Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 53

Thread: Dangerous Dogs

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Dangerous Dogs

    I was sickened this week by the tragic death of 14 year old Jade Anderson, who was mauled by two Staffordshire Bull terriers and two Bull Mastiffs. At the risk of making a knee-jerk reaction to an appalling story, I am wondering if the Dangerous Dogs act needs to be looked at again.

    In particular, I think it is time to consider widening the breeds covered by the act. At present, Bull Mastiffs and Staffordshire Bull terriers, both of which were originally bred as fighting dogs, are not considered dangerous breeds. In fact, only four breeds are on the banned list. Staffies, in particular, seem to be the "dog of choice" in the council estates, where irresponsible owners consider them to be status symbols. They are responsible for more attacks on children than any other dog breed. I certainly feel intimidated whenever I am walking my Labrador and someone with a Staffie comes walking in the other direction. This is perhaps the intention of many Staffie owners.

    Of course, many Staffies can have an excellent temperament, especially if reared in a loving home (at least until the moment they snap for no reason). However, when Pit Bull terriers were outlawed in 1991, many people cross-bred Pit Bulls and Staffies to try and get around the law. The result is that many Staffies today contain a strain of Pit Bull, which makes them even more potentially dangerous than a pedigree Staffie. Coupled with the general increase in the number of poorly educated and irresponsible dog owners, I think there is a good argument for banning the Staffie. I'd probably add Bull Mastiffs and Rottweilers to the list too. I also think that if a dog attack occurs on private property, the dog owner should be as liable for criminal charges as if it happened in a public area.

    What I don't want to see is a return to dog licensing. The responsible owners like myself would end up paying, whilst the Staffie owners on the estates would flout the law.
    Last edited by Northumbrian; 03-28-2013 at 09:20 PM.

  2. #2
    Junior Member Hayhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    UK/EU/US
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Requesting to ban a particular breed can only result in more conflicts rising. The pre-owners of such animals should be consciously making a decision to respect the animal world and choose those pets they can control. Several options could be used to provide an informative perspective before the purchase of the animal, mainly through regulations but moreso through education, yet as not too many spend time studying the threats of such powerful animals online, it might just be better to find a big poster printing place and shed light on similar events directly by hanging the warning stories in the popular dog walking areas.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hayhead View Post
    Requesting to ban a particular breed can only result in more conflicts rising. The pre-owners of such animals should be consciously making a decision to respect the animal world and choose those pets they can control. Several options could be used to provide an informative perspective before the purchase of the animal, mainly through regulations but moreso through education, yet as not too many spend time studying the threats of such powerful animals online, it might just be better to find a big poster printing place and shed light on similar events directly by hanging the warning stories in the popular dog walking areas.
    First of all, a jolly warm welcome to the forum Hayhead!

    I agree that education for irresponsible dog-owners is a big problem and needs to be addressed. However, on its own that is not sufficient in my opinion. There are certain breeds of dog, which were originally bred for fighting, Staffies included, that even in the best home and after a lifetime of apparently docile behaviour can suddenly and violently attack a child, adult or other dog. Staffie owners, of course, respond with the familiar argument that any dog can bite. However, when was the last time you heard of a Labrador or a Poodle ripping a childs throat out?

    I am a dog-lover, and I wouldn't want to see healthy dogs destroyed. However, I think that a new dangerous dog act should require all owners of Staffordshire Bull terriers, Rottweilers and Bull mastiffs to have their animals neutered. Breeding and importing these animals should be made illegal. After a certain period of time, say 15 years, when all existing animals should have passed away naturally, any person owning an illegal breed should face a prison sentence, and the animal should be destroyed. It is the only way to stop these incidents occurring.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    London N16
    Posts
    675

    Default

    No dog should be regarded as safe to be left alone with a child — even a Jack Russell can kill** Maybe some breeds are inherently more dangerous to people than others, but I suggest it's mostly down to care and training (of owners as well as the dogs), which is why I'd be happy having both the dog and the owner licensed as fit for each other...

    **http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ack-child.html
    Last edited by Patman Post; 03-30-2013 at 04:58 PM.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patman Post View Post
    No dog should be regarded as safe to be left alone with a child — even a Jack Russell can kill** Maybe some breeds are inherently more dangerous to people than others, but I suggest it's mostly down to care and training (of owners as well as the dogs), which is why I'd be happy having both the dog and the owner licensed as fit for each other...

    **http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ack-child.html
    Any form of licensing will just punish the responsible and law-abiding dog owner, who will cough up the likely 100 plus charge. It will be ignored by the bulk of the Staffie-owning brigade.

    Yes any dog can bite and injure, but I think you underestimate the fact that certain breeds of dogs were actually bred to be violent in the first place, in much the same way as a Greyhound was bred to run fast. The bite pressure for a Staffie is 2000 psi ... by comparison you only need 4psi to break a childs finger. As I understand it, Staffies or Staffy-Pitbull crosses are responsible for about two-thirds of all fatal dog attacks in the UK. When they were selectively bred, it wasn't just their bite strength that was massively increased but their overall aggression. Even a Staffie that has been well treated in a loving home its whole life, and has never shown any signs of aggression can suddenly and unexpectedly turn. Believe me, Staffies are dangerous animals. Would you keep a Lion or a Hyena in your living room?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    London N16
    Posts
    675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Any form of licensing will just punish the responsible and law-abiding dog owner, who will cough up the likely 100 plus charge. It will be ignored by the bulk of the Staffie-owning brigade.

    Yes any dog can bite and injure, but I think you underestimate the fact that certain breeds of dogs were actually bred to be violent in the first place, in much the same way as a Greyhound was bred to run fast. The bite pressure for a Staffie is 2000 psi ... by comparison you only need 4psi to break a childs finger. As I understand it, Staffies or Staffy-Pitbull crosses are responsible for about two-thirds of all fatal dog attacks in the UK. When they were selectively bred, it wasn't just their bite strength that was massively increased but their overall aggression. Even a Staffie that has been well treated in a loving home its whole life, and has never shown any signs of aggression can suddenly and unexpectedly turn. Believe me, Staffies are dangerous animals. Would you keep a Lion or a Hyena in your living room?
    We licence vehicles and drivers. Why not dogs and owners? Animal cost a lot to keep. Paying to learn about their care seems a wise move. But it's still dangerous to leave any dog alone with children.

    Why this downer on Staffies? Doggy expert sites seem to rate them highly as family pets...
    Last edited by Patman Post; 04-02-2013 at 04:54 PM.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patman Post View Post
    We licence vehicles and drivers. Why not dogs and owners? Animal
    Enforcing a dog licensing system would not be as easy as checking drivers and vehicles. Every time you pass a police car, a camera reads your number plate and a computer tells the officer instantly if the vehicle is stolen or being driven without tax or insurance. Despite this, a large number of people still choose to drive without a driving licence, car tax or insurance. The rest of us have to pay for these people. It would be the same with dog licensing, only worse. The decent responsible law-abiding people like me would end up paying for the chavs who keep "status dogs", who would completely ignore the scheme. No thankyou. I work hard and pay enough through my teeth for the trash in society already.
    Last edited by Northumbrian; 04-02-2013 at 04:51 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Enforcing a dog licensing system would not be as easy as checking drivers and vehicles. Every time you pass a police car, a camera reads your number plate and a computer tells the officer instantly if the vehicle is stolen or being driven without tax or insurance. Despite this, a large number of people still choose to drive without a driving licence, car tax or insurance. The rest of us have to pay for these people. It would be the same with dog licensing, only worse. The decent responsible law-abiding people like me would end up paying for the chavs who keep "status dogs", who would completely ignore the scheme. No thankyou. I work hard and pay enough through my teeth for the trash in society already.
    Legit drivers suffer mainly through insurance, not really through licensing - which remains the same regardless of how many people drive without a driving licence, car tax or insurance. A dog licence would be much the same - regardless of how many people own a dog without a licence, the cost to you for your licence should remain the same.

    I don't think licensing is the same as insuring

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    Legit drivers suffer mainly through insurance, not really through licensing - which remains the same regardless of how many people drive without a driving licence, car tax or insurance. A dog licence would be much the same - regardless of how many people own a dog without a licence, the cost to you for your licence should remain the same.

    I don't think licensing is the same as insuring
    Its often the same type of moron who drives without insurance who also doesn't have a license, or who drives whilst disqualified. You should watch some of these "Motorway Cops" type documentaries. The police stop someone for not having a valid tax disk, and invariably they are also uninsured and often without a valid license.

    Drivers who haven't passed their test (or who are disqualified) are more likely to cause accidents on the roads, costing all of us money (or much worse if we or a loved one are injured or killed by such a driver). It would be exactly the same with dog licensing. Middle class law-abiding Northumbrian will be forking out 100-200 to license his harmless Labrador. Yet the skinhead chav on the council estate a mile down the road with "hate" tattooed on his knuckles, and his three vicious Staffies and a Bull Mastiff-Pitbull cross will be paying sod all as usual. So what will licensing actually achieve except raising more revenue for the government?

    No thankyou, matey. I pay enough tax already.
    Last edited by Northumbrian; 04-03-2013 at 09:58 AM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Its often the same type of moron who drives without insurance who also doesn't have a license, or who drives whilst disqualified. You should watch some of these "Motorway Cops" type documentaries. The police stop someone for not having a valid tax disk, and invariably they are also uninsured and often without a valid license.

    Drivers who haven't passed their test (or who are disqualified) are more likely to cause accidents on the roads, costing all of us money
    Costing you money how exactly? Do you pay extra for your licence or for your insurance . . . ? If it is for your insurance, then your fear that dog licences will increase because others are not licenced, is unfounded, as there would be no equivilant 'dog insurance' which would cost more (AFAIK)

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    It would be exactly the same with dog licensing. Middle class law-abiding Northumbrian will be forking out 100-200 to license his harmless Labrador. Yet the skinhead chav on the council estate a mile down the road with "hate" tattooed on his knuckles, and his three vicious Staffies and a Bull Mastiff-Pitbull cross will be paying sod all as usual. So what will licensing actually achieve except raising more revenue for the government?
    If the authorities find an unlicenced dog, it could be removed and potentially destroyed. It would give the police the ability to act on the "skinheaded chav" BEFORE his dog causes a problem. That is a tangible benefit I think, and whilst it would cost money to set up, I think most law abiding dog owners and animal lovers would support a scheme that gives the police the power to remove dogs from "skinheaded chav" environments - even if it does cost them a one off 1-200 fee

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •