Changes to dangerous dog act.

Cobra said:
I'm a gun owner, I often leave mine unattended when I go to work,
they have never yet harmed anyone
Michael Ryan was was was a loon ball as was Thomas Hamilton they should never have been given a licence in the first place.
The system failed "us all"
Click to expand...
This. Although in fact is was the police who failed us all, and the government of the day used that as an excuse to impose further restrictions on legitimate gun owners, ignoring the fact that with the exception of the odd loonies who should never have been allowed to have guns in the first place, the vast majority of gun crime is committed by people who have them illegally.


Back to topic.
I have one dog and several guns, and none of them present any danger to anyone else because I take my responsibilities seriously.
But I do accept that some dog owners are in fact irresponsible.
Often, this irresponsibility takes the form of buying a breed of dog without understanding the original purpose of that breed - they but it for all sorts of reasons, often because it's expensive, or pretty, and they are totally unaware, through ignorance, that the dog has natural tendencies that make unsuitable as a pet, or at least by an inexperienced owner.

And some breeds have a bad reputation that they don't deserve.
Back in the 90's, Rottweilers had a very bad rep, this was probably due to the fact that they were a status symbol and were also the 'must have' weapon of drug dealers and the like. Every dog, however badly bred, could find a buyer, many of them had serious genetic problems such as hip displaysia that caused severe pain, which led to aggression. Combine bad owners with dogs that had bad temperaments and bad physical condition, and you have a recipe for disaster. However, that was a long time ago, there are relatively few Rottweilers around now and they nearly all now seem to be good, healthy specimens owned by caring, responsible people.

And the same goes for Alsatians, as they were then called. It's hard to find an aggressive one now, back in the 80's it was hard to find one that wasn't.
 
Garry Edwards said:
And some breeds have a bad reputation that they don't deserve.
Back in the 90's, Rottweilers had a very bad rep, this was probably due to the fact that they were a status symbol and were also the 'must have' weapon of drug dealers and the like. Every dog, however badly bred, could find a buyer, many of them had serious genetic problems such as hip displaysia that caused severe pain, which led to aggression. Combine bad owners with dogs that had bad temperaments and bad physical condition, and you have a recipe for disaster. However, that was a long time ago, there are relatively few Rottweilers around now and they nearly all now seem to be good, healthy specimens owned by caring, responsible people.

And the same goes for Alsatians, as they were then called. It's hard to find an aggressive one now, back in the 80's it was hard to find one that wasn't.
Click to expand...

How right you are Gary, I've not yet met a really nasty Rottie and that includes those that have come into rescue.

Back in the 90s I was a mod on a Yahoo Dog Behaviour group, one chap had a Rottie that had been seized by the police for attacking someone
and it was going through the courts, so he had joined the group for help to save is dog.
But this tells you the sort of owner we are talking here, he was moaning even that that rotties were becoming to soft and he would
not have another.
Next we heard he had bought and was importing a Caucasian Ovcharka, he posted pictures of her in the quarantine kennels and yep she
had cropped ears so obviously had been bred for dog fighting in Russia.
I've never knowingly met one of these but from what I found out via research and talking to people who had they are not at all the big
cuddly things they look.
Scarey thing is, next he advertising in the free ads etc for a mate for her, seems there were/are a few in the UK.

(BTW if your GSD want to come out and play with my dogs during the Megameet she are more then welcome :))
 
Gremlin said:
How right you are Gary, I've not yet met a really nasty Rottie and that includes those that have come into rescue.

Back in the 90s I was a mod on a Yahoo Dog Behaviour group, one chap had a Rottie that had been seized by the police for attacking someone
and it was going through the courts, so he had joined the group for help to save is dog.
But this tells you the sort of owner we are talking here, he was moaning even that that rotties were becoming to soft and he would
not have another.
Next we heard he had bought and was importing a Caucasian Ovcharka, he posted pictures of her in the quarantine kennels and yep she
had cropped ears so obviously had been bred for dog fighting in Russia.
I've never knowingly met one of these but from what I found out via research and talking to people who had they are not at all the big
cuddly things they look.
Scarey thing is, next he advertising in the free ads etc for a mate for her, seems there were/are a few in the UK.

(BTW if your GSD want to come out and play with my dogs during the Megameet she are more then welcome :))
Click to expand...
Back in the 70's - early 90's I was a problem dog trainer, and had a reputation for diagnosing the cause of the problem between walking through the front door and sitting down to hear about it.
One evening I got a phone call, apparently a Rottie had gone berserk and attacked a child. It was too dangerous to approach and needed to be shot before the child could be rescued.

Long story shot, I drove to the house, in Hampstead, with a police escort, suited up and went in. At this stage the status of the injured child was unknown.
Rifle over my shoulder, revolver and a slip lead in my pocket, dog catcher in my hands.
The child was totally OK.
The Rottie was asleep on the floor, it was a pup, no more than 5 months old.
I said hello to it, slipped a lead over its head and put it in the back of my van, casually mentioning to the ambulance crews and what seemed like half of the met police that the problem was now over.

I then spoke to the mother, apparently she had heard a noise, gone into the room and found the pup on top of the child, no doubt they were playing with each other. She panicked, and instead of 'rescuing' her child from the dog, she slammed the door behind her and phoned the police.

It was on the TV news that night and all over the papers the next day. The 'Sun' headline was something like "Devil dog savages child"
According to all the reports, the child was savaged by the dog, and was rescued by police marksmen (whatever they are).

I charged the owners a lot of money (they could afford it) and they gave me the dog, which I rehomed.

Sometimes, we need to separate hysterical press reporting from the reality.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Sometimes, we need to separate hysterical press reporting from the reality.
Click to expand...
Nikon_Nick said:
The hysterical press certainly do have a lot to answer for. As an example, this is one of the links that ST$ kindly posted earlier. Look at the 'File picture' theyve used at the top of the page. It sets the completely wrong tone...
Click to expand...


We certainly do, I remember at that time all dog attack stories were accompanied by snarling salivering Rottie
I knew a few at the time, and had my picture taken in full Royal Mail Hi-viz gear, sitting between with an arm
round for our works magazine, it made it into some of the nationals too :eek:
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
"]If it wasnt the childs fault, it was the dog. The owner is a red herring, the dog is capable of independent thought. Dogs like this pose, IMHO and the view of the public, unnacceptable risks.
Click to expand...

No the fault was with either the owner for not training the dog propperly , or the parent for not responsibly supevising their child propperly or both (generally they are the same person) and incidentally your view is not widely shared by the public at large - most people have more sense , indeed 7.3 million households (circa 31% of the population) own dogs themselves

On the wider point we all get that you don't like dogs , and no one is proposing to force you to have one or be near one - personally I think you should seek counselling for your phobic reaction as its a bit sad for a grown man to be terified every time a dog barks at him , but that is your choice.

What I do have an issue with is the idea that dogs enmass should be banned because you are scared of them - why should your disliking them mean that I (or anyone else) can't have a (well trained, and obedient) dog if i choose ? (so long as i own it responsibly and clear up after it ) ?
 
ST4 said:
Jumping, lots seem to jump and wonder around you. I am aware most people find this tolerable, I don't but the jumping and general indfference owners have to other non dog people is disgusting. Ineed the remarks I've seen here show the hostility non dog people get from dog owners. I am not the problem, the dog is.
Click to expand...

The reason you've evoked hostility here is because you want to ban us from keeping our pets because you are frightened of them - and frankly unless the dog is actually attacking or threatening you then you (or more accurately your phobia) is the problem - so a dog is wandering arround you ? so what ? why do you feel threatened by that ? (although personally I keep my dog on a lead arround people she doesnt know- not because she's in anyway aggressive but because you never know what some moron might do)
 
ST4 said:
It's practically every week some poor child is attacked by some dog. Our young deserve some action to be taken to keep them safe.
.
Click to expand...

No it isn't so far this year there have been two such incidents - in both cases involving badly trained dogs and poorly superbvised children

The young do deserve action to keep them safe - the action that is required is responsible parenting !

that cat / dog thing in the US is va claasic example - what is a child that young doing out in the street on its own ? Had the parent been with it the attack would not have occured. (also that dog appears to be a stray - there is no owner in evidence in the video)
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
No the fault was with either the owner for not training the dog propperly , or the parent for not responsibly supevising their child propperly or both (generally they are the same person) and incidentally your view is not widely shared by the public at large - most people have more sense , indeed 7.3 million households (circa 31% of the population) own dogs themselves

On the wider point we all get that you don't like dogs , and no one is proposing to force you to have one or be near one - personally I think you should seek counselling for your phobic reaction as its a bit sad for a grown man to be terified every time a dog barks at him , but that is your choice.

What I do have an issue with is the idea that dogs enmass should be banned because you are scared of them - why should your disliking them mean that I (or anyone else) can't have a (well trained, and obedient) dog if i choose ? (so long as i own it responsibly and clear up after it ) ?
Click to expand...

I have to answer this. Where do I specifically say I am terrified everyone barks at me. Total conjecture. You don't know me, and I know you have my best interests at heart with counselling, but its not needed, I am not phobic, just do not like them. I've stated my view regarding dog ownership, in the past you said I should go to jail for speeding. Opinioins are like ass holes, everyone has one and they are full of s*** usually.

Like the bit in bold, its a minority at 31%, 69% therefore do not. Some of that 31% will have dangerous dogs, that the rest of the 31% and 69% may have to face. Thats what the law is about.
 
big soft moose said:
The reason you've evoked hostility here is because you want to ban us from keeping our pets because you are frightened of them - and frankly unless the dog is actually attacking or threatening you then you (or more accurately your phobia) is the problem - so a dog is wandering arround you ? so what ? why do you feel threatened by that ? (although personally I keep my dog on a lead arround people she doesnt know- not because she's in anyway aggressive but because you never know what some moron might do)
Click to expand...

So because I don't want your dog near me or anyone elses, I am the problem?
 
big soft moose said:
No it isn't so far this year there have been two such incidents - in both cases involving badly trained dogs and poorly superbvised children

The young do deserve action to keep them safe - the action that is required is responsible parenting !

that cat / dog thing in the US is va claasic example - what is a child that young doing out in the street on its own ? Had the parent been with it the attack would not have occured. (also that dog appears to be a stray - there is no owner in evidence in the video)
Click to expand...

Perhaps if the dog wasn't about the child would be safe. Its such a logical argument it cannot be countanced, unless with dog lover hysteria. Children need to be safe from pets like that, the way IMHO to do it, is to stop people having them.
 
ST4 said:
So because I don't want your dog near me or anyone elses, I am the problem?
Click to expand...

Yes - if the dog isnt doing you any harm then yes your irrational fear of them is the problem.
 
big soft moose said:
Yes - if the dog isnt doing you any harm then yes your irrational fear of them is the problem.
Click to expand...

How do I know it wont as it jumps up, walks behind me. Maybe I am being wary, but it would be much nicer if it didn't happen at all. Its anti social like being rowdy and drunk in public transport.

The flagrant disregard dog owners have for people that do not like dogs is what I am seeing here. Perhaps, even if you dismiss my view is abhorent, you will learn not everyone wants to be near your pooch when you walk it and some will see it as an annoyance.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Perhaps if the dog wasn't about the child would be safe.
Click to expand...

no it wouldnt - it could fall and hurt itself, it could toddle in the road and get run over, it could be abducted, it could be attacked by a wild animal (as this is the states the animal concerned could be rabid), it could wander off and get lost etc etc ... the way to keep a child that small safe is to supervise it like a responsible parent should.

I'd agree that the dog in question shouldn't be wandering about on its own - but thats no reason to ban dogs enmasse ,
 
big soft moose said:
no it wouldnt - it could fall and hurt itself, it could toddle in the road and get run over, it could be abducted, it could be attacked by a wild animal (as this is the states the animal concerned could be rabid), it could wander off and get lost etc etc ... the way to keep a child that small safe is to supervise it like a responsible parent should.
Click to expand...

One less risk though to stop dogs being near young kids. Tell me, would you leave a dog and young child together without supervision. We've seen dogs bolt and attack kids, even on a lead, whats your solution to that? Seemingly a well behaved dog can turn nasty?
 
ST4 said:
How do I know it wont as it jumps up, walks behind me. Maybe I am being wary, but it would be much nicer if it didn't happen at all. Its anti social like being rowdy and drunk in public transport.
Click to expand...

This is what i mean about irrational phobia - you view every dog as a potential threat - seriously you should see someone about this.

Its not like being rowdy and drunk - its like being afraid of people on public transport in case they are rowdy and drunk - mits the same sort of logic that thinks all kids in hoodies are potential muggers.

ST4 said:
The flagrant disregard dog owners have for people that do not like dogs is what I am seeing here. Perhaps, even if you dismiss my view is abhorent, you will learn not everyone wants to be near your pooch when you walk it and some will see it as an annoyance.
Click to expand...

Nope , what you are displaying here is a flagrant disregard for dog owners displayed by a tiny minority of non dog owners who have no understanding of dogs, how they behave or what dog ownership is about. As i said I understand that not everyone wants to be near my dog when I walk it, which is why i keep her under control and away from people she doesnt know ... what I'm asking you to understand in turn is that no one has the right to have everything they don't like banned.
 
ST4 said:
One less risk though to stop dogs being near young kids. Tell me, would you leave a dog and young child together without supervision. We've seen dogs bolt and attack kids, even on a lead, whats your solution to that? Seemingly a well behaved dog can turn nasty?
Click to expand...

No - as ive said three or four times already thats basic good parenting/dog ownership- you don't know what the kid might do - its very unlikely a well traine dog would attack with provocation, but a young child might decide to try and pull its ears , grab it by the nuts, kick it tread on it etc - and although my dog is very placcid and good with kids I would not put the dog or the child at risk through negligence on my own part

Ive never seen a dog bolt and attack when on a lead - personally I don't believe that is possible unless the owner holding the lead is a blithering idiot

and yes you could eliminate one risk (out of hundreds) by banning dogs - or you could eliminate nearly all the risks by being a responsible parent - its not rocket science to see which is the option to take
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Why cos it doesn't fit with your myopic view that dogs are wonderful?
Click to expand...

He isnt the one displaying a myopic view here - clearly its nonsensical to belive that every dog on the planet is wonderful , but it is equally nonsensical to believe that every dog on the planet is a slavering menace just waiting to tear a child to bits.
 
big soft moose said:
This is what i mean about irrational phobia - you view every dog as a potential threat - seriously you should see someone about this.

Its not like being rowdy and drunk - its like being afraid of people on public transport in case they are rowdy and drunk - mits the same sort of logic that thinks all kids in hoodies are potential muggers.
Click to expand...

they are, they can bite and jump up, animals are by nature unpredictable. Like drunk people, I avoid both. I switch carrianges if I see a drunken group near by. I don't like it, I have a right to a safe, quiet journey and freedom from fear.



big soft moose said:
Nope , what you are displaying here is a flagrant disregard for dog owners displayed by a tiny minority of non dog owners who have no understanding of dogs, how they behave or what dog ownership is about. As i said I understand that not everyone wants to be near my dog when I walk it, which is why i keep her under control and away from people she doesnt know ... what I'm asking you to understand in turn is that no one has the right to have everything they don't like banned.
Click to expand...

You don't like speeding/dangerous drivers, you say they should never drive again. Perhaps you need to heed this post.
 
big soft moose said:
No - as ive said three or four times already thats basic good parenting/dog ownership- you don't know what the kid might do - its very unlikely a well traine dog would attack with provocation, but a young child might decide to try and pull its ears , grab it by the nuts, kick it tread on it etc - and although my dog is very placcid and good with kids I would not put the dog or the child at risk through negligence on my own part

Ive never seen a dog bolt and attack when on a lead - personally I don't believe that is possible unless the owner holding the lead is a blithering idiot
Click to expand...

I have. Several times. Its not great. Why allow a kid to be near something it can pose itself danger, you wouldn't leave a toddler unsupervised in a garden with a river, why put them near a dog?
 
big soft moose said:
He isnt the one displaying a myopic view here - clearly its nonsensical to belive that every dog on the planet is wonderful , but it is equally nonsensical to believe that every dog on the planet is a slavering menace just waiting to tear a child to bits.
Click to expand...

We have proof of news events, something needs done about it.
 
ST4 said:
Like the bit in bold, its a minority at 31%, 69% therefore do not. Some of that 31% will have dangerous dogs, that the rest of the 31% and 69% may have to face. Thats what the law is about.
Click to expand...

indeed - but its a fallacy to say that the 69% are all anti dog or share your views

A tiny proportion of the 31% may have dangerous dogs , which will mainly be a risk to their own families if the stats are to be believed - however you are mistaken if you think I am opposed to the dangerous dogs legislation , as a responsible dog owner I would love to see the irresponsible minority banned from keeping dogs as it would eradicate the need for fatuous discussion like this where we are all tarred with the same brush.

My issue is with your belief that all dogs should be banned - which isnt what the legislation says , and never will

On the speeding thing I believe i said you'd be lucky to avoid jail , though I would stand by the view that a year ban for driving twice over the speed limit is a joke - hopefully you will reform and not drive like that in future, but the mutitude of morons who won't and do , share the roads with many 'innocent' civilians and pose a far higher risk to their safety and well being , than the tiny minority of dog owners with dangerous animals
 
ST4 said:
We have proof of news events, something needs done about it.
Click to expand...

See thats the bottom line - you don't , you have proof that a very small minority of (badly trained) dogs may attack children - there is no proof at all that every dog is a potential risk
 
however you are mistaken if you think I am opposed to the dangerous dogs legislation , as a responsible dog owner I would love to see the irresponsible minority banned from keeping dogs as it would eradicate the need for fatuous discussion like this where we are all tarred with the same brush.

Alright. I just don't like dogs. What I'd like in Steve fantasy land clearly wouldn't work, doesn't stop me wanting it. Didn't stop you wanting me getting a beating from an armed robber called Vinnay...fantasy land.
 
ST4 said:
Why allow a kid to be near something it can pose itself danger, you wouldn't leave a toddler unsupervised in a garden with a river, why put them near a dog?
Click to expand...

I wouldnt leave a toddler unsupervised anywhere - its basic responsible parenting. However I wouldn't try to ban anything and everything that might be a risk - I'd take responsibility for supevising the child properly to ensure it wasnt put at risk
 
big soft moose said:
See thats the bottom line - you don't , you have proof that a very small minority of (badly trained) dogs may attack children - there is no proof at all that every dog is a potential risk
Click to expand...

What makes you think they were badly trained, or just volatile. Have you conclusive proof these dogs were badly trained, or maybe they just turned nasty.

big soft moose said:
I wouldnt leave a toddler unsupervised anywhere - its basic responsible parenting. However I wouldn't try to ban anything and everything that might be a risk - I'd take responsibility for supevising the child properly to ensure it wasnt put at risk
Click to expand...

Fair enough
 
ST4 said:
Tell me, would you leave a dog and young child together without supervision.
Click to expand...

No, and this is exactly the major problem with most of the "family" dog attacks.

No dog should be left with a child of whatever age unsupervised as you don't know what the child will do to the dog either!

....and just for your info Steve, I am not a dog owner/lover or likely to be and have been bitten on several occasions by dogs owned by irresponsible owners.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ST4 said:
What makes you think they were badly trained, or just volatile. Have you conclusive proof these dogs were badly trained, or maybe they just turned nasty.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume that dogs "just turn nasty"?
 
and that is exactly what has evoke the changes in the DDA to make it possible to prosecute when a child is attacked in private homes, whether they live
there or not.
What difference it will make I can only guess at but at least the power is there now to make the owners suffer as well as the dog (y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ST4 said:
Why would I assume otherwise. I've walked a seemingl placid dog, and it just started going mental, barking, pulling on the lead. Not to be trusted.
Click to expand...


So was this to get away from you, or was it trying to get at something else?
 
Gremlin said:
and that is exactly what has evoke the changes in the DDA to make it possible to prosecute when a child is attacked in private homes, whether they live
there or not.
What difference it will make I can only guess at but at least the power is there now to make the owners suffer as well as the dog (y)
Click to expand...

Aye, so why are all the good dog owners upset of this if their animal is as good as the proclaim it to be. The fact the clink is on the cards if their dog attacks their child shouldn't bother them as they know thats totally out of the question...right???
 
ST4 said:
Probably get at something else. Its what dogs do.
Click to expand...


FFS! You were walking it, you must know whether there was something there or not!

IT IS NOT WHAT DOGS DO!

IF there was nothing there it was probably trying to get AWAY from you. Please do yourself (and the dog) a favour and don't walk it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top