Forums

Posted: 16-07-2008 02:38 Post subject: dangerous dogs

Most American Insurance companies have now a "Bad Dog"list.Eleven dog breeds are listed where you pay higher rates or even not allowed to move into certain areas.When my dad retired and started to travell I adopted his dog because some campgrounds and places would not accept her .She is a black Lab /chow mix and the chow is one of the listed dogs.

Posted: 31-07-2008 18:02 Post subject:

There are some dangerous dogs out there butnot all dangerous dogs have a nasty temprement, its mostly down to the owners i think.

if you know you have a dangerous dog then one you dont take the dog out with a good strong lead and if needed a harness and of course a muzzle, if you bring your dog up in a loving and safe environment they usually are ok its the people that breed dogs and raise dogs to fight that should not be allowed to keep them as pets.

i know someone who has a rottweiler and that dog was brught up in a good environment and that dog is as soft and kind as anything and the whole time i have been with the dog i have never had a problem, im not saying this is the case in every event but in a very good majoirty of them.

dogs can be and are loving animals if treated right and not abused, mistreated or bought up wrong, ive been around every type of dog my whole life and never been attacked or even bitten if you treat them right they will show you the same respect.

and as for people with those type of dogs who also have children they know the risks and even so still leave the children alone with them and a small child or a baby will look like a toy and dogs dont tend to like sudden movements or noises especially if the noises are high pitched this leads to the dogs being startled

Posted: 06-08-2013 07:45 Post subject:

Killer dogs' owners in England and Wales could face life in prison

The owners of dogs that attack and kill someone could face life in prison under new proposals for England and Wales.
The current maximum prison sentence for allowing a dog that kills or injures someone to be dangerously out of control is two years.
Under a government consultation, respondents will be asked to select the most appropriate sentence for a fatal dog attack - from seven years to life.

Sixteen people have been killed by dogs in the UK since 2005.
In March, 14-year-old Jade Anderson was killed in an attack by four dogs while she was at a friend's house near Wigan, in Greater Manchester.
Police have no plans to prosecute anyone in relation to her death, saying there is no evidence a crime has been committed under current laws.

At present, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 covers only attacks by dogs in public places and private areas where animals are prohibited from being, such as a neighbour's garden or a park.

The consultation, which will run until 1 September, follows the announcement in February of plans to extend the scope of the law to enable a prosecution to be brought against anyone whose dog injures someone or acts aggressively in a private place where they are permitted to be, such as the owner's home.

Under the consultation, jail terms suggested for a dog owner whose animal injures a person or kills an assistance dog, like a guide dog for a visually impaired person, range from three years up to a maximum of 10.
The process will be used to inform recommendations put forward in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.

Animal Welfare Minister Lord de Mauley said: "Dog attacks are terrifying and we need harsh penalties to punish those who allow their dog to injure people while out of control.
"We're already toughening up laws to ensure that anyone who owns a dangerous dog can be brought to justice, regardless of where a dog attack takes place.
"It's crucial that the laws we have in place act as a deterrent to stop such horrific incidents."

Unions representing postal, utility and delivery staff have long argued for laws to be extended to cover attacks in dog owners' homes, saying this is a "major loophole" in the legislation.
According to the Communication Workers' Union, 23,000 postmen and women have been attacked by dogs in the last five years, with as many as 70% of these attacks taking place on private property.

Dave Joyce, the union's health and safety officer, said: "This consultation is very welcome and hopefully indicates the government is serious about tackling the problem of irresponsible dog ownership.
"We want to see tougher sentencing, better enforcement and greater consistency in sentencing.
"At the moment people are being handed vastly different sentences for very similar crimes, with one person receiving a suspended prison sentence while another walks away with just a £100 fine."

A report published by Guide Dogs in June revealed that attacks by other dogs on guide dogs are at an all-time high of 10 a month.
Guide Dogs chief executive Richard Leaman said: "It's almost impossible to imagine the devastating effect an attack on a guide dog can have on someone with sight loss.
"The punishment for irresponsible dog owners should reflect the immense turmoil and anguish these attacks cause our guide dog owners, and all assistance dog owners. We are pleased the government is asking for views on this issue."

Last month, Jade Anderson's parents, along with the parents of four-year-old John Paul Massey, who died after his uncle's pitbull attacked him in 2009, handed in at 10 Downing Street a petition calling for action to prevent similar attacks.
They called for preventative measures and education to put a stop to the 210,000 attacks and 6,000 hospital visits said to be caused by dangerous dogs each year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23578561

Posted: 06-08-2013 08:36 Post subject:

Dogs are only dangerous - in the sense they might attack unprovoked - if they are trained to be dangerous or if they have been mistreated. It's really not anything to do with a particular breed.

You'd have to be a little careful in applying such a law, because otherwise no-one will be able to try and rehabilitate a mistreated dog,

However, I do certainly agree that much firmer action should be taken where the circumstances justify it. But that is precisely why there can be huge variations in sentences - the owner may have been merely guilty of momentary forgetfulness with a normally docile dog that was then provoked or may at the other extreme deliberately have trained his dogs to attack and then let them loose - there was a case like that near here recently where a pet dog (fortunately not a child) was killed on our local beach by a pack of loose aggressive dogs that the owner was unable to recall.

There is a job for parents though as well - my (small) dog is kept on a lead precisely because he is a previously mistreated rescue dog who may have unknown flaws in his behaviour, but you'd be amazed at the number of parents who will let their small children run up to a dog and maul it as if it was a teddy bear, and sometimes even get quite offended when you ask them to stop their children doing it.

Animals are not toys, ANY animal - cat, dog, fox, badger, even rat - needs approaching with caution. Approaching carelessly can cause it to feel threatened, and then it may well try to defend itself. As it might do if you pull its ears and tail or poke it with a stick. If that happens, I'd argue it's hardly the animal's fault if it tries to defend itself.

Posted: 06-08-2013 21:57 Post subject:

Posted: 06-08-2013 23:24 Post subject:

Posted: 07-08-2013 12:47 Post subject:

Posted: 07-08-2013 16:45 Post subject:

I think it's about 90% upbringing, and 10% breed. But, the problem is, if a poodle has a bad moment, the worst it can do is make you sneeze. If a pitbull gets pissed off, it can rip your throat out.

I have a 22 week old Staffy. A puppy. But when I'm out walking her, she's on a strong chain lead, and I double fist the grip if anyone comes near us. Just in case. She's more likely to lick strangers, and pee with excitement, but it's just not worth taking the risk. Especially if it's a child.

Same if someone visits the house. We make sure she's secure first, before we open the door. And my brother's kids aren't allowed to be alone with her. We teach them this now, so that by the time she's old enough to do any serious damage, they're already trained to know how to be around her.

That's the thing about dogs. Everyone talks about how the dog needs to be trained right, but people need to be trained how to be around them, too. You can't just invade a dog's personal space. Most of the time a decent dog, cared for, and trained itself, won't attack, but every now and then it might just be having a bad day, and will lash out. Just like humans do.

Posted: 07-08-2013 17:15 Post subject:

My cousin got himself a Lakeland terrier a year or two back. His mum loved dogs, but wasn't great on discipline. So her dogs ended up ruling the roost. First thing my cousin did was enroll himself and the new puppy for obedience classes. He wasn't going to make the same mistake.

Posted: 07-08-2013 20:23 Post subject:

Posted: 08-08-2013 12:47 Post subject:

in as much as this thread is interesting.... can some one tell me what the alleged conspiracy is ?

i see no shady cabal
the media jump on things all the time
the government dont seem to gain from anything to do with dog bites ?

i can't see anyone making huge money out this

and if they were.... they wouldn't be able to affect policy..

i guess there could a spin off for prozaac for doggies ?
could it all be the big Pharms ? doggie trancs for all...

or maybe some sort of expensive operation to make em non bitey....

but that would benefit vets..... do we have a shady cabal of vets ?

Posted: 08-08-2013 14:08 Post subject:

Posted: 09-08-2013 12:49 Post subject:

so

we are saying they were fed this infected meat on purpose ?

to what end ? who benefits ?

or are we saying this was an accident ?

accidents are not conspiracies

there has to be someone who benefits ????

or some people....

these people have to be able to instigate/control/and cover up said conspiracy
and benefit from it.....