Dangerous Dogs Act

bonny

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 September 2007
Messages
3,079
Just read that the 6 month girl killed last week was attacked by an American Pitbull, no great surprise there, sadly. There seems to be more and more reports of serious attacks in the media and considering the act is now over 20 years old, it clearly isn't working. Surely more needs to be done to stop these dogs living in our communities ?
 

splashgirl45

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 March 2010
Messages
6,790
Location
suffolk
its not the fault of the dog, its the people who own them. this dog was owned by the family and it was their responsibility to keep the child safe.... any dog can be a killer and people with small children need to be aware of that. I have a lurcher and a collie cross who are both fantastic with children BUT when my nieces were young we all made sure that they were never alone with the dogs and never allowed the girls to lay on the floor and cuddle them,( they do now they are teenagers!!!.).. better to be too careful than have a tragedy...however something needs to be done , not sure that amending the act will help. we need more education for the general public who do not seem to realise that a dog can be unpredictable... everyone knows to keep a child away from a fire they obviously need to be told to keep the child away from the dog!!!!
 

bonny

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 September 2007
Messages
3,079
I agree with that, everybody would, but my question is about the DDA, it was brought in for a reason and that reason remains !
 

cbmcts

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 April 2009
Messages
1,548
I always think that it's a bit like the rules of driving - everybody knows that their cars should be roadworthy, taxed, MOTed and insured, that they should be sober/not under the influence of drugs behind the wheel, plus all the relatively minor laws like using their phone, speeding that many people ignore and tbh get away with. I would guess that there is probably about the same number of dogs in this country as there are vehicles on the road.

There are some, probably a minority of dog owners who have extremely well trained dogs that they can do pretty much anything with - maybe liken them to qualified advanced drivers.

Then there are the great majority of dog owners who make good efforts to have trained, well socialised dogs and are generally aware of what can go wrong with dogs/children etc but may get a bit complacent or careless - they're like your average driver who on occasion, makes mistakes/drives over the speed limit/ takes a corner a bit too fast for the conditions/loses concentration. IME, that's probably 95% of either group :)

Then you have the two categories of dangerous dog owners or drivers

TYPE A; the useless, we all know them - they're the ones that have no control over Pooky who's careering all over the park, bouncing up to or over other people and their dogs causing havoc everywhere they go. While the owner is shouting from 300m away that that 'they're only playing' and doing sod all about it, after it's not fair to Pooky to keep him on lead or stop him doing anything he wants. These people terrify me when they have dogs and children together as they have the delusion that Pooky can do no wrong and would NEVER hurt anybody. Of course Pooky has never learnt to leave, recall or to have any manners...so the likelyhood is that there will be an incident sooner rather than later. As drivers they are the people who change lanes erratically, pull out at junctions without looking, tootle along oblivious to everything else on the road but are completely amazed when they have frequent prangs.

TYPE B: The well 'hard - the stereotypical 'bad' dog owner who has a dog to intimidate, who encourages their dogs to be as antisocial as they are. As drivers they have the uninsured, untaxed deathtraps which, like their dogs they use to bully their way through society making life unpleasant and dangerous for all.

The DDA is a bad law that was rushed through parliament in 1991 because of a spate of dog attacks on mainly children in a relatively short time - it was breed specific and the strongest and most restrictive elements related to 4 breeds and their crosses.
Pitbull terrier
Dogo Argentina
Japanese Tosa
Fila Brasileiro

Now, to the best of my knowledge I have never seen the last 3 breeds in this country either before or after 1991 - the Pitbull has always been the Bogey Dog of choice and by default every other breed is safe. Of course, that isn't true and every sensible person knows that. Also Pitbull as defined in law, isn't a breed it is a type so any leggy bullbreed or in quite a few cases lab x rottweilers (just one example!) can measure up to be of type which is why the law was amended in 1997 to allow new entries to the exempted list because it was recognised that the type could easily be bred unintentionally. But the DDA still put nothing new in place to control all the other breeds that have seriously injured or killed people so needless to say it did nothing to solve the problem. And OP, take into account that media and reporting of incidents has changed hugely over the past 20 years with the arrival of the internet, remember Google only had its 16th birthday last month so prior to that all news was much more local ie print, radio and TV so that maybe why it appears that attacks have increased so much. I don't think they have as much as they are reported via social media more widely.

The problem with legislation and enforcing it is that bad/incomplete laws are very difficult to prosecute and rapidly become ignored. The DDA encouraged a public attitude that only 'devil' dogs were a problem and the authorities didn't (until earlier this year) couldn't/wouldn't prosecute unless it was an open and shut case. IMO, it has led to a lot of people, the TYPE As? not taking proper responsibility for their dogs because TBH there is no deterrent in law to having ill mannered dogs - probably the worst that will happen to them is that they get a bill for the damage their dog caused and worse case scenario, lose the dog.

TYPE B bad dog owner, well it's a badge of honour to be breaking the law. To be fair while their dogs might be savaging other dogs and pets and the odd owner that gets bitten trying to rescue their animal I'm often amazed at how obedient those dogs are - they might be trained to behave in a way that most people find repellant but they are trained. I'd imagine that a large proportion are fairly safe within the home so their family are probably safer than TYPE As family.

Back to what can be done to cut serious dog attacks - the new laws that came in this year may help, they are quite specific about what is acceptable and legal and cover private property too. AFAIK, they haven't been tested in court yet but hopefully, will start changing the culture of sloppy dog ownership. Returning to the car analogy :) 25 years ago drink driving was considered almost normal - people were consoled with 'bad luck mate' if they were caught and once they served their ban it was all forgotten about. These days, quite rightly it is socially unacceptable and drink driving conviction repercussions last years. Hopefully these new laws will be enforced sensibly and the 'silly and fluffy' dog owners will have to start at least making an effort to train and control their Pookys...well I can dream, can't I? :)

Wow, that's quite an essay. Bet you're sorry you asked now OP :)
 

ribbons

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 April 2012
Messages
2,264
cbmcts,
An absolutely superb post.
You have hit every possible nail squarely on the head.

Sadly I doubt things will get better any time soon.
So many clueless owners.
 

ChesnutsRoasting

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 December 2009
Messages
3,356
It's unfair to expect the police to enforce a law that applies to dogs. They have their hands full with human related crime. The DDA was a knee jerk reaction to a spate of dog attacks, fuelled by the media & the subsequent public outrage incited the parasites of Whitehall to pass a law that they knew would be utterly unenforcable but did so to appease the outraged.
 
Last edited:

splashgirl45

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 March 2010
Messages
6,790
Location
suffolk
cbmcts,
An absolutely superb post.
You have hit every possible nail squarely on the head.

Sadly I doubt things will get better any time soon.
So many clueless owners.
agree, what a good post, I like the comparison with car drivers.....agree its more the clueless owners rather than the type who deliberately train their dog to be aggressive.
 

SadKen

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 September 2012
Messages
2,542
Location
North East Wales
Every time I read about one of these attacks in the media, it's a rundown house in a poor area, with reports of complaints from the neighbours about previous attacks by the dog resulting either indifference or threats from the owner. I know the media won't report all the middle class attacks, but the deaths seem to involve status dogs wielded as weapons by idiots who are surprised when a family member is a victim. I generalise of course, but I see these types of dog being walked by swaggering youths in my area, and I know they couldn't have given two hoots if the dog killed a child from some one else's family.

The DDA doesn't work as it's focussed on breed, and pretty much any dog has the capacity to kill. I don't know what the answer is, but it's not this. And it's not dog licenses either, as the swaggering youths won't bother to get one and it won't prevent attacks.
 

Clodagh

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 August 2005
Messages
14,244
Location
Essex
Excellent posts, but I would say that my lurcher has bitten a child but she snaps and moves away. A bull breed is designed to grip on and rag, so yes they do more damage when they lose their temper.
 

cbmcts

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 April 2009
Messages
1,548
If you knowingly have an illegal dog and it kills someone how would that make you feel I wonder
I and I hope that most people would be distraught if any dog that I had did damage to anybody, let alone seriously injured or killed someone. Breed is irrelevant. Bad and careless attitudes are what causes most injuries by dogs to people, we are just very fortunate that mosts 'attacks' or bites are not life threatening but sadly, sometimes they are. In each and every case that is properly investigated (you do have to read between the lines a bit and look at the history) it appears that the dog owner wasn't supervising properly ie they allowed children among unsocialised dogs with untested temperaments (new rescues, outside dogs, when visiting relatives) without sensible adults involved as most of the fatal dog attacks are on private property, usually their homes. Or they allowed a stranger to the dog(s) to enter their home, again a lack of supervision.

cbmcts,
An absolutely superb post.
You have hit every possible nail squarely on the head.

Sadly I doubt things will get better any time soon.
So many clueless owners.
I'm hoping they will. The new laws will allow the authorities to nip problem dogs and owners (if they have the will to do so of course) in the bud at an antisocial level rather than having to wait for human injuries to occur. Prior to this, if your dog was attacked the best you could hope for was the council to apply for a control order. Great if they got it but it wasn't normally enforced a it relied on the local dog wardens to report breaches and they rarely have the manpower to do this. So you had to wait for a person to be bitten and the police to get involved - at that point, the dog would normally have been PTS so problem solved. But someone had to be bitten, in public before anything meaningful happened. Now there is the possibility that action can be taken for general antisocial behaviour and not have to wait for an actual bite. Dog hopefully won't be PTS and daffy owners are forced to take responsibility because there are consequences - remember these are the owners that do care about a conviction, don't intend to have a dangerous dog but are totally delusional about how bad their dog is. Enforcement could change their attitudes and behaviour - it won't be quick or easy but it might just work.

It's unfair to expect the police to enforce a law that applies to dogs. They have their hands full with human related crime. The DDA was a knee jerk reaction to a spate of dog attacks, fuelled by the media & the subsequent public outrage incited the parasites of Whitehall to pass a law that they knew would be utterly unenforcable but did so to appease the outraged.
Why not? If it's the law then who else can enforce it? And when humans are being killed/injured it is human related IMO. While I agree that the DDA was a very poor law passed to pacify the frothers, government and the police have to take a certain amount of responsibility for acting only after someone is hurt rather than than working on prevention - when there's 23 years between legislation to make bad dog owners culpable for their actions or lack of them, they can't just wring their hands and say not our fault.

Every time I read about one of these attacks in the media, it's a rundown house in a poor area, with reports of complaints from the neighbours about previous attacks by the dog resulting either indifference or threats from the owner. I know the media won't report all the middle class attacks, but the deaths seem to involve status dogs wielded as weapons by idiots who are surprised when a family member is a victim. I generalise of course, but I see these types of dog being walked by swaggering youths in my area, and I know they couldn't have given two hoots if the dog killed a child from some one else's family.

The DDA doesn't work as it's focussed on breed, and pretty much any dog has the capacity to kill. I don't know what the answer is, but it's not this. And it's not dog licenses either, as the swaggering youths won't bother to get one and it won't prevent attacks.
It can appear like that it is only the stereotypical bad area, bad dogs. bad people that have these dogs but I honestly believe that that is biased media a lot of the time. Yes, it does happen but not as often as portrayed.

Certainly where I live there are lots of status dogs, it used to be staffy types in heavy studded harnesses but there are a lot of huskies and mastiff/ridgeback types now. While I wouldn't trust these dogs an inch as far as dog on dog aggression is concerned as they are encouraged to fight, they wouldn't worry me too much as far as my safety is concerned. Most of these lads do love their dogs in their own fashion and are very aware of how far they can push it before they risk losing their dogs. There is also a huge pride in controlling these dogs and looking like a big man in doing so - which I referred to in my (other!) epic post above. I'm aware that this might be different in other areas though, the well'ards in my area aren't half as hard as they think they are ;)

THe dogs that I'm wary of are the untrained spoilt ones that are babied and have no discipline...the Pookys. They do not cope well with small children and all the things that children do, nor do they have the owners that teach children to give them space or allow them an escape route. These are the dogs that are stressed most of the time, around people who don;t recognise it which are classic conditions for a bite. Most of the time, dogs being as good as they are, it's a nip that doesn't cause any lasting harm. I know that adults get hurt too but the likelihood of children being badly hurt is higher purely because of their size.

Excellent posts, but I would say that my lurcher has bitten a child but she snaps and moves away. A bull breed is designed to grip on and rag, so yes they do more damage when they lose their temper.
My old JRT wasn't fond of children, her reaction to a newborns cry was identical to when she heard a rodent - her head and tail would stiffen and she would be on full alert. Scary. She also wasn't a fan of small children because they were jerky, unpredictable and tended to be rough. If there were children around she was watched like a hawk and never, ever left unsupervised with them even for a second. But she was well trained and not spoilt so was easy either to call away from a child in public or if a small child approached her she would return to me (and hide). This was a working as well as a pet dog who had a rabbit a day in her hey day and could clear a barn of rats so was capable of doing serious damage to a child even though she was only 7.5kgs. But she didn't because she was watched, she also didn't think that everything in the world was hers, she knew that while she was allowed on furniture that she had to move the instant she was told, that toys/food were to be dropped or left on command. Basic training like that takes away a lot of potential flashpoints where dogs could come into conflict in a home.

While a bull breed or any bigger breed is capable of more damage certainly when you are talking about babies/small children, they can be and are killed by small dogs. Manners and lack of control is the issue here not size IMO.
 

honetpot

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
Cambridgeshire
its not the fault of the dog, its the people who own them. this dog was owned by the family and it was their responsibility to keep the child safe.... any dog can be a killer and people with small children need to be aware of that. I have a lurcher and a collie cross who are both fantastic with children BUT when my nieces were young we all made sure that they were never alone with the dogs and never allowed the girls to lay on the floor and cuddle them,( they do now they are teenagers!!!.).. better to be too careful than have a tragedy...however something needs to be done , not sure that amending the act will help. we need more education for the general public who do not seem to realise that a dog can be unpredictable... everyone knows to keep a child away from a fire they obviously need to be told to keep the child away from the dog!!!!
Every dog is potentially dangerous to small children and I am often appalled of the lack of care people have with their children around dogs. One snap and they could lose half their face conveniently place at mouth height. My children were never left anywhere near my dogs and were taught not to play with them but respect them and leave them alone.
 

Dry Rot

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 May 2010
Messages
5,843
Location
Scotland
I had a chat with a dog warden the other day about a neighbour's dog that regularly strays. My concern was for the dog as it is a terrier and if these are unsupervised and follow a rabbit down a hole, they can easily get blocked in. The dog digs, throws earth behind it, then cannot turn or reverse out. The result is a rather nasty end.

Anyway, the dog warden explained that any dog out of the control (for which read "out of sight") of it's owner is, under the law, a stray. And under new legislation, any dog which causes what can reasonably be construed as alarm is now classified as a dangerous dog. That would include aggressive dogs that run up to a member of the public and cause reasonable fear, but not a dog running up to someone with a neurotic and unreasonable fear of dogs. I believe the dog in the case cited by the OP was one of a banned breed so the owner is going to be in big trouble.

I have long held the belief that all dog owners should have to go through some basic tests to make sure that they can control their charges before they are allowed to keep certain breeds. The tests could vary according to the breed, so the demands on a toy breed would not need to be as strict as the control demonstrated with, for example, a German Shepherd or Rottweiler. It could be a written test initially (that would sort out those who can't read and write!) and then a practical test later when the dog is at a trainable age.

Sadly, the standard of dog training here in the UK is very low indeed. How we remedy that I don't know.
 

Goldenstar

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 March 2011
Messages
31,140
It's unfair to expect the police to enforce a law that applies to dogs. They have their hands full with human related crime. The DDA was a knee jerk reaction to a spate of dog attacks, fuelled by the media & the subsequent public outrage incited the parasites of Whitehall to pass a law that they knew would be utterly unenforcable but did so to appease the outraged.
It's the police job to investigate crime and it's the CPS's job to decide if theres a case
And if it's in the public interest to pursue it .
It's hardly unfair to expect the poor darlings to do what they are paid to do.
 

lexiedhb

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 January 2007
Messages
13,960
Location
Surrey
If you knowingly have an illegal dog and it kills someone how would that make you feel I wonder
Exactly the same as owing a legal one I imagine. Then again if you believe your dog to be illegal, and dont care, you're unlikely to be too bothered if it seriously injures someone.
 

Sleighfarer

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 January 2009
Messages
2,267
While a bull breed or any bigger breed is capable of more damage certainly when you are talking about babies/small children, they can be and are killed by small dogs. Manners and lack of control is the issue here not size IMO.
I take the points you are making, but in the cases of the 30 or so people killed by dogs since 2006 the dogs have overwhelmingly been large breeds, mainly Rottweilers, bull breeds or mastiff types, though an 8-day-old baby did die after being bitten by a Jack Russell.
 

ChesnutsRoasting

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 December 2009
Messages
3,356
It's the police job to investigate crime and it's the CPS's job to decide if theres a case
And if it's in the public interest to pursue it .
It's hardly unfair to expect the poor darlings to do what they are paid to do.
Ridiculous statement. The police have enough trouble due to Government cutbacks to prevent human on human crime let alone animal on human offences. And don't even mention the CPS. The Government passes laws that appeases the disgruntled masses - whether our law enforcement can control it or not. It's all about votes.
 

ChesnutsRoasting

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 December 2009
Messages
3,356
Why not? If it's the law then who else can enforce it? And when humans are being killed/injured it is human related IMO. While I agree that the DDA was a very poor law passed to pacify the frothers, government and the police have to take a certain amount of responsibility for acting only after someone is hurt rather than than working on prevention - when there's 23 years between legislation to make bad dog owners culpable for their actions or lack of them, they can't just wring their hands and say not our fault.

It's not their fault. The police aren't responsible for those who CHOOSE to commit crimes. If some ejit CHOOSES to keep a dog that is banned under the DDA & CHOOSES to allow said dog access to a juvenile, how the hell are the police to blame? Oh, I'm sorry, I had a really ****** upbringing, that's why I take drugs & thieve to fund my habit, but it's the Polices fault for not preventing me from mugging that old girl or nicking that stereo from that car, or going into M&S & stuffing several packs of undies under my jumper. Lowlifes will constantly challenge the law of the land. & there are more lowlifes living & breathing than police officers.
 

Luci07

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 October 2009
Messages
9,382
Location
Dorking
DDA is a poorly thought out law and the loose wording around "Pitbull" has caused a lot of problems and heartache. I did think people posting on this forum would perhaps have a more informed opinion but sadly, this does not seem to be the case.

Pitbull "type" is based on a series of measurements so is very open. Quite a few lab x have fallen foul if this law. I know some people who have had a very unpleasant surprise when being informed their dog is of "type" when there was no mention of pit bull or bull breed in its breeding, and no, they don't fit the broad description of a "Pitbull" owner given earlier either. The police can seize your dog if it is thought to be of type and if you sign it over under threat of prosecution, have the authority to destroy the dog immediately. If you are concerned your pup could fall under this law, you can't even take steps to register the dog, you would have to go to court and "hope" your dog is exempted. We recently saw an oversize Stafford x hit the press as a bright new addition to the police force only for another police member to say the dog was of type and said dog was destroyed. No history or any indication of being dangerous.

The law fails because it means the media can hide behind the dog breed (or type) and the dogs are vilified and the owners are never blamed ..or very rarely. Pitbulls in America used to be perceived as the dog of choice and a true family dog. When the JRT killed a baby the media was amazed that a jack would do that...yet jacks are bred for ratting and go after small squeaky things. "Bull breeds can do more damage because of their jaws". They can't lock their jaws (fact) and if you follow that argument, you should also follow that the original bull breeds in the UK were also specifically bred to be family dogs, hence putting up with more unpleasant behaviour than most breeds. To include such a sweeping inclusion as "Pitbull" in the DDA was unhelpful to say the least.

I honestly think the only way forward is to put more legal pressure on the owners to be responsible. I would also like to see breeders having to register and pay tax on profits on the puppies. This is purely aimed at the backstreet breeders.

I am deeply sorry another child has lost its life and in such a terrible manner but the focus should not not just be around the dog breed but the actions of the owner (s). I honestly have never met anyone who thought it was safe to leave a baby unsupervised or near the family dog.
 
Last edited:

ChesnutsRoasting

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 December 2009
Messages
3,356
Just to add the police enforce the law - of course they've got the manpower, time & funds to knock on doors & investigate breeds of dogs. The DDA is an unenforceable law. Created by schemers & believed by dreamers.
 

bonny

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 September 2007
Messages
3,079
Clearly the Act didn't work or the result would be no more pitbulls in our midst and I for one think the authorities could do more. This family, for example had had complaints about their dogs so the type of dogs were known. I will get jumped on for this, but no small children should have to live (or die) with pitbulls in their house.
 

Luci07

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 October 2009
Messages
9,382
Location
Dorking
Clearly the Act didn't work or the result would be no more pitbulls in our midst and I for one think the authorities could do more. This family, for example had had complaints about their dogs so the type of dogs were known. I will get jumped on for this, but no small children should have to live (or die) with pitbulls in their house.
Your reply is logical but incorrect. As I said before the act refers to a type, therefore it's down to measurements and pretty much, the personal opinion of the police. Pitbull is a generic term even in the US. Lab or boxer crosses can (and have) fallen foul. A Stafford cross that is over large could be deemed "of type".
 

Clodagh

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 August 2005
Messages
14,244
Location
Essex
I have had this argument on here before. I don't see how you can possibly say a bull breeds jaws are no stronger than any other dog. Have you looked in the mouth of a pit bull? In Oz we called them 'the mongrels with the mumps'. Compare them to the jaws of say, a collie, and the muscle mass is completely different. Like saying a shire is as fast as a thoroughbred. I'm not knocking their temperament at all but they are designed to have a strong bite. I didn't say they could 'lock' their jaws but try to get one off something it doesn't want to let go of, it is very difficult.
 

Luci07

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 October 2009
Messages
9,382
Location
Dorking
I have had this argument on here before. I don't see how you can possibly say a bull breeds jaws are no stronger than any other dog. Have you looked in the mouth of a pit bull? In Oz we called them 'the mongrels with the mumps'. Compare them to the jaws of say, a collie, and the muscle mass is completely different. Like saying a shire is as fast as a thoroughbred. I'm not knocking their temperament at all but they are designed to have a strong bite. I didn't say they could 'lock' their jaws but try to get one off something it doesn't want to let go of, it is very difficult.
So has a lab. I speak from personal experience. My brother has the scars on his back to prove it. My stepfather would not have GSD's in the house having spent his war in a POW camp and seeing these dogs literally rip men to pieces. You cannot focus and demonise one breed of dog and take away responsibility from the owner.
 

Supertrooper

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 March 2010
Messages
12,387
Working in the veterinary profession where I have and do deal with Pit Bull types I think there are more now than ever before so the act is not working. Mostly they are lovely dogs who have been born the wrong breed, however some of them are quite frankly scary!

They can do far more damage than a un bull breed because of their massive muscle power in their jaws. They also have a much higher excitement level and once they reach that then they are dangerous. They do not feel pain like normal breeds and it is an exciting stimulus to them.

There are other breeds out there that are not on the DD register such as American Bulldogs that have to me worrying temperaments.

When you combine this with some of the idiots that own these breeds then you have a disaster waiting to happen I'm afraid. These are people that will throw there dogs from the top of stairs onto police officers, that will have treadmills to fitted the dogs up, that will wind the dogs up and have them hanging off trees to strengthen their bite and will train the dogs to attack copied police uniforms...... Often while their children are present in the house.
 

Supertrooper

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 March 2010
Messages
12,387
(Pressed button too early)

We've just dealt with a Staffie x puppy who's 'owner' kicked the hell out of it, breaking its elbow in three places because it wasn't a pit bull :-( he has since been prosecuted and the pup is no longer his.

I have met plenty of other aggressive breeds, one of the worst was a Labrador but 99% of their owners are just misguided. They don't actually want an aggressive dog whereas owners of banned breeds (apart from the few that have got a pup not knowing what type it is) want a tough/aggressive dog as a status symbol, to protect drugs etc or as a weapon.....
 

cbmcts

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 April 2009
Messages
1,548
I take the points you are making, but in the cases of the 30 or so people killed by dogs since 2006 the dogs have overwhelmingly been large breeds, mainly Rottweilers, bull breeds or mastiff types, though an 8-day-old baby did die after being bitten by a Jack Russell.
I do know what you mean but I feel that everybody has to move away from demonising certain breeds and accept the fact that all dogs have the potential to do serious harm. In reality you are much more likely to be killed or injured doing DIY than by a dog, yours or somebody elses but what the DDA has done over the past 23 years is make people think that only certain breeds are a risk - that just isn't true. What should happen is that anyone who has a dog, no matter what size or weight takes responsibility for their actions. People would body swerve my rotts but let their kids run up to the so called friendly breeds (anything small and fluffy, lab, spaniel etc) because there are these 'classes' of dogs... It has to stop - even on a very sensible dog forum where posters are by definition dog aware, there is still breeds being blamed rather than their owners.
 

cbmcts

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 April 2009
Messages
1,548
(Pressed button too early)

We've just dealt with a Staffie x puppy who's 'owner' kicked the hell out of it, breaking its elbow in three places because it wasn't a pit bull :-( he has since been prosecuted and the pup is no longer his.

I have met plenty of other aggressive breeds, one of the worst was a Labrador but 99% of their owners are just misguided. They don't actually want an aggressive dog whereas owners of banned breeds (apart from the few that have got a pup not knowing what type it is) want a tough/aggressive dog as a status symbol, to protect drugs etc or as a weapon.....
The minority of dog owners who want a weapon rather than a dog are beyond hope and education I think - luckily they are a very small sub strata of society and all rest of us can do is avoid and let the criminal justice system catch up with them eventually. Very defeatist I know but if it wasn't a dog they were using as a weapon, it would be an iron bar, knife or gun. I just feel very sorry for the dogs TBH.

The bad owners that are increasing are what you very kindly call the misguided, there is hope of improving their behaviour and their dogs by a combination of education and consequences for not controlling their animals. Unfortunately, since they don't think they are doing anything wrong because their out of control dog is a 'nice' rather than 'dangerous' breed, it is going to be hard and possibly painful for these owners when behaviour becomes the definition of legal or not. Expect lots of Daily Mail sad faces! :)
 

cbmcts

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 April 2009
Messages
1,548
Why not? If it's the law then who else can enforce it? And when humans are being killed/injured it is human related IMO. While I agree that the DDA was a very poor law passed to pacify the frothers, government and the police have to take a certain amount of responsibility for acting only after someone is hurt rather than than working on prevention - when there's 23 years between legislation to make bad dog owners culpable for their actions or lack of them, they can't just wring their hands and say not our fault.

It's not their fault. The police aren't responsible for those who CHOOSE to commit crimes. If some ejit CHOOSES to keep a dog that is banned under the DDA & CHOOSES to allow said dog access to a juvenile, how the hell are the police to blame? Oh, I'm sorry, I had a really ****** upbringing, that's why I take drugs & thieve to fund my habit, but it's the Polices fault for not preventing me from mugging that old girl or nicking that stereo from that car, or going into M&S & stuffing several packs of undies under my jumper. Lowlifes will constantly challenge the law of the land. & there are more lowlifes living & breathing than police officers.
Actually you are right, I shouldn't have mentioned the police because as you say, they don't make the laws - what I was trying to say was that there has to be the political will AND a change in public perception of what defines a dangerous dog other than breed.

Apologies.
 
Top