How many more times ?

Oh, me too, without a doubt.

It infuriates me.

There is a one bed flat near me, with the young woman and her daughter in it, her boyfriend and his son, plus his three children from a previous relationship staying almost all of the time.

Add in two cats, frequent, noisy visitors, then they get a staffie to throw into the mix!!!

Fewer people had dogs and owning a large fierce dog, like the fashion for the, now banned, XL Bully was not prevalent.

Generally people had dogs that suited their circumstances, and of course dogs were often left to run out all day, so got plenty of exercise. I am convinced tha many of the problems that rise currently are caused by having oversized dogs in modern small houses and flats and not giving them enough exercise.

Are dog attacks more prevalent today, or is it just that we hear about them more?

When I was a child, dogs fitted in with families- often taking themselves off for a walk, and knocking when they arrived home again.

A robust licensing and chipping service would require considerable government expenditure and the cost of employing enough dog wardens to really ensure all dogs were licensed and chipped would be very difficult, if not impossible.

Putting the onus on the dog suppliers to ensure every dog they sell is chipped - and the information on the chip should include the dog breeders details - and home checked on, would be much cheaper and while it could not stop all abuses of the system. If there was an incident involving a dog, the chip would give details of the breeder and they could be checked on to see if they had done all te necessary checks (they should have to keep recprds). If there is no chip the owner would be penalised for botht he incident aand the lack of a chip.

No system will be perfect, but the pursuitof perfection should not lead us to ignore the best practical solution.

Why shouldn't dog breeders have to do the same and be liable to prosecution if they are found to be negligent.

Who is going to report them and pay to prosecute them? See my last post, a robust licensing and chipping system is needed to provide enough income to pay for and enforce all this.

If you get an animal, cat or dog, from a rescue charity they always check on living conditions, in many cases they visit the house.

Why shouldn't dog breeders have to do the same and be liable to prosecution if they are found to be negligent.

melp1 The answer to the problem begins with a robust licensing and chipping system which provides enough income to employ dog wardens, enforce the rules and keep people safe. With 11 million dogs in the country I think that is a must.

I really don't know what the answer is to the problem. Perhaps all the owners that have registered should be checked to ensure the home/garden is secure and they have a well trained dog, but I guess these will all be the responsible owners.
The fault is with the irresponsible breeders that were just out to make money and didn't care where the pups went. Awful that so many were put to sleep and I'm sure many were not dangerous. The list of dogs that have bitten owners in the last 5 years:
Japanese Akitas
Malamute Huskies
Greyhounds
Jack Russell Terriers
Border Collies
The difference is because of their size they haven't probably killed anyone but could seriously injure a small child.
I've had several dogs over the last 50 years.
All dogs need exercise and people shouldn't be allowed to have large dogs unless they can exercise them or pay for a dog walker.

It will keep happening, probably until someone ‘important’ is bitten or worse.
There is no dedicated body of people funded to enforce the current rules and little appetite to provide such funding, so until that is resolved - fat chance - no new rules/legislation would work.

Being bitten by a dog doesn't necessarily make a person afraid of dogs in general. I was bitten by a poodle when I was around seven or eight. The dog belonged to a friend of my mum's and it lunged at me and bit my hand without any warning or provocation. I was just told not to be silly or make a fuss, and it certainly didn't affect how I viewed dogs in general. Give me dogs over people any day of the week.

I got bitten by a St Bernard when I was in my early 20s. It jumped over a gate as its owners arrived home, and bit me. I had a tetanus injection and rabies just in case. My parents sent the dog owners the doctor's bill (I didn't live in the UK at the time) which got paid.

Unfortunately I'm scared of dogs i general as a result.

Even those of us who have dogs worry. My dog is a rescue and reactive to other dogs I try to avoid other dogs on walks but the people who have these bull types just let them off lead and they are a menace.

I also agree with the dog as weapon scenarios. It may not be all but it is a problem.

Zappa

I really duslike all dogs , but each to their own, as they say. Imho, tho, all dogs should be on a short lead and muzzled when outside the home. Owners should not allow anyone else to be, or feel, threatened ( that's the law anyway). As for the mind set of kerping a dog and having a small child in the same house - I don't get how people can live with the risk of the dog reverting to type ( pack pecking order,) and attacking the chikd. Why would you risk it??

That's a very kneejerk reaction. I actually feel sorry for anyone who hasn't grown up with a dog in the house - dogs teach us so much. As for all dogs having to be muzzled - again, that's a huge over-reaction. We can walk our dog for miles through woods and open countryside and never see another person - why should he have to be muzzled in that situation? As is always the case when this issue is raised, it's the responsible owners, who train their dogs properly, look after them properly and don't cause any problem to anyone, who would comply with any legislation which was brought in. The irresponsible ones would continue to flout the law.

Luckygirl3

I always think that there is a parallel between America's attitudes towards guns and the laws they have, and our attitude to dogs. Both have the potential to kill and both engender strong emotions when government s try to change the laws to make people safer. Rationality plays no part.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Yes, and a few days earlier, a woman was killed by a dog that wasn't on any suspect list.

YES -- as people have said, "something must be done", but as with F'book moans, complaints on here will achieve nothing.

CONTACT YOUR MP, to get national legislation improved AND actually enforced, and perhaps your local council too, to see if any local by-laws can be introduced?

Dangerous dogs should never be allowed on our streets. I can't understand why we are so lax about this. For goodness sake, I hope the new government will do something positive about this.

I always think that there is a parallel between America's attitudes towards guns and the laws they have, and our attitude to dogs. Both have the potential to kill and both engender strong emotions when government s try to change the laws to make people safer. Rationality plays no part.

Zappa

I really duslike all dogs , but each to their own, as they say. Imho, tho, all dogs should be on a short lead and muzzled when outside the home. Owners should not allow anyone else to be, or feel, threatened ( that's the law anyway). As for the mind set of kerping a dog and having a small child in the same house - I don't get how people can live with the risk of the dog reverting to type ( pack pecking order,) and attacking the chikd. Why would you risk it??

I agree with everything you say, Zappa, I also dislike all dogs and do not want them anywhere near me. They are everywhere and I hate it.

One narrow description Sorry

I think a part of the problem is there a lot of people outside the type as it’s been phrased who are for whatever reason attracted to the extra large, somewhat ugly dogs They are not by a long chalk all owned by drug addicts and nar do wells there are some very ordinary families owning them. The other problem is that they are so many variations of the Bully that I think it’s ridiculous to only pick on one narrow

I really think every large dog should be muzzled in the public
My friend who has two tiny dogs was bitten by a German Shepherd today as she tried to pick them up out of danger

What is the solution then?

keepingquiet

The law needs revisiting and updating. It is underenforced- I think we should bring licensing back and maybe dogs should have a collar proving they are licensed?

Unfortunately the type of person who flouts the dog laws wouldn’t get their dog licenced. It’s illegal not to have your dog chipped but dogs are often unchipped or out of date info in the chip. By law a dog must also wear a tag on a collar with contact details. Also very poorly conformed to.

But they know it’s for the best.A lot of these dogs become nothing more than weapons.

I was reading that several hundred XL Bully types have been put down since the new laws came in. Perhaps spare a thought for the vets who are having to do this. They hate having to kill perfectly healthy young animals.

HousePlantQueen

Oreo

I’ve been saying for ages that they should all be euthanised, it’s the only way to stamp them out as pets.
I saw one this morning, being taken for a walk on a short lead, it was muzzled fortunately and the tattooed all over owner actually looked more scary, swaggering down the road, but I’ve also seen big unmuzzled ones as well.Whenever I go out, as it’s not the best neighbourhood, I’m on the alert for them.

That must be terrifying for you, and worrying for everyone locally, especially if they have cats wandering about.

These awful dogs are everywhere, drug dealers love them, so do petty crims.Few are looked after properly or shown much affection.