Dangerous Dog Next Door!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Piha said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

What if both parents, all 4 grandparents, and all 8 great grandparents were all purpose bred fighting dogs? Do you really believe that bringing it up well will counteract that? Not a hope in hell.

Wow, what if, what if, what if....the Daily Fail is strong in this one........

I would speak to the person involved and state my concerns. I would not assume their dogs 3rd cousin (twice removed obvs) was the dog fighting champion of North America and sired evil bitey devil dogs for giggles. How can it possibly be wrong to engage in some dialogue so FACTS can be determined?

You see, that's where you and I differ. When my child's safety is in question, I would assume the worst, and have to be convinced otherwise. Not assume all is fine and find out after the event it wasn't.

[alabbasi]

There is no reason to why any dog should be banned or dangerous. Irresponsible owners on the other hand should be banned.
I owned a 90lbs American pitbull for about 7 years and until he passed away from cancer in October 2016. He was a street dog when I found in 2010 and could not be more gentle and affectionate dog. Everybody loved him.

Provided that they are not abused, they make great companions and excellent family dogs. I really miss mine.

[Evanivitch]

alabbasi said:

Provided that they are not abused, they make great companions and excellent family dogs. I really miss mine.

But if they are abused, some breeds are capable of incredible damage and determination. Capabilities that have been selectively bred into the dogs.

It's not the dog's fault I agree, but there are physiological differences that make some breeds more dangerous than others.

That doesn't mean the law is for for purpose.

[Piha]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You see, that's where you and I differ. When my child's safety is in question, I would assume the worst, and have to be convinced otherwise. Not assume all is fine and find out after the event it wasn't.

So you state that you would "have to be convinced otherwise"..... so how would you do that without engaging with the dogs owner? If the dog was aggressive, then when it jumped over the fence it would have attacked the OPs friend or dog, guess what, it didn't according to the OP. Why? We don't know. Possibly it jumped the fence to have company? Dogs do this. Maybe, just maybe, we needs facts......

[TwigtheWonderkid]

alabbasi said:

There is no reason to why any dog should be banned or dangerous. Irresponsible owners on the other hand should be banned.
I owned a 90lbs American pitbull for about 7 years and until he passed away from cancer in October 2016. He was a street dog when I found in 2010 and could not be more gentle and affectionate dog. Everybody loved him.

How often have were heard this said by mortified owners whose dog has maimed or killed a child. Along with other stock phrases such as "he's never doe that before".

There is no reason for anyone to own a pit bull, or any other powerful dog, other than some pathetic ego boost. What does a 90lb pit bull give you that a cocker spaniel couldn't? Even if it transpires it's harmless, it puts the fear of god into everyone else. Which I suspect is most of the appeal for the owners. I've got a cat. I wouldn't have a puma, leopard or a tiger, even if I could.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Piha said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You see, that's where you and I differ. When my child's safety is in question, I would assume the worst, and have to be convinced otherwise. Not assume all is fine and find out after the event it wasn't.

So you state that you would "have to be convinced otherwise"..... so how would you do that without engaging with the dogs owner? If the dog was aggressive, then when it jumped over the fence it would have attacked the OPs friend or dog, guess what, it didn't according to the OP. Why? We don't know. Possibly it jumped the fence to have company? Dogs do this. Maybe, just maybe, we needs facts......

It's killed a cat, it's attacked it's owner. Maybe the day it jumped the fence it wasn't feeling aggressive Tomorrow it may. You may be happy with that situation with your kids, but I wouldn't be. Anyone who can't keep their fking mutt under control, be it a pit bull or a poodle, shouldn't have it.

[Piha]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

How often have were heard this said by mortified owners whose dog has maimed or killed a child. Along with other stock phrases such as "he's never doe that before".

There is no reason for anyone to own a pit bull, or any other powerful dog, other than some pathetic ego boost. What does a 90lb pit bull give you that a cocker spaniel couldn't? Even if it transpires it's harmless, it puts the fear of god into everyone else. Which I suspect is most of the appeal for the owners. I've got a cat. I wouldn't have a puma, leopard or a tiger, even if I could.

It does come across that you are judging the dog just by the way it looks? I would say that a big muscular dog can be intimidating to look at but it does not mean that it will be an aggressive and problematic dog.

Edited by Piha on Tuesday 31st October 21:02

[Evanivitch]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

There is no reason for anyone to own a pit bull, or any other powerful dog, other than some pathetic ego boost. What does a 90lb pit bull give you that a cocker spaniel couldn't? Even if it transpires it's harmless, it puts the fear of god into everyone else. Which I suspect is most of the appeal for the owners. I've got a cat. I wouldn't have a puma, leopard or a tiger, even if I could.

And you drive a 1ltr Fiesta because why would anyone need anything more?

[Piha]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It's killed a cat, it's attacked it's owner. Maybe the day it jumped the fence it wasn't feeling aggressive Tomorrow it may. You may be happy with that situation with your kids, but I wouldn't be. Anyone who can't keep their fking mutt under control, be it a pit bull or a poodle, shouldn't have it.

I agree that if an owner can't control their dog then that owner should be quizzed on the suitability on the ownership of the dog. That doesn't make the dog dangerous or aggressive. How would you understand a situation like this without engaging with the owner. Maybe the OP could speak to the owner (radical idea I know), maybe the owner might need a bit of help to re-home the dogs. Unless you speak to the owner just you won't know.

It was you that said about the dogs parents, grand parents fighting past causing the dogs aggression but now you state its the owners lack of control. You might be correct but facts trump supposition every time.

Edited by Piha on Tuesday 31st October 21:03

[Boosted LS1]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

sutts said:

Without being hysterical there is aggression inherent in the breed (to whatever % is actually Pit in this case) but the more concerning thing is that once one of these dogs attacks properly it is virtually impossible to get it off the prey as they go into a type of red mist mind set and are capable of causing massive injury. This is also part of the genetic makeup.

Why can't so called do g lovers accept this basic fact. My mate has a sheepdog. It was born in London and has never seen a farm, or a sheep. But when it's out and sees another dog or a cat, it'll drop its tummy to the floor and crawl, just like the sheepdogs on telly. Why....because its inbred behaviour, it's in it's DNA, it's what it's been bred for.

No amount of keeping it in London is going to change that.

Behavioural traits are bred into dogs. Aggression is one such trait that has been bred in to certain breeds. This isn't advanced genetics, it's basic common sense.

So you can stick this "no bad dogs, just bad owners" tripe. Of course there are bad owners, but some dogs have been bred to be bad. That's their raison d'etre.

That's utter bks. All dogs have a number of primary drives, hunting, eating, shagging and survival. Some are better in different aspects. A dog doesn't have the concept of bad, love, hate, lust or jealousy etc. It's just a dog.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Boosted LS1 said:

That's utter bks. All dogs have a number of primary drives, hunting, eating, shagging and survival. Some are better in different aspects. A dog doesn't have the concept of bad, love, hate, lust or jealousy etc. It's just a dog.

Richard Dawkins, the world's leading evolutionary biologist, would disagree. Try reading The Greatest Show On Earth. To suggest a dog cannot have violence bred into it over generations, as a trait, is just nonsense.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Evanivitch said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

There is no reason for anyone to own a pit bull, or any other powerful dog, other than some pathetic ego boost. What does a 90lb pit bull give you that a cocker spaniel couldn't? Even if it transpires it's harmless, it puts the fear of god into everyone else. Which I suspect is most of the appeal for the owners. I've got a cat. I wouldn't have a puma, leopard or a tiger, even if I could.

And you drive a 1ltr Fiesta because why would anyone need anything more?

Great comparison, a living breathing creature with an ability to act of its own volition, and a car!

As it happens, a drive a 1.0 Suzuki. I live in London and actually don't need anything else.

[durbster]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Why can't so called do g lovers accept this basic fact. My mate has a sheepdog. It was born in London and has never seen a farm, or a sheep. But when it's out and sees another dog or a cat, it'll drop its tummy to the floor and crawl, just like the sheepdogs on telly. Why....because its inbred behaviour, it's in it's DNA, it's what it's been bred for.

No amount of keeping it in London is going to change that.

Behavioural traits are bred into dogs. Aggression is one such trait that has been bred in to certain breeds. This isn't advanced genetics, it's basic common sense.

So you can stick this "no bad dogs, just bad owners" tripe. Of course there are bad owners, but some dogs have been bred to be bad. That's their raison d'etre.

You do this with every thread that mentions bull terriers, and you get schooled each time.

Therefore, you're just attention seeking.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

durbster said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Why can't so called do g lovers accept this basic fact. My mate has a sheepdog. It was born in London and has never seen a farm, or a sheep. But when it's out and sees another dog or a cat, it'll drop its tummy to the floor and crawl, just like the sheepdogs on telly. Why....because its inbred behaviour, it's in it's DNA, it's what it's been bred for.

No amount of keeping it in London is going to change that.

Behavioural traits are bred into dogs. Aggression is one such trait that has been bred in to certain breeds. This isn't advanced genetics, it's basic common sense.

So you can stick this "no bad dogs, just bad owners" tripe. Of course there are bad owners, but some dogs have been bred to be bad. That's their raison d'etre.

You do this with every thread that mentions bull terriers, and you get schooled each time.

Therefore, you're just attention seeking.

I don't get schooled, just so called dog lovers banging out the same "no bad dogs" nonsense. Sad thing is these so called dog lovers do dog ownership more harm than good. The reason so many people dislike and distrust dogs is because of the failure to deal with the issue of totally unsuitable dogs.

[durbster]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I don't get schooled, just so called dog lovers banging out the same "no bad dogs" nonsense. Sad thing is these so called dog lovers do dog ownership more harm than good. The reason so many people dislike and distrust dogs is because of the failure to deal with the issue of totally unsuitable dogs.

You do get schooled because your arguments are illogical and not supported by any objective evidence. The only evidence you've offered is your gut-feeling, anecdotes and hysteria.

For example, you say dogs bred to herd sheep instinctively herding sheep is evidence that a dog breed that has never been bred to be aggressive towards humans will be instinctively aggressive towards humans. It makes no sense.

[Evanivitch]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I don't get schooled, just so called dog lovers banging out the same "no bad dogs" nonsense. Sad thing is these so called dog lovers do dog ownership more harm than good. The reason so many people dislike and distrust dogs is because of the failure to deal with the issue of totally unsuitable dogs.

So a dog can be deemed, without any consideration for its surroundings, can be deemed unsuitable?

I think that's grossly simplistic. A sheepdog in a London apartment is inappropriate, but not in a rural home. A chihuahua would be the opposite.

A robust dog breed kept in an active environment is suitable. Shut in a gang members council flat is not.

[Twiglets]

I’d advise you take no chances, our dog was torn to bits in our own back garden by a neighbour’s dog, turns out it had killed cats before and was a banned breed although we weren’t told what type. Unless you get attacked or fear for your life no crime has been committed so ‘luckily’ me and my wife both got bitten during the attack otherwise the police wouldn’t have got involved, dog on dog attacks are not a crime. Our case went to court after 8 months of waiting this week and the owner changed her plea to guilty that morning, the charges were...
Owning a dangerously out of control dog
Destruction of property (our dog)
Owning a banned breed.
The court ordered the dog to be destroyed thank god as just about everyone in the road was scared of it and were prepared to move if it came back. I described the dog as a large staffy to the police as that’s what it looked like to me, anyone have any idea what it was?

[Greendubber]

Twiglets said:

I’d advise you take no chances, our dog was torn to bits in our own back garden by a neighbour’s dog, turns out it had killed cats before and was a banned breed although we weren’t told what type. Unless you get attacked or fear for your life no crime has been committed so ‘luckily’ me and my wife both got bitten during the attack otherwise the police wouldn’t have got involved, dog on dog attacks are not a crime. Our case went to court after 8 months of waiting this week and the owner changed her plea to guilty that morning, the charges were...
Owning a dangerously out of control dog
Destruction of property (our dog)
Owning a banned breed.
The court ordered the dog to be destroyed thank god as just about everyone in the road was scared of it and were prepared to move if it came back. I described the dog as a large staffy to the police as that’s what it looked like to me, anyone have any idea what it was?

You don't have to 'fear for your life's

You only have to think you're going to be injured


As said much much earlier, the OP needs to speak to the Dog Liaison Officer at the police.

[Twiglets]

Greendubber said:

You don't have to 'fear for your life's

You only have to think you're going to be injured


As said much much earlier, the OP needs to speak to the Dog Liaison Officer at the police.

You’re correct of course, not easy to prove though is my point.

[Greendubber]

Twiglets said:

Greendubber said:

You don't have to 'fear for your life's

You only have to think you're going to be injured


As said much much earlier, the OP needs to speak to the Dog Liaison Officer at the police.

You’re correct of course, not easy to prove though is my point.

It's not that difficult, plenty of cases going through now, previously damage or injury had to be caused so it was harder to get convictions and d it's destroyed.