• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Dangerous Dogs

Agreed, but as far as dogs go, there are none that aren't safe if well trained.

I disagree. Clearly some breeds are bred for aggression. Almost all the cases I can remember of children being savaged by dogs in recent have involved (a) Rottweilers or (b) Bull terriers of either the Staffordshire or Pit variety. It isn't just down to size either - labradors, dalmations, St Bernards and other large breeds do not seem to snap in the same way.
 
I would agree some dogs are bred for aggression - but the dogs you mention are alleged to be nice dogs, good with kids - up until you abuse the dogs and then they snap.

Also - I have been told that bloodhounds used for fox hunting cannot be adopted as pets, they were bred and trained to hunt down and rip apart foxes and would not be suitable as a domestic family pet.

Training and or abuse can change an animal just as it can change a human.

As 'Bricktop' said in the movie 'Snatch' (when he was poking at a caged dog with a stick);

Poke him with a stick, you watch his bollocks grow.
 
Quake42 said:
Agreed, but as far as dogs go, there are none that aren't safe if well trained.

I disagree. Clearly some breeds are bred for aggression. Almost all the cases I can remember of children being savaged by dogs in recent have involved (a) Rottweilers or (b) Bull terriers of either the Staffordshire or Pit variety. It isn't just down to size either - labradors, dalmations, St Bernards and other large breeds do not seem to snap in the same way.

IIRC, if you look at the figures, St Bernards are one the the nasty ones...

(EDIT - oh yeah, from this very thread-

Numbers registered No. of Fatal Attacks Breed Percentage
240,000 12 Chow Chow .705%8
00,000 67 German Shepherds .008375%
960,000 70 Rottweiler . 0729%
128,000 18 Great Dane .01416 %
114,000 14 Doberman .012288%
72,000 10 St. Bernard .0139%
5,000,000 60 American Pit Bull .0012% "

- so they're ten times worse than pit bulls...)


But in fact even the ones supposedly bred for aggression are fine if properly socialised. The problem is that many of them aren't, especially in areas like this one (South London) where dogs are encourage to snarl and snap by their thickheaded owners.
 
coldelephant said:
Also - I have been told that bloodhounds used for fox hunting cannot be adopted as pets, they were bred and trained to hunt down and rip apart foxes and would not be suitable as a domestic family pet.

Many dogs are unsuitable as pets, but it's all in the upbringing and socialisation (or lack of it) rather than the breeding. Foxhounds and bloodhounds are often pets rather than working dogs.

However, 'you cant keep one as a pet' is often used as an excuse for destroying inconvenient old animals. Racing greyhounds are not ideal pets and take a long time to get used to human company, but I know people who have successfully adopted them.
 
Interesting figures, and I admit I was wrong on the St Bernard. I am astonished that the Chow could be responsible for fatal attacks at all! How odd.

Racing greyhounds are not ideal pets and take a long time to get used to human company, but I know people who have successfully adopted them.

I volunteered with abandoned racing greyhounds some years ago and all of the ones I met were charming, gentle creatures who seemed to want nothing more than to curl up in front of the fire and sleep.

That isn't my experience with bull terriers, even the supposedly more reliable Staffies. I don't think I have met one that I trusted and I just don't think that they are safe to be house pets.
 
Quake42 said:
Clearly some breeds are bred for aggression.

Mostly, the issue is that some dogs are trained to be aggressive towards humans, not that any given breed is intrinsically aggressive. The stats on deaths ignore the fact that the breeds that bite most often are smaller ones, and therefore less likely to do major damage. In my experience, Chihuahuas are probably the most inclined to bite, followed Dachshunds. After that, it's a toss up between the smaller smooth coated terriers (Toy Fox Terriers, Manchesters, etc).
 
wembley8 said:
coldelephant said:
Also - I have been told that bloodhounds used for fox hunting cannot be adopted as pets, they were bred and trained to hunt down and rip apart foxes and would not be suitable as a domestic family pet.

Many dogs are unsuitable as pets, but it's all in the upbringing and socialisation (or lack of it) rather than the breeding. Foxhounds and bloodhounds are often pets rather than working dogs.

However, 'you cant keep one as a pet' is often used as an excuse for destroying inconvenient old animals. Racing greyhounds are not ideal pets and take a long time to get used to human company, but I know people who have successfully adopted them.

Would a greyhound eat your children?
 
Greyhounds tend to be very mellow creatures. While some need socialization, they make excellent pets. We're very happy with our former racer.
 
Quake42 said:
That isn't my experience with bull terriers, even the supposedly more reliable Staffies. I don't think I have met one that I trusted and I just don't think that they are safe to be house pets.

Just personal experience but I have never ever met a staffie that wasn't gentle and friendly. I've never seen one get into a fight and all the ones I've ever met have been really over-the-top soppy. My own dog is (most likely) a little bit staffie and he's the least aggressive dog you could imagine. He ran away from a bichon frise (spelling?) this afternoon.

I just don't think you can generalise by breed. Not to say that certain characteristics aren't bred into them but it's not a reliable indicator of temperament.
 
mindalai said:
Just personal experience but I have never ever met a staffie that wasn't gentle and friendly. I've never seen one get into a fight and all the ones I've ever met have been really over-the-top soppy. My own dog is (most likely) a little bit staffie and he's the least aggressive dog you could imagine. He ran away from a bichon frise (spelling?) this afternoon.

I just don't think you can generalise by breed. Not to say that certain characteristics aren't bred into them but it's not a reliable indicator of temperament.

My own family's dog is part staffie and is one of the most gentle and timid creatures you could ever find (although she's brave if anyone or any other dog was aggressive to any member of my family). My brother specifically chose her from the dog home because she was the saddest looking dog in the place and was lying forlornly in the corner whilst other dogs were jumping against the fence. I'm sure certain dogs are more predisposed towards certain behaviours but ultimately it's the owners which are the biggest influence.

I think it's one of the saddest images of today's Britain that just about every second dog you'll see now is a pit bull. Pets for appearance and agression - what's gone wrong?
 
Pits and other fighting dogs were bred for aggression towards other dogs, not people. Part of the fighting "ritual" involves strangers handling the dogs, and any dog that was snappish with people wouldn't last long. My experiences with fighting dogs is that they're very sweet and eager to please. Unless, of course, they are confronted by another dog. The dogs I've dealt with have been actual fighters, confiscated by animal control.

I can't say that I would trust any dog alone with a child. The possibility that the child would accidentally provoke an attack is too great. Not that a dog cannot differentiate between a child and a dog; they certainly can. But the mildest animal can bite if provoked.
 
Full story (worrying reading):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7264620.stm

Hospitals see rise in dog bites
By Branwen Jeffreys
Health correspondent, BBC News

The number of people treated for dog bites at hospitals in England has risen sharply, according to figures obtained by the Liberal Democrats.

NHS statistics show the number attending A&E after a dog attack has risen by more than 40% in the last four years to nearly 3,800 a year.

The figures follow a series of widely publicised attacks on children.

Young children and teenagers are the most likely groups to be treated at hospital after a dog bite.

The hospital admission statistics also reveal a strong regional variation.

During the four-year period the number of patients under 18 treated for dog bites in London more than doubled, and in the West Midlands it rose by 80%.

In contrast, the number of under-18s injured by dogs in the East Midlands rose by just 2% over the same period.

Norman Lamb, Liberal Democrat health spokesman, called for more to be done to make people aware of the risks of irresponsible dog ownership.

The Liberal Democrats want to see stricter legal duties laid on dog owners, and control orders to impose conditions on ownership - or in severe cases disqualify irresponsible owners.

Of the attack figures Mr Lamb added: "These are dramatic increases. I think in some communities these dogs have become a badge of honour, a fashion accessory in a way, and I think that's very disturbing..."

I'm sure most dogs are fine, but there's always the danger they might attack, especially when you get irresponsible idiots using their dogs to intimidate people. Unfortunately it's difficult to know if a dog will attack until it actually does so, though bad owners are easier to spot.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
My own family's dog is part staffie and is one of the most gentle and timid creatures you could ever find (although she's brave if anyone or any other dog was aggressive to any member of my family). My brother specifically chose her from the dog home because she was the saddest looking dog in the place and was lying forlornly in the corner whilst other dogs were jumping against the fence. I'm sure certain dogs are more predisposed towards certain behaviours but ultimately it's the owners which are the biggest influence.

Aren't Staffies one of only 2 breeds recommended by the UKC for families with kids?

I was considering one recently, then I heard that, round here, if you walk into the dog park with one everyone assumes it's a Pitbull and leaves... sigh. Thinking about a Boxer now though.

I don't know if this is known in the UK, but here in the US in many States & Counties, Pitbulls are always killed when they end up in a shelter. However, the shelter that I work at has recently started a Pitbull adoption program (after rigorous behavioral testing - and we don't send them to homes with kids or other dogs) and have so far successfully adopted 3 out!
 
My 'big' dog (the other being a Jack Russell cross) is a boxer/Staffie cross. He's a very soft mutt but I have no doubt that he'd defend me to the death. He barks or growls on command and appears totally fearsome when necessary. :D
 
Some dogs can just be annoyed into getting aggresive. We had a border collie that would put up with my young nephew for a while but after about 30 minutes of being prodded, having its ears and tail pulled it would hide behind the sofa and would show signs of aggression if my nephew tried to follow. Also some dogs can just get over excited when your playing with them. I have a scar on my forearm from one of our dogs from when it was trying to get it's ball from out of my hand. The dog obviously didn't mean to hurt me it just got carried away and caught me with its claw when it was pawing at my hand. When small children are mauled by dogs the papers and news reports never tell you what the child was upto before being attacked.
 
Most American Insurance companies have now a "Bad Dog"list.Eleven dog breeds are listed where you pay higher rates or even not allowed to move into certain areas.When my dad retired and started to travell I adopted his dog because some campgrounds and places would not accept her .She is a black Lab /chow mix and the chow is one of the listed dogs.
 
There are some dangerous dogs out there butnot all dangerous dogs have a nasty temprement, its mostly down to the owners i think.

if you know you have a dangerous dog then one you dont take the dog out with a good strong lead and if needed a harness and of course a muzzle, if you bring your dog up in a loving and safe environment they usually are ok its the people that breed dogs and raise dogs to fight that should not be allowed to keep them as pets.

i know someone who has a rottweiler and that dog was brught up in a good environment and that dog is as soft and kind as anything and the whole time i have been with the dog i have never had a problem, im not saying this is the case in every event but in a very good majoirty of them.

dogs can be and are loving animals if treated right and not abused, mistreated or bought up wrong, ive been around every type of dog my whole life and never been attacked or even bitten if you treat them right they will show you the same respect.

and as for people with those type of dogs who also have children they know the risks and even so still leave the children alone with them and a small child or a baby will look like a toy and dogs dont tend to like sudden movements or noises especially if the noises are high pitched this leads to the dogs being startled
 
Killer dogs' owners in England and Wales could face life in prison

The owners of dogs that attack and kill someone could face life in prison under new proposals for England and Wales.
The current maximum prison sentence for allowing a dog that kills or injures someone to be dangerously out of control is two years.
Under a government consultation, respondents will be asked to select the most appropriate sentence for a fatal dog attack - from seven years to life.

Sixteen people have been killed by dogs in the UK since 2005.
In March, 14-year-old Jade Anderson was killed in an attack by four dogs while she was at a friend's house near Wigan, in Greater Manchester.
Police have no plans to prosecute anyone in relation to her death, saying there is no evidence a crime has been committed under current laws.

At present, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 covers only attacks by dogs in public places and private areas where animals are prohibited from being, such as a neighbour's garden or a park.

The consultation, which will run until 1 September, follows the announcement in February of plans to extend the scope of the law to enable a prosecution to be brought against anyone whose dog injures someone or acts aggressively in a private place where they are permitted to be, such as the owner's home.

Under the consultation, jail terms suggested for a dog owner whose animal injures a person or kills an assistance dog, like a guide dog for a visually impaired person, range from three years up to a maximum of 10.
The process will be used to inform recommendations put forward in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.

Animal Welfare Minister Lord de Mauley said: "Dog attacks are terrifying and we need harsh penalties to punish those who allow their dog to injure people while out of control.
"We're already toughening up laws to ensure that anyone who owns a dangerous dog can be brought to justice, regardless of where a dog attack takes place.
"It's crucial that the laws we have in place act as a deterrent to stop such horrific incidents."

Unions representing postal, utility and delivery staff have long argued for laws to be extended to cover attacks in dog owners' homes, saying this is a "major loophole" in the legislation.
According to the Communication Workers' Union, 23,000 postmen and women have been attacked by dogs in the last five years, with as many as 70% of these attacks taking place on private property.

Dave Joyce, the union's health and safety officer, said: "This consultation is very welcome and hopefully indicates the government is serious about tackling the problem of irresponsible dog ownership.
"We want to see tougher sentencing, better enforcement and greater consistency in sentencing.
"At the moment people are being handed vastly different sentences for very similar crimes, with one person receiving a suspended prison sentence while another walks away with just a £100 fine."

A report published by Guide Dogs in June revealed that attacks by other dogs on guide dogs are at an all-time high of 10 a month.
Guide Dogs chief executive Richard Leaman said: "It's almost impossible to imagine the devastating effect an attack on a guide dog can have on someone with sight loss.
"The punishment for irresponsible dog owners should reflect the immense turmoil and anguish these attacks cause our guide dog owners, and all assistance dog owners. We are pleased the government is asking for views on this issue."

Last month, Jade Anderson's parents, along with the parents of four-year-old John Paul Massey, who died after his uncle's pitbull attacked him in 2009, handed in at 10 Downing Street a petition calling for action to prevent similar attacks.
They called for preventative measures and education to put a stop to the 210,000 attacks and 6,000 hospital visits said to be caused by dangerous dogs each year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23578561
 
Dogs are only dangerous - in the sense they might attack unprovoked - if they are trained to be dangerous or if they have been mistreated. It's really not anything to do with a particular breed.

You'd have to be a little careful in applying such a law, because otherwise no-one will be able to try and rehabilitate a mistreated dog,

However, I do certainly agree that much firmer action should be taken where the circumstances justify it. But that is precisely why there can be huge variations in sentences - the owner may have been merely guilty of momentary forgetfulness with a normally docile dog that was then provoked or may at the other extreme deliberately have trained his dogs to attack and then let them loose - there was a case like that near here recently where a pet dog (fortunately not a child) was killed on our local beach by a pack of loose aggressive dogs that the owner was unable to recall.

There is a job for parents though as well - my (small) dog is kept on a lead precisely because he is a previously mistreated rescue dog who may have unknown flaws in his behaviour, but you'd be amazed at the number of parents who will let their small children run up to a dog and maul it as if it was a teddy bear, and sometimes even get quite offended when you ask them to stop their children doing it.

Animals are not toys, ANY animal - cat, dog, fox, badger, even rat - needs approaching with caution. Approaching carelessly can cause it to feel threatened, and then it may well try to defend itself. As it might do if you pull its ears and tail or poke it with a stick. If that happens, I'd argue it's hardly the animal's fault if it tries to defend itself.
 
Cochise said:
Dogs are only dangerous - in the sense they might attack unprovoked - if they are trained to be dangerous or if they have been mistreated. It's really not anything to do with a particular breed.

Sorry, have to disagree.
There are plenty of instances of previously well-behaved dogs suddenly becoming vicious for no apparent reason, with no provocation.

My Mum once witnessed a dog attack a small child that was walking past. No provocation at all.

I don't trust dogs at all myself - I think they're only a little bit removed from wild animals. Another thing to bear in mind is the fact that the majority of dog owners don't bother to get their dogs behaviourally trained.
 
There are plenty of instances of previously well-behaved dogs suddenly becoming vicious for no apparent reason, with no provocation.

There are certainly many instances where this is claimed by the dog's owners, but I do wonder how many of these dogs had really previously been sweet-natured gentle beasts on a consistent basis.

I don't trust dogs at all myself - I think they're only a little bit removed from wild animals.

They've been living with us for a very long time - maybe 100,00 years - so I think there is a unique bond between the two species. That said as you say they are ultimately animals and as Cochise says any dog can be aggressive if threatened or teased sufficiently, which is why children should always be supervised around dogs.

It's also clear that some breeds are far more problematic than others and there would I expect be very few serious attacks by dogs if "bull" type breeds in particular did not exist.
 
I don't trust dogs at all myself - I think they're only a little bit removed from wild animals. Another thing to bear in mind is the fact that the majority of dog owners don't bother to get their dogs behaviourally trained.

i trust dogs more than people !!!!
 
I think it's about 90% upbringing, and 10% breed. But, the problem is, if a poodle has a bad moment, the worst it can do is make you sneeze. If a pitbull gets pissed off, it can rip your throat out.

I have a 22 week old Staffy. A puppy. But when I'm out walking her, she's on a strong chain lead, and I double fist the grip if anyone comes near us. Just in case. She's more likely to lick strangers, and pee with excitement, but it's just not worth taking the risk. Especially if it's a child.

Same if someone visits the house. We make sure she's secure first, before we open the door. And my brother's kids aren't allowed to be alone with her. We teach them this now, so that by the time she's old enough to do any serious damage, they're already trained to know how to be around her.

That's the thing about dogs. Everyone talks about how the dog needs to be trained right, but people need to be trained how to be around them, too. You can't just invade a dog's personal space. Most of the time a decent dog, cared for, and trained itself, won't attack, but every now and then it might just be having a bad day, and will lash out. Just like humans do.
 
My cousin got himself a Lakeland terrier a year or two back. His mum loved dogs, but wasn't great on discipline. So her dogs ended up ruling the roost. First thing my cousin did was enroll himself and the new puppy for obedience classes. He wasn't going to make the same mistake.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
My cousin got himself a Lakeland terrier a year or two back. His mum loved dogs, but wasn't great on discipline. So her dogs ended up ruling the roost. First thing my cousin did was enroll himself and the new puppy for obedience classes. He wasn't going to make the same mistake.

He did the right thing.
 
in as much as this thread is interesting.... can some one tell me what the alleged conspiracy is ?

i see no shady cabal
the media jump on things all the time
the government dont seem to gain from anything to do with dog bites ?

i can't see anyone making huge money out this

and if they were.... they wouldn't be able to affect policy..

i guess there could a spin off for prozaac for doggies ?
could it all be the big Pharms ? doggie trancs for all...

or maybe some sort of expensive operation to make em non bitey....

but that would benefit vets..... do we have a shady cabal of vets ?
 
in as much as this thread is interesting.... can some one tell me what the alleged conspiracy is ?

The original post suggested that the dangerous dogs panic of the early 90s might have been due to the dogs eating BSE-infected meat and becoming aggressive as a result.
 
so

we are saying they were fed this infected meat on purpose ?

to what end ? who benefits ?

or are we saying this was an accident ?

accidents are not conspiracies

there has to be someone who benefits ????

or some people....

these people have to be able to instigate/control/and cover up said conspiracy
and benefit from it.....
 
Tougher sentences for dog attacks in England and Wales

Penalties for owners of dogs that injure or kill people are to increase.
New laws will be introduced in England and Wales raising the maximum jail sentence for the owner of a dog that kills someone from two to 14 years.
Five years will be the maximum sentence for a dog attack that injures someone.
Other proposals include three years for owners if their dog attacks and injures or kills an assistance dog.

The changes could take effect in 2014.
In a written parliamentary statement, Environment Secretary Owen Paterson said the maximum sentence for a dog attack which resulted in someone's death would now be the same as that for death caused by dangerous driving.

Of the 3,180 people who responded to a government consultation, held over the summer, 91% wanted maximum sentences increased.
Prior to the consultation, some MPs urged the government to impose life sentences on owners.

Sixteen people have been killed by dogs in the UK since 2005. Campaigners saying this proves that laws passed in the early 1990s to deal with dangerous dogs are out of date and inadequate.

Mr Paterson said: "This will give protection to family members, friends and visitors including postal workers, nurses, utility workers and other professionals who visit homes as part of their job.
"At the same time, there will be an exemption from prosecution for householders whose dogs attack trespassers in or entering the home.

There will also be a specific offence of allowing a dog to attack an assistance dog."
He added: "The increase in maximum penalty for a dog attack on an assistance dog, such as a guide dog for the blind, reflects the devastating effect such an attack has on the assisted person."

The new penalties will be put to Parliament during the Lords Committee Stage of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill and could come into force next year.
As now, those convicted of such offences could face an unlimited fine instead of, or in addition to, imprisonment.

Labour said it backed the increased sanctions but more must be done to stop attacks in the first place.
"Ministers should drop their opposition to the introduction of Dog Control Notices, proposed by Labour to urgently address the rising tide of injuries and deaths through dog attacks," said shadow minister Huw Irranca-Davies.

The Communications Workers Union, which has campaigned for tougher penalties for attacks on postal workers, said serious cases deserved effective punishment.
"Such sentences would bring punishment in line with crimes such as traffic offences and will send a powerful message to dog owners that they will be held to account for attacks," said its general secretary Billy Hayes.

The tougher sentences were also welcomed by guide dog owners, although they said even longer jail terms for attacks on working dogs should have been considered.
"An attack on a guide dog can rob someone who is blind or partially sighted of their means of getting out and about independently and with confidence," said Guide Dogs chief executive Richard Leaman.
"In some cases, a guide dog has to be permanently withdrawn from service after an attack, leaving the owner bereft and often traumatised."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24727874
 
I'm just not entirely convinced that the people I see out with monstrous dogs off the string are at all sensitive to promises of what might happen . . .

There does appear to be a serious issue with the way inadequate dog and child-rearing tend to happen in proximity.

I see the Dog Licence was abolished in the UK in 1987 - coincidentally the year my harmless 19yo mutt died. She was always legal, however dubious in every other respect*. The licence was then £0.37p and is said to have been widely ignored. From Wikipedia

Tax them by weight. Above a certain weight, expect a home inspection . . .

I see some countries try to enforce spaying and/or microchipping canines.

Not that it will make a blind bit of difference . . . growls and skulks away to gnaw the face off an unattended baby . . . :monster:

*Totally irrelevant nostalgia but what a world away that was: the price of a licence was rounded down from the original 7/6d ie 37.5p, when the decimal halfpenny was abolished three years earlier!
 
Back
Top