vicious dog

MrsTinks

lilibeth wrote: »

Anyone that wants to own any of the more dangerous breeds should have to

1.Have no criminal record whatsoever this includes cautions. Sorry but for ANY offence? Certain offences certainly - especially violent or threatening behaviours
2.Anyone living in the property the dog lives at to undergo compulsory dog training and welfare course. Don't think this should be restricted - make it apply to all dog or pet owners. Tightening up the Kennel Clubs Good Citizen Award - currently voluntary, make it compulsary!
3.Compulsory 'responsibility to others course'. See above
4.Have a big big house in the case of the larger breeds Mmmm not so much depending on physical size of dog I think... Greyhounds - large yet will be happy with a comfy chair and a good daily walk...
5.An escape proof very large garden - certified as such by the local council. No problem with this... of course if you adopt from the RSPCA they have this as check point number 1 on the list
6.The dog to wear a muzzle at all times in public Those dogs deemed as restricted breeds already have to wear muzzles don't they? So basically you just want to extend the amount of dogs classed legally as "dangerous" dogs?
7.Pass an IQ test and Personality Type Assessment. OK... a relevant one... again it should be part of the test above and in the interest of fairness everyone should be given the same test but relating to children - until they pass the test they should be chemically sterilised - if they fail more than 3 times sterilise them for good.
8.Be childless and agree to be sterlised or sign a document agreeing to give the dog up if they become pregnant, and never adopt. Oh please... :rolleyes:
9.No children allowed to visit the premises were the dog lives. :rolleyes:
10.Any dog owner whose animal cause death or injury to another human being is to be treated by the courts as though the owner his/herself committed the act. ABSOLUTELY! COULDN'T AGREE MORE!!!!
11.Dog to be neutered and microchipped UKTigerlily™ - ANY dog (regardless of breed) not registered with the kennel club should be neutered/spayed unless a good reason can be presented (health or breeding stock for work purposes)

Some valid points... some... well I don't agree with But these points shouldn't be restricted to any breed - they should surely apply to ALL dog owners... infact all pet owners.

Oh and if you REALLY want to compare numbers then actually I think there are more horse related deaths each year then dog attacks... could just be me

MrsTinks

dutch12 wrote: »

Hmmm seem to be doing a lot of "large dog" posts on this site lately LOL. Sorry to say but all the police and the RSPCA can do is the same as you, ask them to take the dog in and stuff. As long as the dog is on their property and has not attacked any one there is nothing ANYONE can do. even if he does get it's hands on your L.O. there will be nothing the police can do. Animal on Animal attacks are not dealt with by the police. I feel for your situation but If that dog is a guard dog and it seems like it is fulfilling it's purlpose the RSPCA can say all they want, but they are only a charity. Is the dog being walked and is it's living space "clean", has it got shelter and water?

Her little one is a CHILD... not a dog... I can assure you that if the dog gets it's "hands" on the child there will be PLENTY the police can do - what needs to happen is the prevention of that situation
Also the dog is not on their property - it jumps over the fence into the OPs garden - thus it's out of control and therefor breaking the law...

lilibeth

MrsTine wrote: »

Oh and if you REALLY want to compare numbers then actually I think there are more horse related deaths each year then dog attacks... could just be me

Completely irrelevant one group of numbers involves people volunteering to to take a risk. So making an informed choice. So unless you know of any horses that routinely rip babies from buggies and maul them to death..........
The other involves death of an innocent party due to an owners inability to adequately discipline/care for and control a predator.

dutch12

Hehehehehe... Assumed LO stood 4 her dog.. Appologies...well keep her out of the way would be the advise. Kids have this strange "Fight or Flee" set up in their brain. All humans do. Dogs however find this "running away" behaviour, pray behaviour, making them more likely to attack more. If Humans would lay down and be submissive, the dog would be more inclined to get a few bites in and then leave it. Yea you are right as the law stands we only act AFTER the crime. This is the same reason why we lock people up after they broke the law, instead of if we think they might do so. (Watch minority report) She will be required to get proof that the dog is "off its patch" (Time to get the camera out). If this is the case I do believe the OP has a case. Please clarify "out of controle" out of controle can mean many things. There is no law in the UK at present that states that any dog has to be on a leash. Even if the dog is out of it's patch, again if he hasn't bitten any one, there will be no grounds for any court to give the police ground to seize the dog. Sorry UK law is writen this way...

MrsTinks

Not entirely irrelevant I'm afraid they may not "maul" children from their buggies but they have stampeded and trampled crowds and children - hardly volunteers... and before you ask yes I am actually a horsey person (well will be again when Bean arrives )
And what about the people killed when horses are ridden on roads and are scared into the path of cars who then either crash or run into the horse (I can assure you that can be VERY lethal)...

MrsTinks

dutch12 wrote: »

Hehehehehe... Assumed LO stood 4 her dog.. Appologies...well keep her out of the way would be the advise. Kids have this strange "Fight or Flee" set up in their brain. All humans do. Dogs however find this "running away" behaviour, pray behaviour, making them more likely to attack more. If Humans would lay down and be submissive, the dog would be more inclined to get a few bites in and then leave it. Yea you are right as the law stands we only act AFTER the crime. This is the same reason why we lock people up after they broke the law, instead of if we think they might do so. (Watch minority report) She will be required to get proof that the dog is "off its patch" (Time to get the camera out). If this is the case I do believe the OP has a case. Please clarify "out of controle" out of controle can mean many things. There is no law in the UK at present that states that any dog has to be on a leash. Even if the dog is out of it's patch, again if he hasn't bitten any one, there will be no grounds for any court to give the police ground to seize the dog. Sorry UK law is writen this way...

I'd say snarling at the neighbours back door constitutes a danger... ultimately any dog showing aggression towards a human whilst not under control as defined by law is subject to being euthanised - usually if so decided by a judge - until such decision is reached the dog will be kept in secure kennels normally.

I'm "happy" that THIS dog is not under control and DOES pose a danger to the OP and other people - I'm just saying that just because it's part Rottweiler doesn't automatically make it dangerous - it's behaviour and irresponcible owners is what make this dog a potential danger.

UKTigerlily

I've had some nasty horse injuries without riding them that I didn't ask for!

lilibeth

MrsTine wrote: »

Not entirely irrelevant I'm afraid they may not "maul" children from their buggies but they have stampeded and trampled crowds and children - hardly volunteers... and before you ask yes I am actually a horsey person (well will be again when Bean arrives )
And what about the people killed when horses are ridden on roads and are scared into the path of cars who then either crash or run into the horse (I can assure you that can be VERY lethal)...

Firstly back it with figures - detailed ones. (but do it in your own horsey thread because it is irrelevant to the OP's problem)
Second you are not comparing like with like.
Yours is simply a strawman argument.
If you believe that there needs to be tighter regulation of horses then feel free to start a thread on it.
But it is entirely irrelevant to the question of dog ownership and responsibility.

You could just as easily argue that deaths from exotic animals in this country are incredibly low (much lower than from dogs) therefore according to your argument it is unfair that their ownership should be restricted.
You want a tiger feel free to get one peoples.

lilibeth

UKTigerlily wrote: »

I've had some nasty horse injuries without riding them that I didn't ask for!

Then either sue the owners if they are at fault or if you chose to work in an area with horses that's the risk you take.

UKTigerlily

lilibeth wrote: »

Then either sue the owners if they are at fault or if you chose to work in an area with horses that's the risk you take.

lmao no different if a horse bites or a dog does, neither is asked for! And not while working with or riding horses. By that logic we could say anyone near a dog is taking a risk. Why would I sue the Owners? I don't believe in sueing for the sake of it, besides in a few cases the injuries were accidental such as when I was bitten by a horse trying his best to get the one in the stable opposite him.