Need To Ban Dangerous Dogs

[Grianane]

I was interested in Alberts posted report - especially bit about liability insurance. The report states that many pit bulls and rottweilers are handed in because owners cannot get rent or obtain liability insurance. Is there a requirement for owners to possess a liability insurance for a dog in the UK/IOM.

 

If introduced it could reduce dramatically the number of dogs kept by inappropraite owners.

 

 

good idea, but it penalises 99% of dog owners and the 1% that need sorting will i'm sure get the money for insurance. its not like it would be expensive. all this would lead to is the 99% paying for the 1%'s claims against which does not sort the real issue. paying out after the fact is all a bit too late. if your dog EVER goes for another dog off your own premises then it should be mandatory that from then on your dog is muzzled off your own property and also on a lead.

 

 

Not so. The point of insurance is that your paying someone else to accept risk, and they will therefore assess the extent of that risk when quoting premiums as with motor insurance.

 

For a nice little dog, or for someone who is seen to be a good and responsible owner the premium would be low. For a breed with a history of attack or for someone who isn't able to demonstarte that they have a responsible pedigree (sic) in dog ownership the premium would be higher and they may not even get cover.

 

Problem solved!!

[mannin]

I accept that there is a considerable amount of nurture (upbringing / training) that will affect the temperament of a dog, but nature also plays a part. The police and armed forces have started to phase out the use of German Shepherd Dog (Alsatian) as the (responsible) breeders have, over the last couple of decades, bred out the aggressiveness from the breed.

Although it’s not an exact science, there is an increased likely hood of two mild mannered parent dogs producing a mild mannered litter, whereas two ‘vicious’ parents are more likely to produce a vicious litter.

This is in no way dictated by the breed, but by the breeder(s.) Unfortunately the money that can be made by breeders (anywhere between £500-£1500 per pup) means that some breeders will breed from anything.

I keep a GSD and he has the mildest temperament of pretty much any dog I have ever met; he is more likely to lick you to death or beat you senseless with his (wagging) tail than to bite you, yet only 8 years ago there was a requirement to leash them in the UK and mussel them in Ireland when outside.

It’s true to say that there is an increased (statistical) risk in some breeds, but this is because of their owners, there are some subsets of society that see certain breeds as status symbols (or bling.)

When all is said and done, there are some ‘dangerous dogs’ but not dangerous breeds. There are some dangerous people, but not all people are dangerous, we deal with the people on an individual basis, we should do the same with dogs.

[3v0]

I've always been on the side of it's the owners not the dog's fault but I do agree that if a king charles spanial decides it's going to attack you it's slightly less serious and perhaps more amusing than a 100kg rottweiller, the report Albert found was quite interesting, quite favourable towards my (hopefully, missus depending) future Alaskan Malamute, only 8 reported attacks over the time of the report, quite good compared to pit bulls at over a thousand! I'm also beleive it's stupid to leave children alone with any dog unless your perfectly happy they are old enough and big enough to fight off said dog, so that would probably be never with something like an alsatian which is capable of bringing down a fully grown adult. Do love alsatians though, doubt I will ever be able to have one though.

[mannin]

quite favourable towards my (hopefully, missus depending) future Alaskan Malamute, only 8 reported attacks over the time of the report, quite good compared to pit bulls at over a thousand!

 

The report failed to give any indication (on my quick skim read) on the number of that breed in the US if it turned out that there were only 2 Malamutes in the US, would you be so confident?

 

I would also state the obvious that if someone were 'attacked' by a Chihuahua would they be less likely to report it over a Neapolitan Mastiff?

[Mr. Sausages]

Regardless of it's temperament, I'd question keeping any animal capable of overpowering you as a pet.

[Miss Take]

Both my dogs are more than capable of overpowering me with their noxious emissions.

 

Beware a stretching dog.

[3v0]

Regardless of it's temperament, I'd question keeping any animal capable of overpowering you as a pet.

 

So i can't have my polar bear

[Grianane]

would agree that the focus should be on the owner - as suggested previously maybe the licence should be to keep a dog, not for the dog to be kept.

 

Still think compulsory insurance would sort it.

[Skeddan]

Yesterday when out for a quiet Sunday stroll in the park (in London) I got attacked by what looked like a pitbull. The dog jumped up on me. I pushed it down, and it then jumped up again and grabbed my arm in its jaws. I pushed it back down, but it kept on getting more aggressive jumping up and biting my arm. In the end I decided enough was enough and gave it a kick in the ribs - not hard enough to do any damage but enough to send it off. Luckily I was wearing a jacket and thick top, so had plenty of padding, but I still got bruises on my arm from its teeth.

 

The owner was very apologetic for the behaviour of 'Tyson' (!) and explained he was only a year old and still hard to control. The dog wasn't on a lead, he'd not been neutered, and looked plenty big enough to me. I only stayed around long enough to tell the owner that having a dog like that in a public place where there are children is a really bad idea.

 

Now I know a bit more about Dangerous Dogs Act which I didn't know about before, and in future if I see one of these dogs running around unmuzzled I'll report it - and will be reporting this attack to the police as well. It seems some owners are getting away with not having their dangerous dogs muzzled, maybe because people don't bother doing anything when they see this, or are not able to distinguish between different breeds of dog. Anyhow since this dangerous dog was running around unmuzzled it seems the law isn't working as it should.

 

IMO it is a menace to have any potentially dangerous big dogs to be unmuzzled in public - even 'Staffies'. They are intimidating, menacing and potentially dangerous. Responsible dog ownership should mean ensuring the public are safe and feel safe. If dog owners don't like the idea of banning some breeds and having others muzzled, they need to come up with proper alternatives that address the concerns of folk who want to be able to peacefully enjoy being outside without having to worry about dangerous dogs.

[Albert Tatlock]

but I still got bruises on my arm from its teeth.

 

The owner was very apologetic for the behaviour of 'Tyson' (!)

Surprised he didn't go for your ears.

[Kitty1]

I think some people here are blaming certain breeds rather then the type of owner they have. I know that there are a lot of idiots over here who own staffies but there are also a lot of responsible people as well and putting a blanket ban on the breed is ridiculous.

The dogs that are included in the dangerous dogs act are there for a good reason, they were bred to fight. Their anatomy and the way they have been bred over the years makes them more powerful and dangerous even in the hands of a responsible owner.

I thought this was quite interesting

 

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

 

Actually spotting a pitbull is a lot harder than you may think which is why there are so many dog owners with crosses/mograls who are facing having their dogs put to sleep because somebody has accused them of owning a pitbull

[ykstarr]

I wouldn't have called you getting 'attacked' - the dog was excited and being young, was probably still 'mouthy'. Regardless, he shouldn't have been allowed to do what he did, but that is the owner's fault for letting him run about and not having suitable control over him - it wasn't the dog's fault.

 

And I agree that it probably wasn't a pitbull.

[Albert Tatlock]

I think some people here are blaming certain breeds rather then the type of owner they have. I know that there are a lot of idiots over here who own staffies but there are also a lot of responsible people as well and putting a blanket ban on the breed is ridiculous.

The dogs that are included in the dangerous dogs act are there for a good reason, they were bred to fight. Their anatomy and the way they have been bred over the years makes them more powerful and dangerous even in the hands of a responsible owner.

I thought this was quite interesting

 

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

 

Actually spotting a pitbull is a lot harder than you may think which is why there are so many dog owners with crosses/mograls who are facing having their dogs put to sleep because somebody has accused them of owning a pitbull

I disagree with some of that, and I too have owned dogs over the years.

 

Bringing dogs into the home as pets/members of the family is relatively new in human history, and before that, over time dogs were bred for a number of activities many of which have been to kill things or even to fight. All types of breeds and variations have appeared, and different temperments have been bred by nature, accident or design. Even Yorkshire Terriers were bred to catch and kill rats.

 

Anyone who says 'I trust my dog' is deluding themselves, IMO you can only say at best 'so far nothing has happended'. No matter how responsible as an owner you are, you can never know what's going on in a dog's tiny brain and how it could react to a given situation. Yes, statistically, some dogs are less likely to react badly, but all dogs do have the potential to react badly. Watch what happens the next time you or a child accidently stands on the friendliest of dogs' tails. I have seen first hand a Yorkshire terrier go for a baby out of 'jealousy'. Many more owners should also remember that dogs are pack animals and react accordingly, even to the extent that they could attack lower-order-pack 'animals' including the owners children.

 

I do believe certain breeds of dogs are inherently dangerous and should not be trusted enough to be given the right to roam free in public areas (regardless of how 'responsible' their owner happens to be), or be allowed in the same house as children - you can't argue against nature and how and why these dogs have been bred.

 

However, IMO, in reality I think the overall answer lies in much stiffer penalties for the owners of dogs that cause such problems, and for tougher licencing requirements designed to discourage less responsible dog owners (starting with certain breeds). There is far less space for humans and dogs to share than there used to be, and so such incidents are only likely to increase.

[Skeddan]

Kittie1, I don't suggest banning Staffies - but I think there is a case for these to be muzzled in public places. I can't tell the difference between a Staffie and a Pitbull - and maybe it was a badly trained Staffie - and because I'm not a dog owner or expert handler maybe I provoked it to become a hell-hound when it was only leaping up on me in a friendly playful way (which is not wanted either).

 

Even if I could tell a big dog is a Staffie, I don't know it has a good owner and is well-trained and not aggressive. Until there is that kind of assurance and peace of mind by proper licensing, controls, regulation etc. for peace of mind I'd rather see all large and potentially dangerous dogs muzzled in public - except in designated dog recreation areas and reserves.

 

Without proper controls over licensing etc. it seems crazy to assume a dog has a responsible owner and is well-behaved until it actually attacks. Tyson's first attack might have been me - but it could have been a young child.

[Skeddan]

I wouldn't have called you getting 'attacked' - the dog was excited and being young, was probably still 'mouthy'. Regardless, he shouldn't have been allowed to do what he did, but that is the owner's fault for letting him run about and not having suitable control over him - it wasn't the dog's fault.

I regard it as an attack whether or not that is how it is considered from the point of view of canine behaviour. Having an animal like that jump up and dig its teeth into your arm is not my idea of a bit of fun.

 

I agree it is not the dog's fault, and it is the owner's fault. But there are bad owners and I think I ought to be able to feel I can walk through a park without worry of getting jumped on or mauled by a dog.

 

No, it probably wasn't a pitbull, and probably was a 'mouthy' Staffie, but it was also very 'teethy' and looked a lot like this:

 

http://www.nacionapache.com.ar/wp-content/...itbull-2-CR.jpg

 

I think there ought to be separate spaces for dogs - which people with children or non-dog-lovers don't have to share. I also think there ought to be proper regulation and licensing. Why not require dogs to pass 'safety' tests before being allowed out in public and have dog licensing that restricts ownership of certain breeds and to accredited owners? If that's not acceptable then the dog owners should have to put a muzzle on it.

 

Kittie1 - I looked at the pitbulls on the web link - the closest thing I could see was a 'Dogo Argentino' or 'Alano Espanol'. I'd guess it wasn't a banned breed, so might have been like the Alano Espanol - something legal, but which can be aggressive and dangerous if not properly trained and handled by a responsible owner. (I think you get the idea this dog probably didn't have a suitable owner by the fact he called it Tyson - how is is that there are no restrictions on who is allowed to own such an animal?).