# Boy dies after being bitten by a dog



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-37129134

Poor lad not much information at the moment though


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Sorry did't notice you had started this thread and I've started another one.:Shamefullyembarrased


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

He was 3, just a wee tot 

Horrible.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

This is awful.

Once again, this is a case of a dog being owned by an irresponsible owner who did not provide it with adequate training. Dog attacks are becoming all too common these days. Unfortunately, this could result in the banning of Staffordshire Bull terrier (involved in many dog attacks) which are lovely dogs if raised and trained well.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

FeelTheBern said:


> This is awful.
> 
> Once again, this is a case of a dog being owned by an irresponsible owner who did not provide it with adequate training. Dog attacks are becoming all too common these days. Unfortunately, this could result in the banning of Staffordshire Bull terrier (involved in many dog attacks) which are lovely dogs if raised and trained well.


Hows that?

The breed of dog has yet to be confirmed.

Also, nothing is known of the circumstances, nor the owners ability, responsibility, training skills [or lack of] etc.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

Nonnie said:


> Hows that?
> 
> The breed of dog has yet to be confirmed.
> 
> Also, nothing is known of the circumstances, nor the owners ability, responsibility, training skills [or lack of] etc.


I am not saying the dog that was involved was an SBT, but it likely was. What I'm saying is that, because of the many attacks SBTs are involved in, the breed could be banned.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

FeelTheBern said:


> This is awful.
> 
> Once again, this is a case of a dog being owned by an irresponsible owner who did not provide it with adequate training. Dog attacks are becoming all too common these days. Unfortunately, this could result in the banning of Staffordshire Bull terrier (involved in many dog attacks) which are lovely dogs if raised and trained well.


I can't see on the link where it says what breed the dog is nor what type of training it received. Its best not to make judgements about the dog or the owner until we know all the facts. If the owner of the dog is the mother of the child then she must be absolutely devastated.

Tragic. RIP little boy.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2016)

Poor child 

I’m sure more details will be released soon. Hopefully it will be thoroughly investigated and we can glean important information about keeping kids and dogs safe together.


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

I read that the owner had only had the dog one week. Also that dog attacks are up 76% from 10 years ago ... a considerable statistic, if true and worth looking into the cause for the rise.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2016)

ChristineJ21 said:


> I read that the owner had only had the dog one week. Also that dog attacks are up 76% from 10 years ago ... a considerable statistic, if true and worth looking into the cause for the rise.


I don't think there are any insidious reasons for the rise, I think it's just more people keep dogs as pets now than ever before. 
With the demand for more pets, more people breed irresponsibly, produce genetically unsound temperaments.... It used to be that a dog who showed any inclination to aggress towards humans was taken out back and shot. That's a pretty effective way of removing them from the gene pool. Now they're taken out back and bred and puppies sold to unsuspecting buyers for stupid prices.


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

one unconfirmed report suggested it was a white boxer


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

How tragic.......



FeelTheBern said:


> This is awful.
> 
> Once again, this is a case of a dog being owned by an irresponsible owner who did not provide it with adequate training. Dog attacks are becoming all too common these days. Unfortunately, this could result in the banning of Staffordshire Bull terrier (involved in many dog attacks) which are lovely dogs if raised and trained well.


To assume is to make an ass out of u and me......

All breeds can bite and I assure you the worst culprits are most definitely not SBT's.


----------



## Chrisheathcote (Jul 10, 2015)

FeelTheBern said:


> I am not saying the dog that was involved was an SBT, but it likely was. What I'm saying is that, because of the many attacks SBTs are involved in, the breed could be banned.


Im sorry but I don't see where the leap to it being a SBT came from, don't take this the wrong way but its comments like this that cause breeds to get a bad rep, it equally could have been a labrador, JRT, Poodle etc.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Lets all take a nice LONG HARD look at this dog.................. defo a pitbull right? OMG how do you stop these total idiots screaming Pitbull every single time someone is bitten by a dog. It even says they owned a white boxer.............

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/539104/boy-dies-halstead-essex-dangerous-dog


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

FeelTheBern said:


> I am not saying the dog that was involved was an SBT, but it likely was. What I'm saying is that, because of the many attacks SBTs are involved in, the breed could be banned.


NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

they owned a WHITE BOXER


----------



## Chrisheathcote (Jul 10, 2015)

You would have thought they would at least be able to find the right picture. Poor boxer owners


----------



## Westie Mum (Feb 5, 2015)

*Any* breed of dog is likely to bite given the right circumstances/lack of training/treated badly/prevoked

Whether that be a staffie, a lab, a spaniel, a chi, a JRT, a Westie or a fluffy cute cross breed !

It's desperately sad that a child has died (and the man who was attacked last week) but this has very little to do with the breed of the dog .... the same way when people are killed in car accidents, its not the make of the car that killed them, its the idiot behind the wheel :\


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

jamat said:


> one unconfirmed report suggested it was a white boxer


I saw that too


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> Lets all take a nice LONG HARD look at this dog.................. defo a pitbull right? OMG how do you stop these total idiots screaming Pitbull every single time someone is bitten by a dog. It even says they owned a white boxer.............
> 
> http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/539104/boy-dies-halstead-essex-dangerous-dog


Ok so now we have a Boxer being labelled as a pit bull......

I swear someone needs to take these tabloids to task, the lies/scaremongering/ignorance they perpetuate is just astonishing.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

BBC are now reporting it to be an American Bulldog.


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

perhaps each reporter should've a copy of this with them ....then perhaps they will get the breed right


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

Nonnie said:


> BBC are now reporting it to be an American Bulldog.


OOOWW and now they've added a nifty little graph to the story showing Hospital admissions in England due to dog bites from 2009 to 2014 ...just to add fuel to the fire.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

FeelTheBern said:


> I am not saying the dog that was involved was an SBT, *but it likely was*. What I'm saying is that, because of the many attacks SBTs are involved in, the breed could be banned.


Why is it likely? A dog bites and it is perfectly okay to assume it's a SBT? 

Poor little lad


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

I posted something similar on another thread but I think this rings so true.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

FeelTheBern said:


> I am not saying the dog that was involved was an SBT, but it likely was. What I'm saying is that, because of the many attacks SBTs are involved in, the breed could be banned.


And you are no better than the other Scaremongers out there.

You don't know what Breed of dog was involved, but you're happy to assume that it was a Staffy and pronounce upon it on a Public Forum?

Please keep your inappropriate assumptions to yourself.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

the one that attacked my sons inlaws was a JRT/JRTX
but before it was identified everyone assumed.....guess what?
talk about give a dog a bad name.................


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

I Googled dog bites 2015 and had to stop because I got so cross. The press are only interested in reporting the bites by PBs and SBTs, so it's no wonder that Joe Public think that they are the devil's dogs. And even if the dog was neither, there's the stock PB photo, so anyone not bothering to read the article properly then decides that it was a PB or SBT, obvs.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

The only dog that's ever bit me was a Cocker Spaniel.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Pappychi said:


> The only dog that's ever bit me was a Cocker Spaniel.


Yorkie for me, and a fair few JRTs have had a good try


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

i've got a scar an either side of my heel where a Yorkshire Terrier surprised me at a friends house one day and attacked me from under the sofa as I sat down.... bloody visous little git he was to


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

Very sad indeed  

I've only ever been bitten by a poodle.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

The only dog I've been bitten by was my SIL's Sheltie! My younger son was bitten by a Daxi.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Nonnie said:


> BBC are now reporting it to be an American Bulldog.


I just knew that was going to happen...as soon as I read boxer or pit, I just knew the Am bull would be next.
I wish all this breed guessing would stop...the breed is completely irrelevant. The fact the family only had the dog for a week and was probably a rehome has more relevance than what breed the dog was -sigh-

RIP to the little boy...such a tragic event


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

MiffyMoo said:


> I Googled dog bites 2015 and had to stop because I got so cross. The press are only interested in reporting the bites by PBs and SBTs, so it's no wonder that Joe Public think that they are the devil's dogs. And even if the dog was neither, there's the stock PB photo, so anyone not bothering to read the article properly then decides that it was a PB or SBT, obvs.


That staffie cross that attacked all those children in a playground made the nationals, but a springer spaniel attack on a child the same day never got beyond local reports.

ETA: Found it
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/G...chool-b0b227f4-733a-40ec-a3a1-fc2715bd41c3-ds


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

So sad the little lad has lost his life needlessly, it is not the breed but the owner and it's about time the Media stopped this witch hunt on certain breeds and put more of there efforts into the people that shouldn't even own a goldfish.


----------



## Chrisheathcote (Jul 10, 2015)

MiffyMoo said:


> I Googled dog bites 2015 and had to stop because I got so cross. The press are only interested in reporting the bites by PBs and SBTs, so it's no wonder that Joe Public think that they are the devil's dogs. And even if the dog was neither, there's the stock PB photo, so anyone not bothering to read the article properly then decides that it was a PB or SBT, obvs.


Akitas get the same press too normally attached to this picture (from Daily Mail).


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Im currently a passenger in the car and BBC Radio 1 just said it was a ENGLISH BULLDOG!

Sure it wasn't a tabby cat?

I know its no joke what happened, its an awful tragedy and should never have happened. Just annoys me they inaccuracy.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

mrs phas said:


> the one that attacked my sons inlaws was a JRT/JRTX
> but before it was identified everyone assumed.....guess what?
> talk about give a dog a bad name.................


grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

ChristineJ21 said:


> I read that the owner had only had the dog one week. Also that dog attacks are up 76% from 10 years ago ... a considerable statistic, if true and worth looking into the cause for the rise.


Not sure about this - but I think some people are buying these dogs, not just for 'pet's' - for protection maybe?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

KATZ1355 said:


> Not sure about this - but I think some people are buying these dogs, not just for 'pet's' - for protection maybe?


What dogs?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Odd that the article says that the family owned a white boxer and the photo is of a white boxer (aka pit bull). Someone has got their wires horribly crossed. 

So awful for the child and the family and if they had only had the dog a week I hope the previous owner/rescue is going to get some of the blame. there is no doubt there will be repurcussions for dog owners, particularly for bull breeds - but then again maybe if the existing laws were policed properly rather than ignoring everything except friendly pit bull look alikes then maybe things would improve.

I often wonder why we are allowed to drive cars or why the most common ones to be in accidents (status cars) are not banned.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I've read that the little boy was visiting a friend and the dog belonged to the friend's parents but obviously not sure if that is true


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

KATZ1355 said:


> Not sure about this - but I think some people are buying these dogs, not just for 'pet's' - for protection maybe?


that would be ANY dog bite, including spaniels, jrts, yorkies, labs etc etc ad nauseam, the list really I endless you know those well know protection dogs? Simple fact is more people own dogs now than they did 10 years ago........


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

FeelTheBern said:


> This is awful.
> 
> Once again, this is a case of a dog being owned by an irresponsible owner who did not provide it with adequate training. Dog attacks are becoming all too common these days. Unfortunately, this could result in the banning of Staffordshire Bull terrier (involved in many dog attacks) which are lovely dogs if raised and trained well.


I am curious as to how you know that the owner was a) irresponsible and b) did not provide the dog with adequate training.

Not sure how you have come to the conclusion that this tragic event could result in the banning of SBTs?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

FeelTheBern said:


> I am not saying the dog that was involved was an SBT, but it likely was. What I'm saying is that, because of the many attacks SBTs are involved in, the breed could be banned.


Is jumping to conclusions the only exercise you actually get?

Why do you think it is likely to be an SBT?

And as for the "many attacks SBTS are involved in" do you have stats to demonstrate how many compared to other breeds and over what time period pray tell?


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

So, so sad. My heart goes out to the little boy & his family. I can't imagine what his mum & dad are going through right now.
RIP little Dexter.



Blitz said:


> there is no doubt there will be repurcussions for dog owners, particularly for bull breeds


I know this isn't what you meant but for me "repercussions" will start in around 20 minutes when I take mine out. People who have known them for years will cross the street, there will be whispered (some less so) comments, a bit of finger pointing etc... it happens every time!


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2016)

smokeybear said:


> I am curious as to how you know that the owner was a) irresponsible and b) did not provide the dog with adequate training.
> 
> Not sure how you have come to the conclusion that this tragic event could result in the banning of SBTs?


Duh... because what fun is it to have a tragic dog bite story without someone derailing it with assumptive comments about the breed of the dog or the intelligence of the owners? 
All we need is some victim bashing and we're right on track. 
enguin


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

ChristineJ21 said:


> I read that the owner had only had the dog one week. Also that dog attacks are up 76% from 10 years ago ... a considerable statistic, if true and worth looking into the cause for the rise.


I think you need to look at the source of that statistic......... as several dog professionals have


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

FeelTheBern said:


> I am not saying the dog that was involved was an SBT, but it likely was. What I'm saying is that, because of the many attacks SBTs are involved in, the breed could be banned.


They have just said it's an American Bull Terrier


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

BlackadderUK said:


> So, so sad. My heart goes out to the little boy & his family. I can't imagine what his mum & dad are going through right now.
> RIP little Dexter.
> 
> I know this isn't what you meant but for me "repercussions" will start in around 20 minutes when I take mine out. People who have known them for years will cross the street, there will be whispered (some less so) comments, a bit of finger pointing etc... it happens every time!


Actually I did mean that, in part at least. I am glad I have a breed that everyone smiles at.


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

Does it really matter what the breed of dog was a little boy has lost his life poor parents must be devastated


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2016)

shirleystarr said:


> Does it really matter what the breed of dog was a little boy has lost his life poor parents must be devastated


No. It really doesn't. And the obsession with figuring out the breed hits me as a bit insensitive considering we are talking about a family who has lost their child.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

shirleystarr said:


> Does it really matter what the breed of dog was a little boy has lost his life poor parents must be devastated


It really doesn't matter one bit, but there's always one whose first priority appears to be trying to guess what Breed and inevitably come to the conclusion that it must be a Staffy.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Sweety said:


> It really doesn't matter one bit, but there's always one whose first priority appears to be trying to guess what Breed and inevitably come to the conclusion that it must be a Staffy.


or the journo who posts the boxer pic with " pitbull" tag. No one ever really knows what happened unless they were actually there........


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

KATZ1355 said:


> Not sure about this - but I think some people are buying these dogs, not just for 'pet's' - for protection maybe?


First and foremost; another very sad and tragic day in the annals of dog ownership.

Why would anyone require a dog for personal protection? I'm sure there might be a few legitimate reasons for wanting a dog for one's own security, just as I know there are more illegitimate reasons. The question is, should each individual case be investigated by the Police?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

BlackadderUK said:


> People who have known them for years will cross the street, there will be whispered (some less so) comments, a bit of finger pointing etc... it happens every time!


I don't live too far from where this happened...this evenings walk was interesting to say the least!
I had one woman practically run into the path of an oncoming car...this same woman has walked past us without issue for over a year now.

This was a tragic incident, but blaming breeds only effects the responsible IMO


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

Zaros said:


> First and foremost; another very sad and tragic day in the annals of dog ownership.
> 
> Why would anyone require a dog for personal protection? I'm sure there might be a few legitimate reasons for wanting a dog for one's own security, just as I know there are more illegitimate reasons. The question is, should each individual case be investigated by the Police?


So many now, and I am sure the Police have a lot more things to deal with actually!


----------



## Lilylass (Sep 13, 2012)

@ouesi does this sort of thing happen a lot where you are / are people generally more responsible with their dogs / are the laws better there?


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Well I was quite pleased to hear a professional on the BBC Radio 2 news today saying that the legislation needs to be looked at again switching the onus away from breed types and onto owners baring responsibility for making sure their dogs are properly trained. Any dog could be dangerously out of control at the end of the day. An unleased dog that wanders into a road is dangerously out of control and that could be anything from a small terrier up to a Great Dane!


----------



## XemzX (Dec 23, 2013)

What a horribly sad story  
This case and the other case recently of the man who was killed by a dog are just proof that BSL does not work.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2016)

Lilylass said:


> @ouesi does this sort of thing happen a lot where you are / are people generally more responsible with their dogs / are the laws better there?


What sort of thing? Fatal dog attacks on children?
Sadly yes. It does happen. However it's still one of the most rare types of fatality. Dog attacks do tend to make the news more than child suffocating on a ballon because of the sensationalistic nature of that kind of death unfortunately.

We do have BSL laws in certain parts of the country and nowhere where it is implemented has the number of dog attacks lessened. In fact there is some evidence that BSL actually increases dog attacks by distracting focus from dangerous human behavior and conditions that we know increase the potential for attacks.

Some of the best legislation that has made a difference is anti-chaining laws enacted in many cities and municipalities.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

The media does like to report this sort of story yet statistically a child is up to ten times more likely to be killed on UK roads in a given year that mauled to death by a dog.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

ouesi said:


> No. It really doesn't. And the obsession with figuring out the breed hits me as a bit insensitive considering we are talking about a family who has lost their child.


While I agree 100% with this I feel that "doesn't" should be replaced with "shouldn't". I've looked at the British tabloid websites & they all have headlines very similar to this...


> tragic three-year-old mauled to death at an Essex home by American bulldog as cops arrest woman, 29


 (the sun)

If the offending dog was a Poodle I'm pretty sure the breed wouldn't be anywhere near the headline but the word "bull" makes sensational news, that's what the media do & it distracts the reading public into joining the "frenzy".
We've already seen it with the comments from @FeelTheBern on this thread, they've already bought into the media nonsense.


----------



## Lilylass (Sep 13, 2012)

ouesi said:


> What sort of thing? Fatal dog attacks on children?
> Sadly yes. It does happen. However it's still one of the most rare types of fatality. Dog attacks do tend to make the news more than child suffocating on a ballon because of the sensationalistic nature of that kind of death unfortunately.
> 
> We do have BSL laws in certain parts of the country and nowhere where it is implemented has the number of dog attacks lessened. In fact there is some evidence that BSL actually increases dog attacks by distracting focus from dangerous human behavior and conditions that we know increase the potential for attacks.
> ...


Thanks - I was interested to know if you had BSL over there / if it had made a difference etc


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2016)

Actually one of the biggest causes of death to a child is their own parents. Homicide.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2016)

Lilylass said:


> Thanks - I was interested to know if you had BSL over there / if it had made a difference etc


There are really good statistics out there that detail how clearly BSL does NOT work. It most definitely does not make anyone safer from dangerous dogs.


----------



## Lilylass (Sep 13, 2012)

ouesi said:


> There are really good statistics out there that detail how clearly BSL does NOT work. It most definitely does not make anyone safer from dangerous dogs.


Agree - still, it would've been nice if *those that do* here had done some / better research on where it had been introduced elsewhere to see what & if any difference it had made before making such a disaster of it here


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Screams Heard As Boy, 3, Killed By Dog In Halstead, Essex [Video]

Another version of this tragic story, stating that the dog , an American Bulldog has been seized by the police and placed in kennels.
Does it really matter what breed this dog is, a little boy has been killed, how tragic is that.
RIP little one.x


----------



## witchyone (Dec 16, 2011)

If you got bitten by say a poodle or spaniel ect you could just shake it of and walk away. If a bull breed bites you its not going to let go and I say that from experience. 30 years on I still have the scars on my arm. Don't blame the dog blame the irresponsible owners who shouldn't be allowed to own a housefly.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

witchyone said:


> If you got bitten by say a poodle or spaniel ect you could just shake it of and walk away. If a bull breed bites you its not going to let go and I say that from experience. 30 years on I still have the scars on my arm. Don't blame the dog blame the irresponsible owners who shouldn't be allowed to own a housefly.


I think you'll find that poodles and spaniels can do a hell of a lot of damage, if so inclined


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

MiffyMoo said:


> I think you'll find that poodles and spaniels can do a hell of a lot of damage, if so inclined


The difference being they are not so inclined are they. Toffee had hold of a rabbit the other day. She had crawled into a narrow space and had grabbed its backside. It died, probably of fright, but the only wound was a small one where her teeth had been holding on. A bull breed would probably have bitten it in half.


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

What an horrific story. The little boy's family must be absolutely devastated. I do hate the way that these stories are written, but then people do love to put labels on things and place blame. I suppose it makes it easier to feel as though something is being done about it and it's easy to target a breed of dog with a bad reputation which can't speak for itself. I just find it so, so strange that PBs and SBT are immediately heralded as devil dogs. I've met a fair few pitbulls (while in the US) and many, many staffies and not a single one aggressive. Dog attacks are 100% down to handlers/history/immediate situation/individual circumstance IMO. But then that doesn't make such a good sensationalist story I guess?  

As a side note, the only dog that ever bit me was a poor little brain damaged shih ztu who belonged to my friend's mother. I think the poor little thing was PTS shortly after as her unpredictability was dangerous and her quality of life wasn't good


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Aahlly said:


> What an horrific story. The little boy's family must be absolutely devastated. I do hate the way that these stories are written, but then people do love to put labels on things and place blame. I suppose it makes it easier to feel as though something is being done about it and it's easy to target a breed of dog with a bad reputation which can't speak for itself. I just find it so, so strange that PBs and SBT are immediately heralded as devil dogs. I've met a fair few pitbulls (while in the US) and many, many staffies and not a single one aggressive. Dog attacks are 100% down to handlers/history/immediate situation/individual circumstance IMO. But then that doesn't make such a good sensationalist story I guess?
> 
> As a side note, the only dog that ever bit me was a poor little brain damaged shih ztu who belonged to my friend's mother. I think the poor little thing was PTS shortly after as her unpredictability was dangerous and her quality of life wasn't good


I find it curious that you state that "_Dog attacks are 100% down to handlers/history/immediate situation/individual circumstance IMO_." followed by the statement "_the only dog that ever bit me was a poor little brain damaged shih ztu"_

Does the latter not contradict the former?

Or are you suggesting that the brain damage was 100% down to the handler?

Or have you omitted genetic/health/accident/pain causes for a reason?


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> I find it curious that you state that "_Dog attacks are 100% down to handlers/history/immediate situation/individual circumstance IMO_." followed by the statement "_the only dog that ever bit me was a poor little brain damaged shih ztu"_
> 
> Does the latter not contradict the former?
> 
> ...


Well, in that particular case the owner of the dog (my friend's mother) was aware the dog was unpredictable and should not have really allowed me (a then child and a strange one too having only met the dog a handful of times previously) to be so close to the dog or unsupervised. So yes, in that case it was down to a poor decision on the owner's part.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Blitz said:


> The difference being they are not so inclined are they. Toffee had hold of a rabbit the other day. She had crawled into a narrow space and had grabbed its backside. It died, probably of fright, but the only wound was a small one where her teeth had been holding on. A bull breed would probably have bitten it in half.


Are you trying to say that no poodle or spaniel has ever seriously bitten anyone?


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

MiffyMoo said:


> I think you'll find that poodles and spaniels can do a hell of a lot of damage, if so inclined


Maybe so, but at least they will let go, Bull Breeds are breed to hold on and will not let go willingly.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

MiffyMoo said:


> Are you trying to say that no poodle or spaniel has ever seriously bitten anyone?


Of course not, but a casual bite or even a bite with reasonable intent to do harm is going to do a lot less harm. If they seriously want to rip someone up then of course they can but their normal bite is not going to inflict that much damage in comparison with a large dog and in particular dogs that have been bred for a purpose that needs a good bite.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Happy Paws said:


> Maybe so, but at least they will let go, Bull Breeds are breed to hold on and will not let go willingly.


Sustained attacks on people where a dog bites, holds on and does not let go are extremely rare. However, sustained attacks where the dog does just that (hold on and not let go) are not exclusive to Bull Breeds at all. Ever see footage of a police GSD or Malinois that is so over-aroused on the bite that it will not 'out'? you see the same behaviour in a terrier holding onto and ragging a rat, same behaviour different target.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

witchyone said:


> *If you got bitten by say a poodle or spaniel ect you could just shake it of and walk away. *If a bull breed bites you its not going to let go and I say that from experience. 30 years on I still have the scars on my arm. Don't blame the dog blame the irresponsible owners who shouldn't be allowed to own a housefly.


Hahah absolute nonsense! some of the worst looking bites I have seen which of course has put the recipient in hospital have been from Dachshunds (a veterinary working friend of mine is scarred for life on her arm due to Dachshund which bit and would not let go) and Cocker Spaniels.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Blitz said:


> Of course not, but a casual bite or even a bite with reasonable intent to do harm is going to do a lot less harm. If they seriously want to rip someone up then of course they can but their normal bite is not going to inflict that much damage in comparison with a large dog and in particular dogs that have been bred for a purpose that needs a good bite.


Ever heard of Cocker Rage? It's rare, but it does exist. It's attitudes like this that don't help bull breeds. At the end of the day, any dog can inflict a lot of damage


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

smokeybear said:


> Is jumping to conclusions the only exercise you actually get?
> 
> Why do you think it is likely to be an SBT?
> 
> And as for the "many attacks SBTS are involved in" do you have stats to demonstrate how many compared to other breeds and over what time period pray tell?


Although it has been confirmed that the dog in this specific attack was not an SBT, the breed are involved in many incidents. Whenever I read reports/articles about dog attacks, it always seems to say "man/woman/child/pet mauled by staffordshire bull terrier". In some cases, this may just be the media guessing what breed of dog it was. I don't have any statistics to back this up. I wasn't assuming that the dog in the attack was going to be a SBT; I just said that there was a good chance that it was. I don't have anything against the breed-my friend has one and he is a lovely dog. I hope you understand.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

FeelTheBern said:


> Although it has been confirmed that the dog in this specific attack was not an SBT, the breed are involved in many incidents. Whenever I read reports/articles about dog attacks, it always seems to say "man/woman/child/pet mauled by staffordshire bull terrier". In some cases, this may just be the media guessing what breed of dog it was. I don't have any statistics to back this up. I wasn't assuming that the dog in the attack was going to be a SBT; I just said that there was a good chance that it was. I don't have anything against the breed-my friend has one and he is a lovely dog. I hope you understand.


If you read the press, usually they jump to conclusions that it's an SBT, but how many times do you see an article that the breed isn't mentioned? If it's not a bull breed then it doesn't fit their rhetoric


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Licences for pumas, lynxes, ocelots, lemurs, vipers, ostriches and an assortment of wild cats have been issued in the UK, perhaps this is what is needed for dogs, the ones that are brought to the attention of the council/police?


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

El Cid said:


> Licences for pumas, lynxes, ocelots, lemurs, vipers, ostriches and an assortment of wild cats have been issued in the UK, perhaps this is what is needed for dogs, the ones that are brought to the attention of the council/police?


Even if everyone who owned a dog of the breeds "that are brought to the attention of the council/police" had a license, dog attacks would still happen. A license would not alter the dogs' behavior-the dog could still go dangerously out of control. What needs to happen, is that dog owners need to put more work into training their pets, as a lack of training is often the cause of an attack.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

FeelTheBern said:


> Although it has been confirmed that the dog in this specific attack was not an SBT, the breed are involved in many incidents. Whenever I read reports/articles about dog attacks, it always seems to say "man/woman/child/pet mauled by staffordshire bull terrier". In some cases, this may just be the media guessing what breed of dog it was. I don't have any statistics to back this up. I wasn't assuming that the dog in the attack was going to be a SBT; I just said that there was a good chance that it was. I don't have anything against the breed-my friend has one and he is a lovely dog. I hope you understand.


Probably because those are the only ones the press are interested in reporting.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Probably because those are the only ones the press are interested in reporting.


Sadly, that is true. SBT's don't deserve the hate and bad image that they have.


----------



## AGirlAndACav (Sep 24, 2015)

The problem imo is that it's just far too easy to get a dog. With BYBs and puppy farms people can simply decide to get a dog and reply to a local ads with no other thought into the breed and suitability. If people went to responsible breeders and rescues they would be assessed for their suitability for particular breeds, what experience they had and training they planned to do etc, and occurrences like this would be much less likely.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Probably because those are the only ones the press are interested in reporting.


Definitely. I just did a quick Google of Springer attacks, one story in the Daily Mail in the UK but when I Googled SBT attacks there were six stories from various newspapers etc on just the first page.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

One thing I will add is that whilst watching a news piece by the ITV on this attack they had a segment of a Conservative MP who I cannot remember the name of saying something along the lines of -

'the dangerous dog act doesn't work because it looks at the wrong end of the leash.'

He's calling for a reform of the entire thing.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Pappychi said:


> One thing I will add is that whilst watching a news piece by the ITV on this attack they had a segment of a Conservative MP who I cannot remember the name of saying something along the lines of -
> 
> 'the dangerous dog act doesn't work because it looks at the wrong end of the leash.'
> 
> He's calling for a reform of the entire thing.


Probably Andrew Rosindell.

He owns a Staffordshire.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Pappychi said:


> One thing I will add is that whilst watching a news piece by the ITV on this attack they had a segment of a Conservative MP who I cannot remember the name of saying something along the lines of -
> 
> 'the dangerous dog act doesn't work because it looks at the wrong end of the leash.'
> 
> He's calling for a reform of the entire thing.





Nonnie said:


> Probably Andrew Rosindell.
> 
> He owns a Staffordshire.


It was. @shirleystarr linked to an article by him on the BBC news site yesterday

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37141437


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

Happy Paws said:


> Maybe so, but at least they will let go, Bull Breeds are breed to hold on and will not let go willingly.


Oh here we go... the "locking jaw" myth and other nonsense. 
Something to think about: When a dog bites and doesn't let go, you get... one bite. 
When a dog bites, lets go, bites again, lets go, bites again... guess what the damage looks like? 
Bull breeds have the same functioning jaw and dentition as any other type of dog. Their bite is no more (or less) damaging than any other type of dog the same size. And let's remember staffies and proper pitbulls are smallish dogs anyway. A standard poodle who bites with purpose can dog just as much damage as any other dog the same size who bites with purpose.

By the way, speaking of spaniels, with the weird resource guarding we're seeing in the breed these days, I don't think I'd be using them as a glowing example of "safe" dogs  


FeelTheBern said:


> Although it has been confirmed that the dog in this specific attack was not an SBT, the breed are involved in many incidents. Whenever I read reports/articles about dog attacks, it always seems to say "man/woman/child/pet mauled by staffordshire bull terrier". In some cases, this may just be the media guessing what breed of dog it was. I don't have any statistics to back this up. I wasn't assuming that the dog in the attack was going to be a SBT; I just said that there was a good chance that it was. I don't have anything against the breed-my friend has one and he is a lovely dog. I hope you understand.


LOL, you don't have any statistics to back this up but you're going to make the unfounded claim anyway? Do you work for the Daily Mail? 

Yes, the media tends to report only the staffie and bull-breed attacks. Or, even more fun, they tend to report the non bull-breed attacks with a stock photo of a snarling staffie or pit bull. This happens repeatedly, and I do have the statistics to back it up


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> It was. @shirleystarr linked to an article by him on the BBC news site yesterday
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37141437


I've just Googled him at wasn't him on the ITV news segment. I cannot remember his name for the life of me.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

If every Dog Warden spent a morning at any popular dog walking area they would see countless owners who really don't have a clue *and* their out of control dogs.

Perhaps if they then started to be proactive and spoke to these owners and told them how they were potentially falling foul of the law, what they need to do to correct that, and take action if they do nothing, it might make a difference?

Our council don't even have an official Dog Warden, but it comes under the remit of Environmental Health. They logged my complaint about the dog attack, but actually *did *nothing! 

On the point of which dog bites the hardest, my lurcher is capable of inflicting as much damage as any bull breed IMO.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Pappychi said:


> I just did a quick Google of Springer attacks, one story in the Daily Mail in the UK but when I Googled SBT attacks there were six stories from various newspapers etc on just the first page.


How many Springer attacks have caused serious damage or death? It isn't the breed which attracts press attention, it's the level of harm caused. They didn't ignore the baby killed by a Patterdale and reported the breed accurately - it wasn't ignored by the press because it wasn't a bull breed.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Oh here we go... the "locking jaw" myth and other nonsense.
> Something to think about: When a dog bites and doesn't let go, you get... one bite.
> When a dog bites, lets go, bites again, lets go, bites again... guess what the damage looks like?
> Bull breeds have the same functioning jaw and dentition as any other type of dog. Their bite is no more (or less) damaging than any other type of dog the same size. And let's remember staffies and proper pitbulls are smallish dogs anyway. A standard poodle who bites with purpose can dog just as much damage as any other dog the same size who bites with purpose.


*I didn't say *they had *locking jaws,* I said Bull Breeds are breed to hold on and will not let go willingly.

I just think you have been bored the last few days and have liked to start arguments for argumennts sake.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

havoc said:


> How many Springer attacks have caused serious damage or death? It isn't the breed which attracts press attention, it's the level of harm caused. They didn't ignore the baby killed by a Patterdale and reported the breed accurately - it wasn't ignored by the press because it wasn't a bull breed.


I don't know about in the UK, but in the US there have been some pretty gruesome injuries from Springer and Golden retriever attacks - weird resource guarding to the extreme. 
No, the press doesn't report about it. Those of us in the dog world know about it because we're connected with the dog bite experts brought in by the insurance company, or the trainer asked to work with the dog, or the breeder involved... Word gets around within the dog world, but apparently doesn't get reported, or only gets reported briefly.

For example this story from last year made it to a few local stations, but was never reported nationally. Had it been a pit bull you know all the national news outlets would have gotten a hold of it:
http://abc7chicago.com/news/springer-spaniel-attacks-toddler-bites-her-head/1040290/

For those of you talking about dogs biting and not letting go, I suggest you read this story about a springer spaniel who bit a child on the head and would not let go....


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

Happy Paws said:


> *I didn't say *they had *locking jaws,* I said Bull Breeds are breed to hold on and will not let go willingly.
> 
> I just think you have been bored the last few days and have liked to start arguments for argumennts sake.


Yes, that's it... It's not that you're posting nonsense, it's that I'm bored. Good call 

No, you did not use the term "locking jaw" you just said they bite and don't let go. Semantics.
Read the story I linked above and educate yourself.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Pappychi said:


> I've just Googled him at wasn't him on the ITV news segment. I cannot remember his name for the life of me.


That means there's 2 who are against it! Slowly, slowly catchy monkey


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

havoc said:


> How many Springer attacks have caused serious damage or death? It isn't the breed which attracts press attention, it's the level of harm caused. They didn't ignore the baby killed by a Patterdale and reported the breed accurately - it wasn't ignored by the press because it wasn't a bull breed.


Considering the child was left eating through a syringe and needing constructive surgery I think the attack was quite damaging one.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

MiffyMoo said:


> That means there's 2 who are against it! Slowly, slowly catchy monkey


A few more, little bro has been at a Conservative get together for my County and quite a few of them have been saying the Act doesn't work and it's time for a change.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Pappychi said:


> A few more, little bro has been at a Conservative get together for my County and quite a few of them have been saying the Act doesn't work and it's time for a change.


I just worry about what changes they want.

They might not be what the rest of us think they should, and could in fact, be more restrictive than before.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

Nonnie said:


> I just worry about what changes they want.
> 
> They might not be what the rest of us think they should, and could in fact, be more restrictive than before.


I know exactly what you mean  Can confirm though that at that little gathering they were talking about people who are holding the leash, not what is one the end of the leash . I have an inside man :Blackalien :Hilarious


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Pappychi said:


> A few more, little bro has been at a Conservative get together for my County and quite a few of them have been saying the Act doesn't work and it's time for a change.


I really hope that they speak up and force the bill to come up before parliament. It will be wasted if the people who want the bill abolishing don't have a sensible alternative to replace it with, with corroborating support from well regarded behaviourists.


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

I can't be bothered dealing with the ignorance of some of the posters on this tread. But as for Bull Terriers doing more damage than other dogs, having jaws that don't let go and shaking off a bite from a smaller dog etc.

Tell that to this child who was attacked by a Cairn Terrier:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/girl-of-3-savaged-by-famlys-pet-255237

I've seen a lot of bites in my time and none of which were inflicted by Bull breeds. In fact, the worst bite I have ever taken was in Alaska, by an extremely excited, over-aroused Husky whilst I harnessed him up for a race. Ripped the palm of my hand open...

I feel awful for the little boy and his parents. RIP Dexter X


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Given the choice I would much rather take a bite from a dog with awesome bite inhibition than one without any, no matter what the breed.

A Chi with zero bite inhibition will do more damage than a mastiff with great bite inhibition.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Nonnie said:


> I just worry about what changes they want..


Ah ...that should us, not they. What do *we *want. MPs act on our behalf so I suggest that everyone starts putting pen to paper (finger to keyboard) to let their MP know what they think should be the central points of any change. I have already spoken in person to my MP ...only because I know his dog lol

There is already a lot of support for change from major dog organisations like the RSPCA and the Kennel Club so maybe it's about time to get involved.

And what do we want .... less importance being placed on breed and more on behaviour, but how would this be 'policed' or 'enforced'. To an extent we already have an Act that should take care of that ...but it clearly doesn't. Why? Most countries have their own Banned Breeds List and rely on breed specific behaviour ....so we have no precedent to follow.

These threads always dissolve into 'who bites the hardest' .... I'd rather know where we go from here .......

J


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> And what do we want .... less importance being placed on breed and more on behaviour, but how would this be 'policed' or 'enforced'. To an extent we already have an Act that should take care of that ...but it clearly doesn't. Why? Most countries have their own Banned Breeds List and rely on breed specific behaviour ....so we have no precedent to follow.


I would like to see no emphasis on breed at all, but plenty of reporting and follow-up of dangerous behavior. Dangerous human behavior too.

We know certain conditions (like chaining) increase the incidence of bites, so a focus on human behavior and how dogs are kept would be good. 
I think the Calgary model is a good one thought probably too strict for what UK owners are used to. I don't know that the licenses are necessary in the UK since you don't have rabies, I suppose mandatory chip ID would take care of that part. 
http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Pages/Animal-Services/Responsible-pet-ownership-bylaw-dogs.aspx


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

MiffyMoo said:


> I really hope that they speak up and force the bill to come up before parliament. It will be wasted if the people who want the bill abolishing don't have a sensible alternative to replace it with, with corroborating support from well regarded behaviourists.


I wouldn't be holding my breath. There is no way they will abolish BSL, the media will crucify whoever proposes it.
What they are likely to do is to toughen up on sentences for owners (good) & possibly extend bans to other breeds or place restrictions on those breeds (not good), that's if they actually do anything at all.

You only have to read the news websites to see which way this is going, commonly "The dog was identified as an American Bulldog, not currently a banned breed"
Currently?
The BSL was a kneejerk reaction of epic proportions in response to media led pressure I.E: We have to do something, they didn't listen to "experts" then so I have no confidence they will listen now.
Just a little aside... since 1991 there have been 30 deaths due to dog attacks (BBC). In the same period there have been 74 deaths due to Cows, how many of those have made national news headlines?


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

FeelTheBern said:


> Although it has been confirmed that the dog in this specific attack was not an SBT, the breed are involved in many incidents. Whenever I read reports/articles about dog attacks, it always seems to say "man/woman/child/pet mauled by staffordshire bull terrier". In some cases, this may just be the media guessing what breed of dog it was. I don't have any statistics to back this up. I wasn't assuming that the dog in the attack was going to be a SBT; I just said that there was a good chance that it was. I don't have anything against the breed-my friend has one and he is a lovely dog. I hope you understand.


:Banghead


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

FeelTheBern said:


> Although it has been confirmed that the dog in this specific attack was not an SBT, the breed are involved in many incidents. Whenever I read reports/articles about dog attacks, it always seems to say "man/woman/child/pet mauled by staffordshire bull terrier". In some cases, this may just be the media guessing what breed of dog it was. I don't have any statistics to back this up. I wasn't assuming that the dog in the attack was going to be a SBT; I just said that there was a good chance that it was. I don't have anything against the breed-my friend has one and he is a lovely dog. I hope you understand.


They are not involved in incidents any more than any other breed. It's just reported more because it's more of a story when a scary looking, flesh eating beast, lock away your mum/dad/kids/cousin twice removed of a SBT/Am Bull/Rott/GSD/Mastiff/Pit Bull does something verses a sweet soft looking Spaniel, who couldn't _p_ossibly do any harm looking that cute. That is literally what it boils down to.

Hundreds of thousands of people are bitten by dogs every year. The vast majority of them go unreported by the media. Ask anyone who works with dogs on a daily basis which breeds scare them - the answers may be very surprising to you


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

ive posted this before, but its worth repeating
when my son was doing animal behaviour and husbandry at uni, as part of his dissertation he went to the local post office sorting office and got permission to distribute a letter regarding dogs, asking which breeds the postmen were most wary of/had been bitten by
Border collies came out top
followed by JRT
random terriers [westies, yorkies, etc]
crossbreeds
then labradors
spaniels
chihuahuas

and way down the list,
large bull breeds [intimidation, rather than scared of being/had been bitten] including boxers, several reporting they had been bowled over by over exuberant boxers, causing scrapes and fear of attack, in some
and
real proper staffies [rather than the status staffy x's purporting to be staffies]were nearly last

and thats from people who legally visit our homes on an all but daily basis, coming into contact with a lot of dogs of differing breeds and mixes


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

mrs phas said:


> several reporting they had been bowled over by over exuberant boxers, causing scrapes and fear of attack, in some


LOL I do love boxers but good grief they are obnoxious buggers aren't they? I've yet to meet one who wasn't a health hazard in some way 

Sorry, just had to have a laugh at the clowns of the dog world...

Back to your regularly scheduled programing!


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Yes, that's it... It's not that you're posting nonsense, it's that I'm bored. Good call
> 
> No, you did not use the term "locking jaw" you just said they bite and don't let go. Semantics.
> 
> read the story I linked above and educate yourself.


I was going to answer you but your just not worth it, so you needed answer either as I just put you on ignore.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

Happy Paws said:


> I was going to answer you but your just not worth it, so you needed answer either as I just put you on ignore.


I understand.
For many people it is much easier to ignore factual information rather than actually address their bias and potentially change their views.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Happy Paws said:


> *I didn't say *they had *locking jaws,* I said Bull Breeds are breed to hold on and will not let go willingly.
> 
> I just think you have been bored the last few days and have liked to start arguments for argumennts sake.


ANY dog can hold on and not let go willingly if it is a high state of arousal. Once again this is not exclusive to Bull breeds.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Lurcherlad said:


> On the point of which dog bites the hardest, my lurcher is capable of inflicting as much damage as any bull breed IMO.


Dillon could do damage as well but I don't think he would hang on, when playing rough with his toys he just grabs and lets go, the only time he hangs on is when we are are playing with his tug toy, but as soon as we let go, so does he.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

Happy Paws said:


> Dillon could do damage as well but I don't think he would hang on, when playing rough with his toys he just grabs and lets go, the only time he hangs on is when we are are playing with his tug toy, but as soon as we let go, so does he.


But that is just play. If I remember correctly there was a Briard attack in the US (I think It was in Denver) where two attacked, one of them dragged a woman across the front yard and left her with 36 stitches.

If Bear ever attacked he'd cause a hell of a lot of damage.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Pappychi said:


> But that is just play. If I remember correctly there was a Briard attack in the US (I think It was in Denver) where two attacked, one of them dragged a woman across the front yard and left her with 36 stitches.
> 
> If Bear ever attacked he'd cause a hell of a lot of damage.


http://kdvr.com/2015/08/19/nanny-defends-3-year-old-boy-from-savage-dog-attack/


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Pappychi said:


> But that is just play. If I remember correctly there was a Briard attack in the US (I think It was in Denver) where two attacked, one of them dragged a woman across the front yard and left her with 36 stitches.


Don't really take that much notice of the US so I missed that.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Happy Paws said:


> Don't really take that much notice of the US so I missed that.


But it does prove your argument false


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Happy Paws said:


> Dillon could do damage as well but I don't think he would hang on, when playing rough with his toys he just grabs and lets go, the only time he hangs on is when we are are playing with his tug toy, but as soon as we let go, so does he.


The subject of drive, over arousal and aggression is a fairly complex.....

I don't know much about your breed but when handled by a trainer knowledgeable in that area you may be surprised about behaviours that could be expressed. Of course in certain breeds these traits are more prevalent and when utilised correctly can be very productive.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Pappychi said:


> Considering the child was left eating through a syringe and needing constructive surgery I think the attack was quite damaging one.


Hence it was picked up as a story and you found an article. It isn't as much of a story press wise as a fatal attack so there won't be as much coverage.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

FeelTheBern said:


> Although it has been confirmed that the dog in this specific attack was not an SBT, the breed are involved in many incidents. Whenever I read reports/articles about dog attacks, it always seems to say "man/woman/child/pet mauled by staffordshire bull terrier". In some cases, this may just be the media guessing what breed of dog it was. I don't have any statistics to back this up. I wasn't assuming that the dog in the attack was going to be a SBT; I just said that there was a good chance that it was. I don't have anything against the breed-my friend has one and he is a lovely dog. I hope you understand.


In your second post on this thread, you said "I don't know whether it was an SBT involved in this attack, but it's likely that it was".

I think you were assuming that the dog was an SBT and this is exactly what the Press do before they have any factual information. For them, it sells more papers, and from people like you, it does even more harm to a Breed that doesn't deserve it.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

MiffyMoo said:


> But it does prove your argument *false*


No it doesn't, I was saying that was how he played, Please *NOTE* That said* I don't think* he would hang, not that he wouldn't (see below). And it was not an argument just what* I think* about *my **dog* no one elses.



Happy Paws said:


> Dillon could do damage as well *but I don't think he would hang on,* when playing rough with his toys he just grabs and lets go, the only time he hangs on is when we are are playing with his tug toy, but as soon as we let go, so does he.


So your point is?


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> Ah ...that should us, not they. What do *we *want. MPs act on our behalf so I suggest that everyone starts putting pen to paper (finger to keyboard) to let their MP know what they think should be the central points of any change. I have already spoken in person to my MP ...only because I know his dog lol
> 
> There is already a lot of support for change from major dog organisations like the RSPCA and the Kennel Club so maybe it's about time to get involved.
> 
> ...


I've tried with mine, on this subject, hunting repeal, badger cull, etc. He is of a completely different mind to me on all these


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Happy Paws said:


> Dillon could do damage as well but I don't think he would hang on, when playing rough with his toys he just grabs and lets go, the only time he hangs on is when we are are playing with his tug toy, but as soon as we let go, so does he.


But he isn't of the mindset to be aggressive either, I presume?

How a dog plays with a kind, respected owner cannot really be compared to how a dog might bite when in a high state of arousal, having been living in a hovel and regularly shouted at and abused all it's life and possibly feeling threatened.

When Jack plays with me he is extremely gentle - not so with prey.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Happy Paws said:


> No it doesn't, I was saying that was how he played, Please *NOTE* That said* I don't think* he would hang, not that he wouldn't (see below). And it was not an argument just what* I think* about *my dog* no one elses.
> 
> So your point is?


You have spent this whole thread telling us that bull breeds are bad because they hang on; now it has been pointed out that your breed will do as well, you are nit picking


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

Lurcherlad said:


> But he isn't of the mindset to be aggressive either, I presume?
> 
> How a dog plays with a kind, respected owner cannot really be compared to how a dog might bite when in a high state of arousal, having been living in a hovel and regularly shouted at and abused all it's life and possibly feeling threatened.
> 
> When Jack plays with me he is extremely gentle - not so with prey.


Yup... 
Dogs' mouths are no different than human hands. The martial artist who can break cinder blocks with his hands can also use those same hands to gently remove an eyelash from a loved one's cheek.

Dogs are just as capable to be gentle, rough, and everything in between with their mouths. 
They're also able to adjust bite pressure in milliseconds as needed - if they have good bite inhibition that is.

Our great dane can dispatch a rabbit in one bite. That same mouth she can take my hand and gently hold hands with me out on a walk. (She's special.)


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Chrisheathcote said:


> Akitas get the same press too normally attached to this picture (from Daily Mail).
> View attachment 280871


Lovely clean teeth.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Are people still picking on bull breeds?
Im sure its not just them...I remember reading a couple of cases where babies were killed by small terrier types and there have been plenty of other attacks by various breeds over the years. While bull breeds might look dangerous any dog can be dangerous if its out of control, esp if the victim is young, old or ill.
A dog doesnt even need to bite to be dangerous. An elderly person knocked down a flight of stairs by an out of control Lab might be just as dead as someone bitten by a 'devil dog'.
More emphasis on management, training and body language needed in most of these cases I think.


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jan 25, 2016)

Story about a Jack Russell that went for a kid on beach today, owner took off without leaving details, police are looking for a woman not sure if one in photo was one they thought whose dog was responsible or who they thought had seen what had happened.

http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/g...-russell-dog/story-27666214-detail/story.html

I think alot of small dog owners think they'll get away with it cos dogs are too small to do any damage, or they just haven't a clue how much damage a little dog can still do, terriers in particular.

I saw a program the other day can't remember what i it was called but a dog groomer was on and he said he'd never been bitten by a big dog (whilst grooming them) but had been bitten several times by small dogs most of those from toy breeds!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I do not think anyone is trying to say that bull breeds are more or less aggressive than any other breed, but if a large dog and particularly a breed that has been bred to want to bite (not just bull breeds) does bite with intent to injure it is bound to cause more damage than a small dog with the same intent. In the same way that a small woman in attack mode is going to cause much less harm than a huge man. It is just common sense.

Ouesi, your post about your dog dispatching a rabbit with one bite just about sums it up. My dogs hardly ever succeed in actually killing a rabbit with their teeth as they just do not do enough damage. So if your dog was to bite a human with no inhibition it would obviously do far more damage than if one of mine did the same thing. I was talking about this with a friend earlier and we were saying that if a dog with a good strong bite snaps at a baby while the parents are in the room it could have killed the baby before it is removed whereas a small dog would need to be left to have a few goes at it before it killed it unless it hit very lucky (or should that be unlucky)


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Blitz said:


> I was talking about this with a friend earlier and we were saying that if a dog with a good strong bite snaps at a baby while the parents are in the room it could have killed the baby before it is removed whereas a small dog would need to be left to have a few goes at it before it killed it unless it hit very lucky (or should that be unlucky)


Surely though it doesnt matter about the size of the dog or even wether it has killed someone. All dog attacks should be treated as serious and potentially fatal (Im a worst case scenario person and can always imagine what things can go wrong!:Shy For example a tiny fluffy dog that may cause no serious injury could still scare a child enough to make it run into a busy road or at least be mentally or physically scarred for life even if it couldnt cause fatal damage).

It shouldnt be just about wether a dog could kill someone easily but how their behaviour impacts on society in general. Of course big, scary dog attacks make it into the papers but the impact that out of control, 'snappy' or badly behaved dogs have in general is huge.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Phoenix Rising said:


> Story about a Jack Russell that went for a kid on beach today, owner took off without leaving details, police are looking for a woman not sure if one in photo was one they thought whose dog was responsible or who they thought had seen what had happened.
> 
> http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/g...-russell-dog/story-27666214-detail/story.html
> 
> ...


You might want to check the date on that article....


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

Blitz said:


> I do not think anyone is trying to say that bull breeds are more or less aggressive than any other breed, but if a large dog and particularly a breed that has been bred to want to bite (not just bull breeds) does bite with intent to injure it is bound to cause more damage than a small dog with the same intent. In the same way that a small woman in attack mode is going to cause much less harm than a huge man. It is just common sense.
> 
> Ouesi, your post about your dog dispatching a rabbit with one bite just about sums it up. My dogs hardly ever succeed in actually killing a rabbit with their teeth as they just do not do enough damage. So if your dog was to bite a human with no inhibition it would obviously do far more damage than if one of mine did the same thing. I was talking about this with a friend earlier and we were saying that if a dog with a good strong bite snaps at a baby while the parents are in the room it could have killed the baby before it is removed whereas a small dog would need to be left to have a few goes at it before it killed it unless it hit very lucky (or should that be unlucky)


To me it's much more complex than that though. 
A small woman with fight training can potentially cause a lot more damage than a large man who doesn't know where his limbs are. 
No kidding, I'd rather take a punch from an untrained big guy than a trained little guy wouldn't you? I mean, I'd rather not take a punch at all, but again, size is not everything.

As for your dogs not killing rabbits, Breez (and Bates) are good at killing rabbits because they know how to do it, and that's their intent, not because they have stronger jaws than your poodles. (They do have stronger jaws than your poodles, I'm not disputing that, but that's not why mine kill rabbits and yours don't.) 
Think about it. Think of all the raw feeders out there who have seen their dogs crush bones. Or even better, think of all the rat terriers out there, about the same size as your poodles, who can easily kill rats, sometimes as big as they are!

I know plenty of danes with pathetic prey drive who have by some miracle ended up with prey in their mouth and have absolutely no clue what to do from there. Or maybe they're just not interested in killing whatever they have. Breez gave me a heart attack one day when she was much younger and I saw her outside parading around with our cat in her mouth. The cat was absolutely fine, Breez had managed to pick him up in her jaws and carry him around without injuring him. He was a strange cat anyway, more dog than cat, but anyway, point is, she wasn't trying to hurt him, so she didn't. 
She also loves to torture our one cat who's too stupid not to run from her and she'll chase him just because she can. If she does manage to catch him, she doesn't hurt him. (And yes, if I'm out there, I put a stop to the chasing.) Again, she has no intent to hurt him, so she doesn't.

My point is, dogs have amazing control over their jaws. They also have amazing awareness of where their jaws are, the pressure they're exerting, and even what part they're using. I know you've seen the teeth clacking air snaps that some people think are 'missed' bites, but people like you and I know are not a miss at all but no intent whatsoever of making contact. Just a very strong warning. 
Dogs with good bite inhibition know where their teeth are, know what they have in their mouth, and know how hard they're biting and with what teeth. That's why we have the Dunbar bite scale. Dogs know what they're doing when they bite. A bitchy nip with the incisors can do damage to delicate human skin, but the intent there is entirely different than a bite with canines causing puncture wounds.

And of course you can't discount temperament either. A mellow dog with high tolerance and high thresholds, good warnings and excellent coping skills is always going to be safer than a dog with a flightier temperament, low thresholds, and a poor warning system. Give me a great dane of the former type than a poodle of the latter type any day.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Blitz said:


> In the same way that a small woman in attack mode is going to cause much less harm than a huge man. It is just common sense.


It isn't that simple tho...A small woman could very much cause more damage than the large man...I am a small woman, but I can floor a man if the need arises due to my martial arts experience 

ETA @ouesi got there first lol


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

catz4m8z said:


> It shouldnt be just about wether a dog could kill someone easily but how their behaviour impacts on society in general. Of course big, scary dog attacks make it into the papers but the impact that out of control, 'snappy' or badly behaved dogs have in general is huge.


This is a really good point. 
The fact is, fatal dog attacks are exceedingly rare.
It's much more common for dogs to cause motor vehicle accidents, leash injuries, frighten children or the elderly just by being out of control.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Probably because those are the only ones the press are interested in reporting.


I think the press do the best they can, there are more 'bull breed' news items in the news because the drug dealer type like that type of breed, and the young hard men that let their dogs get aggressive are more of the problem.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

El Cid said:


> I think the press do the best they can, there are more 'bull breed' news items in the news because the drug dealer type like that type of breed, and the young hard men that let their dogs get aggressive are more of the problem.


No...there are more bull breeds in the press because they sell papers and the media couldn't properly identify a breed if their life depended on it..

Other breed attacks do happen, but for the most part the media don't wish to report them!


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

Blitz said:


> I do not think anyone is trying to say that bull breeds are more or less aggressive than any other breed, but if a large dog and particularly a breed that has been bred to want to bite (not just bull breeds) does bite with intent to injure it is bound to cause more damage than a small dog with the same intent. In the same way that a small woman in attack mode is going to cause much less harm than a huge man. It is just common sense.
> 
> Ouesi, your post about your dog dispatching a rabbit with one bite just about sums it up. My dogs hardly ever succeed in actually killing a rabbit with their teeth as they just do not do enough damage. So if your dog was to bite a human with no inhibition it would obviously do far more damage than if one of mine did the same thing. I was talking about this with a friend earlier and we were saying that if a dog with a good strong bite snaps at a baby while the parents are in the room it could have killed the baby before it is removed whereas a small dog would need to be left to have a few goes at it before it killed it unless it hit very lucky (or should that be unlucky)


Did you see the link I posted?

Skip has no trouble dispatching rabbits quickly. He's done it before, quicker than my reaction time! He's also almost killed a cat... That little dog of mine.

If ANY dog bites with intent to injure -it can and will. Skip crunches through bones very often, a child's or even an adult's hand would be no problem at all if the intent was there.

What is this obsession with the size of dog anyway? It doesn't matter! The intent is what matters.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

catz4m8z said:


> Surely though it doesnt matter about the size of the dog or even wether it has killed someone. All dog attacks should be treated as serious and potentially fatal (Im a worst case scenario person and can always imagine what things can go wrong!:Shy For example a tiny fluffy dog that may cause no serious injury could still scare a child enough to make it run into a busy road or at least be mentally or physically scarred for life even if it couldnt cause fatal damage).
> 
> It shouldnt be just about wether a dog could kill someone easily but how their behaviour impacts on society in general. Of course big, scary dog attacks make it into the papers but the impact that out of control, 'snappy' or badly behaved dogs have in general is huge.


Of course not dog should ever bite or threaten anyone regardless of what damage it can do. But it is far more serious when a dog is able to seriously injure or kill someone

Ouesi, my dogs can kill a rat. They shake it, they do not kill it with the force of their bite. They have every intention of killing rabbits and try really hard but they just do not manage it. One of my standard poodles could kill a rabbit effortlessly and would bite their legs or head off and , like your dog , would walk around with a human hand held gently in her mouth. But she was a large dog and had the strength to do damage if she had wanted to - which she never would. My collie who I put a photo up in my old photo thread would not kill rats or rabbits but she would nip children. I took it very very seriously as, even though she would not inflict more than a bruise and possibly slightly broken skin it was not acceptable behaviour and she was not allowed near visiting children. But if she had been a breed whose first bite was likely to do far more than that then it would have been even more serious if she had ever bitten..

And I am not sure the parents of a dead child would say that it was just as bad if a child ended up with a bruise or a fright being snapped at by a small dog.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

Blitz said:


> Of course not dog should ever bite or threaten anyone regardless of what damage it can do. But it is far more serious when a dog is able to seriously injure or kill someone
> 
> Ouesi, my dogs can kill a rat. They shake it, they do not kill it with the force of their bite. They have every intention of killing rabbits and try really hard but they just do not manage it. One of my standard poodles could kill a rabbit effortlessly and would bite their legs or head off and , like your dog , would walk around with a human hand held gently in her mouth. But she was a large dog and had the strength to do damage if she had wanted to - which she never would. My collie who I put a photo up in my old photo thread would not kill rats or rabbits but she would nip children. I took it very very seriously as, even though she would not inflict more than a bruise and possibly slightly broken skin it was not acceptable behaviour and she was not allowed near visiting children. But if she had been a breed whose first bite was likely to do far more than that then it would have been even more serious if she had ever bitten..
> 
> And I am not sure the parents of a dead child would say that it was just as bad if a child ended up with a bruise or a fright being snapped at by a small dog.


Then I guess I just don't understand what point you're trying to make.

Yes of course a larger dog can do more damage, but that doesn't translate to reality any more than we should be more afraid of large men than small women. 
There are so many other factors that go in to whether or not a dog is potentially dangerous, that it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to focus so much on size or breed.


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

Oh, so if I walked up to a random guy on the street and punched him in the face, I shouldn't get in to trouble because I'm only small and can't do as much damage as someone bigger?


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Speaking of bite inhibition:





Dog Carries Kitten Upstairs - YouTube by Sacremist posted 6 minutes ago


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

MiffyMoo said:


> You have spent this whole thread telling us that bull breeds are bad because they hang on; now it has been pointed out that your breed will do as well, you are nit picking


No, I've never said that a Briard wouldn't attack. I think all dogs are capable of attacking what ever their size or breed. It's just that as bull breeds were breed to fight and I think they may be more unpredicable.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Happy Paws said:


> No, I've never said that a Briard wouldn't attack. I think all dogs are capable of attacking what ever their size or breed. It's just that as bull breeds were breed to fight and* I think they may be more unpredicable.*


Unpredictable at what?


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

Happy Paws said:


> No, I've never said that a Briard wouldn't attack. I think all dogs are capable of attacking what ever their size or breed. It's just that as bull breeds were breed to fight and *I think they may be more unpredictable.*


Really?

In what sense?


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Happy Paws said:


> No, I've never said that a Briard wouldn't attack. I think all dogs are capable of attacking what ever their size or breed. It's just that as bull breeds were breed to fight and I think they may be more unpredicable.


You were very insistent on the fact that bull breeds hang on, which is why they are worse than others. The argument was never over whether dogs will attack or not, as we all know that any breed is capable of attacking


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

OK I give up. Going to have a glass of wine and a mars bars.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

El Cid said:


> I think the press do the best they can, there are more 'bull breed' news items in the news because the drug dealer type like that type of breed, and the young hard men that let their dogs get aggressive are more of the problem.


Right so its drug dealing young hard men with bull breeds who are responsible for all the dog attacks on children. Got any statistics/evidence to back that up?


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

Happy Paws said:


> No, I've never said that a Briard wouldn't attack. I think all dogs are capable of attacking what ever their size or breed. It's just that as bull breeds were breed to fight and I think they may be more unpredicable.


Bull breed were not bred to fight
they were bred to help the farmer, by grabbing hold of the ring through the bulls nose, to allow the farmer to bring the bull in and control it
this was in the times, remember, that most bulls lived out with the cows and would defend them, being a lot more roaming and wild than today, rather than modern farming where many cows never even see a bull, just a syringe
This is also where the myth of them locking their jaws comes from, they would be punished/shot, if the bull got away from them, especially if it wounded someone, so would hang on no matter what, until given the command to release
they have no magic abilities to lock their jaws, any more than a chihuahua or a wolfhound has, just a tenacity to please their 'masters'
They were also expected to listen to *their* humans, [emphasis on the their]no matter whom or what age, hence being known, until the last 20 yrs, for their gentleness around children. It was only AFTER the DDA ban [remember three of those breeds werent even in the country when it came into enforce] that nefarious people went into overdrive producing pit-a likes for the 'ard idiots that temperament went right out the window and pockets came into play
bull and bear baiting, whilst occurring, were not as prevalent as modern day mythstorians would have us believe. Bear dancing [along with monkeys] was much more common

The 'pit' in the pitbull, was,originally, a rat pit, where dogs of undetermined parentage [which ALL pitbulls are, they are not a recognised breed in themselves] were 'pitted' against a number of rats, the best being bred with each other to produce the ultimate pit fighter
Again, the most important thing was that they would listen and calm on command, as their owners wouldnt want an out of control dog, it was actually something to be ashamed of, not being able to handle your dog in the pit
Yes bull breeds were used in the mix, but many other breeds were too

I do wish people would do their research into history, rather than listen to mythstory


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

Happy Paws said:


> No, I've never said that a Briard wouldn't attack. I think all dogs are capable of attacking what ever their size or breed. It's just that as bull breeds were breed to fight and I think they may be more unpredicable.


Oh for Pete's sake... 
Do you even know your own breed history? Briards were bred to ward off wolves and used as sentry dogs in war. 
Bull breeds (except boxers) were never bred to guard or fight men. 
Tons of breed have been bred to guard against predators, or outright hunt them and we don't freak out about their breed history.
Look at whippets and greyhounds, bred to chase down prey and kill it. No one freaks out about that. 
Terriers bred to tenaciously hunt rats and kill them, again, no one things that's scary.

Staffies haven't been bred to fight since the 1800 if I know my history. So I think worrying about their breed history, especially given how many breeds are still to this day bred for killing things, is a bit silly at best.

Oh and someone will have to quote me since HP has me on ignore. Or at least says she does.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Poor child  Devastating for his family.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Oh for Pete's sake...
> Do you even know your own breed history? Briards were bred to ward off wolves and used as sentry dogs in war.
> Bull breeds (except boxers) were never bred to guard or fight men.
> Tons of breed have been bred to guard against predators, or outright hunt them and we don't freak out about their breed history.
> ...


great minds


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Lauren5159 said:


> What is this obsession with the size of dog anyway? It doesn't matter! The intent is what matters.


Whoa!

Are you seriously saying that this dog INTENDED to kill a child????????????????????????


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

mrs phas said:


> Bull breed were not bred to fight
> they were bred to help the farmer, by grabbing hold of the ring through the bulls nose, to allow the farmer to bring the bull in and control it
> this was in the times, remember, that most bulls lived out with the cows and would defend them, being a lot more roaming and wild than today, rather than modern farming where many cows never even see a bull, just a syringe
> This is also where the myth of them locking their jaws comes from, they would be punished/shot, if the bull got away from them, especially if it wounded someone, so would hang on no matter what, until given the command to release
> ...


I doubt if many farmers would want their dogs winding up their bulls and turning them into vicious beasts. I cannot even count the number of bulls in a mile radius of me. They are treated with respect but if dog was set on them they would be ruined. All the farmers walk among their cattle every day and with the very odd exception (we have owned one in 30 years) they are totally safe to be close to and to handle if necessary. Just once get a dog to grab their ring and I doubt if you would ever be safe again.


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

smokeybear said:


> Whoa!
> 
> Are you seriously saying that this dog INTENDED to kill a child????????????????????????


I don't know what the dog did or did not intend to do.

I don't know the circumstances but for all we know, the dog may well have intended to seriously harm the child.

What I meant was, whether the intent was to kill or to harm, or just the intent to get the child away, it doesn't really matter -a child died.

Intent can be anything and vary in levels of intensity. No, I didn't say the dog intended to kill the child.

If a chihuahua had the intent to kill someone, just because it may not be able to, doesn't make it any less worrying.

ETA: When I said the intent is what matters, I was speaking generally. I didn't say that was this dog's intent. Don't know where you got that assumption from.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

Blitz said:


> I doubt if many farmers would want their dogs winding up their bulls and turning them into vicious beasts. I cannot even count the number of bulls in a mile radius of me. They are treated with respect but if dog was set on them they would be ruined. All the farmers walk among their cattle every day and with the very odd exception (we have owned one in 30 years) they are totally safe to be close to and to handle if necessary. Just once get a dog to grab their ring and I doubt if you would ever be safe again.


educate yourself, im talking about 100's of years ago not 30
another mythstorian


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Lauren5159 said:


> I don't know what the dog did or did not intend to do.
> 
> I don't know the circumstances but for all we know, the dog may well have intended to seriously harm the child.
> 
> ...


I did not assume anything, you stated that it was the INTENT of the dog that mattered not its size.

No, it is not.

It is the IMPACT that matters.

Someone who punches another in a fight, rarely INTENDS to kill them.

The fact is, that someone often does die.

That is why there is the distinction between murder and manslaughter.

Whether or not it was the INTENT that a child died, is irrelevant.

It is the IMPACT of the actions of the dog that matters.

It is doubtful if anyone, can determine the intent of dogs in this situation.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

mrs phas said:


> educate yourself, im talking about 100's of years ago not 30
> another mythstorian


maybe you should educate yourself actually. It is far more likely that bulldogs (not other bull breeds) were used for bull baiting which was made illegal nearly 200 years ago. They were bred with the shape of jaw and nose so that they could grip the bull's nose and not let go. They did not do it out of fear of being shot! and they were not controlling a bull for the farmer but baiting the bull for sport. So in actual fact they were bred so that they could clamp their jaw and not let go!


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

Blitz said:


> So in actual fact they were bred so that they could clamp their jaw and not let go!


yawn!! clamp jaws arguement is sooooo boring

bit like poodles were only bred to be lapdogs
never used for retrieving or police work, on farms, etc [ive seen standards working in france and germany]

see myths work for many breeds


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

smokeybear said:


> I did not assume anything, you stated that it was the INTENT of the dog that mattered not its size.
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> ...


Haha, in the massive cluster that is this thread, I'm not going to spend my night trying to justify what I said.

In my eyes -talking about dogs- if a dog intends to kill someone, but doesn't -it doesn't make the behaviour any less worrying.

The IMPACT (I know you love capitals) may be different due to a few factors, but the INTENT is what mostly matters to me, when talking about dogs in general.

Someone gets bitten by their dog who was after its toy. Depending on size and strength of the dog, as well as other factors, the IMPACT can vary. But the INTENT wasn't to harm the person. That'd be called an accident.

A highly prey-driven dog chases a child, let's say but doesn't get it. Again, depending on size and strength alongside other factors, the IMPACT can vary but the INTENT was to harm... Would that outcome also be classed as accident because the impact was lesser?

Again, I'm talking about dogs.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Lauren5159 said:


> Haha, in the massive cluster that is this thread, I'm not going to spend my night trying to justify what I said.
> 
> In my eyes -talking about dogs- if a dog intends to kill someone, but doesn't -it doesn't make the behaviour any less worrying.
> 
> ...


How do you ascertain whether or not a dog INTENDS to kill someone.

What are the measurable criteria?


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

smokeybear said:


> How do you ascertain whether or not a dog INTENDS to kill someone.
> 
> What are the measurable criteria?


I didn't say any dog intended to kill anyone.

ETA: I think you're referring to my previous post in which I was specifically talking in regards to small dogs and the excuse that because they're small and can't inflict too much damage, whatever they do is okay.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Too funny...................................


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

mrs phas said:


> Bull breed were not bred to fight


Since we're trying to educate here, forgive me for clarifying that yes, bull breeds were bred to fight other dogs.
Not initially. The bullenbaiser dogs that predated many of the bull-breeds we know today were indeed bred to help the butcher with the stock. 
As we humans tend to do, competition sprung up among dog owners to see who's dog was the best worker, this competition eventually morphed in to the bloodsport of bull-baiting, where yes, dogs were prized for the strength of their bite force and hold. 
Though this is not at all unique to bull-breeds, there are many breeds still today who are specifically bred for a strong bite or a certain type of bite.

When bull baiting became illegal in the early 1800's bull baiting enthusiasts tried to go underground but it was pretty hard to hide a bull baiting match. 
At the time ratting contests were also popular, where a pit was filled with rats, terrier dropped in to the pit, and the dog who killed the most rats in the least amount of time would win. The bull baiters decided to cross their dogs with the ratting dogs and create a new sport - dog fighting. (Actually not really new, dog fighting has been going on in some form or another since humans have had dogs and testosterone.)
Anyway, eventually a new breed sprung up, a cross of the bull baiting dogs and the pit terriers and this breed was often fought (though not always, they were still primarily working dogs). Hence the pit-bull-terrier.

These prized dogs were what the early immigrants brought to the US which eventually became the American pit bull terrier. A breed that yes, was sometimes fought, but was primarily a versatile and adaptable working dog who could help bring in the stock, guard against predators, hunt, pull carts, or just hang out with the family.

But again, just because a breed was bred to fight other dogs doesn't mean they're any more dangerous than breeds bred to do all sorts of bloody and aggressive jobs we have asked of dogs for millennia.


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

I found this - if of interest but stats refer to USA only from 1982 to 2014:

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics.php

I may try to see if there is a similar stats page for UK.


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

ChristineJ21 said:


> I found this - if of interest but stats refer to USA only from 1982 to 2014:
> 
> http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics.php
> 
> I may try to see if there is a similar stats page for UK.


And this seems to be a response/rebuff:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8112394


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

ChristineJ21 said:


> I found this - if of interest but stats refer to USA only from 1982 to 2014:
> 
> http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics.php
> 
> I may try to see if there is a similar stats page for UK.


That site you linked is an anti-pitbull, pro BSL propaganda site.

The CDC (Center For Disease Control) in the US keeps good dog bite records, by law all dog bites requiring medical intervention are required to be reported by the medical personnel that tends to the injury. 
The CDC has determined that not only is it difficult to determine breed, but that breed does not factor in to potential for biting.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

mrs phas said:


> Bull breed were not bred to fight
> they were bred to help the farmer, by grabbing hold of the ring through the bulls nose, to allow the farmer to bring the bull in and control it
> *I do wish people would do their research into history, rather than listen to mythstory*


*OK research done.
*

*History*
Bred originally for Bull-Baiting, the national dog of Great Britain, the Bulldog is a magnificent animal, as courageous as he is affectionate.

Bulldogs have been known as a distinct breed in the UK since the 1630's, although there is earlier reference to dogs called Ban dogs, a term used today for the fighting dogs.

Bull-Baiting became illegal in 1835 and the Bulldog began to wane in popularity as he did not have the speed to make a good fighter. The breed at the time was a much fiercer animal, longer in the leg and pretty mean-looking. However, with his withdrawal from the fighting pits, the Bulldog was taken up by fanciers who bred for temperament and looks and he made his first appearance in the show ring in 1860.


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

ouesi said:


> That site you linked is an anti-pitbull, pro BSL propaganda site.
> 
> The CDC (Center For Disease Control) in the US keeps good dog bite records, by law all dog bites requiring medical intervention are required to be reported by the medical personnel that tends to the injury.
> The CDC has determined that not only is it difficult to determine breed, but that breed does not factor in to potential for biting.


Yes it does seem as if there is a whole load of contradictory opinions out there. The Sun (fwiw) says in UK it is jack russells:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/n...cops-list-of-dogs-most-likely-to-bite-humans/

There doesn't seem to be a clear cut consensus as yet - or even particularly verifiable stats, which one would have thought would be easily available!


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

mrs phas said:


> Bull breed were not bred to fight
> they were bred to help the farmer, by grabbing hold of the ring through the bulls nose, to allow the farmer to bring the bull in and control it
> 
> *I do wish people would do their research into history, rather than listen to mythstory*


*A little more research *

http://englishbulldog.net/the-history-of-bulldogs-and-bull-baiting.html


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2016)

ChristineJ21 said:


> There doesn't seem to be a clear cut consensus as yet - or even particularly verifiable stats, which one would have thought would be easily available!


There are good statistics on dog bites. 
We know children are most likely to be bitten.
We know children are most likely to be bitten by dogs they know, either that they live with or have previous experience with.
We know chained dogs and dogs who live outdoors or kenneled and not as part of the family unit are more likely to bite.

We also know that the breed does not factor in....


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Right so its drug dealing young hard men with bull breeds who are responsible for all the dog attacks on children. Got any statistics/evidence to back that up?


This is what the police say - """Generally, the people who get these dangerous breeds get them to reinforce their status, to guard and protect or to fight."""


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2016)

Can someone explain to me why HP is doing research on bulldogs when her original comments were about staffies and the dog in question is an AmBull which is most definitely not a British Bulldog?

I'm so confused!



El Cid said:


> This is what the police say - """Generally, the people who get these dangerous breeds get them to reinforce their status, to guard and protect or to fight."""


Is this "the police" who say this, or "a police officer"? And do you have a source?
BTW who are "these" dangerous breeds?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

El Cid said:


> This is what the police say - """Generally, the people who get these dangerous breeds get them to reinforce their status, to guard and protect or to fight."""


I'm not disputing that some people get dogs of various breeds to reinforce their status or to guard or to fight - I was disputing this comment you made earlier

I think the press do the best they can, there are more 'bull breed' news items in the news because the drug dealer type like that type of breed, and the young hard men that let their dogs get aggressive are more of the problem.

I don't see how young men who "let their dogs get aggressive" can be blamed for the number of fatal dog attacks on children in their own or friend's/relative's homes.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Can someone explain to me why HP is doing research on bulldogs when her original comments were about staffies and the dog in question is an AmBull which is most definitely not a British Bulldog?


She seems to have got confused throughout and changed the argument a few times


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Happy Paws said:


> *OK research done.
> *
> 
> *History*
> ...


Umm quoting Champdogs word for word does not research make 

You may want to research the right breed too...


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

mrs phas said:


> yawn!! clamp jaws arguement is sooooo boring
> 
> bit like poodles were only bred to be lapdogs
> never used for retrieving or police work, on farms, etc [ive seen standards working in france and germany]
> ...


I am sorry you dont like it but bulldogs were bred with a certain shape of jaw and nose so that they were able to hold on to a bull better. FACT. That shape has been exaggerated so much it is a wonder they can hold on to their dinner now.
As for poodles, I think a standard poodle would find it hard to be a lapdog, do you have any idea how big they are. My first bitch had relatives that were working as gundogs and she would have made a great gun dog. She had a lovely point and a very soft mouth.



Lauren5159 said:


> I didn't say any dog intended to kill anyone.
> 
> ETA: I think you're referring to my previous post in which I was specifically talking in regards to small dogs and the excuse that because they're small and can't inflict too much damage, whatever they do is okay.


Of course a small dog biting is not OK. Where has anyone said that. But it is just common sense that they are less likely to inflict serious damage or death.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Happy Paws said:


> However, with his withdrawal from the fighting pits, the Bulldog was taken up by fanciers *who bred for temperament* and looks


How many bull breed 'types' around today have been carefully bred for temperament? Sad as it may be they are the _type_ used in dog fighting and this is bound to have an effect on public perception.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2016)

havoc said:


> How many bull breed 'types' around today have been carefully bred for temperament? Sad as it may be they are the _type_ used in dog fighting and this is bound to have an effect on public perception.


How many dogs of any breed are bred for temperament?

The sad reality is ignorant and unethical breeders abound and knowledgeable, ethical breeders are in the minority - this is true of ALL breeds, crosses and mutts, not just bull breeds.

That dogs are in general as poorly bred as they are and that despite this, we still have so relatively few incidents of dog bites is a testament to the true nature of dogs.


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

To be fair, our previous Bulldog was crap at bullbaiting.









Haven't got time to say anything else, I've got to take Bradley out to sell drugs :Hilarious


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> Umm quoting Champdogs word for word does not research make
> 
> You may want to research the right breed too...





Happy Paws said:


> I was looking at the history of the Endlish Bull Dog.
> 
> *A little more research *
> 
> http://englishbulldog.net/the-history-of-bulldogs-and-bull-baiting.html


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't see how young men who "let their dogs get aggressive" can be blamed for the number of fatal dog attacks on children in their own or friend's/relative's homes.


I am not sure what you are saying. We can either blame to dogs, as they can all be dangerous; or we can blame the owners.

I believe certain breeds are in the news more, because a certain type of person buys a dog as a status symbol and for protection. Dog attacks happen more in deprived areas.

""Emma Bennett, 27 - Bennett was pregnant when attacked by the family's two pitbull-type dogs at her home in Leeds in December 2013. She suffered severe injuries to her face and head. Her partner, Lee Horner, 34, was given a community order and told to do 280 hours of unpaid work after admitting that he owned dogs prohibited by the DDA.""

A very mild punishment, but a very severe punishment if it was his family that suffered.


----------



## Picklelily (Jan 2, 2013)

Gemmaa said:


> To be fair, our previous Bulldog was crap at bullbaiting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


to be fair he looks so chilled out I think he may have eaten your drug supplies


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

El Cid said:


> I am not sure what you are saying. We can either blame to dogs, as they can all be dangerous; or we can blame the owners.
> 
> I believe certain breeds are in the news more, because a certain type of person buys a dog as a status symbol and for protection. Dog attacks happen more in deprived areas.
> 
> ...


I'm saying I don't see the connection between young men who keep so called "status dogs" for protection and fatal dog attacks on children. Take a look at this article from the BBC. Most of these attacks were by the family pet not by a so called "status dog".

In 2014, six-day-old Eliza-Mae Mullane died from head injuries after she was bitten by the family's Alaskan Malamute - a dog which had never shown any signs of aggression. In Eliza-Mae's case, the coroner later said the incident "could not possibly have been foreseen".

Harry Harper, who was eight days old, died in hospital in 2013 after being bitten by his grandparents' dog in Telford. The investigating police officer said the family "had an unblemished history of caring for and controlling many dogs over a period of many years".

Chillingly, Det Insp Phil Shakesheff of West Mercia Police added: "There is no evidence to suggest that the death of Harry is anything other than a tragic incident that can't be ruled out from occurring in any other dog-owning household where children are present".

Four-year-old Lexi Branston was killed in 2013 by a rescue dog who'd previously been "very sweet natured" with a "lovely temperament".

*Yet despite dog attacks like these making headline news, a recent survey suggests nearly half of parents would leave a child under the age of 11 alone with a dog, and 12% would leave a child under five alone with a dog.*

More than half of children questioned "thought a growling dog was 'smiling'".

Dog bites to children are so dangerous because they're most likely to be to the head and face, according to research published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). Bleeding to death after the carotid artery [in the neck] is severed is the most common reason for child dog attack fatalities.

Dogs Trust education officer Anna Baatz says children "must understand that a dog is not a toy".

"Simply understanding when a dog says 'enough' can be the difference between a bite or not."

Adrian Burder from the charity says: "Pulling his tail, sitting on him, disturbing his sleep and kissing his nose are just some of the antagonising ways children act around dogs. The simple fact is that all dogs have teeth and any dog can bite or snap if worried, scared or hurt.

"There is no escaping the hard fact that dog attacks are on the rise and, worryingly, the rate of hospital admissions for dog bites is highest among the 0-9 age group. 1,160 children were hospitalised during 2013-2014".

Why has there been an increase?

Although figures for the specific breeds responsible for each hospital admission are not available, police in Nottinghamshire, where the seizure of banned breeds and dangerous legal breeds has increased eightfold in the past three years, say they believe it's largely due to "irresponsible backstreet breeding".

There are more dangerous dogs in the country - therefore there will be more attacks.

So how can attacks on children be prevented?

"You can educate children so they don't annoy dogs," says animal behaviourist Ed Adams.

"Dogs are living creatures that think, feel and get frightened just like us. If they're scared or worried or feel trapped in a corner it can be a trigger".

Mr Adams suggests "getting a dog used to the idea" when parents are expecting a baby, for example by gradually introducing new equipment to the home and buying a CD of baby sounds.

"Owning a dog is wonderful and rewarding, but remember even the smallest, cutest and cuddliest dog can bite if they feel they have no other options or are provoked.

"The majority of bites happen in the home with family dogs or with dogs that are well known. Even though you might know a dog, and think that they would never hurt anyone, you still need to take steps to ensure that your children are safe.

"Never ever leave a child alone with a dog. Ever."


----------



## Picklelily (Jan 2, 2013)

All of the knee jerk reactions and arguments on which breed does what doesn't help the situation at all.

We in the UK need to stop the panicked knee jerk reaction to dog attacks, yes I know this is easily said and not so easily done.

Invariably this dog will be rightfully euthanised but in my opinion, this is done too quickly, we need to create a properly trained dog attack forensic team who examine the dog behaviourally taking it back to the scene and working through what the triggers may have been.

The dogs background, breeding, training and the way it was raised need to be investigated

Once the dog is euthanised we need a full postmortem.

The team should be doing this for any life changing serious dog bite and collating the research to help prevent this happening in future.

B.S.L and blaming specific breeds just moves us further away from educating and legislating for "ALL" human beings to safely and happily keep dogs.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> There are more dangerous dogs in the country - therefore there will be more attacks.


Liverpool police revealed last year that Jack Russell terriers were responsible for the most dog bites in the city. I do not believe that is the biggest issue for the Government.

Labrador Retriever is the most popular breed in the USA, yet topping the list of deaths by dog in a twenty year period is the Pit Bull and Pit Bull mix at 66 human deaths.
More than double any other breed.

http://www.streetdirectory.com/trav...og_breeds_are_more_likely_to_kill_people.html


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

El Cid said:


> Liverpool police revealed last year that Jack Russell terriers were responsible for the most dog bites in the city. I do not believe that is the biggest issue for the Government.
> 
> Labrador Retriever is the most popular breed in the USA, yet topping the list of deaths by dog in a twenty year period is the Pit Bull and Pit Bull mix at 66 human deaths.
> More than double any other breed.
> ...


And I wonder just how many of those actually WERE pit bulls or pit bull mixes...


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Sarah1983 said:


> And I wonder just how many of those actually WERE pit bulls or pit bull mixes...


There will be some room for error, as the information is not recent too; the the pit bull type dog was twice as likely to kill, not just a little more dangerous, but a lot.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

El Cid said:


> Liverpool police revealed last year that Jack Russell terriers were responsible for the most dog bites in the city. I do not believe that is the biggest issue for the Government.
> 
> Labrador Retriever is the most popular breed in the USA, yet topping the list of deaths by dog in a twenty year period is the Pit Bull and Pit Bull mix at 66 human deaths.
> More than double any other breed.
> ...


So what in your opinion is the biggest issue for the government in terms of dog legislation? do you agree with breed specific legislation?


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2016)

El Cid said:


> There will be some room for error, as the information is not recent too; the the pit bull type dog was twice as likely to kill, not just a little more dangerous, but a lot.


I'm sure you have reliable facts to back this statement up


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So what in your opinion is the biggest issue for the government in terms of dog legislation? do you agree with breed specific legislation?


No, rules need to be placed on the owners of dogs.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

El Cid said:


> No, rules need to be placed on the owners of dogs.


Well yes that is what we are all saying - owners of ALL dogs not just owners of certain breeds of dogs. Why the hang up on breeds then?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

El Cid said:


> No, rules need to be placed on the owners of dogs.


What dogs? Are you talking about Bull Breeds?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

El Cid said:


> No, rules need to be placed on the owners of dogs.


What sort of rules?

Where should the line be drawn?

Or will these rules only apply to people who choose to have certain breeds, regardless of their reasons (let's face it, there is no specific demographic for having bull breeds or so called 'status' dogs- it's not just the 'chav' the media would have people believe- I'm a tiny, bespectacled nerdwoman with a Rottweiler mix) for having those breeds?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

simplysardonic said:


> I'm a tiny, bespectacled nerdwoman with a Rottweiler mix


I'm a tiny bespectacled woman with a GSD and yes, I do think I have a greater responsibility for his training and supervision than if I had a small lapdog. I don't like seeing ill behaved small dogs with no training, of course I don't but the potential for my dog to cause serious harm is greater if something does go wrong. Size does matter, size relative to the victim definitely matters. There's no way a grown man would have died a few days before this child if he'd been set upon by a Yorkie.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

havoc said:


> I'm a tiny bespectacled woman with a GSD and yes, I do think I have a greater responsibility for his training and supervision than if I had a small lapdog. I don't like seeing ill behaved small dogs with no training, of course I don't but the potential for my dog to cause serious harm is greater if something does go wrong. Size does matter, size relative to the victim definitely matters. There's no way a grown man would have died a few days before this child if he'd been set upon by a Yorkie.


Didnt he have a heart attack as a result of the attack, rather than actually being killed by the dog?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Nonnie said:


> Didnt he have a heart attack as a result of the attack, rather than actually being killed by the dog?


Would he have done so if it had been a tiny dog? Would a small dog have managed to inflict the same injuries and shock which led to his death hours later?


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

havoc said:


> Would he have done so if it had been a tiny dog?


Well, you dont have to to be injured to have a heart attack - so possibly. Depends on his stress levels, overall health, physical exertion in getting away from the dog etc.

I actually cant find where i read it now, so might not be the case anyway.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I don't think there's any doubt that a large, powerful Breed could potentially do more harm during an attack than a small Breed.

However, there appears to be a belief amongst some on this thread that the large Breeds are more likely to attack than the small ones.

Why would a Bull Breed be more likely to be human aggressive than would a Fox Terrier?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Sweety said:


> However, there appears to be a belief amongst some on this thread that the large Breeds are more likely to attack than the small ones.


I'm definitely not saying that - obviously I wouldn't because I love large dogs but part of my responsibility is to understand the potential in my dog to cause harm.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

havoc said:


> I'm definitely not saying that - obviously I wouldn't because I love large dogs but part of my responsibility is to understand the potential in my dog to cause harm.


But all dogs can cause harm, a little dog might run out in front of a cyclist and cause them to fall off their bikes and break a bone, a little dog might bite the hand of a person reaching out to stroke them and severe an artery or a tendon resulting in permanent disability. Surely we should be encouraging owners of all breeds of dog and all sizes of dog to socialise, train and control them. However as a lot of the fatal attacks particularly against children seem to happen in the home and have included attacks by smaller dogs (a JRT is quite large to a baby) surely we also need to focus on education of parents and children on safety. There is an interesting thread on this very subject in T & B at the moment.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

havoc said:


> I'm a tiny bespectacled woman with a GSD and yes, I do think I have a greater responsibility for his training and supervision than if I had a small lapdog. I don't like seeing ill behaved small dogs with no training, of course I don't but the potential for my dog to cause serious harm is greater if something does go wrong. Size does matter, size relative to the victim definitely matters. There's no way a grown man would have died a few days before this child if he'd been set upon by a Yorkie.


I never disputed our responsibilities as large dog owners, having had 3 GSDs over the years myself 

I'd just like to know what these restrictions are that El Cid was talking about, being a dog owner themselves I wonder if they'd be so vociferous if it was their own breed in the firing line.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I'm ready and waiting for GSDs to become one of the breeds 'in the firing line'. In a way he's already there in terms of public perception. I've had the ridiculous situation of a tiny dog on an extendable lead yapping round his feet with the owner thinking it's 'dead cute' until he eventually responded with a single bark - not a snap, a bark. At that point I was told I needed to keep my dog under control. He'd remained still by my side throughout but was seen as the bad guy because of breed.


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

ouesi said:


> There are good statistics on dog bites.
> We know children are most likely to be bitten.
> We know children are most likely to be bitten by dogs they know, either that they live with or have previous experience with.
> We know chained dogs and dogs who live outdoors or kenneled and not as part of the family unit are more likely to bite.
> ...


I wonder where that leaves my dog - chained pretty much for the first seven years of his life, lived permanently outdoors on the chain but with shelter from stables apparently .... not chained now at all and an indoor dog (in fact a heat-seeking missile ... hates the cold, happiest to be snuggled up to the hottest radiator in the winter).

I was informed that he had bitten a vet in France on the hand ... I have never seen him bite anything here except for wasps which he seems to like to try to eat.

In fact, when he first arrived I bought him a toy - it looked a bit like a badger and had a squeak, the first time it squeaked he dropped it in complete alarm - leapt away and then came back and pushed it gently with his nose then never really wanted to play with it again.

He is a BIG dog, but he seems very gentle with all other animals --- he is friendly to other dogs, ignores cows, sheep, geese completely. But he is a very big dog, with a huge mouth and he doesn't really listen to me. He is well-behaved, doesn't chew furniture, eat food that is not his, annoy people and he likes the postman in fact he likes anyone that walks in the gate. I don't know - I suppose at base it comes back to the same thing: I am not used to having a dog that is so independent, that doesn't listen to me. I just find it unsettling at the back of my mind that he doesn't fully trust me to obey me and is also that large - although he has done nothing to elicit suspicion or worry.

He behaves perfectly well but it is all his choice, his temperament - not obedience. And he air-snapped at me once when I was trying to get a tick off him. I don't know - he is a very good dog on so many levels but he is big and he doesn't listen ...... or rather he listens but not when he doesn't want to - and so I equally feel wary of fully trusting him.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm saying I don't see the connection between young men who keep so called "status dogs" for protection and fatal dog attacks on children. Take a look at this article from the BBC. Most of these attacks were by the family pet not by a so called "status dog".
> 
> In 2014, six-day-old Eliza-Mae Mullane died from head injuries after she was bitten by the family's Alaskan Malamute - a dog which had never shown any signs of aggression. In Eliza-Mae's case, the coroner later said the incident "could not possibly have been foreseen".
> 
> ...


All this, "the dog was lovely previously" stuff - it worries me! Though I would probably have avoided it on principle, I would have had zero hesitation in leaving any child with my last dog but I would never, ever even consider leaving a child with my new rescue/rehome not for any amount of time (despite the fact he seems particularly good with children), I think it is one of the biggest downsides of getting a rescue is that you can't change their past. I sort of wish I had thought more about that before I got a rehome .... I wouldn't get another rescue again. I far prefer to have had the dog from a puppy and then you all know where you stand and what is expected rather than trying to impose new norms on an old dog.

But what to do? I have a big dog. A rescue/rehome who is independent-minded, who seems to have a gentle temperament but who does not always listen to me, who is aloof by nature ...... I can bribe him (sometimes) but how to MAKE him obey. It just isn't going to happen so what is the answer? Probably the best thing for him would be to be back in a kennel with 30 others of his breed being taken out twice a week for the chasse. Otherwise with very limited human interaction - maybe I will have to think about it.

I know the statistic was disputed but I find this 'rise' in dog attacks of a purported 76% worrying. Why should that be? Could the new training methods something to do with this (not trying to be antagonistic but in days gone past dogs were definitely dogs rather than spoiled equals)?

Is it really just that there are more aggressive owners/more dogs are owned? Is there some more specific factor behind the rise. I don't know ... I never did dominance theory with my last dog, I didn't have to --- B looked to me for all instructions just naturally it seemed from a position of love and trust (or so it seemed to me). G, for him, I am an enabler (opener of gates and feeder of food) but nothing much more than that. Very tricky. All the restraint in the world/or management is not sufficient it seems if the dog is not bonded to you - at 38kgs of pure muscle if he chose, he could pull any leash from any hand. That he doesn't, that he doesn't attack other dogs, that he is non-aggressive is simply fortunate. I don't think dominance would ever work with him anyway but a little bit more concern to respond to me/my commands, to trust me - would be useful!


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2016)

El Cid said:


> Liverpool police revealed last year that Jack Russell terriers were responsible for the most dog bites in the city. I do not believe that is the biggest issue for the Government.
> 
> Labrador Retriever is the most popular breed in the USA, yet topping the list of deaths by dog in a twenty year period is the Pit Bull and Pit Bull mix at 66 human deaths.
> More than double any other breed.
> ...


Stop and think about these stats you're quoting. 
Pit bulls and pit bull mixes are involved in more human deaths than any other breed.
But no other breed counts the mixes of that breed!

So when a lab bites it's counted as a lab bite.
When a labX bites it's counted as a mixed breed bite.
When a pit bull bites it's counted as a pitbull bite.
But also counted with the pit bull is the labXpitbull.

Does you not see how ridiculously skewed that makes the statistics?

A dog I know, samoyedXchow, bit a woman, shredded her arm and multiple puncture wounds all over her body, had to be driven by ambulance to the hospital, stayed there 3 days. The bite was recorded as a mixed breed bite.
Had that been my mutt of unknown origin who happens to look like a pitbull, guess what that would have been recorded as?

Also, don't forget, the victim is often the one who determines the breed. IOW if I go to the hospital with a bite injury and say it was a pitbull, that's what gets recorded.

Pit bulls are very numerous in the US and they do account for human fatalities, but not to the extent those statistics would have you believe. 
Most "pitbull" attacks are actually mixed breed dogs of unknown origin who just happen to look a certain way.

Probably most importantly though, in cities and communities where pitbulls have been banned, the number of dog bites and fatalities has not gone down...



Sweety said:


> However, there appears to be a belief amongst some on this thread that the large Breeds are more likely to attack than the small ones.


Yes, it seems that way to me too 
That's why I tried to emphasize the importance of temperament, just general tolerance levels, thresholds, bite inhibition... There is so much that goes in to what makes a dog safe or not...

The vast majority of dogs go their entire lives never laying a tooth on anyone. Often despite ridiculously bad treatment and handling. Dogs of ALL breeds.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

havoc said:


> I'm ready and waiting for GSDs to become one of the breeds 'in the firing line'. In a way he's already there in terms of public perception. I've had the ridiculous situation of a tiny dog on an extendable lead yapping round his feet with the owner thinking it's 'dead cute' until he eventually responded with a single bark - not a snap, a bark. At that point I was told I needed to keep my dog under control. He'd remained still by my side throughout but was seen as the bad guy because of breed.


I can well remember them being in the firing line in to 1980s, in the 90s the media hysteria moved on to Rotties & bull breeds.

I've had considerably more unpleasant comments about my Rottie mix from the general public than the GSDs put together.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

simplysardonic said:


> I've had considerably more unpleasant comments about my Rottie mix


Is that because of the breed or because we are just living in a different time now? Decades ago there was a different tolerance, an idea that dogs should be forgiven one bite. I'm not sure if GSDs have ever been involved in a fatal attack on a child whereas I'm pretty sure Rotties have much as it was some years ago so maybe that has something to do with it. We may know we'd never allow such a thing to happen with our dogs but I'm not going to get upset with the public for their generalities any more than I'd react to the media for speculating on the breed when something awful happens. Discussions on forums aren't legislation.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ChristineJ21 said:


> I wonder where that leaves my dog - chained pretty much for the first seven years of his life, lived permanently outdoors on the chain but with shelter from stables apparently .... not chained now at all and an indoor dog (in fact a heat-seeking missile ... hates the cold, happiest to be snuggled up to the hottest radiator in the winter).
> 
> I was informed that he had bitten a vet in France on the hand ... I have never seen him bite anything here except for wasps which he seems to like to try to eat.
> 
> ...


I think its a total misconception that having had a dog since a puppy means you can totally predict how it will behave in any given situation. That creates a false sense of security. The dog may for instance be ill, in pain or frightened by something else - a thunder storm or loud work going on outside then along comes junior and doesn't read the dog's signals that it doesn't want to play right now. You say the "dog was lovely previously" stuff worries you but that is surely exactly what you would have been saying about your previous dog that you would have had zero hesitation leaving your child with if something had happened and it had bitten. Most people "think" they can trust their own dog with their own children and 9 times out of 10 they are probably right but sometimes circumstances stack up and a previously tolerant dog suddenly isn't anymore.

Join the club - one of my pointers is an independent dog with a high prey drive who previously "worked" and also previously lived as a stray, I'm not sure how that relates to whether or not the dog is safe with children? You can't make him obey you have to try and find a way to get him interested and want to work with you and until that happens keep him on a long line. Our boy Arthur did eventually bond with my OH and work with him to whistle commands but he still went AWOL too many times so is not longer let off the lead. Prey drive and safety around children are completely different issues.

As to why there are more attacks these days - I suspect a lot more get reported and also a lot more people call something an attack that years ago we would have shrugged off as just a dog misbehaving. The more serious attacks where children have been killed I don't know the answer - this case it would appear the dog was kept outside in a sort of covered outhouse, a previous case involving rotties they were kept on the pub roof etc. I'm not aware of any statistics that show rescue dogs are any more likely to be involved in these cases than dogs that have been owned from pups but I'm open to reading them if anyone has any.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

havoc said:


> Is that because of the breed or because we are just living in a different time now? Decades ago there was a different tolerance, an idea that dogs should be forgiven one bite. I'm not sure if GSDs have ever been involved in a fatal attack on a child whereas I'm pretty sure Rotties have much as it was some years ago so maybe that has something to do with it.


I have no idea what the reasons are TBH, I don't know of any GSD related deaths in the UK, but there was a little girl killed by 2 Rottweilers, so maybe.

Interestingly my husband has never had any negative comments when he takes Bob out, so whether people just feel more confident fronting up to a woman because she's less than 5ft tall I don't know!


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

simplysardonic said:


> so whether people just feel more confident fronting up to a woman because she's less than 5ft tall I don't know!


Suspect that just might have something to do with it


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2016)

havoc said:


> Is that because of the breed or because we are just living in a different time now? Decades ago there was a different tolerance, an idea that dogs should be forgiven one bite.


I'd say it's the opposite. I think in general people are far more forgiving of bad and dangerous behavior in dogs now that they were "back in the day". 
I mean there is a whole book titled "Don't Shoot the Dog". That's not being inflammatory, that's exactly what used to happen to dogs who crossed the line, sometimes with just a growl. 
Like I said earlier on this thread, there seems to be far MORE tolerance for iffy temperaments now that there were before. I can remember hearing old time breeders talking about bucketing pups who weren't good examples of the breed, not just physically, but in temperament as well. You know what bucketing is right? Kill by drowning.

Not that I'm for a minute advocating bucketing or shooting dogs, just saying I don't think it's a case of less tolerance, but more tolerance (and excuses) for dangerous behavior.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Well yes that is what we are all saying - owners of ALL dogs not just owners of certain breeds of dogs. Why the hang up on breeds then?


Do I have a hang-up about breeds, I dont think so.

Rules need to be placed on owners, but the people in power do NOT want to do that. So should we exempt certain breeds or owners.
The large and bigger bite dogs are more of a danger than a pensioner with a small dog.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

El Cid said:


> Do I have a hang-up about breeds, I dont think so.
> 
> Rules need to be placed on owners, but the people in power do NOT want to do that. So should we exempt certain breeds or owners.
> The large and bigger bike dogs are more of a danger than a pensioner with a small dog.


What's a Bike Dog?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

So here are some of the posts you have made on this thread



El Cid said:


> This is what the police say - """Generally, the people who get* these dangerous breeds* get them to reinforce their status, to guard and protect or to fight."""


In the following quote the only example you give is of a pitbull type dogs


El Cid said:


> I am not sure what you are saying. We can either blame to dogs, as they can all be dangerous; or we can blame the owners.
> 
> I believe certain breeds are in the news more, because a certain type of person buys a dog as a status symbol and for protection. Dog attacks happen more in deprived areas.
> 
> ...


In this post you are quoting Jack Russell terriers and then pit bulls again.



El Cid said:


> Liverpool police revealed last year that Jack Russell terriers were responsible for the most dog bites in the city. I do not believe that is the biggest issue for the Government.
> 
> Labrador Retriever is the most popular breed in the USA, yet topping the list of deaths by dog in a twenty year period is the Pit Bull and Pit Bull mix at 66 human deaths.
> More than double any other breed.
> ...


Here you are again stating the pit bull type dog is twice as likely to kill, not just a little more dangerous but a lot you say.



El Cid said:


> There will be some room for error, as the information is not recent too; the the pit bull type dog was twice as likely to kill, not just a little more dangerous, but a lot.





El Cid said:


> *Do I have a hang-up about breeds, I dont think so.*
> 
> Rules need to be placed on owners, but the people in power do NOT want to do that. So should we exempt certain breeds or owners.
> The large and bigger bike dogs are more of a danger than a pensioner with a small dog.


So yes I would say you do have a hang up about breeds. What sort of rules would you like to see placed on owners other than those that already exist making it an offence to have a dog dangerously out of control in a public or private place with prison sentences for the worst offenders?

Sorry I do not understand your last statement about large and bigger bike dogs being more of a danger than a pensioner with a small dog because a) I have no idea what a bike dog is and b) I don't understand how whether the owner is a pensioner or not affects how dangerous their dog might be.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

El Cid said:


> Rules need to be placed on owners,


What sort of 'rules'?
Ones like the ones already in place (which are working an absolute treat!) which the law abiding & responsible already adhere to but the feckless & lawbreaking don't?
Harsher rules?
More lenient rules?



El Cid said:


> but the people in power do NOT want to do that.


They did, 25 years ago, for all the good it's done.



El Cid said:


> The large and bigger bike dogs are more of a danger than a pensioner with a small dog.


I have no idea what a 'bike dog' is but my other half was subject to an unprovoked attack by the small dog of a local pensioner, which has also attempted to go for me, my own dogs & my children, & said pensioner finds the entire thing hilariously funny because it's 'only a cute little dog'.

I take it they're to be exempted because he's a 'sweet little pensioner' & the frothing alligator he drags around on an extendable lead is just a 'sweet little dog'


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> I'd say it's the opposite. I think in general people are far more forgiving of bad and dangerous behavior in dogs now that they were "back in the day".
> I mean there is a whole book titled "Don't Shoot the Dog". That's not being inflammatory, that's exactly what used to happen to dogs who crossed the line, sometimes with just a growl.
> Like I said earlier on this thread, there seems to be far MORE tolerance for iffy temperaments now that there were before. I can remember hearing old time breeders talking about bucketing pups who weren't good examples of the breed, not just physically, but in temperament as well. You know what bucketing is right? Kill by drowning.
> 
> Not that I'm for a minute advocating bucketing or shooting dogs, just saying* I don't think it's a case of less tolerance, but more tolerance (and excuses) for dangerous behavior.*


It's still common at least in the rural parts of Hungary to "dispose" of dogs that are no longer "fit for purpose" either by virtue of their breed, temperament, age or health.

Over the past 9 years in my village alone I know of 1 dog that was shot by it's owner for being aggressive, an owner who also shot his dog when he discovered she was pregnant. The couple who live down the lane from me have in the past 4 years "disposed" of a young dog and her 6 puppies, another dog who chased after people, and yet another who failed to perform the job he was meant to do. Their are also other dogs who've literally been there one day and not the next!

People are far less tolerant of bad behaviour in dogs, which is probably why it's rare to meet a badly behaved dog. No owner is going to tolerate owning a dog who's anti towards other dogs or people and no owner is going to tolerate someone else's dog who behaves badly towards them or their dogs. I know I don't!

Life is so much easier when you can take your own dogs out knowing not only will they behave themselves, but that any dog you meet will also behave itself!


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Here you are again stating the pit bull type dog is twice as likely to kill, not just a little more dangerous but a lot you say. So yes I would say you do have a hang up about breeds.


No where have I said that these breed of dogs are more dangerous because they were born more dangerous, but they are more dangerous, because a certain type of owner chooses them.
But it is quite obvious that larger dogs pose more danger, just because of their size.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

El Cid said:


> No where have I said that these breed of dogs are more dangerous because they were born more dangerous, but they are more dangerous, because a certain type of owner chooses them.
> But it is quite obvious that larger dogs pose more danger, just because of their size.


Really?

We own a Staffy. Does that make me a "certain type of owner"?


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Sweety said:


> Really?
> We own a Staffy. Does that make me a "certain type of owner"?


What do you think?


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

El Cid said:


> No where have I said that these breed of dogs are more dangerous because they were born more dangerous, but they are more dangerous, because a certain type of owner chooses them.
> But it is quite obvious that larger dogs pose more danger, just because of their size.


But to conclude that larger dogs pose more a threat is no different really to the BSL we have at the moment, which targets only specific dogs...and that's clearly not working.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

stuaz said:


> But to conclude that larger dogs pose more a threat is no different really to the BSL we have at the moment, which targets only specific dogs...and that's clearly not working.


So, for wild cats, dangerous animals. Would we have different rules for different sized wild cats?
I certainly think a lion/tiger is more dangerous than say a Scottish Wild Cat. There are Scottish Wild Cats still living in the wild, would people be ok with a few escaped lions?


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

El Cid said:


> The large and bigger bite dogs are more of a danger than a pensioner with a small dog.


I beg to differ. The most dangerous dog I know of round here is a Shih Tzu owned by an elderly lady. The dog will not hesitate to bite and to bite hard and repeatedly. He is FAR more dangerous than my Lab, the 3 staffies next door, the Dogue up the street or any of the other large/powerful dogs I know. And do you know what? People find it funny and will goad him while his owner sits there smiling at her little darling raging at the end of his lead.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

El Cid said:


> So, for wild cats, dangerous animals. Would we have different rules for different sized wild cats?
> I certainly think a lion/tiger is more dangerous than say a Scottish Wild Cat. There are Scottish Wild Cats still living in the wild, would people be ok with a few escaped lions?


Whoa big leap there. I would treat a wild cat the same as any other wild cat, regardless of size.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Sweety said:


> We own a Staffy. Does that make me a "certain type of owner"?


I own a GSD. Does that mean I own a scrapyard and have it running loose barking madly at everyone on the other side of a chain link fence? It's how they were perceived in days gone by. It never once crossed my mind to get touchy about it.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

El Cid said:


> So, for wild cats, dangerous animals. Would we have different rules for different sized wild cats?
> I certainly think a lion/tiger is more dangerous than say a Scottish Wild Cat. There are Scottish Wild Cats still living in the wild, would people be ok with a few escaped lions?


Out of interest would your own Collie qualify as a large dog and thus potentially more dangerous than say the average Shih Tzu?


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

I own a bull breed AND i live in a council property! :Jawdrop

All i need is some trackie bottoms and a narcotics supply and the stereotype will be fullfilled!

I better sleep with one eye open from now on.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

El Cid said:


> What do you think?


I think you're rude and ill educated where it comes to dogs.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Pappychi said:


> Out of interest would your own Collie qualify as a large dog and thus potentially more dangerous than say the average Shih Tzu?


That would not be for me to decide.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Sarah1983 said:


> He is FAR more dangerous than my Lab, the 3 staffies next door, the Dogue up the street or any of the other large/powerful dogs I know.


But if one of those larger breeds does ever turn it will cause far more damage. The dangerous owner is the one that's convinced their dog never will.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Sweety said:


> I think you're rude and ill educated where it comes to dogs.


Thanks, it would be better if you discussed dog issues, and not me.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

El Cid said:


> That would not be for me to decide.


Oh? You had no trouble deciding that Bull Breeds and their Owners are dangerous.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Nonnie said:


> I own a bull breed AND i live in a council property! :Jawdrop
> 
> All i need is some trackie bottoms and a narcotics supply and the stereotype will be fullfilled!
> 
> I better sleep with one eye open from now on.


I'm drinking a lager tonight- from the can!

Is there any hope for me or is it just going to get worse?


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

El Cid said:


> That would not be for me to decide.


But a bull breed you can instantly decide on?

How fascinating.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

stuaz said:


> Whoa big leap there. I would treat a wild cat the same as any other wild cat, regardless of size.


I could cope with a small wild cat, but anything much bigger would be a big responsibility.
I understand some people now keep foxes.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

El Cid said:


> Thanks, it would be better if you discussed dog issues, and not me.


You asked me what I thought, so I told you.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Cats (whether big, small or in between), foxes & dog breeds as we know them are IMO incomparable.

Both cats & (particularly) foxes are recent domesticates, & both have different needs to our dogs.

You might as well compare guinea pigs with sheep.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

simplysardonic said:


> I'm drinking a lager tonight- from the can!
> 
> Is there any hope for me or is it just going to get worse?


I think its only a concern when you start drinking White Diamond from a bottle.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

El Cid said:


> I could cope with a small wild cat, but anything much bigger would be a big responsibility.
> I understand some people now keep foxes.


I am not sure you can really compare owning wild animals. Dogs aren't wild animals.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

I got me an Alsation, you know one of them attack dogs you see with the police and I have me a Maligator too. They are well ard; Like me. 

Traffic slows down for us when we is out and I am wearing me balaclava and I got them on them choke chqins and they have leather collars what are studded and everyfink in case someone looks at us in a funny way.

My dogs are tattood like me and when we goes to the field everyone disappears like cos they are afraid of me and my attack dogs.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

smokeybear said:


> I got me an Alsation, you know one of them attack dogs you see with the police and I have me a Maligator too. They are well ard; Like me.
> 
> Traffic slows down for us when we is out and I am wearing me balaclava and I got them on them choke chqins and they have leather collars what are studded and everyfink in case someone looks at us in a funny way.
> 
> My dogs are tattood like me and when we goes to the field everyone disappears like cos they are afraid of me and my attack dogs.


Yeah well, that don't impress me, 'cos I got a vicious Staffy wot will kick your dog's arse.

It killed a wood louse today, so you get the picture?

My Brother smokes wacky baccy too, so I ain't scared of nuffin.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

stuaz said:


> I am not sure you can really compare owning wild animals. Dogs aren't wild animals.


It looks like this discussion hasnt come up with anything better.

I think owning a medium/large dog carries a lot of responsibility.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

El Cid said:


> It looks like this discussion hasnt come up with anything better.
> 
> I think owning a medium/large dog carries a lot of responsibility.


I think owning _*any* _dog carries a lot of responsibility.

Just because a dog is below a certain height it doesn't give the owner a free pass for bad/dangerous behaviour.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

El Cid said:


> It looks like this discussion hasnt come up with anything better.
> 
> I think owning a medium/large dog carries a lot of responsibility.


Really?

I can honestly say that, apart from the upkeep cost, the size of my dogs has never been a consideration to me. Nor has breed either tbh.

I see it as my responsibility to care for my dog; train him, socialise him, exercise him, keep him under control, clean up his shit and make sure he doesnt make a noise or a mess.

No where does his size come into it. Unless we're counting if i can pick him up to lift him over a stile. I can (just) but thankfully dont need to. He's a Tigger.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Oh noes lock all your doors....









So dangerous 

I spose I better get me some trackies and a spiky collar just to finish the image off :Bag


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

El Cid said:


> No where have I said that these breed of dogs are more dangerous because they were born more dangerous, but they are more dangerous, because a certain type of owner chooses them.
> But it is quite obvious that larger dogs pose more danger, just because of their size.


So does that include all large dogs - border collies for instance or only bull breeds?


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So does that include all large dogs - border collies for instance or only bull breeds?


Apparently that's not for that poster to decide.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

El Cid said:


> It looks like this discussion hasnt come up with anything better.
> 
> I think owning a medium/large dog carries a lot of responsibility.


I think this discussion has come up with something better than your 'wild cat' comparison. The reoccurring theme and topic throughout this thread has been that ALL dogs, regardless of size or breed COULD be a danger and any laws/rules that focus on a certain type/size/breed are futile.

So yes owning a medium or large dog carries a lot of responsibility. But not more than owning any dog, of any size, of any breed. Do you really not see that?


----------



## Team_Trouble (Apr 11, 2016)

You have all really tickled me... I'm curled up on my couch giggling away... :Hilarious


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Pappychi said:


> Apparently that's not for that poster to decide.


Sorry I posted my reply before reading all the others and see you asked the same thing and didn't get an answer.

@El Cid you haven't told us yet what measures you think the government should bring in and which dogs you think they should apply to. You seem to be saying only large dogs, I don't consider a staffy to be a large dog nor a bull terrier nor a bull dog whereas I think some border collies are large dogs (and lets not have that debate all over again ) and so are lurchers and goldies and labs. Do you think those large dogs should have special laws that only apply to them or should it just be bull breeds? Or should we ban young males from owning dogs although I seem to think the person arrested in this case was a young mother not a hoodie. Perhaps we should ban children from visiting the homes of other children if a dog lives there. Or why don't we just ban dogs altogether?


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sorry I posted my reply before reading all the others and see you asked the same thing and didn't get an answer.
> 
> @El Cid you haven't told us yet what measures you think the government should bring in and which dogs you think they should apply to. You seem to be saying only large dogs, I don't consider a staffy to be a large dog nor a bull terrier nor a bull dog whereas I think some border collies are large dogs (*and lets not have that debate all over again *) and so are lurchers and goldies and labs. Do you think those large dogs should have special laws that only apply to them or should it just be bull breeds? Or should be ban young males from owning dogs although I seem to think the person arrested in this case was a young mother not a hoodie. Perhaps we should ban children from visiting the homes of other children if a dog lives there. Or why don't we just ban dogs altogether?


The bolded bit made me LOL! :Woot Ahhh.... really, really big Collies :Hungover

A few years ago I remember seeing a Facebook campaign where people were calling for all dogs to have their teeth removed so they were incapable of biting?!


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sorry I posted my reply before reading all the others and see you asked the same thing and didn't get an answer.
> 
> @El Cid you haven't told us yet what measures you think the government should bring in and which dogs you think they should apply to. You seem to be saying only large dogs,* I don't consider a staffy to be a large dog* nor a bull terrier nor a bull dog whereas I think some border collies are large dogs (and lets not have that debate all over again ) and so are lurchers and goldies and labs. Do you think those large dogs should have special laws that only apply to them or should it just be bull breeds? Or should be ban young males from owning dogs although I seem to think the person arrested in this case was a young mother not a hoodie. Perhaps we should ban children from visiting the homes of other children if a dog lives there. Or why don't we just ban dogs altogether?


This!

I am always taken aback at how dinky a properly bred stafford actually is, some at the East of England the other month were smaller in height than my friend's Manchester terrier!


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Pappychi said:


> Apparently that's not for that poster to decide.


Perhaps Public Liability Insurance should be compulsory for owning a dog?

Then it would be the insurance companies deciding which dog/owner combination was the most/least dangerous.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

simplysardonic said:


> This!
> 
> I am always taken aback at how dinky a properly bred stafford actually is, some at the East of England the other month were smaller in height than my friend's Manchester terrier!


I agree with you there! I think both of us were a bit jarred at seeing a 'real' Staffie rather than those long-legged ones so commonly seen.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> I'd say it's the opposite. I think in general people are far more forgiving of bad and dangerous behavior in dogs now that they were "back in the day".
> I mean there is a whole book titled "Don't Shoot the Dog". That's not being inflammatory, that's exactly what used to happen to dogs who crossed the line, sometimes with just a growl.
> Like I said earlier on this thread, there seems to be far MORE tolerance for iffy temperaments now that there were before. I can remember hearing old time breeders talking about bucketing pups who weren't good examples of the breed, not just physically, but in temperament as well. You know what bucketing is right? Kill by drowning.
> 
> Not that I'm for a minute advocating bucketing or shooting dogs, just saying I don't think it's a case of less tolerance, but more tolerance (and excuses) for dangerous behavior.


I would agree with you. I am shocked by posts on here making excuses for dogs and keeping dogs that would never ever have been allowed to live years ago. Is that maybe why there are more dogs with bad temperaments, they just did not exist before. I remember our family dog getting accidentally pregnant (or rather I dont remember as I was too young but have been told about it). The father was probably a rather nasty scottie that lived over the road and the pups all seemed to have a screw loose. Every single one of them was destroyed by their owners by the time they were a year old. Nowadays they would be put in rescue and rehomed.



simplysardonic said:


> What sort of 'rules'?
> 
> I have no idea what a 'bike dog' is but my other half was subject to an unprovoked attack by the small dog of a local pensioner, which has also attempted to go for me, my own dogs & my children, & said pensioner finds the entire thing hilariously funny because it's 'only a cute little dog'.
> 
> I take it they're to be exempted because he's a 'sweet little pensioner' & the frothing alligator he drags around on an extendable lead is just a 'sweet little dog'


It probably would be exempted. Years ago there was a dog wandering around, going into the greengrocers and cocking its leg on the fruit and veg. Wandered into our caravan awning and cocked its leg. I took it to the police station (no dog wardens then) and the next day it was doing the same thing. Took it back again and had a lecture for wasting police time as the dog belonged to an old man who could not take it for walks.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

stuaz said:


> So yes owning a medium or large dog carries a lot of responsibility. But not more than owning any dog, of any size, of any breed. Do you really not see that?


Many people would be able to look after the needs of a Yorkie, but the needs of a Great Dane are greater. So no, the responsibility is lower for a Yorkie.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Blitz said:


> It probably would be exempted.


Considering I know of a Peke that has a control order attached to him that isn't true now.
All dogs are effected by DDA, it's just that the smaller dogs don't tend to be reported,


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

El Cid said:


> Many people would be able to look after the needs of a Yorkie, but the needs of a Great Dane are greater. So no, the responsibility is lower for a Yorkie.


Ummm, what?

In what way are a Danes needs greater than a yorkies?


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2016)

El Cid said:


> Many people would be able to look after the needs of a Yorkie, but the needs of a Great Dane are greater. So no, the responsibility is lower for a Yorkie.


You really make no sense sometimes...

All dogs require equal care, all dogs DESERVE equal care. One does not have greater "needs" than the other.

Now, if you're trying to say that some dogs are more idiot-proof than others, then yes, some are. Someone like you has no business owning the kinds of dogs someone like @smokeybear owns, you would be way over your depth.

Interestingly though, I imagine your collie and SB's malinois are about the same size. Thought to be honest I would avoid you out on a walk before I would avoid SB...


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

El Cid said:


> Many people would be able to look after the needs of a Yorkie, but the needs of a Great Dane are greater. So no, the responsibility is lower for a Yorkie.


And where would your own breed's responsibility lay on that scale?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

El Cid said:


> Many people would be able to look after the needs of a Yorkie, but the needs of a Great Dane are greater. So no, the responsibility is lower for a Yorkie.


So what you're saying is that if it's a little dog it doesn't matter if it runs amok biting people, because the damage is minimal, so we should all just suck it up when Little Fluffy bites our child?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

El Cid said:


> Many people would be able to look after the needs of a Yorkie, but the needs of a Great Dane are greater. So no, the responsibility is lower for a Yorkie.


We are not talking about the dog's needs though are we? We are talking about the owner's responsibility so that Yorkie could if not properly trained or managed run into the road and cause an RTA, or bite the postman's hand or ankles or bite the vet's hand or bite the face of a small child who picked it up or stroked it. The Great Dane could of course do the same things as the Yorkie but there is no less responsibility on the owner of the Yorkie to make sure their dog is not causing safety issues to strangers, to other road/park/beach users and to visitors to their premises.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Ummm, what?
> 
> In what way are a Danes needs greater than a yorkies?


Well you need much bigger poo bags for a start.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

simplysardonic said:


> So what you're saying is that if it's a little dog it doesn't matter if it runs amok biting people, because the damage is minimal, so we should all just suck it up when Little Fluffy bites our child?


Surely that is not what he is meaning. Your average pet owner that can very safely manage a yorkie might struggle a lot with a large breed. so though both might have the same needs they can be much easier to give to a small breed and if shortcuts are taken they can be got away with without anyone noticing or caring. Let a large breed do something antisocial and it will be frowned upon. Does not even have to be aggressive.

A good example was my landlord and landlady when I was in a bedsit when I left school. They had a poodle and a bull mastiff. The poodle coped with its lifestyle well and was no problem to anyone. The bull mastiff pulled the bloke over so he was scared to walk it and flew at other dogs. When I took it out it walked nicely on the lead and ignored other dogs.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

El Cid said:


> Many people would be able to look after the needs of a Yorkie, but the needs of a Great Dane are greater. So no, the responsibility is lower for a Yorkie.


Old Chinese proverb say... Man in big hole should stop digging


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Pappychi said:


> And where would your own breed's responsibility lay on that scale?


I dont know, somewhere in the middle. It would be just like car insurance, cheaper if you have had no claims, and more expensive for young owners.
Cheaper if the owner has done citizenship training too.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2016)

El Cid said:


> Many people would be able to look after the needs of a Yorkie, but the needs of a Great Dane are greater. So no, the responsibility is lower for a Yorkie.


Actually I need to revisit this.

This is exactly the sort of attitude that gives small dogs a bad name.

For all the owners out there of smaller dogs who DO take their training and responsibility as dog owners every bit as seriously as any other responsible dog owner, these kinds of statements are just insulting.

If you do have a small dog and thing you don't have just as much responsibility to train and keep your dog under control because your dog is small and what damage could they do, shame on you.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Blitz said:


> Surely that is not what he is meaning. Your average pet owner that can very safely manage a yorkie might struggle a lot with a large breed. so though both might have the same needs they can be much easier to give to a small breed and if shortcuts are taken they can be got away with without anyone noticing or caring. Let a large breed do something antisocial and it will be frowned upon. Does not even have to be aggressive.


Sorry but if a small dog did a poo on my front lawn or cocked its leg up my aspidistras I would be just as annoyed as I would be if a Great Dane did it. I was just as angry when a JRT hung off the throat of my previous rottie as I would have been if a Great Dane had done it although come to think of it a Great Dane wouldn't have been able to hang off her throat unless it knelt down. If a poodle bit the postman's hand I don't suppose he is any more happy about it than he would be if a Great Dane bit it.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

BlackadderUK said:


> Old Chinese proverb say... Man in big hole should stop digging


I dont mind trying to help people discuss the issues


ouesi said:


> Actually I need to revisit this.
> 
> This is exactly the sort of attitude that gives small dogs a bad name.


Are you feeling it for other people, how sweet.


----------



## Team_Trouble (Apr 11, 2016)

ouesi said:


> Actually I need to revisit this.
> 
> This is exactly the sort of attitude that gives small dogs a bad name.
> 
> ...


I take training Oliver very seriously and would be mortified if he ever behaved aggressively towards anyone, dog, human or otherwise. 
I would also like to have a bigger dog, but have worried that I would not be up to the challenge. In difficult situations I can easily pick Oliver up out of harms way, (for example a few weeks ago a dog snapped at and frightened him). Im not entirely sure what my point was. Maybe that I am from the other side as someone who would like a large dog but has more concerns about owning one than a smaller dog. But possibly I am just more familiar with small dogs.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

El Cid said:


> Many people would be able to look after the needs of a Yorkie, but the needs of a Great Dane are greater. So no, the responsibility is lower for a Yorkie.


err come again?  Out of interest as I don't own a Great Dane myself, what 'special' needs to they have above and beyond a Yorkie?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

El Cid said:


> I dont mind trying to help people discuss the issues


then discuss..

In what way are a Danes needs greater than a yorkies?


----------



## Team_Trouble (Apr 11, 2016)

StormyThai said:


> then discuss..
> 
> In what way are a Danes needs greater than a yorkies?


They're just more I guess. More food, more poo, more exercise....


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2016)

El Cid said:


> I dont mind trying to help people discuss the issues
> 
> Are you feeling it for other people, how sweet.


Yes, clearly you are helping, and adding to an intelligent, mature discussion


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Blitz said:


> Surely that is not what he is meaning. Your average pet owner that can very safely manage a yorkie might struggle a lot with a large breed. so though both might have the same needs they can be much easier to give to a small breed and if shortcuts are taken they can be got away with without anyone noticing or caring. Let a large breed do something antisocial and it will be frowned upon. Does not even have to be aggressive.
> 
> A good example was my landlord and landlady when I was in a bedsit when I left school. They had a poodle and a bull mastiff. The poodle coped with its lifestyle well and was no problem to anyone. The bull mastiff pulled the bloke over so he was scared to walk it and flew at other dogs. When I took it out it walked nicely on the lead and ignored other dogs.


True, granted, but what El Cid seems to have insinuated is that laws should be brought in for certain breeds of dog, when at the end of the day it's unacceptable that _any_ dog bites, not just bull breeds, large breeds or whatever type of dog is the next on the hit list for unsavoury media attention.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

El Cid said:


> Many people would be able to look after the needs of a Yorkie, but the needs of a Great Dane are greater. So no, the responsibility is lower for a Yorkie.


Oh dear me.

:Muted


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Blitz said:


> Surely that is not what he is meaning. Your average pet owner that can very safely manage a yorkie might struggle a lot with a large breed. * so though both might have the same needs they can be much easier to give to a small breed and if shortcuts are taken they can be got away with without anyone noticing or caring.* Let a large breed do something antisocial and it will be frowned upon. Does not even have to be aggressive..


Yes the thing that annoys me, a small dog that jumps up you, barks at people and other dogs pulls on it's lead and in general just does what it likes and then the owner laughs because they think it cute. Well it's not.

If a big dog does the same thing it's called dangerous


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2016)

I'm just going to throw this out there... 
My great dane has never been out of control or been a public nuisance.
I've encountered a few yorkies however who have been out of control in public, have been a nuisance, and did cause damage.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

KatieandOliver said:


> They're just more I guess. More food, more poo, more exercise....


Well yes I get that...but that doesn't explain what @El Cid said tho.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Happy Paws said:


> Yes the thing that annoys me, a small dog that jumps up you, barks at people and other dogs pulls on it's lead and in general just does what it likes and then the owner laughs because they think it cute. Well it's not.
> 
> If a big dog does the same thing it's called dangerous


A bit of a generalisation here.

I have a small dog. She isn't allowed to jump at anyone. She doesn't approach other dogs, however, if a dog barges into her space, she would warn them off and, if the warning weren't heeded, she would bite.

So, if a strange dog approaches us, she's the one I stand in front of and she's the one who gets a firm "Leave it" command.

The Staffy I have with me - no worries, she loves everybody and everything.

According to El Cid's doctrine though, the Staffy should have additional regulations and rules attached to her, whilst the Jack Russell should not be bothered with all of that.

She's failing to see that what she is advocating is BSL or prejudice against dogs according to their size.

Over 16 inches at the shoulder = Dangerous Dog.


----------



## komondor_owner (Jan 19, 2016)

deleted


----------



## Team_Trouble (Apr 11, 2016)

StormyThai said:


> Well yes I get that...but that doesn't explain what @El Cid said tho.


Sorry I sometimes take things too literally. I hope I didn't offend.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

Sweety said:


> A bit of a generalisation here.
> 
> I have a small dog. She isn't allowed to jump at anyone. She doesn't approach other dogs, however, if a dog barges into her space, she would warn them off and, if the warning weren't heeded, she would bite.
> 
> ...


basically @El Cid wants to replace BSL with...ermmm BSL :Facepalm


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

komondor_owner said:


> Some breeds are better at herding sheep than others. Some breeds are better at unprovoked attacks, and inflicting damage on people/other dogs.
> Some breeds have more exercise needs than others. Some are far more physically demanding - you can't just pick them up and move them out the way.
> If you own a "small breed", and it attacks someone, you can just grab it and put it back in your handbag. Not so easy with a large breed with massive claws, teeth and muscle strength that you can't physically lift.
> 
> ...


You're wrong.

Have you ever tried prising a PRT off something it has it's teeth into? I have and, believe me, there is no "grabbing it and putting it back in your handbag".

I'm interested to hear which dogs are "better at unprovoked attacks".


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

komondor_owner said:


> Some breeds are better at herding sheep than others. *Some breeds are better at unprovoked attacks,* *and inflicting damage on people/other dogs.*


Like your own breed for example?

Or is it still perfectly acceptable for a sheep-sized Komondor to bite a postman?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Pappychi said:


> Like your own breed for example?
> 
> Or is it still perfectly acceptable for a sheep-sized Komondor to bite a postman?


Well, of course. A special rule applies to those who own sheep sized dogs.

It's : Do What I Say, Not What I Do.


----------



## komondor_owner (Jan 19, 2016)

deleted


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

komondor_owner said:


> *Some breeds are better at herding sheep than others. Some breeds are better at unprovoked attacks, and inflicting damage on people/other dogs.*
> Some breeds have more exercise needs than others. Some are far more physically demanding - you can't just pick them up and move them out the way.
> If you own a "small breed", and it attacks someone, you can just grab it and put it back in your handbag. Not so easy with a large breed with massive claws, teeth and muscle strength that you can't physically lift.
> 
> ...


Oh please do share with us which those breeds are, a full list will suffice of each and every breed that are better at unprovoked attacks than others.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

Sweety said:


> Well, of course. A special rule applies to those who own sheep sized dogs.
> 
> It's : Do What I Say, Not What I Do.


What about those of us with Bear-sized dogs?


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

komondor_owner said:


> You *really* took my (And a fellow postman in the thread) suggestion personally didn't you. lol
> (That it was the postmans own stupid fault for shoving his hands into a house, over the top of a massive guard dog, and getting a nip when delivering a package).
> 
> Move on.... You can do it! I'm sure the postman has.


No.

It terrifies me that someone with a blatant disregard for someone who was injured in an entirely preventable accident owns a large primitive livestock guardian breed.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

komondor_owner said:


> You *really* took my (And a fellow postman in the thread) suggestion personally didn't you. lol
> (That it was the postmans own stupid fault for shoving his hands into a house, over the top of a massive guard dog, and getting a nip when delivering a package).
> 
> Move on.... You can do it! I'm sure the postman has.


No, it was your fault.

If you allowed your "massive guard dog" to stand between you and the Postman, opened the door and allowed him to try and hand you the parcel, you're the fool.

Why do I get the feeling that your ego got a massive boost from your dog biting the Postman?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

komondor_owner said:


> You *really* took my (And a fellow postman in the thread) suggestion personally didn't you. lol
> (*That it was the postmans own stupid fault for shoving his hands into a house*, over the top of a massive guard dog, and getting a nip when delivering a package).
> 
> Move on.... You can do it! I'm sure the postman has.


It was absolutely NOT the postman's fault, & 100% the owner's fault, for being ignorant of the traits of their large livestock guardian breed dog & not being a responsible custodian of said breed & shutting it away when a stranger comes to the door.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

No one said all breeds are equal.

However, all breeds should be equal when discussing attacks...More legislation will not reduce attacks (in fact some would say it does the opposite.), the laws already in place need to be upheld...

People that hold the belief that certain dogs are more dangerous than others are the ones that are perpetuating this "safe" feeling around other breeds...it is not the breed at fault it is the irresponsible owner...

I wonder if these same people would hold this view if their breed of choice was suddenly banned


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Sweety said:


> No, it was your fault.
> 
> If you allowed your "massive guard dog" to stand between you and the Postman, opened the door and allowed him to try and hand you the parcel, you're the fool.
> 
> Why do I get the feeling that your ego got a massive boost from your dog biting the Postman?


I don't think it was komondor_owners dog, they were just defending the action of the dog.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> No one said all breeds are equal.
> 
> However, all breeds should be equal when discussing attacks...More legislation will not reduce attacks (in fact some would say it does the opposite.), the laws already in place need to be upheld...
> 
> ...


Indeed, & who's to say once bull breeds are all banned it won't move on to (say) sheep sized LGDs, then whatever breed comes under scrutiny next.

If the Daily Mail decided, say, that border collies were now responsible for biting more people, they'd latch onto it like a mythical locking jawed pitbull & not let go, until public perception is skewed against those black-and-white-biting-machines.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

simplysardonic said:


> that border collies were now responsible for biting more people,


I'd be screwed...half devil dog, half black-and-white-biting-machine


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> I'd be screwed...half devil dog, half black-and-white-biting-machine


Oh he's a devil dog alright, I barely escaped with my life last time I went over yours


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2016)

This conversation is getting stupid.

I love dog forums and discussing things but sometimes when you get people who don't know what they don't know and refuse to acknowledge that, it just gets frustrating...

Okay, let's clarify a few things shall we?

1. Yes, some dogs are more idiot proof than others. 
Has nothing to do with size. A mellow newfie is not on the same level as a working line malinois even though the newfie is a much bigger dog.

2. Dog/owner compatibility matters. My great dane who is well trained and in a compatible home is going to be safer than a collie with no training in an incompatible home.

3. Temperament matters. Go back to my dane versus a small collie. My dane is a mellow, resilient, high threshold, excellent bite inhibition and great coping skills. A flighty, fearful collie with low tolerance, who has never been taught any coping skills and doesn't like kids is a good candidate for those "unprovoked" bites. In the meantime, a child could run up to my dane, wrap their arms around her and hand off her neck and the most she's going to do is roll her eyes and extricate herself from the embrace.

4. No one breed is more dangerous than another. 
A skilled handler who is willing to put management in place can keep a dog aggressive dog perfectly safely and an ignorant handler can turn a lab in to a health hazard to anyone unlucky enough to encounter them.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

This ignorance on this thread is actually ridiculous.
About 6/7 yrs ago my friends daughter was bitten in the face by her friends grandmothers dog. She had stayed overnight at the friends house, the granny arrived the next morning with the dog, one of the younger children in the house squealed with excitement that granny had arrived.. which scared the dog and it attacked my friends daughter while she was asleep on an air mattress on the living room floor. It bit her between her lip and her nose and didn't let go. The bite damaged tendons, muscles and nerves and required numerous plastic surgeries to repair. She has been left with partial paralysis of her upper lip and permanant facial scars.
Sorry to disappoint some of you who firmly believe bull breeds and big dogs = more damage, but the dog was a miniature yorkshire terrier.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Nettles said:


> Sorry to disappoint some of you who firmly believe bull breeds and big dogs = more damage, but the dog was a miniature yorkshire terrier.


Are you saying a larger dog would have caused less damage? I don't understand why.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Nettles said:


> Sorry to disappoint some of you who firmly believe bull breeds and big dogs = more damage, but the dog was a miniature yorkshire terrier.


The point that I was making is that no knows the risks of each owner/breed combination. But if everyone had public liability insurance, the insurance companies would rate the risk.
Some people talk about border collies being aggressive, but just a few people experience is not evidence.
My relatives had Yorkies when I was little, all ok, but then again I only have personal experience of German Shepherds biting, but they used to be more popular.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> Perhaps Public Liability Insurance should be compulsory for owning a dog?
> 
> Then it would be the insurance companies deciding which dog/owner combination was the most/least dangerous.


Insurance is compulsory for motorists; it does not stop many driving without it..............

As for insurance companies deciding which breed is the most dangerous, no dog is more or less dangerous than another per se

It is behaviour that is the issue not breed.


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

I tried putting one of my small dogs in my handbag, but he only fits in a holdall........but if I put him in there I haven't got room for all my drugs!









Such a dilemma!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> The point that I was making is that no knows the risks of each owner/breed combination. But if everyone had public liability insurance, the insurance companies would rate the risk.
> Some people talk about border collies being aggressive, but just a few people experience is not evidence.
> My relatives had Yorkies when I was little, all ok, but then again I only have personal experience of German Shepherds biting, but they used to be more popular.


If no one knows the risks of each owner/breed combination, how can anyone from an insurance company (or anywhere else) calculate the risk?


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Gemmaa said:


> I tried putting one of my small dogs in my handbag, but he only fits in a holdall........but if I put him in there I haven't got room for all my drugs!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Make him swallow condom wraps!

Every time you need to make a deal, just pop him a laxative and wait a few minutes. Like a canine Pez dispenser.


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

smokeybear said:


> If no one knows the risks of each owner/breed combination, how can anyone from an insurance company (or anywhere else) calculate the risk?


It is the same for cars though and insurers do it on age (previously also sex before labelled discriminatory) postcode, type of car combined with age, driving history, number of claims and all the rest ... try insuring a Ferrari for a 19 year old boy ... - being an actuary is quite the science!!

Anyone can say that the 19 year old is very safe as is the Ferrari but insurers will look at the potential and statistical risk and work from there. I think insurance for dogs is not a bad idea.

But this is all getting quite heated.

I don't know, I think at base people feel that certain breeds are more easily defended against than others.

I can imagine many a person going in to break up a fight between two smallish dogs (partly because they can physically pick them up by their scruff) ... I can imagine hardly anyone wanting to step in if my dog was fighting - in fact a large step backwards would be the more likely option - (and there is NO picking up at all).

I think the same holds true for staffies/pit bulls/rottweilers/dobermans ... someone going up to two small dogs fighting and booting one in the ribs so it goes flying will probably end the fight immediately but with the above will probably end with the booter getting his throat ripped out! So there is that sense that some breeds of dog will "fight to the death" and others will be more easily cowed in an aggressive situation.

Anyway lets all just hope there are no more fatalities at all this year. Two in a week is shocking and tragic for everyone.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

ChristineJ21 said:


> It is the same for cars though and insurers do it on age (previously also sex before labelled discriminatory) postcode, type of car combined with age, driving history, number of claims and all the rest ... try insuring a Ferrari for a 19 year old boy ... - being an actuary is quite the science!!
> 
> Anyone can say that the 19 year old is very safe as is the Ferrari but insurers will look at the potential and statistical risk and work from there. I think insurance for dogs is not a bad idea.
> 
> ...


I know exactly how insurance works, the issue was that the poster claimed that no one knew the risks. If no one knows then nobody can calculate them! 

It is also very emotive to suggest that someone will get their throat ripped out (must be all those stories you have read about dogs always going for the throat) 

The way to break up a dog fight with two big dogs is either the blanket over the two or the wheelbarrow method neither of which are guaranteed to work and generally need more than one experienced person to effect.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> If no one knows the risks of each owner/breed combination, how can anyone from an insurance company (or anywhere else) calculate the risk?


Presumably they do - third party insurance is an existing part of dog insurance policies from Petplan etc.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

havoc said:


> Presumably they do - third party insurance is an existing part of dog insurance policies from Petplan etc.


No, no no, El Cid has stated categorically that nobody does................................ so he must be right.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

ChristineJ21 said:


> It is the same for cars though and insurers do it on age (previously also sex before labelled discriminatory) postcode, type of car combined with age, driving history, number of claims and all the rest ... try insuring a Ferrari for a 19 year old boy ... - being an actuary is quite the science!!
> 
> Anyone can say that the 19 year old is very safe as is the Ferrari but insurers will look at the potential and statistical risk and work from there. I think insurance for dogs is not a bad idea.
> 
> ...


Personally I would MUCH rather try and separate 2 bullbreeds fighting, as they are generally VERY people orientated, and IMO less likely to redirect onto a human, hence all the "histiory" showing how bullbreed handlers could very easily control their dogs in a state of over arousal, but each to their own, and of course not all bullies are created equal, but then neither are all "small" dogs.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

havoc said:


> Is that because of the breed or because we are just living in a different time now? Decades ago there was a different tolerance, an idea that dogs should be forgiven one bite. *I'm not sure if GSDs have ever been involved in a fatal attack on a child* whereas I'm pretty sure Rotties have much as it was some years ago so maybe that has something to do with it. We may know we'd never allow such a thing to happen with our dogs but I'm not going to get upset with the public for their generalities any more than I'd react to the media for speculating on the breed when something awful happens. Discussions on forums aren't legislation.


There was one - in Manchester in the late 70's/early 80's - where a GSD ate a baby. The mother was sleeping drunk at the time next to the cot, and the father came in in the morning and found the remains.


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

Lexiedhb said:


> Personally I would MUCH rather try and separate 2 bullbreeds fighting, as they are generally VERY people orientated, and IMO less likely to redirect onto a human, hence all the "histiory" showing how bullbreed handlers could very easily control their dogs in a state of over arousal, but each to their own, and of course not all bullies are created equal, but then neither are all "small" dogs.


Oh ok - interesting and useful. Would you interfere if neither was your dog? Or would it just be if you were the handler/owner?


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

stuaz said:


> Whoa big leap there.* I would treat a wild cat the same as any other wild cat, regardless of size*.


In that case you should think about the size of prey different species of wild cats are designed to tackle, lest you become one.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

El Cid said:


> The point that I was making is that no knows the risks of each owner/breed combination. But if everyone had public liability insurance, the insurance companies would rate the risk.
> *Some people talk about border collies being aggressive, but just a few people experience is not evidence.*
> My relatives had Yorkies when I was little, all ok, but then again I only have personal experience of German Shepherds biting, but they used to be more popular.


Anecdotally speaking, I know of more people who have been bitten by border collies, so if this cannot be used as evidence neither can your assumptions about certain breeds that you have no experience of beyond what you've been conditioned to believe in the tabloid newspapers.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

ChristineJ21 said:


> Oh ok - interesting and useful. Would you interfere if neither was your dog? Or would it just be if you were the handler/owner?


I'd be more inclined to interfere with bullbreeds even if not mine.......... that is just me tho, and may well be because I have experience with them. Having seen a mates collie redirect onto her calf, give me a bullbreed to deal with any day.........


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

Burrowzig said:


> In that case you should think about the size of prey different species of wild cats are designed to tackle, lest you become one.


Well I wouldn't approach nether and lets face it if a Wild Mountain Cat or a Lion decided I was its next meal, it wouldn't make much difference as I would probably be dead!


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Lexiedhb said:


> I'd be more inclined to interfere with bullbreeds even if not mine.......... that is just me tho, and may well be because I have experience with them. Having seen a mates collie redirect onto her calf, give me a bullbreed to deal with any day.........


Isn't that the personal equivalent of BSL? Taking a very small sample and deciding it applies across the board.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

stuaz said:


> Well I wouldn't approach nether and lets face it if a Wild Mountain Cat or a Lion decided I was its next meal, it wouldn't make much difference as I would probably be dead!


A Scottish Wildcat would hide so well you'd never know it was there. They're very shy. There are also other species of small wild cat - Civet for instance - where a human would have nothing to fear. Grouping wild cats of all sizes together and being equally scared of them is silly.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

havoc said:


> Isn't that the personal equivalent of BSL? Taking a very small sample and deciding it applies across the board.


No not at all................... its MY personal opinion, based on my own experience.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

Burrowzig said:


> A Scottish Wildcat would hide so well you'd never know it was there. They're very shy. There are also other species of small wild cat - Civet for instance - where a human would have nothing to fear. Grouping wild cats of all sizes together and being equally scared of them is silly.


Its nothing about being scared of them, just showing them equal respect being that they are wild animals and I would most likely be in there habitat.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> Considering I know of a Peke that has a control order attached to him that isn't true now.
> All dogs are effected by DDA, it's just that the smaller dogs don't tend to be reported,


I am fully aware of the law, my comment was tongue in cheek - although as prosecutions and dog control orders are down to personalities I think it less likely that the owner of a small breed will be followed up in the same way as a large breed with exactly the same behaviour - sad but true. Having said that a westie had an order on it locally, and went through court (the owner anyway) for chasing children that let it out of the car on its own property.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sorry but if a small dog did a poo on my front lawn or cocked its leg up my aspidistras I would be just as annoyed as I would be if a Great Dane did it. I was just as angry when a JRT hung off the throat of my previous rottie as I would have been if a Great Dane had done it although come to think of it a Great Dane wouldn't have been able to hang off her throat unless it knelt down. If a poodle bit the postman's hand I don't suppose he is any more happy about it than he would be if a Great Dane bit it.


That is just silly. Although it is still illegal it is highly unlikely that a postman is going to do anything about a nip from a small dog but if a large dog attacks him he certainly will. Our old postman was not great with dogs and used to be frequently be nipped by farm collies and bitten by small dogs. He ended up in hospital with serious bites when a large dog attacked him. A friend who is a postman has been chased back to her van and had dogs hurling themselves at it trying to get at her. People on the whole do not like making waves and making a fuss so, unless they are very jobsworthy, are unlikely to do much about small dogs but they are going to be, quite rightly, scared of a larger dog behaving in the same way.



StormyThai said:


> No one said all breeds are equal.
> 
> However, all breeds should be equal when discussing attacks...More legislation will not reduce attacks (in fact some would say it does the opposite.), the laws already in place need to be upheld...
> 
> ...


Of course if it is the irresponsible owner but a little ankle biter is just annoying to most people, the larger dog makes them fearful - whether rightly or not.



ouesi said:


> This conversation is getting stupid.
> 
> I love dog forums and discussing things but sometimes when you get people who don't know what they don't know and refuse to acknowledge that, it just gets frustrating...
> 
> ...


I would agree with half of this. There are not many skilled handlers about so an aggressive dog is seldom safe. Many ignorant handlers own dogs like labs or other breeds that have never been bred to guard or fight and they are hard pressed to ruin their temperament. Give them one of the guarding breeds and it would be disaster waiting to happen. I was watching someone with a dalmatian the other day. A largeish strong dog without a bad bone in its body. It saw another dog it wanted to speak to and took off dragging the owner behind it and did not stop till it got to the dog for a sniff. What would happen if that owner had a dog that was not going to sniff but was going to attack. Maybe that owner should only have a small dog which could not drag her around and then it would not be a danger to everyone around that it tried to barge through on its way to the dog. So lack of training has basically made a large dog uncontrollable but a small dog with the same owner and same lack of training would not be able to do that.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

havoc said:


> Are you saying a larger dog would have caused less damage? I don't understand why.


I don't understand why my post has confused you. Not anywhere have I said (or even implied) that a larger dog would cause less damage...


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

Article from the Telegraph yesterday:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/pets/news-features/a-nanny-state-response-wont-stop-dog-bites/


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

ouesi said:


> This conversation is getting stupid.
> 
> I love dog forums and discussing things but sometimes when you get people who don't know what they don't know and refuse to acknowledge that, it just gets frustrating...
> 
> ...


Exactly this ^^


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Nettles said:


> This ignorance on this thread is actually ridiculous.
> About 6/7 yrs ago my friends daughter was bitten in the face by her friends grandmothers dog. She had stayed overnight at the friends house, the granny arrived the next morning with the dog, one of the younger children in the house squealed with excitement that granny had arrived.. which scared the dog and it attacked my friends daughter while she was asleep on an air mattress on the living room floor. It bit her between her lip and her nose and didn't let go. The bite damaged tendons, muscles and nerves and required numerous plastic surgeries to repair. She has been left with partial paralysis of her upper lip and permanant facial scars.
> Sorry to disappoint some of you who firmly believe bull breeds and big dogs = more damage, but the dog was a miniature yorkshire terrier.


The only breed that's ever bitten me, as it happens. And the only other breed I've ever felt threatened by (two different dogs) is the corgi.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

ChristineJ21 said:


> Oh ok - interesting and useful. Would you interfere if neither was your dog? Or would it just be if you were the handler/owner?


If I saw someone struggling to break up a dog fight alone and I didn't have my toddler on my back I would attempt to help them. I've been that person struggling to break up a fight between two powerful dogs alone and a little help (even just holding the lead I had on one dog so I could remove the other) would have been a HUGE help and prevented a lot of injury to the dogs.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

El Cid said:


> The point that I was making is that no knows the risks of each owner/breed combination. But if everyone had public liability insurance, the insurance companies would rate the risk.
> Some people talk about border collies being aggressive, but just a few people experience is not evidence.
> My relatives had Yorkies when I was little, all ok, but then again I only have personal experience of German Shepherds biting, but they used to be more popular.


My family also have yorkies, all have lovely temperament. We also had a GSD with lovely temperament. The only breed I personally have experienced being aggressive was a cocker spaniel.
My point was that ANY dog can cause serious damage, regardless of size or breed.
As for public liability insurance.. I'm in NI where it's a legal requirement that all dogs must have a licence. Irresponsible owners don't bother to get a licence for their dog though so it means nothing. The same would apply for public liability insurance.
Car insurance is a legal requirement.. yet plenty of people drive illegally without it!


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

ChristineJ21 said:


> Article from the Telegraph yesterday:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/pets/news-features/a-nanny-state-response-wont-stop-dog-bites/


Good article, possibly one of the most sensible I've seen to date, thanks for sharing.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Nettles said:


> Car insurance is a legal requirement.. yet plenty of people drive illegally without it!


When they're caught their car gets taken away and crushed unless they put insurance in place and pay to get it back. Don't think it could work in quite the same way with dogs but there's no reason something couldn't be worked out. As has been pointed out, any dog, any size can cause a car accident, damage etc and the owner is liable.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ChristineJ21 said:


> It is the same for cars though and insurers do it on age (previously also sex before labelled discriminatory) postcode, type of car combined with age, driving history, number of claims and all the rest ... try insuring a Ferrari for a 19 year old boy ... - being an actuary is quite the science!!
> 
> Anyone can say that the 19 year old is very safe as is the Ferrari but insurers will look at the potential and statistical risk and work from there. I think insurance for dogs is not a bad idea.
> 
> ...


Just to pick up on the bit I've bolded above - my last rottie was dog aggressive so walked muzzled and mainly on lead unless in a remote area. She was targeted repeatedly by a JRT who would run a considerable distance from its owner to launch himself at her. On one occasion he was hanging off her throat snarling and of course being muzzled and on lead she struggled to do anything about it. I tried kicking it off her but could not dislodge it and its owner struggled to get it off. As you can imagine we had words and as usual he deflected the blame on to us for having a dog muzzled and on a lead - apparently his dog didn't like dogs on leads. I let it go that time but a couple of weeks later we saw them in the distance and sure enough it came flying at us again but this time I managed to body block it and keep it away from her. I then reported him to the dog warden and to the rescue I happened to know the dog had come from.



Blitz said:


> That is just silly. Although it is still illegal it is highly unlikely that a postman is going to do anything about a nip from a small dog but if a large dog attacks him he certainly will. Our old postman was not great with dogs and used to be frequently be nipped by farm collies and bitten by small dogs. He ended up in hospital with serious bites when a large dog attacked him. A friend who is a postman has been chased back to her van and had dogs hurling themselves at it trying to get at her. People on the whole do not like making waves and making a fuss so, unless they are very jobsworthy, are unlikely to do much about small dogs but they are going to be, quite rightly, scared of a larger dog behaving in the same way.


Interesting view Blitz. So you think a postman who is bitten by a small dog is a jobsworth if they do anything about it but is quite right to be scared of a big dog behaving in the same way. I don't agree and thankfully nor does the DDA and nor do the post office. Whether you own a small or a large dog you have a legal responsibility to control it and to stop it biting or intimidating legal visitors to your property, the post office would be quite within their rights to refuse to deliver your mail . I do not agree that people do not like making waves or a fuss, perhaps in the past but not anymore, they are likely to film the incident and put it on social media as well as complain to the relevant authorities.


----------



## komondor_owner (Jan 19, 2016)

deleted


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Blitz said:


> sad but true


Sorry but that is not true.
If the dog is reported to the relevant authorities then they WILL follow it up (including muzzle and leash orders)...the ONLY difference is that small dog breeds don't face the risk of BSL...
The problem is that most go unreported because lil fluffy didn't mean it 

*General thought:
These threads always go the same way...some people are so "pig headed" that they couldn't see the facts if they were jumping up and down in front of their face 
Lets hope they are happy when ALL dogs have to be leashed and muzzled in public...It may seem a stretch now, but it could happen!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I'm really struggling to understand how having insurance would reduce this type of attack or how any changes to the law would reduce this type of attack or even how bringing in tight dog control laws such as leashing/muzzling in public would prevent this type of attack.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)




----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2016)

havoc said:


> Are you saying a larger dog would have caused less damage? I don't understand why.


No, I don't think @Nettles was saying a larger dog would have caused less damage.
However I will say that again, getting hung up on size (or breed) is inaccurate and unhelpful.

Let's put it this way, a larger dog *could* cause more damage, but that doesn't mean a larger dog *will* cause more damage because there are so many other factors that factor in.

Let's take two dogs on opposite sides of the spectrum. My 80# mutt dog who is a bull-breed mix of some sort who's head is bigger than mine.
He has a ridiculously high tolerance for handling and stupid human behavior (which is what makes him an excellent therapy dog). He has very high bite inhibition so if he ever were pushed to a bite, he would do little if no damage even if his teeth did touch skin.
Years ago, a visiting child did a cartwheel (or attempted to do a cartwheel) in the living room, careened in to the kitchen where this dog was eating his dinner, child crashed on to the dog and they both fell in a heap on the floor. 
The dog extricated himself out from under the child, turned and licked her on the face, then returned to his meal and resumed eating as if nothing had happened.

Now take the yorkie that @Nettles used as her example. Much smaller dog, much less "provocation", yet the dog did extensive damage. 
Sure, if my 80pound dog _could_ do far more damage to a child's face than a yorkie, but that doesn't mean he _will_. Temperament accounts for so much of how safe a dog is. Training, socialization (correct socialization, not sensitization), how resilient the dog is, what kind of bite inhibition the dog has, what kind of tolerances... Size really does end up being a non-issue when you look at all the other factors that go in to making a dog safe or unsafe.



El Cid said:


> no knows the risks of each owner/breed combination.


Actually we do know a lot about dog bites. 
There are people who look at things other than breed when there is a serious dog attack. After decades of examining dog bites and attacks experts know a lot of things.
For example as I've already said, we know that dogs kept chained or kenneled and not part of the family unit are more likely to be involved in extreme cases.
Dogs used for breeding - especially those again used for breeding without being included as family pets.
Dogs allowed to roam at large, especially in pairs or more. 
Dogs who live in homes where there is domestic violence are more likely to be involved in severe bite cases. Yup, violence breeds violence.
Dogs who have bitten before are more likely to bite again and will do so with more damage and less provocation.

The last point has already been addressed by UK legislation. In the UK it is unlawful to have your dog dangerously out of control. If those cases were a) reported, and b) taken seriously by the authorities, it would reduce the number of attacks for sure. Because all those bad attacks were nearly always by dogs who already had a reputation in the community for being unsafe. Some had previously been reported and nothing done. 
That last point is also why *good* rescues will not take a dog with a bite history and will not home a dog with a bite history. And why good trainers and behaviorists try very hard not to cause any dog they're working with to bite. (Something those CM lovers should consider.)

Dog behavior experts already know a good bit about what predicts if a dog will be dangerous or not, and breed or size is not a very accurate predictor.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2016)

ChristineJ21 said:


> I think the same holds true for staffies/pit bulls/rottweilers/dobermans ... someone going up to two small dogs fighting and booting one in the ribs so it goes flying will probably end the fight immediately but with the above will probably end with the booter getting his throat ripped out! So there is that sense that some breeds of dog will "fight to the death" and others will be more easily cowed in an aggressive situation.


LOL throat ripped out? Um... okay... You do realize most bites when breaking up dog fights are to limbs - usually hands.
In any case, breaking up a dog fight is always a dangerous place to be, however anecdotally I can tell you I have broken up a fight between my bull breed mix and our passed male dane. A for real fight where they were poking holes in each other. I was in flip flops, it was outside in a field so nothing to grab to separate them, and the dane wasn't even wearing a collar so I had to bear hug him by the neck and chest. I am NOT recommending anyone do this, it was very stupid of me, however, by myself I broke the fight up and other than one of them stepping on my foot and scratching it slightly, I had no injuries.
On the other hand when I was a kid, I saw my dad get some serious injuries breaking up a fight between a lab and a small terrier. It was the terrier who chomped him.
Again, size and breed is not an accurate predictor of potential damage.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

havoc said:


> When they're caught their car gets taken away and crushed unless they put insurance in place and pay to get it back. Don't think it could work in quite the same way with dogs but there's no reason something couldn't be worked out. As has been pointed out, any dog, any size can cause a car accident, damage etc and the owner is liable.


While that may be a concern for responsible owners who actually care about their dogs, many will just shrug it off, exactly like those who drive without insurance do. Just pop out and get another "run around" car, or just pop out and get another "run around" dog.
A quick look through Gumtree alone shows that dogs are "disposable" to many, many people.


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

ouesi said:


> Again, size and breed is not an accurate predictor of potential damage.


Yes but just as a Ferrari can "potentially" go 170mph and a VW Up can only go 85mph at top speed ... there is a difference in the capacity of each breed to inflict damage.

A small dog can give a nasty bite to an adult but any fit adult could pick it up and fling it away ... but surely you would agree that you simply can't defend yourself against a larger dog without an external aid.

So the capacity to inflict damage is greater - not necessarily the potential, which is down to temperament and nurture. The potential in a well-cared for dog is less but if that threshold IS crossed then the damage inflicted will be more serious (and perhaps fatal).

That is how I see it - I know the comparisons were ridiculed earlier but put me in a cage with an angry house cat and an angry tiger ... I favour my chances far better with the first option.

I know, know that dog fatalities are very rare. I have never ever been bitten by a dog (not including puppy training/chewing) - and from childhood to now I have always been with and around dogs (my mother has ALWAYS had two springers for the last 50 years); my sister GSDs and my other sister rescue mutts of indeterminate breed and my previous dog. No children or grandchildren ever bitten.

So dog fatalities are rare but the potential harm caused must align with the capacity to cause that harm.

And that should be factored in - even if one never drives ones Ferrari over 70mph - the fact that it can go at 170 should be considered. I know that is not a great analogy because a crash at 70 probably often enough has the same result as a crash at 170 ... (but perhaps there is a chance at the 70mph which disappears completely with the impact of a 170mph crash) but bad analogy aside, the point about greater capacity for harm remains. I would say.

And to add - I am not arguing for arguments sake ... I have found the posts (on the whole - not all) to be interesting and thought-provoking.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

I feel that we're going in circles here


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm really struggling to understand how having insurance would reduce this type of attack or how any changes to the law would reduce this type of attack or even how bringing in tight dog control laws such as leashing/muzzling in public would prevent this type of attack.


They wouldn't but the subject came up in the general context of responsible dog ownership.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

I'm pretty baffled that people think it's as easy as picking up a small dog and flinging it away to stop it attacking. It really isn't. Terriers are generally small but are bloody tenacious little things and if they don't want to let go...well good luck. And if you do get them off and physically knock them away they're more than likely gonna come charging back. I know a grown adult who was very seriously injured by a Westie. And no, I don't think a bigger dog attacking would have necessarily caused more damage to her.

And personally I find it easier to block a larger dog. They're a much bigger target, generally not quite as quick and if necessary I find it easier to get a slip noose around their neck.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2016)

ChristineJ21 said:


> Yes but just as a Ferrari can "potentially" go 170mph and a VW Up can only go 85mph at top speed ... there is a difference in the capacity of each breed to inflict damage.


Dogs are not cars. 
Dogs are sentient creatures with brains. Dogs are a product of their genetics and environment. A ferrari is a ferrari. A working line GSD is not always a working line GSD 



ChristineJ21 said:


> So the capacity to inflict damage is greater - not necessarily the potential, which is down to temperament and nurture. The potential in a well-cared for dog is less but if that threshold IS crossed then the damage inflicted will be more serious (and perhaps fatal).


Even once the threshold is crossed you still have bite inhibition to account for. Again, size does not predict damage. 
We had an old mutt dog when my children were babies. He was a grumpy old man with arthritis who was not fond of the babies, especially not when they became mobile. We were careful about giving him his space.
One afternoon one of the toddlers fell down the stairs and landed on top of the old dog who respond by roaring in the child's face and air snapping at him. Child was terrified, but wholly unhurt. Bite inhibition kicked in even in the geriatric, grumpy old dog who didn't like kids anyway.



MiffyMoo said:


> I feel that we're going in circles here


IKR?
At the end of the day, people are going to believe what they're going to believe.
I think for a lot of people it is just comforting to say "it's the breed" because then they don't have to look at their own dog and worry. As long as they can say "well my dog isn't one of those devil breeds" they're good.
Likewise with size. As long as they can look at their dog and be assured that little fluffy couldn't do any damage even if he tried, they're good, no need to think much past that. 
And of course my personal favorite, "it's all in how you raise them" because if you just love the genetically damaged crocodile enough, he won't bite you....

The problem is, this lack of knowledge and refusal to acknowledge the information experts already know means we will continue to have ineffective laws passed, continue to have dangerous behavior overlooked, and continue to have innocent human and dog lives taken


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

Sarah1983 said:


> I'm pretty baffled that people think it's as easy as picking up a small dog and flinging it away to stop it attacking. It really isn't. Terriers are generally small but are bloody tenacious little things and if they don't want to let go...well good luck. And if you do get them off and physically knock them away they're more than likely gonna come charging back. I know a grown adult who was very seriously injured by a Westie. And no, I don't think a bigger dog attacking would have necessarily caused more damage to her.
> 
> And personally I find it easier to block a larger dog. They're a much bigger target, generally not quite as quick and if necessary I find it easier to get a slip noose around their neck.


Well we may have to agree to disagree. That said, I have no personal knowledge of dog bites ... so have little experience to go on. And I can't think - off the top of my head - of anyone who has had a bad dog bite.
Oh yes, a friend of mine was bitten by his mother's dog --- apparently just launched at his hand on the door knob when he opened the door to his mother's room (the dog sleeps there). No idea why...


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

ouesi said:


> Dogs are not cars.
> Dogs are sentient creatures with brains. Dogs are a product of their genetics and environment. A ferrari is a ferrari. A working line GSD is not always a working line GSD
> 
> Even once the threshold is crossed you still have bite inhibition to account for. Again, size does not predict damage.
> ...


Well I am pleased to know about bite inhibition. My dog G - air snapped at me when I was trying to remove a tick.

It is because he doesn't entirely trust me, I think. But I hope one day the bond/trust will be stronger .... slowly, slowly.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> I know exactly how insurance works, the issue was that the poster claimed that no one knew the risks. If no one knows then nobody can calculate them!
> 
> It is also very emotive to suggest that someone will get their throat ripped out (must be all those stories you have read about dogs always going for the throat)
> 
> The way to break up a dog fight with two big dogs is either the blanket over the two or the wheelbarrow method neither of which are guaranteed to work and generally need more than one experienced person to effect.


Or a swift whack in the balls with with an iron bar as my hubby witnessed happen in a dog fight last year.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Sweety said:


> A bit of a generalisation here.
> 
> I have a small dog. She isn't allowed to jump at anyone. She doesn't approach other dogs, however, if a dog barges into her space, she would warn them off and, if the warning weren't heeded, she would bite..


Round where I live I would say well over 90% of small dogs are on flexi leads running round all over the place on peoples garden, and running and jumping up people, the owners just letting them do what ever they want, and then saying he/she just wants to playing.



Sweety said:


> *I'm interested to hear which dogs are "better at unprovoked attacks"*.


Dog on dog, I'm have to say a Staffy. As we been on the end of an attack by one and talking to other people and them saying "don't talk me about Staffies, my dog has been attacked by one as well, we've lost count how many times we have heard this.


----------



## 3dogs2cats (Aug 15, 2012)

Sarah1983 said:


> I'm pretty baffled that people think it's as easy as picking up a small dog and flinging it away to stop it attacking. It really isn't. Terriers are generally small but are bloody tenacious little things and if they don't want to let go...well good luck. And if you do get them off and physically knock them away they're more than likely gonna come charging back. I know a grown adult who was very seriously injured by a Westie. And no, I don't think a bigger dog attacking would have necessarily caused more damage to her.
> 
> And personally I find it easier to block a larger dog. They're a much bigger target, generally not quite as quick and if necessary I find it easier to get a slip noose around their neck.


I am fairly certain the dog that bit me been small It would not have been able to penetrate my clothing, including leather walking boots and the way I thumped it and twisted its collar, had it been a smaller dog I may well have killed it. Yes I have picked up a small dog attacking another, the owner asked me to, I held it out at arms length while I passed it on to the owner.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Happy Paws said:


> Round where I live I would say well over 90% of small dogs are on flexi leads running round all over the place on peoples garden, and running and jumping up people, the owners just letting them do what ever they want, and then saying he/she just wants to playing.
> 
> Dog on dog, I'm have to say a Staffy. As we been on the end of an attack by one and talking to other people and them saying "don't talk me about Staffies, my dog has been attacked by one as well, we've lost count how many times we have heard this.


Oh come on, because your dog was attacked by one and because a few people you speak to have had bad experiences does not mean they are "better at unprovoked attacks" it just means that the dog you met was in the same way as I don't go around telling everyone JRT's are "better at unprovoked attacks" just because of the experience I had with one (several other people I know have also had similar experiences with terriers). In 35 years of dog ownership my dogs have been set upon or themselves got involved in fights with all sorts of breeds ranging from Newfoundlands, to Dobermans, to Labradors to Spaniels to Boxers and yes a couple of Staffies. Perhaps it largely depends on where you live, the mix/number of dogs in the areas you walk etc etc.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Interesting view Blitz. So you think a postman who is bitten by a small dog is a jobsworth if they do anything about it but is quite right to be scared of a big dog behaving in the same way. I don't agree and thankfully nor does the DDA and nor do the post office. Whether you own a small or a large dog you have a legal responsibility to control it and to stop it biting or intimidating legal visitors to your property, the post office would be quite within their rights to refuse to deliver your mail . I do not agree that people do not like making waves or a fuss, perhaps in the past but not anymore, they are likely to film the incident and put it on social media as well as complain to the relevant authorities.


I know the law thank you and I would never let my dogs, whatever their size, and I have owned larger dogs in the past, intimidate or threaten anyone. But as I personally know postman who have been attacked I know for a fact that they have not reported it as they did not want to cause problems. I cannot comment on other postmen of course.



StormyThai said:


> Sorry but that is not true.
> If the dog is reported to the relevant authorities then they WILL follow it up (including muzzle and leash orders)...the ONLY difference is that small dog breeds don't face the risk of BSL...
> The problem is that most go unreported because lil fluffy didn't mean it
> 
> ...


I 100 percent agree with the bolded bit!

And yes, small dogs do not get reported as often as big dogs because they do not particularly bother most people. A small dog can be screaming around on the end of a lead (which absolutely disgusts me) and everyone smiles indulgently. A rottie or big staffie only has to turn its head benignly and the general public is up in arms. It may not be fair but it happens so what is the point of saying it does not.

The general public on the whole is ignorant of dog behaviour, and why should they have any knowledge. People are ignorant of so many things. eg, out driving a pair of ponies today, I was the 'groom' in the back. I could see a van coming towards us and a car pulled out to overtake us. I put my hand up to stop him and he waved gaily with a big smile and carried on. Luckily the van slowed up and he made it.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

simplysardonic said:


> Good article, possibly one of the most sensible I've seen to date, thanks for sharing.


""To get rid of its strict liability nature - An owner should not be automatically liable if their dog causes and injury in any way. This concept may give people a sense of righteous indignation and blame after a dog bite incident, but it does not prevent or resolve the problem.""

I do not agree with that from the news item.

The point with insurance is that if people do not train their dogs, they will be priced out of keeping dogs.
If licenses are not enforced, there is no hope.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

El Cid said:


> ""To get rid of its strict liability nature - An owner should not be automatically liable if their dog causes and injury in any way. This concept may give people a sense of righteous indignation and blame after a dog bite incident, but it does not prevent or resolve the problem.""
> 
> I do not agree with that from the news item.
> 
> ...


I don't think that is the point of insurance at all. It is not up to the insurance industry to regulate who can afford to keep dogs. I might be the wealthiest person in the village but the worst dog owner who lets my dogs attack other dogs so how does that help solve the problem of dogs attacking other dogs or people or more to the point prevent the tragic child fatalities we are discussing on this thread?


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't think that is the point of insurance at all. It is not up to the insurance industry to regulate who can afford to keep dogs. I might be the wealthiest person in the village but the worst dog owner who lets my dogs attack other dogs so how does that help solve the problem of dogs attacking other dogs or people or more to the point prevent the tragic child fatalities we are discussing on this thread?


Not that it is going to be any of us making these regulations but what if it was a dual system - as with driving: you have to have basic insurance (for others expenses) or you can get comprehensive and this runs alongside a points system, where if you get 3 points on your licence, your premium automatically goes up but if you have more you can be disqualified from owning a dog.

Equally you could have a system of bonus points that brings your premium right down - like obedience certificates having passed certain levels of training.

It is perhaps too bureaucratic when you think how many children die each year from RTAs in comparison to dog bites. And as everyone seems to be saying "knee jerk" legislation hasn't served people well in the recent past.

I guess there will always be dog bites - as long as people and dogs live together.

But the insurance ptemiums could be put towards "dog awareness classes for children" or better shelters or more availability of standardised training classes. I don't know.

I guess we just have to wait and see what will be done - if anything.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

It's all well and good having this insurance idea...however, as pointed out earlier in the thread, car insurance is compulsory - yet it is estimated that there is around 1 MILLION uninsured drivers on the roads!

So, as usual the responsible pay up (as always), and the irresponsible (you know, the same type that are responsible for dangerous dogs) would carry on as if nothing has changed.
This shouldn't be about hitting all dog owners, this should be about hitting the dog owners that allow their Fido to be dangerously out of control...I would fully back dog licencing IF the money was spent on getting more wardens out there being proactive, but as we know from the past -that won't happen!


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

ChristineJ21 said:


> Not that it is going to be any of us making these regulations but what if it was a dual system - as with driving: you have to have basic insurance (for others expenses) or you can get comprehensive and this runs alongside a points system, where if you get 3 points on your licence, your premium automatically goes up but if you have more you can be disqualified from owning a dog.
> 
> Equally you could have a system of bonus points that brings your premium right down - like obedience certificates having passed certain levels of training.
> 
> ...


Who do you think is going to pay for insurance for their dog? Yep, that's right.. the law abiding, responsible dog owners.
Who isn't going to pay for it? Yep, that's right.. the irresponsible dog owners.
How do you think the people working for these public liability insurance companies are going to get paid for a day's work if insurance premiums are going into animal shelters and training classes?
I'm a very responsible dog owner who just about manages to scrape by each month. If I had to pay public liability insurance on top of everything else, I wouldn't be able to keep my dog. Is that fair on me or other responsible owners who ensure their dogs are kept under control at all times?
Lastly, having insurance isn't going to make a dog less likely to bite. If a dog is going to bite, it's going to bite whether it's insured against public liability or not. I'm sure the parents of the young boy who was sadly killed couldn't give a rats ass whether the dog was insured or not either. I'm certain the last thing they're thinking about right now is compensation.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

Happy Paws said:


> Dog on dog, I'm have to say a Staffy. As we been on the end of an attack by one and talking to other people and them saying "don't talk me about Staffies, my dog has been attacked by one as well, we've lost count how many times we have heard this.


My last Staff bitch was brutally attacked by a Dalmatian dog who gave her 13 stitches down the side of her face. My OES was attacked by a Bullmastiff, my Westie was attacked by a Rottie (who came off far worse for those interested in size in dog bites), my EBT was attacked by a German Shepherd and the last dog to attempt an attack on Bear was a Collie.

My point is I don't give a flying feathered pigeon what you have on the end of the lead.

Own a dog? It's your duty to be responsible whatever the breed.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Pappychi said:


> My point is I don't give a *flying feathered pigeon* what you have on the end of the lead.


Bet you were tempted to post something slightly different


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

BlackadderUK said:


> Bet you were tempted to post something slightly different


I have no idea what you mean my good Sir ompus

:Angelic

Yes okay very tempted but I didn't!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Nettles said:


> Who do you think is going to pay for insurance for their dog? Yep, that's right.. the law abiding, responsible dog owners.
> Who isn't going to pay for it? Yep, that's right.. the irresponsible dog owners.
> How do you think the people working for these public liability insurance companies are going to get paid for a day's work if insurance premiums are going into animal shelters and training classes?
> I'm a very responsible dog owner who just about manages to scrape by each month. If I had to pay public liability insurance on top of everything else, I wouldn't be able to keep my dog. Is that fair on me or other responsible owners who ensure their dogs are kept under control at all times?
> Lastly, having insurance isn't going to make a dog less likely to bite. If a dog is going to bite, it's going to bite whether it's insured against public liability or not. I'm sure the parents of the young boy who was sadly killed couldn't give a rats ass whether the dog was insured or not either. I'm certain the last thing they're thinking about right now is compensation.


I am sorry but any dog owner that does not have public liability insurance is being extremely irresponsible. Do you have your dog insured against vets fees, I would imagine you have public liability cover included. If you don't then I would suggest you take it out as you could lose everything if your dog caused an accident.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Nettles said:


> Who do you think is going to pay for insurance for their dog?


A great many of us already do.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ChristineJ21 said:


> Not that it is going to be any of us making these regulations but what if it was a dual system - as with driving: you have to have basic insurance (for others expenses) or you can get comprehensive and this runs alongside a points system, where if you get 3 points on your licence, your premium automatically goes up but if you have more you can be disqualified from owning a dog.
> 
> Equally you could have a system of bonus points that brings your premium right down - like obedience certificates having passed certain levels of training.
> 
> ...


Perhaps some sort of points system might work but I don't agree it should be linked to insurance and I think if insurance companies were forced to operate such a system they would put all premiums across the board sky high which would punish responsible owners. Why not just target the irresponsible owners with proper warnings/control orders and fines. The system is already there for the more serious offenders - take a look at this link @smokeybear posted a while ago

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...ous-dog-offences-Definitive-Guideline-web.pdf

You will see it lists offences such as where death is caused, where injury is caused, where an assistance dog is killed or injured to simply out of control in any place. Each offence is graded from

A - High culpability
Dog used as a weapon or to intimidate people Dog known to be prohibited Dog trained to be aggressive Offender disqualified from owning a dog, or failed to respond to official warnings, or to comply with orders concerning the dog

B - Medium culpability
All other cases where characteristics for categories A or C are not present, and in particular: Failure to respond to warnings or concerns expressed by others about the dog's behaviour Failure to act on prior knowledge of the dog's aggressive behaviour Lack of safety or control measures taken in situations where an incident could reasonably have been foreseen Failure to intervene in the incident (where it would have been reasonable to do so) Ill treatment or failure to ensure welfare needs of the dog (where connected to the offence and where not charged separately)

C - Lesser culpability 
Attempts made to regain control of the dog and/or intervene Provocation of the dog without fault of the offender Evidence of safety or control measures having been taken Incident could not have reasonably been foreseen by the offender Momentary lapse of control/attention


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Re Public Liability Insurance 

1 Check your existing pet insurance policy if you have it.
2 Check your house insurance policy as some provide public liability as well although read the small print to make sure it would cover your pets.
3 Take out Dogs Trust membership and you will not only be helping dogs but you get free public liability insurance


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Blitz said:


> I am sorry but any dog owner that does not have public liability insurance is being extremely irresponsible. Do you have your dog insured against vets fees, I would imagine you have public liability cover included. If you don't then I would suggest you take it out as you could lose everything if your dog caused an accident.


I'm well aware my pet insurance covers public liability thanks, we are talking about additional public liability insurance with points systems and premiums for public liability insurance alone.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

havoc said:


> A great many of us already do.


I'm sorry, I really don't understand the point you are trying to make. Are you an irresponsible dog owner trying to prove you can be irresponsible and still have public liability insurance?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Nettles said:


> I'm well aware my pet insurance covers public liability thanks, we are talking about additional public liability insurance with points systems and premiums for public liability insurance alone.


Why would you need extra public liability if you already have it. That does not make sense. And doubtless if you had a claim your premiums would go up anyway and if you had a repeat claim and your dog had a control order you would either be uninsurable or the premiums would leap up to an unaffordable rate. You can already get public liability alone but as it is added to your policy automatically why would you pay twice - one of them would be wasted.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)




----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Pappychi said:


> My last Staff bitch was brutally attacked by a Dalmatian dog who gave her 13 stitches down the side of her face. My OES was attacked by a Bullmastiff, my Westie was attacked by a Rottie (who came off far worse for those interested in size in dog bites), my EBT was attacked by a German Shepherd and the last dog to attempt an attack on Bear was a Collie.
> 
> My point is I don't give a flying feathered pigeon what you have on the end of the lead.
> 
> Own a dog? It's your duty to be responsible whatever the breed.


I never said other dogs don't attack, only said the attacks I've heard of have all been with Staffies.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> ""To get rid of its strict liability nature - An owner should not be automatically liable if their dog causes and injury in any way. This concept may give people a sense of righteous indignation and blame after a dog bite incident, but it does not prevent or resolve the problem.""
> 
> I do not agree with that from the news item.
> 
> ...


Is your dog insured?

If it is, have a look at the policy documents.

I am pretty sure that somewhere in there is a sentence to the effect of "you must inform us if your dog is involved in any act of aggression; failure to do so may invalidate your policy"

Now I am willing to bet a pound to a penny that the vast majority of owners fail to inform their insurers of any such event hoping that they will not be found out.

Which is one of the reasons I am so vehement about owners reporting antisocial behaviour by the dogs of others to the relevant authorities. So that their hand is forced.

People will often only comply with laws (whatever they are) if the consequences are severe enough.

By reporting near misses and minor incidents the major ones can be minimised or even eliminated.

this is a basic premise of risk reduction.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Sweety said:


> View attachment 281213


It does not help that some of the recent programmes on police dogs featured handlers referring to their PD as "Land Sharks"............ sigh.


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

Nettles said:


> I'm well aware my pet insurance covers public liability thanks, we are talking about additional public liability insurance with points systems and premiums for public liability insurance alone.


No I wasn't talking about additional - just compulsory. At the moment it is a choice rather than a requirement - as I believe it used to be with cars?? and then it became compulsory - it should really be compulsory if only for the animals sake. Owners could well put off going to the vet because of fear of the cost - leaving their animal in pain but if everyone had to have insurance ... it might go some way to solving these issues and others.

If a child is disabled for life by an attack - insurance could cover life long health complications.

The profit from the premiums could go to support dog shelters etc if the system was run as a not-for-profit. Obviously there are many different ways to look at regulating and improving dog ownership - this is just one potential option and, in any case, it will not be me or others here who are in a position to make those decisions. So it is a hypothetical solution at best - just a thought. Every proposal is going to have benefits and drawbacks but if the potential benefits outweigh the drawbacks then fine - equally vice versa.

In the end I think most people wouldn't object to compulsory insurance as long as it wasn't unreasonable in cost £10 per month or similar.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ChristineJ21 said:


> No I wasn't talking about additional - just compulsory. At the moment it is a choice rather than a requirement - as I believe it used to be with cars?? and then it became compulsory - it should really be compulsory if only for the animals sake. Owners could well put off going to the vet because of fear of the cost - leaving their animal in pain but if everyone had to have insurance ... it might go some way to solving these issues and others.
> 
> If a child is disabled for life by an attack - insurance could cover life long health complications.
> 
> ...


Hang on, you think that a dog could be insured for vets bills and public liability for £10 a month. In your dreams, have you any idea what some people on here pay for insurance. And some breeds are excluded or the premiums are sky high. Why would it be compulsory to take out insurance for vets bills, that is a personal choice for the owner and some dogs are not insurable because of claims anyway.

I agree it should be compulsory for public liablilty insurance but as has been said the irresponsible owner would not take it out and the responsible owner already has it.

Insurance companies are not charities, they are run as a business and they certainly would not be giving away profits to charity, why ever would they.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

ChristineJ21 said:


> No I wasn't talking about additional - just compulsory. At the moment it is a choice rather than a requirement - as I believe it used to be with cars?? and then it became compulsory - it should really be compulsory if only for the animals sake. Owners could well put off going to the vet because of fear of the cost - leaving their animal in pain but if everyone had to have insurance ... it might go some way to solving these issues and others.
> 
> If a child is disabled for life by an attack - insurance could cover life long health complications.
> 
> ...


Your talking about insurance comapies here

We pay over £60 a month for health and liability and I know lots of us some pay a lot more.


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

Blitz said:


> Hang on, you think that a dog could be insured for vets bills and public liability for £10 a month. In your dreams, have you any idea what some people on here pay for insurance. And some breeds are excluded or the premiums are sky high. Why would it be compulsory to take out insurance for vets bills, that is a personal choice for the owner and some dogs are not insurable because of claims anyway.
> 
> I agree it should be compulsory for public liablilty insurance but as has been said the irresponsible owner would not take it out and the responsible owner already has it.
> 
> Insurance companies are not charities, they are run as a business and they certainly would not be giving away profits to charity, why ever would they.


You can have not-for-profit companies that work just as well as private sector/profit-driven companies. I should know, I work for one!! As for why - because we believe it to be in the best interests of all. Equally why would I want to make a random selection of stockholders wealthy at the expense of the common man??

I think if insurance was made compulsory premiums could easily drop --- not dissimilar to the French healthcare system. You have to have insurance but because everyone has it and yet only a minority will need it in any given year - premiums can be lower.

The argument against the irresponsible is always going to be a problem but how many more uninsured drivers would there be if it was not compulsory - I would say 20 million. Everyone always thinks they won't crash! You can't legislate just for the lowest common denominator or you wouldn't have any rules at all. Why make stealing a criminal offence when some people will still steal ...

I am not massively wedded to this idea of compulsory insurance - but it may go some way to addressing ongoing problems.

Then again perhaps it isn't a problem ... and this is all making a mountain out of a molehill.


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

This kind of system might work:

Low risk as long as it's kept in a bag









Low risk









Exempt - 'cause you probably deserved it









Off the chart danger levels, search owner for drugs and protect throat


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Pappychi said:


> My point is I don't give a flying feathered pigeon what you have on the end of the lead.
> 
> Own a dog? It's your duty to be responsible whatever the breed.


This is entirely the point! All the discussion about which breeds bite harder or may do more damage etc etc is pretty much a smokescreen.
Compulsory insurance? Who's going to police that? The government won't fund the officials to check dogs are insured.
Let's face it, Pitbull types are banned but they still exist, dog fighting is banned but it still goes on... if we can't stop those what chance have we of enforcing insurance?

I think we have to face the fact that as long as dogs live with people there will be tragedies. As someone said (Ouesi?), dogs are living sentient beings & no one can predict how any dog will react at any given moment, allow dogs to be owned by people who don't one end from the other let alone understand breed characteristics means it will go on & on...
How to stop it? I don't know, what I do know is that BSL hasn't worked, isn't working & will never work. What scares me is the Government doesn't listen to anyone, it's all about votes, & I can see a time when any dog larger than a hamster is banned....
It's the Government way, if they don't like it either tax it or ban it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2016)

Blitz said:


> The general public on the whole is ignorant of dog behaviour, and why should they have any knowledge.


Absolutely, but we have "general public" legislators making knee jerk reactionary laws that look at breed and size when we already know those are not the factors most likely to predict if a dog is dangerous or not.
Even on this thread there has been a lot of ignorance highlighted in what people (even people who own dogs) simply don't know. Bite inhibition for example. How many owners do you know who think air snaps are missed bites? Or don't realize that their dog who bit with little or no damage is now *more* likely to bite again, and will likely do more damage next time?



Blitz said:


> I am sorry but any dog owner that does not have public liability insurance is being extremely irresponsible. Do you have your dog insured against vets fees, I would imagine you have public liability cover included. If you don't then I would suggest you take it out as you could lose everything if your dog caused an accident.


And that's the problem. Those who don't have liability insurance ARE being irresponsible, already, they're not going to suddenly become responsible because there is a new law.

Our dogs are not insured, but our insurance company covers us through homeowner's insurance should our dogs cause damage. 
Many people don't have homeowner's insurance and can be sued for damages, but if they don't own anything, there's not much to sue them for. 
Because of this many states have gotten stricter on enforcing actual prison sentences for dog owners who allow their dog to maim or kill someone. Something I happen to agree with, especially as in every case of a prison sentence the dog had been implicated in other incidents leading up to the fatal one. 
(More enforcement obviously is a need also.)


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Absolutely, but we have "general public" legislators making knee jerk reactionary laws that look at breed and size when we already know those are not the factors most likely to predict if a dog is dangerous or not.
> Even on this thread there has been a lot of ignorance highlighted in what people (even people who own dogs) simply don't know. Bite inhibition for example. How many owners do you know who think air snaps are missed bites? Or don't realize that their dog who bit with little or no damage is now *more* likely to bite again, and will likely do more damage next time?
> 
> And that's the problem. Those who don't have liability insurance ARE being irresponsible, already, they're not going to suddenly become responsible because there is a new law.
> ...


oh good. Seems to be the first time in this thread we have wholeheartedly agreed with each other. And brilliant to know that some states are truly treating it as a proper criminal offence.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

ChristineJ21 said:


> I am not massively wedded to this idea of compulsory insurance - but it may go some way to addressing ongoing problems.


Interestingly I'm exactly the other way round. I'm fairly wedded to compulsory third party insurance but I don't think it would have stopped the attack on the child from what I know about it which is very little. I think they're two separate things but all come under the umbrella of dog ownership. I have no idea how much of my premium is to cover the millions of third party cover but I suspect it's a small proportion so I wouldn't think it would be expensive.

There are other things I think should have to be insured in the same manner which aren't at the moment so I'm not being anti dog - mobility scooters and adult cyclists are on my list


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2016)

BlackadderUK said:


> I think we have to face the fact that as long as dogs live with people there will be tragedies. As someone said (Ouesi?), dogs are living sentient beings & no one can predict how any dog will react at any given moment, allow dogs to be owned by people who don't one end from the other let alone understand breed characteristics means it will go on & on...


The other side of that is when we stop and think about how closely we live with dogs, how much a part of our lives they are, and how few bites and even fewer actual attacks on humans happen, it's pretty clear that dogs are in reality one of the safest animals (including animal of the human variety) that we share our lives with. 
I can tell you I'm much more comfortable leaving my children home alone with our dogs than I am leaving them with many adults I know....

I do think we can predict dog behavior pretty well. 
That information is out there, the problem is, it's more complex than just naming a breed, so most people can't be bothered with availing themselves of that information or trying to understand it.

Way at the beginning of this thread I said I hoped this case would be thoroughly investigated. Every one of these incidents in a glimpse in to aberrant dog behavior that gives us more information on how to prevent it. The more we know, the more we can apply that knowledge and make intelligent, effective decisions about how to keep people (and dogs) safer.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Just to raise the point that all dogs in Germany have to be covered by liability insurance by law.


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

Goblin said:


> Just to raise the point that all dogs in Germany have to be covered by liability insurance by law.


I think that is good.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2016)

Sweety said:


> I'm interested to hear which dogs are "better at unprovoked attacks".


I'd be interested to hear what qualifies as an "unprovoked attack" as well.

IME most owners have no clue what an appropriate correction for rude behavior is and are horrified when their little "friendly" fluffykins gets told off for rude, space invading behavior.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2016)

smokeybear said:


> Which is one of the reasons I am so vehement about owners reporting antisocial behaviour by the dogs of others to the relevant authorities. So that their hand is forced.


And if people did a better job of reporting dangerous dog behavior it would also create a paper trail which helps paint a more accurate picture of how these attacks tend to escalate. They very rarely happen "out of the blue".

It's sad that it's only after the reporters show up because of a tragedy that we find out the dog involved had been involved in minor skirmishes throughout the neighborhood....


----------



## komondor_owner (Jan 19, 2016)

deleted


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

ouesi said:


> *The other side of that is when we stop and think about how closely we live with dogs, how much a part of our lives they are, and how few bites and even fewer actual attacks on humans happen, it's pretty clear that dogs are in reality one of the safest animals (including animal of the human variety) that we share our lives with.*
> I can tell you I'm much more comfortable leaving my children home alone with our dogs than I am leaving them with many adults I know....
> 
> *I do think we can predict dog behavior pretty well.
> That information is out there, the problem is, it's more complex than just naming a breed, so most people can't be bothered with availing themselves of that information or trying to understand it.*


1st bit in bold (I hate doing this)... I agree but it's not going to happen. Dogs are far less harmful than falls in the home, accidents with electrical tools etc but as you've seen on this thread the perception is somewhat different. While there is no control over who owns a dog then we're at a stalemate & I don't see any easy way to fix it. We will have to accept "some" dog attacks....it's inevitable.

2nd bold... Yes, some can. Those who've taken the time & trouble to learn about dogs but how many do that? It's too easy to get a puppy without any knowledge at all & either they manage through sheer luck or the puppy becomes too much & ends up in rescue or, god forbid, it bites.


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

komondor_owner said:


> We as a society are raising more and more dogs that have never been told off for bad/aggressive behaviour in case it hurts the poor snowflakes feelings.
> Hardly a surprise that dog bites are on the rise, is it now.


Yeah, and then you get those really awful people who try to blame the victim for being bitten by a dog....................


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Blitz said:


> Why would you need extra public liability if you already have it. That does not make sense. And doubtless if you had a claim your premiums would go up anyway and if you had a repeat claim and your dog had a control order you would either be uninsurable or the premiums would leap up to an unaffordable rate. You can already get public liability alone but as it is added to your policy automatically why would you pay twice - one of them would be wasted.





ChristineJ21 said:


> No I wasn't talking about additional - just compulsory. At the moment it is a choice rather than a requirement - as I believe it used to be with cars?? and then it became compulsory - it should really be compulsory if only for the animals sake. Owners could well put off going to the vet because of fear of the cost - leaving their animal in pain but if everyone had to have insurance ... it might go some way to solving these issues and others.
> 
> If a child is disabled for life by an attack - insurance could cover life long health complications.
> 
> ...


If we're not talking about an additional public liability insurance then I'm afraid I really don't understand.. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I really don't see what difference it would make at all..
I would guess that most people are already covered for public liability either through their pet insurance or their home insurance policy. It hasn't prevented people from being attacked and/or killed so far. What would making it a legal requirement achieve?
As I mentioned earlier, it's a legal requirement to have a licence for your dog in NI.. Only responsible owners bother licensing their dogs though.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

komondor_owner said:


> We as a society are raising more and more dogs that have never been told off for bad/aggressive behaviour in case it hurts the poor snowflakes feelings.
> Hardly a surprise that dog bites are on the rise, is it now.


Where do you get your information from  Yet again you are making the mistake of jumping to the conclusion that not punishing a dog means they are not corrected/shown what is acceptable behaviour. How do you know how the dogs that caused fatal injuries to children or even the ones who bite postmen were raised? How do you know that they weren't all raised by CM followers and haven't been poked, rolled and shocked?


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2016)

komondor_owner said:


> We as a society are raising more and more dogs that have never been told off for bad/aggressive behaviour in case it hurts the poor snowflakes feelings.
> Hardly a surprise that dog bites are on the rise, is it now.


Hrm... so if people just started telling their dogs off you think dog bites and attacks would diminish?
Do you think a good telling off is all it takes to undo poor genetics and irresponsible human behavior?


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

Nettles said:


> If we're not talking about an additional public liability insurance then I'm afraid I really don't understand.. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I really don't see what difference it would make at all..
> I would guess that most people are already covered for public liability either through their pet insurance or their home insurance policy. It hasn't prevented people from being attacked and/or killed so far. What would making it a legal requirement achieve?
> As I mentioned earlier, it's a legal requirement to have a licence for your dog in NI.. Only responsible owners bother licensing their dogs though.


I think quite a number of people do not have pet insurance and therefore are not covered. I just quickly googled and here is a statistic from the independent:

_The phrase "man's best friend" has perhaps a ring of truth, as dogs are much more likely to be insured by British pet-owners than their cat companions, new research has revealed.

Around 2.4 million out of an estimated population of nine million are covered, according to figures from the Association of British Insurers (ABI) - meaning about one in four have policies taken out for them._

So that is 3/4s who don't. Northern Ireland may be different but in the UK I would guesstimate a good 50% have no cover at all - maybe 25% have cover through their home insurance and the other 25% have bought insurance.

But if it was made a legal requirement to have some form of public liability insurance, I think that would be a good thing --- especially if you could bring the premiums downs by for example: attending obedience/training classes or passing a dog awareness course or whatever it might be. One is never going to be able to legislate for the feckless without using a hammer to crack a nut so it may be that it will be as it will be for the most irresponsible but I would imagine that there would be a good number who would get the insurance if they knew it was a legal requirement, they would factor that into their costs in deciding whether they could afford a dog or not in the first place.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

komondor_owner said:


> We as a society are raising more and more dogs that have never been told off for bad/aggressive behaviour in case it hurts the poor snowflakes feelings.
> Hardly a surprise that dog bites are on the rise, is it now.


So in your personal opinion if we all jabbed, tshht, alpha rolled, shocked, bit, shoved our hands into dogs dinners, ensured we walked through the door first etc. Dog bites would go down?


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

ChristineJ21 said:


> I think quite a number of people do not have pet insurance and therefore are not covered. I just quickly googled and here is a statistic from the independent:
> 
> _The phrase "man's best friend" has perhaps a ring of truth, as dogs are much more likely to be insured by British pet-owners than their cat companions, new research has revealed.
> 
> ...


Sorry but I think compulsory insurance is an idea that will be of very little benefit to anybody other than lining insurance companies pockets. I don't see why the majority of responsible dog owners should be saddled with yet more expense to try and solve an issue with irresponsible ones. If legislation, some of the toughest in the western world I might add, doesn't work what makes anybody think insurance will make any difference?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ChristineJ21 said:


> I think quite a number of people do not have pet insurance and therefore are not covered. I just quickly googled and here is a statistic from the independent:
> 
> _The phrase "man's best friend" has perhaps a ring of truth, as dogs are much more likely to be insured by British pet-owners than their cat companions, new research has revealed.
> 
> ...


I think you need to totally separate Pet insurance (as in cover for vet's fees etc) and public liability insurance. Its entirely up to an owner whether they choose pet insurance or not, I always do despite the astronomical costs involved for example my 3 cost £136.82 (GSP), £71.48 (Rottie) and £34.43 (Pointer - he has less cover than the other two) that comes to £242.73 per month which is the best part of £3,000 per year. Many people prefer to put that money aside in a savings account or simply don't have that kind of money to spare and hope they will never need any expensive treatment. As it happens I am still well in profit as each of my dogs has cost way over the amount I've paid in premiums but many people consider it a waste of money. Public liability premiums on the other hand if taken out separately can be pretty cheap - I think someone on here has it with accidental injury cover and its less than £10 per month.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Public liability premiums on the other hand if taken out separately can be pretty cheap


Dogs trust:- Covers you up to 1 million for only £25 a year regardless of number of dogs.

Personally I think it is irresponsible if dog owners don't have at least public liability health insurance is a personal choice (although IMO it's better to have), but public liability should be a must. Making it compulsory won't change a thing IMO, the responsible insure their dogs, the irresponsible could not give two hoots...


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

The poor little boy, may he be remembered well.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Dogs trust:- Covers you up to 1 million for only £25 a year regardless of number of dogs.
> 
> Personally I think it is irresponsible if dog owners don't have at least public liability health insurance is a personal choice (although IMO it's better to have), but public liability should be a must. Making it compulsory won't change a thing IMO, the responsible insure their dogs, the irresponsible could not give two hoots...


Oh yes I agree - this is what I posted a couple of pages back

Re Public Liability Insurance

1 Check your existing pet insurance policy if you have it.
2 Check your house insurance policy as some provide public liability as well although read the small print to make sure it would cover your pets.
3 Take out Dogs Trust membership and you will not only be helping dogs but you get free public liability insurance 

I've got cover on my pet insurance and Dogs Trust membership


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

ChristineJ21 said:


> I think quite a number of people do not have pet insurance and therefore are not covered. I just quickly googled and here is a statistic from the independent:
> 
> _The phrase "man's best friend" has perhaps a ring of truth, as dogs are much more likely to be insured by British pet-owners than their cat companions, new research has revealed.
> 
> ...


We're going round in circles here. I'm not saying public liability insurance isn't a sensible idea. I'm saying its not going to make a jot of difference to a dog who is going to bite. It's also not going to make a jot of difference to an irresponsible owner who isn't going to take it out anyway.


ChristineJ21 said:


> *Northern Ireland may be different but in the UK* I would guesstimate a good 50% have no cover at all - maybe 25% have cover through their home insurance and the other 25% have bought insurance.


Northern Ireland is in the UK :Shifty


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Just a brief comment, Dogs Trust may not be suitable if people breed or work from home. I checked recently as with 5 dogs I was hoping to get 3Rd party through Dogs Trust and cut down each of their Petplan premiums. However, the wording on the summary stated:
" all your dogs are automatically covered, provided they are all pets ( this does not cover businesses or working dogs)"

Thus this cover wouldn't cover anyone who bred, even infrequently, or anyone who worked from home or took dogs to work. So for instance, if someone came to my farm for say a piglet, or to Muttly 's house to see her OH on business ( mending computer/accountant etc) we wouldn't be covered. Very unlikely, but when you need to put in a claim isn't the time to find out you don't have insurance. 

We use Petplan for our dogs vet bills and 3Rd party out and about, with separate cover under the farm policy with our "other activities" listed as dog and cat breeding, even though not large-scale or even making overall profit. Then if someone comes to see a Siamese kitten, and trips over my retired bitch, we are covered as both breeding cats and dogs listed specifically. Worth just reviewing the insurance situation if you breed occasionally or work from home/take dogs to work.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Oh yes I agree - this is what I posted a couple of pages back
> 
> Re Public Liability Insurance
> 
> ...


You wouldn't be able to claim on both though would you?


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Catharinem said:


> Just a brief comment, Dogs Trust may not be suitable if people breed or work from home. I checked recently as with 5 dogs I was hoping to get 3Rd party through Dogs Trust and cut down each of their Petplan premiums. However, the wording on the summary stated:
> " all your dogs are automatically covered, provided they are all pets ( this does not cover businesses or working dogs)"
> 
> Thus this cover wouldn't cover anyone who bred, even infrequently, or anyone who worked from home or took dogs to work. So for instance, if someone came to my farm for say a piglet, or to Muttly 's house to see her OH on business ( mending computer/accountant etc) we wouldn't be covered. Very unlikely, but when you need to put in a claim isn't the time to find out you don't have insurance.


"Working dogs" doesn't encompass people who take their pet dog to the office occasionally surely?

Including those doing non dog type jobs from home.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

MilleD said:


> "Working dogs" doesn't encompass people who take their pet dog to the office occasionally surely?
> 
> Including those doing non dog type jobs from home.


Doesn't cover working dogs or businesses - doesn't say dog related businesses, just businesses. I wouldn't leave any wriggling room for insurance to get out of it.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Catharinem said:


> Doesn't cover working dogs or businesses - doesn't say dog related businesses, just businesses. I wouldn't leave any wriggling room for insurance to get out of it.


Then you'd phone the company and ask them.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

MilleD said:


> Then you'd phone the company and ask them.


Only if you record your calls - I'd get it in writing.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

havoc said:


> Only if you record your calls - I'd get it in writing.


This, just not worth the risk of giving them a loophole to slither out of when you need them.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Catharinem said:


> Just a brief comment, Dogs Trust may not be suitable if people breed or work from home. I checked recently as with 5 dogs I was hoping to get 3Rd party through Dogs Trust and cut down each of their Petplan premiums. However, the wording on the summary stated:
> " all your dogs are automatically covered, provided they are all pets ( this does not cover businesses or working dogs)"
> 
> Thus this cover wouldn't cover anyone who bred, even infrequently, or anyone who worked from home or took dogs to work. So for instance, if someone came to my farm for say a piglet, or to Muttly 's house to see her OH on business ( mending computer/accountant etc) we wouldn't be covered. Very unlikely, but when you need to put in a claim isn't the time to find out you don't have insurance.
> ...


I certainly would not read it that way. It covers pet dogs not working dogs or businesses. I would not think it occurred to them to specify dog businesses. It does not say it does not cover dogs when in a non domestic environment.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I'd read it that way too but we're talking about insurance companies and it isn't worth giving them any wiggle room.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

ChristineJ21 said:


> Article from the Telegraph yesterday:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/pets/news-features/a-nanny-state-response-wont-stop-dog-bites/


The only bit of that article that needs clarification for me is the question of liability.

If a burglar is bitten when breaking into someone's home, the homeowner should not be liable.

However, if an owner has not taken reasonable steps to keep their dog under control and safe around people/dogs in general, and it bites someone in the park or a visitor then they should be in my view.

That would account for many of the dog owners I encounter, who would fall foul of the dog law every time their dog runs up to/chases someone and their dog, hackles raised, barking and growling but most people don't report them and would probably be told there was nothing to be done if they did 

That is was needs to change - big time!

If the dog law was made clear and used more effectively with average owners who don't take their responsibilities seriously, maybe people would keep better control of their dogs and not tolerate/excuse some of the behaviours.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

A working dog does not equate to a dog being at home when you are working, nor does it equate to a dog spending the day at the office...
Someone doing IPO may not be covered due to the added risk, but your average Joe Blogs pet will be fine


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Catharinem said:


> Just a brief comment, Dogs Trust may not be suitable if people breed or work from home. I checked recently as with 5 dogs I was hoping to get 3Rd party through Dogs Trust and cut down each of their Petplan premiums. However, the wording on the summary stated:
> " all your dogs are automatically covered, provided they are all pets ( this does not cover businesses or working dogs)"
> 
> Thus this cover wouldn't cover anyone who bred, even infrequently, or anyone who worked from home or took dogs to work. So for instance, if someone came to my farm for say a piglet, or to Muttly 's house to see her OH on business ( mending computer/accountant etc) we wouldn't be covered. Very unlikely, but when you need to put in a claim isn't the time to find out you don't have insurance.
> ...


I think you will find Petplan have a similar statement - when I applied for my two who are with them on line I was referred to underwriters because I'd ticked working from home but when they were told its just me at home doing secretarial/admin work and we don't have space where the public come in they OK'd it.



MilleD said:


> You wouldn't be able to claim on both though would you?


No, not sure how it works if you have cover in more than one place - they might split it between them possibly.


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

Lurcherlad said:


> The only bit of that article that needs clarification for me is the question of liability.
> 
> If a burglar is bitten when breaking into someone's home, the homeowner should not be liable.
> 
> ...


What I find weird is this 76% increase ... was it that people were that much more responsible with their dogs 15 years ago? Is there a change in the norms of people behaviour or dog behaviour or both??

I read another article by Victoria Sitwell who put it down to the Cesar Milan effect here: https://positively.com/victorias-blog/dog-bite-prevention-part1/

But I expect Cesar Milan would put it down to the Victoria Sitwell effect! It is a striking increase though.

Is it maybe because previously a lot of dogs were working dogs/busy/well-trained because they *had to be *to understand the commands. My last dog was extremely obedient and I used to take my horse out with the dog behind and never, ever was there a problem - B could have been a guide dog for the blind with that amount of road sense and also instant obedience to commands --- not that I was ever needlessly bossy (I'm not) but in case of emergency etc.

My current dog G is a lot, lot, lot better than he was 7 months ago BUT (and it is a big "but") ... I still have to find a really good trainer I guess.

I agree that legislation tends to deal better in some ways with the aftermath rather than prevention but it can be used as a stick/carrot to corral people into really seeking to have well-trained dogs as a norm. I am finding it particularly hard (weirdly) - even emotionally - but genuinely stressful having a dog that doesn't exactly listen to me so I am sympathetic to those who are struggling with the same problem but it doesn't mean that I think it is ok, just that I haven't found a successful way to deal with it as yet. He is a hound, it is a bit a case of "he is as he is" and management is the only option but if I do find a successful obedience pathway - this forum will be the first to hear about it!!


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

ChristineJ21 said:


> Is it maybe because previously a lot of dogs were working dogs/busy/well-trained because they *had to be *to understand the commands. My last dog was extremely obedient and I used to take my horse out with the dog behind and never, ever was there a problem - B could have been a guide dog for the blind with that amount of road sense and also instant obedience to commands --- not that I was ever needlessly bossy (I'm not) but in case of emergency etc.


@ouesi already covered this - they were taken out the back and shot


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

Gemmaa said:


> This kind of system might work:
> 
> Low risk as long as it's kept in a bag
> 
> ...


Oh my goodness!! Look at them staffies :Kiss :Kiss :Kiss


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Hanwombat said:


> Oh my goodness!! Look at them staffies :Kiss :Kiss :Kiss


I know, right! You just want to smush those little faces


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

ChristineJ21 said:


> What I find weird is this 76% increase ... was it that people were that much more responsible with their dogs 15 years ago?


A lot more dogs being kept in less space might have something to do with it. Was a time you wouldn't keep a dog which needed a lot of exercise unless you had a large garden whereas now people do and walk them. Many owners are probably more responsible in that way now but it does mean dogs are exposed to a constant drip of stressors a lot more than they used to be.


----------



## komondor_owner (Jan 19, 2016)

deleted


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

havoc said:


> A lot more dogs being kept in less space might have something to do with it. Was a time you wouldn't keep a dog which needed a lot of exercise unless you had a large garden whereas now people do and walk them. Many owners are probably more responsible in that way now but it does mean dogs are exposed to a constant drip of stressors a lot more than they used to be.


I also wonder if food is connected, in the old days (yes I know I've got rose tinted specs on today) they were fed more on left overs and scraps and bones from the butcher whereas these days a lot of dogs are given high quality premium foods twice a day even though many don't do anything much other than an amble round the local park.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I also wonder if food is connected, in the old days (yes I know I've got rose tinted specs on today)


I'm not sure that us being old enough to see the difference over time counts as rose tinted specs  I do think many aspects of modern life stress us all - including our dogs.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

havoc said:


> I'm not sure that us being old enough to see the difference over time counts as rose tinted specs  I do think many aspects of modern life stress us all - including our dogs.


No offence intended but many people look back to the "good old days" with rose tinted specs.
Personally I think if we were able to shut puppy farms churning out temperamentally unsound dogs then we would make an impact...Then we need to stop the people that get a dog just because, and then make zero effort with regards to training...

Just in 3 years the numbers of dogs around me has doubled!


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2016)

komondor_owner said:


> Be interesting to find out where most of the dog bites occur. I'd expect vast majority are in towns and cities (Even when adjusted for population density).


I'm still interested to know if you are saying a good telling off would prevent dog bites


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I'd expect the number of dogs in my village to have increased as more fields have been turned into housing estates - same space, more households, more dogs. What is very different now from my rose tinted past is the number of recognisable breeds as opposed to mongrels. Demand has without doubt led to a dubious supply of 'pedigree' puppies but I don't know if a significant number of problem dogs have come from puppy farms.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

havoc said:


> I'd expect the number of dogs in my village to have increased as more fields have been turned into housing estates - same space, more households, more dogs. What is very different now from my rose tinted past is the number of recognisable breeds as opposed to mongrels. Demand has without doubt led to a dubious supply of 'pedigree' puppies but I don't know if a significant number of problem dogs have come from puppy farms.


Same number of houses here (I'm talking the road I live on and the surrounding estate), yet dog ownership has still increased.

I can honestly say the only difference I see is the lack of "latch key" dogs...in fact I see more mongrels now than ever thanks to the "designer breed" impact


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Same number of houses here (I'm talking the road I live on and the surrounding estate), yet dog ownership has still increased.
> 
> I can honestly say the only difference I see is the lack of "latch key" dogs...in fact I see more mongrels now than ever thanks to the "designer breed" impact


more multiple dog homes here
I think , with my rose tinted glasses on, that 'back in the day' when you needed a license dogs were seen as more of a luxury and a big decision
whereas today, theyre treated more like a new cooker, or sofa, easily bought easily replaced

As for latchkey dogs, children knew not to take liberties with strange dogs, because they saw them out and about
and
dogs sorted themselves out between each other, either staying solitary or forming loosely fluid groups [not packs]

I know its easy to say there werent as many attacks, but i think thats more that there wasnt easy access to 'instant' news countrywide.
I know i remember more dogs being shot by farmers being news, than dog bites tho


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I think going back many years these things were often just accepted as part of life and not reported to any authorities or to the press. I can remember a cousin of mine being bitten quite badly on the face when she was young by a GSD, I think it was a farm dog at her grandparents. The dog was PTS immediately (I seem to remember it was ill and she had disturbed it in its bed but I'm not sure) and she was patched up at hospital but no police/social services or media were involved and very few people in the family even knew about it whereas today its all over facebook and the local if not national newspapers. 

I wouldn't say there are more dogs in our area than there were when we moved here 15 years ago, about the same number in the same households and a similar mix of breeds. Guess it varies around the country though.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

QUOTE, JamesGoesWalkies:

...

And what do we want ... less importance placed on breed and more on behaviour, but how would this be 'policed' or 'enforced'.
To an extent we already have a (Dangerous Dog) Act that should take care of that, but it clearly doesn't. Why? *Most countries
have their own Banned Breeds List and rely on breed specific behaviour ....so we have no precedent to follow.
*

These threads always dissolve into 'who bites the hardest' ... I'd rather know where we go from here ....

J

/QUOTE
.
.
California isn't a country, but it has an excellent example of a behavior-based Dangerous Dog law.
It describes both unacceptable k9 behavior, & unacceptable human behavior, plus it protects dogs
from being unfairly punished if they bite persons committing torts on the dogs' "home turf", or bite
persons who assault or threaten their friends or family members,
California's DDA describes in detail how dogs with past bite-histories, legally deemed dangerous as
individuals, not by breed or type, are to be housed, handled, & kept - to prevent injury to non-family.
.
It describes *what dogs must do *to be legally deemed dangerous: actual bites, not 'threatening', &
what kind of bites - penetrating, not bruises or scrapes, & *under what circumstances: *not teased
or provoked, not in pain [vets, staff, & Good Sammies at auto-accident scenes or similar cannot pin
'dangerous dog' on a dog who bites while in pain]; a dog who bites a trespasser on their home-turf
is acting with cause, as is a dog who reacts to threats or assault to their friends or family by biting.
A burglar bitten by a dog can't claim the dog bit without cause, & the burglar was *committing a tort*
*on the dog's home property *- the dog is held blameless.
.
It describes the fencing requirements [6-ft high, posts set in concrete, chain-link, locked gate...], insu-
rance required, public handling standards [no minors - only adults 18 & over may take the dog out;
always muzzled outside the home or outside a 6-ft fence], & ownership [dog cannot be transferred to
anyone else's ownership or guardianship for the dog's remaining lifespan - not given away, sold, put
in a sanctuary, nada; the dog is the current owner's problem for life].
.
It describes *what consequences ensue *if the owner violates any terms of the requirements - takes
the dog off their own property without a muzzle, or allows the muzzled or unmuzzled dog off-leash?
Fine & possible confiscation / euthanasia. Allows a minor to handle the dog, even if muzzled? Fine &/
or possible euth. Lets the insurance lapse? Ditto. The fence isn't 6-ft high, or the posts aren't set in
concrete? Ditto. Tries to give or sell the dog to another party? Ditto.
.
This is IMO a model law for any country, state, or city to emulate. It's clear, unambiguous, & puts all
onus to prevent a future bite firmly on the current [& future] owner's shoulders. A criminal, bitten by a
family dog, can't claim the dog is dangerous; an abusive spouse can't punish the dog for biting when
they threatened or assaulted a family member or friend - a dog who bites a person committing a tort is
legally protected.
if U trespass on the dog's property & are bitten, that's Ur fault. Tease, harass, or hurt a dog, & get bit?
Ur problem. Touch or corner a dog in pain, & s/he bites? The dog's not to blame. Human behavior is,
under this law, actionable *by the dog: *if U do something U should not have done, & the dog responds
by biting under justified circs, YOU - not the dog - are held responsible, & the dog's actions are legal.
.
I think it's brilliant. Clarity is a wonderful thing in a law, & justice is clearly delivered by this one - IMO.
.
see a copy here, with annotations & definitions:
https://www.animallaw.info/statute/ca-dangerous-california-dangerous-dog-statutes#s31621
.
.
.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

mrs phas said:


> I know its easy to say there werent as many attacks, but i think thats more that there wasnt easy access to 'instant' news countrywide.


I don't think there are more attacks, I think you are right that instant global news lulls us into believe more attacks happen...that and dogs were allowed to be dogs. 
All just my opinion of course


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

StormyThai said:


> I don't think there are more attacks, I think you are right that instant global news lulls us into believe more attacks happen...that and dogs were allowed to be dogs.
> All just my opinion of course


Although the 76% rise statistic is from the last ten years so from 2006 to now ... the global/internet/news phenomenon that was not around in the 70s (let's say) definitely existed by 2006.

There could be a number of different reasons as given above.

Although I don't think there has been a massive rise in pet ownership either in the UK, it has stayed somewhat static between 8 - 9 million from the stats I saw for dogs - incrementally increasing but not a 76% rise that's for sure!

Myself, I think the reporting would have gone up --- and then ... I just don't know! Something to do with either the dogs behaviour or people's behaviour - acceptable norms? Too much breeding - maybe before dogs did roam around a bit more so there were more genuine mongrels/street dogs to be adopted and it was good for the overall gene pool? Whereas now everything is a 'breed' and has been bred as opposed to being a mutt??? Just no idea.................


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ChristineJ21 said:


> Although the 76% rise statistic is from the last ten years so from 2006 to now


Where do these stats come from tho?
Could you post a link to show the full numbers?


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

ChristineJ21 said:


> Although the 76% rise statistic is from the last ten years so from 2006 to now ... the global/internet/news phenomenon that was not around in the 70s (let's say) definitely existed by 2006.
> .


I think we were more talking before this date, internet has only been available last 25 yrs [yesterday i believe]
Dangerous dogs act the same amount of time [coincidence? conspiracy theory there maybe]

Dangerous dogs existed long before that, just not reported as mentioned before, dogs would be pts, shot, minor no fatal bites are dismissed as one of those things etc
Statistics just werent collected/collated


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I also wonder if food is connected, in the old days (yes I know I've got rose tinted specs on today) they were fed more on left overs and scraps and bones from the butcher whereas these days a lot of dogs are given high quality premium foods twice a day even though many don't do anything much other than an amble round the local park.


Not sure how far back you are going but I was far more involved in the dog world 40 years ago than I am now and everyone I knew fed commercial food - maybe scraps and left overs as well but basically commercial food.



mrs phas said:


> I think we were more talking before this date, internet has only been available last 25 yrs [yesterday i believe]
> Dangerous dogs act the same amount of time [coincidence? conspiracy theory there maybe]
> 
> Dangerous dogs existed long before that, just not reported as mentioned before, dogs would be pts, shot, minor no fatal bites are dismissed as one of those things etc
> Statistics just werent collected/collated


Not sure that minor bites were dismissed. Many dogs were put to sleep (quite rightly) for minor bites as far back as I can remember. Antisocial dogs were far more likely to be put to sleep 40 years ago than they are now. We did not get to hear about fatal attacks in the way we do now. There was not non stop tv news and there was no internet so things were far less widely shared.


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

StormyThai said:


> Where do these stats come from tho?
> Could you post a link
> 
> There are a number of news sources but I think the actual figures come from NHS sources
> ...


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

Sorry not sure why my reply got wtapped into the original quote.

http://news.sky.com/story/deeply-concerning-surge-in-dog-attacks-10357841


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

Blitz said:


> Not sure how far back you are going but I was far more involved in the dog world 40 years ago than I am now and everyone I knew fed commercial food - maybe scraps and left overs as well but basically commercial food.
> .


if not scraps and bones then it was normally chappie with bonios or winalot
with posher people/breeders feeding pedigree chum, their slogan for a long time was "top breeders recommend it"
not kibble


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

StormyThai said:


> I don't think there are more attacks, I think you are right that instant global news lulls us into believe more attacks happen...that and dogs were allowed to be dogs.
> All just my opinion of course


Just to add - I think there has been a similar rise in the US so not just UK-based phenomenon.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Very key quote in that article...

"Admission rates for other types of animal attacks - including injuries caused by rats, cats, horses and foxes - are also up 76% compared to ten years ago."

It's not just dog bites, it is animal attacks full stop..Unless I see the actual numbers on the report these numbers were taken from I don't give it much credit - Sorry.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Blitz said:


> Not sure how far back you are going but I was far more involved in the dog world 40 years ago than I am now and everyone I knew fed commercial food - maybe scraps and left overs as well but basically commercial food.
> .


I'm talking about in the 60's and 70's, yes some may have fed commercial foods but I certainly didn't encounter the premium complete dried foods until the early 90's although they may have been around. I think people were less likely back then to fork out the type of money premium completes cost to feed the dog. My first few dogs after getting married were fed on tripe and a terrier meal.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

mrs phas said:


> if not scraps and bones then it was normally chappie with bonios or winalot
> with posher people/breeders feeding pedigree chum, their slogan for a long time was "top breeders recommend it"
> not kibble


Nothing wrong with that, it was a well balanced and perfectly acceptable food and far less obese dogs around. You are forgetting Pal, that is what our family dog was fed on 60 years ago. 40 years ago complete dry food was coming in and a lot of people were feeding it. 30 years ago most dog owners were feeding complete food.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm talking about in the 60's and 70's, yes some may have fed commercial foods but I certainly didn't encounter the premium complete dried foods until the early 90's although they may have been around. I think people were less likely back then to fork out the type of money premium completes cost to feed the dog. My first few dogs after getting married were fed on tripe and a terrier meal.


I am talking about the same era. In the 60s most people seemed to feed tinned food and winalot, by the end of the 70s there were complete foods starting to become popular. I am not sure about 'premium complete food' as I think that can often be a personal choice as to what that is. Since there has been a such a huge selection to choose from there are far more dogs with allergies and overweight/obese so I would have my doubts that it is an improvement in nutrition.

I first came across complete food in Canada in the early 70s, I think 72, and shortly after that it started appearing on my radar in the UK.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

There was also vast numbers of puppy farms during the 70s selling a great selection of breeds plus a lot of commercial one breed breeders.


----------



## ChristineJ21 (Jul 3, 2016)

StormyThai said:


> Very key quote in that article...
> 
> "Admission rates for other types of animal attacks - including injuries caused by rats, cats, horses and foxes - are also up 76% compared to ten years ago."
> 
> It's not just dog bites, it is animal attacks full stop..Unless I see the actual numbers on the report these numbers were taken from I don't give it much credit - Sorry.


It might be possible to google the hospital admissions I guess. The HSCIC (Health and Social Care Information Centre) data showed a 6.5% year-on-year increase in the number of people requiring inpatient treatment for injuries inflicted by dogs. I don't know exactly where HSCIC stores it's data maybe here?

http://digital.nhs.uk/searchcatalogue

I am not sure I can be bothered to really search it out. So it's fine either way - whether you think it false or not. Although I do think the BBC and the Guardian should be reputable sources but I guess you never can tell.

The US might have more accessible data - as the findings seem to have been replicated pretty much over there too.

This is quite an interesting article on the topic - covers much of what has already been discussed on this thread in various posts:

http://www.simpsonmillar.co.uk/news/are-we-doing-enough-to-prevent-dog-attacks-3368

I am a google expert - at the bottom of the article above it links to the stats - I am not sure copying and pasting will bring up the link but if you click on the simpsonmillar article, scroll to the bottom it will take you to the stats page from HSCIC: 
_1 Figures from the Health & Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) _


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Blitz said:


> Nothing wrong with that, it was a well balanced and perfectly acceptable food and far less obese dogs around. You are forgetting Pal, that is what our family dog was fed on 60 years ago. 40 years ago complete dry food was coming in and a lot of people were feeding it. 30 years ago most dog owners were feeding complete food.





Blitz said:


> I am talking about the same era. In the 60s most people seemed to feed tinned food and winalot, by the end of the 70s there were complete foods starting to become popular. I am not sure about 'premium complete food' as I think that can often be a personal choice as to what that is. Since there has been a such a huge selection to choose from there are far more dogs with allergies and overweight/obese so I would have my doubts that it is an improvement in nutrition.
> 
> I first came across complete food in Canada in the early 70s, I think 72, and shortly after that it started appearing on my radar in the UK.


You must have mixed in very different circles to me - I seriously had never heard of complete dried food/kibble before the late 80's/early 90's. Perhaps I didn't know anyone with enough money to buy it. Tinned meat and mixer or tripe and mixer supplemented with scraps and bones but not completes.


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

My Irish Setter was bought in the late 60's early70's, can't quite remember now, and he was fed on Chappie dog food mixed with Winalot biscuits.
When I got Cally in 1987 she was initially fed the same for a couple of years, then I was introduced to a food that looked more like rabbit food that was soaked in water before given to the dog. A year or so later the dog food man who came round in his van to sell animal foods, showed me the new complete food called Omega I think, it was round with a hole in the middle like a polo, I think that would have been in the early 90's, so RPH is pretty much spot on.
The first dog, the Sheltie, was bought by my parents and he was fed mince and biscuits with some suitable leftovers.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

QUOTE, Labradrk:

[SBTs / Staffies] are not involved in incidents any more than any other breed. It's just reported more - because it's more of a story when a scary-looking, flesh-eating beast, lock away your mum/ dad/ kids/ cousin twice removed, of an Am Bull/ SBT/ Rott/ GSD/ Mastiff/ Pit Bull, does something -- versus *a sweet soft- looking Spaniel, who couldn't possibly do any harm, looking that cute.* That is literally what it boils down to.

Hundreds of thousands of people are bitten by dogs every year. The vast majority... go unreported by the media. Ask anyone who works with dogs on a daily basis which breeds scare them - the answers may be very surprising to you. 

/QUOTE
.
.
I had an interesting convo last week on the bus, Alewife to Lexington - a very-slim, petite, late-30s mum with her pre-teen son, told me about her 1st "rehab" case with a small cat, as opposed to the large cats she was then accustomed to, working with wild felines at the zoo... lions, tigers, & so on.
She got a phone call from a man at Customs, who said they had a cat that needed to be assessed, specifically a kitten. She said we don't deal with domestic cats. "This cat is wild." We don't deal with feral cats, either. "No, not feral, a wild cat - illegally exported & illegally imported."
She reluctantly agreed to go see the kitty, & on arrival, said, _"This *can't* be a kitten!" - _he was already about the size of an adult domestic. She was assured he was around 8-WO. He was extremely suspicious, unhabituated & unapproachable. He'd been ID'd as an Asian Sand-Cat, illegally exported from Egypt & flown to the US, into Massachusetts, where he was found in the cargo of a local man.
She asked what am I supposed to do with him?... He replied, well, we can't keep him, & he can't go back. 
.
She agreed to take him to the zoo. When she got back, the zoo director took one look, & said, We've got no habitat for this animal, & refused to take custody. The staff zoologist, when she phoned to appeal for a health exam, agreed to check the cat out - bloods, physical, everything, including a fecal, at no cost.
She carried the crated kitten into the exam room, & the vet-tech said, "Oh, he's adorable!" - the keeper told the zoologist that this cat was very wild, & very aggressive - he'd need tranquilizers at minimum, & maybe general anaesthesia, to be safely handled for an exam.
The vet-tech said, "He's cute... He won't hurt me..." The keeper said, U'll need gauntlets, & she insisted, "I can handle him, he'll be fine..." Before anyone could stop her, she opened the crate, & reached toward the cat. Without exiting the crate, he ripped her right arm from shoulder to wrist with one swipe. The zoologist said, "We'll have to sedate him to examine him...", & the keeper said, That's what I've been telling U. 
.
It took 96 stitches to close the wounds on her arm. _*Cute animals can still hurt U, badly. *_Cute doesn't mean cr*p. Nor does how long U've had this animal - how much U love them, how much they love U. It's been 11 years; she still has the sand-cat, he's 30# of muscle, & far-taller than a dog of that weight. His fangs are over an inch long. So are his claws.
.
She can handle him, as long as he's not excited or scared; so can her son, under the same circs.
He still must be knocked-out for exams, annually or at need. He's in excellent health, & neutered.
He roams her house freely; she rehabs severely-injured or emotionally-damaged house cats, & he observes them, but doesn't interact. She warns visitors not to stare at, touch, or even approach him; just leave him strictly alone.
She doesn't know how long he may live; his kidney function is perfect [I asked].
.
Saying or even -thinking-, _"S/he won't hurt me..." _should be a red-flag to examine the circs, Ur own safety precautions, & anyone else who may be at risk, *before* U continue. A dog who's umbilical U tied-off at birth may still BITE, when scared, angry, or in pain - or under the influence of meds, a tumor, concussion, or other mentally-altered state.
.
_Any animal with teeth can bite. Any animal with claws can rip.
Any animal that feels threatened can & usually will defend themselves.
Mothers with young are especially dangerous. Don't get cocky. _
_._
.
.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm talking about in the 60's and 70's, yes some may have fed commercial foods but I certainly didn't encounter the premium complete dried foods until the early 90's although they may have been around. I think people were less likely back then to fork out the type of money premium completes cost to feed the dog. My first few dogs after getting married were fed on tripe and a terrier meal.


I was born the day after WW2 was declared and can remember what life was like in the 40's when there was barely enough food to feed the UK human population let alone their dogs.

My grandparents two dogs and our own were fed mainly on stews made of potato and other vegetable peelings, with any scraps of meat and bread, plus cooked bones. As my grandfather had a farm eggs were always available and any surplus was given to the dog as were any rabbits he shot, that's if the dogs didn't kill them and a few birds themselves when they went off into the fields on their own.

I well remember our own dog a Staffie x Lab the offspring of my grandfather's two dogs having an unwanted litter of 13 puppies, 12 of whom were gassed at a few days old! The one that was left was weaned on bread and milk then finely chopped meat mixed with cooked oats.

When I was given my own Lab puppy in the early 50's, she was fed on "home cooked" but with better ingredients because meat and other foodstuffs were more readily available. I seem to remember as she got older we could also buy commercial dry dog food like Winalots and in the early 60's when my parents bought their next Lab she was fed on a mix of both wet and dry commercial food.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Mid 90s ours were fed on tinned food with mixer, it was cheaper than the complete foods. Later on we found a cheap complete food that looked like rabbit food and they were switched to that instead. We were on a very tight budget so no idea what was available at more than a couple of pounds a week for 2 dogs. But most dogs we knew were fed much the same, either cheap tinned meat with mixer or rabbit food looking complete dry food.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I've lived in a city where thousands of unowned dogs lived in the streets and they weren't a problem in terms of temperament. Completely untrained, never been inside houses, completely free to do as they chose. Incidents of bites were extremely rare - yes they did happen and tourist manuals contained the information on where to go for the rabies shot if you were bitten but in the main humans and dogs rubbed along together in very close contact without confrontation. Thousands of pairs of feet would pound a pavement every day within inches of a bitch with a litter of pups in the gutter and there wasn't a problem. It must have been a small gene pool so no good breeding practices and certainly conditions as bad in their way as any puppy farm. I have to assume there may have been the odd dog go 'rogue' and the locals would deal with it - I honestly don't know. I do know they were fine if left alone until and unless they chose to approach so whatever problems we have with our companion dogs are something to do with the way we make them fit in with us.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

QUOTE, mrs phas:

Bull breeds were not bred to fight
they were bred to help the farmer, by *grabbing* hold of *the ring *[which went] *through the bull's nose*...
This is also where the myth of them locking their jaws comes from, they'd be punished/ *shot*, if the bull got away from them, especially if (he injured) someone, so (the bulldog) would hang on no matter what, until given the command to release
they have no magic abilities to lock their jaws, any more than a Chihuahua or a wolfhound has, just a tenacity to please their 'masters'
They were also expected to listen to *their* humans, [emphasis on the their] no matter whom or what age, hence being known, until the last 20 yrs, for their gentleness around children.
It was only AFTER the DDA ban [remember, 3 'banned' breeds weren't even in the country when it came into force] that nefarious people went into overdrive, producing pit-alikes for the 'ard idiots, that temperament went right out the window and pockets came into play.

bull and bear baiting, whilst occurring, were not as prevalent as modern day mythstorians would have us believe. Bear dancing [along with monkeys] was much more common.
/QUOTE
.
Mrs Phas,
I'm genuinely sorry to pop some bubbles of illusion, but English Bulldogs of olde did *not* "grab the nose-ring of the bull" for the extremely-good reason that it's a dandy way to break one's teeth, & a lousy attempt at controlling a half-ton or more of muscular, masculine bovine.
The bulldogs of the 1400 - 1600s era were athletic, muscular, short-haired dogs with a full-length snout, & they used intimidation just as much as any other herding dog does to control the stock; hard stares, a forward crouch, & other body-language, plus barking, lunging & snapping at heels, head, ears, or nose, as needed.
"Hanging" on a bull is as good a way to get killed as any, since he'll throw or smash the hanger on a fence, into a wall in the barn, or smash them into the ground, depending on where the hanger has clenched their teeth, & what's available to smash them into. A dog who clamps a bull's fetlock is most-likely going to be brained, or at least seriously injured, when their flailing body is driven by a hard kick into some object or surface.
.
QUOTE, cont'd

The 'pit' in the pitbull, was, originally, *a rat-pit...*
.
Pitties weren't set on rats, as they didn't yet exist during the heyday of the rat-pit & gambling on rats killed, how fast, & so on - rat-pits were for terriers & their relatives, the varmint-dogs of farms & fields & homes - Schnauzers, Rat Terriers, JRTs, & similar. The original 'pit' in Pitbull refers to the fighting pit, usually a ring, not a pit - rats are in pits to prevent their escape from the dog.
Historically & currently:
Fighting dogs don't tend to flee, & are usually within either a fence or a low wall, so that the match can be seen by spectators, often seated on bleachers, or in cheap venues with a small audience, standing on the fence rails. The audience & breeders, handlers, & hangers-on present, can bet on the dogs.
Portable mesh-fences as used on construction sites are now popular with dog-fighters who want to pack up before the cops arrive, & quickly remove all evidence, now that it's illegal in the U.S. Dog-fighting is now a Federal crime, as well as banned in all 50 states.
Sadly, cock-fighting is still legal in a few states of the 50, & is extremely-popular in the Philippines.
A few years ago, I was appalled to see an advertising banner on the inside wall of a *bull-fight ring* in Mexico, promoting PURINA chicken-chow for fighting birds - great way to offend efficiently, outraging in multiple ways at once: the company's sheer gall in taking advantage of that despicable venue for an ad, the very idea of commercially-made retail of a specific diet for fighting birds, & their hypocritical "we love pets!" stance in PR-pieces.
Apparently, Purina "loves" the money to be made from sales to cock-fighting folks even more than they 'love' pets - & obviously, per Purina, fighting chickens aren't "pets", thus don't deserve the same ethics or care.  This, BTW, is a bl**dy good reason to boycott Purina, IMO.
.
back to dog-fight history:
From the 1800s & into the 1920s & '30s in the USA, dog-fighting was regarded as honorable good sport, & audiences in photos of that period often include gentry - lawyers, doctors, bankers, college students in letter-jackets, professors, & even police in uniform or out.
It wasn't unusual to have the local sheriff betting on a dog-fight, or a cock-fight, for that matter.
The post-Civil-War 'kindness campaign' to reduce the suffering of animals had begun with horses in harness, & then spread to other species, including our own - the 1st legal cases to defend children from abuse were brought under animal-abuse laws, as there were no laws yet regarding standards for child care, schooling, housing, employment, etc.
The banning of child-labor & improvements in hygiene greatly improved the odds of surviving childhood, & mandatory schooling also improved earning power. As the automobile took hold, harness-horses became a fraction of the horsepower used in transport of goods & ppl, relegated to novelty, hobby, or show, & often out of the public eye - complicating prosecution.
But dog-fighting lingered on, respectable & uncontroversial.
For a sample of the public sentiment of the time, read James Thurber's dog-stories, which unabashedly cheer his own family's heroic pitbull, who fought provoking dogs, burglars, & bit various members of the family & non-family, very democratically.
His death is heart-wrenching - he was poisoned, as like many dogs of the era, he roamed at large..

QUOTE, cont'd

...where dogs of undetermined parentage [*which ALL pitbulls are, they are not a recognized breed in themselves*] were 'pitted' against a number of rats...
.
Au contraire - globally, over a dozen breeds can be tagged 'pitbull', small "p", as former-fighting breeds - the Boston [Bull And] Terrier, the American Staffordshire [Bull And] Terrier, the Staffordshire [Bull And] Terrier - forebears of the AmStaff; the Cane Corso, Presa Canario, Dogo Argentino, Boerbel, & more - but AFAIK, only one recognized breed world-wide includes the term Pitbull, capital "P", in the breed's name.
That would be the APBT, American Pit Bull Terrier.
The APBT shares the same founding stud-book as the AmStaff, altho AmStaff breeders, show-folks, owners & indeed the AKC itself would love to deny this bit of history. Many APBTs are cross-registered with both the AKC, the original registry, & the UKC - United Kennel Club - founded by "sportsmen", breeders who were angry that the AKC had banned all dog-fighting & would strip kennels of their registration if they were caught fighting their dogs.
So the AKC got religion 1st; the UKC got religion later, & they. too, banned fighting - resulting in yet-another registry, the ADBA - American Dog-Breeders Association, for current breeders of 'game' dogs - that is, fighting lines Pitbulls, capital "P", of registered ancestry - mostly AKC or UKC lines, with the occasional import from Canada, Mexico, or Europe.
.
Every one of those breeds is the product of deliberate cross-breeding for foundation stock, then tweaking the result thru further breeding of the progeny to get fixed characteristics, AKA type - so that pups grow up to look like parents.
The original bulldog X terrier cross was intended to produce a dog with speed, agility, & power - the bulldog's muscle & terrier's quick reflexes, an ultimate canine athlete. They succeeded admirably.
Early "Boston [Bull And] Terriers" fought in 3 weight classes, the largest in the '60# & over' class. Nowadays, their cute little descendants are reduced to toy-size & no one runs screaming, "pitbull!" , when they see one, but that's what they are - just smaller. M:M aggro is a known heritable issue in the breed, along with dog-reactivity or even dog-aggro, & same-sex aggro in bitches is also a possibility.
However, like all the other USA-produced 'pitbull' breeds, they are extremely human-affiliative, generally stoic, & rarely aggressive to humans without cause - unless they've been mistreated or under-socialized.
_*The same cannot be said of non-USA 'pitbulls' of many breeds: *_Cane Corsos, Boerbels, & Presas are often stranger-intolerant & will bite non-family with minimal or no provocation.
The difference is that USA-bred 'pitbulls' were expected to be handled even during extreme arousal in the middle of a fight, WITHOUT biting the handler - or the judges. There are 2 handlers in the pit, one for each dog, plus 2 judges - one watching each dog. There's not a lot of space. When the judge says, 'Pick up Ur dog', U're expected to wade on in there & do just that - now, no matter what's going on, & without any excuses.
Dogs who couldn't or wouldn't confine their bites in the pit to the opposing k9 were killed. It might not be gentle or politically correct, but it's certainly an effective way of removing them from the gene-pool of the breed. To this day, even game-bred / fighting lines pitbulls are generally extremely human-friendly & incredibly stoic; many can be handled safely even when they're in agony, which only makes it more heart-breaking when they arrive at a vet's clinic after being severely abused - during a dog-fight, or maliciously, simply because "they'll take it".
.
Some ADBA breeders are on the way to trashing the breed's temperament, because unlike the 'dog-men' of the glory days, these nitwits know nothing about genetics or behavior- the eejits BRAG about litters that must be separated by sex around 4 to 5-WO to prevent injury to the smaller bitches by their brothers, or they BRAG about bitches who are so quick to react to pain that they BITE their pups when the emerging teeth hurt their nipples, as they nurse.  That's not normal for any dam, but it's freakish for a pitbull, & certainly not a desirable trait to pass on.
The simple fact that so many ppl have never spent time living among animals of many species means that these urban-burban ADBA breeders, products of mandatory schooling in a literate era, don't know squat about aggro, maternal behavior, territorial response, & other everyday stuff for the 'ignorant' farmers of the pre-Civil War period, who might not be able to read a book or sign their own names, but by Goddess, they understood non-human behavior in many species, wild & domestic.
.
.
QUOTE, cont'd

...the best being bred with each other to produce the ultimate pit fighter.
Again, the most important thing was that *they'd listen and [be] calm on command*, as their owners wouldn't want an out of control dog, it was actually something to be ashamed of, not being able to handle your dog *in the pit.* Yes, bull breeds were used in the mix, but many other breeds were, too.

I do wish people would do their research into history, rather than listen to mythstory.

/QUOTE
.
Yes, the best dog-fighters were bred to one another to produce even-better dog-fighters - just as the best rat-killers were bred to the best rat-killers, to produce even-better rat-killers.
However, nobody uses verbal cues to 'calm' either a fighting-dog or a rat-killer during or after their events. U don't hear any handlers tell the dogs to 'out' or 'that's enuf...', they just pick 'em up by the scruff, in the case of terriers, so they don't get bitten by an extremely-excited dog, & fighting-dogs in the pit are unceremoniously scooped up bodily, by their handlers.
.
I'm presuming that by *'the pit' *above, U refer to the rat-pit?
There's no good reason to use bull-breeds or bulldog-crosses in a rat-pit, so I'm not sure where that came from - if U can provide a link to a source, that would be deeply appreciated. Bulldogs of any type, even the athletic long-foreface originals, are nowhere near as agile as terriers; it's a bit like asking a Rottie to dance ballet.
Rotts can do a lot of things, but Swan Lake is not one of them. OTOH, it's certainly true that being unable to handle one's dog in the fighting-pit was [& is] a shameful thing, as it's a failure in full view of one's peers, the other breeders or owners, plus the general public.
Culling dogs who lose too often, or who bite when handled while aroused or after an injury, is still practiced among 'game-breeding' pitbull breeders. Dumping losers who've been mauled is also common - they won't spend the money to repair the injuries of a loser; most just triple-S, shoot, shovel, & shut-up.
.
I'll be happy when dog-fighting is in history books, not in real life. I'll be thrilled if cock-fighting & bull-fighting also become relics of an earlier era; for now, all 3 continue, in many places around the world. They are lucrative.  The Middle East is a hotbed of dog-fighting, as is the Western China plateau, & Asia is the Mecca of cock-fighting fans.
In this hemisphere, Mexico & Central / South America has many-times the number of cock-fighting fans vs USA numbers. Dog-fighting is not as high-profile, nor as popular, but it persists. Cock-fighting in the US is often run by Hispanic or Asian immigrants on the coastlines, but in the interior, especially the Midwestern plains, the 1930s cock-fighting culture lives on in rural Merika.
.
.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> You must have mixed in very different circles to me - I seriously had never heard of complete dried food/kibble before the late 80's/early 90's. Perhaps I didn't know anyone with enough money to buy it. Tinned meat and mixer or tripe and mixer supplemented with scraps and bones but not completes.





Siskin said:


> My Irish Setter was bought in the late 60's early70's, can't quite remember now, and he was fed on Chappie dog food mixed with Winalot biscuits.
> When I got Cally in 1987 she was initially fed the same for a couple of years, then I was introduced to a food that looked more like rabbit food that was soaked in water before given to the dog. A year or so later the dog food man who came round in his van to sell animal foods, showed me the new complete food called Omega I think, it was round with a hole in the middle like a polo, I think that would have been in the early 90's, so RPH is pretty much spot on.
> The first dog, the Sheltie, was bought by my parents and he was fed mince and biscuits with some suitable leftovers.


I fed Omega at one time, it was a bit expensive for me though. I started feeding and was an agent for a complete food called Trophy in 1981. When I stopped doing that my dogs were on sheepdog mix which was a rabbit food type of thing - I fed it dry though. I fed Omega when I could afford it (pretty sure that would have been in the 80s and I fed tripe from the abbattoir when I could get hold of it. It was excellent value at 50p for a whole tripe that lasted 3 dogs for weeks.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

QUOTE, komondor_owner:

Some breeds are *better at herding sheep* than others. Some breeds are *better at unprovoked attacks,
and inflicting damage* on people/ other dogs. ...
Some breeds have more exercise needs .... Some are far more physically demanding - you can't just pick them up and move them out the way.
If you own a "small breed", and [s/he] attacks someone, you can just grab [the dog] and put [them] back in your handbag. Not so easy with a large breed with massive claws, teeth and muscle strength that you can't physically lift.

It's so funny when it fits with *an agenda to decide all breeds are equal* to see people jump through hoops to argue they are all absolutely equal. They're not.
...

/QUOTE
.
.
Whoa! - now, there's an arresting phrase, if ever there was one - _*Some breeds are *_*better at unprovoked attacks, *bless my buttons! - which partickler breeds would they be, then?... Great gossoons of strapping, muscley dogs, then, are they?
.
Could U name one or more of these breeds that specialize in "unprovoked attacks"?
This inquiring mind would love to know who's been doing this, while I went my way, oblivious. 
.
Bear in mind that for a dog of any highly-territorial breed who hasn't been taught otherwise nor extensively socialized, merely crossing the threshold counts as 'provocation' to the dog's perception.
Most human parents think poking a finger in the dog's eye is not 'provocation' to bite, but the vast majority of veterinarians would differ on that point.
Startling a dog who's blind or deaf by coming up on their 'bad side' & touching them without warning is another - dogs who bite or even merely growl in this scenario are often condemned, but I don't think that snapping [minor contact, no punctures] or even a light bite [bruising or small punctures, no more than 4 punctures & no greater depth than 1/4th the length of the canine tooth] is not excessive force, especially if the contact was rough or abrupt - a playful smack, a sudden hug, etc.
.
Dog-pros often have a much-different view of what's provocation & what's merely playful.
.
I haven't seen the outbreak of "forgive everything" that Ouesi described in an earlier post; i've had owners & prospective owners tell me point-blank that in their opinion, NO DOG SHOULD *EVER *BITE, FOR ANY REASON - period. Bites of any kind, for any reason, are immediate grounds to euthanize that animal. For some, if it doesn't break the skin but leaves a bruise, that's still a reason to kill the dog.
To say that i think "never, ever bite" is ridiculously unrealistic & unfair is an understatement. :Hilarious It's tantamount to expecting every human born to never ever disagree with another person, never ever swear, cuss, or shout in anger or frustration, or otherwise express or experience any negative emotion other than "sad". U aren't allowed to be angry, scared, frustrated, or defensively react when in pain. U aren't even allowed to seriously dislike the nasty neighbor. And if U do, we'll kill U.
 Oh, yeah - that's reasonable.
.
.
Not.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

QUOTE, SmokeyBear

...
The way to break up a dog fight [between] two big dogs is eiar the blanket over the two, or the wheelbarrow method -- neither of which are guaranteed to work, & generally both need more than one experienced person to effect [them].

/QUOTE
.
I've never heard of the 'blanket' method, but presume it's draped over the fighters to blindfold them? - I've used the wheelbarrow with the help of another person to grab the opponent's rear legs, & while it worked, it was a helluva struggle to keep the dog, a highly-aroused over 60# male, from yanking his legs out of my grip, or alternatively from turning to BITE ME, which he tried might & main to accomplish. It was bl**dy damned scary.
plus, U need someplace to *put* the erstwhile combatants, where they preferably cannot see each other & can cool off.
.
I vastly prefer pig-boards or other similar solid objects between the dogs. Much safer, much-more effective, 1 person can do it.
.
.
.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

leashedForLife said:


> QUOTE, mrs phas:
> 
> Bull breeds were not bred to fight
> they were bred to help the farmer, by *grabbing* hold of *the ring *[which went] *through the bull's nose*...
> ...


not anywhere did i say bulldogs
i sad bull breeds
not one specific breed of bull breeds, but bull breeds in general
and
I never said baiting didnt go on, just that it wasnt as common as mythstorians would have us believe



> butchers who kept dogs (called Bullenbeissers) to handle unruly bulls as they were herded to the market for slaughter. When a bull stepped out of line or exhibited uncontrollable behavior, the dogs would clamp down on its nose and simply hang on until the handler could regain control of the wayward animal.
> 
> Like most dog owners, the butchers were proud of their canine companions and their stubborn tenacity in dealing with the much larger, and potentially dangerous bulls.





> Baiting was made illegal by the British parliament in 1835. However, this legislation did little to satiate the public's desire to watch the spectacle of dogs in fighting sports. As a result, their attention turned to a variety of other pursuits such as ratting - a practice in which a dog was thrown in a pit with a varying number of rats. The dogs raced against the clock and each other to determine which one could kill the most rats in the shortest period of time. *The "pit" in pit bulls comes from the fact that ratting occurred in a pit that kept the rats from escaping.*


http://www.pitbull411.com/history.html



> *n 1835 bull baiting was officially banned. This forced people especially of the lower classes to find alternative work for their dogs. Unlike today's life of privilege the Pit Bull often leads the dog of that time had to earn its dinner along with every other capable member of the family. Dogs of this time were integral to survival and were worth their weight in gold for their abilities to hunt, herd and guard. *
> 
> *Terriers known for their small game drive were soon being introduced modeling the breed into a more compact and smaller package. This emerging breed excelled at all kinds of work adding to the list of qualities it had so far attained. *
> 
> ...


http://pitbullregistry.com/PitBull History.htm



and there are many more, strangley the second comes from The American PitBull registry
you'd think theyd know their history wouldnt you
obviously you havent met as many CC as I, nor worked with specific rescue and reputable breeders of CC
not one would attack with minimal or no provocation


*edit to try and remove green writing [mine] but for some reason i cant*


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

QUOTE, BlackAdderUK

...
Compulsory insurance? *Who's going to police that?* The Govt won't fund the officials to check [that all] dogs are insured.
...Pitbull types are banned, but still exist; dog-fighting is banned, but still goes on... if we can't stop those, what chance have we of enforcing insurance?

... allowing dogs to be owned by people who don't [know] one end from the other, let alone understand breed characteristics, means [dog bites & attacks] will go on & on.
How to stop it? I don't know, what I do know is that BSL hasn't worked, isn't working & will never work. What scares me is the Government doesn't listen to anyone, it's all about votes, & I can see a time when any dog larger than a hamster is banned....
It's the Government way, if they don't like it either tax it or ban it.

/QUOTE
.
Why can't vets check to see that each client's dogs are insured?
Mandatory microchipping would make this easy to track & confirm via a database. 
.
Of course, there will always be arsewipes to undermine any public health or safety initiative.
Ex:
In the US, vets check to see that dogs are rabies-vaccinated, & Virginia introduced an on-line tracking system for vaccinated dogs a few years back, so that ppl who were bitten wouldn't need to get prophylactic "just in case" Pasteur post-exposure series shots. The series is no longer intra-abdominal & a dozen extremely-painful injections; it's now deep tissue [buttock, deltoid, femoris...] & 3 shots, but each still hurts like H***, & the series is bl**dy expensive [$1,000-USA].
Knowing the dog was current would mean they could skip the series, & feel confident they weren't at risk to develop a fatal neurological disease, sometime in the next 8-mos or so.
Natch, the reactionary twits in charge at VHDOA [state-wide hunting-dog owners' Assoc] advised their members to evade this _'invasion of privacy' _by re-assigning ownership of their dogs to out-of-state friends or relatives... which is simply asinine.
 WTH does Ur cousin in Kansas know about Ur hunting pack of cross-bred Walkers?!
If Ur dog bites someone, & a VA official phones the know-nothing cousin, it won't take long to determine that Cuz never laid eyes on a Walker, & hasn't a frickin' clue what's up.  How is this helpful?!
.
.
I think mandating universal chips for all pets & even livestock is a doggone good idea; roaming pets who are picked up by ACCs can be readily re-united with their owners, & owners who consistently leave pets to roam irresponsibly can be fined - with a step-wise increase in the fine.
Microchips in USA-livestock would reduce the laborious & expensive back-tracking of 'mad cow' / bovine scrapie / Jakob-Creutzfeldt / prion disease from 3 weeks to a month & then ultimate failure, to a matter of a day or 2, & success.
.
.
.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> QUOTE, BlackAdderUK
> 
> ...
> Compulsory insurance? *Who's going to police that?* The Govt won't fund the officials to check [that all] dogs are insured.
> ...


I agree, there will always be arsewipes who will ignore the law. IMO, sadly those arsewipes are the already irresponsible dog owners who don't give two hoots about the legalities of their dogs and shouldn't be allowed a stuffed teddy bear, never mind a dog, so it's not going to solve the actual problem.

Microchipping has been compulsory in NI since 2012 and annual dog licensing has been compulsory for as long as I have ever known. I know of 4 dogs who definitely aren't microchipped and don't have a dog licence (I probably know of more, but not for certain) The vet can't check anything as none of the dogs have ever visited a vet in their lives and none are insured.. so as far as anyone is concerned, those 4 dogs don't exist.

Just an example of how easy it would be to flaunt the law.. I bought my dog from someone I later realised was a BYB. She was not vaccinated or microchipped when I bought her. Her breeder asked for my name and address but I could easily have given fake details. She certainly never asked for proof or followed up with us later to find out if we had her licensed or took her to a vet to be vaccinated or microchipped. If we hadn't done any of those things (which many people don't!) nobody would know who she was or that she even existed.

I have no idea how any of that can be prevented, but introducing stricter laws just isn't working as the only people abiding by them are responsible owners.

Irresponsible owners still aren't doing to bother because they don't want the police or dog warden banging on their door when the dog does something wrong.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

QUOTE, mrs phas

not anywhere did i say bulldogs
i [said] bull breeds
not one specific breed of bull breeds, but bull breeds in general
and
I never said baiting didn't go on, just that it wasn't as common as mythstorians would have us believe
/QUOTE
.
Fine - bully-breeds, types, bulldog forebears, ancient ancestors - call 'em whatever U will, it doesn't matter in the slightest. no matter what U call 'em they STILL didn't "grab the nose-ring of the bull" to restrain him.  *Humans* use the nose-ring & a pole clipped to it, to direct a bull - I've seen it in use, the dairy bull at a friend's home farm was a very bad actor, & it took 4 men to direct him [once out of his pipe-panel paddock, with the posts set into concrete].
2 men, each with a pole clipped to his nose-ring at the front; 2 more walked behind, tailing him - each gripping his tail tail firmly up over his back, & crowding his haunches so he couldn't get a healthy swinging kick in.
.
As for 'baiting' - bull-baiting, bear-baiting, any kind of baiting - i never once mentioned it in my previous comment. OTOH, during the Elizabethan era, a popular misconception held that tormenting the bovines "tenderized the meat" before slaughter - so there was a helluva lot of 'baiting', bulls, cows, calves, whatever.
We now know that pre-kill stress actually toughens meat even after slaughter, & so it's something to avoid, not deliberately cause - to say nothing of the cruelty involved. 
.
.

QUOTE,
http://www.pitbull411.com/history.html

http://pitbullregistry.com/PitBull History.htm

and there are many more, strangley the second comes from The American PitBull registry
you'd think theyd know their history wouldnt you
obviously you haven't met as many CC as I, nor worked with specific rescue and reputable breeders of CC
not one would attack with minimal or no provocation
/QUOTE
.
Anyone can write anything on the Web, & i don't give an aerial sexual assault on a radially-accelerated toroidal pastry who wrote that - it's sheer fantasy. U want to believe it? - that's Ur privilege. But don't present it as a breed history & factual.
.
UKC history, APBT:
http://www.ukcdogs.com/Web.nsf/Breeds/Terrier/AmericanPitBullTerrier
note that other than 'warrior', there's not a THING about their founding as a registry [in 1898] being directly traceable to the AKC's ban on game dogs AKA fighting dogs.
.
AKC history, AmStaff:
www.*akc*.org/dog-breeds/*american*-*staff*ordshire-terrier/detail/
Again, zero mention of dog-fighting, only of bull-baiting.
.
.
AKC history, Staffy:
www.*akc*.org/dog-breeds/*staff*ordshire-bull-terrier/detail/
Again, no mention of dog-fighting; not in Britain, not ever.
.
If U believe the censored history of all 3 breeds as depicted by registries, the only thing 'pitbulls' ever fought was a tendency to obesity when overfed by doting owners. The English Bull-[And]-Terrier is a closely-related breed which originally *had* a stop between the eyes, like their Staffy 'bull and terrier' ancestors. The Staffy was bred to the now-vanished English White Terrier to create the EBT, & the distinctive not to say odd egghead was a later 'refinement'.
Only the Mini EBT, a much-later established breed, was never historically fought in the pits.
.
a search for 'historical photos of fighting dogs'
*http://tinyurl.com/zfkq58f*
Note that a number of artists' drawings & paintings or prints from pre-photo eras are also depicted.
.
. 
I'm going to guess that CC is 'Cane Corso', a bull-breed named for their island of origin: Corsica. One website claims the English translation is "running dog", as in 'coursing' or the running hunt - which is total bollocks. It does fit in nicely with their claim that the dogs are the k9 equivalent of Ferraris, & beautifully sleek running machines, so they can jack up the price of their pups - but no.
Like i said, anyone can write anything on the Web & claim it's Gospel truth - but even the Gospel isn't truth or fact, it was a politically-driven written recounting of events that were largely written down from oral stories some 300 years after Christ's death. Contemporary accounts from his lifetime differ significantly from the Bible version, & the Bible itself has been edited, expunged, translated, & hacked at by disputatious scholars for centuries on end.
Entire books have been removed & erased from Church history. "Gospel truth" is only the latest version of what's accepted & the controversial bits have all been censored.
.
I've met plenty of Cane Corsos - most were / are human-aggro to anyone outside of family. By "most" i mean over 75%, closer to 9 out of 10, IME. The few exceptions were extremely-well socialized dogs from breed show-rings. Before anyone accuses me of sampling bias because "the only dogs I meet are screwed-up dogs with behavior issues", not one Corso was a client's dog in need of B-Mod; I met them in public, on the bike path, in vet's waiting rooms, in pet-supply stores, on sidewalks.
.
And just to tick off any Presa fans as well, LOL, in the interest of even-handed democratic bashing AKA personal experience, I've met exactly ONE Presa who allowed strangers to touch her - again, a dog who'd been intensively socialized & with a long & successful past career in the breed ring.
[an 8-YO dilute brindle, blue & buff, whose coat actually looked 'glittery' like a Bengal cat's - openly friendly, soliciting attn, loved a good scratch; an ARBA registered dam of multiple Champs.]
She was a doll - the others were, again, randomly met in public, & i wouldn't touch one of them with a barge pole, let alone with my fragile, delicate little feminine hand, 'cuz i might not get it back. The random samples totaled about 15 to 18 dogs, over a 12-year period - all adults. The youngest Presa i ever met was 18-MO.
.
.
..


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> You must have mixed in very different circles to me - I seriously had never heard of complete dried food/kibble before the late 80's/early 90's. Perhaps I didn't know anyone with enough money to buy it. Tinned meat and mixer or tripe and mixer supplemented with scraps and bones but not completes.


I started feeding dry food because it was so amazingly cheap compared with the tinned food I had been feeding. I was very poor at that time and was managing to feed 4 dogs so cheaply. I have always fed scraps as well but that is just a bonus.

Making stricter laws only ever seems to affect the responsible. I see there is quite a lot in the news (Scotland anyway) about the dreadful conditions some people are being forced to live in owing to bad landlords. I am a landlord and for the last few years we have been jumping through ever increasing hoops so that we can carry on letting out our houses. It would appear that it is only the good landlords that are bothering and soon will become priced out so there are only the bad ones left.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Nettles said:


> Who do you think is going to pay for insurance for their dog? Yep, that's right.. the law abiding, responsible dog owners.
> Who isn't going to pay for it? Yep, that's right.. the irresponsible dog owners.
> How do you think the people working for these public liability insurance companies are going to get paid for a day's work if insurance premiums are going into animal shelters and training classes?
> I'm a very responsible dog owner who just about manages to scrape by each month. *If I had to pay public liability insurance on top of everything else, I wouldn't be able to keep my dog. *Is that fair on me or other responsible owners who ensure their dogs are kept under control at all times?
> Lastly, having insurance isn't going to make a dog less likely to bite. If a dog is going to bite, it's going to bite whether it's insured against public liability or not. I'm sure the parents of the young boy who was sadly killed couldn't give a rats ass whether the dog was insured or not either. I'm certain the last thing they're thinking about right now is compensation.


Membership of the Dogs Trust for £25 annually includes public liability insurance for any dogs you own.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Burrowzig said:


> Membership of the Dogs Trust for £25 annually includes public liability insurance for any dogs you own.


Thank you. Our pet insurance and home insurance both already cover public liability. I thought the poster was meaning additional insurance on top of that again.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

leashedForLife said:


> .
> 
> QUOTE,
> http://www.pitbull411.com/history.html
> ...


Honestly, what a total joke
you ask for corroboration and then, when your given it, including from the horses mouth [as in the pitbull registry of USA], you find even more reasons not to believe things
Maybe you should take your own advice re things on the net

I did write a whole post with my sources and how i came to investigate the history of bullbreeds
but you know what
I dont have to defend myself, or my sources, to you or anyone else
All I have to remember is, that your outlook and attitude to anything and everything, may be skewed, as shown in your vitriolic postings when you are caught on the back foot


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Nettles said:


> I agree, there will always be arsewipes who will ignore the law. IMO, sadly those arsewipes are the already irresponsible dog owners who don't give two hoots about the legalities of their dogs and shouldn't be allowed a stuffed teddy bear, never mind a dog, so it's not going to solve the actual problem.


Is there any evidence that all (or at least the majority) of the dogs which have attacked are kept by these 'arsewipes'?


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2016)

havoc said:


> Is there any evidence that all (or at least the majority) of the dogs which have attacked are kept by these 'arsewipes'?


If by aresewipes you mean irresponsible and/or ignorant owners who don't follow basic dog owning laws, then yes.
I can't speak for the UK, but yes, here in the US, the majority of these fatal or near fatal incidents involve dogs who's owners were already breaking the law in some way.

Most incidents also involve dogs who had already shown behavior we know to be a warning sign but it was either not taken seriously by the owners/authorities, not reported by the victim, or a combination there of.

In Bangor Maine this year a 7 year old boy was killed by the family dog. 
On investigation it was found that:
The family had only owned the dog for two months.
The dog had a history of attacks in his previous home (remember what I said about *responsible* rescues not homing dogs with a bite history).
The boy had been left alone with the dog. Who leaves their 7 year old alone with a dog they've only known for 2 months?!
The dog was often chained for part (most?) of the day. Chaining is well know to cause stress, built up frustration and anxiety. 
The dog was not licensed in town as required by law.
The dog's license in his previous home had expired as well. (Suggest the previous owners were not very responsible either, not only do they not keep their dog's license up to date, they rehome their dog with a bite history to a family with a young child?!)

Again, long litany of not only preventable human behavior leading up to this death, but also clear warning signs by the dog.

Dog attacks don't happen out of the blue. It's not like we're all living with ticking time bombs who might "turn" at any moment. 
We *know* what factors - human and canine, contribute to creating dangerous dogs. We just choose to ignore them for reasons I just can't fathom instead preferring to shout about dangerous breeds and call for knee-jerk legislation that helps no one.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

havoc said:


> Is there any evidence that all (or at least the majority) of the dogs which have attacked are kept by these 'arsewipes'?


I didn't even mention the word "attacked" so why would you look for evidence to support something I haven't said? My definition of an arsewipe was pretty clear if you actually read the part of my post which you quoted.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

QUOTE, mrs phas:

Honestly, what a total joke
you ask for *corroboration* and then, when your given it, including from *the horse's mouth* [as in *the pitbull registry of USA*], you find even more reasons not to believe things
Maybe you should take your own advice re things on the net
...

/QUOTE
.
.
Mrs Phas,
there are many competing pit-type registries; all derive from APBT / AmStaff studbooks.
Some are legit; most are vanity registries.
.
the ADBA, Am Dog Breeders' Assoc - 1909 [legit]
http://www.adbadog.com/p_pdetails.asp?fpid=2
.
APBR, *American Pit Bull Registry*
*http://www.pitbullregistry.com/PitBull%20History.htm*
.
here's a breed history from Bad Rap, a non-profit defender of Pitties, purebred or type:
http://www.badrap.org/breed-history
QUOTE,
_"*Created in the UK*_
_A dog (Olde English Bulldog) that looked much like today's American Bulldog was originally used in the 1800's in the British Isles to 'bait' bulls. These matches were held for the entertainment of the struggling classes; a source of relief from the tedium of hardship. In 1835 bull baiting was deemed inhumane and became illegal, and dog fighting became a popular replacement. Soon, a new bulldog was created by crossing the Olde English Bulldog with terriers to create smaller, more agile dogs. The best fighters were celebrated and held up as *heroes* for their courage and fortitude during battle. At the same time, bite inhibition towards humans was encouraged through selective breeding so gamblers could handle their dogs during staged fights. Partially because of these early breeding efforts which frowned on "man biters," pit bulls gained a reputation for their trustworthy nature with humans.
_

_*







*_​_*History in America*_
_Immigrants brought their dogs across the ocean along with their families and prized possessions. They soon became a fixture in a developing nation. In early America, the dogs were valued for much more than their fighting abilities. They were entrusted to protect homesteads from predators and worked as vital helpers on family farms. Homesteaders depended on their abilities to help in hunts and as hog catchers (hence, the common title "catch dogs"). They were constant companions to the young children who were entrusted in their care. Pit bulls earned their place as an important part of the fabric of a developing nation._

_*Like the vintage photos?* See our *Vintage Photo Gallery* here._

_As cities sprung up, Pit Bulls remained a prominent part of the American culture. The USA admired this breed for qualities that it likened in itself; friendly, brave, hardworking, worthy of respect. Pit Bulls were thought of less as pit fighters and more as 'regular dogs'. They show up in hundreds of turn of the century photos, flanked by loving family members. Early advertisements, posters, and magazines began to use the image of the All American Dog, including Buster Brown, whose companion was a Pit Bull._

_














_​_World War I posters displayed illustrations of APBTs as proud mascots of neutrality and bravery. This was Sergeant Stubby's era!_

_







_​_The pit bull was also a favorite dog among politicians, scholars, and celebrities. Helen Keller, Theodore Roosevelt, and the "Our Gang" Little Rascals all had pit bulls. Many reading this website may have grandparents and great grandparents who kept a favorite pit bull as a pet. Today, this tradition continues with countless numbers of Americans who love and cherish their family pit bulls._

_*Character over Form*_
_







_​_Because the earliest breeders were going for speed, stamina and attitude rather than looks, the general appearance of the purebreds can vary greatly. They can range between 25 and 75 pounds. The earlier 'classic' APBTs were on the small side - an advantage which afforded them speed & agility in the fighting pits. As the pitdogs made their way to the working farms of America, larger characteristics were encouraged in breedings. In recent years, appearance & conformations vary so widely that it's hard to recognize the 'old world' pit bull anymore in the 'new world' creations. A good reminder why DNA analysis keeps coming back with mixed breed results for so many dogs considered to be 'pit bulls.'_

_Pit bulls are beautiful in their variety, but their most appealing features are their inner qualities. Strength, confidence, a sense of humor, & a zest for life are all hallmarks of the breed. They also tend to be sensitive & get their feelings hurt easily. Properly socialized dogs are quite affectionate & friendly, even with strangers, and therefore do not make good guard dogs._
_They're intelligent & eager to please, & tend to remain playful throughout their lives. While some can be low key 'couch potatoes,' many others need a job to channel their enthusiasm and energy. They excel in dog sports, search & rescue work, drug & bomb detection, and as therapy dogs._
_Severe shyness, fearfulness, or human-directed aggression is not characteristic of the breed & is highly undesirable in any dog._
=== END QUOTE ===
.
BTW, the dog mentioned in the text above as the pitbull of Our Gang fame was Petey, the 1st dual-registered APBT / AM Staff, listed in both UKC & AKC studbooks.
.
Their vintage photos are enlightening, but include no images of staged dog-fights.
http://www.badrap.org/vintage-photos 
Bad Rap understandably prefers to focus on the long-term 'trusted family pet' reputation & as mascots - in wartime & peacetime, not their history as 'game dogs' in the fighting pits. There are several early 'pre-egghead' EBTs in their slide show, as well as Boston [Bull And] Terriers in brindle or B&W.
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_._
.
a conformation comparison among UKC, AKC, & ADBA breed standards:
www.apbtconformation.com/standardcomparison.htm
.
There's even an American Bully Kennel Club, ABKC, founded in 1990. I'd categorize them with other vanity registries.
.
.
the "pitbull registry of USA", which U posted as a source, @mrs phas , is a *vanity *registry - like the so-called Continental Kennel Club, which the Canadian KC eventually forced into a name-change to distinguish them from the long-established CKC of Canada.
.
Vanity registries are a relatively-new post-Internet phenomenon, they're open to already-registered dogs from other legitimate registries, & will also cheerfully register "new breeds" - I can produce an F1 hybrid by mating 'dog-breed of my choice' X Arctic Wolf, & call their progeny a breed, naming it whatever i like - a vanity registry will happily take my money & declare the "new breed", whose pups I can now sell to a gullible public.
I might even convince them to buy breeding stock as their pets, so that growing-out a bitch or dog isn't at my own expense, & then return to cash in my breeding rights when the animal is a year or so old.
Vanity registries poach on other legit registries & don't offer judged shows, athletic events, fun matches for novice dogs & novice handlers, discount CERF exams on show grounds, a hard-copy magazine, & similar high-value advantages to th owners of their registered dogs. They simply register Ur already-registered purebred [AKC, CKC, IFC, UK-KC, etc] or register Ur F1 cross-bred as a 'new breed', & they'll send a printed, 4-color copy of the pedigree - for a fee.
.
In the US, the AKC - founded in 1884, registering hunting breeds primarily, then quickly expanding into companion, herding, & other Groups - was pretty much the only game in town, & the upstart UKC, founded in 1898, was small potatoes, but slowly growing. 
The AKC was big-money & big kennels, pro handlers, wealthy society folks, & lots of flash - well-off owners of purebred hunters paid pro trainers to "finish" their Setter, Pointer, or Retriever, then compete in trials across the USA for ribbons, bragging rights, & stud fees. The AKC was Groucho Marx importing & registering the 1st registered purebred Afghan Hound in the USA, & the Rough Collies of Terhune's many books, written on his brick-walled New Jersey estate.
The AKC now is Westminster Kennel Club, glitter, flash, & live national broadcast for 3 nights with an entire downtown hotel given over to handlers, dogs, judges & breeders; it's the Eukanuba Invitational, with thousands of dogs & thousands of handlers pouring millions of dollars into the local economy.
It's also got a seamy underside, as it now works hand-in-glove with 'puppy mills' - the very ppl they vociferously condemned, for decades; in part due to competition from the UKC, now all-grown-up, plus the many vanity registries sucking their litter registrations away.
.
.
The UKC began as Pit Bulls, capital "P", & then became extremely-popular with hunters & hounds, particularly Coonhounds & Foxhounds, but Plotts & other rare breeds are also well-represented. Hunting breeds [point, retrieve, 'set', chase, VHDs] came in next; then herders & guarding breeds - dogs with jobs, owned mostly by blue-collar or middle-class folks, not Rothschilds; no soiree or soignee society madams, not gentlemen sportsmen with handmade shotguns.
Companion dogs, whose only job is spending time with us as pets, joined the UKC last of all.
.
The United Kennel Club, as I noted, is an actual registry that offers shows, titles, matches, dog sports, a magazine, etc. They also expanded mightily into non-hunting Groups, & my Akita bitch was easily cross-registered with the UKC by supplying her AKC information, so that she could show at their Centennial exhibition. The atmosphere at a UKC event is very different from the AKC, all dogs must be handled by the owner or a co-owner; no pro handlers are permitted. It's not unusual to see 10-YO kids showing their dogs, dressed in sneakers & shorts or blue-jeans & a hoodie.
Nobody handling in an AKC ring would wear a zippered hoodie, sneakers, or jeans into the ring, ever; there, what U wear is as important if not more so than the dog's quality. Designer togs & good brand-name shoes are de rigeur.
.
U can show a dog in a UKC ring wearing anything U like; a bowling shirt, denim overalls, a sequined T-shirt. So long as U own the dog, & U don't interfere with the other dogs or handlers, they don't give a hoot - all eyes are on the *dogs*.
Requiring _owners_ to handle eliminates one massive problem in the AKC - the sheer weight of a pro-handler's reputation at the end of a dog's leash. Judges pay attn to who's handling, & often think that So-&-So wouldn't show that dog if s/he didn't think the dog was good; maybe not great, but a worthy representative of breed type.
A good grooming, colored chalk, plucking, sculpting, & back-brushing can make a poor rep look good; add an expensive, reputable pro handler, & virtually any dog without disqualifying faults can get their Championship, if U spend sufficient money & go to enuf venues.
Personally, i prefer the UKC to the AKC - i like the non-pro handling, family atmosphere, & the strict ethics policies re puppy mills, neglect, passing on serious heritable health problems, & so on.
.
.
.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

http://www.companionanimalpsychology.com/2016/08/dog-bite-strength-its-not-what-you-think.html


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

.
.
I thought i'd post a few more archival images of the fight-pits - 
this is an engraving from an illustrated weekly paper in NYC, _The Day's Doin__g__s_
Note the year, also the mix of well-dressed swells & workingmen in the crowd. The chalked lines keep both handlers from touching either dog during the fight.









.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The site below has an excellent history of dog-fighting around the world, from the Roman Empire & the baiting events starring English Mastiffs in the Coliseum, to ancient China, feudal Japan, & on to Elizabethan & Edwardian England. It segues into modern times, & ongoing efforts to stop both staged and spontaneous ["street"] dog-fighting in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, North & South America, Australia, & the Pan-Pacific.
http://www.esdaw.eu/dogfighting1.html
.
QUOTE,
_'European history
**
Blood sports in general can be traced back to the Roman Empire. In 13 B.C., for instance, the ancient Roman circus slew 600 African beasts. Likewise, under Emperor Claudius's reign, as spectators cheered, 300 bears and 300 Libyan beasts were slain in the Colosseum. Dog fighting, more specifically, can also be traced to ancient Roman times. In 43 AD, for example, dogs fought alongside the Romans and the British in the Roman Conquest of Britain.
In this war, the Romans used a breed that originated from Greece called Molossus; the Britons used broad-mouth Mastiffs, thought to descend from the Molossus bloodline & which also originated from Greece. Though the British were outnumbered and ultimately lost this war, the Romans were so impressed with the English Mastiffs that they began to import these dogs for use in the Colosseum, as well as for use in times of war. While spectators watched, the imported English Mastiffs were pitted against animals such as wild elephants, lions, bears, bulls, and gladiators.
. 

**
.
Later, the Romans bred and exported fighting dogs to Spain, France, & other parts of Europe, until eventually these dogs made their way back to England. Though bull baiting & bear baiting were popular through the Middle Ages into the 19th century in Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, & Holland, *the British pitted dogs against bulls & bears on a scale like no other.* 
.
In 12th century England during the feudal era, the landed aristocracy, who held direct military control in decentralized feudal systems & thus owned the animals necessary for waging war, introduced bull baiting & bear baiting to the rest of the British population. In later years, bull baiting & bear baiting became a popular source of entertainment for British royalty. _
_For instance, Queen Elizabeth I, who reigned from 1558-1603, was an avid follower of bull & bear baiting; she bred Mastiffs for baiting, & would entertain foreign guests with a fight whenever they visited England. 
In addition to breeding Mastiffs & entertaining foreign guests with a fight, Elizabeth, & later her successor, James I, built a number of bear gardens in London. The garden buildings were round & roofless, &housed not only bears, but also bulls and other wild animals that could be used in a fight. Today, a person can visit the Bear Garden museum near the Shakespeare Global Complex in Bankside, Southwark.

With the popularity of bull & bear baiting, bears needed for such fights soon became scarce. With the scarcity of bear population, the price of bears rose and, because of this, bull baiting became more common in England over time. Bulls who survived the fights were slaughtered afterward for their meat, as it was believed the fight caused bull meat to become more tender. In fact, if a bull was offered for sale in the market without having been baited the previous day, butchers were liable to face substantial fines.
Animal fights were temporarily suspended in England when Oliver Cromwell seized power, but were reinstated again after the Restoration.
_








.
_Dog fighting, bear baiting, & bull baiting were officially outlawed in England by the Humane Act of 1835. The official ban on all fights, however, actually served to promote dog fighting in England. Since a small amount of space was required for the pit where a dog fight took place, as compared to the ring needed for bull or bear baiting, authorities had a difficult time enforcing the ban on dog fighting._
...
_Despite periodic dog-fight prosecutions, illegal canine pit battles continued after the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835 of England and Wales. Sporting journals of the 18th and 19th centuries depict the Black Country and London as the primary English dog fight centres of the period. 
Today, dog fights permeate Europe, from Scandinavia to Turkey.
.
==== END Quote ====_

.
There's also a section on the development of Bull & Terrier breeds during the British transition from baiting sports to dog-fighting as gambling & entertainment.
.
.
.


----------

