advertisement


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

Early on in this thread, I hit upon the win-win solution: remove dogs' teeth and let them eat doggie soup.

And no doubt some pet company will invent blunt, non-harmful doggie dentures too.

Dog lovers need to get onboard with this. Nobody keeps their dog for its teeth.
 
I don’t want to read what you say, because if your writings are an example of your best thinking, I have little to learn.
Sorry if that seems rude but your blindness to the sensible replies you have received, and your post imagining the attack in the park?
You really think that you’re talking to people here ignorant of reality? People who must therefore receive your views dressed as a tragic Disney film?
 
notaclue said:
And no doubt some pet company will invent blunt, non-harmful doggie dentures too.
Click to expand...

image.png
 
Rockmeister said:
.... your post imagining the attack in the park..... your views dressed as a tragic Disney film?
Click to expand...

If it were your child you wouldn't write that or even think it. I care because the victims here are real people and real people's real children. That's reality. Have you ever worked in A&E or had extended post traumatic stress counselling?

This problem and this thread isn't just about dogs. It's about the victims of brutal attacks and what the short and long-term consequences are for these people. Those who work in the health services may well have a different awareness.
 
no one is denying that. NO ONE here has said 'child attacks (or indeed any attack of any kind at all anywhere in the whole world)....are OK. NO ONE said that.
FFS.

What some people understand is that the problem most of the time lies with the dog's owner.

What exactly is your solution??
 
Rockmeister said:
What exactly is your solution??
Click to expand...

None of us have a solution. If anyone did the attacks would stop.

Please understand where my focus is here - as a psychologist I worked in the health services for 30 years and I do know first hand what post traumatic stress disorder does to people. I also come from a medical family and grew up with doctors and how they see the world. Don't be surprised if I have a different take on this. I'm not a dog owner or an "animal lover" as such, but at least as a vegetarian I don't eat animals so I do respect them in that sense. But that's a different subject and no reason to go there. Basically my focus in this thread is on the humans, not the animals.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Just revisit a few of the early pages. Some pretty draconian 'solutions' proposed there from some quarters. That is the company you have, inadvertently, chosen to keep on this thread.
Click to expand...

I didn't choose any particular company on this thread, why would I? I think and speak for myself.

As you can see, there are some quite divergent views on this subject. No surprise there. My view, looking at the data and following an evidence-based path, which is also the view of others here and of the government advisors, is that some types of dogs are more dangerous than others, and should be removed from circulation in the UK. I don't see an evidence-based approach as in any way eccentric.
 
les24preludes said:
I didn't choose any particular company on this thread, why would I? I think and speak for myself.

As you can see, there are some quite divergent views on this subject. No surprise there. My view, looking at the data and following an evidence-based path, which is also the view of others here and of the government advisors, is that some types of dogs are more dangerous than others, and should be removed from circulation in the UK. I don't see an evidence-based approach as in any way eccentric.
Click to expand...
Your credibility took a dent, from my perspective, when you sought to make an equivalence between my, and others', position that it's the owners who are responsible not the dogs, and the NRA statement that 'gun's don't kill people, people kill people'. That was a clear challenge to that POV and, from any dispassionate perspective, was unnecessarily raising the emotional temperature of the argument in a provocative way. I wouldn't call it an evidence-based approach. It also, in your style of argument, placed you as a fellow traveller with narabdela and notaclue.

To be absolutely clear, those of us defending the dog-owning side (rather than the dog-fearing side) on this thread, have also been consistent in saying that it's the owners and breeders who are the problem, not so much the dogs.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Your credibility took a dent, from my perspective, when you sought to make an equivalence... with the NRA statement that 'gun's don't kill people, people kill people'.

It also, in your style of argument, placed you as a fellow traveller with narabdela and notaclue.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with either of the guys you mention - any resemblance is just a co-incidence.

If we want to get a bit more subtle here, which I'm sure from your previous posts you can appreciate, the NRA stance on guns is very relevant. If you choose to say "it's not the fault of guns", and the NRA version of this is that it's a level playing field between cap guns and assault rifles, you then are stuck with the problem of policing gun owners, doing background checks, hoping that gun owners don't have personalities that would make idiotic mistakes etc etc. Briefly, and as a psychologist, I see this as unworkable. And in practice is has been shown to be unworkable. Psychometric tests are already less than 100% reliable and gun owners aren't even remotely assessed by reliable tests. It's just unworkable. So for a workable solution that can be actually enforced you ban the guns, as we do in Europe, and what happens is that you get dramatically reduced fatalities and injuries as a percentage per population. The data is very clear here.

So using the same empirical approach, if you want a workable solution you ban dog types that have been shown by data to be more likely to attack and cause injury. If this offends the sensibilities of dog lovers, then I'm afraid I side with the injured humans here.
 
Unbelievable.
Ok well, please link to the research and proven data which shows which breeds are genetically more likely to be aggressive.
Which is not the same data as dog attacks, because that was influenced by the owner. You note that someone must pull the trigger.
Your analogy doesn’t work because you don’t want to acknowledge that dogs are alive and complex beings which can be trained.
All dogs, as has been said, are capable of attack. All.
 
I understand that since the legislation on XL Bullies, the most searched breeds on Google in the UK are the Presa Canario and the Cane Corso, both larger and more powerful than the average XL. Undoubtedly, we will be bemoaning the attacks by those breeds in a couple of years and demanding legislation to ban them. The issue is with the supply of large, powerful breeds to serve a demand for large, powerful breeds, by humans with inadequate skill to manage those breeds.

Presa canario | Dogs & Puppies for Sale - Gumtree

Find a presa canario on Gumtree, the #1 site for Dogs & Puppies for Sale classifieds ads in the UK.
www.gumtree.com www.gumtree.com

Cane corso | Dogs & Puppies for Sale - Gumtree

Find a cane corso on Gumtree, the #1 site for Dogs & Puppies for Sale classifieds ads in the UK.
www.gumtree.com www.gumtree.com

Social media is full of these dogs for sale. Borboel pups are now being sold for cash in my local park, as the XL breeders move on.

The only solution is to reduce demand for large, powerful breeds through education, and that is not going to happen, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top