Forums Forums Enthusiast Forums A - Z Pets / Animals Dogs In Public

How many injuries and deaths have to happen before some sort of law on compulsory use of muzzles is brought in.

Monday, Noctorum/Woodchurch - 3 year old!

This is terrible.whats the story behind it
.Dd?xx

poor little soul.

Story is HERE

From what I read the dog was out on it's own,it didn't say whether the boy might of gone up to stroke it or it could of been scared or felt threatened.when I'm out with mine I always get kids & adults comming up & asking can they stroke her.Sometimes kids will come over but the parent says to me did the kid ask.I wouldn't muzzle my dog as she's always on a lead when we're out & I know she's people friendly if she wasn't I'd say so.hope the little boy gets over his injuries.

Then there was the San Diego baby a few days ago.

Parents and baby were in bed together watching TV, mother coughs and dog fatally bites the baby.

read the link, why do people think a dog licenses will stop a stray dog attacking?
what's a licenses going to do that a microchip doesn't do now?

I like starakita have an akita and have people come up and ask does he bite to which I say I don't know it depends what you do to him, they usually walk away and yes he is muzzle when out on walks.

I dont think its realistic to just muzzle all dogs outside the home if thats what you mean DD, because the problem here for instance, is a dog who has strayed away from his home , presumably either without the owner knowing, or with the owner being careless. Another category of attacks it wouldnt stop, is dogs attacking children in their own homes . Animal attacks of most kinds are down to human stupidity one way or another.

I dont know what the answer is -short of keeping dogs muzzled 100% of the time , and I dont agree with that. Id say most of the problem is down to clueless humans, breeding dogs indiscriminately with no regard to temperament , not training/socializing and then not keeping, feeding or excercising them properly, thereby impairing their mental health.

Hope this poor little boy makes a good recovery , and I hope the deranged dog is found soon and destroyed if the attack was as unprovoked as the article suggests, before it attacks someone else. Its very sadfor him as its probably just the result of bad husbandry , but I personally wouldnt ever want the risk of him escaping one day and attacking again.

What's wrong with:-

All dogs above a certain weight to be muzzled in public.
All breeds that typically have above a certain jaw strength or statistically shown to be a higher risk (eg Jack Russells) to be muzzled in public and also to be muzzled when in the same location as a person under 18.
All dog owners to have adequate 3rd party insurance.

The advantage of a licence (permit) is that it can be withheld from someone that has a history of problem dogs or other violent/abusive behaviour.

I know I must come over as a dog hater but I am far from it. I don't own any dogs but I do walk dogs and look after dogs on an entirely voluntary basis. I have a favourite breed (medium sized) which if I owned I would gladly muzzle in public, if all other dogs were muzzled.

My last dog was badly injured by another dog.

The trouble is, we just have too many dogs and too many ignorant owners. Its all too easy. Half the people that have them, shouldnt ! Id prefer to see stringent breeding rules. You dont breed for instance without a licence ,you dont get a licence unless you have attended a proper course to show you know what youre doing, and till the parent dogs have undergone temperament and health tests- to be repeated before each mating.

You pay a set £'s fee for every puppy you breed, to help fund the organization who does the courses and you are only allowed to sell your puppies at the price it cost you to raise them to 10 weeks. If you dont like it, stop breeding.Too many doing it just for money.

Everyone wanting to own a dog should likewise have to pay to undergo a dog care course and pay in advance for a form to get their dog neutered when its time. . If you really really want a dog,youll save and do it.
We should also encourage dog share instead of having dogs shut up for hours and hours on end because owners work full time (frustrated bored unexercised dogs become unpredictable) If you dont want to do dog share and you work long hours, simple , dont get a dog.

I reckon some stringent rules applied to breeding and owning would cut dog numbers drastically. What would be nice, is a balance where more people want dogs, than are easily available - and youd only get one if you jumped through an inconvenient hoop that cost you a fair bit , and then waited till a suitable breeder bred a litter and then hopefully , we would have more careful, dedicated owners, and better kept happier safer dogs.

Cant see that happening though!!!!

Generally speaking , I dont think people should get a dog at all whilst they have children under 5 in the house , so Id make it illegal to sell a dog to them. Yes people get pregnant unexpecedly when they already have a dog, and then Id agree with you , all dogs should be muzzled around small children inside the property rather than them having to part with it.

I dont think , known dodgy breeds or 'jaw' breeds should be allowed to be sold to where theres children under 10 and when they end up there because of unavoidable circumstance yes, muzzle them. I dont think its fair for dogs to be muzzled all the time in the house, but at least a ban as suggested above will keep numbers affected to a minimum.

Yes theres a place for muzzles outside for some dogs off a lead, JRT's as you say, Cockers, some large breeds and 'jaw' breeds. On a lead, I dont think its necessary unless you know you have a dog likely to attack something coming up to it.

I doubt that lurcher x would have been included in your ' muzzle rule' DD, or mine-- theyre usually considered to be nice natured, not necessarily that tall, often lightweights and dont have super clamp type jaws.

Got to say I completely disagree DD. Muzzles make many dogs feel uncomfortable and so more irritable. I know my dog certainly doesn't like being muzzled and he is of the description you would have muzzled. He's a bulldog X staff.

You've got to remember that these animals have feelings too. They are capable of many of the feelings humans have. Also bear in mind that dogs will use their mouths as a defence if being attacked as we would use our hands. So in human terms you are advocating for all humans to have their hands tied, be attached by the neck to an owner and to be let out into a world of potential attackers.

I know in my personal experience it's actually the smaller dogs that attack and bite more. My dog has been attacked 3 times whilst out walking. All dogs have gone for his throat. One was a collie and the other two were jack Russell. All dogs that wouldn't be muzzled based on the above. My dog probably could have done some serious damage if he retaliated but on every ocassion he just lay down.

Vilifying dogs based on size or breed is morally wrong in my opinion. And causing a whole species potential discomfort is even worse.

as a lot of people on here know, i have looked after many many dogs, from great danes to chihuahuas, and most things in between including staffies, bulldogs, pit-cross, the only time i have been injured was by a yorkshire terrier, my own bulldog weighs in at 46kg he was challenged by 2 dogs at the same time and just ignored them, DEED NOT BREED.
i don't know the full stories of the poor kids hurt by dogs, but people forget that it's a two=way deal, teach dogs how to behave around kids, but also teach kids how to behave around dogs. it is very rare indeed that a dog will bite straight away, they will give several signs/warnings. as for muzzling all dogs in public, one of mine is blind, that would leave him very vulnerable. hope the lad is ok

Licensing dogs/owners doesnt work as a concept for motor vehicles, which if obtained and operated legally are anything but 'cheap' same could apply to dog ownership, with proper food, regular vaccinations, vets bills/pet insurance and so on.
Treated in the wrong way, dogs/motor vehicles each can have life threatening impacts, the presence of a license or not won't alter irresponsible behaviour from owners/operators who dont care about potential consequences, as far as i can see.

Really difficult to legislate for things like this, and regarding life threatening consequences statistics from DVLA website, between 2000 and 2013 over 38,000 people killed in Road Traffic Collisions. And thats with licencing, tests etc......

Quote Turnip

Vilifying dogs based on size or breed is morally wrong in my opinion. And causing a whole species potential discomfort is even worse. Unquote.

Morally wrong when viewed in isolation Turnip.Totally agree with you. The sad fact is though that we are not going to put in place stringent rules such as I suggested to improve the quality of owners (and therefore dogs) around, as they wouldnt be able to be easily policed, so it comes down to --do we just accept that some people/children/smaller dogs will get bitten ,often lifechangingly?

Or - should we subject ALL dogs to the unpleasantness of being muzzled ,so we dont morally discriminate against types and breeds ? Or should we try and reduce the likelihood of attacks by looking to see what the statistics say about types and breeds of dogs that are most often involved , and muzzle those ? Which would you pick - or is there another alternative you have in mind?

Like DD, I hasten to add I love dogs .