advertisement


Dog attacks "skyrocketing", now "an unrecognised public health crisis"

Rockmeister said:
Because it's NOT the dogs fault. How many times? Man is to blame. mankind and their ignorance about how to treat an animal, or, worse, their deliberate plan to make that animal aggressive. You can make a hamster bite if you train it to do so, or make it hate and fear all humans. It's not the hamsters fault!
Now look at dog attack statistics. ALL breeds can attack. Poodles can send someone to hospital, so can spaniels, labradors and other fluffy types. Why? Because they were owned by idiots and the very bad.
Click to expand...

Well said Sir, there are some idiots who know nothing about the breed and have got one of these dogs as a status symbol unfortunately, it is all to do with mental and physical training, one of the best and most obvious piece of advice l was given from a Rottweiler trainer ( a breed of dog l happen to own) a working dog breed needs a job to do, and as said earlier this is physical and mental stimulation for the dog and this is what some owners fail to understand, any breed of dog can attack a human and that is a fact.
 
les24preludes said:
The NRA in the USA continually say "it's not the fault of guns". What's the difference?

There's a difference between owning a penknife and an assault rifle. There's a difference between owning a "family friendly" dog and an assault dog. There are lists everywhere of "friendly dogs". e.g. most cited are Labradors, Retrievers, Collies etc....

It's a conscious choice to own an assault rifle or an assault dog. Choices have consequences, as they often say of Wagner's Ring Cycle.
Click to expand...
There's a world of difference. Dogs are sentient creatures, they respond to their environment and treatment. They are companion animals (in the main). Guns, well, aside from sporting target shooting applications, guns are designed to kill and that's their main purpose. The NRA argument is specious because people buy guns in the US in the quantities they do, because they have in mind the possibility that they may have to shoot somebody with it. A not insignificant number of those purchasers do it expecting that to be the case, either because they live in a dangerous world, or because they are a danger to others.

Dog attacks in the UK are highly likely to involve a similar set of scenarios - some sort of social underclass, a powerful status dog which has not been trained, or has been mistreated and has behavioural problems as a result, and an irresponsible owner. This is, by and large, not the dog's fault. The fault lies with the breeders and the owners of these breeds.

I do agree that a dog which has attacked needs to be put down, but that's because rehabilitation of a dog like that is going to be impossible and there's no prospect of a decent life for that animal.

Dog haters gonna hate, and we've seen plenty of that on here. Maybe it's previous nasty experience, maybe it's phobia, maybe its a class thing, but its not exactly been an edifying read. I doubt whether any reasonable person would defend these attack dogs, but few reasonable people would extend their views to dogs in general as some on here appear to want to do.
 
Dog attacks as a percentage of dog ownership - 0.116%. Clearly, a crisis. I wouldn't be surprised if this thread is full of cat owners.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Dog haters gonna hate, and we've seen plenty of that on here. Maybe it's previous nasty experience, maybe it's phobia, maybe its a class thing, but its not exactly been an edifying read. I doubt whether any reasonable person would defend these attack dogs, but few reasonable people would extend their views to dogs in general as some on here appear to want to do.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense! This thread has nothing whatsoever to do with hating dogs, with class, or with phobias. It's about protecting the public from specific types of dogs, I won't say 'breeds' because that upsets the nitpickers, that are capable of both seriously injuring and killing people.

The apparent blindness of some people to this issue is both mystifying and worrying.
 
narabdela said:
Utter nonsense! This thread has nothing whatsoever to do with hating dogs, with class, or with phobias. It's about protecting the public from specific types of dogs, I won't say 'breeds' because that upsets the nitpickers, that are capable of both seriously injuring and killing people.

The apparent blindness of some people to this issue is both mystifying and worrying.
Click to expand...
You do realise this is gaslighting, don't you?
 
narabdela said:
Utter nonsense! This thread has nothing whatsoever to do with hating dogs, with class, or with phobias. It's about protecting the public from specific types of dogs...
Click to expand...

Of course it's about protecting the public from specific types of dogs. A voice of sanity. Thank you.

It's not a nice thing to put on the thread, but just imagine that you're walking in a public park with your young son or daughter, and out of nowhere a dangerous animal attacks the infant and clamps its jaws around his/her head. This is your child, remember, that you love and want a happy future for. Then imagine the awful struggle to get your precious child out of the jaws of this animal, the utter panic to get your child, spouting blood, to a hospital, then the desperate wait in the hospital for doctors to give you the news that your child will live but will be disfigured for life. Then the months and years of rehabilitation and weekly meetings with psychologists to attempt to reduce the post traumatic stress disorder. And the sadness of living with a dearly loved child that has been changed forever. And that was an innocent, happy child with his/her whole life in front of him/her.

This is the reality of what is happening.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
You do realise this is gaslighting, don't you?
Click to expand...

It's an honest opinion. If you feel that my opinion is "manipulating you into doubting your own perceptions, experiences, or understanding of events" (Definition of Gaslighting by The American Phsychological Association), then so be it.

On the other hand, I don't think an opinion meets that definition.
 
narabdela said:
It's an honest opinion. If you feel that my opinion is "manipulating you into doubting your own perceptions, experiences, or understanding of events" (Definition of Gaslighting by The American Phsychological Association), then so be it.

On the other hand, I don't think an opinion meets that definition.
Click to expand...
It starts slowly, by degrees. First you plant the seeds - in this case, that people on here are blind to an issue they should be really concerned about. So if you repeatedly state that something that some posters think is being sensationalised, is a major issue, what are you intending them to think, if not that their perception of events is wrong?
 
Rockmeister said:
But it’s true. I shoot target rifle and would never harm a flea. I owned a Staffie and he grew up not wanting to harm a flea.

But there are bad people in the world.
Unless you understand that, you’ll also want to remove everything that can be used for harm from the world. Bread knives can be nasty. Cars are proven deadly. Want to ban those? Baseball bats? Hammers? Chainsaws?

Think it through.

It’s the owners fault. Why is it right to kill the dog?
Click to expand...
Because the dog has shown itself to be a danger to humans. It's just an animal anyway. If it weren't a "pet" type of animal nobody would care about it being put down. Humans are far too emotionally attached to dumb beasts.

Plus, while yes it may be possible to train any type of dog be agressive. It's just a fact that some breeds are instinctively more agressive than others. There are plenty of dog breeds that if you don't deliberately teach them who is "boss" they'll not attack anyone, it's not in their nature to do so.

The breeds in question will be dangerous if not taught from an early age that man is boss and to be submissive to them. Their natural tendency is to domimate and dogs (being stupid animals) will use all of their physical power without restraint when they do attack.
 
Tarzan said:
Well said Sir, there are some idiots who know nothing about the breed and have got one of these dogs as a status symbol unfortunately, it is all to do with mental and physical training, one of the best and most obvious piece of advice l was given from a Rottweiler trainer ( a breed of dog l happen to own) a working dog breed needs a job to do, and as said earlier this is physical and mental stimulation for the dog and this is what some owners fail to understand, any breed of dog can attack a human and that is a fact.
Click to expand...
But some breeds of dogs are intrinsically more aggressive and thus far more likely statistically to do so, unless they are properly trained. So yes it's the owners fault that the dog hasn't been given the training necessary to ensure the dog doesn't become a danger.

But these dog breeds are predisposed to be dangerous unless thus trained and that is a fact. Most other dogs only become agressive if actually abused, in a neutral lack of training situation they don't pose a danger to humans. There is a massive difference between them.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
It starts slowly, by degrees. First you plant the seeds - in this case, that people on here are blind to an issue they should be really concerned about. So if you repeatedly state that something that some posters think is being sensationalised, is a major issue, what are you intending them to think, if not that their perception of events is wrong?
Click to expand...

Seriously? Are you trying to turn this into a cable thread?
 
narabdela said:
Seriously? Are you trying to turn this into a cable thread?
Click to expand...
None of the pro-dog posts on this thread are ignoring or denying the risks of these 'bully' breeds. Nor are they supporting the right of ownership of these breeds. That simply isn't happening, despite your assertions on the lines that this is the position being adopted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top