dog attack

[Dobiegirl]

Considering some of the breeds which we'd consider to be 'Not for the average person', and mostly it seems of obscure foreign origin, I wonder what that august body The Kennel Club think of it all and more to the point, I wonder if they've headed any peer reviewed comments on the subject. I'd take an even money bet 'Not a hope in hell'!!

Alec.

They are a dog registry nothing else, if they had the welfare of dogs at heart they would refuse to register dogs from puppy farms

 

[Alec Swan]

…. , I wonder what that august body The Kennel Club think of it all….

Alec.

They are a dog registry nothing else, ……..

Reading of their level of self promotion, we might believe that the KC are the guardians of all aspects of our canine world. It's been time for change for many years, but just as the rspca, when they self appoint and with no apparent need to explain themselves, so they live in an ethereal world of make believe. Mostly, I don't bother my self with either any longer.

Alec.

 

[Fellewell]

I would think legal representation would be essential here since any number of things could be claimed for including loss of earnings. A few years ago a kennel worker lost her arm and ended up in intensive care after a bite from a Rottweiler. I would say these two breeds are comparable in size and strength so it has more to do with owner responsibility than size/origin of dog.

 

[Moobli]

Alec....whether you like it or not everyone is entitled to legal representation. Some areas of the law are so niche that they attract very few specialists; it is such individuals, rather than the general practitioner, who are best placed to advise as to what is likely to happen in court which is the information that the OP requested.

You also have no idea whatsoever as to my views on the matter as I have not presented them; you are merely conjecturing.

Absolutely. Whether the dog is given a destruction order or not, the owners are entitled to the best advice from the most experienced people.

In this situation, I would also most likely have the dog put to sleep if it were mine, but that wouldn't stop me from seeking expert legal advice.

 

[Moobli]

Deed not breed is absolutely right imo. The Law needs to tackle the other end of the lead, ie the owner and most fatal dogs attacks seem to follow the same or similar pattern of young male owner, dog having been bought as a statement or to intimidate, dog not receiving mental stimulation or physical exercise, or having been bred and encouraged to have vicious tendencies. Having said that, I do think there are certain breeds (such as the Caucasian Ovcharka in another thread) that really have no place in urban Britain but if the owners are responsible and ensure their dog's requirements are met and are not allowed to become a problem to anyone else, then who am I to complain.

I think some sort of licence for the larger, more powerful breeds would not be an entirely bad idea - but it would need to be rigorously enforced and with stiff penalties for those who flouted the law.

 

[Cinnamontoast]

Seems that mastiff Ypres are the new staffie. I've seen a huge increase in them over the past few years and fewer staffies. Same type of owner, different breed of dog.

 

[CorvusCorax]

An Italian Mastiff is a Cane Corso is it not. Am seeing a few cropped and docked imports locally coming in.

 

[aztec]

Seems that mastiff Ypres are the new staffie. I've seen a huge increase in them over the past few years and fewer staffies. Same type of owner, different breed of dog.

Hmmm, what does "same type of owner" mean exactly?

 

[Leo Walker]

Hmmm, what does "same type of owner" mean exactly?

The same people that gave staffies a bad name. That was pretty obvious from the comment surely?

 

[aztec]

The same people that gave staffies a bad name. That was pretty obvious from the comment surely?

If it was obvious I wouldn't have asked! I didn't realise that Staffies had a bad name... outside the like of the Sun, Mirror, Mail etc who seem to show a picture of a Staffie whenever they report a dog attack.

 

[Alec Swan]

Seems that mastiff Ypres are the new staffie. I've seen a huge increase in them over the past few years and fewer staffies. Same type of owner, different breed of dog.

Hmmm, what does "same type of owner" mean exactly?

Whilst I shouldn't reply on behalf of Ct, I'm old enough to remember when GSDs were de rigueur for those in need of a status symbol, then the Dobermann took over to be followed by the Rottweiler. These breeds have now lost popularity with those who were seeking adornments and as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier seems to be losing appeal, so the import of perhaps the most dangerous dogs of all are gaining momentum in popularity and often amongst those who are least qualified to deal with or train them.

To answer your question, those who are over-dogged and choose a breed which their mate's just bought, would be the answer that I'd apply and had you asked the question of me!

Alec.

 

[MotherOfChickens]

An Italian Mastiff is a Cane Corso is it not. Am seeing a few cropped and docked imports locally coming in.

while there are of course cropped and docked imports, there are also pups being docked and cropped in the UK. I am not the only one on this forum to report them.

 

[aztec]

Whilst I shouldn't reply on behalf of Ct, I'm old enough to remember when GSDs were de rigueur for those in need of a status symbol, then the Dobermann took over to be followed by the Rottweiler.

Yep, I can remember that. In fact I believe that the term "devil dog" was first used by the media when referring to Rotties in the 80's early 90's.

so the import of perhaps the most dangerous dogs of all are gaining momentum in popularity and often amongst those who are least qualified to deal with or train them.

To be fair, most Cane Corsos aren't imported, they have been bred in this country for years. When it comes to whose qualified to deal with or train them... who is that? Owning a GSD, Dobermann, Rottie (or any dog in fact) without any idea of dog behaviour/training is asking for just as much trouble isn't it?

 

[CorvusCorax]

As a side issue, I think there's a train of thought that it doesn't matter what breed of dog or what lines or genetics are behind a dog, if you train it the right way it will make a nice family pet and always be one step away from falling asleep.

I still see sketchy examples of all the breeds mentioned above, by sketchy I mean I don't want to go anywhere near them because of the way I see them react to fairly low level stimulus. Socialisation is important but you can't take out what is in the dog by nature.
And often they are in the hands of pet owners who either haven't done any research or have been blinded by commercial advertising of flashy European lines and are trying to fit an animal with high drives and very often a low nerve threshold into a low energy pet home.
And wonder why their square peg won't fit into a round hole.

In the past the public and the pet owner were unable to access dogs like this. Now anyone can buy anything.
There are scores of breeds which fit into sedentary lifestyles but people seem to want the dogs that don't and wonder why there's a problem.

 

[Clodagh]

As a side issue, I think there's a train of thought that it doesn't matter what breed of dog or what lines or genetics are behind a dog, if you train it the right way it will make a nice family pet and always be one step away from falling asleep.

I still see sketchy examples of all the breeds mentioned above, by sketchy I mean I don't want to go anywhere near them because of the way I see them react to fairly low level stimulus. Socialisation is important but you can't take out what is in the dog by nature.
And often they are in the hands of pet owners who either haven't done any research or have been blinded by commercial advertising of flashy European lines and are trying to fit an animal with high drives and very often a low nerve threshold into a low energy pet home.
And wonder why their square peg won't fit into a round hole.

In the past the public and the pet owner were unable to access dogs like this. Now anyone can buy anything.
There are scores of breeds which fit into sedentary lifestyles but people seem to want the dogs that don't and wonder why there's a problem.

So very true. A friend has an American Bulldog. She rehomed him from another person who couldn't cope. All his siblings have been PTS for aggression, every single one except him. He is a lamb, but frined who rehomed him worked incredibly hard to get there. She did say 'You wouldn't want to break into the house' but that is fair enough.

 

[CorvusCorax]

Also in today's modern world you're not likely to be able to keep a pet or companion dog in a sterile environment without contact with delivery people, visitors, friends, neighbours, annoying kids (I jest) and it's not fair to expect a dog with an innate guarding instinct to be able to discriminate between someone intending to do harm or someone harmlessly jogging past.
I keep my dog in a large pen in the daytime, not sure how it's a welfare issue when he is safe from harm and has more floorspace than I have in my bedroom.
He also goes to lots of places and sees lots of different things and gets lots of exercise. If all a dog does is patrol it's own perimeter, his world gets very small and it's no wonder if he believes that anyone coming into the property is a threat (that's conjecture on behalf of the OP, but I see it a lot).

 

[Cinnamontoast]

Hmmm, what does "same type of owner" mean exactly?

Exactly what Leo said. There's a particularly charming young man up the road from me who used to have his staffie hanging off tree branches. That type, the ones the Mail always bangs on about. It's been remarkable watching the evolution of breed type round here. We tend to walk the youngsters in the same two places, so we've seen the same people over a number of years. This does not mean, of course, that all mastiff owners are like this. It just appears that one particular type of owner has adopted the mastiff as their breed of choice.

I notice an increase in Akitas locally: it's the one breed that worries me. There's a 'puppy' locally. The owner is desperately trying to socialise her, but every other owner walks the other way, me included. I don't want Zak tangling with something three times his size.

 

[CorvusCorax]

It is a regional thing I think. All the staffies around here are delightful, well behaved and generally owned by older people.

 

[Cinnamontoast]

Hmmm, what does "same type of owner" mean exactly?

Some round here, too, CC. On my morning commute, I see a very tall older gentleman walking his ancient little black staff. I used to love bumping into the little staffie tornado in the woods, he was a scream. I'd say it's maybe a town thing, regardless of region. Dunno, maybe we should do a survey thread!

I'm of the no bad dog camp, it's definitely the owner in the majority of cases, either through lack of socialisation (in my case) or lack of care/training/wrong breed choice, although I'm sure that sometimes the dog is wired wrong or has evolved into a guarding type over many generations.

For all his issues, Zak has taught us a hell of a lot.

 

[Alec Swan]

…….. . When it comes to whose qualified to deal with or train them... who is that? ……..

A very good question. Coupled to that we could also ask how many of the qualified and competent dog trainers either here or on the Continent would even attempt to desensitise a dog from following it's natural and intentionally bred-in behaviour patterns? As Clodagh has sited, and take for instance the Greyhound or perhaps the Foxhound which she mentions, what would be the success rate I wonder of those who attempted to remove from these dogs the WISH to chase? Would those trainers who train dogs for the sport disciplines even consider applying their talents to the dogs under discussion? Do those trainers who train dogs for the man-work disciplines give any thought to taking on those breeds other than the GSDs (mostly)? Of course they don't and the reason why? The bloody things are mostly un-trainable, and the reason for that? Discipline and control have not been instilled for the generations that such dogs have been bred.

THEN we have those who take on the breeds that the professional trainers avoid like the plague, presumably in the belief that they know best. Invariably they don't and the predictable results are at the head of this thread. QED and it's undeniable. Why oh why those with little or no experience want the breeds of dogs which are avoided by the best of trainers, is a mystery and sadly, the only answer I believe, is legislation.

Next to the often trotted out and the all so often misused statement — Blame the Deed not the Breed. That works in part when we have, say and as I once did, the Labrador Retriever. There's no point in relaying the full story but I once had a Labrador come in for training at 14 months of age and virtually nothing had been done with him. He was big and bolshy and I was told that he'd also bitten someone. I saw no evidence of aggression, and once he started to understand that I wouldn't put up with his childish and loopy behaviour, we started to make progress. Once we started serious retrieving work he started to really come in to his own and I believed that I had a possible Trial dog. One day I was walking to my house with him at heel, the postman turned up, went to hand me my post and the dog launched himself at the poor sod, he took hold of the guy's uniform at his shoulder and pulled him to the ground before I could do anything. It was a serious attack, it came with no warning and I had to choke the dog off. THAT was a case where we can look to the deed, rather than the breed as the LR isn't generally known for being aggressive. When a dog is bred for the sole purpose of it's guarding capabilities which will employ an aggressive aspect, then to claim that the Breed isn't a factor is quite simply, utter nonsense.

Then perhaps we have a breed of dog, the Collie and here we have to consider that there are those which can be a bit sharp. I've had a good few over the years, some as soft as soft whilst others needed to be watched, carefully. As a breed Collies can sometimes be unsafe, and again, it's what they are, in short it's the breed. Laying a judgement out by blaming the 'Deed' makes for no sense when we consider the possible and known tendencies of the breed. Would anyone approach a collie which was tied up? I certainly wouldn't unless it and I knew each other.

Alec.

 

[KittenInTheTree]

A very good question. Coupled to that we could also ask how many of the qualified and competent dog trainers either here or on the Continent would even attempt to desensitise a dog from following it's natural and intentionally bred-in behaviour patterns? As Clodagh has sited, and take for instance the Greyhound or perhaps the Foxhound which she mentions, what would be the success rate I wonder of those who attempted to remove from these dogs the WISH to chase? Would those trainers who train dogs for the sport disciplines even consider applying their talents to the dogs under discussion? Do those trainers who train dogs for the man-work disciplines give any thought to taking on those breeds other than the GSDs (mostly)? Of course they don't and the reason why? The bloody things are mostly un-trainable, and the reason for that? Discipline and control have not been instilled for the generations that such dogs have been bred.

THEN we have those who take on the breeds that the professional trainers avoid like the plague, presumably in the belief that they know best. Invariably they don't and the predictable results are at the head of this thread. QED and it's undeniable. Why oh why those with little or no experience want the breeds of dogs which are avoided by the best of trainers, is a mystery and sadly, the only answer I believe, is legislation.

Next to the often trotted out and the all so often misused statement — Blame the Deed not the Breed. That works in part when we have, say and as I once did, the Labrador Retriever. There's no point in relaying the full story but I once had a Labrador come in for training at 14 months of age and virtually nothing had been done with him. He was big and bolshy and I was told that he'd also bitten someone. I saw no evidence of aggression, and once he started to understand that I wouldn't put up with his childish and loopy behaviour, we started to make progress. Once we started serious retrieving work he started to really come in to his own and I believed that I had a possible Trial dog. One day I was walking to my house with him at heel, the postman turned up, went to hand me my post and the dog launched himself at the poor sod, he took hold of the guy's uniform at his shoulder and pulled him to the ground before I could do anything. It was a serious attack, it came with no warning and I had to choke the dog off. THAT was a case where we can look to the deed, rather than the breed as the LR isn't generally known for being aggressive. When a dog is bred for the sole purpose of it's guarding capabilities which will employ an aggressive aspect, then to claim that the Breed isn't a factor is quite simply, utter nonsense.

Then perhaps we have a breed of dog, the Collie and here we have to consider that there are those which can be a bit sharp. I've had a good few over the years, some as soft as soft whilst others needed to be watched, carefully. As a breed Collies can sometimes be unsafe, and again, it's what they are, in short it's the breed. Laying a judgement out by blaming the 'Deed' makes for no sense when we consider the possible and known tendencies of the breed. Would anyone approach a collie which was tied up? I certainly wouldn't unless it and I knew each other.

Alec.

Based on a number of people's experiences including mine, I would trust an unknown collie over an unknown Labrador every single time. Random fact that may or may not interest anyone: the Labrador and the mastiffs of today are descended from the same ancient breed of dog - a household guardian, whose job was to deal with the intruder quietly and efficiently. Make of that what you will.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

A very good question. Coupled to that we could also ask how many of the qualified and competent dog trainers either here or on the Continent would even attempt to desensitise a dog from following it's natural and intentionally bred-in behaviour patterns? As Clodagh has sited, and take for instance the Greyhound or perhaps the Foxhound which she mentions, what would be the success rate I wonder of those who attempted to remove from these dogs the WISH to chase? Would those trainers who train dogs for the sport disciplines even consider applying their talents to the dogs under discussion? Do those trainers who train dogs for the man-work disciplines give any thought to taking on those breeds other than the GSDs (mostly)? Of course they don't and the reason why? The bloody things are mostly un-trainable, and the reason for that? Discipline and control have not been instilled for the generations that such dogs have been bred.

THEN we have those who take on the breeds that the professional trainers avoid like the plague, presumably in the belief that they know best. Invariably they don't and the predictable results are at the head of this thread. QED and it's undeniable. Why oh why those with little or no experience want the breeds of dogs which are avoided by the best of trainers, is a mystery and sadly, the only answer I believe, is legislation.

Next to the often trotted out and the all so often misused statement — Blame the Deed not the Breed. That works in part when we have, say and as I once did, the Labrador Retriever. There's no point in relaying the full story but I once had a Labrador come in for training at 14 months of age and virtually nothing had been done with him. He was big and bolshy and I was told that he'd also bitten someone. I saw no evidence of aggression, and once he started to understand that I wouldn't put up with his childish and loopy behaviour, we started to make progress. Once we started serious retrieving work he started to really come in to his own and I believed that I had a possible Trial dog. One day I was walking to my house with him at heel, the postman turned up, went to hand me my post and the dog launched himself at the poor sod, he took hold of the guy's uniform at his shoulder and pulled him to the ground before I could do anything. It was a serious attack, it came with no warning and I had to choke the dog off. THAT was a case where we can look to the deed, rather than the breed as the LR isn't generally known for being aggressive. When a dog is bred for the sole purpose of it's guarding capabilities which will employ an aggressive aspect, then to claim that the Breed isn't a factor is quite simply, utter nonsense.

Then perhaps we have a breed of dog, the Collie and here we have to consider that there are those which can be a bit sharp. I've had a good few over the years, some as soft as soft whilst others needed to be watched, carefully. As a breed Collies can sometimes be unsafe, and again, it's what they are, in short it's the breed. Laying a judgement out by blaming the 'Deed' makes for no sense when we consider the possible and known tendencies of the breed. Would anyone approach a collie which was tied up? I certainly wouldn't unless it and I knew each other.

Alec.

So Alec, if an untrained BC got into a field full of sheep and caused injury, is that the fault of the dog, because it is bred to move sheep around, or the fault of the owner who allowed the dog to get in with the sheep?
If you take on ownership of a dog, of any breed, it is the *owner* who has to take responsibility for it. Any dog can bite, given what it sees as provocation. The dog in OP should NOT have been able to get near to the delivery man. The owner was irresponsible, which is not the dog's fault. I can see no reason why a responsible owner should not have any breed of dog that they choose. An irresponsible owner should not have a dog of any breed, IMO.

 

[Clodagh]

But you don't hear of many people being killed by collies or labradors, or losing limbs. I am sure plenty get bitten but they are not bred to 'hang on at all costs'. Think how many people have died in the last 12 months in the UK from dog attacks, are there any that weren't staffies, American Bulldogs or similar 'bull' breeds? (There is bound to have been someone killed by a poodle, now I said that).

 

[aztec]

the only answer I believe, is legislation

Legislation against what, who? The original 1991 DDA used half cocked, knee jerk, ill thought out legislation to achieve absolutely nothing because it targeted the wrong thing, PBTs & three breeds hardly anyone had ever heard of.
The revision in 1997 made things worse.
It's only the most recent changes (2014) that have taken a step in the right direction, holding the owner responsible for their dogs, of any breed, if they are considered dangerously out of control. Surely that's the way it should be? It should also be publicised more, everyone knows the consequences of drink driving but how many dog owners know about the 2014 DDA amendments & how it affects them as owners? I'll bet it's a small percentage.

I've owned Mastiffs for over 30 years, not one has bitten or even come close! Why should I, & many others like me, have to suffer for the actions of a vast minority?

Banning breeds does nothing to address the problem of muppet owners, they will just shift their attention to the next breed on the list (Akitas have been mentioned on this thread) until that breed is banned & so on. What we'll be left with is owning nothing bigger than a hamster... if we're lucky!

 

[Clodagh]

I think licensing should be revisited. People who want 'dangerous' dogs could be assessed for suitablility. A cane corso could potentially be as dangerous as a shotgun, so why dshouldn't the owners have to go through assessments like for a shotgun certificate? It could be self funding and unlicensed dogs should be seized and PTS in 7 days.

 

[Goldenstar]

Based on a number of people's experiences including mine, I would trust an unknown collie over an unknown Labrador every single time. Random fact that may or may not interest anyone: the Labrador and the mastiffs of today are descended from the same ancient breed of dog - a household guardian, whose job was to deal with the intruder quietly and efficiently. Make of that what you will.

Having only ever been bitten by a border collie I would choose a Labrador the evil thing bit my knee as I walked minding my own buisiness the owner never even stopped .

 

[Alec Swan]

So Alec, …….. . I can see no reason why a responsible owner should not have any breed of dog that they choose. An irresponsible owner should not have a dog of any breed, IMO.

So who would you consider and how would you adjudge those who you consider to be 'responsible'?

Sadly, the Law needs to consider the lowest denominator which is why the only persons who can keep a lion (or any other 'exotic' animal) in captivity is someone who can demonstrate clearly, that they are fit to do so. I see myself as responsible and experienced (certainly when it comes to aggressive dogs) and I wouldn't want an animal which had the potential of putting others at risk. Those who buy such dogs all so often haven't a clue what they're doing with them and though unfortunate, legislation needs to be in place which limits ownership to those who can clearly demonstrate that they have the facilities, the experience and perhaps even a good enough reason.

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

…….. ! Why should I, & many others like me, have to suffer for the actions of a vast minority?

…….. !

I'm not too sure what the 'vast minority' means, but to answer your question as to why and considering your question, for the very same reasons that we have regulations and restrictions which control the ownership of firearms. I don't believe that we've had one incidence of a legally held firearm being used in a crime for many years now which proves the effectiveness of legislation.

I agree with you that the DDA is a joke and a total waste of time …….. as it stands.

Alec.

 

[Cinnamontoast]

But you don't hear of many people being killed by collies or labradors, or losing limbs. I am sure plenty get bitten but they are not bred to 'hang on at all costs'. Think how many people have died in the last 12 months in the UK from dog attacks, are there any that weren't staffies, American Bulldogs or similar 'bull' breeds? (There is bound to have been someone killed by a poodle, now I said that).

I think a child was killed by a Mal not too long ago. I think any dog could be capable.

The worst two I've ever known for attacking other dogs were a massive show type lab and another springer. It was probably partly my dog being very submissive, a total victim, his brother was never even looked at. Fortunately, I've never had a dog which was unsafe with people, although we had a few warning air snaps from one, easily overcome and he hasn't done it since he was a pup.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

So who would you consider and how would you adjudge those who you consider to be 'responsible'?

Alec.

A responsible owner is one who ensures that their dog can/will do no harm to any person anywhere. So my Rottweilers do not walk off their leads (they play in the enclosed yard)and are kept away from the door which visitors can access by a locked gate. They have been extremely well socialised from the day they were allowed to go out after vaccs.

Legislation against what, who? The original 1991 DDA used half cocked, knee jerk, ill thought out legislation to achieve absolutely nothing because it targeted the wrong thing, PBTs & three breeds hardly anyone had ever heard of.
The revision in 1997 made things worse.
It's only the most recent changes (2014) that have taken a step in the right direction, holding the owner responsible for their dogs, of any breed, if they are considered dangerously out of control. Surely that's the way it should be? It should also be publicised more, everyone knows the consequences of drink driving but how many dog owners know about the 2014 DDA amendments & how it affects them as owners? I'll bet it's a small percentage.

I've owned Mastiffs for over 30 years, not one has bitten or even come close! Why should I, & many others like me, have to suffer for the actions of a vast minority?

Banning breeds does nothing to address the problem of muppet owners, they will just shift their attention to the next breed on the list (Akitas have been mentioned on this thread) until that breed is banned & so on. What we'll be left with is owning nothing bigger than a hamster... if we're lucky!

I agree wholeheartedly. The DDA should be publicised widely and the penalties for allowing a dog to behave dangerously should be as serious as possible.