Need To Ban Dangerous Dogs

[Steven]

Im not really sure the type of dog breed someone has has anything 2 do with the type of person someone is!

 

I myself am still considering which breed 2 have, its either a japanese akita or a old english mastiff!

I like the mastiff coz its the most powerfull breed on earth, and I like the akita coz its the most loyal breed on earth!

There both such nice little harmless friends!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Incidently insuring your dog is completly and totally worthless, as is all insurance.

[Hugh Jampton]

If Skeddan had been quite old I'm sure he may have been pulled to the ground and then been at the complete mercy of the dog.

I cannot stand it when people say " He'll only lick you to death" when the bloody thing is barking it's cobblers at you and straining to get at you.

 

Oh and dog owners houses stink

 

Yes I think dogs are worthless creatures and they frighten me.

[Skeddan]

Well the police didn't seem that interested - mainly because I didn't have witnesses.

 

Since then I found out from someone I know in the area that the dog belongs to someone who is rumoured to be one of the local drug dealers, and the guy who I thought was the owner was probably just looking after him.

 

It explains the lack of control over the dog, fits with the type of breed (menacing), and even the name 'Tyson'. My guess is that the dog is probably something like an Alano Espanol which is trained to be a surrogate pitbull.

 

I don't think this breed of dog need be banned, but I don't think just anyone should be able to have a potentially dangerous dog like this - something that can be trained to be a lethal weapon. Until there are proper controls, having compulsory muzzling for all dogs like this seems just plain common sense.

[Kitty1]

Where would you draw the line though between a dog you consider dangerous and one that isnt? I have come across some nasty border collies - often the most dangrous dogs are the ones which are protective of their owners. I saw a staffie on the way home last night and he was a lovely well behaved dog who sat in the edge of the pavement while waiting to cross the road and was more well manered than his companion (a collie cross).

 

I agree that all dogs should be kept on a lead in public places and I understand that there are people who are scared of dogs. You cant tar all bull breed dog owners with the same brush - they arent all drug dealers!!

[Mr. Sausages]

Where would you draw the line though between a dog you consider dangerous and one that isnt?

I'd use teeth an as indicator. Teeth = bad. No teeth = good.

[Miss Take]

Incidently insuring your dog is completly and totally worthless, as is all insurance.

 

Bollocks. One of my dogs has turned out to be epileptic. His current treatment is working out to be more than £1,000 per year. With only a £50 excess, it's all recoverable. The cost is also likely to go up as the current treatment isn't working very well so is likely to be upped or amended, meaning more blood tests and possibly a much more expensive treatment.

 

Because I chose a 'whole life' cover for our dogs, we will always be able to claim back his treatment - it's saved us from a hell of a lot of expense.

[Mr. Sausages]

You don't remember steven's thread about insurance on Manx.net then?

[Lonan3]

Dogs have been 'domesticated' for many thousands of years (evidence goes back to at least 12,500 B C). If they still haven't learned not to bite people, perhaps its time to give up and get rid of them.

[Miss Take]

You don't remember steven's thread about insurance on Manx.net then?

 

Wasn't around in the days of Manx.net. Well, I was around - I didn't suddenly come into existence a couple of years ago, but you know what I mean.

 

I do keep seeing comments about the old days of Steven and Vader and the like, but I have no idea as to what you're all on about.

[Lonan3]

You don't remember steven's thread about insurance on Manx.net then?

 

Wasn't around in the days of Manx.net. Well, I was around - I didn't suddenly come into existence a couple of years ago, but you know what I mean.

 

I do keep seeing comments about the old days of Steven and Vader and the like, but I have no idea as to what you're all on about.

Ignore them. They're just old farts complaining that things were so much better in the old days!

[Albert Tatlock]

Well the police didn't seem that interested - mainly because I didn't have witnesses.

Contact the BBC's 'Ruff Justice' programme and ask them to investigate.

[Skeddan]

Where would you draw the line though between a dog you consider dangerous and one that isnt?

..

You cant tar all bull breed dog owners with the same brush - they arent all drug dealers!!

Size is one factor - a small dog can't do as much harm as a great big one. Maybe there ought to be licensing and assessment of dogs - i.e. the owner and the dog have to pass a test that shows they are controlled and don't belong in dog borstal. Till then I'd think one could draw a line - there are some dogs which are not banned but which nevertheless can potentially be dangerous - e.g. some types of bull breeds - whereas a poodle probably isn't going to pose anything like the same threat. It may be arbitrary, but it would be better than nothing at all.

 

No you can't tar all bull breed dog owners with the same brush. The trouble is there are at present some owners who have these dogs, and who probably shouldn't. Either you have to regulate and license ownership, or alternatively to stop the 1 in 5 or 1 in 500 of these animals from posing a threat, you have to treat them all as a threat. (Or expect other people to put up with that threat).

 

IMO it is the responsible dog owners who should be making constructive suggestions as to which breeds should be properly licensed and maybe introduce certification by kennel clubs etc. or other measures to combat irresponsible ownership and dangerous and menacing dogs. Responsible owners will be better served by initiatives of their own proposing that address the problem than wait to have measures imposed on them. You are better informed as to what breeds may be dangerous than me.

 

The sad fact is some dogs are being used as 'weapons' of a kind and can be trained as such even if not in their nature. It is also hard to draw the line somewhere between a high calibre machine gun and an air-pistol (semi-automatic weapons can be modified to become automatic - not naturally-aggressive dogs can be also be made to be dangerous). As far as dogs are concerned the line isn't where it should be at the moment. Treat some dogs like shotguns - as someone suggested here - and restrict ownership accordingly.

 

Yes, dogs on leads (except maybe in certain designated areas), also muzzling of some breeds that are not currently banned. Controlled licensing for some kinds of dogs, and big fines for having unlicensed ownership of these - even prison in some cases (like owning a firearm), mandatory checking of licenses by vets.

 

People have reason to be fearful of your safe well-behaved well-trained dog because they have no reason to be confident it is not a hell-hound. Until there is confidence that such a dog is safe, there is no reason to expect people to be tolerant of what might seem a selfish enjoyment - your enjoyment of the dog has to be weighed against the fact that when you take that dog to a public place it intrudes on the sense of safety and security that others should be entitled to.

 

What do you think might be a sensible answer which is acceptable all round - except to the irresponsible owners of such animals?

[WTF]

so interesting and fair points made above. the main problem as i see it is tosser owners looking for the 'fuck off' image with bulldogs and rottys etc. all dogs can be friendly or vicious, it just depends on their training or lack of and the owners intended purpose for the dog. there is no need what so ever for aggressive dogs with aggressive owners and that is what needs sorting. i would suspect that some of these aggressive dogs end up at the mspca once tosser owner is locked up which just passes the problem on. i would guess that the mspca calm down and train the dogs to an acceptable standard, but would you ever trust a previously aggressive dog 100% round kids and other animals?? unlikely! the sad part is the dog could pay the price for having a tosser owner with it's life and when wanker gets out of nick he just gets another dog and starts again.

[GD4ELI]

Where would you draw the line though between a dog you consider dangerous and one that isnt? I have come across some nasty border collies - often the most dangrous dogs are the ones which are protective of their owners. I saw a staffie on the way home last night and he was a lovely well behaved dog who sat in the edge of the pavement while waiting to cross the road and was more well manered than his companion (a collie cross).

 

I agree that all dogs should be kept on a lead in public places and I understand that there are people who are scared of dogs. You cant tar all bull breed dog owners with the same brush - they arent all drug dealers!!

Collies are evil things, I've been attacked by one but I know what to do and threw it *and* the owner in the lake here. We were able to call the police and get the owner arrested as the dog had bit many people and the stupid owner never kept it on a lead.

 

I do not like Collies, but a dangerous border collie is odd - probably either very frustrated or an elderly female.

[Bananaman]

My wife is a vet. The dog most likely to try and bite her is the Border Collie. Second most likely to try is the Alsation and third is the Spaniels (mainly Cocker). All of these breeds she will insist on them being muzzled before they are brought in to her practise for their first visit to her. The vast majority can have their muzzles removed within a couple of minutes but there's always the odd scaredy that is just too nervous to trust.