advertisement


Dogs

Cheese said:
A six year old boy bitten to death by three dogs, their owner escaping with a fine of approximately £500 despite showing little remorse, and the subsequent political uproar bearing practically no result (nationwide but non-compulsory courses for dog owners). That happened a few years ago but I still get mad at the thought.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree that the owner's of dogs involved in an attack should, subject to the circumstances of course, face appropriate penalty. The law has recently been changed in the UK in this regard and rightly so. However many dog breeds can do damage. To a large extent the breed isn't the issue and the vilification of a short list of breeds unhelpful.

For the record - dogs bred for fighting (other dogs) in England were not bred to be aggressive towards humans.
 
Cheese said:
There are more accidents with, say, German Shepherds, but the wounds inflicted by pit bull breeds are often much worse - because they have the nasty habit of letting loose far later than other breeds.

It so happens that they do, and when it's a poodle it's bad enough. With dangerous breeds it is much worse, and some people will continue owning them until such animals get banned. Sorry for those breeds but the life of a six year old boy is more important, end of.

A funny way to see things - how many deaths from dog attacks do you deem acceptable then ?

Some dogs are certainly very useful, but do pit bull breeds save any lives at all ?
Click to expand...
I'd be interested to understand where you get your information from. It appears to be the standard misinformation as published in popular newspapers.
 
Cheese said:
Which one of my four points do you mean in particular ?
Click to expand...
sorry, things like this: "the wounds inflicted by pit bull breeds are often much worse - because they have the nasty habit of letting loose far later than other breeds."

My point is that how a dog behaves around people will be largely to do with how the owner has treated it, not by its breed. It's only in recent years that "pit bull" type dogs have been perceived as dangerous to people. Historically not the case at all, in fact the opposite.
 
Mullardman said:
More importantly, I raised the very real issue of deaths from dog attacks, yet even you are diminishing the issue by quoting other issues. Those you raise are of course very real and of concern to all right thinking people, but this thread is about dogs.
Click to expand...

I think 17 deaths to dogs a year is about right.

Because if I worried about 17 death of kids a year to dogs, I would be overlooking something more important. Like death via suicide to bullying, which claims about 4,400 a year.

Yes 17-ish dog mauls is bad, one-ish death a year is bad, but I stack things in an order of things I will get to, one that places higher numbers of death that are stoppable above much, much lower numbers of death that are, frankly below the level of being able to reliably stop. Some basic high number deaths you need to sort out first before you can get to building utopia.

Well, that's the way I see it. You see it differently, so I tell you what, you work out a solution to dog mauling deaths, I'll work on stopping child suicides because kids are taunted for liking ponies and we can all work on shit we find important (pun not intended), spread the workload a bit.
 
Greg said:
apparently 27 deaths since 2006, so average 3.38 per year.

Of the 27, 2 were killed by dogs deemed as "pit bull" type.

"American bulldogs, Rottweilers and various breeds of mastiff were responsible for the most fatalities." None of which are banned breeds.

Source: http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-facts-dog-attacks/17727
Click to expand...

If, as the blog states, "American bulldogs, Rottweilers and various breeds of mastiff were responsible for the most fatalities", it seems there could actually be a predisposition of certain breeds toward potentially fatal attack. This doesn't exactly jive with the Woodhouseian "no bad dogs" mantra being chanted here.

My point is that you state "how a dog behaves around people will be largely to do with how the owner has treated it, not by its breed". So, take a cross section of breeds at random and subject them all to the same terrible owner treatment (this is a thought experiment by the way, I'm not suggesting or condoning the abuse of animals). Say your sample has a Pit Bull, a Rottweiler, a Labrador, a Vizsla, a Weimaraner, and a Standard Poodle - all sufficiently large to inflict deadly damage, I would think. Which dogs become killers? Repeat the experiment a thousand times - do you expect equal numbers of killer Labradors as killer Pit Bulls?

Different dog breeds have different temperaments; it's one of the reasons we have so many breeds in the first place. I haven't done the experiment, but I would expect that some breeds, because of their temperament, are more prone to potential violence as a result of poor treatment than other breeds are. This doesn't mean all Pit Bulls are killers, just as having a certain genotype doesn't doom all adolescents to violent behavior. But I can't accept that breed is not a factor.
 
kasperhauser said:
If, as the blog states, "American bulldogs, Rottweilers and various breeds of mastiff were responsible for the most fatalities", it seems there could actually be a predisposition of certain breeds toward potentially fatal attack. This doesn't exactly jive with the Woodhouseian "no bad dogs" mantra being chanted here.
Click to expand...


Or a proclivity towards macho dogs amongst irresponsible dick heads.

There are no doubt some difficult dogs out there, and breeds do indeed have different temperaments. The point is, the owner is responsible. Always.
 
Bradders said:
Or a proclivity towards macho dogs amongst irresponsible dick heads.



There are no doubt some difficult dogs out there, and breeds do indeed have different temperaments. The point is, the owner is responsible. Always.
Click to expand...
I fully agree. If knob heads tended to have Labradors then I'm sure that breed would feature prominently.
 
Greg said:
I fully agree. If knob heads tended to have Labradors then I'm sure that breed would feature prominently.
Click to expand...


In which case, Bradders' kangaroo court says case closed.

Now, what does everyone think about dog shit?

It's terrible, no?
 
Bradders said:
Or a proclivity towards macho dogs amongst irresponsible dick heads.
Click to expand...
Is "macho dogs" code for breeds predisposed to respond violently if conditioned to do so? If so, seems we are more or less in agreement on the whole dog thing.

But since you brought up kangaroos - what belligerent bastages they are. Every one a stone killah.
 
kasperhauser said:
Is "macho dogs" code for breeds predisposed to respond violently if conditioned to do so? If so, seems we are more or less in agreement on the whole dog thing.

But since you brought up kangaroos - what belligerent bastages they are. Every one a stone killah.
Click to expand...


By "macho dogs", I mean dogs that look tough, which if handled incorrectly & irresponsibly will be a menace.

By "dick heads" I mean people who can't control, or take responsibility for their dogs.

I think we're more or less in agreement. Especially with regards to kangaroos - all evil swines, with or without boxing gloves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top