I think that sums it up very nicely Meg. Well said.
Also, I read an interesting article about that little 4 year old girl recently killed by the rescue dog her mother brought home, the dog who was “unsuitable” for children, the one they sold to a single Mum in a block of flats. How much living space and ‘quiet time’ was there? An extract from the article said that dog had growled and warned the child before launching its attack. Dogs don’t growl for fun - its a warning sign. What was the child doing at the time she was being growled at? How many times had the dog growled, at whom, and in what circumstances? What had been the humans response to this growling? Was it even recognised as a clear warning sign? Perhaps the very reprimand itself was all the trigger it needed?
The average 4 year old will probably have been told not to speak to strangers, not to play with matches, and to left and right before crossing the road, but what about the equally life-saving information regarding what a dog’s growl means?
The article I’m quoting bits from was written by a highly qualified veterinarian who is an accredited expert witness in dog-related cases. This lady who was approached by a freelance reporter from the DM. She said he wanted phone numbers, names, etc of any other people who had been bitten by rescue dogs. She said, quote " he phoned me a few days later, still looking for rabid rescue dog stories, and admitted not following up leads I had given him that could have provided a more balanced, constructive article".
Their job is to sensationalise stories that sell papers, with or without facts.
She also says that “News of this childs death has raised many more questions about media reporting, government inaction, and a severe lack of education about dog behaviour. Until we use proper forensic tecniques to understand what causes these tragic deaths, we risk more knee-jerk ineffective legislation that makes children no safer.
Only by thorough and mandatory investigations of every event by those behaviourally qualified to do so will we gather the data to be able to inform, educate and prevent”.
Of course these cases should never have happened, but I firmly believe that any such case needs to be as thoroughly investigated as any murder case, because just destroying the dogs does nothing to prevent it happening again.
Sounds plausible drawing a similarity between dogs and cars but it isn’t really is it. The car is an extension of the person and controlled by the person totally without a mind of it’s own whereas a dog is a being in it’s own right; also a car is essential for many in this day and age whereas a dog isn’t, merely an accessory for many and very much optional.
I am as unremitting as any dog loving person in that I am as committed in my belief as they are; my belief though is that I honestly can’t see the need for so many of them to exist full stop and it is high time many were phased out.
This is where the problem lies - no half way house - as I could say the same back couldn’t I.
I really cannot get my head around people being allowed to own creatures that have more destructive power than double barrel shotguns with no regulations imposed on them at all. If they can afford to own a monster of a dog then they can have it. Where is the rationality in that?
So it is just the way the woman died not really the fact that she died? If she had been killed by a car (it probably wouldn’t have got that much publicity, given that it happens so frequently) that wouldn’t have bothered you that much? I sound like I’m being facetious but I really am not.
I believe you’ve captured exactly what people are trying to say on here in that if you substitute car with dog - you’ll find a lot agree with you:-
The dogis an extension of the person and controlled by the person totally without a mind of it’s own …; also a dogis essential for many in this day and age
I’m not talking about old fashioned control of a dog - but well trained and well controlled it is no different.
I think you are perfectly entitled to not like dogs, I don’t like children that much. I think you are also perfectly entitled to want to see them phased out, thankfully not a lot of people would be listening to such a view.
Hubby and I have had dogs all the while our children were growing up.
The most troublesome was a rescue Sealyham terrier … a real grump and destructive too. We didn’t keep him for more than a week - we didn’t trust him with our two young children, so took him back and gave the reason why. (hoping the kennels would take it on board, when placing him again)
From then on we had puppies and taught the children and the dogs to obey hand commands.
(this sounds awful, I know) but we felt that training the dogs and children together, was better for them all. Everyone knew their place in the ‘pecking’ order.
Since losing our last dog, a cross collie/retriever we haven’t had another - just can’t take them for walks and that wouldn’t be fair - even for a tiny dog.
Arguments regarding dogs can go round and round in circles but the plain fact remains…there are certain breeds or cross breeds of dogs that should never be allowed to be in the homes of the average family. Regarding some of these breeds it is akin to taking a lion cub or a tiger cub into your home and expecting it to grow up with a sweet gentle nature, quite simply it will not, it will grow into an adult lion or tiger and behave as an adult lion or tiger does. For sure even small dogs can be aggressive and unpredictable, but the big difference is that they don’t have the strength and jaw power of the ‘so called’ dangerous dogs. I grew up with German Shepherds, my grandfather bred and trained them for police work, and he knew what he was doing. The German Shepherd that lived in the house with us was also well trained but I still managed to get a nice big bite on my leg. Not the dog’s fault, the dog was sleeping, I tripped over him, his natural and fast reaction was to quickly turn his head and snap. I was lucky it was just one quick natural reaction to getting a shock. I love dogs, I love all animals, but I will always maintain that it is gross irresponsibility and stupidity for people to take dangerous breed dogs on as family pets, it should never be allowed to happen.
Of course anyone can have any opinion they wish but that doesn’t mean they can speak badly to others or say they have closed minds when they have the most closed minds of all.
Completely agree we too have had to get a puppy this time as we needed to be sure we could make her as friendly to children as possible.
Indeed, I know it’s not popular to blame certain breeds but some just are not suitable as pets in the average home.
I would vote yes but for the fact if the dogs that killed this woman were APBs the bans don’t work because if they did we would not have any APBs in UK at this time.
I think we need to have some sort of licensing scheme for ownership of them, so people can be vetted possibly ?
They would not make a suitable pet for me living in a flat surrounded by other people, with very lax regime of training, somehow my dogs turn out lovely but I need breeds that are easily led.
However with acres of your own land detached house etc and a very strict training regime they would be fine I am fairly sure.
I am no fan of them, I don’t trust them and keep my dogs as far away from them as I can but in the right hands I am told by people with more experienced of them than me they can be good dogs.
Good dogs ? That they have to be as far away from people as possible on their ‘own’ stretch of land. Its not necessary to have one of these dogs - if they didn’t exist, people that ‘like’ them would have another breed anyway …
I guess they would and some of them would be looking for other breeds that were possibly just as “bad” in the wrong hands.
Dogs are bred for many reasons not all are companions is what I was thinking, dogs that were built for certain jobs would never have been in doors and loving pets. We can’t always take that out of them but it doesn’t make them bad dogs just not suitable as pets in the average home.
I agree Julie1962 - no need for rudeness, but I think when someone stoops to personal attacks, they’ve simply run out of argument.
It is very interesting that this story has completely disappeared from the news websites. Ordinarily when a story disappears without trace it is because the facts as reported weren’t the whole truth and further facts have come to light that don’t make it such an interesting story. I’ve done a quick search and I cannot find out if the dogs have been destroyed or not. I understand a man has been given bail (but presumably not charged).
We already have breed specific legislation in place and it has failed to stop the limited number of attacks since its inception.
I seem to recall that of all the dog attack deaths not one has been from a banned breed and yet since the banning of these breeds their numbers have increased!
Dogs , guns , drugs , knives, fast and dangerous cars etc… all end up in the wrong hands. In and of themselves they are not especially dangerous - in the wrong hands they’re lethal.
some people just don’t like dogs. that is their choice.