Minio
Kind of Sort of Not really...
Rambo
Dog attacks "skyrocketing", now "an unrecognised public health crisis"
- Thread starter notaclue
- Start date
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
On your specific point, the UK police do do very much the sort of background checks you imply are unworkable, in our gun licensing system. The sort of checks the NRA seeks to nullify by its campaigning for unrestricted second amendment rights for all. The problem with your argument is that the NRA position is the one that lacks nuance, so while I appreciate your subtle position, you were essentially saying ours is unsubtle because it is equivalent to the NRA's, which seeks to remove gun control on the basis that guns without people don't kill anybody. The NRA's is a specious argument so you were implying ours was too.
Minio
Kind of Sort of Not really...
Note to myself : must stop posting cute dog pics for likes.
Seriously, why does anyone want these dangerous dog things?
Back in the day it was Rottweilers that were scary enough.
I was once attacked by an Alsatian. The owner was out of her head on drugs and I suspect that was the problem in that instance.
Seriously, why does anyone want these dangerous dog things?
Back in the day it was Rottweilers that were scary enough.
I was once attacked by an Alsatian. The owner was out of her head on drugs and I suspect that was the problem in that instance.
Minio
Kind of Sort of Not really...
No. Just big ears.Has he got a big knife
les24preludes
pfm Member
Yada yada...
I don't have the time or the motivation to trawl through a mountain of data on dog attacks, though I could do so if I needed to, but I did start here
"When a dog with problems is introduced to small children, other pets, or people who cannot handle animals properly, bad things happen. A dog’s breed is one part of the equation that contributes to its propensity for violence, but it is a significant piece that cannot and should not be ignored."
I'm pretty sure you can't quote accurate scientific data on dog attacks with academic references, and it's all too easy to expect others to do the job for you. But why not have a go and spend an hour looking up academic papers yourself? You're interested in dogs aren't you?
Rockmeister
pfm Member
hahahha
ok
Is that how you got your Psychology qualification? Getting someone else to answer the hard questions?
Ok I'll help you out
Start with this.
www.psychologytoday.com
Excellent world recognised expert on animal behaviour ( and their owners).
ok
Is that how you got your Psychology qualification? Getting someone else to answer the hard questions?
Ok I'll help you out
Start with this.
John Bradshaw Ph.D.
John Bradshaw, Ph.D., is the foundation director of the Anthrozoology Institute and honorary research fellow at the University of Bristol.
Excellent world recognised expert on animal behaviour ( and their owners).
George J
Herefordshire member
I am very much a dog person. I prefer the dogs I have had as companions and working dogs to all but a handful of the humans I have met in the last sixty plus years.
It is definitely true that breeds of dogs have archetypal characterises that apply as a norm ... For example the Welsh Sheepdog [properly the Welsh Collie] is not a natural pet or companion. They have to work or they can easily go completely mad, but once they have worked they often become wonderful, playful and affectionate creatures if brought up with firm and fair discipline. I don't count hitting or belting a dog as fair, and I never have, but the sin bin is definitely effective. Exclude them till they decide to behave.
According to what I have read, Patterdale Terriers are more biddable than Jack Russells, and I have experience of both breeds. I would say that the generalisation is rather truer than might be expected, and even if a good JR is a wonderful, playful type, there are certainly a few outliers who are never genial, however well brought up. JCB's companion male JR Terrier was called Osker, and a more short tempered curmudgeon I never met. He bit my brother [aged about three] and was summarily put down with a shotgun on the doorstep in the picture of JCB. He was the sire of her pups in the picture ...
Corgis are famous for nipping if not full on attacks. They like biting ankles!
My current dog is also easily the best I ever had guardianship of: Lu the Patterdale, who takes the genial tendency to an extreme, and at that after a rough first fifteen months [before she came to me as a rescue case]. I think of our relationship as a partnership. She is completely loyal, and she remains politely aloof with people she does not know, and even towards some she does, but does choose to make a great fuss of a few people and win their hearts:
IMG_1346 by George Johnson, on Flickr
That does not mean she is a goody two shoes, but being a typical Terrier, she takes delight in a certain amount of mischief!
Here is a nearly sixty year old photo of me with a long legged Jack Russell [Parson Terrier?] called Josephine and and I am holding one of her pups. In reality she was very like Lu [same size and sweetness], and adored playing and had a certain disruptive nature, but, though a phenomenally quick rodent assassin, she was a gentle and trusting as a lamb:
IMG_8624 by George Johnson, on Flickr
I named her JCB, because she had an incurable [not that we bothered much] habit of digging into the carpet in the corners of rooms!
Here we see my other rescue dog, who came from my eldest English Uncle's father in law when he entered a nursing home. Spot the not quite a Jack Russell. Feisty and difficult, he was never the entirely reliable with humans. Much less so with other dogs. He died shortly after his only defeat by another dog aged thirteen - he was terrible fighter on home turf. He was also typical of the Terrier breeds being exceeding naughty and playful. He adopted me in the family ...
IMG_8606 by George Johnson, on Flickr
He was a devastating rodent killer right into old age.
And finally a Welsh Collie who I had from Christmas Eve 1984 to the 7th. January 1997. Here he is absolutely tired out after a hard day working sheep in 1987. He adored playing with children, but could be too enthusiastic for some who did not realise he was simply wanting to play.
IMG_8628 by George Johnson, on Flickr
He had two siblings who were no good as working dogs and both were put down, but Fred was the hardest working Collie I have ever.
______________
Long introduction, so please forgive it. It serves as context. It is clear that some dogs are by tendency more unreliable, or significantly genial and safe. Any well brought up dog "can" be genial, but even the best dog can have a funny moment, and do something completely out of character.
Fred could have done real damage had he gone "loco," which fortunately never happened, but I was exceeding careful with him round people he did not know ... Collies are extremely loyal, generally to just one person, their working master, and can demonstrate a startling ability to take the boss's side. I had kidney stones and Fred would not even let my aunt [who Fred knew well] through the bedroom door when she came to visit. In those days doors were never locked, and my aunt let herself in ...
He was looking out for his boss - nothing more or less. And he was strong enough to have done a serious injury to my aunt if she had not realised her mistake just barging in to my sick room.
So, and this just my option, I tend to the view that owning a powerful and potentially dangerous [by dint of their physical strength capable of it] should be limited to working use and at the extreme end simply be outlawed, Fred was classed as a working dog and so was exempt from the dog licence requirement. Were it not for his work as a sheep dog, I would never have considered him as a suitable type to keep as a companion dog, though he became one aged five when I stopped working sheep with him.
The various Jack Russells were farmyard dogs, who just happened to live a high life in the farmhouse! Not much interaction with strangers, but quite harmless in general ... Lu is not granted the same farmyard freedom, because, she still has the potential to hurt or frighten a child. Always on the lead in any situation where she might encounter children as a result, and if she ever bit a child, my next port of call would be at the vets to be put down.
I say that as someone so grateful for her good natured companionship in the evening of my life.
No dog is sacred above harming or frightening a human.
To finish, what I do not understand is why people who know little or nothing about dogs don't realise that they should make very deep enquiries about to the suitability as a pet or companion of any specific bred [or subset of a breed], and not the least of the crucial considerations of what could happen if the dog goes all loyal, or even loco.
Myself I would not allow for anyone getting first dog to be allowed to acquire one weighing typically more than ten or fifteen kilos, and only after graduating on from there be allowed to keep larger and potentially more dangerous types after veterinary approval.
I also believe that breeding dogs should be much more tightly regulated, and the norm that dogs sold on should be neutered first. I say that as a dog person, and animal lover in general Even cats tend to like me!
Best wishes from George
It is definitely true that breeds of dogs have archetypal characterises that apply as a norm ... For example the Welsh Sheepdog [properly the Welsh Collie] is not a natural pet or companion. They have to work or they can easily go completely mad, but once they have worked they often become wonderful, playful and affectionate creatures if brought up with firm and fair discipline. I don't count hitting or belting a dog as fair, and I never have, but the sin bin is definitely effective. Exclude them till they decide to behave.
According to what I have read, Patterdale Terriers are more biddable than Jack Russells, and I have experience of both breeds. I would say that the generalisation is rather truer than might be expected, and even if a good JR is a wonderful, playful type, there are certainly a few outliers who are never genial, however well brought up. JCB's companion male JR Terrier was called Osker, and a more short tempered curmudgeon I never met. He bit my brother [aged about three] and was summarily put down with a shotgun on the doorstep in the picture of JCB. He was the sire of her pups in the picture ...
Corgis are famous for nipping if not full on attacks. They like biting ankles!
My current dog is also easily the best I ever had guardianship of: Lu the Patterdale, who takes the genial tendency to an extreme, and at that after a rough first fifteen months [before she came to me as a rescue case]. I think of our relationship as a partnership. She is completely loyal, and she remains politely aloof with people she does not know, and even towards some she does, but does choose to make a great fuss of a few people and win their hearts:
IMG_1346 by George Johnson, on FlickrThat does not mean she is a goody two shoes, but being a typical Terrier, she takes delight in a certain amount of mischief!
Here is a nearly sixty year old photo of me with a long legged Jack Russell [Parson Terrier?] called Josephine and and I am holding one of her pups. In reality she was very like Lu [same size and sweetness], and adored playing and had a certain disruptive nature, but, though a phenomenally quick rodent assassin, she was a gentle and trusting as a lamb:
IMG_8624 by George Johnson, on FlickrI named her JCB, because she had an incurable [not that we bothered much] habit of digging into the carpet in the corners of rooms!
Here we see my other rescue dog, who came from my eldest English Uncle's father in law when he entered a nursing home. Spot the not quite a Jack Russell. Feisty and difficult, he was never the entirely reliable with humans. Much less so with other dogs. He died shortly after his only defeat by another dog aged thirteen - he was terrible fighter on home turf. He was also typical of the Terrier breeds being exceeding naughty and playful. He adopted me in the family ...
IMG_8606 by George Johnson, on FlickrHe was a devastating rodent killer right into old age.
And finally a Welsh Collie who I had from Christmas Eve 1984 to the 7th. January 1997. Here he is absolutely tired out after a hard day working sheep in 1987. He adored playing with children, but could be too enthusiastic for some who did not realise he was simply wanting to play.
IMG_8628 by George Johnson, on FlickrHe had two siblings who were no good as working dogs and both were put down, but Fred was the hardest working Collie I have ever.
______________
Long introduction, so please forgive it. It serves as context. It is clear that some dogs are by tendency more unreliable, or significantly genial and safe. Any well brought up dog "can" be genial, but even the best dog can have a funny moment, and do something completely out of character.
Fred could have done real damage had he gone "loco," which fortunately never happened, but I was exceeding careful with him round people he did not know ... Collies are extremely loyal, generally to just one person, their working master, and can demonstrate a startling ability to take the boss's side. I had kidney stones and Fred would not even let my aunt [who Fred knew well] through the bedroom door when she came to visit. In those days doors were never locked, and my aunt let herself in ...
He was looking out for his boss - nothing more or less. And he was strong enough to have done a serious injury to my aunt if she had not realised her mistake just barging in to my sick room.
So, and this just my option, I tend to the view that owning a powerful and potentially dangerous [by dint of their physical strength capable of it] should be limited to working use and at the extreme end simply be outlawed, Fred was classed as a working dog and so was exempt from the dog licence requirement. Were it not for his work as a sheep dog, I would never have considered him as a suitable type to keep as a companion dog, though he became one aged five when I stopped working sheep with him.
The various Jack Russells were farmyard dogs, who just happened to live a high life in the farmhouse! Not much interaction with strangers, but quite harmless in general ... Lu is not granted the same farmyard freedom, because, she still has the potential to hurt or frighten a child. Always on the lead in any situation where she might encounter children as a result, and if she ever bit a child, my next port of call would be at the vets to be put down.
I say that as someone so grateful for her good natured companionship in the evening of my life.
No dog is sacred above harming or frightening a human.
To finish, what I do not understand is why people who know little or nothing about dogs don't realise that they should make very deep enquiries about to the suitability as a pet or companion of any specific bred [or subset of a breed], and not the least of the crucial considerations of what could happen if the dog goes all loyal, or even loco.
Myself I would not allow for anyone getting first dog to be allowed to acquire one weighing typically more than ten or fifteen kilos, and only after graduating on from there be allowed to keep larger and potentially more dangerous types after veterinary approval.
I also believe that breeding dogs should be much more tightly regulated, and the norm that dogs sold on should be neutered first. I say that as a dog person, and animal lover in general Even cats tend to like me!
Best wishes from George
Last edited:
les24preludes
pfm Member
Yes, that's a point worth making about the UK police, but even if their background checks are better than the USA (not difficult) they can in no way reliably predict the behaviour of owners, So it looks to me that by default we have to look at banning the guns and the dangerous dogs. That's much simpler to do in practice. It works with guns, as data shows, and it looks to me to be the default position with dogs.
les24preludes
pfm Member
ok - Is that how you got your Psychology qualification? Getting someone else to answer the hard questions?
Start with this.
Excellent world recognised expert on animal behaviour ( and their owners).John Bradshaw Ph.D.
John Bradshaw, Ph.D., is the foundation director of the Anthrozoology Institute and honorary research fellow at the University of Bristol.
You don't get to be a BPS psychologist by blowing bubbles in the air, chum. You try it!
Now this is some progress - an academic enters the picture. But you've only given a name and brief biog. You need some actual text references, page numbers, dates etc. Sorry to be a bit pedantic, but I was a university lecturer before I retired. The guy you quoted looks like he knows his subject.
But this is good stuff, Rockmeister. Keep it up!
gez
pfm Member
Ok then to summarise, some people are saying:
It's all the owners fault, so then it's absolutely fine for humans to own large muscular dogs (70lbs +) whom should they ever attack a human are going to cause severe injury if not death, because when/if they do it's the humans fault.
Is that what's being said here? Because if it is I have ask: What possible justification is there for a human being to need to own such large powerful dogs in our advanced civilisation where there is no threat from wild animals or any other need for protection. (Home defence is not a justifiable argument as law is very clear on what constitutes acceptable agression from a human in protection of property - so it being a dog being aggressive going to be even less acceptable). If in doing so there is always going to be a threat to public health (no matter how small). Does it matter if it's only 1% of such breeds that attack and maim a human? Is that an acceptable price to pay for some people to be able to own such breeds? Seems to me it's never going to be possible to ensure that none of these dogs will ever attack a human, ever. Because you can't force owners to be the "right kind of owner".
So.. I'm curious to understand why there's any acceptable rationale for anyone to even want let alone claim a need to own these breeds of dogs?
It would seem blatantly obvious to me, that if we accept all dogs have the ablity to be agressive and attack humans (under certain conditions) then it's incumbunt on us (particularly the government) to limit the possible damage of such attacks by restricting the types of dogs that can be owned.
Cats attack people all the time, don't recall any ever making it to the news let alone resulting in Cat ownership restriction legislation.
It's all the owners fault, so then it's absolutely fine for humans to own large muscular dogs (70lbs +) whom should they ever attack a human are going to cause severe injury if not death, because when/if they do it's the humans fault.
Is that what's being said here? Because if it is I have ask: What possible justification is there for a human being to need to own such large powerful dogs in our advanced civilisation where there is no threat from wild animals or any other need for protection. (Home defence is not a justifiable argument as law is very clear on what constitutes acceptable agression from a human in protection of property - so it being a dog being aggressive going to be even less acceptable). If in doing so there is always going to be a threat to public health (no matter how small). Does it matter if it's only 1% of such breeds that attack and maim a human? Is that an acceptable price to pay for some people to be able to own such breeds? Seems to me it's never going to be possible to ensure that none of these dogs will ever attack a human, ever. Because you can't force owners to be the "right kind of owner".
So.. I'm curious to understand why there's any acceptable rationale for anyone to even want let alone claim a need to own these breeds of dogs?
It would seem blatantly obvious to me, that if we accept all dogs have the ablity to be agressive and attack humans (under certain conditions) then it's incumbunt on us (particularly the government) to limit the possible damage of such attacks by restricting the types of dogs that can be owned.
Cats attack people all the time, don't recall any ever making it to the news let alone resulting in Cat ownership restriction legislation.
Rockmeister
pfm Member
Oh? Patronisation?
You are lowering your standards
John B is an old friend
It's good stuff
You should read it
You are lowering your standards
John B is an old friend
It's good stuff
You should read it
gez
pfm Member
Also, I'm really confused how people can refute that some dog breeds are inherently more aggressive than others. Should I presume those people do not believe that a captive born Tiger or Leopard, raised and well treated by humans it's entire life, is any more danger to humans than a Burmese Cat?
les24preludes
pfm Member
I have standards? I play a lot of standards, but that's something else....
Ah - so JB is a friend. That must be a very interesting friendship. Looks like a good guy.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Rockmeister
pfm Member
We sing together. I've known him 50 years and more, but his academic abilities were taken further than mine
I did Art, he did degrees at the best universities. Now he plays guitar and 10 other instruments and i sing.
narabdela
who?
les24preludes
pfm Member
This thread is like trying to row the Queen Mary through an ocean of Mars bars...... I'm exhausted already. I think we need more fluffy dog pictures for light relief.
I was really touched by George J's recent post. Such genuine love and affection. It really touched me. The best post by far. Thank you George.
I was really touched by George J's recent post. Such genuine love and affection. It really touched me. The best post by far. Thank you George.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I think the problem is that the pro-dog side’s argument is being mischaracterised by the antis. Some of that is probably inadvertent, some I’m not so sure about, but I don’t think there’s wild disagreement, except on the part of a couple of hard line anti dog posters. It does make having a sensible and illuminating argument more difficult.
gez
pfm Member
Just to clarify my own position here:
Dog's aren't my favorite animals, I wouldn't have one as a pet personally. But I'm not anti-dog. I don't believe all dogs should be banned. I just seriously question the rationale behind allowing humans to own animals that are large and strong enough to cause serious harm to human beings* (for whatever reasons). I question that rationale irrespective of if it could be made possible to own one and train it such that it never did harm a human being (and even if all humans could be forced to do so). I just don't see the requirement for such large animals as pets in our modern society. Given that that is how I see things, I just can't even start to comprehend why any person would want to own a large strong dog, that is of a known aggressive temprament by breeding. Thus it evidently follows that I believe such breeds should be banned.
*that goes for any animal, not just dogs.
Dog's aren't my favorite animals, I wouldn't have one as a pet personally. But I'm not anti-dog. I don't believe all dogs should be banned. I just seriously question the rationale behind allowing humans to own animals that are large and strong enough to cause serious harm to human beings* (for whatever reasons). I question that rationale irrespective of if it could be made possible to own one and train it such that it never did harm a human being (and even if all humans could be forced to do so). I just don't see the requirement for such large animals as pets in our modern society. Given that that is how I see things, I just can't even start to comprehend why any person would want to own a large strong dog, that is of a known aggressive temprament by breeding. Thus it evidently follows that I believe such breeds should be banned.
*that goes for any animal, not just dogs.