Girl savaged to death by dogs in Manchester

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

As I started to type this I started some vigor and venom, but rewrote it.

I have read that its the dog, no its the owners, its the training, everyone seems to be pointing fingers. I understand that people love dogs, and I'm not out to ban or cull any of them, that said, something has to change.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ttacks-jump-fivefold-in-20-years-8560607.html

It appears very similar to the gun debate in America. Some people want to keep them and will defend them some people want rid. Do we all get big dogs and treat them mean so my dog will kill your dog if it goes near my children?

Someone somewhere is going to be killed by another dog, it could today, it could be tomorrow, but we'll all roll over and have our tummies tickled and run for the same old arguments(see above). My take is that its totally unacceptable that dogs be allowed to carry on doing this, remove the dogs ability to do this until a solution is found. I don't know if anyone has ever asked this question or if its even been though about.

Having read the thread, I understand some abuse may be heading my way, fair enough, I'm a big lad, I can take it. I simply ask that you tell me other ways to fix this problem.

How do we go about this? There is n't as serious a problem with dangerous dogs as people like to make out. The number of fatal attacks is very low in relation to the hysteria.

The only solution is sensible dog ownership, if you own a particular breed make sure you can handle that breed, otherwise you may be placing yourself or others at risk of harm. I think most people who own dogs follow this, however when it comes to chavs and status dogs they are obviously drawn to a particular type of dog and it does n't matter that with good training that dog is not dangerous because they will encourage aggressive behaviour.

The only distinction is the level of harm that different types of dogs can cause, if somebody loses control of a smaller less powerful breed it is less likely to cause death or serious injury. An analogy could made with control of vehicles, lets say boats in coastal waters; if you lose control of a cargo ship, the level of damage that can result is higher than if you had lost control of a speed boat.

If you can't control your dog, you do something to regain control, re-training etc;
otherwise you should n't have it anymore. Most people follow this mantra, However, there will always be the sad minority who don't, you can try to educate them and inform them to change their ways, or go to the length of taking their dogs away if it is a serious nuisance, but you can't apply it across the board to responsible dog owners, that is n't fair.

 

[CTID1988]

It always seems to be the same or similar breed that attack people.. is it just that dicks tend to be attracted to these breeds so the dogs grow to be dickheads... or are the dogs just wankers?

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

It always seems to be the same or similar breed that attack people.. is it just that dicks tend to be attracted to these breeds so the dogs grow to be dickheads... or are the dogs just wankers?

Bit of both, probably. A lot of these dogs have a breed heritage of war dogs or sport dogs bred to fight other dogs or other animals. All dogs have a "breed" personality to a certain extent, because certain characteristics are/were deliberately bred out of them or bred into or emphasized, and some are just a by-product of particular breeding.

Improper breeding means that certain undesirable traits are passed on or made more pronounced, you can see this more easily in the case of physical ailments, such as skin conditions, blindness, heart and respiratory problems, joints etc.

Some breeds will always have certain tendencies, such as Bull Terriers, who are prone to aggression towards other animals, whilst others may be overly protective of their owners and aggressive towards other people. But you can most of the time manage certain behaviours and in the case of chavs and scrotes you can certainly make a problem worse.

 

[Stanley]

As I started to type this I started some vigor and venom, but rewrote it.

I have read that its the dog, no its the owners, its the training, everyone seems to be pointing fingers. I understand that people love dogs, and I'm not out to ban or cull any of them, that said, something has to change.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ttacks-jump-fivefold-in-20-years-8560607.html

It appears very similar to the gun debate in America. Some people want to keep them and will defend them some people want rid. Do we all get big dogs and treat them mean so my dog will kill your dog if it goes near my children?

Someone somewhere is going to be killed by another dog, it could today, it could be tomorrow, but we'll all roll over and have our tummies tickled and run for the same old arguments(see above). My take is that its totally unacceptable that dogs be allowed to carry on doing this, remove the dogs ability to do this until a solution is found. I don't know if anyone has ever asked this question or if its even been though about.

Having read the thread, I understand some abuse may be heading my way, fair enough, I'm a big lad, I can take it. I simply ask that you tell me other ways to fix this problem.

How do we go about this? There is n't as serious a problem with dangerous dogs as people like to make out. The number of fatal attacks is very low in relation to the hysteria.

The only solution is sensible dog ownership, if you own a particular breed make sure you can handle that breed, otherwise you may be placing yourself or others at risk of harm. I think most people who own dogs follow this, however when it comes to chavs and status dogs they are obviously drawn to a particular type of dog and it does n't matter that with good training that dog is not dangerous because they will encourage aggressive behaviour.

The only distinction is the level of harm that different types of dogs can cause, if somebody loses control of a smaller less powerful breed it is less likely to cause death or serious injury. An analogy could made with control of vehicles, lets say boats in coastal waters; if you lose control of a cargo ship, the level of damage that can result is higher than if you had lost control of a speed boat.

If you can't control your dog, you do something to regain control, re-training etc;
otherwise you should n't have it anymore. Most people follow this mantra, However, there will always be the sad minority who don't, you can try to educate them and inform them to change their ways, or go to the length of taking their dogs away if it is a serious nuisance, but you can't apply it across the board to responsible dog owners, that is n't fair.

Hi Rocket,

The analogy is a bit off, speed boats haven't evolved over thousands of years to hunt in packs and "catch and kill" dogs have. I understand that people love dogs, and to try and get past that is difficult. As a non-dog owner I can't differentiate between breeds types, good owners, bad owners. All I see are the deaths of children. There is no hysteria, which I struggle to see in any of my previous post, just a simple question, as dogs owners, what are you going to do to stop this. The same way as the Americans are asking how to stop mass murdering ejits from running riot in their schools.

edit, what is a number of acceptable attacks?

 

[Stanley]

See if you can get to the bottom of the page:

I couldn't

http://www.ukandspain.com/dangerous-dogs/

 

[MCFC-alan88]

As I started to type this I started some vigor and venom, but rewrote it.

I have read that its the dog, no its the owners, its the training, everyone seems to be pointing fingers. I understand that people love dogs, and I'm not out to ban or cull any of them, that said, something has to change.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ttacks-jump-fivefold-in-20-years-8560607.html

It appears very similar to the gun debate in America. Some people want to keep them and will defend them some people want rid. Do we all get big dogs and treat them mean so my dog will kill your dog if it goes near my children?

Someone somewhere is going to be killed by another dog, it could today, it could be tomorrow, but we'll all roll over and have our tummies tickled and run for the same old arguments(see above). My take is that its totally unacceptable that dogs be allowed to carry on doing this, remove the dogs ability to do this until a solution is found. I don't know if anyone has ever asked this question or if its even been though about.

Having read the thread, I understand some abuse may be heading my way, fair enough, I'm a big lad, I can take it. I simply ask that you tell me other ways to fix this problem.

How do we go about this? There is n't as serious a problem with dangerous dogs as people like to make out. The number of fatal attacks is very low in relation to the hysteria.

The only solution is sensible dog ownership, if you own a particular breed make sure you can handle that breed, otherwise you may be placing yourself or others at risk of harm. I think most people who own dogs follow this, however when it comes to chavs and status dogs they are obviously drawn to a particular type of dog and it does n't matter that with good training that dog is not dangerous because they will encourage aggressive behaviour.

The only distinction is the level of harm that different types of dogs can cause, if somebody loses control of a smaller less powerful breed it is less likely to cause death or serious injury. An analogy could made with control of vehicles, lets say boats in coastal waters; if you lose control of a cargo ship, the level of damage that can result is higher than if you had lost control of a speed boat.

If you can't control your dog, you do something to regain control, re-training etc;
otherwise you should n't have it anymore. Most people follow this mantra, However, there will always be the sad minority who don't, you can try to educate them and inform them to change their ways, or go to the length of taking their dogs away if it is a serious nuisance, but you can't apply it across the board to responsible dog owners, that is n't fair.

Hi Rocket,

The analogy is a bit off, speed boats haven't evolved over thousands of years to hunt in packs and "catch and kill" dogs have. I understand that people love dogs, and to try and get past that is difficult. As a non-dog owner I can't differentiate between breeds types, good owners, bad owners. All I see are the deaths of children. There is no hysteria, which I struggle to see in any of my previous post, just a simple question, as dogs owners, what are you going to do to stop this. The same way as the Americans are asking how to stop mass murdering ejits from running riot in their schools.

edit, what is a number of acceptable attacks?

I think you're missing a couple of important things from your post, selective and planned breeding has created "mostly" subdued dogs, much like lions being kept as pets in South Africa, the viciousness has mostly been removed except in situations where subdued animals are not what is wanted e.g. Chavs with dogs.

Most people see dogs as Pets, these ARE pet owners, I do not count Chavs with dogs as pet owners because they are not pets, they are weapons. In essence, it's like seeing a gun as a pet.

As Pet owners, there is very little we can do stop the bad element from creating vicious animals, everything that can be done has been done in regards to the Dangerous Dogs Act but until someone stops these little chavs breeding these animals, it will continue.

 

[Stanley]

How do we go about this? There is n't as serious a problem with dangerous dogs as people like to make out. The number of fatal attacks is very low in relation to the hysteria.

The only solution is sensible dog ownership, if you own a particular breed make sure you can handle that breed, otherwise you may be placing yourself or others at risk of harm. I think most people who own dogs follow this, however when it comes to chavs and status dogs they are obviously drawn to a particular type of dog and it does n't matter that with good training that dog is not dangerous because they will encourage aggressive behaviour.

The only distinction is the level of harm that different types of dogs can cause, if somebody loses control of a smaller less powerful breed it is less likely to cause death or serious injury. An analogy could made with control of vehicles, lets say boats in coastal waters; if you lose control of a cargo ship, the level of damage that can result is higher than if you had lost control of a speed boat.

If you can't control your dog, you do something to regain control, re-training etc;
otherwise you should n't have it anymore. Most people follow this mantra, However, there will always be the sad minority who don't, you can try to educate them and inform them to change their ways, or go to the length of taking their dogs away if it is a serious nuisance, but you can't apply it across the board to responsible dog owners, that is n't fair.

Hi Rocket,

The analogy is a bit off, speed boats haven't evolved over thousands of years to hunt in packs and "catch and kill" dogs have. I understand that people love dogs, and to try and get past that is difficult. As a non-dog owner I can't differentiate between breeds types, good owners, bad owners. All I see are the deaths of children. There is no hysteria, which I struggle to see in any of my previous post, just a simple question, as dogs owners, what are you going to do to stop this. The same way as the Americans are asking how to stop mass murdering ejits from running riot in their schools.

edit, what is a number of acceptable attacks?

I think you're missing a couple of important things from your post, selective and planned breeding has created "mostly" subdued dogs, much like lions being kept as pets in South Africa, the viciousness has mostly been removed except in situations where subdued animals are not what is wanted e.g. Chavs with dogs.

Most people see dogs as Pets, these ARE pet owners, I do not count Chavs with dogs as pet owners because they are not pets, they are weapons. In essence, it's like seeing a gun as a pet.

As Pet owners, there is very little we can do stop the bad element from creating vicious animals, everything that can be done has been done in regards to the Dangerous Dogs Act but until someone stops these little chavs breeding these animals, it will continue.

Thanks for that, as you suggest I am missing some things. I was entirely unaware that dogs have been bred to be subdued. I would assume that this takes several generations to achieve. If I also understand you correctly, the dogs that are dangerous are not bred this way would be easy to identify as they would show no "signs" of cross breeding?

Please forgive my oversimplification as I have stated I know nothing about the joys of dogs.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

As I started to type this I started some vigor and venom, but rewrote it.

I have read that its the dog, no its the owners, its the training, everyone seems to be pointing fingers. I understand that people love dogs, and I'm not out to ban or cull any of them, that said, something has to change.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ttacks-jump-fivefold-in-20-years-8560607.html

It appears very similar to the gun debate in America. Some people want to keep them and will defend them some people want rid. Do we all get big dogs and treat them mean so my dog will kill your dog if it goes near my children?

Someone somewhere is going to be killed by another dog, it could today, it could be tomorrow, but we'll all roll over and have our tummies tickled and run for the same old arguments(see above). My take is that its totally unacceptable that dogs be allowed to carry on doing this, remove the dogs ability to do this until a solution is found. I don't know if anyone has ever asked this question or if its even been though about.

Having read the thread, I understand some abuse may be heading my way, fair enough, I'm a big lad, I can take it. I simply ask that you tell me other ways to fix this problem.

How do we go about this? There is n't as serious a problem with dangerous dogs as people like to make out. The number of fatal attacks is very low in relation to the hysteria.

The only solution is sensible dog ownership, if you own a particular breed make sure you can handle that breed, otherwise you may be placing yourself or others at risk of harm. I think most people who own dogs follow this, however when it comes to chavs and status dogs they are obviously drawn to a particular type of dog and it does n't matter that with good training that dog is not dangerous because they will encourage aggressive behaviour.

The only distinction is the level of harm that different types of dogs can cause, if somebody loses control of a smaller less powerful breed it is less likely to cause death or serious injury. An analogy could made with control of vehicles, lets say boats in coastal waters; if you lose control of a cargo ship, the level of damage that can result is higher than if you had lost control of a speed boat.

If you can't control your dog, you do something to regain control, re-training etc;
otherwise you should n't have it anymore. Most people follow this mantra, However, there will always be the sad minority who don't, you can try to educate them and inform them to change their ways, or go to the length of taking their dogs away if it is a serious nuisance, but you can't apply it across the board to responsible dog owners, that is n't fair.

Hi Rocket,

The analogy is a bit off, speed boats haven't evolved over thousands of years to hunt in packs and "catch and kill" dogs have. I understand that people love dogs, and to try and get past that is difficult. As a non-dog owner I can't differentiate between breeds types, good owners, bad owners. All I see are the deaths of children. There is no hysteria, which I struggle to see in any of my previous post, just a simple question, as dogs owners, what are you going to do to stop this. The same way as the Americans are asking how to stop mass murdering ejits from running riot in their schools.

edit, what is a number of acceptable attacks?

The Hysteria, was n't a reference to your post in particular just the general media response to dog attacks. However, you deny hysteria then make reference to Sandy Hook, columbine style massacres, do you not see the irony?

Please, elaborate on the point in bold; Americans are calling for many different things, full ban on gun ownership, a ban on most powerful weapons. The second point was already done somewhat in terms of banning Pitbulls and three other types of dog of rare UK ownership, and it was only done for political ends.

You seem to have taken the viewpoint that no level of harm, or deaths are acceptable, that though somewhat admirable is utopian and naive. What is the acceptable level of harm, deaths caused by road traffic incidents, nobody is calling for a rethink or ban on car ownership.

You said my analogy is a bit off, yet you make reference to guns, they only have one purpose, to threaten, or cause personal injury or death. Most dogs are not used for this behaviour, death can be a consequence of negligence in terms of letting something under your responsibility become out of control, this can be taken to mean a wide range of things.

Dogs in their previous incarnation as a wolf are far removed from the actual pets of today, in a wolf pack aggressive behaviour and dominance may lead to higher status, in a human controlled environment that sort of behaviour is weeded out by breeding practices or resolved by re-training or destroying the dog. All dogs can cause harm, however most are not dangerous.

I will use my analogy of motor vehicles again, dangerous, un-roadworthy and illegal cars are taken off the road. However, all cars can cause harm in the right/ wrong circumstances;what you seem to be proposing is no different than a hysterical overreaction to motor vehicle accidents prompting a complete ban on car ownership. If you can't see why that would be wrong or a gross overreaction, then I really can't help you anymore.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

Hi Rocket,

The analogy is a bit off, speed boats haven't evolved over thousands of years to hunt in packs and "catch and kill" dogs have. I understand that people love dogs, and to try and get past that is difficult. As a non-dog owner I can't differentiate between breeds types, good owners, bad owners. All I see are the deaths of children. There is no hysteria, which I struggle to see in any of my previous post, just a simple question, as dogs owners, what are you going to do to stop this. The same way as the Americans are asking how to stop mass murdering ejits from running riot in their schools.

edit, what is a number of acceptable attacks?

I think you're missing a couple of important things from your post, selective and planned breeding has created "mostly" subdued dogs, much like lions being kept as pets in South Africa, the viciousness has mostly been removed except in situations where subdued animals are not what is wanted e.g. Chavs with dogs.

Most people see dogs as Pets, these ARE pet owners, I do not count Chavs with dogs as pet owners because they are not pets, they are weapons. In essence, it's like seeing a gun as a pet.

As Pet owners, there is very little we can do stop the bad element from creating vicious animals, everything that can be done has been done in regards to the Dangerous Dogs Act but until someone stops these little chavs breeding these animals, it will continue.

Thanks for that, as you suggest I am missing some things. I was entirely unaware that dogs have been bred to be subdued. I would assume that this takes several generations to achieve. If I also understand you correctly, the dogs that are dangerous are not bred this way would be easy to identify as they would show no "signs" of cross breeding?

Please forgive my oversimplification as I have stated I know nothing about the joys of dogs.

You are right.

However, you seem to be under the presumption that violent tendencies are commonly present whilst that is not the case, in most breeds aggressive nature towards humans is unusual. You weed it out, overtly aggressive dogs are not allowed to pass on their genes, rather than selectively breed it with less aggressive dogs so that you reduce the impact of any violent genetic heritage. There is always the chance that undesirable traits develop within a dog however by proper breeding practice this should be the exception and not the rule.

Whilst Dog ownership has existed for up to 15,000 years for most of that time it would be undesirable to have dogs with violent tendencies towards humans within the social group that the owner belonged, i.e. any violence that dog committed would be either be due to an innate sense to defend it's owner/ pack or where it had been bred or trained in to them for war.
However the effects of selective breeding require continued selective breeding; if you take a dog with an aggressive heritage and breed a line without making an effort to keep that heritage the result you will get are dogs that are less aggressive than their beastly ancestors.

 

[Stanley]

How do we go about this? There is n't as serious a problem with dangerous dogs as people like to make out. The number of fatal attacks is very low in relation to the hysteria.

The only solution is sensible dog ownership, if you own a particular breed make sure you can handle that breed, otherwise you may be placing yourself or others at risk of harm. I think most people who own dogs follow this, however when it comes to chavs and status dogs they are obviously drawn to a particular type of dog and it does n't matter that with good training that dog is not dangerous because they will encourage aggressive behaviour.

The only distinction is the level of harm that different types of dogs can cause, if somebody loses control of a smaller less powerful breed it is less likely to cause death or serious injury. An analogy could made with control of vehicles, lets say boats in coastal waters; if you lose control of a cargo ship, the level of damage that can result is higher than if you had lost control of a speed boat.

If you can't control your dog, you do something to regain control, re-training etc;
otherwise you should n't have it anymore. Most people follow this mantra, However, there will always be the sad minority who don't, you can try to educate them and inform them to change their ways, or go to the length of taking their dogs away if it is a serious nuisance, but you can't apply it across the board to responsible dog owners, that is n't fair.

Hi Rocket,

The analogy is a bit off, speed boats haven't evolved over thousands of years to hunt in packs and "catch and kill" dogs have. I understand that people love dogs, and to try and get past that is difficult. As a non-dog owner I can't differentiate between breeds types, good owners, bad owners. All I see are the deaths of children. There is no hysteria, which I struggle to see in any of my previous post, just a simple question, as dogs owners, what are you going to do to stop this. The same way as the Americans are asking how to stop mass murdering ejits from running riot in their schools.

edit, what is a number of acceptable attacks?

The Hysteria, was n't a reference to your post in particular just the general media response to dog attacks. However, you deny hysteria then make reference to Sandy Hook, columbine style massacres, do you not see the irony?

Please, elaborate on the point in bold; Americans are calling for many different things, full ban on gun ownership, a ban on most powerful weapons. The second point was already done somewhat in terms of banning Pitbulls and three other types of dog of rare UK ownership, and it was only done for political ends.

You seem to have taken the viewpoint that no level of harm, or deaths are acceptable, that though somewhat admirable is utopian and naive. What is the acceptable level of harm, deaths caused by road traffic incidents, nobody is calling for a rethink or ban on car ownership.

You said my analogy is a bit off, yet you make reference to guns, they only have one purpose, to threaten, or cause personal injury or death. Most dogs are not used for this behaviour, death can be a consequence of negligence in terms of letting something under your responsibility become out of control, this can be taken to mean a wide range of things.

Dogs in their previous incarnation as a wolf are far removed from the actual pets of today, in a wolf pack aggressive behaviour and dominance may lead to higher status, in a human controlled environment that sort of behaviour is weeded out by breeding practices or resolved by re-training or destroying the dog. All dogs can cause harm, however most are not dangerous.

I will use my analogy of motor vehicles again, dangerous, un-roadworthy and illegal cars are taken off the road. However, all cars can cause harm in the right/ wrong circumstances;what you seem to be proposing is no different than a hysterical overreaction to motor vehicle accidents prompting a complete ban on car ownership. If you can't see why that would be wrong or a gross overreaction, then I really can't help you anymore.

I'm going to try and get both responses into one so bear with me.

I do fail to see the irony, comparing a mass shooting and dog attacks is valid and in no way hysterical. If I were to prefer the status quo then yes I would also propose the reaction hysterical, but I don't. People are dead that shouldn't be, I agree that there are many causes of this, but the thread is about dogs, not heaters in tents et. al.

It appears to me from the outside looking in that as dog owners/lovers you have the most to loose from dog control. Legislation would be imposed by a government that as you state has got in wrong once in the past, so whats to say they won;t get it wrong again. I have likened American gun control to dogs because as far as I can tell its very similar. You have one group who enjoy freedom and liberty when it comes to guns, and one that would prefer them banned. All the while more shooting s go on, I understand there has been another one this afternoon, not that I can mention this without being labeled hysterical.

As for being utopian and naive, you may say I'm a dreamer......

If we were to cease all transportation by car/van/lorry right now, we would slowly starve. If we removed all dogs into limbo, we would have some pissed of people, so again they are not really the same.

I make reference to guns, because they scare me. The fact the police have them terrifies me. I can;t really say the same about dogs because I don;t "know" them. I am more than happy to be corrected, but whilst we go about trying to explain away the consequence of them/their owners/their breeding as an acceptable by product of peoples enjoyment I am struggling, and as you suggest, you may not be able to help.

Please understand that I am in no way trying to ban dogs, there are few things in this world funnier than a dog in a car with its head out of the window. I understand the appeal of the loyalty and a mans best friend etc. I am trying not to be a WUM and cause argument for argument sake. This place can be a zoo at times and doe's not appear to have calmed down in the time I've been away, but sincerely, I'm asking questions without an agenda, venom and most of all hysteria.

Stan