacks people with no reason. Yet if someone breaks into my house and my dog bites them , I am in trouble….. 😡
 
splashgirl45 said:
Once again a delay because they want to find out what breed it is. It doesn’t matter put it down and punish the owner, we are too wet in this country, we need prompt action and harsher penalties for anyone whose dog attacks people with no reason. Yet if someone breaks into my house and my dog bites them , I am in trouble….. 😡
Click to expand...

We can't have it both ways though, if someone broke into your house and your dog bit them, you wouldn't immediately want it PTS.

It's harder to prove what breed a dog if is or isn't and to do some of the assessments required for a successful prosecution, if it's dead.

What if all those dogs discussed a few pages ago were all PTS immediately when eyewitnesses said only four were involved?
 
CorvusCorax said:
We can't have it both ways though, if someone broke into your house and your dog bit them, you wouldn't immediately want it PTS.

It's harder to prove what breed a dog if is or isn't and to do some of the assessments required for a successful prosecution, if it's dead.

What if all those dogs discussed a few pages ago were all PTS immediately when eyewitnesses said only four were involved?
Click to expand...
What I meant was I could be prosecuted if my dog bit someone who had broken in and no I don’t think any dog put in that position should be PTS, I said bite with no reason..but it seems that dogs outside can bite someone and the owners aren’t treated as harshly. I’m talking about this latest case , what difference does it make which breed it is , the dog has bitten a few people and was out of control, and whatever the breed the owner needs a harsh penalty. I agree with the Southend dog trainers views although I may not use the same language as him 😊.
 
What I dont get is why people are outraged that these dogs are going to be banned but want owners charged with murder/manslaughter. Some of these people have only owned the dogs days, almost all of them have had the dogs and never experienced any issues with them till they attack. So why is banning them such a horrific idea, yet sending people to prison for significant periods of time isnt? I get it in the case of people who have weaponised them, but that really isnt happening in the majority of cases.
 
I'm Dun said:
What I dont get is why people are outraged that these dogs are going to be banned but want owners charged with murder/manslaughter. Some of these people have only owned the dogs days, almost all of them have had the dogs and never experienced any issues with them till they attack. So why is banning them such a horrific idea, yet sending people to prison for significant periods of time isnt? I get it in the case of people who have weaponised them, but that really isnt happening in the majority of cases.
Click to expand...

if people were penalised for having dogs loose and out of control it might make them more careful with the type of dog that can kill a full grown person. I am very careful with my small dogs yet so many with these large dogs seem to think they are big cuddly things and don’t treat them as dogs…
 
splashgirl45 said:
What I meant was I could be prosecuted if my dog bit someone who had broken in and no I don’t think any dog put in that position should be PTS, I said bite with no reason..but it seems that dogs outside can bite someone and the owners aren’t treated as harshly. I’m talking about this latest case , what difference does it make which breed it is , the dog has bitten a few people and was out of control, and whatever the breed the owner needs a harsh penalty. I agree with the Southend dog trainers views although I may not use the same language as him 😊.
Click to expand...

I've explained what difference it makes. The breed will have an impact on what the owner could be charged or convicted with.

We don't have enough facts in this case, the same as we didn't have the facts for many months in the dog walker case.
That's what investigations are for.
 
Ok I get that, but why does it take so long to identify a dog..everything takes such a long time to get sorted and the dog is in kennels while they are making their minds up. If it is going to be PTS it should be done sooner rather than later for the dogs sake. I know if that happened to one of mine they would be very stressed away from home in kennels with strangers
 
splashgirl45 said:
Ok I get that, but why does it take so long to identify a dog..everything takes such a long time to get sorted and the dog is in kennels while they are making their minds up. If it is going to be PTS it should be done sooner rather than later for the dogs sake. I know if that happened to one of mine they would be very stressed away from home in kennels with strangers
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends on a professional being available to positively identify the breed.
 
I'm Dun said:
What I dont get is why people are outraged that these dogs are going to be banned but want owners charged with murder/manslaughter. Some of these people have only owned the dogs days, almost all of them have had the dogs and never experienced any issues with them till they attack. So why is banning them such a horrific idea, yet sending people to prison for significant periods of time isnt? I get it in the case of people who have weaponised them, but that really isnt happening in the majority of cases.
Click to expand...
I agree that there is a big difference between dogs that have been weaponised and dogs that an owner has just bought and doesn't know yet (although in those cases the dogs should have been on a lead until the owner did know them), but in quite a few of the serious and fatal attacks the victim and/or witnesses say that immediately prior to the attack the owner shouted at them to stay away/that their dog bites or is dangerous/that their dog doesn't like other dogs. There have also been cases (like that of the bully called 'Beast') where the dog has previously shown overt aggression and/or attacked a dog or person, and in some cases (like that of Beast) there is CCTV evidence showing that there is no way the owner could claim they thought their dog didn't pose a serious risk in public. IMO owners who knew damn well that their dog was dangerous and still didn't muzzle them in public, keep them on a lead and keep them away from children in the home should be punished as their laziness/wilfulness/arrogance has gone on to ruin (or end) someone else's life. I am not sure that they are morally an awful lot better than the owners who intentionally weaponise their dogs.

The case of the previously placid and non-aggressive ?retriever who bit a child at a haloween party in a pub when the small child fell on him are different; the owner should have had the dog on a lead as requested (and if he cared about the dog shouldn't have taken it to a kids party in the first place), but there appears to be no evidence that the dog did anything other than act instinctively to defend itself, and does not pose a danger in general. I'm not sure that the stupid owner should be allowed to have dogs in their care though...
 
SilverLinings said:
I agree that there is a big difference between dogs that have been weaponised and dogs that an owner has just bought and doesn't know yet (although in those cases the dogs should have been on a lead until the owner did know them), but in quite a few of the serious and fatal attacks the victim and/or witnesses say that immediately prior to the attack the owner shouted at them to stay away/that their dog bites or is dangerous/that their dog doesn't like other dogs. There have also been cases (like that of the bully called 'Beast') where the dog has previously shown overt aggression and/or attacked a dog or person, and in some cases (like that of Beast) there is CCTV evidence showing that there is no way the owner could claim they thought their dog didn't pose a serious risk in public. IMO owners who knew damn well that their dog was dangerous and still didn't muzzle them in public, keep them on a lead and keep them away from children in the home should be punished as their laziness/wilfulness/arrogance has gone on to ruin (or end) someone else's life. I am not sure that they are morally an awful lot better than the owners who intentionally weaponise their dogs.

The case of the previously placid and non-aggressive ?retriever who bit a child at a haloween party in a pub when the small child fell on him are different; the owner should have had the dog on a lead as requested (and if he cared about the dog shouldn't have taken it to a kids party in the first place), but there appears to be no evidence that the dog did anything other than act instinctively to defend itself, and does not pose a danger in general. I'm not sure that the stupid owner should be allowed to have dogs in their care though...
Click to expand...
That last one was very 7nfair on the dog but again the owner should have been punished as the child that got bitten could have been killed or maimed badly enough to aff3ct the rest of their life. If my dog had bitten someone due to my lack of care I would expect some sort of punishment but it seems like “ the owner has been spoken to”. So many of these dogs have bitten before and We need this sort of thing to be nipped in the bud. Dog bitten before, has to be muzzled and on lead if away from home Immediately, not just spoken to the owner
 
I agree @splashgirl45 , I worded it badly but I meant that the dog in that case was very different to the dogs who attack and it turns out had a history of aggressive behaviour that the owner was fully aware of. This owner was a complete prat though, and despite the dog not being one with an aggressive temperament, as you say it could still have caused a far worse injury.

It's a shame there can't be some kind of mandatory IQ, common sense and empathy test for all want-to-be dog owners.
 
splashgirl45 said:
Ok I get that, but why does it take so long to identify a dog..everything takes such a long time to get sorted and the dog is in kennels while they are making their minds up. If it is going to be PTS it should be done sooner rather than later for the dogs sake. I know if that happened to one of mine they would be very stressed away from home in kennels with strangers
Click to expand...

Everything takes a long time in the legal system and expert witness availability doesn't help.
 
My son has a deerhound English bull terrier lurcher. He’s nearly 15 now so pretty harmless. He has always been walked on a short lead unless on our own land because he was dog aggressive in his younger days. He would ignore any dog that just walked past him but would fight any dog that got in his face. The number of people who would allow their loose dogs to bound up to Finn and completely ignore our requests for them to keep their dog away from him was staggering. Absolutely zero notice of us taken whilst we had to put ourselves between Finn and their dog. It wasn’t that the dog would not come to call because they wouldn’t even try to recall the dog. It saddens me but doesn’t surprise me at all that people feel entitled to own a dog without accepting any responsibility whatsoever.
 
Quigleyandme said:
My son has a deerhound English bull terrier lurcher. He’s nearly 15 now so pretty harmless. He has always been walked on a short lead unless on our own land because he was dog aggressive in his younger days. He would ignore any dog that just walked past him but would fight any dog that got in his face. The number of people who would allow their loose dogs to bound up to Finn and completely ignore our requests for them to keep their dog away from him was staggering. Absolutely zero notice of us taken whilst we had to put ourselves between Finn and their dog. It wasn’t that the dog would not come to call because they wouldn’t even try to recall the dog. It saddens me but doesn’t surprise me at all that people feel entitled to own a dog without accepting any responsibility whatsoever.
Click to expand...

OT but what a mix!
 
It is amazing how many XL Bully owners who are speaking out publicly about the proposed ban evidence the safety and non-aggressiveness of their dog solely by stating "I trust him alone with my baby/toddler". Surely NO dog of any breed can be trusted 100% alone with a baby, so making those sorts of statements is just marking these people out as unsuitable people to own any dog, and certainly not one capable of fitting a baby's head in between it's jaws.

Regardless of breed, leaving a small child alone with (and in reach of) a dog is poor parenting, and will likely be seen as a safeguarding issue if the child is harmed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top