ChatterBank1 min ago
Dogs and their owners.
What the heck is going on with this sudden spate of serious incidents. Weren't the first two horrific occurances enough to make people think a bit harder about their responsabilitys as a dog owner ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dyli795. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There is not now nor ever been an increase in dog attacks. The case of the baby last week just moved it up the list of what the papers deem news and hence any dog attack will now be reported where as last week it wasn't news.
to echo Englishbird above half the population has an IQ of less than 100, it's not suprising there are a lot of thick people out there.
to echo Englishbird above half the population has an IQ of less than 100, it's not suprising there are a lot of thick people out there.
I read a sad myth once that read something like this: a man came back from his day of hunting to find the bed where his baby son lay soaked in blood and his dogs musel covered in blood. In a fit of rage he killed the dog and screams came from the baby who was awoken to hear the screams of the mans dog being killed. He later found the baby next to the head of a wolf.
The same thing happened in 1991. Not a week would go by without The Sun reporting on a Pit Bull Terrier attacking a child story. They were campaining to get the Dangerous Dogs Acts put through parliment. It worked. The stories werent made up, and yes it was a matter that needed to be addressed, but as Loosehead says, it juse becomes more 'newsworthy'.
Yes Loosehead , I know dog attacks are nothing new. It's just that the recent plague of them shuld promt some law to be introduced to vet any proposed future owners.
e.g. Mountainboo passes with flying colours. It isnt unacceptable to require the minimum of common sense from someone before they are legaly alowed to take charge of what he realizes has the potential to be quite dangerous in certain circustances. I'm a life long dog lover and think it's the "owners fault" every time. There is no "other side of the coin." All a bit simplistic I know but I'd even go as far as to say certain breeds of dog are only acceptable in urban or countryside environments.
e.g. Mountainboo passes with flying colours. It isnt unacceptable to require the minimum of common sense from someone before they are legaly alowed to take charge of what he realizes has the potential to be quite dangerous in certain circustances. I'm a life long dog lover and think it's the "owners fault" every time. There is no "other side of the coin." All a bit simplistic I know but I'd even go as far as to say certain breeds of dog are only acceptable in urban or countryside environments.
That's a very sad story mountainboo :o(
What worries me most is that stupid people seem to breed at a alarmingly fast rate.
I know I sound like a snob, but I know many people and dogs across all walks of life, in low intelligence, low income families, the children and dogs are all too often left to their own devices.
Loosehead is quite right though, there isn't a sudden spate of it, it's just the newspapers building hype after the death of that poor baby.
What worries me most is that stupid people seem to breed at a alarmingly fast rate.
I know I sound like a snob, but I know many people and dogs across all walks of life, in low intelligence, low income families, the children and dogs are all too often left to their own devices.
Loosehead is quite right though, there isn't a sudden spate of it, it's just the newspapers building hype after the death of that poor baby.
-- answer removed --
mountainboo take a look at:
http://www.beddgelerttourism.com/legend_of_gel ert.htm
The news media is suffering from an absence of sufficiently sensational news at the moment (you can always tell that this is the case when the headlines are dominated by surveys or reports: Britons are the worst debtors/drinkers etc). After the tragic death of the young baby recently any dog attack becomes newsworthy and it seems as though there is a sudden spate of attacks.
I totally agree with the comments about the need for responsible owners. I guess that it's very difficult to legislate about this sort of thing (particularly with regard to classifying a dog as 'dangerous' due to its breed). Perhaps owners should be held responsible for an attack by their dogs where 'a reasonable' person might expect a dog to be dangerous and sufficient steps haven't been taken to restrain the animal. I'm not really sure what the current legal position is.
It does seem that there should be some form of disincentive for people who choose to own fierce dogs as a status symbol, which wouldn't necessarily punish serious owners/breeders. Mandatory chipping might be part of the answer.
http://www.beddgelerttourism.com/legend_of_gel ert.htm
The news media is suffering from an absence of sufficiently sensational news at the moment (you can always tell that this is the case when the headlines are dominated by surveys or reports: Britons are the worst debtors/drinkers etc). After the tragic death of the young baby recently any dog attack becomes newsworthy and it seems as though there is a sudden spate of attacks.
I totally agree with the comments about the need for responsible owners. I guess that it's very difficult to legislate about this sort of thing (particularly with regard to classifying a dog as 'dangerous' due to its breed). Perhaps owners should be held responsible for an attack by their dogs where 'a reasonable' person might expect a dog to be dangerous and sufficient steps haven't been taken to restrain the animal. I'm not really sure what the current legal position is.
It does seem that there should be some form of disincentive for people who choose to own fierce dogs as a status symbol, which wouldn't necessarily punish serious owners/breeders. Mandatory chipping might be part of the answer.
Terrier type dogs, particularly Staffs are favoured by chavs - how many times have you seen a typical chav bloke, who are always always weedy little runts (why is that?), being pulled along by a Staff?
As these idiots haven't the wit to get a job or know when to keep their d1cks in their trackie bottoms to stop another Britney-Jane or Wayne-Sky being brought into the world, how the hell are they supposed to know how to be a responsible dog owner?
What's the answer? Possibly outlawing these types of dogs altogether?
I've had to take a stick to one of these damn animals before because it was attacking my 11 year old bitch lab, as the idiot walking it was more interested in talking on his mobile than restraining his dog.
At the very least I'd like to see (if it were at possible, which I suspect it isn't) a ban on these types of dogs being owned by chav idiots..........but then I'd like to see these cretinous idiots not being able to breed themselves, which of course, is going to upset the 'uman rights brigade.
As these idiots haven't the wit to get a job or know when to keep their d1cks in their trackie bottoms to stop another Britney-Jane or Wayne-Sky being brought into the world, how the hell are they supposed to know how to be a responsible dog owner?
What's the answer? Possibly outlawing these types of dogs altogether?
I've had to take a stick to one of these damn animals before because it was attacking my 11 year old bitch lab, as the idiot walking it was more interested in talking on his mobile than restraining his dog.
At the very least I'd like to see (if it were at possible, which I suspect it isn't) a ban on these types of dogs being owned by chav idiots..........but then I'd like to see these cretinous idiots not being able to breed themselves, which of course, is going to upset the 'uman rights brigade.
I think it might be useful to bring in licenses for those people who want to own what is termed as a 'dangerous dog.' That way the owners could at least be vetted. But that said, I also think that most dogs have the potential to be dangerous.
I'm sure that a member of the Royal Family had a dog that attacked a little girl in a park (possibly last year). It would seem that irresponsible pet ownership is not just down to the great unwashed.
I'm sure that a member of the Royal Family had a dog that attacked a little girl in a park (possibly last year). It would seem that irresponsible pet ownership is not just down to the great unwashed.
I'm all for new legislation to protect us from new dangers, however, how do you legislate against dangerous dogs. As I understand it, once a dog has done something dangerous and attacked someone, it is normally put down as is the case with the two rotties. However, the destruction of the dog (which I am not disputing was absolutely necessary) is not going to stop what had already happened. So how do you bring in laws to stop future crimes? it sounds a bit 'minority report' to me.
I have a German Shepherd dog and she was a rescue dog, we got her when she was 2. She is a bit nervous and does bark at the door. However, I keep her away from strangers, I keep her under constant close supervision when we are in public, (though that is rarely a problem because it is only over the house that she is protective) I keep a chain on the door so she can't accidentally get out, the garden is completely enclosed. I would never forgive myself if she did something terrible that I take many precautions including ongoing training. I also never leave her alone with my young children. She tends to follow me around, so there is rarely a case for her to be alone with them, and I take them upstairs with me should I have to go up there. She also has a place where she can retreat too if they get too noisy. COmmon sense must prevail at the end of the day, not legislation.
by comparison, shall we also legislate against dangerous cars, as we see people attacked by them all the time and they claim far more deaths. How will we do this as the car is not dangerous until after the death. The same is true for a dog. Dogs are at the end of the day, dumb animals, and should never be trusted 100%. An element of mistrust should always be maintained for our safety.
I have a German Shepherd dog and she was a rescue dog, we got her when she was 2. She is a bit nervous and does bark at the door. However, I keep her away from strangers, I keep her under constant close supervision when we are in public, (though that is rarely a problem because it is only over the house that she is protective) I keep a chain on the door so she can't accidentally get out, the garden is completely enclosed. I would never forgive myself if she did something terrible that I take many precautions including ongoing training. I also never leave her alone with my young children. She tends to follow me around, so there is rarely a case for her to be alone with them, and I take them upstairs with me should I have to go up there. She also has a place where she can retreat too if they get too noisy. COmmon sense must prevail at the end of the day, not legislation.
by comparison, shall we also legislate against dangerous cars, as we see people attacked by them all the time and they claim far more deaths. How will we do this as the car is not dangerous until after the death. The same is true for a dog. Dogs are at the end of the day, dumb animals, and should never be trusted 100%. An element of mistrust should always be maintained for our safety.
To perfectly illustrate loosehead's point - within the last few minutes, our local (London) news has shown an article where they visited a boy who was "savaged" by a 'pit-bull' many months ago. They showed still pictures of his original injuries - (since filming the injuries at the time was probably low down their priority when there's a good 'celeb' or 'politician-with-his-pants-down' story to follow up.)
Do you really think they (the media) would be so concerned now as to how the young lad is doing, were it not for these last couple of (albeit horrific) attacks?
Do you really think they (the media) would be so concerned now as to how the young lad is doing, were it not for these last couple of (albeit horrific) attacks?
