Dangerous Dogs Attack

@Valdavi I wouldn't call a spaniel a "bigger dog" as I mentioned in my post. When I was thinking of bigger dogs, I meant like Collies, Alsations, Labradors, Huskies and bigger breeds than that.

My post was about why bigger dogs aren't suitable for urban areas (because they need more space to run free and there often isn't a large safe space for them in urban areas) There is a common near me where all dogs may run free, but it's rough play and smaller dogs often get hurt by the big dogs who pick them up and shake them, so I think it should be size graded.

I certainly would not let my (small dog) go to one of those dog places where there are larger dogs running amok, that's why I suggested a field that can be hired. Not asking anyone to drive anywhere, just making suggestions for dogs and their owners to stay safe. I'm sure you worked out where to exercise your energetic dog safely before you got them.

Well these fields are just a money making ploy you shouldn’t have to pay to take your dog for a walk or a run !!
There are so many bully type dogs without muzzles out being walked and they are so big if they decided to bolt the owner would be on the floor and as someone said upthread you can’t really tell if they are an XL so I would advocate all dogs over a certain size and weight should be muzzled in public.
There are too many dogs around, never left at home, but indulgently taken everywhere shopping, eating, won’t be long before they are given a seat in the theatre or cinema.

I dont pay because I have somewhere to exercise my (small) dog, planned and thought out carefully before getting a dog.

The dogs I see in cafe's are better behaved than most kids...and even some adults!

They have to be on a lead here except in specially designated ‘off lead ‘ areas. I wouldn’t have a dog these days, there’s no freedom for them unless you have a large secure backyard and I think that contributes to aggressive behaviour. We have had some marvellous dogs in the past but they used to go for walks with us and we didn’t need leads, they did as they were told.

nanna8

They have to be on a lead here except in specially designated ‘off lead ‘ areas. I wouldn’t have a dog these days, there’s no freedom for them unless you have a large secure backyard and I think that contributes to aggressive behaviour. We have had some marvellous dogs in the past but they used to go for walks with us and we didn’t need leads, they did as they were told.

DD used to have to take her cat for a walk on a lead over there, nanna8, when she lived in city suburbs.

BlueBelle

Well these fields are just a money making ploy you shouldn’t have to pay to take your dog for a walk or a run !!
There are so many bully type dogs without muzzles out being walked and they are so big if they decided to bolt the owner would be on the floor and as someone said upthread you can’t really tell if they are an XL so I would advocate all dogs over a certain size and weight should be muzzled in public.
There are too many dogs around, never left at home, but indulgently taken everywhere shopping, eating, won’t be long before they are given a seat in the theatre or cinema.

I disagree. My friend has a reactive dog so she is able to guarantee a good, off lead walk for her dog. As her boy is not reactive to my girl, we meet up so the her dog is able to socialise with other dogs. We are gradually introducing him to other specially chosen dogs who come along to "play" without reactivity. Many people have lovely dogs who are anxious whilst on lead with strange dogs which makes them unable to walk with them without considerable stress. Most of the fields in our area also have agility equipment to redirect excess energy.
I have never paid for a field because I don't need to but I can see the advantage of them.

A dog can't be a dog if it's on the lead all the time. Fields for dogs to run free are a great idea but not everyone can afford to pay for this, plus getting there twice a day is impossible for most people. I live in the happy knowledge that my dogs are harmless, as far as anything with big jaws can be! I do not know what the answer is. I have friends who have dogs (obviously) and nice, intelligent people behave so differently. One has a dog she knows is dangerous and she makes sure that people are protected from it, for the sake of the dog that she loves as well as the people. Another is very sweet and completely in denial, in a way I cannot comprehend. I actually saw her dog bite the postman, but she just says it didn't happen (luckily said dog has now gone to the happy hunting ground!). Maybe stronger penalties - e.g if your dog bites someone you're fined £10k, immediately, like a parking ticket? We manage to deter cars from being where they should not be but we can't do much about dangerous dogs!

I read about a man who lost an arm and a leg to a big dog. All the compensation he may get will not compensate for his pain and loss. I do not think having insurance for these XL Bullies really makes up for the threat which they are.

Even bringing out a fine for a "minor bite" doesn't help if someone has PTSD for life as a result. A fine doesn't prevent or cure.

As for exercising, it's up to owners to consider these things that dogs need before getting one.

I have a 16 year old rescue, he is part Anatolian shepherd/ part Lab, so he is large. Toby cannot walk very far, he is kept on his lead for all walks.
Although l live on a small estate, we have 2 small parks and 2 enclosed dog fields. One is much smaller than the other. No charge for either. I think we are very lucky.
However, there are the few idiots who especially in the summer who refuse to have their dogs on a lead.
Or use the phrase, "it's ok my dog is friendly, when clearly it isn't.
The other morning l saw a young lady trying to control two bullies, although on leads , they were not muzzled.
Luckily we were far enough away and Toby really doesn't respond or is in anyway reactive to other dogs.
As others have said, it really isn't the dogs it's the owners. I really don't think the law will be enforceable.

it's ok making laws about keeping them muzzled when out, but people have been attacked and mauled to death in their homes

Any dog can be dangerous given the wrong owner. Whilst there might be some good in banning certain breeds, it's the owners and their failure to manage their dogs, or sometimes training and encouraging them to be aggressive, that need dealing with.

Personally I would have dogs licences and the owners pass a training course, the cost would be small compared with the ridiculous prices paid for dogs, not to mention vet costs.

I fully realize that’s not going to happen so we will just see more maimed by dogs.

David49

Personally I would have dogs licences and the owners pass a training course, the cost would be small compared with the ridiculous prices paid for dogs, not to mention vet costs.

I fully realize that’s not going to happen so we will just see more maimed by dogs.

There is no need for licences now that dogs have to be chipped. It’s also illegal not having the owners details on the dogs collar.

Yes that's true and then how can they benefit from an insurance policy if they're dead? A payout is no comfort to the faily of someone who's dead or injured. It's stupid and ridiculous how the fact that someone has third party insurance on their dog is supposed to make us feel better.

Hopefully labour gov can look at it again and make a better job. Mind you, they've got a lot to deal with at the moment....

OldFrill

XL bullies have to be neutered so (if all owners comply) will die out rather than the 10000-15000 of them being forcibly euthanased.
There are many other rules, muzzled, walked on lead by adult, registered with Defra and insured etc. All listed below

www.gov.uk/guidance/ban-on-xl-bully-dogs

All true but that means another ten years of them being around.They get out of open doors and rush to attack a passerby.They still badly injure or kill their besotted owners.
Anyone can be bitten by any kind of dog, but these dogs are killers.Euthanise the lot of them.

pably15

it's ok making laws about keeping them muzzled when out, but people have been attacked and mauled to death in their homes

As have their young children.

Nannapat1

Any dog can be dangerous given the wrong owner. Whilst there might be some good in banning certain breeds, it's the owners and their failure to manage their dogs, or sometimes training and encouraging them to be aggressive, that need dealing with.

Absolutely ANY dog can bite or be agressive. I’d agree to muzzling large dogs in public, in our home we have three mini sausages and one small cocker spaniel. These are all walked (not together) very early morning or later in the evening, and let off if other dogs are not around.

It's awful.

We have on (cat sized) dog that has never bitten anyone or anything. They get walked morning and night and like to run around the garden. There are places we go where we will let the dog off the lead but we can't do it everywhere because of other dogs and trying to keep our dog safe.

Since having a dog I have had good and bad. Good for the many lovely walks we've had and bad because my dog has been attacked and it's been so upsetting. I might not get another dog after this one just because a little dog seems to be a target of bigger dogs and I worry about getting hurt just trying to defend mine.

BlueBelle

Well these fields are just a money making ploy you shouldn’t have to pay to take your dog for a walk or a run !!
There are so many bully type dogs without muzzles out being walked and they are so big if they decided to bolt the owner would be on the floor and as someone said upthread you can’t really tell if they are an XL so I would advocate all dogs over a certain size and weight should be muzzled in public.
There are too many dogs around, never left at home, but indulgently taken everywhere shopping, eating, won’t be long before they are given a seat in the theatre or cinema.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
It’s as if the owners think it a treat for a dog to be taken into a cafe, smell lots of food and then have to lie under a table while being given nothing until the owners decide to leave.
The poor animal would be better having a nap in its own home and there wouldn’t be so many dogs about for us to trip over.
I thought it was against hygiene rules to have dogs in cafes pubs and all eateries, but it can’t be.

There are lots of things you can do to exercise a dog which doesn't necessitate it running round a dog park with other dogs. Sniffing tires a dog out as much as running. It's good to socialise a puppy when it's young but I don't understand why people think their dogs need other dogs to play with. My dogs have always been friendly with other dogs but are quite happy bumbling around on their own. DH was attacked the other week by a large dog. It walked past us on a lead then turned back and went for his leg. Thankfully it didn't make contact but it shook us up. I used to enjoy walking my dogs years ago but now I'm on constant alert; not sure when it all changed?

MayBee70

David49

Personally I would have dogs licences and the owners pass a training course, the cost would be small compared with the ridiculous prices paid for dogs, not to mention vet costs.

I fully realize that’s not going to happen so we will just see more maimed by dogs.

There is no need for licences now that dogs have to be chipped. It’s also illegal not having the owners details on the dogs collar.

I’m sure those that are attacked will be reassured by the dogs chip and the name on the collar.

I have a firearms licence it costs £88 for 5 yrs and you do get inspected and storage checked, there is no reason that can’t be done for dogs and administered by LA.

Nobody cares.

They have banned many breeds. The latest controls for American Bullies is the hardest for a long time. Many innocent dogs have been destroyed because of it.

Whilst I agree that there needs to be control and consequences, there also needs to be legislation regarding the owners who do not a) train their dogs properly or use professional trainers
b) research the type of dog they can handle
c) are held responsible for what their dog does
Also sometimes the circumstances of the attack are not always the dogs fault.
To ensure no dog ever defended itself, it's puppies or its owner, you would have to ban all dogs.

Sorry forgot to add the XL bit

David49

MayBee70

David49

Personally I would have dogs licences and the owners pass a training course, the cost would be small compared with the ridiculous prices paid for dogs, not to mention vet costs.

I fully realize that’s not going to happen so we will just see more maimed by dogs.

There is no need for licences now that dogs have to be chipped. It’s also illegal not having the owners details on the dogs collar.

I’m sure those that are attacked will be reassured by the dogs chip and the name on the collar.

I have a firearms licence it costs £88 for 5 yrs and you do get inspected and storage checked, there is no reason that can’t be done for dogs and administered by LA.

Nobody cares.

So, if you get attacked by a dog you ask the owner for their dog licence? Even though all of that information is on the chip. And every dog owner has to be inspected by someone from the LA? How exactly will a dog licence stop people being attacked?

I haven't seen any "dangerous dogs" lying under the table in a cafe. It's usually shitzhu, poodles, or terriers, sometimes labradors. I don't see how any one can trip over them if they're under a table and also who says they didn't get anything. Maybe they were fed before they went? They aren't causing anyone any trouble if they're quietly lying under a table.

Why shouldn't the people go for a walk with their dog, meet a friend and then enjoy a walk back with their dog? The dog doesn't mind, it's probably just chilling out. It's not nice to over feed pets and dogs don't need to eat just because someone else is eating! They have their meal times.

I was talking about Dangerous Dogs, not nice ones that behave in cafe's.

There are many people who can't take their dog out to
pub or cafe because it doesn't behave well enough.