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

[Seeker_UK]

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?

That's a false equivalence because because the tiger and leopard are still a wild animals and subject to wild animal instincts, the dog is domesticated and that's different - the result of generations of behavioural change. That said, I wouldn't go near a feral moggy, which shows how quickly domestication can be reversed.

Domestication - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[gez]

That's a false equivalence because because the tiger and leopard are still a wild animals and subject to wild animal instincts, the dog is domesticated and that's different - the result of generations of behavioural change. That said, I wouldn't go near a feral moggy, which shows how quickly domestication can be reversed.

Domestication - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So you believe instinct has been bred out of dogs? I'm not convinced by that argument. I'm not sure how one could define "wild" instinct as distinct from "domesticated" instinct. It's my understanding that dog instinct hasn't changed at all, we've just become part of their pack.

 

[Joe P]

Generations of selective breeding have undisputedly changed dogs. That doesn't mean they can't be aggressive but to argue their behaviour is unchanged from the wild wolf-like canid they once were is just not true.

Habituation ≠ domestication

Joe

 

[oldius]

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.

The legal complexity of banning breeds creates a minefield, not least because we do not have the manpower nor resources to police our streets.
I walk my two dogs, both rescued bull-breeds, with a large Rhodesian Ridgeback, a Spanish Mastiff, and a Rottweiler. The smallest of the three weighs about 50kg. None of these dogs is aggressive, but they are large and could easily do a lot of damage in the hands of the wrong owner, or in an unpredicted situation. I could easily cross any of these dogs with any other large-powerful dog. I also walk with two Dogue de Bordeaux males. Each is more than 70kg. A mix of any of these animals creates a new, non-banned animal of serious power, making any breed-specific legislation defunct. In a world of people killing kids for control of drug territory, people think nothing of selling a dog for cash to anyone who has the readies; home inspections are not necessary!

The only solution is to invoke cultural change that turns owning large, powerful dogs in to something unappealing. That is a long, long way away.

I don't think anyone here thinks that there is not a problem. Experienced dog owners here know that ownership is a huge responsibility, and one, unfortunately, beyond many who may choose an inappropriate dog. That doesn't mean that they do not think that there is a problem to be dealt with, but more that they recognise the reality of dealing with this situation legally, and competently.

 

[Seeker_UK]

So you believe instinct has been bred out of dogs? I'm not convinced by that argument. I'm not sure how one could define "wild" instinct as distinct from "domesticated" instinct. It's my understanding that dog instinct hasn't changed at all, we've just become part of their pack.

The Effect of Domestication and Experience on the Social Interaction of Dogs and Wolves With a Human Companion

The results of current wolf-dog studies on human-directed behaviors seem to suggest that domestication has acted on dogs’ general attitudes and not on specific socio-cognitive skills. A recent hypothesis suggests that domestication may have increased ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"...dogs display less aggression and avoidance toward humans than human-socialized wolves (Gácsi et al., 2005) and a higher tendency to seek human social contact (Frank and Frank, 1982b). Moreover, two studies suggested that contrary to wolves (Topál et al., 2005), dogs develop attachment to their owners thereby using them as a ‘safe haven’ in dangerous situations (Gácsi et al., 2013). However, more recent studies showed that wolf puppies also form attachment bonds to humans (Hall et al., 2015; Wheat et al., 2020), although the social bond established between the wolf and the caregiver is not as easily generalizable to other humans as it is in dogs (Gácsi et al., 2005)."

But has shown them to be more aggressive towards other dogs in their social group.

The "mean wolf to friendly dog" domestication story might be wrong

The story of dog domestication is one of converting the wild wolf into man's nicer, smarter, best friend. It might be all wrong.

bigthink.com

 

[Woodface]

Introduce a dog license at £1000, dogs to be chipped, any not with the correct paperwork get put down. Too many dogs in this country.

 

[mikeyb]

just you wait for the nano-bully to emerge.

They're on here already

 

[Tarzan]

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.

This is the very reason they need 'job' ( being both mentally and physically stimulated) and brought up properly, perhaps potential owners may need Vetting prior to purchase- although that is not going to happen.

 

[Barrymagrec]

This is the very reason they need 'job' ( being both mentally and physically stimulated) and brought up properly, perhaps potential owners may need Vetting prior to purchase- although that is not going to happen.

At least if they were Vetted it would sort the problem for the next generation.

 

[PaulMB]

The other day a man out walking in the woods north of Rome was killed, actually torn to pieces, by three Rottweilers that broke out of a nearby house.

 

[les24preludes]

At least if they were Vetted it would sort the problem for the next generation.

No it wouldn't. Yes, ban owners responsible for attacks for life from owning dogs. But that only deals with existing attacks, not the potential for new attacks. You can't predict human behaviour by any reliable method, and accidents will happen. That's half of a 2 part approach to a problem which is increasingly in need of a solution.

The other part is banning the most dangerous types of dogs that are responsibly for deadly and maiming attacks. Ok - it's imperfect, there are cross breeds etc etc. But even if it's imperfect, and inevitably there will be a dog-owner lobby saying "my Rottweiler/Bully XL/other wouldn't harm a flea" there just isn't another way to deal with this problem. Why do we not read reports saying "man torn into pieces by a pack of corgis/chihuahuas? If nobody is prepared to take action the attacks will just go on and on, and that is just unacceptable.

 

[Barrymagrec]

No it wouldn't. Yes, ban owners responsible for attacks for life from owning dogs. But that only deals with existing attacks, not the potential for new attacks. You can't predict human behaviour by any reliable method, and accidents will happen. That's half of a 2 part approach to a problem which is increasingly in need of a solution.

The other part is banning the most dangerous types of dogs that are responsibly for deadly and maiming attacks. Ok - it's imperfect, there are cross breeds etc etc. But even if it's imperfect, and inevitably there will be a dog-owner lobby saying "my Rottweiler/Bully XL/other wouldn't harm a flea" there just isn't another way to deal with this problem. Why do we not read reports saying "man torn into pieces by a pack of corgis/chihuahuas? If nobody is prepared to take action the attacks will just go on and on, and that is just unacceptable.

You misunderstand my use of the term "Vetted".

 

[les24preludes]

You misunderstand my use of the term "Vetted".

Ah - sorry about that. I'm not a dog owner. I see what you were saying.

 

[oldius]

No it wouldn't. Yes, ban owners responsible for attacks for life from owning dogs. But that only deals with existing attacks, not the potential for new attacks. You can't predict human behaviour by any reliable method, and accidents will happen. That's half of a 2 part approach to a problem which is increasingly in need of a solution.

The other part is banning the most dangerous types of dogs that are responsibly for deadly and maiming attacks. Ok - it's imperfect, there are cross breeds etc etc. But even if it's imperfect, and inevitably there will be a dog-owner lobby saying "my Rottweiler/Bully XL/other wouldn't harm a flea" there just isn't another way to deal with this problem. Why do we not read reports saying "man torn into pieces by a pack of corgis/chihuahuas? If nobody is prepared to take action the attacks will just go on and on, and that is just unacceptable.

Presa Canario, Cane Corso and Borboel and Caucasian Shepherds are not responsible for any attacks (without research) because of their rarity.
As I said, banning breeds will fail: too many, too varied, new breeds created, unscrupulous breeders, lack of manpower and resource, demand.

 

[les24preludes]

Presa Canario, Cane Corso and Borboel and Caucasian Shepherds are not responsible for any attacks (without research) because of their rarity.
As I said, banning breeds will fail: too many, too varied, new breeds created, unscrupulous breeders, lack of manpower and resource, demand.

It's imperfect but it won't "fail". This isn't a situation where something 100% works or doesn't work. It's not mathematics. Banning dangerous breeds will have a "significant effect" by taking out of circulation the worst offenders. And of course the list of dangerous breeds will be continually updated, as is done with Class A drugs. Those who know dog breeds well such as yourself would advise. Isn't that what's happening already? Nobody is saying there's an easy solution to this, or a solution that will please everybody.

 

[cooky1257]

Ban dogs according to bite force.

 

[oldius]

It's imperfect but it won't "fail". This isn't a situation where something 100% works or doesn't work. It's not mathematics. Banning dangerous breeds will have a "significant effect" by taking out of circulation the worst offenders. And of course the list of dangerous breeds will be continually updated, as is done with Class A drugs. Those who know dog breeds well such as yourself would advise. Isn't that what's happening already? Nobody is saying there's an easy solution to this, or a solution that will please everybody.

It absolutely will fail without education and manpower. We cannot respond to burglaries, let alone police parks and recreational spaces to analyse dog breeds. The only solution, to me, is to create a lack of demand for large, powerful breeds. That is changing thousands of years of human culture. I am not saying that it is unnecessary, in fact I am saying that it is, but I believe that breed legislation alone is doomed to fail because demand is virulent, driven by social media, and supply is often immoral and inconsiderate.

 

[oldius]

Ban dogs according to bite force.

Again, any ban requires a level of manpower that the nation is 'unwilling' to provide.
You could have a bite-force measured by recognised breed, and breeds above a bite-force level would therefore be banned. As I have said, the creation of new breeds just negates the workability of that.

 

[les24preludes]

I believe that breed legislation alone is doomed to fail because demand is virulent, driven by social media, and supply is often immoral and inconsiderate.

All true, but breed legislation will partly succeed, as is the case with burglaries, drugs and all the other offences against people.

"The 1991 Dangerous Dog Act bans owning, breeding, selling, giving away, or abandoning four dog breeds, as well as banning any dog which is dangerously out of control. This legislation makes four breeds of dog originally bred for fighting illegal in the UK - American Pitbull terriers, Japanese Tosas, Dogo Argentinos, and Fila Brazileiro. Crossbreeds of those four are also prohibited, depending on a judgement of their physical characteristics and how well they match a 'typical' description."

This act is 33 years old. So isn't it first of all a case of updating the legislation to account for new breeds? And closing the existing loopholes in the legislation?

 

[oldius]

All true, but breed legislation will partly succeed, as is the case with burglaries, drugs and all the other offences against people.

"The 1991 Dangerous Dog Act bans owning, breeding, selling, giving away, or abandoning four dog breeds, as well as banning any dog which is dangerously out of control. This legislation makes four breeds of dog originally bred for fighting illegal in the UK - American Pitbull terriers, Japanese Tosas, Dogo Argentinos, and Fila Brazileiro. Crossbreeds of those four are also prohibited, depending on a judgement of their physical characteristics and how well they match a 'typical' description."

This act is 33 years old. So isn't it first of all a case of updating the legislation to account for new breeds? And closing the existing loopholes in the legislation?

The XL Bully is a cross-breed of the American Pitbull, in a perfect example of why the legislation will fail, and has in this particular case. The XL was, by definition, already a banned breed, but has required secondary legislation.