advertisement


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

oldius said:
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.
Click to expand...
My reasoning is it transcends breed or crossbreed or new breed but yes it requires manpower to police from the outset however it bypasses any breed identification requirement should a dog be found out of control- sod the dna just measure the bite.
 
Seeker_UK said:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

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 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.
bigthink.com

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 bigthink.com
Click to expand...
That's very interesting, but is there actual evidence that that dog behaviour is the result of "domestication"? How do we know that that isn't how dogs have always behaved towards man from day one? That's a modern study, and in being so doesn't prove that the dog behavior is the result of dogs relationship with man. In order to prove that one would have to show irrefutably that dogs millenia ago when humans first started to interact with them, didn't also display the same traits as dogs today.

Dogs were first domesticated nearly 30,000 years ago, "man" back then hardly had any grasp/knowlege of modern animal training techniques they certainly had no concept of animal psychology etc. I find it a stretch to believe that humans have fundamentally changed dog behaviour through domestication. Ask yourself: why is it that dogs were ever amenable to forming a relationship with man in the first place? My answer would be because they accepted us as part of their pack from day one*, and so their relationship with humans has ever thus been how it's described in your post. No change has occurred due to any form of "domestication". So the concept of "domestic" instinct and "wild" instinct is non sensical. There are just animals that are by their nature (their own social structures) more likely to form bonds with humans than others. It's just that simple. It's not a case of being "wild" or "domestic" animals.

*As is exactly the case today and the whole reason why some individual dogs are more of a problem than others, because the human hasn't successfully achieved dominance as pack leader. A dog that believes it's dominant in the relationship will always be a difficult dog.
 
Joe P said:
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
Click to expand...
Fair point, I admit I'd neglected to consider that aspect. However it would seem that we're set on deliberately undoing that passification through selective breeding when it comes to the breeds in question. Which just adds further support for the argument that such breeds should be banned.

NB: I totally accept and acknowledge the difficulties that poses as per Oldius's post.
 
oldius said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that it's not failing. At least not unless you only claim success by virtue of there being zero attacks. I think it's pretty safe to presume that the number of attacks on humans has been siginficantly reduced and many lives have been saved by the introduction of the dangerous dogs acts.

Legislation may be impossible to 100% enforce, that doesn't make it a failure.. We have laws against murder, rape and lots of other things, do people argue those laws are failures because people still murder and rape? Imagine a world where those things aren't crimes. That's not a world I want to live in.
 
gez said:
I'd argue that it's not failing. At least not unless you only claim success by virtue of there being zero attacks. I think it's pretty safe to presume that the number of attacks on humans has been significantly reduced and many lives have been saved by the introduction of the dangerous dogs acts. Legislation may be impossible to 100% enforce, that doesn't make it a failure.. We have laws against murder, rape and lots of other things, do people argue those laws are failures because people still murder and rape? Imagine a world where those things aren't crimes. That's not a world I want to live in.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Perhaps we could legislate to the effect that a powerful dog can be considered a weapon, thus an aggravating factor in the event of an attack. People can have powerful dogs if under control, in the same way that a chef can carry knives in the street, because they have a reasonable excuse. But having a powerful dog for reasons of status, protection or intimidating others, could be treated similarly to being in possession of an offensive weapon.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Perhaps we could legislate to the effect that a powerful dog can be considered a weapon, thus an aggravating factor in the event of an attack. People can have powerful dogs if under control, in the same way that a chef can carry knives in the street, because they have a reasonable excuse. But having a powerful dog for reasons of status, protection or intimidating others, could be treated similarly to being in possession of an offensive weapon.
Click to expand...
Whilst I agree that would be as step forward, it's not clear to me that it would be much of a prevantative measure on it's own. Irrespective however, I would definitely get behind any such legislation no matter what else was done.

NB: Are we sure it's not already the case? if not explicity but by some other mechanism in law? Still an explicit law would still be better IMO.
 
gez said:
I'd argue that it's not failing. At least not unless you only claim success by virtue of there being zero attacks. I think it's pretty safe to presume that the number of attacks on humans has been siginficantly reduced and many lives have been saved by the introduction of the dangerous dogs acts.

Legislation may be impossible to 100% enforce, that doesn't make it a failure.. We have laws against murder, rape and lots of other things, do people argue those laws are failures because people still murder and rape? Imagine a world where those things aren't crimes. That's not a world I want to live in.
Click to expand...
Good point. In this case I argue that it failed because a breed that was already banned came into the country and was involved in multiple attacks, and the government did not simply quote and deliver on the existing legislation, rather seeking to gain PR advantage.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
People can have powerful dogs if under control, in the same way that a chef can carry knives in the street, because they have a reasonable excuse. But having a powerful dog for reasons of status, protection or intimidating others, could be treated similarly to being in possession of an offensive weapon.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with that - "under control" is too vague, and doesn't allow for accidents like dogs escaping from a secure area. And establishing that an owner chooses a breed "for reasons of status" is again too vague and unworkable. I see these as loopholes designed to appease the dog owners lobby. My view is that these loopholes should be closed. A ban is a ban. Dog owners who enjoy more dangerous breeds may protest, but so be it. The law needs strengthening in view of the number of attacks and the increasing proliferation of dangerous dogs.

Also to refer back to a previous post, I don't see a binary of dog lovers or dog haters. There are a number of people, me included, that are just indifferent to pets or animals in general. I've personally enjoyed playing with dogs but I wouldn't want to own one. My parents told me that I was frightened by a dog as a child, and that probably still remains as an anxiety about potential dog attacks, which must be an absolutely terrifying ordeal for anybody unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
les24preludes said:
I can't agree with that - "under control" is too vague, and doesn't allow for accidents like dogs escaping from a secure area. And establishing that an owner chooses a breed "for reasons of status" is again too vague and unworkable. I see these as loopholes designed to appease the dog owners lobby. My view is that these loopholes should be closed. A ban is a ban. Dog owners who enjoy more dangerous breeds may protest, but so be it. The law needs strengthening in view of the number of attacks and the increasing proliferation of dangerous dogs.

Also to refer back to a previous post, I don't see a binary of dog lovers or dog haters. There are a number of people, me included, that are just indifferent to pets or animals in general. I've personally enjoyed playing with dogs but I wouldn't want to own one. My parents told me that I was frightened by a dog as a child, and that probably still remains as an anxiety about potential dog attacks, which must be an absolutely terrifying ordeal for anybody unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Click to expand...
You must hate the use of the word "reasonable" that pops up in practically every bit of criminal legislation then. Unfortunately Law is very frequently littered with wordage that is open to debate about meaning. That's why we have an entire industry/profession around law. If laws were irrefutable in their exact meaning, most Solicitors/Baristers etc would cease to exist.
 
gez said:
You must hate the use of the word "reasonable" that pops up in practically every bit of criminal legislation then. Unfortunately Law is very frequently littered with wordage that is open to debate about meaning. That's why we have an entire industry/profession around law. If laws were irrefutable in their exact meaning, most Solicitors/Baristers etc would cease to exist.
Click to expand...

I've been asking myself why I'm contributing to this thread at all, since I've never owned a dog and I'm not even interested in dogs, or cats either. And when I think about it, as I have been doing, I can see it's because dangerous dog breeds make me anxious. I see them in parks at times, and when I walk past them I start feeling anxious and worried. Evidently whatever dog incident that frightened me as a child is still in my brain. So yes - I don't want to have to walk past scary dogs in public places.

When you talk about "reasonable" it's not a word that applies to anxieties, phobias and other such fears. Anxieties and phobias aren't "reasonable", but they are strong forces in human nature nevertheless. Maybe even genetic. Why do we fear mice, spiders, snakes and creepy crawly things? Something in our brains obviously signals danger.
 
gez said:
Unfortunately Law is very frequently littered with wordage that is open to debate about meaning. That's why we have an entire industry/profession around law. If laws were irrefutable in their exact meaning, most Solicitors/Baristers etc would cease to exist
Click to expand...
Can't wait for AI to sort that out.
😕
 
gintonic said:
what about weaponised hornets or killer bees?
Click to expand...

I'm not very keen on sharks. Or even crabs - I used to be afraid of paddling in the sea in case a crab would bite my toes.

I'm obviously a bit of a fruitcake when it comes to animals......

Vegetables and fruit...? Now those I do like. My mothers family had a wholesale vegetable business.

 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Perhaps we could legislate to the effect that a powerful dog can be considered a weapon, thus an aggravating factor in the event of an attack. People can have powerful dogs if under control, in the same way that a chef can carry knives in the street, because they have a reasonable excuse. But having a powerful dog for reasons of status, protection or intimidating others, could be treated similarly to being in possession of an offensive weapon.
Click to expand...
A multi-millionaire who was a regular at my local had a personal protection dog (which he boasted cost, with training, £15k). He demonstrated he could command that dog to do many things except one he could not demonstrate which was the attack command. The dog was under perfect control but was also a weapon.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Perhaps we could legislate to the effect that a powerful dog can be considered a weapon, thus an aggravating factor in the event of an attack. People can have powerful dogs if under control, in the same way that a chef can carry knives in the street, because they have a reasonable excuse. But having a powerful dog for reasons of status, protection or intimidating others, could be treated similarly to being in possession of an offensive weapon.
Click to expand...

I would change the emphasis to holding an owner criminally responsible for the actions of the dog. Your dog kills someone, you're going to prison for (at least) manslaughter.
 
One of my daughter's is a bit scared of XL Bullies and dreamt one had hold of her foot and didn't let go. I'm importing a container ship full of African Wild Dogs, Wolves and the odd Hyena. I'm taking back control. Of Greenwich Park.

Woodface said:
Perhaps a one dog per household maximum?
Click to expand...
How Chinese, and absurd. Happy with one cat per street though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top