Changes to dangerous dog act.

ST4 said:
Face the innconvienient truth, dogs are dangerous and this law if its enforced and embraced will make things better for families with children.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the changes to the dangerous dogs act being discussed in the thread? If so, most (actually all, I think) dog owners on this thread are agreeing with it.

If you're talking about some of the more extreme suggestions that you've made, I think you'll struggle to get any sort of consensus from anyone on that regardless of whether they're afraid of dogs or not.
The truth is that "dogs have the potential to be dangerous if not properly cared for and trained". And I don't know about making things better for families with children either . . . in fact, I'd say that a lot of children would miss out on a wonderful part of childhood and growing up if dogs were eliminated as family pets.
 
SarahLee said:
And I don't know about making things better for families with children either . . . in fact, I'd say that a lot of children would miss out on a wonderful part of childhood and growing up if dogs were eliminated as family pets.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this Sarah. Growing up in an environment with animals is a really good experience - not just dogs but all animals too. Life enriching and also gave me more of an understanding of animals in general.
 
Muzzling ALL dogs would simply instill in society as a whole, the same kind of deep seated fear which you youself suffer from @ST4

You can dress it up all you like as a simple dislike, but you're afraid of dogs...all dogs...and you think everyone should suffer the same.

It's actially very sad.
 
fabs said:
I was terrified of dogs when I was a kid so my parents took drastic action







They bought a dog. ;)
Click to expand...
Its alright for some, I told my parents that I was terrified of Porsche' 911's
Didn't work for me though :(
 
People like the "it's the owners line" with respect to dangerous dogs as they like dogs and wish to keep them despite the dangers they pose to others.

Certain breeds of dogs are more dangerous, we have many cases of injury to adults and children. Why defend the indefensible, no person did these attacks but dogs did. It the dog didn't exist that child would be alive.

All this crap about how great it is to live with animals, I don't want my house to be a zoo, but that's my choice and people like it, but I don't see why communal space in the community should be used for dog walkers and non dog owners squeezed out of there due to fear and intimidation that these animals cause. Owners need to get that others do not care for their pets and their pets are seen by many in their community as a pest.

Indeed my local council had acknowledged that dog mess is a legitimate concern. I hope they act on it.

I will say agree to disagree. I see dog ownership as a blight in the community more as much as after hours drinking and drink drive. I'm glad of this legalisation.
 
viv1969 said:
Muzzling ALL dogs would simply instill in society as a whole, the same kind of deep seated fear which you youself suffer from @ST4

You can dress it up all you like as a simple dislike, but you're afraid of dogs...all dogs...and you think everyone should suffer the same.

It's actially very sad.
Click to expand...
It would make people feel safer;) they'd have no fear of getting bit. A dog on a short lead keeps it under control, muzzled prevents the risk of a sly bite.

Just because you like dogs, doesn't mean everyone does. What happened to compassion for your fellow man and thought about what they feel about your dog?
 
Did you really just liken dog ownership to drink driving?
 
While we are on motoring now, what about speeding?

Speeding cars kill more children than dogs.

Just wondering how your "friend" got on with their speeding offence....
 
Last edited:
Yv said:
Jack Russells, which of course are Small Terriers ... one killed a baby a short while ago, so that's it, KILL EM ALL, get rid of ALL small terriers!! Don't worry, all the thousands of innocent ones are insignificant, the working ones that deal with rats and other vermin, pah, let the vermin go wild, ther are not enough rats the world... oh yes, I forgot, many smaller terrier type dogs are used as disability assistance dogs, they can go too, not needed by that wheelchair bound person that is home all day on their own and requires a hand [paw] here and there, they could be done untold amounts of injury by that trained animal suddenly going tonto.

Shall I stop now?
Click to expand...
Did you mean to quote me?

I'm on your side of this debate :)
 
ST4 said:
It would make people feel safer;) they'd have no fear of getting bit. A dog on a short lead keeps it under control, muzzled prevents the risk of a sly bite.

Just because you like dogs, doesn't mean everyone does. What happened to compassion for your fellow man and thought about what they feel about your dog?
Click to expand...
Hey you're the one shouting about what others should and should not be doing. That's not very compassionate.
 
On average, there are 722 murder/manslaughter deaths in the UK every year, so let's kill all the humans who are capable of committing these crimes, that's everyone over the age of 10
There are about 1750 road deaths, so let's get rid of all vehicles, of every kind
There are about 1.5 people killed by dogs each year, mainly by dogs that were banned under the 1991 Act, i.e. pit bulls, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro, so let's kill all the dogs.

Nobody was killed by a tea cosy last year, so it should be safe to allow those to be owned...

ST4, there is absolutely no logic in your argument.If you come to the Talk Photography do at the weekend you'll meet my dog, he's one of those killer German Shepherds and he may get VERY upset with you if you don't rub his tummy:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yv
Tigger.ufo said:
While we are on motoring now, what about speeding?

Speeding cars kill more children than dogs.

Just wondering how your "friend" got on with their speeding offence....
Click to expand...

He learned a lot from that experience. Namely that whilst he thought fast driving was safe and ok to do it did pose him and others significant risks and society at large just won't tolerate such behaviour. He recognised he belonged to a group of people which deem really fast driving as acceptable and it really isn't. He feels as he's seen this thread that dog owners are like the old him. They vehemently defend the indefensible about owning dangerous dogs and like the old him who held their driving in very high regard in actual fact really can't account for the unpredictable nature of the roads like these owners can't account or fully control a dog. He's seen first hand so called good drivers do bad things a s do called good dog owners not get post delivered due to thier dangerous dog. He hopes dog owners realise their dogs can be unpredictable and something tragic doesn't happen with these dogs and likes to remind people he didn't injure/kill someone but behaviour like his can, and to extend that thinking past driving to all walks of life be that car driving, maintaining industrial machinery etc dog ownership.

He feels if people, including himself, took the time to consider their actions and life choices and how they impact others, life and the world would be a better place.

He's also stopped drinking alcohol as he had a severe drink problem. He sees how binge drinking and his own bad behaviour when he was young upset his family and was a public menace and harassment to others as this is how he finds drinkers out in the town when he walks home from work dodging dog mess and dogs off the lead (which tells you all you need to know about his court case and conviction).

His views to dog ownership are intertwined with his driving record. People always say my big dog is good, it wouldn't hurt a fly. He asks what makes them an expert, in the sameway he was asked of his peers, what made you so sure 138mph wasn't dangerous? He said clear road, visibility conditions. The reply, if it was so clear why didn't he see the police car, he says it was hidden. Dog owners can't be 100% sure their dog isn't going to go for someone. There's been too many deaths and incidents for something not to be done. I'd like to see more done. My friend got a ban, iirc many on here wanted to see him jailed.

There are many more car journeys in the UK undertaken each year than dogs. Ergo more people will die in cars than by dog attacks, but it right to consider greater good and do something to reduce that. Because the bulk of people here like dogs they don't want to see drastic but IMHO needed action taken. Put a thread up about 138mph speeding in a BMW board, you'll not get a concensus that its bad behaviour but it is bad. My view and those of many others is dangerous dog ownership is selfish, unnecessary and should be clamped out. A bit like drink driving.

Car driving is necessary, dogs are not and certainly not big dangerous dogs. The law might trouble a few people with dangerous dogs but for the good of the rest of us it's a price worth paying.
 
Last edited:
Bitten....not bit. Bitten.
 
So the analogy of your argument is that because your friend was prosecuted for driving at 138mph, no one should drive at all - possibly they may drive if a man walks in front waving a red flag - and cars - especially those capable of high speeds - should all be crushed

This is paranoia to the point of psychosis! I suspect it certainly result in lots of dogs, which as a species are very sensitive to human moods and modes of approach, becoming uneasy at the presence of that person!
 
ST4 said:
Car driving is necessary, .
Click to expand...
We have public transport, taxi's, bicycles, horses and shank's pony.
So no car driving is not a necessity its a convenience, and a
freedom of choice, just like dog / cat / ferret / bird ownership.

We live in a free country, the minority do not rule.
(although they like to think they do.)
 
ST4 said:
There are many more car journeys in the UK undertaken each year than dogs.
Click to expand...

For a fair comparison, you should use the number of vehicles not the number of journeys.
Alternatively use the number of instances where a dog has the opportunity to interact with a person other than their owner.

That makes it a more accurate comparison.
 
I think im going to call wind-up on this one. Surely no-one is this much of an idiot. Nice trolling Sir!
 
ST4 said:
My view and those of many others is dangerous dog ownership is selfish, unnecessary and should be clamped out. A bit like drink driving.
Click to expand...

If you had said this in the first place, you would have come across as a reasonable sane person and I am sure no-one would have disagreed with you, least of all me!
 
My parting comment on this thread before I leave to eat my curry and wine is this...

srsly.jpg
 
Garry Edwards said:
On average, there are 722 murder/manslaughter deaths in the UK every year, so let's kill all the humans who are capable of committing these crimes, that's everyone over the age of 10
There are about 1750 road deaths, so let's get rid of all vehicles, of every kind
There are about 1.5 people killed by dogs each year, mainly by dogs that were banned under the 1991 Act, i.e. pit bulls, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro, so let's kill all the dogs.

Nobody was killed by a tea cosy last year, so it should be safe to allow those to be owned...

ST4, there is absolutely no logic in your argument.If you come to the Talk Photography do at the weekend you'll meet my dog, he's one of those killer German Shepherds and he may get VERY upset with you if you don't rub his tummy:)
Click to expand...

Out of all your examples, they were all 100% controlled by humans. Dogs can do what they want. They choose to follow instructions and that is the big difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Yves Geza said:
So the analogy of your argument is that because your friend was prosecuted for driving at 138mph, no one should drive at all - possibly they may drive if a man walks in front waving a red flag - and cars - especially those capable of high speeds - should all be crushed

This is paranoia to the point of psychosis! I suspect it certainly result in lots of dogs, which as a species are very sensitive to human moods and modes of approach, becoming uneasy at the presence of that person!
Click to expand...
No. My point is people should drive, at a more acceptable speed. It's reasonable to say 138mph is bonkers and just isn't safe whereas 60-70mph isn't. It still carries risk, but much less so. We don't have a 0 level drink driving, we allow a small acceptable level of alcohol as people with this level we've set are still in enough charge of their faculties to drive.

Dangerous dog legislation is the same. Many favour 0 tolerance on drink drive, I favour 0 tolerance on dogs but I accept that's a minority view point. Some even say (usually victims of speed related car accidents) there should be no tolerance set for speeding, 1mph over=ban.

My "friend" at 138 was told by many of his peers he should never drive again. He was a menace and that's that is what people say, they dont want him on their road space. I'm applying that same metality to do the dangerous dog ownership case. Me, I really think people ought to consider others and see the light, that their pet is seen as a menace by others.

I hate to see children in a park and dogs off a lead, it's getting to close to disaster for comfort (like my friends foray to 138mph)

People here accuse me of paranoia. If I told them I was a top car driver etc would they be happy if I drive by them at 138mph and if they said no and I then accused them of paranoia they'd then change their mind and go, yeah, please overtake me at 138mph. Would they heck, they couldn't handle a car coming behind them double the speed they are going at.

It's no different to having a dangerous dog and walking it in public. It's a liability and it must stop before another child loses their life.
 
Cobra said:
We have public transport, taxi's, bicycles, horses and shank's pony.
So no car driving is not a necessity its a convenience, and a
freedom of choice, just like dog / cat / ferret / bird ownership.

We live in a free country, the minority do not rule.
(although they like to think they do.)
Click to expand...

Car ownership is a lot more vital than owning a dog, which is a luxury unless you are a farmer, or blind.

Car ownership and your behaviour in a car is regulated. I've seen small children out walking a big dog, if that dog bolts or charges at someone 10year ok'd won't be able to reign it in. A car doesn't have a mind of its own like a dog.

A lot more work needs done to keep us safe from other people's animals. This law, and my view hasn't changed in this thread, is only a small step in the right direction.
 
Tigger.ufo said:
If you had said this in the first place, you would have come across as a reasonable sane person and I am sure no-one would have disagreed with you, least of all me!
Click to expand...

The problem, however, is his definition of a dangerous dog.
 
RichardtheSane said:
The problem, however, is his definition of a dangerous dog.
Click to expand...
Go with the breeds that have killed or seriously injured humans in the past. If more than 1% of KSI caused by that breed=dangerous.

Or do it by the dangerous driver test. If a lawful careful and competent driver would deem the driving to be dangerous then it is. Apply that but replace the word driver with dog owner.

Flawed probably but better than doing nothing at all about the situation.
 
ST4 said:
Car ownership is a lot more vital than owning a dog, which is a luxury unless you are a farmer, or blind.
Click to expand...
A lot of people would disagree, the elderly, the in firmed, the lonely, people that are housebound / can't drive / have no family,
Where a cat / dog is their only companion.

ST4 said:
Car ownership and your behaviour in a car is regulated.
Click to expand...
Only if you get caught.
I also have, that is to say I have I have a friend, that
has driven maybe 4 times in my his life
at 150 mph. on the public roads.
That is because I I mean he has only ever owned a couple of cars capable of doing that speed.
Would he do it again?
Maybe not there are now too many ways of getting caught.
Was it fun at the time? too friggin right (y)
(allegedly)

ST4 said:
I've seen small children out walking a big dog, if that dog bolts or charges at someone 10year ok'd won't be able to reign it in.
Click to expand...
We've already agreed that there are irresponsible dog owners out there.
And they need education.
You can't wipe out a species just because of a few idiots.

ST4 said:
A car doesn't have a mind of its own like a dog.
Click to expand...
I wonder sometimes looking at the idiots on the road,
Again its down to control, even the most dangerous "thing"
is safe enough if under control.

ST4 said:
A lot more work needs done to keep us safe from other people's animals. This law, and my view hasn't changed in this thread, is only a small step in the right direction.
Click to expand...
TBH, if you are s*** scared of dogs, then say so,
there is no shame in it,
"everyone" has a phobia of some kind.
If I was s*** scared to get in a lift or a bus,
I wouldn't campaign to have them banned though.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Ps. Aren't dangerous dog owners the minority, ergo the majority aren't. Aren't the needs and well being of the majority more important?
Click to expand...
Since the beginning of time, hasn't it been the "majority" vote that rules?
As above the minority do not rule, although they like to think they do.
 
I'm not s*** scared of dogs, I strongly dislike them, I'll cross the road if I see one I think will pose danger but ill equally go into the home of a dog owner and ill even walk a dog. Once I even rescued a stray Labrador. Couldn't see an owner, got the number off the collar, called it. They were ever so glad I did.

No, I'm no s*** scared of them, but I struggle to see the en mass significant minority who want them. I find the bulk of dog owners selfish, irresponsible and ignorant and the bulk in my experience have a wanton disregard for how other people may feel about their pet imposing itself on you (running up to you, sniffing at your ankles -how do i know its nit going to bite me, jumping at you as you as you walk by - even worse if its tall as it can reach your thorax, barking at you which can be intimadting) as you go about your daily business. Most owners complete indifference as if this is somehow acceptable beggars belief. Muzzles and leads should be law. Caught 4 times without like driving, goodbye dog and ability to keep dogs. That would be a start, in my view

The more dangerous the dog, the more accute the problem is.
 
Last edited:
Oh "a friend" did the high speed thing....ok. :rolleyes:

And yes...as I've said...dress it up all you like but you're petrified of dogs.

I dislike many things. ...doesn't mean I think they should be banned.

Fear is a crippling thing.
 
ST4 said:
I'm not s*** scared of dogs, I strongly dislike them, I'll cross the road if I see one I think will pose danger but ill equally go into the home of a dog owner and ill even walk a dog. Once I even rescued a stray Labrador. Couldn't see an owner, got the number off the collar, called it. They were ever so glad I did.No, I'm no s*** scared of them,
Click to expand...
And I'm sure the owner was very grateful.
But it seems to me that you either are scared or have become very scared of dogs.
For what ever reason.

ST4 said:
but I struggle to see the en mass significant minority who want them.
Click to expand...
I don't have any figures to back this up, and quite frankly CBA to go look
but in "my neighborhood I would take an educated guess that dog owners are around 75/25 in favour.
If we go for the minority rule and to use some pretty crap analogies, (as have been banded about already)
1) cars would be banned
2) we would all be veterinarians
3) the BNP would be in power
4) we would all have the right to bear arms
There are so many minorty parties factions and suggestions out there
that I could go on all night,
you really want the needs of the few, to out weigh the needs of the many?


ST4 said:
I find the bulk of dog owners selfish, irresponsible and ignorant and the bulk in my experience have a wanton disregard for how other people may feel about their pet imposing itself on you (running up to you, sniffing at your ankles -how do i know its nit going to bite me, jumping at you as you as you walk by - even worse if its tall as it can reach your thorax, barking at you which can be intimadting) as you go about your daily business. Most owners complete indifference as if this is somehow acceptable beggars belief. Muzzles and leads should be law. Caught 4 times without like driving, goodbye dog and ability to keep dogs. That would be a start, in my view
The more dangerous the dog, the more accute the problem is.
Click to expand...
No, the Majority are NOT irresponsible, its always the small minority that hit the headlines.
I can just see it now, news at ten......
Responsible dog owners all over the country are keeping their dogs under control.

Is that gonna really make headlines?
 
To be fair Steve, I get the feeling that your views about dogs / dog owners are being coloured by the bad experiences that you've had.

I think everyone on here would agree that letting a child walk a dog that they can't control or not cleaning up after your dog is downright irresponsible and in the latter case just disgusting!
I think almost everyone on here would be happy with parks having designated dog-walking / children's play areas and most would agree that dogs should be kept on a lead on footpaths and pavements.
In my own experience and of all the hundreds of dogs I've encountered, I don't think I've ever had a dog lunge at me as I've walked by.

Either you've been incredibly unfortunate in all the encounters you've had, or the few bad ones are skewing your view.
What you're attributing to the majority of dogs and owners is in my experience definitely a very small minority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top