Dogs

[Mullardman]

Do we know the circumstances that led to the dog attacking the child?

Not in any detail. Best I know is the dog and child were in a garden.

Not the point though as I keep trying to get the 'dogs can do no wrong' brigade to grasp. The point is, it happened. Clearly for some reason it was, or became, an unsafe situation.

If the child had been injured by an unsafe garden wall, or a piece of dangerous machinery, questions would be asked. But because it's a Dog.. the apologists are still desperately trying to find any excuse or diversion they can rather than face up to the fact that Dogs can be and frequently are dangerous.

We need chipping of all dogs.

We need a renewed and effective Licensing system.

We need training for both Dogs and owners.

All above as a minimum.

Mull

 

[Mullardman]

Why do you repeatedly troll a thread about dogs and their unsavoury habits?

Jeez! That is priceless! How much more unsavoury can a Dog get than killing somebody, or ripping a child's face off?

If it troubles you so much, for which I do not for one second believe,

Oh right. So not content with accusing me of trolling by discussing the really unsavoury habits of Dogs in a thread about the unsavoury habits of Dogs, you are now also calling me a liar?

have some guts and start your own thread.

Not really necessary though is it. This thread is about Dogs. We just need for you and the rest of the 'dogs are perfect' brigade to acknowledge that there is a problem.

All rather sad really, this failure to tackle an obsession.

All rather sad really, this failure to recognise a problem.

Do you not grasp the monumental arrogance being portrayed by the dog owning fraternity in this thread. You are all in denial.

Mull

 

[Seeker_UK]

Not in any detail. Best I know is the dog and child were in a garden.

Not the point though as I keep trying to get the 'dogs can do no wrong' brigade to grasp. The point is, it happened. Clearly for some reason it was, or became, an unsafe situation.

If the child had been injured by an unsafe garden wall, or a piece of dangerous machinery, questions would be asked. But because it's a Dog.. the apologists are still desperately trying to find any excuse or diversion they can rather than face up to the fact that Dogs can be and frequently are dangerous.

So it may be just as likely that the child hasn't been trained in how to approach a dog. Yes, dogs can turn, but if a child learns how to behave near them, the risk is mitigated to some degree.

We need chipping of all dogs.

Won't stop the worst type of owners from having unchipped dogs.
Won't stop dogs biting people.

We need a renewed and effective Licensing system.

Won't stop the worst type of owners from having unlicensed dogs.
Won't stop dogs biting people.

We need training for both Dogs and owners.

Agreed but include training for everyone on how to interact with dogs. Everyone should take some responsibility. We teach people to be safe by roads and rivers so why not animals?

 

[Gaius]

We do teach people to be safe and act in a responsible fashion on the roads yet everyday you will encounter an arsehole who is arrogant enough to think he or she knows better.

In the main,how a dog behaves is down to it's environment.

 

[Mullardman]

So it may be just as likely that the child hasn't been trained in how to approach a dog.

It is undeniably a possibility. But whose responsibility should that be? And surely it is the responsibility of the Dog owner, on their own property, to ensure that visitors (not intruders) are safe?

Yes, dogs can turn

,

Thank the Lord somebody finally admits it!

but if a child learns how to behave near them, the risk is mitigated to some degree.

Possibly, but is it fair to put this responsibility on the child? I wouldn't leave any child of mine in such a potentially lethal situation.

Won't stop the worst type of owners from having unchipped dogs.

True, but proper sanctions will.

Won't stop dogs biting people.

True. But the fewer dogs, the fewer bites. I firmly believe that there are far too many dogs because Dog ownership is far too casual.



Won't stop the worst type of owners from having unlicensed dogs.
Won't stop dogs biting people.

Agreed but include training for everyone on how to interact with dogs. Everyone should take some responsibility. We teach people to be safe by roads and rivers so why not animals?

Roads and rivers are pretty much unavoidable. Farm animals likewise. Dogs are largely optional and as such, like many weapons used for leisure (Guns, Bows, Crossbows etc.) demand extra care and probalby licencing on the part of the owners.

Mull

 

[Gaius]

Mull, do you want to shoot all the dogs just to rule out the rouge ones?

 

[Mullardman]

Yet another dumb and misrepresenting post.

I have neither said nor implied such a thing.

Once more.. with feeling...

I want dog owners.. even the 'responsible' ones, to admit that even one death by Dog maulng is too many, to accept that there is a problem, and to contribute to finding a solution.

 

[Seeker_UK]

Possibly, but is it fair to put this responsibility on the child?

That's not what I said. EVERYONE has an obligation to ensure safety: owners and parents alike. We teach children to not play on the road and a multitude of other things so they stay safe, we should do the same and teach them that the way to approach a dog is to not to assume it's friendly, scream "DOGGY!" and run towards it for hugs.

Mrs Seeker told her kids to be even wary of their own dog. She can do it, so can everyone else.

I wouldn't leave any child of mine in such a potentially lethal situation.

Me neither but I'd ensure any child knows how to be safe if they do find themselves in that situation.

 

[Gaius]

The thing is; you can't recognise a bad dog on sight, just like you can't a person.

I agree owners should carry the brunt, be responsible and loving to their pets, give them a good home.

Animals will strike out when they are abused and that is predictable, that is down to the human element.

Like many things in life though, unpredictable things happen, everyday.

I don't know if you can plan for that, lest stop it.

 

[Mullardman]

Poor, sad man. Take an aspirin, you'll feel better in the morning.

If I thought you had anything of worth to say. I'd be annoyed.

You've now not only falsely accused me of lying and trolling, but also breached the AUP.

 

[Mullardman]

That's not what I said. EVERYONE has an obligation to ensure safety: owners and parents alike. We teach children to not play on the road and a multitude of other things so they stay safe, we should do the same and teach them that the way to approach a dog is to not to assume it's friendly, scream "DOGGY!" and run towards it for hugs.

Mrs Seeker told her kids to be even wary of their own dog. She can do it, so can everyone else.



Me neither but I'd ensure any child knows how to be safe if they do find themselves in that situation.

It's a difficult one, because I wouldn't want kids to fear dogs. I do agree that kids shouldn't assume dogs are friendly, or even consistent.

 

[Minstrel SE]

Dogs....A cyclists best friend!

 

[Seeker_UK]

It's a difficult one, because I wouldn't want kids to fear dogs. I do agree that kids shouldn't assume dogs are friendly, or even consistent.

Not "fear", "respect".

 

[Mullardman]

Not "fear", "respect".

Yep. I can dig that. I think we're making progress.

Mull

 

[Markus S]

Poor, sad man. Take an aspirin, you'll feel better in the morning.

Avole,

I advise you to take to heart what Tony said in the Gaza thread about hitting the ball and not the player or you may soon have more time for walking your dog.

Markus - moderating

 

[avole]

Sorry, but I think this is a pointless discussion led by someone who is obsessed for whatever reason with a relatively unimportant issue, a crank in other words.

It is a ridiculous viewpoint, especially given what else is happening in the world, so the only logical thing to to is to treat it as such If you as moderator don't see that, then its your problem, not mine.

 

[Barrymagrec]

Mull, do you want to shoot all the dogs just to rule out the rouge ones?

Well, I`d certainly never trust a dog that used red make-up.

 

[Gaius]

Well, I`d certainly never trust a dog that used red make-up.

Darn auto spell thingy!

That made me laugh though.

 

[Mullardman]

Sorry, but I think this is a pointless discussion led by someone who is obsessed for whatever reason with a relatively unimportant issue, a crank in other words.

'Troll', 'Liar', 'Sad man'. And now 'Crank' and 'Obsessive'?

Having dug oneself into a hole, the standard advice would be to stop digging.

It is a ridiculous viewpoint,

It is a valid viewpoint.

especially given what else is happening in the world,

This 'logic' espoused by you and others in your attempt to deflect from, or belittle my views, is what is ridiculous.

By your logic, we would never investigate a murder, because it was 'statistically insignificant' cf. road deaths or whatever.

so the only logical thing to to is to treat it as such If you as moderator don't see that, then its your problem, not mine.

I would venture that Markus is not entering into the rights and wrongs of the debte. He is simply pointing out that you are trying to use insult, ridicule and other AUP breaches in order to try to negate my arguments.

I'd say he's right.

So now. Would you like to put forward the logic, within the discrete topic of Dogs ( I.E. not in the context of famine, world war pestilence etc.) which allows you to casually dismiss death and injury by Dog attack as 'relatively unimportant'?

Mull

 

[Mullardman]

Darn auto spell thingy!

That made me laugh though.

Must admit I didn't pick you up at first because I didn't see the anagram and assumed your 'rouge' to be some sort of trendy new usage.

Mull