# another dog attack!



## fern (May 25, 2008)

on the news at the moment, 2 rottys, "fighting machines".. oh dear!


----------



## wohic (Jun 19, 2006)

I saw that, that poor child  I cant imagine how terrified she must have been.

The dogs owner should be done for attempted manslaughter .


----------



## mandi1234 (Mar 13, 2009)

yes unfortunately, i seen it. something must have spooked them.....................i dont think that its normal for dogs to attack humans......


----------



## wohic (Jun 19, 2006)

mandi1234 said:


> yes unfortunately, i seen it. something must have spooked them.....................i dont think that its normal for dogs to attack humans......


they dragged her from her pushbike, they were working as a pack.. unfortunately natural instinct.
feral dogs in Russia have attacked thousands of people (as a single example)


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

They've charged a 33 year old woman under the DDA for failing to keep them under control and the dogs have been pts!


----------



## monkey26031985 (Mar 30, 2009)

i have german sheppard and white staff i love my boys and see them as angles truth is reptiles amphibians and dogs etc are all unpredicable animals but he should of took more care with the animals


----------



## corny girl (Aug 30, 2009)

I heard on the news early this morning that there were 3 dogs, 2 Rotties & another dog. I blame the owners of the dogs, what were they doing roaming about in a public place with no suervision? R.I.P poor Rotties (& other dog). Again a case of blame the dogs (or breed) & not the owners :bash:. I have worked with someone who bred Rotties in the past & i often helped with the dogs (nobody else would as they were scared of them). These dogs were wonderful, such good temperaments & would lay their lives down for their owners :2thumb:. Yes Rotties are one of my favourite breeds & one day i will own one :2thumb:.


----------



## fern (May 25, 2008)

corny girl said:


> I heard on the news early this morning that there were 3 dogs, 2 Rotties & another dog. I blame the owners of the dogs, what were they doing roaming about in a public place with no suervision? R.I.P poor Rotties (& other dog). Again a case of blame the dogs (or breed) & not the owners :bash:. I have worked with someone who bred Rotties in the past & i often helped with the dogs (nobody else would as they were scared of them). These dogs were wonderful, such good temperaments & would lay their lives down for their owners :2thumb:. Yes Rotties are one of my favourite breeds & one day i will own one :2thumb:.


yes, im finidng it strange how the other dogs breed isnt being mentioned.. only the rotties..


----------



## kieran101 (May 31, 2009)

Rotties Are Imence
I No One Called Fred Who Lives Up The Trailiers Near My House, Was origionally found abandoned. but now all the people who live up there feed him, let him in there carvans and love him. he is such a big push over, lovely big dog . acts like my 2 labradors =)


----------



## sammy1969 (Jul 21, 2007)

Againa case of irresponsible ownership you cant blame the breed for this attack and the number of dogs involved seems to change with each report the owner is the one at fault for allowing these dogs out to roam unsupervised when she must of known they were capable of such an act. Responsible dog owners know if their dog is safe or not I know my dogs are safe but still would not let them roam wihtout me being there as yu just dont know if something is going to scare them into an abnormal reaction If ppl are going to keep these types of dogs they should know the down sides to their behaviour and act accordingly. Rotties are not uusally a viscious breed unless taught to be so


----------



## dickvansheepcake (Jul 8, 2009)

It's terrible. Funny how there were three dogs that attacked her but only the two rotties are being reported about. 
The poor girl must be traumatised though. Apparantly someone spooked them by beeping a car horn for long enough for the girl to be picked up but the dogs went for her again. Then when they managed to get into the house they were at the window trying to get in.
God knows how they had been brought up to act like this.

I agree with wohic, the woman should be charged with attempted manslaughter. It is entirely her fault that this situation occurred.
Thank god the little girl survived, and I just hope she isn't left too badly scarred, mentally and physically.


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

I think that whilst I entirely agree that you should judge the deed not the breed, the fundamental argument against guarding breeds is the physical strength & potential for damage that they possess.

There are still a group of dogs that get disproportionate amounts of bad press, and IMO I think this really only serves to put off potential responsible owners & encourage people who want a 'hard' dog.


Urgh. I don't know what to say, if I'm honest. My personal experiences with a large rescue dog of guarding type have definitely dictated my current two small dogs, though the dogs which get bad press - rotties, dobes, sheps, staffies - are all incredibly trainable, sensitive & intellegent pets and the good far outweigh the bad.


----------



## CactuarJon (Mar 4, 2009)

I have just been watching this on the news and the woman representing the Scottish National... erm, thingy lol2: sorry, i didn't catch it) states the DDA will be ammended come this spring to concentrate more on actions of the owners of dangerous dogs and NOT the breeds! She said in situations like this they will look at giving the owners actions such as fining the owner, keeping the dogs on leads, muzzling them, putting them through training and worse case scenario the dog is pts.

It's nice to see we have been listened to here and changes are being made for the best! It's about time!

As for the OP, it's a shame what has happened here with these 3 dogs. They shouldn't have been running around free at all! What a stupid cow!


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

dickvansheepcake said:


> It's terrible. Funny how there were three dogs that attacked her but only the two rotties are being reported about. .


It's my understanding that the third dog was a puppy - maybe it was just 'following along' and wasn't actually seen to attack and so have been given a reprieve?


----------



## dickvansheepcake (Jul 8, 2009)

feorag said:


> It's my understanding that the third dog was a puppy - maybe it was just 'following along' and wasn't actually seen to attack and so have been given a reprieve?


Ah right, I hadn't heard this. I just kept hearing on reports that a girl got attacked by three dogs then they only spoke of two rotties. Makes more sense if it was a puppy that was not as involved as the other two though.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

The news report I saw said "2 rottweillers and a puppy", but as we have seen in other newspapers stories vary from paper to paper to TV.


----------



## Tillies reptile rescue (Aug 22, 2009)

SkyCaptain said:


> I have just been watching this on the news and the woman representing the Scottish National... erm, thingy lol2: sorry, i didn't catch it) states the DDA will be ammended come this spring to concentrate more on actions of the owners of dangerous dogs and NOT the breeds! She said in situations like this they will look at giving the owners actions such as fining the owner, keeping the dogs on leads, muzzling them, putting them through training and worse case scenario the dog is pts.
> 
> It's nice to see we have been listened to here and changes are being made for the best! It's about time!
> 
> As for the OP, it's a shame what has happened here with these 3 dogs. They shouldn't have been running around free at all! What a stupid cow!


 
The law is being changed in scotland but not in england and the scottish law is a nightmare as it still covers breeds and also if someone breaks into your house and your dog attacks them your dog will be pts regardless of breed. 
DDA in England is still being "looked" at, it has gone in front of the lords twice who have agreed it needs to be changed but idiots like Kit Malthouse keep sticking there 2 pence worth in and to be completly honest I cannot see the DDA changing for the better, I think the only ones that will suffer are sensible caring Bullie owners. 

As for the little girl I really hope she is ok I dont know the ins and outs of this attack, But as someone pointed out again it is this little girl and the dogs that suffer the owner will get a stupid fine and will be left to go out and get more dogs....this country is a :censor:ing joke.


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

poor poor girl cant really say much was an unprovoked attack which could of being prevented by the stupid cow who owned them sadly its just another nail in the coffin for the stupid people who are trying to ban such breeds....



but..on a really nice note i took all three of my dogs (two rottis and rotti x mastiff) to my local bank holiday summer show they were absolutely fantastic they got lots of fuss even though the sad attack was a popular topic with people but im glad to say my mutts would of restored a lot of faith in folk that they are not horrible devil dogs! they even got given teddys from the carboot!:flrt::lol2:


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

fern said:


> yes, im finidng it strange how the other dogs breed isnt being mentioned.. only the rotties..


According to the article I read it was two adult Rotts and a Rottie pup.


----------



## clairebear1984 (Dec 13, 2009)

the poor little girl, i so hope she pulls through, must being so horrible being attacked by 3 dogs. i just dont understand y they were loose. Sorry to say this but if they go round doing this watever breed they should be pts. that poor child could die.

just remember if it was yr kid, you would want the dogs pts, if u dont something wrong with u to b honest, cos if do that to one person/child can do it again


----------



## saxon (Feb 26, 2007)

I've owned big breeds, including rotties, for maybe 20 years plus.

I've often been ridiculed because I refuse to take my dogs out without muzzles even though they are friendly.

This and other attacks are the ones that have made me think this way.
Often it is a dog/dogs that have shown no aggression in their past that do these things. Often it is the grandparents dog that will attack a grandchild, we've seen them all, that it has known throughout it's life. 

My attitude is that if my dog is muzzled no matter what the situation then a horrible situation like this and many others will never involve one of my dogs.

Dogs of this size can frighten and injure even with a muzzle on but at least the muzzles will prevent the terrible injuries that we are seeing more and more often these days.

I much prefer my dog to have to 'get used' to wearing a muzzle when out and about than putting any child or adult through the pain and injury that an attack can cause.

Mind you I think all larger breeds should be muzzled not just the 'labeled' ones.


----------



## JPP (Jun 8, 2009)

that sucks.


----------



## crossfire101 (May 5, 2010)

Poor girl hopes shes alright.


----------



## clairebear1984 (Dec 13, 2009)

i have my boxer on a muzzle as he doesnt like other dogs and will go for them, also just incase if was to go for a dog and pulled badly i hate for someone to be in between both dogs, so muzzle him and then i no nothing will happen x best way


----------



## fern (May 25, 2008)

clairebear1984 said:


> the poor little girl, i so hope she pulls through, must being so horrible being attacked by 3 dogs. i just dont understand y they were loose. Sorry to say this but if they go round doing this watever breed they should be pts. that poor child could die.
> 
> just remember if it was yr kid, you would want the dogs pts, if u dont something wrong with u to b honest, cos if do that to one person/child can do it again



no even if it happened to my child i wouldnt want the dog to be pts as it isnt always the dogs fault, dogs arnt born bad, just like kids.. murderers and fiddlers only get sentences why not have the same with dogs.. i have my own dog on death row story which i will post on a new thread but i would not want a dog pts because of attacking someone tbh. many people may think im mad but its how i see it.


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

I don't find anything unpredictable in a group of unsupervised dogs wanting to chase and bring down something moving at speed.My dogs are good with un ridden horses but I have to be in control when a ridden one comes past.The human element makes the horse move faster and it excites my five dogs.It only takes one out of my five to create a ripple of excitement.Like wise my youngsters are excited when joggers and cyclists go buy,theres no malice but the excitement has to be stopped before it gets out of hand.I think it's entirely predictable and of course preventable.


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

sarahc said:


> I don't find anything unpredictable in a group of unsupervised dogs wanting to chase and bring down something moving at speed.My dogs are good with un ridden horses but I have to be in control when a ridden one comes past.The human element makes the horse move faster and it excites my five dogs.It only takes one out of my five to create a ripple of excitement.Like wise my youngsters are excited when joggers and cyclists go buy,theres no malice but the excitement has to be stopped before it gets out of hand.I think it's entirely predictable and of course preventable.


With this, I agree - especially as they were functioning as a pack.

However, I do think that exactly because aggression is a LEARNED behaviour rather than something innate, putting dogs down with a history of attacking people quickly becomes the only option in my mind. My opinion, and I'm entitled to it just as you are entitled to disagree but aggression IS a danger to peoples lives.


----------



## dickvansheepcake (Jul 8, 2009)

fern said:


> no even if it happened to my child i wouldnt want the dog to be pts as it isnt always the dogs fault, dogs arnt born bad, just like kids.. murderers and fiddlers only get sentences why not have the same with dogs.. i have my own dog on death row story which i will post on a new thread but i would not want a dog pts because of attacking someone tbh. many people may think im mad but its how i see it.



Unfortunately no matter whose fault it is (most certainly the owners) aggressive dogs are still a danger to people. If a dog attacks a child I think the only safe option is to have them PTS in most situations, by the sounds of the behaviour of these dogs, (double attack and stalking around the window still trying to get to the girl afterwards), the ONLY option was to PTS.
It's horrible that dogs have to die because owners are irresponsible :censor:, but thats the way it has to be. An aggressive dog is danger whether its their fault or not.


----------



## shadesg53 (Jun 29, 2010)

All good points about this.

but dont you guys think that the TV makes things like this alot worse??

Most of the ppl on here I bet have Dogs and look after them properly, but tv can put such a spin on things just like this and can make "good" owners Look bad - just for keeping them as pets.

Poor little girl tho eh.


----------



## buggyboy (Mar 7, 2010)

fern said:


> no even if it happened to my child i wouldnt want the dog to be pts as it isnt always the dogs fault, dogs arnt born bad, just like kids.. murderers and fiddlers only get sentences why not have the same with dogs.. i have my own dog on death row story which i will post on a new thread but i would not want a dog pts because of attacking someone tbh. many people may think im mad but its how i see it.


 
my son was bitten by a staff x mastiff three years ago and i pushed to get that dog p.t.s, thankfully it was now the little :censor: wont be bitting any other kids. 
sorry if you think this is harsh but im a dog lover mysellf, i own two staffys and love them loads but if they were to bite someone i wouldnt be waiting for a court order, it would be a one way trip to the vet


----------



## tricia (Jul 15, 2010)

i have a rotti who is 8 years old i agree its down to the owners i trust my girl 100% but she still goes out on lead etc muzzle just to put people at ease while shes out walking as people fear the breed, but my rotti is a big softy but if she ever attacked or chased anybody i would personally take her to the vets myself!!!


----------



## clairebear1984 (Dec 13, 2009)

fern said:


> no even if it happened to my child i wouldnt want the dog to be pts as it isnt always the dogs fault, dogs arnt born bad, just like kids.. murderers and fiddlers only get sentences why not have the same with dogs.. i have my own dog on death row story which i will post on a new thread but i would not want a dog pts because of attacking someone tbh. many people may think im mad but its how i see it.


 
so if your dog killed yr child or someone elses child u will still not have it pts ????


----------



## fern (May 25, 2008)

if it killed it maybe, but if it didnt kill the child then no i wouldnt


----------



## buggyboy (Mar 7, 2010)

fern said:


> if it killed it maybe, but if it didnt kill the child then no i wouldnt


its this sort of mentality that gives dog owners a bad name


----------



## Tillies reptile rescue (Aug 22, 2009)

I was attacked by a dog as child....ripped my lip fully open and caught my gum.....the dog was not pts it was my fault i was annoying the dog, it stopped my ever annoying a dog again and if anything made me get some respect for dogs....personally I dont think putting the dog to sleep is always solving the problem....in the case of severe unprovoked attack then yes, but I have seen it for myself when a child as been provoking a dog, the dog snaps, the child runs to mum and tells mum all they was doing was sitting there, mum believes child, dog gets blame. 

I think sometimes in this country we are sometimes too quick to have dogs put to sleep.....what about the owners ? if they are raising dogs to attack and that are allowed to roam the streets do you really think they are going to care if their dog is pts ??? like :censor: will they, they will be out as soon as the dust haas settled buying another dog.


----------



## rat-man (Sep 2, 2009)

fern said:


> if it killed it maybe, but if it didnt kill the child then no i wouldnt



Thats an horrific attitude!


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Tillies reptile rescue said:


> I was attacked by a dog as child....ripped my lip fully open and caught my gum.....the dog was not pts it was my fault i was annoying the dog, it stopped my ever annoying a dog again and if anything made me get some respect for dogs....personally I dont think putting the dog to sleep is always solving the problem....in the case of severe unprovoked attack then yes, but I have seen it for myself when a child as been provoking a dog, the dog snaps, the child runs to mum and tells mum all they was doing was sitting there, mum believes child, dog gets blame.
> 
> I think sometimes in this country we are sometimes too quick to have dogs put to sleep.....what about the owners ? if they are raising dogs to attack and that are allowed to roam the streets do you really think they are going to care if their dog is pts ??? like :censor: will they, they will be out as soon as the dust haas settled buying another dog.


Well said and I totally agree with this.

There are cases where the dog should be pts, but in a lot of cases it isn't the dog's fault!


----------



## Uromastyxman (Jan 28, 2009)

saxon said:


> I've owned big breeds, including rotties, for maybe 20 years plus.
> 
> I've often been ridiculed because I refuse to take my dogs out without muzzles even though they are friendly.
> 
> ...


Very good post mate.

A 18 month old girl was torn apart and killed by a Bulldog/Mastiff cross in Crawley near where I live a few months ago. Happened in the grandmother's house and the dog was owned by the victim's uncle.

These attacks occur often and the less tragic ones are not really reported.

I love dogs and was brought up with them, however I was never comfortable with the larger more dangerous breeds around children.

I believe that if it is to remain legal for members of the public to keep large dogs, particularly ones who have high damage potential bred into them with attributes such as high jaw power per square inch, then the obtaining of these dogs has to be monitored and I believe it needs to be policed more stringently. I don't believe that anybody who fancies owning an animal with this much damage potential should just be able to go and get one. I think beasts of this type need to be purchased by owners who have been closely vetted. You wouldn't let anyone buy a shotgun and wander the streets with it, so why a dog with the potential to kill. Gangs are now using pits and rots and other breeds as weapons and this is an example of animals being misused in the hands of people who should, in my view, not be aloud to obtain them, let alone weald them as killing machines.

I was at a dog show last weekend and I saw a Japanese Akita and he was so amazing I went to meet him and his owner, and I decided that if I ever got a dog again I would get one of these, and there have been several reported attacks by these dogs. When looking at this animal I was awestruck by his size and power, and he looked bigger and more dangerous than even the wolves I recently saw at the zoo on holiday.

I think the time has come for potential dog owners to be vetted and that if people really want an animal that has high damage potential that they should do at least a certificate level animal husbandry and responsibility course, and I don't mean a weekend job I mean a proper certificate that involves over a hundred hours of study with placement with an employer to work with large breeds. This should be the basic criterion required before being aloud to buy the animal, which people pay for themselves and I think there should be an owners tax which is high enough to discourage only the most serious and responsible owners. Look at the number dogs put down every year because they were bought by stupid people who did it on a whim because purchasing them was so easy. 

As a person growing up with dogs I have experience and before all you dog lovers rush in and whine on about your Rot's and pits and shepherds and all the other breeds and tell me how lovely they are around the kids and have dragged you from a fire and would fight to the death to save you, I know all that, so don't bother because it's no excuse for these kids being killed and maimed because of stupid owners. I believe it should not be so easy to buy an animal of this type, and just because it has been that easy in the past is no reason to continue doing it. If I want a Japanes Akita one day I would be happy to do and pay for a certificate course and pay a high tax to buy him. I would have him for ten years or more after all and it would reflect the responsibility involved in big dog ownership.

And folks, if you think this is too much time and money to own a dog of this type, get a budgie, it's cheaper and less dangerous. 



Andy


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

I agree with everything you've said in theory - the problem is putting it in practice.

Drugs are a banned substance - yet they are readily available even in schoolyards! It's the policing of a scheme like this that would be the problem.

Sadly a lot of the sort of people who are attracted to these sort of 'perceived hard breeds' have no respect for the law anyway, so would still carry on, but it would all be done 'underground' so to speak and to be honest have our police enough time to go out and inspect every person with a big dog to be sure that they've got a 'certificate' to own one?


----------



## pippainnit (Feb 20, 2009)

Tillies reptile rescue said:


> I was attacked by a dog as child....ripped my lip fully open and caught my gum.....the dog was not pts it was my fault i was annoying the dog, it stopped my ever annoying a dog again and if anything made me get some respect for dogs....personally I dont think putting the dog to sleep is always solving the problem....in the case of severe unprovoked attack then yes, but I have seen it for myself when a child as been provoking a dog, the dog snaps, the child runs to mum and tells mum all they was doing was sitting there, mum believes child, dog gets blame.
> 
> I think sometimes in this country we are sometimes too quick to have dogs put to sleep.....what about the owners ? if they are raising dogs to attack and that are allowed to roam the streets do you really think they are going to care if their dog is pts ??? like :censor: will they, they will be out as soon as the dust haas settled buying another dog.



I agree. Definitely.


----------



## Tillies reptile rescue (Aug 22, 2009)

Why should people who like bigger dogs be made to suffer though ? 
more attacks happen per year through small dogs than bigger breeds. 

I agree with Feorag people who get the dogs for a status have them because they are "banned", why dont the goverment actually do something useful ...licences to be breeders, all puppies HAVE to be chipped and full id has to be show before you buy a dog and all your details have to put into a database...if you have a dog that isnt on the database you receive a hefty fine...Dogs dont ask to be born and taken on by crappy owners so why should they suffer ?


----------



## Uromastyxman (Jan 28, 2009)

Tillies reptile rescue said:


> Why should people who like bigger dogs be made to suffer though ?
> more attacks happen per year through small dogs than bigger breeds.
> 
> I agree with Feorag people who get the dogs for a status have them because they are "banned", why dont the goverment actually do something useful ...licences to be breeders, all puppies HAVE to be chipped and full id has to be show before you buy a dog and all your details have to put into a database...if you have a dog that isnt on the database you receive a hefty fine...Dogs dont ask to be born and taken on by crappy owners so why should they suffer ?


I'm not sure what good having a licence to be a breeder would be. Getting any licence is not that difficult. And if you were not allowed to have one because of a criminal record a friend or family member could put it into their name on your behalf.

And whether an animal is chipped or not does not stop it attacking anyone.

I also fail to see what having your name in a database as an owner would do to prevent an attack. These ideas are fine but are not enough on their own. I remember when legislation came in making pit bull owners register their dogs at the post office, so what?. This kind of half arsed insurance has cost children their lives.

As far as big dogs go, they are more dangerous, particularly the ones specifically bred for combat and confrontation. Some of the animals in question were specifically bred and designed to go to war and to hunt. I wouldn't be allowed to walk around with a wild animal like a hyena or wolf on a lead around the shopping centre and yet people can do it with dogs which are just as potentially dangerous because they are classified as domestic animals. Smaller dogs just don't have the capability to do as much damage.

Thousands of dogs are put to sleep every year, so no, they didn't ask to be born and they didn't ask to be put to sleep either. I think the time has come for the government to deal with dog owners at the point of purchase, and as I said in my earlier post, a suitably in depth husbandry/behavioural course, at certificate level, paid for by the potential owner would help to deter impulse dog buyers. let's face it, most owners are not exactly david attenborough when it come to animal behaviour. Plus a high purchase dog tax for large and potentially dangerous breeds. 

As for big dog owners being made to suffer, if you can afford a large animal and vet bills and house it for it's entire life, I think a course and a tax at the beginning is not actually out of step. It could also be done for new large dog owners rather than doing it retrospectively. And if you can't afford it, buy a smaller dog like you would have to buy a smaller car. I suffer because I own a 4x4 but I don't HAVE to have one. 

The dogs are suffering, the dead and injured children have been suffering, so now it's time to tighten this system up quickly. If you really want to buy a big potentially dangerous breed, do a course, pay the money and if you find it's too much or too hard, then maybe it's best you don't, Because the whole point of making it more difficult to do is that it will deter the less responsible people.

Andy


----------



## Tillies reptile rescue (Aug 22, 2009)

The licence isnt about stopping dog attacks its about stopping the mass breeding (which is where it needs to start), it has been proved that dealers are breeding "type" dogs...it may not stop the attacks but isnt it a place to start ? In order to get the licence you would have to have regular checks and undergo training (as you suggested). 

I think EVERYONE needs educating with dogs, and I believe it should start in schools, as stated previously I know we all like to think children are innocent BUT lets be honest 50% of the time they arent. 


_*Thousands of dogs are put to sleep every year...*_
Very sadly I see this first hand due to my job, and I can tell you most that are PTS havent even barked at a child, it is based on how they look and this only. 

_* I think the time has come for the government to deal with dog owners at the point of purchase*_
Which is why I think breeders need to be licenced and all puppies chipped and ID needs to be shown etc this will deter hardnut on the corner from going through the hassle, at the moment they can dump/leave it roaming knowing nothing will come back on them. 

*Plus a high purchase dog tax for large and potentially dangerous breeds.* 
But why should it just be big dog owners, lets be 100% honest my old neighbour was a dealer and he had large dogs, if the tax was £1000 it was pocket money to someone like him and he still would have paid it, yet his dogs were trained to attack. 
and if a tax for large breeds come in how would that affect all those that already own large breeds ? I will bet you now if this came in the rescues that are already fit to bursting just purely would not be able to cope. 

Yes smaller dogs dont do as much damage I 100% agree with you, but I honestly believe alot of problems start with the goverment labeling so called "dangerous breeds", this makes them breeds appealaing to drug dealers and such like, by adding a tax its just like saying "this dog is dangerous and you need lots of money to have one"...surely this is going to make them even more appealing to the wrong types ?

We need to stop putting certain breeds in a box and in all honesty the goverment needs to pull their fingers out their arses and police the people that need policing...why are dogs being allowed to roam the streets ? to run around parks where children play ? ...I will tell you why cost anyone can look through preloved and buy a bully breed for under a £100 and know they can let it run around and :censor: all will be done about it because the police/dog wardens cant be bothered. 
Sadly money rules this world so use that and start fining people whos dogs are roaming and those who use dogs as weapons...be honest matey boy on the corner acts hard with his dog because he knows the police wont do a thing about it.....that is where the problem lays and is why attacks are happening, because people simply know nothing will happen to them, yeah their dog will be killed, but they will be free to be back on preloved looking for their next dog within a week.


----------



## Uromastyxman (Jan 28, 2009)

Tillies reptile rescue said:


> The licence isnt about stopping dog attacks its about stopping the mass breeding (which is where it needs to start), it has been proved that dealers are breeding "type" dogs...it may not stop the attacks but isnt it a place to start ? In order to get the licence you would have to have regular checks and undergo training (as you suggested).
> 
> I think EVERYONE needs educating with dogs, and I believe it should start in schools, as stated previously I know we all like to think children are innocent BUT lets be honest 50% of the time they arent.
> 
> ...


I think distinguishing the large more dangerous animals from the rest is exactly what we need to do, and making it difficult to obtain these animals at the purchase point is where it will work. This will mean less breeders because of less demand. Less unwanted dogs filling up the dogs homes and being put to sleep. More educated people and less children being attacked. People who already own big dogs can register their animals and do their course over time, it may be that they get a waver on the tax as new legislation is brought in. And if they really know about the dog they already own they should sail through the certificate course and that could be reduced in price for existing dog owners as well.

There will always be criminals who don't care and will try to avoid or ingore new laws but they risk being caught. This isn't just about criminal types with big dogs, it's about everyone who owns a big dog and making it more difficult to get one unless you have real commitment. After you have done your certificate course and paid your big dog tax it makes obvious sense to chip it, register it and go on an owners database.

Why are big dog owners so sensitive about legislation, it's not about taking dogs away from anyone, or banning specific breeds, it's about recognizing the true responsibility of what a dog is and particularly big dogs that were specifically bred for hunting, guarding and fighting.
I think it is well past the time when people can go and just buy a large animal with no recognised formal training and I think a formal training course and a big Tax will help deter people. Basically, if you want a big beast do the training and pay the money and if you don't have the money now save up for it or get a Saturday job, because there's change on the horizon and it's well overdue.

Andy


----------



## cornsnakejay (Jan 17, 2009)

a few people are mentioning some kind of tax to deter irresponsible people. the problem with this is that there are plenty of rich/well off idiots that would happily pay the tax, solving nothing. but someone who isnt so well off, but who would raise a brilliant dog couldnt have a dog that, for example, would make them feel safer at home. 
and just because they cant afford the initial high payment does not always mean they cant afford to keep the dog for its lifetime.


----------



## Uromastyxman (Jan 28, 2009)

cornsnakejay said:


> a few people are mentioning some kind of tax to deter irresponsible people. the problem with this is that there are plenty of rich/well off idiots that would happily pay the tax, solving nothing. but someone who isnt so well off, but who would raise a brilliant dog couldnt have a dog that, for example, would make them feel safer at home.
> and just because they cant afford the initial high payment does not always mean they cant afford to keep the dog for its lifetime.


 
Save up, or get a smaller dog then. The idea is not to make it 100% airtight, it's to deter people who do it on a whim. Or fine owners a huge tax if their dog does something wrong, oh but wait, they wont like that either will they. Dear oh dear, what will these poor souls do who can't afford to buy a huge dog? How will they be able to live without it?

They can't afford to wait for it and save up. They don't want to wait? They don't want to pay a big fine if their dog that they're in charge of bites someone. And I bet they don't want to get insurance to cover third parties if someone is injured. And yet they are supposed to be responsible enough and have the money to cover the animal for it's entire life and pay vet's bills. It sounds like big dog owners want it all their own way to me.

I'm afraid big dogs are now beginning to be recognised as the potentially dangerous animals that they are and sooner or later it will not be possible to go and buy a big dog without showing knowledge and commitment with sufficient responsibility and the financial resources to maintain it.

You will have to have a self funded certificate level qualification to show commitment to the animal that you want to own.

You will need funds to pay an initial big dog tax which genuine people will save up for and this will also act as a deterent.

You will need insurance in case your animal injures a third party.

Your animal will be chipped and registered with all details on a national government database.

This is inevitable because if the amount of animals being put down and the number of injuries and deaths to people.

Who the hell are all these poverty stricken people who have to have a huge dog? And why should all these dogs which are put down suffer. Why should there be injured and dead children because of them? 

I don't give a **** about your need for big dogs. If your gonna have one be accountable for youself and the animal, OR GET A SMALLER DOG!!!


----------



## pippainnit (Feb 20, 2009)

I get the sentiment, but I don't wholly agree with directing it just towards 'big dogs'. For a start - as much as I concur with a lot of what you're saying and agree that there has to be something done to at least attempt to solve the growing problem, but what do you classify as a 'big dog'? Surely that's predominantly subjective to a lot of people? Where would you draw the line? And how would it be possible to surmise that one dog, if over 'x' amount of kilos or height would feasibly cause more damage than another that happened to be slightly smaller?
I'm not revelling in pedantry here, nor am I trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, but I just think there needs to be additional measures undertaken that don't simply take into account a dog's size. As the age-old adage goes - it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.
While, of course, it's completely understandable to see that a dog of 'significant' size, or whatever, is capable of causing damage - or worse still, death - to a child or adult, 'small' dogs are also capable of causing some damage, so I think it's only fair in the long run to adopt something that takes this into account, rather than simply categorising or pigeon-holing potential danger in regards to something's size or alleged capability. 

I know it's all semantics, but unfortunately it's because of things like this that legislations etc. are often all fundamentally flawed.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Uromastyxman said:


> OR GET A SMALLER DOG!!!


So what about Jack Russells that are just about the right height - and ATTITUDE - to bite a small child in the face? 

I do agree that something needs to be done to make people more responsible for their dogs - but I'm not sure the existing legislation (which doesn't work) needs to be made harsher (since that probably won't work either).


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

Ssthisto said:


> So what about Jack Russells that are just about the right height - and ATTITUDE - to bite a small child in the face?
> 
> I do agree that something needs to be done to make people more responsible for their dogs - but I'm not sure the existing legislation (which doesn't work) needs to be made harsher (since that probably won't work either).


This really is something that is of key importance - breeds with strong working instincts, kept in a domestic environment & treated as a 'pet' without regard for their heritage is basically a recipe for disaster... 

The TYPE of jaws pets have is also of importance & their instinctive reaction to danger - e.g. whether they're fighters or flighters - ans as such many of the small dog breeds are potentially more dangerous than larger breeds: westies have badger hunting jaws & persistent natures, for instance. 

Having been bitten by the jaws of a labrador sized dog of mixed guarding breeds, the 'lock' type jaw of some dogs is something I am quite frankly very dubious about ever owning again. That includes terriers. 

Even toy breeds (I own 2 toy breed dogs) bred from distant past working dogs clearly still have the instincts there for their previous 'careers' (e.g. my chinese cresteds go vole hunting in the garden)

I don't think there is anything that can be done that will be foolproof, but I do think most of the decision making behind which dog people choose is based on availability, popularity & looks rather than suitability & the underestimation of their dogs' intellegence & care requirements is fundamentally not considered carefully enough.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

pippainnit said:


> I get the sentiment, but I don't wholly agree with directing it just towards 'big dogs'. For a start - as much as I concur with a lot of what you're saying and agree that there has to be something done to at least attempt to solve the growing problem, but what do you classify as a 'big dog'? Surely that's predominantly subjective to a lot of people? Where would you draw the line? And how would it be possible to surmise that one dog, if over 'x' amount of kilos or height would feasibly cause more damage than another that happened to be slightly smaller?
> I'm not revelling in pedantry here, nor am I trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, but I just think there needs to be additional measures undertaken that don't simply take into account a dog's size. As the age-old adage goes -* it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.*
> While, of course, it's completely understandable to see that a dog of 'significant' size, or whatever, is capable of causing damage - or worse still, death - to a child or adult, 'small' dogs are also capable of causing some damage, so I think it's only fair in the long run to adopt something that takes this into account, rather than simply categorising or pigeon-holing potential danger in regards to something's size or alleged capability.
> 
> I know it's all semantics, but unfortunately it's because of things like this that legislations etc. are often all fundamentally flawed.


Well said! It's very true that big dogs are capable of doing a lot of damage, but a small persistent dog, bred to kill, can inflict a huge amount of damage to a young child or baby (and has been known to do so).


----------



## Uromastyxman (Jan 28, 2009)

pippainnit said:


> I get the sentiment, but I don't wholly agree with directing it just towards 'big dogs'. For a start - as much as I concur with a lot of what you're saying and agree that there has to be something done to at least attempt to solve the growing problem, but what do you classify as a 'big dog'? Surely that's predominantly subjective to a lot of people? Where would you draw the line? And how would it be possible to surmise that one dog, if over 'x' amount of kilos or height would feasibly cause more damage than another that happened to be slightly smaller?
> I'm not revelling in pedantry here, nor am I trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, but I just think there needs to be additional measures undertaken that don't simply take into account a dog's size. As the age-old adage goes - it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.
> While, of course, it's completely understandable to see that a dog of 'significant' size, or whatever, is capable of causing damage - or worse still, death - to a child or adult, 'small' dogs are also capable of causing some damage, so I think it's only fair in the long run to adopt something that takes this into account, rather than simply categorising or pigeon-holing potential danger in regards to something's size or alleged capability.
> 
> I know it's all semantics, but unfortunately it's because of things like this that legislations etc. are often all fundamentally flawed.


 
This is something for dog experts to discuss. Certain breeds such as rotweilers and pit bulls would go on immediately because of their size and fighting capabilities and others would have to be worked out on their size weight and general known temperements. It isn't that difficult and should not be a bone of contention. Any dog breed of a certain size would automatically go on. But that is for the dog and behavioural experts to discuss, not Mrs Brown up the road who is annoyed with the legislation because her two rotweilers wouldn't hurt a fly.

A dog weiging in at 20 pounds can be ferocious and many terriers are bred to hunt, but comparing it to bigger breeds which can weigh 5 or 10 times that is just splitting hairs and fudging the issue. It's time to stop treating animals with the capability to can kill a man with the same laws as rodents and budgies. 
They simply need tighter controls and monitoring, which would mean less animals being put down for a start, and for this reason alone I'm in favour of it, let alone the child attacks and dogs being used by street gangs as weapons. 

Wake up folks, your gonna have to be a bit more forward thinking. 

Remember all those people who kept big cats and said their liberty was being infinged because new legislation stipulated that they would now need a dwa licence and be assessed for suitability and safety, well they thought they were justified as well. Times change so get used to it. 

They said people wouldn't be told where to smoke, well they were told and they do do as they're told. This is not a big deal, it's called progress and I'm afraid that genuinely responsible dog owners will have to take the changes on the chin, because it's been brought about about by feckless idiots who can't be responsible for their dogs and who wouldn't know the difference between a muzzle and a can of tenants.


----------



## pippainnit (Feb 20, 2009)

Like I said, I get the sentiment and agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just don't think it's that clear cut and would not be easy to implement in any way shape or form, and that is from an objective point of view. I'm not speaking on behalf of Mrs Brown, I'm just saying that claiming that a dog of a certain size would require certain licensing measures or extra legislation is fundamentally flawed, irrespective of any personal opinion that may be expressed by nay-sayers - I just fail to see how it could potentially work, that's all. 

Plus if you're saying that dogs need to be considered under different laws/licensing acts than 'rodents and budgies', could this not essentially be the case with any dog and not one that happens to be over a certain size? If any dog can potentially be dangerous (perhaps not necessarily kill, but again, this is very much a grey area and dependent on the situation/potential victim in question) then could they not be subject to the same laws? Else you have a whole blurred area including possibly overweight/gangly/old/infirm dogs that would, theoretically, come under a certain 'dangerous' category when their fundamental individual capabilities would infer anything but.


----------



## reptile_man_08 (Jan 14, 2008)

Ssthisto said:


> So what about Jack Russells that are just about the right height - and ATTITUDE - to bite a small child in the face?
> 
> I do agree that something needs to be done to make people more responsible for their dogs - but I'm not sure the existing legislation (which doesn't work) needs to be made harsher (since that probably won't work either).


Funnily enough I have been attacked by Jack Russell's twice as a child, only went for me feet/legs though...Can be right shitty little dogs.


----------



## pippainnit (Feb 20, 2009)

I was hospitalised by a Bichon Frise. Whenever I tell people that they tend to laugh. I was not laughing at the time! (And despite my exclamation mark usage now - it really was not funny.)


----------



## mandi1234 (Mar 13, 2009)

we own a doberman and a staffy, both soft as :censor: the one thing that annoys me is when im out with the female staffy, people with other dogs pull their little ones away from mine, and say things like "oooohhhhh it will eat you for breakfast"...................their little dogs are the ones that are kicking off. mine just has her nose to the floor sniffing for food and doesnt take the slightest bit of notice. 
but you can bet your life if a little dog attacked mine and she did fight back (yeh she probably would damage it) but she would also get the blame because she is a staffy................it really winds me up


----------



## pippainnit (Feb 20, 2009)

Yeah I get that. It infuriates me. I often imagine how it would be if people reacted to large people in that way.

"Oh look, you're overweight - are you going to eat me for breakfast" "lol"

"Ooh, you're over six foot - does that mean you're probably going to attack me?"


----------



## mandi1234 (Mar 13, 2009)

pippainnit said:


> Yeah I get that. It infuriates me. I often imagine how it would be if people reacted to large people in that way.
> 
> "Oh look, you're overweight - are you going to eat me for breakfast" "lol"
> 
> "Ooh, you're over six foot - does that mean you're probably going to attack me?"


:lol2: everytime.........it does my head in, shes as soft as a baby, never gone for anyone, shes 10 now. the only thing she growls at is the 3yr old doby if he winds her up lol


----------



## clairebear1984 (Dec 13, 2009)

feorag said:


> Well said! It's very true that big dogs are capable of doing a lot of damage, but a small persistent dog, bred to kill, can inflict a huge amount of damage to a young child or baby (and has been known to do so).


i read many years ago about a pomarainan in america killed a newborn x


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

mandi1234 said:


> we own a doberman and a staffy, both soft as :censor: the one thing that annoys me is when im out with the female staffy, people with other dogs pull their little ones away from mine, and say things like "oooohhhhh it will eat you for breakfast"...................their little dogs are the ones that are kicking off. mine just has her nose to the floor sniffing for food and doesnt take the slightest bit of notice.
> but you can bet your life if a little dog attacked mine and she did fight back (yeh she probably would damage it) but she would also get the blame because she is a staffy................it really winds me up


I have exactly the same problem with my GSD. In his case, as a rescue who wasn't socialised properly, he would have a go if a dog showed aggression to him, which is why he's on a leash unless we're in the middle of nowhere and I can see an approaching dog for miles, but the number of people with little yappy dogs that come flying over to him, so he's goes ballistic and I have a fight to get him under control if they've come from behind me and I'm not prepared is ridiculous.

I have to be extremely vigilant because I know if once he bit a little dog, he would get the blame irrespective of the circumstances because he is a GSD.


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

clairebear1984 said:


> i read many years ago about a pomarainan in america killed a newborn x


To be fair, poms are little ratbags because they're super sharp & proper big spitzes in a small package, and I guess that's why some people love them. What the hell were they thinking, letting it near a babby anyway? It's pretty basic dog owning knowledge that newborns are a huge source of jealousy for dogs.


----------



## SilverSteno (Feb 12, 2006)

Adding more legislation isn't going to do a damn thing to change anything. The problems aren't anything to do with legislation they are to do with the attitude some unsavoury individuals have in regards to dogs keeping them as weapons. Guns are meant to be owned only by those with a licence but look at how many shootings are done buy people owning them illegally. Hell, people who are banned from keeping dogs still do so. It will be no different with dogs, just means police have to look throuhg a big pile of paperwork before the actually deal with the issue at hand. Adding all these extra laws will be like ASBOS - something these type of people are proud of gaining. What needs to be done is for the courts to grow a pair of balls when it comes to prosecuting the people that have these dogs. No more slap across the wrist, no more suspended sentences, community service or a couple of months in prison which ends up being halved. In the wrong hands dogs are a dangerous weapon and those that make their dogs dangerous should face strong sentences of several years which sends out a message that it is a serious offence that is taken seriously. And for something like this it should be treated as attempted manslaughter and that woman should be locked up for a long time. At the moment it barely even registers as an offence at all for all the so-called "punishment" is at the moment, same as for people who kill others through dangerous driving. What do we expect when even murderers get out in 10 years? The justice system is a joke that is leaving many dangerous people to roam the streets and those with dangerous dogs are just the tip of a very big iceberg. Adding more legislation is pointless when the justice system will just treat anyone caught breaking it lightly.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

:notworthy: Well said!!


----------



## Broxi_jim (Jul 19, 2010)

I've read this thread from start to finish and no matter what, we'll have people who say this breed should be banned or that breed etc etc.
And I'm really sorry the girl was attacked.

Yes unfortuantly people do get attacked by dogs that the OWNERS have left unattended ! And they range from the so-called danegrous breeds..rotties / staffies / gsd etc etc to border collies / labradors and small terriers.
Why should the decent owners be penalilised for their actions.

We own a rottie who will be 5yrs old in november. And ask anyone round here they will tell you she is the softest rottie they have met. But if you try and attack my missus or the kids she will step in front of them to defend them by barking and snarling at the attacker, and if the attacker doesn't go away she WILL BITE THEM. She hasn't been trained to attack, she's just doing what she thinks is best. If someone approaches us, the dog will stand beside us very tighly. And will allow the person tp approach us..because we've said its fine. If we don't say anything she stands in front of the missus and kids. 
And as for muzzling her in public. What if another dog that isn't deemed dangerous has a go at mine, which happens all the time. How will she defend herself.
She was attacked when she was 6months old, by a pack of 8-12 patterdale terries / jack russells & these dogs owners thought it was funny.That the smaller dogs having a go at the bigger dog. I said that I would kick their dogs if he didn't get theirs off mine and his reply was...its people like YOU that gives dogs a bad name. :gasp: So I said fine, I'll call the police and report YOUR dogs for attacking mine, and it was another rant from him and his friends before they walked off in a huff !!!!

I had one of my twin sons with me, who didn't really like dogs because one chased him. So I took him out to get him used various dogs.

Uromastyxman I don't know if you have a problem with large breed dogs, weither its fear of them or a complete dis-like of them. But I guess the government and people demanding a ban of these dogs will welcome your comments.
What about big snakes tha escape and kill someones cat / pet dog etc etc.
Is this snake destroyed ??
If not, why not !!
Because it could harm a child, but thats ok because it didn't...but the potenial is there !!!! If its escaped before it will escape again..In my opinion.

*Going way of topic now*...:whistling2:
Its getting to the stage here that anything that someone finds offensive or doesn't like people ask for a ban etc..and spoilt the enjoyment of others, but as long as they've made a complaintabout something then they are happy.

Just like drinkers are being charged more for their drink now in scotland. Because of the people who go out and cause chaos when they get tanked up, the governmnet up here are gonna impose a minimum tax on booze. Its always the majority that suffer due to the actions of the minority !!!!

Its like the smoking ban..I don't smoke, but why should my friends be made to suffer having to smoke outside the pub in the pouring rain /windy conditions just because some pooh faced person doesn't like it !
After all...they pay more taxes on that than anything else.
Its easy to say...LETS BAN THIS TYPE OF DOG...Because thats what people want. Buts thats what people want..an instant knee jerk reaction !!

I want all rapists /child killers given the death sentance !!!!
But will the government listen to me...No !!!

Sorry to rant on and on, but it gets on my nerves people saying ban this ban that...:blush::blush::blush:


----------

