Dog Attacks

13»

Comments

  • bad_moose
    bad_moose Posts: 49
    Ban dogs that have the realistic potential to cause serious harm to humans and actively check up on dog owners to make sure that people are playing ball. I'm talking about stopping dog owners at popular walking spots and checking up on the dog's breed and history, and then confiscating the dog if there are issues. People need to realise that it's not about how well you train your dog, how good an owner you are or what a good temperament you perceive your dog to have. All it takes is for the dog to realise for one second that it has instincts and your lovely pet could quite easily turn into a savage killer. You HAVE to be able to control your dog no matter what, even when these sorts of situations happen. If a Jack Russell has a funny moment, it'll nip at your fingers and jump around a bit; not really a problem because it's small enough to pick up and carry away and it's jaws are easily opened by your fingers. The bites are unlikely to be life threatening. If a Staffie does the same thing, you need several people who are all strong and confident in order to get it back under control. If it's jaws were latched onto someone's face then what the hell are you going to do? Why do people feel that they have the right to own a dog that has the potential to cause horrendous harm simply because they think they've trained it to not behave in that way? I could train a lion to not kill people, doesn't mean that I could guarantee that it wouldn't, or deal with if it decided it wanted to kill someone. I don't care if your dog has never attacked anyone before, or if it's 'really good with kids and wouldn't hurt a fly'. If you can't control it when it flips out and latches onto a child then you shouldn't be keeping it. I have absolutely had enough of people who can't control their pets and think that it's completely fine. I became a dog owner 3 years ago and we've had way too many close calls during that time. Something has to change now.
  • Cygnus
    Cygnus Posts: 1,879
    bad_moose wrote:
    Ban dogs that have the realistic potential to cause serious harm to humans and actively check up on dog owners to make sure that people are playing ball. I'm talking about stopping dog owners at popular walking spots and checking up on the dog's breed and history, and then confiscating the dog if there are issues. People need to realise that it's not about how well you train your dog, how good an owner you are or what a good temperament you perceive your dog to have. All it takes is for the dog to realise for one second that it has instincts and your lovely pet could quite easily turn into a savage killer. You HAVE to be able to control your dog no matter what, even when these sorts of situations happen. If a Jack Russell has a funny moment, it'll nip at your fingers and jump around a bit; not really a problem because it's small enough to pick up and carry away and it's jaws are easily opened by your fingers. The bites are unlikely to be life threatening. If a Staffie does the same thing, you need several people who are all strong and confident in order to get it back under control. If it's jaws were latched onto someone's face then what the hell are you going to do? Why do people feel that they have the right to own a dog that has the potential to cause horrendous harm simply because they think they've trained it to not behave in that way? I could train a lion to not kill people, doesn't mean that I could guarantee that it wouldn't, or deal with if it decided it wanted to kill someone. I don't care if your dog has never attacked anyone before, or if it's 'really good with kids and wouldn't hurt a fly'. If you can't control it when it flips out and latches onto a child then you shouldn't be keeping it. I have absolutely had enough of people who can't control their pets and think that it's completely fine. I became a dog owner 3 years ago and we've had way too many close calls during that time. Something has to change now.
    Who is going to do that, the police? They already have enough on their plate without having to stop every single person with a dog to check its breed. If they were to do as you suggested then a lot of more serious crimes would not be investigated.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Cats getting in on the act now.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... d-CAT.html
  • the playing mantis
    the playing mantis Posts: 2,129
    have i told you all about the time i saw an abc....
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Ban all animals!

    Apart from cows. I like steaks.
    And deer, lambs, ducks, chicken, pigs......

    Maybe the Koreans have the right idea?
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 9,031
    Have you any idea of the number of trampled to death by cows?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 76775.html
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    DeVlaeminck wrote:
    Have you any idea of the number of trampled to death by cows?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 76775.html
    I find that you are safe if you only encounter them on a plate.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • Mikey23
    Mikey23 Posts: 5,306
    Oooerrr... Commuting in London is a breeze in comparison...
  • Pituophis
    Pituophis Posts: 1,025
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Cats getting in on the act now.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... d-CAT.html

    Now THAT is justice :wink:
    "Cat abuser gets just rewards for tormenting innocent cat" should be the headline there.
    If anyone deserved attacking by an animal, that's your example right there! :lol:

Categories