mike-zim Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 So there have been a few unfortunate incidents this week involving dog attacks. A 15 month old baby was mauled to death by 2 Rottweilers a few days ago, and now a 2 year old boy was mauled at his grandmothers home. he would have been killed had he not been saved by a neighbour. The question i ask is should there be tighter restrictions on large dogs? should they be musseled? or is it the owners who are to blame. These are wild animals at heart and they are only doing what is natural? all i know is at the moment things are not right and something needs doing. please lets discuss and here is linky http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/5383928.stm
mcj metroid Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 it is always the owners that should be blamed i feel.Id bet most ofthese dogs were cruely treated
mike-zim Posted September 27, 2006 Author Posted September 27, 2006 i cant say for sure in the first case but in the second the dog wasn't treated badly. it was an "up market" home and the dog was a gaurd dog.
mcj metroid Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 wow just read the story there.I don't pretend to be an expert on animals.i have had a long term fear of dogs.Im not sure if i still have it. But what can u do?People should be allowed keep pets but treat them correctly but if the dog goes insane for no reason then there is nothing u can do i guess.No way of telling when it could happen
Eenuh Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Just one thing people with dogs (or kids) should always remember: Never -ever- leave a kid alone with a dog, whether it's a small or big dog. Dogs respect grownup people and usually see them as their leader. But kids are smaller (than them) and thus dogs will feel like he himself is placed higher in the position of the "group". Also, kids are unpredictable and don't know yet when they are doing something wrong. A lot of kids pester animals, pulling their tail or poking them etc. And then dogs can snap. Just always keep your kids away from dogs (strange dogs especially) or make sure you're around to keep an eye on things. =/
mike-zim Posted September 27, 2006 Author Posted September 27, 2006 apparently there is a test that can be done on puppies when they are 8 weeks old that tells you whether or not the dog will turn like this. it is meant to be 99% accurate. i dont think that is good enough but it is the best we have so maybe it should be compulsary.
Eenuh Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 apparently there is a test that can be done on puppies when they are 8 weeks old that tells you whether or not the dog will turn like this. it is meant to be 99% accurate. i dont think that is good enough but it is the best we have so maybe it should be compulsary. I don't believe in tests like that. It's not like you can tell from a puppy what kind of dog it will become. A lot of it depends on how it is raised and how it is treated. Even a dog that has always been friendly and raised the proper way can suddenly turn violent if something happens to it (like a kid annoying the dog to no end). That's like saying, "oh this is a nice and cute and friendly baby, so surely it won't turn into a murderer". You can't predict stuff like that. On another note, I love dogs and I can't wait to get mine soon. =3
mike-zim Posted September 27, 2006 Author Posted September 27, 2006 it is what i saw on GMTV and they are always right. but i agree a nice dog going bad is unavoidable but if there is a dog that is inherently bad then they will be identified. that has to be better than nothing.
Jon Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 I'm not the biggest dog fan but I'm getting rather annoyed with all the people blaming the dogs. It is the responsibility of the owner to train the dog properly. The dog's have already been killed when in fact the bloody stupid owner should have been.
Eenuh Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 it is what i saw on GMTV and they are always right. but i agree a nice dog going bad is unavoidable but if there is a dog that is inherently bad then they will be identified. that has to be better than nothing. But dogs aren't born "bad". They might be more playful or louder or just more active than the other pups, but they just aren't bad yet. These dogs that are more active and louder than the other ones though, -might- turn into more aggressive dogs later, but that's defined by how the dog is raised mostly. It's how they say when you have to pick a pup, don't go for the one that is the most active of the least, but the one that comes in second place when it comes to being loud and active. Maybe that's the kind of test they mean, but I can't see how you can define a dog as being bad when it hasn't even had a chance to really live yet. =/
mike-zim Posted September 27, 2006 Author Posted September 27, 2006 maybe good and bad isn't the right wording. perhaps i should have used temprement of the dog instead, but there is a test and i disagree that dogs aren't born with certain attributes because they are. just like humans they all have individual personalities. some have better temprement than others and they should be used for what they are best suited.
Stocka Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 My sister nearly got bitten by her boyfriend's friend's rottweiler the other week. Nasty vicious dogs they are.
Cube Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Why is no one blaming the parents of the kids? From the sounds of it, they were left alone with the dogs.
Been Insane Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 I don't think you can just blame the dogs, as Cube said, where were the parents? Why were the dogs even given the chance to get near the kids? From what I gather the dogs were put to sleep pretty much straight away...thats something we should use on humans, we would live in a better world then AND pay less tax.
Konfucius Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 I wrote a nice little text but my ie crashed - seem to get more unstable with every further windows update. So I'll get straight to my last point instead of trying to recreate everything. I agree that some dogs become bad because their owners need them so they can show who's boss. And I also had a personal experience of a nice dog that started to dislike children because of a kid that always annoyed him. But there's also a third problem to it. Some breeds like Rottweiler are so "over-breeded" that their brain sometimes doesn't have enough space. So there's constantly pressure on it and that drives them insane. But it is noticeable that particular breeds are more aggressive than others so I think the laws to apply a muzzle should be tightened for those if they are not tied to a chord. But above all I suggest we use this cats to protect little children. Cats rule
AshMat Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 More and more chavs walk around with rough dogs these days. I saw a gropu of about 10 chavs, nearly all of them with rough dogs.
Charlie Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 but I'm getting rather annoyed with all the people blaming the dogs. It is the responsibility of the owner to train the dog properly. I agree with that totally in most cases. But, there are a couple of wild dogs down the road (so wild that my dog refuses to walk past the house and has to cross the road ), but they were bought (or given free possibly) from a dog home where they were badly treated before. They bark like mad and jump up at you, but that isn't the current owners fault, it was the previous owner. They're great dogs when you get to know them (or 5 minutes after you enter the house and they finally shut the hell up).
Dieter Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 The question i ask is should there be tighter restrictions on large dogs? should they be musseled? Erm, why large dogs? Pitbulls aren't very big and they're the nastiest bitches around. (see what I did there). No training => baby mutilating. It's nature. Welcome to the jungle and all kinds of other jungle urban shit.
mario114 Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Some breeds are much more violent that others, I used to have a big dog which was so nice, it never once bit or grawalled at anyone. It could easily cause a lot of damage, but it wasn't in it's nature, it was fine with my rabbits and other dogs. It was a much bigger and stronger dog that a pit bull, (alsasion/labourador cross), but it no way was it ever dangerous. I now only have a minuture yorkshire terror (which is physicall uncable of hurting anything, being thats it's only 7 and half " tall), and a westie, both are very good tempered and never grawl or bit or anything like that. I agree it's down to the owners, the dog mentioned in the article above had allready once before shwon signs of agression so there was no excusse.
DanielTimothy Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 Before I say anything I'd like to say I'm sure the press longs for stories like this. It's a tragedy a baby was killed, still the image of evil/psycho dogs is blown out of proportion. It's owners getting hold of the breeds that probably need the most care and training, making no effort to do so and then keeping the poor things locked up in the house/garden/shed all day. I would probably want to bite someone if I was that animal. The trend of having dogs to say something about yourself makes no sense to me. I know Rottweilers, Bull Terriers and Staffs can be perfect companions and well natured animals. What people forget is that these animals where bred to bait or guard, violence is in there nature. If not handled, treated or kept properly there is a possibility things like this will happen.
mike-zim Posted September 29, 2006 Author Posted September 29, 2006 ^^^^ But so were blood hounds but they dont kill people. i still think that these dogs should have a legal control. they should be musseled. then there is an ownus on the owner to do something.
Recommended Posts