On pets and politics...

[CBJ]

I did say earlier that I wasn't attacking you personally, but I will reiterate that now. I don't think we even disagree on the fundamental point that ownership of a dog (or any other pet for that matter) is a responsibility and calls for responsible behaviour. I just find it incredible that despite all these attacks on people by supposedly cuddly pets nothing is done about it, and despite the disgusting state of so many of our pavements and paths due to fouling nothing is done about that either. And OK, yes, I have a bee in my bonnet.

[esd]

sense, a responsible dog owner will not be a problem and he or her dog will not be a problem either.

The problem is those people in this world who are not responsible,

My partner was a kennel-maid for many years, and even she doesn't trust dogs by apparent temprement.
I've seen her learn first hand why not to, like the Whippet chained outside a shop that she had to get past in order to enter. As she went past, she presented her hand to the dog for it to sniff (good manners with dogs) as it was a perky little dog, ears up, eyes bright and in a relaxed stance. It flung for her, and she whipped her hand back as the dog's lead pulled tight. It bit off the tip of her fingernail (she has rather long nails).
A dog's apparent temprement or intentions are never completely clear, even for seasoned handlers.

Also as CBJ said, how can you tell an irresponsible owner from a responsible one? Humans are just as hard to judge (if not harder) as dogs.

[Deleted User]

I have to put a good word in for dogs here.

A well trained dog is a thing to behold. But unfortunately they are few a far between. It takes work from the responsible owner to make a dog a well behaved dog. And a responsible owner will clear up after their pet , which by and large they do. (well they do where I live.)


And now cats:-

Have you ever see a Guide Cat or a hearing cat for the deaf?
Cats are just as much of a nuisance with the mess that they leave behind as dogs as any gardener will tell you. But they are kind enough to hide it from you so you don't know its there until it's in your hand - if it was my cat I wouldn't be so upset. Why can't they do it in their owners garden.
A cat is a cat and will do whatever they want - and usually they get away with it - but they usually come a cropper when they decide that the 18 wheeler arctic should give way to them on the by-pass.

IO

[CBJ]

So how many more times does this have to happen? Oops, did I bump an old thread?

[Krusade]

I wondered when that tragic event would be mentioned, in my opinion it really does prove that some breeds of dog should not be in existence.

[Apothos]

I wondered when that tragic event would be mentioned, in my opinion it really does prove that some breeds of dog should not be in existence.

That's a bit harsh. If the owner had properly trained their pet it would never have happened. There are plenty of terriers/terrier cross-breeds that are as soft as fluffly pillows and wouldn't harm a fly.

"Humans shouldn't exist because that guy got stabbed to death on Thursday!"

[Krusade]

An over reaction on my part there, but the fact that dogs like that are considered pets really makes me angry, they were bred to be aggressive and this tragic death is yet more proof of that.

[Quiet]

The problem isn't really the breed - although all breeds have their own little quirks and that should be taken account of - some need to be worked etc. The problem is the owners not knowing how their dog needs to be treated.

Most dogs that are working breeds (collies, terriers etc) have to be worked even as a family pet or they will develop personality issues of some sort or another, however a greyhound just wants to sleep on your sofa and has no need to be exercised more than any other dog, even if its an ex-racer.

There is no need to condemn a whole breed because some have been violent - there are some pitbulls out there who you could leave to babysit without giving it a second thought. If we are blaming breeds - standard poodles are incredably aggressive if handled incorrectly (they weren't french police dogs for nothing). Border and rough collies are extremely volatile dogs too.

I have worked with alot of dogs. Rescue dogs. Some are broken. Some can be fixed and spend happy lives as pets. Others (one in particular springs to mind - a staffie terrier) was completely unhandlable to his dying day - so he just stayed in his kennel (quite often hanging from the roof of the run by his teeth) and his physical wellbeing was cared for while he lived out his life, as he was healthy - just very very nasty. No attempt was ever made to place him in a home.

All dogs are dangerous. They are prone to emotional outbursts and they can only express them physically.

My point is - the dog ain't the problem, it's the idiot that owns it and doesn't understand what it needs.

[The_Abyss]

My point is - the dog ain't the problem, it's the idiot that owns it and doesn't understand what it needs.

There isn't a law against idiocy though, so...

[CBJ]

There is no need to condemn a whole breed because some have been violent...

All dogs are dangerous.

Spot the contradiction here.

My point is - the dog ain't the problem, it's the idiot that owns it and doesn't understand what it needs.

And my point is, how many children have to be killed by dangerous animals kept as family pets by idiots before something is done about it?

[Quiet]

There is no need to condemn a whole breed because some have been violent...

All dogs are dangerous.

Spot the contradiction here.

Can you miss the point by any further?

[Krusade]

You have to remember CBJ is a computer so 'he' will automatically point out any mistakes.

[CBJ]

Can you miss the point by any further?

I didn't miss the point, I was just amused by the two sentences appearing in the same post. I agree that all dogs are potentially dangerous, in fact I'd go so far as to say that most pets (perhaps not goldfish...) are potentially dangerous, but dogs are probably more dangerous than hamsters, and certain breeds of dog are more dangerous than others.

As I think I said in a previous post the last time this topic was bobbing around near the top of the forum, people are very happy to point out that not all dogs are vicious killers and that it is the owners' fault. I agree with those statements, but they don't help the people who are attacked.

Since we know what those breeds of dogs are, and we know that they can be dangerous in the wrong hands, why do we continue to allow anyone who wants to to own one? And why do the majority of people continue to kid themselves that their pets are cuddly toys rather than unpredictable animals? Hence my question: how many more people will get mauled or killed before we start to make damn sure that dog owners are responsible rather than just hoping for the best?

[Harlock776]

The biggest mistake people make with dogs is trying to integrate a new dog into their life that is fully or mostly grown already. The only way a dog is not going to hurt children around it or familiar people around it is if that dog grew up with them from the time it was a puppy. There are some breeds of dogs that just don't take crap from anyone and do whatever they wanna do regardless of what you think you have trained them to do. People are the same way lol so you can't expect all dogs to be nice and harmless.

When I was only a few years old my family had a big white german sheperd that was very smart. That dog would always answer the door if my dad wasn't home no matter who got up to answer the door first. It could see out the window and the door had small windows on it too. If he didn't recognize whoever was at the door then nobody was gonna open that door no matter what lol. If anyone tried to open the door he would grab their hand with his mouth and keep it away from the door knob and then knock them down on the floor. When that dog stood on it's rear legs only it was almost six feet tall so it knocked down whoever it wanted to lol.

When my mom would go outside to hang the clothes out on the line the dog would sit behind me and use one paw to keep me from standing up and running outside so my mom could get all the clothes hung up and wouldn't have to run after me. That was a smart dog and the whole time he was around me for atleast two years he could have ate me for lunch at anytime but didn't. Unfortunately someone poisoned that dog just before I turned four years old but while he was around there was no problems with weirdos walking around our property or strange animals getting too close to our house. Everyone and every animal near our house knew that dog lived there and didn't get anywhere near the house lol.

Some dogs are smart and some aren't just like people. It takes time to know how an animal is going to behave but I think it's probably slightly easier to pick up on how some dogs will behave.

[esd]

The only way a dog is not going to hurt children around it or familiar people around it is if that dog grew up with them from the time it was a puppy.

That's woefully inaccurate. Many adult dogs have been successfully integrated into families. If "the only way" was as you describe, the RSPCA would not house dogs with families.

There are some breeds of dogs that just don't take crap from anyone and do whatever they wanna do regardless of what you think you have trained them to do. People are the same way lol so you can't expect all dogs to be nice and harmless.

No, there are some dogs - not breeds.

There are individuals with dogs, and short of any "training problems" with their owners, very few will turn. The majority of those that do, do so simply because they've been handled/trained badly/incorrectly.

Rotweilers would fall under your "won't take crap" category, but they're used by several countries' military and police forces. Almost every breed out there has been reared for a specific job. If they were unmanageable, they'd have been bred out. We've used selective breeding to encourage desirable traits in dogs for many thousands of years.

Since we know what those breeds of dogs are, and we know that they can be dangerous in the wrong hands, why do we continue to allow anyone who wants to to own one? And why do the majority of people continue to kid themselves that their pets are cuddly toys rather than unpredictable animals?

Bringing in licensing for specific targeted breeds could be a good thing. Those that want to own them could need to fulfil certain criteria, possibly even undergo training/examination before a license would be granted.

[Golden_Gonads]

I'm reminded of a couple of past dog attacks:

Case One: A little brat climbed into a garden to retrieve the ball he'd kicked over the wall, a wall clearly marked 'DO NOT ENTER' 'Beware Of The Dog'. And guess what? Got bit... Quite badly as I recall. The dog was put down, the owner sued. Why? Because a little punk ignored the very clear warnings.

Case Two: A dog came up to a little brat out of curiosity or what have you. The brat pulled it's ears, punched it in the gob... Whatever - A sight that was witnessed by a dozen or more people. The dog... Guess what? Yes. Defended itself by biting the little git. End result? Dog put down, owner fined.


Yes, you here a lot about dangerous dogs attacking people... Dangerous... Murderous... Hazardous to society... Blah blah blah blah blah.... But very rarely do you hear about an UNPROVOKED dog attack. There's almost always provocation, be it a pulled tail or trespass on its owners land. Dogs after all have been bred to guard their territory.

[Constipated_Vigilante]

My cats were always pretty good about keeping their bad smells in the litter box. Well, the older one (she must've been 20) started doing it everywhere after awhile (she peed on my old motherboard manual too), but she only lived for a year or so after that started. My other, younger cat ran away soon after. He was either eaten by coyotes or is living happily in the swampy forest outside my house (he's an excellent hunter).

[CBJ]

But very rarely do you hear about an UNPROVOKED dog attack. There's almost always provocation...

Sorry, but that's utter rubbish. The case discussed earlier in this thread involved a dog that killed a baby that was asleep in its cot. That baby could hardly have been provoking the dog. This new case involves a small child who was unlikely to be provoking the dog in any meaningful way, but even if it were the child was too young to know any better. Blaming the victim is a poor excuse in most situations but in this case it is ludicrous.

If you live in some sort of Wild West anarchy then having a killer dog trained to defend your territory might make some kind of sense, but most people don't live in those conditions and the risks simply do not justify it.

[Deleted User]

But very rarely do you hear about an UNPROVOKED dog attack. There's almost always provocation...

Sorry, but that's utter rubbish. The case discussed earlier in this thread involved a dog that killed a baby that was asleep in its cot. That baby could hardly have been provoking the dog. This new case involves a small child who was unlikely to be provoking the dog in any meaningful way, but even if it were the child was too young to know any better. Blaming the victim is a poor excuse in most situations but in this case it is ludicrous.

Although I agree with your sentiment that blaming the victim isn't helpful.
A dog is a dog - not a human so you can't tell what it's motivation is.

I'm of the opinion, however, that all dogs should be licensed and the breeding of them should also be licensed. So much breeding is done to the detriment of the species ( mainly for the vanity of the owners.)
Licensing may reduce these sort of attacks - but as dogs are (for the most part) large animals any reaction by a dog to ill treatment might be classed as "an attack". A nip from a Jack Russell doesn't have the same consequences as one from a German Shephard.

The bigger problem is that even if a law is passed they will still be people who breed and own "illegal" dogs and its more likely that these dogs are the ones that'll cause the problems- the dog in the last attack has been deemed an "illegal" dog - fat lot of good the law is now.

I can't find out statistics for dog attacks in the UK, but the Press seem to be overreacting to this as they always do. I suspect far more children die in the UK to traffic accidents and an incident like that would only get a passing reference on the local news - how many people speed in a 30mph limit?

You can't stop people being idiots and no law will change that.

The risk of a dog attacking someone has to taken in consideration when owning a dog - but dogs also do a lot of good, the guide the blind, they hear for the deaf, they help the disabled and provide companionship to a great many people.

I wonder if we should be licensed as we cause far more suffering to our own race than dogs will ever do.

[Golden_Gonads]

This new case involves a small child who was unlikely to be provoking the dog in any meaningful way, but even if it were the child was too young to know any better. Blaming the victim is a poor excuse in most situations but in this case it is ludicrous.

If you live in some sort of Wild West anarchy then having a killer dog trained to defend your territory might make some kind of sense, but most people don't live in those conditions and the risks simply do not justify it.

I wasn't referring to the recent cases by saying that most dog attacks are unprovoked - Though in the most recent one its possible. After all, toddlers have one hell of a grip. How'd you react if some weird smelly thing almost as big as you came up to you and started trying to rip out your hair, pull your tail and wallop you over the head with whatever comes to hand. Thats what toddlers do. In case you've forgotten, dogs - Are not human! Gasp! How are they supposed to recognise the difference between a toddler attacking it, and something that'll do serious damage? An attack is an attack.

And most dogs - Even most guard dogs aren't trained to attack. Its been bred into them by 10,000 years of selective bredding. By who? People.