UKH

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66770328

These dogs need to be banned, and banned now. They are ridiculous statements, owned by certain types of people as nothing but status symbols.

Even the 'responsible' owners of such a fearsome creature admit they can be difficult to train and can be aggressive.

There is research that says if you shouldn't have a dog breed then more people will buy them, so bans might be unhelpful.  I don't know the answer, but better education of all dog owners is essential. Understanding dogs is a big deal that many get wrong - the miracle is that many dogs are so adaptable they get on well in a human environment.

I had a cat like this. He got very whingey if I moved him out of the way from in front of the fire.

Did he kill your children?!

jcm

I have no children. Anyway, he was far too lazy to bother. His sister had all the hunting instinct and was death on a stick to any fly or spider that chanced it.

Nowhere near as bad as this but the owner of the dog that bit my leg 2 months ago said: "Don't worry, he's only playing".

FFS.

I'm torn on this issue.  On the one hand I concerned by people owning these dogs - there are a number of them in my area, sometimes see them being walked off lead in the park which is extremely worrying, and they always seem to be owned by young lads who don't look the most responsible of owners, whom don't seem to be experienced in owning dogs.  So yes, this is worrying, and I would like to see them off the streets.

But then at the same time, I've got a staffy, which was subject to the same kind of attention in the media many years ago.  The demon dog of the late 90s early 00s, and there's still a stigma attached to them today, but ours is a lovely, gentle family pet.  But then she also has a strong prey drive (mainly toward squirrels) and does not like other dogs, but she's half the size of an XL Bully, and no problem to restrain.

I don't know what the answer is.  But yes, as a dog owner and a father I don't like these knocking around off lead in the park.

It's difficult isn't it. AFAIK an "XL Bully" isn't a recognised breed in the UK, so would you ban based on characteristics - i.e one over a certain size, or do you just apply to all American Bullies. I assume the smaller ones are still pretty powerful. Half of all dog-related deaths in the UK does indicate a problem.

What happens after a ban? People can still keep existing ones but sale/breeding illegal?

Right. Good luck with that.

Frankly, the kind of people who choose to own dogs like this aren't the sort amenable to 'education'. Christ, even many with normal, yappy little buggers don't want to be told how to look after their dogs.

Red top-pleasing populism at it's best. 

I don't know anything particular about XL Bullies other than them being a hideously ugly example of bad selective breeding, but this breed banning has been done before with Pitbulls which to the best of my knowledge are not any more naturally aggressive than many other dogs including breeds three times their size. There was a similar witch-hunt against staffies, now generally regarded as the softest of all breeds and possibly the least useful guard-dog against intruders; and Rottweilers which are only a problem if badly trained or socialised, though you could say the same about Great Danes or Newfoundlands and no-one suggests banning them, probably because they haven't yet attracted the wrong kind of owners.

The people are the problem. The only reason scum have XL Bullies is because they aren't allowed pitbulls any more. The braindead macho dog demographic will just find another powerful and scary looking breed. Rather than banning specific breeds I'd rather see a stricter form of licensing which would filter out the statement/attack dog crowd. 

I met a couple in Edinburgh a couple of years ago with an utterly huge, intimidating looking mastiff type dog which was friendly enough. As I can't help myself from saying hello to big dogs I enquired about it. It was a Kangal (the huge Turkish shepherd dogs) and American Bulldog mix and they'd got it as a rescue as the original owners were meatheads who'd given it steroids as a puppy to turn it into a canine Arnold Schwarzenegger. I love gigantic dogs but I don't get the sensibilities of some people, and it very much is the people who are the problem.

FWIW, all the serious dog attacks that people I know have suffered injuries from were committed by Labradors or Golden Retrievers. 

I know a couple (emphatically not friends) whose golden retriever savaged their infant son (lots of facial surgery required) and she actually said to the police, "But he's never done anything like this before."

Except he had. OK, it was true he'd never taken a child's face off before, but he had bitten quite a few people.

Quite.

Our neighbours son has got one and he quite often brings it up when he comes to visit his mum. It is a massive and hugely powerful dog. But it is very well natured, friendly with our young kids and even pretty good with our yappy little poodle cross terrier.

There's no way I'd want it left alone with my kids though - its such a powerful animal, that should it turn I honestly don't think I would be able to do anything about it. It is absolutely solid and it's head is absolutely massive.

I'm not sure what the answer is - he's proof that these dogs can be fine if well trained and controlled. But the consequences of one that's not, really don't bare thinking about as they are so powerful. One of these things loses its head and only a marksman is stopping it.

I'm probably in the ban corner on the balance of things I'd say.

All existing pets must be registered and muzzled at all times when in a public place. Failure to comply would lead to the dog being taken away and destroyed. 

There was a dog behavioural “expert” on the radio this morning.   Apparently the XL Bully is “off the scale” for various dangerous attributes.

Rather than banning a breed (which is hard to prove) the legislation could ban dogs by weight. Anything over say 30kg (picked at random) gets the chop.

Pit Bulls aren't a recognised breed in the UK, so suspect dogs are 'scored' against a number of characteristics. Therefore there's no major issues in doing this.

Shame we can't ban a large number of individuals from owning any type of dog, it would be more beneficial to adding to an ever growing of banned dog breeds and types.

I wouldn't leave a dog of any description alone with kids, no matter how well trained or small the dog.

Not sure why your post seems to be attracting dislikes.

I have no issue with banning certain breeds/types of dogs, but it doesn't address the problem of irresponsible owners and out of control dogs.

Banning dogs has gone on since at least the 14th Century. Lurchers supposedly came about as a way of avoiding the law against anyone other than nobility owning hunting dogs (the penalty was both you and your dog being hung). 

I don't have an issue with solving the immediate issues with XL Bullies by banning them, but the dickheads will just get something else or an XL Bully Cross breed that has the same 'thug appeal' but is technically legal. (When we got our current rescue lurcher we decided to do a DNA test out of interest. 25% American Staffordshire (in effect Pit Bull, as the American Kennel Club allows the same dog to be in both classes). However he doesn't meet the requisite number of criteria (or even look like a pit/staffy).

Far stricter dog licence requirements gets my vote, in the longer term.

That would be all the labradors and rottweilers I grew up with, and I think there’s someone on here with a St Bernard over three times that. 
 

Good luck when all the psychos are still free to own Malinois or bigger bred staffies.

Can't see them, I switched the buttons off some time ago. 

A friend had his rescue dog DNA tested and it turned out to be 1/4 staffy/pointer/rottweiler/German shepherd. It doesn't look remotely like any of those, but the personality is very staffy. 

Yep. You can't own a gun or drive a car without jumping through hoops so I fail to see why something else potentially lethal should be exempt. 

Especially as guns and cars don't shoot  or run people over of their own volition.

Beat me to it. You have to hold the gun and point. A crazy ass dog doesn't need to be pointed.

Well, that is a point, but I'd have assumed that gaining a dog owner's licence under the conditions we seem to agree on would require the owner to be in adequate control of the dog, including keeping it on a lead in any scenario where there's a risk of aggression being triggered. 

The name “XL Bully” reminds me of a line from Bumblebee where the stereotypical scientist wants to work with the deceptions.

”They literally call themselves Decepticons. That doesn't set off any red flags?”

Thats what ive said for ages,if i saw a xl bully with a solid muzzle on fit for purpose with someone who looks like they can control it would avoid me crossing the road out of its way.All dogs in public on lead and as said muzzled if neccessary would be a great start,however these types of dogs are just too big and powerfull to be pets.Also must be said the events in birmingham would have ended in a fatality if it hadnt have been for the courage of passers by intervening,and as we saw it took a mob to beat this dog off.As for mention of labradors and golden retrievers a couple of kicks and shouts would do the trick but not with these types.

That would mean my 36 kg rescue greyhound then?  

Staffies can go either way, in my former life as a milkman I met some that you could step over whilst they lay on the path, some that would bite and one that came within inches of latching onto my Saturday helpers throat fortunately getting his coat rather than flesh.

Their size is irrelevant if they are not restrained.

Always funny to see sensible Brits use exactly the same arguments as gun loving Americans, presumably unaware of the provenance of their rhetoric.

There is no good reason to own a super aggressive dog, a gun or a 500 euro bank note. 

As others have said, it's not the dogs that are the problem, is the owners.

We should just been keeping dogs without a valid reason (farming, disability, etc.), then the only people who can keep them will be people who train them properly.

Well, yes. 

Miniature daschund / chihuahua cross.

Safer than a guinea pig I reckon! 

A chipolata? 

Yes that did occur to me. Your parallel is an oversimplification but it is an interesting point of discussion. One may argue that guns have a single purpose, so when someone massacres half a school, in one sense it is not misuse of a gun. Dogs have many purposes in human society and being a deadly weapon isn't one of them, though of course some people do view and train them as such, and they are ones I refer to as the problem.

Agreed.

We normally like to muzzle the Num Num children, in case they suddenly decide to bite folks dogs when we're out in the park. 

I'm surprised that Cruella hasn't harnessed this canine resource to set hordes of XLBully hounds on asylum seekers arriving on our shores by boat. Problem solved.

I wondered whose children those were. Do us a favour and pick up their poop next time. 

I heard some of that programme (5 Live ?). And folk also said that a problem in banning these dogs is that in reality you’d also have to ban the dogs that are used to produce the XL.   

Including the staffy.

Interesting article here for anyone who hasn't had enough of experts.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/11/banning-some-dog-breeds-in-...

Interesting article. These dogs often attract certain types of owners.

I reckon a muzzle, short lead and some form of certificate of ownership. As for the dogs, 

Its quite easy to police, if your dog looks like your walking a shark on a rope it gets taken off you. If you dress in a tank top with your trousers halfway down your arse your banned from owning a dog. 

Those 2 rules would fix 99% of the problems. 

Our St. B is 72kg and our Newfoundland before that was around 80

Both soft as a soft thing but still need a good owner. 

The most problematic dog in our neighbourhood is a little yorkie with real attitude problem, directly mirroring the owner.

Bully xls, staffies and the like I avoid on aesthetic reasons, but we do look after a staffie on occasion. 

Yes absolutely, that’s kind of my point. In fact just today I read a report of a staffy that attacked a young girl. The owner and her son had deliberately trained it to be aggressive and bite on demand. Any dog breed has the potential to be aggressive, but very large powerful ones are going to be, and have a far greater bite strength and the potential to cause more serious injury.

Chihuahuas are little psychopathic bundles of pure hatred...

I suspect due to patent nonsense such as "staffies, now generally regarded as the softest of all breeds". I don't know a single person who shares this 'general view'. 

A quick Google finds this which states that Staffies make up 43% of dog attacks in the UK:

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/90962/pdf/

Also "all the serious dog attacks that people I know have suffered injuries from were committed by Labradors or Golden Retrievers", again runs contrary to my own anecdotal experience, as well as the statistics and common '10 safest dogs by breed' type articles. Even if it were true, it wouldn't be a fair representation given the popularity and hence ubiquity of these breeds. 

You've missed the "that I know" part, unless you are accusing me of fabrication. You've also unwittingly undermined your point by rightly raising the fairness of representation according to breed popularity. I don't know about now but certainly over the past couple of decades staffies were one of the most popular breeds by far and even outnumbered labradors massively. It wasn't so long ago that everyone seemed to have a staffy. I see less of them now, and oddly more labs.

FWIW, I love labradors and grew up with one but I also know a few people (three of them are even registered on here) who've been randomly bitten by them. I also know someone who dog sits and was trapped in a bathroom for hours by a Labrador who turned on him. My own one was unacceptably aggressive with other male dogs and had an extremely strong guarding instinct though outside he was inoffensive and uninterested in people he didn't know. I've only been bitten by a border collie and my neighbour's horrible miniature daschund.

Staffies are widely regarded as soft and in my experience they are, though I agree that they are also widely regarded as dangerous. The article you linked has some sobering content, but it reeks of being a very targeted agenda-driven paper to support a policy proposal rather than an objective study. That doesn't mean it's a load of tosh, but it does mean that uncritically swallowing it is naive at best. Its focus is entirely on the breed of dog rather than the context of the dog's human environment or if there is a pattern in ownership styles and dog attacks. It makes for a much easier bit of window dressing and appeases enough people but doesn't address that irresponsible owners will just find another breed to keep up with the 'my dog's harder than your dog' pecking order.
 

36kg greyhound! What anabolic steroids are you feeding it?

There are quite a few dogs that are called Staffies of dubious pedigree, they often are far more muscled than previously!  I am slightly surprised by Labradors, but Golden Retrievers have long had a reputation for being the breed associated with unexpected bites - possibly associated with unguarded approaches to a dog breed considered to be pretty and amenable.

However, in terms of behavioural traits in a recent paper (Zapata, I., A. W. Eyre, C. E. Alvarez and J. A. Serpell (2022). "Latent class analysis of behavior across dog breeds reveal underlying temperament profiles." Sci Rep 12(1): 15627.) that divided dogs into aggressive, calm and fearful (many fearful dogs will bite) Golden retrievers and Labradors were mainly scored calm, compared to Pomeranian's Dachshunds and Yorkies that were more consistently the most aggressive. American Bulldogs in this study were not considered to be calm as often, but were not considered aggressive in anywhere near the same proportions as the above small breeds. They were at the time the 5th most popular breed in the US, they weighed 36.3 kg on average. A very small proportion of dogs can still have a massive impact and the big ones whether a Labrador, German shepherd, Rottweiler or American Bully are powerful dogs.

I remember the banning of pit bulls. They were soon crossed and the breed manipulated and replaced by other macho dogs. Despite the ban there has been no improvement in the numbers of dog and people attacks with dogs killed every day and horrible loss of life in people. The number of Guide Dogs attacked in harness always surprises me. This indicates a problem with people particularly their attitude to other people and responsibility to society.

The number of dogs has grown massively (> 25%) over the last few year and vets, dog training and doggy day care are very strained combined with a disconnected subset of pet-owning people, that raw feed (increased risk of spread of antimicrobial resistance and danger to human health), do not use vaccines, wormers or flea products (risk to canine and human health) and that often refer to the internet rather than vets for advice (Comparisons of Practices of Raw Diet Versus Kibble Diet Dog Owners. J. Anim. Sci Vol. 99, Suppl. S3). 

Licensing and mandatory 3rd party insurance would be useful as it would allow targeting of irresponsible dog owners, but I wonder whether insurers would even insure some breeds or continue insurance if there was an incident.

The figure was, as noted, picked at random. The point being that the weight of the dog is a lot easier to prove than the breed.

I have stared at this for a while, and I am still not entirely sure if this is a euphemism or not 

A quote from one of the comments from the 2 guardian articles. 
 

“To put some numbers on it, between 1993 and 2021 there was one year where more than six people were killed by dogs (seven people in 2016). Most years in that period three or fewer were killed.

In 2022 ten people were killed, six of them by American Bullys. In 2023 we are on target for ten again, all by American Bullys so far this year.

They also lead in reported attacks - 45% of attacks on other dogs or humans were by American Bullys so far this year.”

I can't bring myself to read all of the thread as watching as UKC descends into its usual partisan sniping around dogs is never an uplifting experience, however the couple of vet. Science people I know seem to think these dogs would already be covered by the pit bull breed description in the act, so in theory are already banned!

As always, it's about how the existing legislation is implemented and having the political will to drive that forward. 

I havent noticed any partisan sniping necessarily and as the owner of a large chocolate lab I can never criticise dogs ownership. I think the crux is the type of owners that these dogs attract, the in-bred tendency for aggressive behaviour and the sheer brutal power of the creatures if they decide they dislike you or your dog.

(I also realise the likely distraction tactics employed by the equally unpleasant Cruella to avert the eyes from the general govt shitness of late. It's all over the news and is an easy win for her as nobody wants kids and other dogs to be attacked. Its also an easy attack on the type of people who are more likely to acquire these beasts). 

As someone who is fearful of dogs what I've noticed is that the majority of owners of larger dogs have them well trained and under close control. These dogs are clearly powerful and potentially dangerous, so earn the respect of their owners. 

Sadly though those who own tiny little things often invest zero effort into training (my mother in law's being a good example). 'Oh he won't hurt you, he's only being friendly' - just because it's small enough to crush with my foot doesn't mean it's acceptable to have it out in public harassing members of the public.

I suspect much of the problem with labs is that yes they are generally friendly and good natured. This means that strangers assume that they are ok stroking/bothering them without first asking, and for whatever reason some dogs (often nervous rather than aggressive) don't take kindly to it and snap/bite.

Yes we need dog owners to take responsibility and train their pets. But as members of the public we also need to respect that some dogs just don't want to be fused, and especially to teach our kids that they only stroke a dog when invited to do so by it's owners - also helps to avoid service dogs from being distracted whilst working.

I got bitten for a dog recently, for the first time ever - it was one of those yappy little shits who came up from behind me. The owners just laughed about it.

Disgusting! 

With an attitude like that I'd be reporting as a dangerous dog and pushing hard for prosecution.

Presuming it's the same guy he was on the radio a couple of weeks back in one of those back and forth interviews where the interviewees have opposed positions. He trotted out some 'stats' that didn't make any sense. Perhaps he mis-spoke but the impression I got was of a man with a bee in his bonnet. That doesn't rule out him being right, or wrong, he just did a bit of a hatchet job on his own credibility in the piece I heard.

jk

And today there were two further interviewees, one an owner/shittoc ‘star’ the other some industry bloke (I think) both on the side of not banning this breed/cross breed - it’s either bad owners/good dog or good owners/bad dog argument. Worse combination is of course bad owner/bad dog. Presenter tried to make the ‘guns are not dangerous it’s the owners’ analogy/argument - 

The most popular/populous breed is really, weirdly, diverse regionally and not just in the ways you'd expect (collies in hill areas etc). There does appear to be a big fashion element to it, people seeing dogs they like out and about, buying one, encouraging local breeders make more of them closing a positive feedback loop. Worth remembering when we're talking to people from all over the country, the dogs around them are probably not the dogs around you.

Around me there are loads of long/pointy dogs, that'll be part fashion/social (there's a bit of a 'scene' with regular walks, fairs etc) but mostly it's geography, they are racing industry rejects, lost coursers and their mongrel offspring coming through the local rescues. A few years back there were way more rescue 'staffies' but that seems to have calmed down a bit. No idea what the knobheads underpinning that market have replaced them with, maybe 'hard' dogs have just gone a bit out of fashion locally. I guess they eat well which has got expensive.

jk

I agree so much with this. I previously had an English Bullterrier. She was a beautiful dog, really friendly and gentle. However because of the stigma, she was always on lead, or a long lead so we could make sure she was always under control and take her away if we could see she made someone uncomfortable or nervous. The amount of small dogs that I see that are completely out of control because they can't do any damage or it's cute that they're grumpy is outrageous.

Also, massively agree with your point on people having respect for dogs. A lot of the public seem to think it's their right to pet or fuss over a dog. I bring my lurcher to the climbing wall with her bed where she will doze quietly, and the amount of people who happily wake her up or send their kids over to play with her unattended is shocking. 

As someone who has owned a "dangerous dog", I find this ban entirely redundant. There are dogs that are more challenging to own, but they're not inherently dangerous. I do think there should be requirements for owning those dogs, but not an outright ban. 

Yeh, that makes sense, especially with regard to collies in rural areas. There isn't really a 'type' round my way, maybe labradors and those cockapoo/puppy farm type dogs which seem to have supplanted the staffy. There was a dog rescue charity shop down the road for a few years with a mugs gallery of dogs needing homes. Probably 90% staffy, 5% husky and 5% mutts. Quite depressing really. 

French bulldogs seem to be everywhere. I'd happily see the breeding of them (and English bulldogs and pugs) banned on grounds of them being bred disabled.

This was the guy I heard, I see he's done an article -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12506397/savage-Frankenstein-XL-...

Thus proving the danger of anecdote based commenting

You now know one.  Me. 

Just two years ago it was voted Britain's most favourite dog https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/staffordshire-bull-terriers-been-name... - not exactly a scientific study, just a bit of fun but  it does show they are rather well regarded.

No it doesn't.  It says  "Staffordshires and Staffordshire pit mixes have now accounted for six fatalities and 43% of the total dog attack disfigurements occurring in the U.K. Since 2005."

I've made bold the parts that you've ignored as they didn't support your preconceptions.  

The source of this data on this document of unknown origin isn't cited.  Nor are any others.  This seems to have been written by a member of the public, and is completely unverified.  

In fact there are no figures for total dog attacks in the uk as the vast majority do not require medical or police intervention so this data is never collected. 

You're much more likely to be bitten by a smaller dog than a larger one, but the consequences are benign.

Good old anecdotal evidence.  The gold standard of rigorous research.

I've not missed that. I compared your anecdotal experience to mine, and noted that it contrasts with the available data. 

Care to back that up with anything more substantial than an opinion? 

Huh? How can they simultaneously be widely regarded as both soft and dangerous? 

No uncritical swallowing here; I acknowledged it was just a quick Google. You are criticising the source (without any specifics as to why e.g. "I think the 43% stat is wrong because...") yet have provided nothing to support your own claims.

To summarise my position - I've not said that Staffies are the worst and Labs are the best, I'm just disputing your claim of the opposite. I think the types of owners is probably the most significant (though not only) factor, which you also seem to agree with. So making sweeping claims about breeds, which are contradicted by the available data, is not helpful. 

The afternoon of my wifes 50th, just before a party with family travelling from as far asSan Francisco, she was walking out springer with her friend who’d just arrived from Hamburg, and a Jack Russell attacked our dog, biting him right close to his penis. Off to the vets, nearly ruined the party and messed up our dog. Armed with a description of the owners, I approached them on the field a few days later. They denied everything, got stroppy, repeatedly saying I was wrong and it wasn’t them. Until a witness came over and said ‘stop your lying, it was you, I saw it all.’ They then offered to pay the vets fees. I told them ‘go away you scummy lying people, I don’t want your money.’  Bad people = Bad dog owners. 

So how or why is anyone making any claims about what the most or least dangerous dog breeds are?

Nobody has made any claims about what is the least dangerous dogs.  Nobody would as we don't  collect data for things that haven't happened, just things that have.

You're the only person bringing up bogus facts and figures, which you've misrepresented from an already questionable and and completely unverifiable source.   

The "a quick google shows" is becoming the scourge of this forum.  I could do a quick google of flat earth theories and find supporting evidence.  Doesn't make it true. 

Sadly it's easier to google what you're looking for and paste a link, than apply just a pinch of diligence and confirm the validity of the figures we post. 

Padaidh was 50kg and a total pussycat.

Wire-haired Abyssinian Tripe Hound - unless I'm very much mistaken.

I interpreted this from 65 as such a claim, feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted:

"There was a similar witch-hunt against staffies, now generally regarded as the softest of all breeds" 

Ok, well due to not having hours of free time to carefully research for an Internet forum discussion about dogs, we'll just stick to baseless opinions then?

I'm pretty sure the earth is flat, and will only be accepting peer-reviewed academic research as counter-evidence before I change my mind. 

Yes I feel you've misrepresented what 65 said, he made no claim that they were the safety of the breed, just what people's perceptions are.  Those are two different things.

Feel free to present your opinions here as opinion, that's what you were doing and is a feature of a healthy debate.  But you then tried to pass of your opinion as a fact by misrepresenting some figures, which you'd lifted from a completely unverifiable source. 

Misrepresenting studies, and presenting unverifiable data is not a feature of a healthy debate, and you've done both here.

Fell free to have an opinion, just present opinion as opinion instead of trying to pass it off as fact, then pointing out that you caveated that it was "a quick google", or that you don't have time when you get picked up on it being far from fact.

And don't have a go at me when your dodgy facts get called out - you made the decision to being them into the discussion, not me.  

Draw a venn diagram of people who think staffies are soft, people who think staffies are dangerous and people people who don't know or care. If the first two, likely almost completely non-overlapping groups contain lots of people in each then the statement is reasonable.

jk

I think what makes a dog dangerous is its power,its bite,and to what degree would passers by be willing to get involved and help.Ive been bitten on five different occasions in my lifetime the worst ones being a jack russel and a staffy that jumped over its gate to have a chew on my right thigh till its owner quickly got it off,the other four dogs i kicked out at and one i used a wheelie bin to shield myself from(alsation).Banning im not sure will work but by bringing in new laws solidly backed up like haveing a aggresive dog in a secure garden, muzzled and on lead when out and obedient to its owner,but the very fact that possibly hundreds of these dogs are owned by people who cant even control them physically its just a matter of time that it happens again.

I'm not sure quite what legally happens when a dog injures someone (sentence etc), but presumably a sentence of similar order to that if someone had themselves assaulted the victim might make some people think, and might nudge a culture shift.

(also ban imports of rescue dogs....came across someone the other day with a Romanian sheep guard dog...)(looked just like the beasts I've seen in other Alpine areas, which carry major health warnings).

It's a complicated thing, isn't it? (Which is why two contradictory opinions about, say, staffies can both be sort of right...)

Physical power, bite and temperament are all going to contribute, and temperament itself isn't a simple "aggressive or calm", it can be situationally dependant, or dependant on certain things (I met someone once who had a dog that was terrified of people wearing hats), or owners vs strangers vs other dogs, and presumably how trainable a dog is, not to mention how likely it is to appeal to people who aren't going to bother training it properly either because they want a big aggressive brute anyway or because it's a precious little poppet that wouldn't hurt a fly.

That said, I'm always slightly wary of "it's not the breed it's the owners", however valid it might be in principle, if it doesn't come with a realistic suggestion for how to do something about the owners.

Thanks, and precisely why I can’t be arsed replying to them.

And this.

I think opinions on something like this, i.e. national statistics on dog attacks, are essentially worthless. As others have pointed out, there are huge regional and demographic variations, so anyone's anecdotal experience is not likely to be representative beyond their local area.

I appreciate what you say about quality of data source, though as you've also acknowledged there is not much high quality data on this topic.

I don't feel like I've misrepresented it as you claim; "Staffordshires and Staffordshire pit mixes" is not massively different to "Staffies" and "fatalities and (...) dog attack disfigurements" seems a fair proxy for attack statistics which is what we are discussing. 

I do think you are going very OTT on your responses to me and it appears to me that your have a strong emotional bias on this subject which is behind this.

FWIW I have had family dogs throughout my childhood and am pretty ambivalent about dogs on the whole. 

Thanks. I probably shouldn’t have replied either, but not knowing when to shut my mouth has been a long term issue of mine…

Nobody else has brought in any dog attack stats other than you, now you're saying they're worthless?   Make your mind up...

It was a complete misrepresentation.  It is a larger sample group that you quoted, which covers a huge range and variation of cross breeds, and given that most bull breed animals have some staffy in the lineage you're basically talking about bull breeds / pit bulls (the American blanket term) as a whole.  That's a huge difference.

Secondly, the figure is for disfigurements only.  Using your reporting system, there could have been 1000 dog attacks by other breeds that led to no disfigurement, and one by a pit bull / staffy cross which did lead to disfigurement, and you could rightly say 100% of the dog attacks in the UK are by Staffys using your methods.

Of course I have an emotional bias.  Look at my first post.  I have a staffy, and it irks me that you've come on here and basically presented lies as facts to back up your view of the breed I own.  

It is complicated and it will be intresting what the home secretary comes up with in the coming weeks/months.As for breed/owners it would take a lot of work to have owners vetted for dog licences and what sort of requirments would that be,sounds a good idea but how would it work.

Agreed.

There have been numerous references to licensing and the need for it to be stricter on this thread. 

The fact that they were abolished in 1988 seems to have escaped many of the posters, that they were never used to restrict who could own a dog even more so.

For someone making accusations of misrepresentation, you seem to have made a big assumption about what my view is (I haven't stated one - I simply disputed the statement "staffies, now generally regarded as the softest of all breeds" which I think is not a majority view) then leapt to an aggressive defence.

I'd encourage you to re-read my posts in a neutral frame of mind because they are not the attack on Staffies that you seem to think they are. 

Hey look, if you'd just said "I don't think people think staffies are one of the gentlest breeds" I wouldn't have taken issue.  But it was you linking and misquoting of that useless document that irked me.

And remember your words have actions, there's loads of people who will come on here read your "fact" and go about their business believing it to be true, tell their friends, their family, their kids etc.  And that's not cool.

Ok, well I had no intention to mislead or irk anyone. I also don't think we actually disagree on anything. 

That's the problem with these populist dog-whistle policies

No worries - apologies if my defence was OTT.  Totally accept that it wasn't a malicious intention to misinform.  

As the self-apointed trans-continental defender of dog rights (on UKC and MP) I just want to chime in here and say that, the last time I checked the statistics, when you go out in the UK, your chances of being assaulted by a human are higher than your chances of being attacked by a dog.  Happy to look at the numbers again, or be proven wrong, but I think it's an important point.  Much is made of the potential dangers of dogs.  We tend to forget the vastly more important (in my mind) social good of loving, loyal, empathetic, good natured pets, who litterally evolved with us as companions. 

That old nugget. Doggie generations cycle much faster than human generations, many humans evolve without much dog interaction, and the selective pressure of humans on dogs far exceeds that of dogs on humans.  

Dogs evolved under us, not with us.  It’s not co-evolution in any meaningful sense.

You may be incorrect there. If either you or I can be bothered searching for evidence we could share it here. I’m not sure I can, UKC dog threads are not the most satisfying, even I am as compelled to post on them as I am to introduce myself to strange large dogs.

Hmmmm...not so fast wintertree.

It's easy to dismiss the "we evolved with dogs" phrase as so much folk wisdom (an old nugget, as you said).

It's equally easy to point out that humans have modified dogs through artificial selection so much that we have arguably created different species; the genes of a great dane and a chihuahua, for example, are theoretically compatabile but under natural circumstances in the wild these creatures would never interbreed, there is a reproductive barrier based on size and perhaps behavior.  Anyway, I often hear people cite the intense artificial selection pressure on dogs are a kind of criticism of dogs in general--evidence that they are unatural or grotesque animals not worthy of the affection they are afforded.  I don't know if that was your intention, but, broadly speaking, I think we can acknoweldge the artificial selection pressure on dogs, and also acknowledge the worth of dogs to humankind.

More importantly, 1) having matched generation times is not a pre-requisite for co-evolution, 2) the fact that all humans did not evolve with dogs does not rule out the long inter-species relationships that have existed in several geographical regions, and 3) co-evolution does not require genetic changes to to equivalent in both species.

Setting aside the issue of whether or not we can call what transpired between dogs and humans co-evolution (it's just semantics anyway) it's undeniably that genetic and behavioral changes happened in both species.

The wolves that eventually began to spend more time with humans surely experienced changes in genetics and behavior, sociability, diet, and so on, long before they were bred selectively.  And I'm willing to bet that humans who lived with dogs experienced genetic changes related to their immune systems, exposure to parasites, and so forth. 

Of more interest are the ways in which our nervous and endocrine systems, and behavior, are intertwined with those of dogs. 

For example, I'm sure you've read that gazing into a dogs stimulates the release of oxytocin in both species (a bonding hormone, for those who aren't familair with the term).  This is likely an evolved trait in both species.  Once more, I'm willing to bet that the same neural-hormonal feedback loops are not as strong when humans gaze into the eyes of fish or birds, and even other mamals with whom we have lived closely, such as cows, horses, and, dare I say, cats!   Our bond with dogs is special.

Also, dogs have pronounced muscle development that enables them to raise the top inner corner of their eye lid (the classic puppy dog look) that is absent in wolves, and other canines.  This trait, researchers believe, evolved to elicit specific care-giving responses from humans, raising the interetsing question, "who evolved who," that is, did dogs shape us to their purposes, or vice versa?  

You raise a facile and moderately interesting point.  But the fact remains that humans and dogs influenced eachother deeply.  This is undenaible, and perhaps unique in the animal world.

Long live dogs!

How many different breeds have humans split dogs in too?

How many different breeds have dogs split humans in too?

We’ve obviously co-existed and undergone our own evolutionary processes through a protracted period of time, but the scale of asymmetry in the selective pressure is astoundingly clear.  Dogs separated in to different breeds long, long ago because of humans and almost none resemble wild type animals.  Humans now are damned similar to humans from long, long ago.

It doesn’t, but it introduces a massive asymmetry.

You appear to want to cut things in different ways to make sure they support your claim.

the lack of subtance in your reply reflects the difficulty of the position you have argued yourself into. 

No, I just wasn’t going to engage with a giant wall of substance free text made up of poorly thought out ideas, and picked a couple of points.  I can pick more:

The same happens with the eyes of a human baby and with many other species.  I’m pretty sure humans loved their babies before they had dogs.  

It’s not a facile point.  Humans have split a wild animal in to hundreds of different breeds with massively different characteristics.  The influence of dogs on our species is orders of magnitude smaller.  

I don’t buy your uniqueness claim either.  Far from it.  Many animals farmed for meat or work are vastly different than their wild type origins, and the practice of farming with meat and work animals has literally transformed human society.  Dogs are one of those working animals but there are other more important ones.  Dogs don’t plough.  

I think a lot of strong words, totally unworkable suggestions (dog deportations to Rwanda?) followed by poorly worded and unworkable legislation will be the Home Secretary's response.

You wrote: "I can pick more"

Do you mean cherry pick?

You're missing the forest for the trees...or, more accurately, you're missing the trees, too.

Have a sleep on it, maybe that will make it clearer. 

See you tomorrow

No, I just can’t be bothered to work through it all.  I could.  I will spare the thread the tedium.  

I note that you’re trying to spar with me in your posts and not the points I make.  What should I infer from that?  Dig after dig and no engagement with my points.  

The only winning move is not to play.

CPE1704TKS

Bruno's right. Back in the olden days in Egypt they had humans with dog heads. It clearly shows this on their tomb walls. In fact there was also a crocodile man hybrid and they even cross bred with birds like falcons and ibises. This is why I won't ever eat GM food. I think those Egyptians went too far and I blame the aliens for building all those pyramids for them allowing them to do weird sh1t with animals and stuff.

They also taste bloody awful

I passed up the one opportunity I had to find out.  No interest in eating meat from an animal that licks it burn hole clean on a regular basis, and I figure it must be like horse meat - knackered at the end of a working life doesn’t make for good meat.

Talking of ploughing and breeding - a bit of similar selective pressure on dogs would not go amiss. More Hereford and less Spanish fighting bull ....  or Jersey (shudder)

One claim I've heard for co-evolution that potentially rings true is that we've devolved our sense of smell through our use over millennia of tracking and hunting animals (mostly dogs).

Hard to prove since it overlaps with the development of more complex social structures and with them our brains. Likely also imagination which seems more powerful than smell when tracking and hunting.

It's not remotely my field but I can't see how one would convincingly prove cause and effect at such a distance.

jk

Don't forget the cats with boobs, there's a gallery full of them in the British Museum. Fact.

jk

I think you skip right past that and go to making warm and fuzzy claims with confidence in online forums? 

>  Likely also imagination which seems more powerful than smell when tracking and hunting.

Empathy too - think like the prey. It’s interesting to see what smells humans are most sensitive too - reading around, that seems to be things like thiols, blood, petrichor - warmings and attractors that help survival in hunter gatherer times perhaps?

Big picture evidence - look at a sample of a few hundred randomly chosen human skeletons from 50,000 years ago and now, accounting for differences from nutrition.  Then do the same with dogs.  Massive asymmetry in genetic effects as presented in body morphology and scale.  No reason to think effects on other genes should have any less asymmetry.

There’s more cultural influence on humans from dogs but that’s distinct from  claims of co evolution.

Therein lies the problem,  owners align thenselves around their chosen breed and get tetchy when they perceive a slieght against that breed.

Is it really sensible to be so sensitive about it when you are totally reliant on the breeders to dictate the temperament of a breed and different lines can have very different behaviour traits?

They were a bunch of Bastets!

Hi folks,

Lots to discuss. 

Wintetree, you’ve turned this into a discussion of whether or not the relationship between dogs and humans should be defined as a co-evolution.

Please recall, I never mentioned “co-evolution.”  I simply wrote that dogs “evolved with us as companions.”  You brought up the term co-evolution.

We can discuss in detail whether that term applies, but honestly, it’s largely irrelevant.  I’m happy to talk about the many ways that dogs could have affected humans, but the more important point is that the bond between dogs and humans is unique and powerful.

You asked me to respond to your points.  See below.

You wrote:

"Humans have split a wild animal in to hundreds of different breeds with massively different characteristics.  The influence of dogs on our species is orders of magnitude smaller."

And

“Look at a sample of a few hundred randomly chosen human skeletons from 50,000 years ago and now, accounting for differences from nutrition.  Then do the same with dogs. Massive asymmetry in genetic effects as presented in body morphology and scale.  No reason to think effects on other genes should have any less asymmetry.” 

Yes, of course.  This is obvious.  Once again, you’re focusing on the question of “co-evolution,” a term you introduced.  Nothing you have expressed above changes the fact that dogs and humans enjoy a special bond. 

You wrote:

"The same happens with the eyes of a human baby and with many other species.  I’m pretty sure humans loved their babies before they had dogs."

Of course humans loved their babies before they had dogs.  I am not claiming that the human-dog interaction created the oxytocin neural-hormonal feedback loop, only that dogs evolved to exploit this for their benefit, and did so long before we started selective breeding.  It seems logical that humans derived some benefit from the relationship, otherwise, we would not have devoted time, resources, affection, and so forth to these creatures.  The benefits to humans might have been social, cultural, behavioral, and so on, and they could have involved genes in some way, although, as above, that’s not important to the discussion.  See the following research papers about dog and human visual interactions (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1820653116 and https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1261022).  (These articles are from the journals PNAS and Science, and of them uses the term “co-evolution” in the title 😊)

"Many animals farmed for meat or work are vastly different than their wild type origins, and the practice of farming with meat and work animals has literally transformed human society.  

Absolutely.  Many domesticated animals have contributed enormously to human civilization.  However, to pretend that our relationship to each of them is the same is ridiculous. 

“Dogs are one of those working animals but there are other more important ones.  Dogs don’t plough."

Here I think we are moving closer to what you really want to say.  As I see it, you want to remove dogs from whatever elevated position you think they enjoy, and reduce them to “just another” domesticated animal.  You have one view of the “place” you believe dogs should occupy, and you are trying to convince others of your opinions.  Based on your words, you obviously think that dogs are disgusting, pestilent, aggressive, dangerous beasts, unworthy of the attention lavished upon them by so many (you wouldn’t eat them because they lick their own assholes, and so on).    

My position is the contrary.  I think that the relationship between dogs and humans is very strong.  It began when we were hunters and gatherers, long before we started to domesticate other species.  Dogs and humans both benefited from this relationship.  They developed together, and the physiological, behavioral, social and emotional bonds between them are very strong, as we can obviosuly see in society.  I’ll give you this: I think the selective breeding of ever more specialized and grossly proportioned dogs is a form of abuse, and reflects especially poorly upon us, considering the ties we have enjoyed with these creatures for so long. 

Regarding the original point of this thread: I think it’s a complicated topic, but, generally, I think dogs with aggressive tendencies, or the potential to cause great harm, should be carefully managed.

Thank you for engaging with my points unlike yesterday’s just insulting me at times.  I note that you are back tracking, and with your back tracked position I ageee more.  First you said (my emphasis):

In response to my objection to that you’ve backed off to:

I agree that this is a plausible explanation for how dogs evolved under humans.  It’s not what you said and what I disagreed with.  

I thought the language in my first, brief post was very clear and it precisely separates the differences between your first claim and your dialled back claim.  Dogs didn’t “evolve with us” they “evolved under us” and indeed this is what you’re now claiming - they evolved to be better partners to humans.  We seem to agree so I’m not sure why my first brief post invited such a longer reply where you over egged everything

Some, but not all humans.  Critical distinction.  Absolutely critical distinction.  

You presume to speak for me here, you are wrong.  Dogs occupy different places to different people and that’s critically important when it comes to regulating their place in society, particularly for aggressive breeds.

I clearly recognise that many people have close bonds with their dogs, but I’m not myopic enough to think that this is dog specific.  I’ve seen horse owners with the same emotional range towards their animal, despite the less human-aligned responses from the animals.  Likewise there are people with the same range towards their cats despite the aloof response.  There are many other pet and working animals that become like family to their owners.  There are many other people who simply aren’t interested and some who are very averse.

My view is not that dogs hold an elevated place that is not “deserved” as you seem to see it, but that their place and that of other companion/working animals is not a natural invariant but depends on factors from the local society down to the individual.  

My problem is not with dogs but with those who start from a massively over blown position and assume it applies to all humans.  It’s as frustratingly unhelpful as those who are rapidly anti dog.  You’ve talked about what you think I’m thinking repeatedly in your post.  You’re well wide of the mark but I know from experience you won’t listen to my views and will revert to interpreting something else.  Your final position agreed with my first “evolved under us” post, but look at what you interpreted from that.  Look at our last thread on this where because I challenged a bullshit statistic you gave on dog ownership you repeatedly imagined all sorts of anti dog views upon me.  Funny thing was I left that threat to go and fuss the next door neighbour’s dog when he poked his head over the wall for some scratches…

Waxing lyrical about dogs “evolving with us” for bidirectional hormonal happiness is not exactly useful to a thread in dogs killing people.  

Dogs.......seem to be quite polarising to me.

I live in a retirement town that is totally overun with little yappy dogs, owned mostly by pensioners who seem to treat their dogs like babies.  The dog mess is everywhere. It is regularly outside my garage which backs onto an access lane where local owners walk their dogs purposely for them to leave a mess and not have to pick it up - if they were wanting to exercise them, theyd be walking along seafront promenade 100m away.  It has become such a problem I am having to install cameras to catch whoever is doing it.

Also last week more of it in the front yard!

Dogs off the lead 100 yards away from the owners, doing their business whilst the owners casually walk along or engaged chatting to their mates.

Family members turning up with their dogs to our house with daughters 8 year old birthday party going on, no asking permission, just turning up with the dog having free reign of both upstairs and downstairs, wiping its bottom on the brand new sofas and peeing in the upstairs spare room.

Thank god it didn't bite one of the kids - I wonder who would be liable.

It was then fed back to them that the house isn't set up for dogs and we dont want dogs in the house, to be nagged again and again to 'let us bring it around as it goes everywhere with us' - needless to say I stood my ground.  These family members actually have a doggy day care business! They should know better. Unbelievable.

Walking down my street with the neighbours chuahua barking agressively at me, at which point they say 'it's ok, he's harmeless', before it goes onto sinking its teeth into my foot. I now have to cross the road every time it passes. Followed a few days later by an elderly lady with a Bichon Frisse, again off the lead and barking aggressively at me, only to be told 'it's ok, he's harmless', yeah like thats what the last one said before it bit me, so get it on a lead.

This weekend visiting other family members where there staffie was continuously jumping up onto its hind legs, at one point with my arm in it's jaw to be told 'it's ok, he's only playing, he'll calm down in a minute', for it to carry on jumping on the misses for this rest of the evening trying to hump her, licking her face and sticking its head up her skirt, should have left but it was her family we had driven 5 hours to visit.

I think you can tell, I have zero appreciation of the things or indeed their selfish owners. If these were isolated incidents it would be different.  They should be properly lisenced with mandatory training for the owners.

Have you tried gazing in to its eyes?

Your post is very timely, I mow a section of a public right of way and I literally just spotted this doozie before I mowed it.  It’s awful when I have to clean a grass / dog turd mix out of the mower.  There’s another dog walker who has a go at me because their dog tries to eat other dog’s poop as if it’s my job to clean up third party turds.  WTAF is wrong with some people?

A fair point, and I've made no bones about that fact that I'm emotionally biased on this subject, that's to be expected.

And of course all dogs are different and have different temperaments to other animals of the same breed, and even within the same litter.

That aside, if I see a stat quoted such as that which made me react, which is not correct it's perfectly fair of me to point that out.   

Staffies do not make up 43% of all dog attacks in the UK and there's no reason why that stat should have remained unchallenged.

As a dog owner, I have every sympathy with you, the excuses for bad behavior are always the same. The aggressive little dogs are a nuisance, if I let my dog act in the same way I'd be in jail. 

Like I said up thread.  Dog licensing was phased out decades ago, and was never used to asses, control, or monitor dog ownership.

It was merely the name for a small, annual tax, dog owners paid to their local council, which was often ignored.

Just because it has a similar name to other licenses (guns, car etc) don’t mix up what it was.

I honestly wonder how those arguing for “stricter licensing” think this used to work? You turn up to the post office with your dog and the post master assesses him and makes a judgement that it’s a suitable animal which you’re a responsible enough person to own?

And how would it work in the future? Sit an exam? Carry your dogs passport on you at all times, with wardens patrolling parks and checking paperwork?!

Never going to happen. Never did.

Not just breed, but their particular dog. It's the "oh, he's only playing", "wouldn't hurt a fly", "never done that before...", "don't tell me how to control my dog" mentality.

Ah, yes...

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/oh_no_i_agree_with_cruella-7637...

Exceptionalism and entitlement...

I think I'm going to adopt a policy of touching and licking the owner's face or children for each unwanted dog contact.  If enough victims of dog attention did this and it became a movement perhaps things might change.

(Rethink, perhaps it would not be very hygienic for me to lick owners and families as they have their dogs bum output on them so perhaps I'll just touch them.  I'm only being friendly ...

Now .. which bit of me should I use?)

Don't forget to lick your own arse first.

So we just join right in with three part harmony and feeling to the wercat restaurant anti-mastif movement when it next comes around on the guitar?

I think I'd have insisted the dog stays in the garden.

The patio doors were open as it was summer time.

The above events have all happened within the last few months.

I haven't mentioned how step daughter (5 years old at the time) got knocked off a footpath and split her head open by a bounding off the lead dog some years ago. Scar to prove it.

Was before I met her mother as if I was there and it was my daughter the police would have been called.

Quite frankly I'm sick to the back teeth of these people and their out of control dogs.

It's as at least if not more antisocial than smoking in someone elses house without asking in the year 2023.

I’m a dog owner and agree with you. I also get really p!ssed off with dogs on extendable leads, who’s owners are very skilled at creating trip wires, and using my legs as a Maypole. 

I’m in complete agreement and sympathy with you. People like that really annoy me. I had relatives who couldn’t accept that some people simply don’t like large unhygienic hairy beasts licking them, climbing onto them or dropping slavery toys onto their laps. Some even expressed a dislike of people who didn’t find dogs adorable. And in case it isn’t apparent further up the thread, I love dogs, the bigger and more unruly the better.

Same here. There's a new breed of incredibly arrogant, entitled dog owners who are thick as pigshit and have no idea how to control their dogs.

They aren't the stereotypical tattooed chavs with staffies, they're predominantly middle class with money to buy pedigrees and exorbitantly priced mongrels. They wander round the countryside oblivious to the chaos they cause and the trail of shite their dogs leave. 

I’m sure it will have been mentioned on myriad other dog threads but I think the phenomenon of lockdown dogs has changed the overall social dynamic, one issue being that many lockdown puppies didn’t get appropriate levels of socialisation and are now adult dogs who get freaked out by other people and dogs. This is the case with my thankfully ex-neighbours daschunds (one of which bit me) and more worryingly another neighbour’s very large and flighty Swiss Mountain Dog.

Totally agree. It is not an issue confined to the tattooed muscled up chav who own the muscly dog as a Willy extension. It’s equally an issue with the middle class carry your dogs in handbag fashion accessory people. And what seems like every level in between.

Nothing new here; been like it for decades. Just there are more of them now.

Hi Wintertree

Good God!  The sky must be falling.  You and I are (almost) having a civil conversation.

I remember you now—you’re the owner of the public right of way who posted in the “dogs in huts” thread, correct?

(I think you are absolutely right about owners who don’t pick up their dogs’ waste.  Irresponsible and rude, and it puts you in a terrible position.  The story you told about the dog owner who chastised you for not picking up poop that her dog subsequently ate was particularly rich.  I sympathize with you.  I consider picking up waste the bare minimum of responsible dog ownership.)

Anyway, you and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree. 

I think you have greatly overstated the extent to which I have backtracked my original position.  I haven’t backtracked at all.  I’ve simply pointed out that, in this thread, I didn’t raise the subject of co-evolution.  If you do choose to explore this subject further, you will find that your narrow view of co-evolution is not shared by the scientific community, and that examples of dog and human co-evolution do exist. 

Further, I think it’s false to claim that dogs evolved “under” humans.  I would say that they evolved alongside us, or with us, until we began intensive selective breeding, which occurred relatively late in the process.

And I believe bond between humans and dogs is absolutely unique in the animal world—again, a view shared by the scientific community. 

But, of course, you will have a different views on all this, and that’s what make life interesting, I suppose.

The best thing you wrote was, “I left to go and fuss the next door neighbour’s dog when he poked his head over the wall for some scratches.”

I'm glad to know you’re not averse to petting the odd dog that pokes its head around your corner. 

Keep it up.

Anyone see Cruella’s latest Twitter post?

“Hey everyone, don’t worry about Johnson’s missing WhatsApp messages, the PPE scandal, the ennoblement of a girl in her 20s with only 18 months of relevant work experience, our complete lack of ability to process asylum claims and instead blaming it in the claimants themselves, Rwanda and spending millions on a barge that would house less than 1% of the countries asylum claimants… no no, don’t worry about all that - after all there’s an election coming up and aren’t them big dogs people have these days scary?”

Genuine question, are licking dogs a real issue where you are? I can't recall the last time I was licked by a dog, and I own one, so inevitably end up spending loads of time around dogs

Funny what happens when you drop the unprovoked insults.

It’s a critical distinction.  One post strongly implied the response evolved in both species together, the other recognised that dogs evolved to tap in to a human response.

> But, of course, you will have a different views on all this, and that’s what make life interesting, I suppose.

What makes life tedious is that every time I disagree over something that in no way implies I’m a rabid dog hater but doesn’t agree with you, you immediately jump to the view I’m a rabid dog hater and read everything I post with that bent.  

> Further, I think it’s false to claim that dogs evolved “under” humans.  I wuld say that they evolved alongside us, or with us, until we began intensive selective breeding, which occurred relatively late in the process.

Everything lives and evolved alongside everything else.  This is so obvious and all prevalent that mentioning it for one species is of no consequence.  Grass has evolved along side us and is now wheat and barley and grass, but we directed the evolution of grass more than it did for us.  Before the more recent highly selective breeding, the evolution of dogs and of many other animals were much more influenced by people than vice versa.  There are ancient breeds of dog that differ far more than people then or now.

Dogs, cats, horses, grass - their evolution and their splitting in to many different breeds with wildly different characteristics has been driven by humans, or happened under humans.  This direction of evolution of many other forms of life has radically transformed human culture and civilisation, but the effects on our evolution are more limited - and much smaller in scale than those that have happened to other life from us.

I'm not a fan of these dogs after seeing one becoming aggressive against my own dog, a German Pointer. My dog was very submissive which probably saved him, along with another time where a Rottweiler attacked him. 

I think it boils down to the owners though. Every time I've had any bad experiences with dogs it's not the breed- it's the owner who has picked the dog as a way of bolstering their street cred. 

Problem with legislating against specific breeds is the bad guys/ gals will just crossbreed something that isn’t quite the same but has those shared characteristics- muscley, big mouth, bit twitchy with strangers. Probably best to neuter the owners. 

Wintertree, I offered you a very friendly post, despite the fact that you keep talking about my "bullshit claims" and "unprovoked assaluts" and "tedius claims."   This reflects poorly on your character.

Here is a challenge:

Go find a robust definition of co-evolution.  Find a definition in a reputable source that requires symmetry of genetic change, and all the other limitations you feel are necessary, and use this reference to support your views.

Read some articles about dog and human evolution and genetics.  Present resesarch from peer reviewed journals and explain how it support your views.

Do these things, and I will engage with you.

Otherwise, you might as well go back to picking up shit on your ROW.

youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA&

Think I’ll ever learn?

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/dogs_thread_part_two-758952?v=1...

I hope so, I'm worried about running out of appropriate pop-culture references. 

Hats off to you for a valiant attempt though. A couple of posts ago I actually thought I was about to witness a pigeon conceding it was in check, if not checkmate.

And if he doesn't, will you promise to stop?

Stop? 

Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!

I think that when people start sharing pop culture memes and talking about ass licking, the time has arrived to upload pictures!

Here's my pooch Luna, with my daugher and her best friend, in MY bed, this summer.

A picture of harmony--kids and dogs together, as they have been for thousands and thousands of years.

Sitting here at 6:30AM listening to next doors lovely pooch bark its bloody head off, I'm finding it hard not to want every one of the things banned TBH

This thread has been entertaining but I think the only conclusion is the same as 95% of UKC threads which is that some people are a*******les and there's not much you can easily do about it.

I was running the other day down a quiet country lane (a road), I'd been passed by about 6 cars in 40 minutes from both directions. 

I catch-up with a lady walking in the same direction as me, in the middle of the road with her dog off the lead, walking close to but behind her. I'm 5'11" and the dog's head was taller than my hips so I would say it was a pretty big dog.

The dog sees me but she doesn't, dog looks back at me and stops, carries on, turns around again and stops, back to the lady etc. When I'm probably about 30m away I think I'll shout my usual "Hello!" so she isn't startled and can get her dog under control ("you never know about dogs do you", I think).

So I shout hello, she doesn't turn around. Again I shout, doesn't turn around. Again. Again. "Excuse me!" I'm practically on top of her now. "HELLO!" She turns around "oh sorry I didn't hear you" (because she's got AirPods in!). WTAF, it's an actual road with tractors, cars, horses, farm traffic, cyclists, you name it. I wouldn't walk with headphones in even without a dog, but everyone's different I guess.

The dog didn't do anything but I didn't know it wouldn't and I wouldn't want to get jumped on by a dog that size in the middle of nowhere.

And the number of times I've been running down isolated single-track paths in woods etc., and turned a corner to see a dog completely on it's own, ear's all pricked up to see me, just stand there, no person in sight, then I have to actually brush past the thing and go some more tens of metres before finding a person (either walking towards or away from the dog), the dog following along behind me - makes me quite uncomfortable, but the person with the dog probably/hopefully "knows" (as much as anyone can "know" anything about an animal's behaviour) that it's fine off the lead and will be sensible and harmless. 

-------------------------------------

Another funny thing (to me), in one of those BBC articles way up the thread, they had some quotes from various people about their dogs (I think those XL Bullies), this was my favourite:

"She's just the sloppiest, dopiest dog I've ever owned. She's great with other people, her only downside is she gets excited when she sees people"

"...Excited..." right... well one doting dog owners "excited" could be another person's "out of control dog", so you've got to consider what other people's preferences and feelings might be.

Edit - I'm not saying people in these examples are the A******les necessarily! Maybe it is acceptable and I'm the A*******LE! 😂

It's interesting the parallels between dog control in the UK discussions and gun control in the USA discussions.

On the one side there's "ban or restrict the weapon", on the other side there's "it's not the weapon it's the owner".

[with half-hearted apologies about considering dogs as weapons - with a few owners they effectively are]

Practically, it's much harder to ensure that all gun/dog owners are properly trained (dogs are far easier to train) than to legislate for some kind of restriction.

But conversely, if there were fewer "weapons" in circulation, then the number of serious injury or death incidents would be reduced.

And our national "pet loving" trait means that the "dog lobby" over here is effectively as powerful as the gun lobby over there, even if it's not as officially organised.

Edit: and cross breeding to get round dangerous breeds legislation is the parallel of it being ok to buy/sell a semi- automatic and a conversion kit but illegal to buy/sell a full automatic.

Dont forget that this falls under the home secretaries remit; it's been entirely of Cruella's doing that the only output from the home office has been the migrant issue whilst in reality, there are many many other areas that it should be on top of (but aren't).

I listened to some f the Five Live piece. The first ‘Pro XL’ owner said: ‘I wanted a dog but when I went to the rescue centres they said I couldn’t have one coz I live in a flat and work all day (think she lives by herself). So I heard about someone with this XL and they didnt want it so I took it off them.’  She kept going on about  Jack Russells being more dangerous. She admitted to struggling with her mental health, and clearly struggled when the next two callers had had their dogs killed by an XL and similar. 

Is that where this thread has got to?  Stories of encounters with dogs where nothing happened?

Shall start another thread where we can swap stories of crossing the road and not getting run over, meeting people alone on a country path and not being murdered, and having a meal in a restaurant and not getting any food poisoning at all?

I mean I expected the thread to get to where it already had - swapping stories of dog encounters peppered with hypothetical threats of violence toward that animals or their owners - that's a where these threads usually end up, but this is an interesting new direction.

It was a story about inattention and stupidity; that illustrated how some people are arseholes.

Just to add to the conversation, I wish I could have got my hands on the owner of the dog that yesterday  chased twenty or so terrified sheep down the road below Stanage, (We were caught in the stampede) then it (the dog) ran up the path towards the Popular End, scattering many other sheep. Didn't hear anyone calling it, or attempting to control it. I think it was a black labrador, and having owned one I know they can be very obedient and well trained, - except with sheep.

Ah yes a woman walking alone down a country road with her placid dog following closely behind didn’t react to an unknown male voice shouting hello at her soon enough. What a complete arsehole she must be.  Absolutely outrageous behaviour, can’t believe anyone would be so stupid.

Get a grip mate. 

😂 sorry for lowering the tone, I've been holding back that gem of an anecdote for days. The quality and focus of discussion has been so high so far... 😜. I'll increase my threshold for interacting with threads in the future.

It might be about nothing happening, but I think the moral is everyone's in their own little bubble and their perceptions, preferences and morals are different. This obviously creates friction or internal discomfort sometimes, isn't that the nature of all life and existence.

All I could think was what if it was a tractor rolling up behind her, imagine how much you'd jump to get honked at by a tractor a few yards behind you on a single track road!

You can't win! If I don't make my presence known people (male or female) are often startled and they might not enjoy that. I'm trying to be kind here.

Walking down a country lane with earbuds so loud she couldn't hear someone trying to get her attention. Or oncoming traffic.

The dog could have been placid. Or it could have been 'friendly', or reacted badly to runners; it's not unreasonable to ask a dog owner to make sure their dog is under control as you approach it. The point being, she should have been attentive enough to be aware of her surroundings and other road users, if only for her own safety.

I get your point, running up behind a lone person on a country lane can sometime cause alarm, particularly if you’re a man and it’s lone female.  I would probably just give them a wide berth and maybe a quick hello (if I had the breath) as I passed.  That would be kind.

I think repeatedly shouting hello at them at an increasing volume, then posting about them on the internet and calling them an arsehole kind of crosses the threshold into unkind for me.

Her personal safety is not your concern, if she gets run over by a tractor as she had headphones in that’s her problem. Just as people say we shouldn’t go climbing as it’s dangerous, as long as she’s not endangering anyone else it’s up to her to make her own decisions on what is safe.  That doesn’t make her an arsehole.

I don’t really think she’s done anything wrong here at all.  Are you suggesting deaf people shouldn’t ever walk down a country lane then?

I’d suggest that if the dog was liable to react other people when put on a walk the. It would have been on a lead, just as mine is for that very reason.

You are assuming everyone is a considerate dog owner like you say you are. They aren't; that's the whole bloody point of this discussion. Loads of dog owners let their dogs roam aimlessly off lead, jumping up at people, getting in the way, tripping them up, biting them; all reported anecdotally in this thread.

The fact that you think I shouldn't be concerned about a stranger's safety is rather telling... Besides which, my point was that it demonstrates her stupidly and lack of consideration. 

I don’t think the gender thing comes into it I should’ve just said person, I came up behind a bloke the other day and made my presence known and he jumped out of his skin and literally said “f****king hell!”, all I could say was “yeah not many people use this path do they eh!”

And of course getting hit by a tractor is not just her problem, it’s a problem for the farmer, the farmers insurer, the farmers customers, the people that eat what the farmer grows, the ambulance service, the nhs, her family, her employer, HMRC, any other stakeholders in her existence in wider society. Edit - oh and her dog!!
 

Of course deaf people can walk down roads but everyone (in an ideal world) should mitigate risks to a proportionate and practical level (hence climbing safely is ok) for their own benefit and that of society. People have different risk thresholds though don’t they. And I’m not saying she or the dog walkers are arseholes I’m saying some people are. 

Yes. And sometimes men attack lone females on country roads. But the elliot isn’t an arsehole, the dog isn’t reactive, and the woman isn’t an arsehole either. 

Nobody has done anything wrong here. It’s a non event, or at least it would be if it wasn’t for Elliot’s retrospectively posting on the internet calling a woman an arsehole as she didn’t do what he wanted her to do sooner, despite the fact she’s under absolutely no obligation to do so.

And no, strangely enough I’m not that concerned about a woman I’ve never met’s decision to wear headphones or not. Live and let live. If somebody as long as somebody isn’t harming anyone else through their actions, that’s fine by me.

I’ve got enough on my plate to concern me than to go around and start worrying about things which didn’t happen to people I don’t know.  I’ve got a life, I guess.

Dogs, by law, have to be under control. If she can't hear someone asking her to call it back then it isn't under control is it?

This isn't directed specifically at either of you:

This thread is another sad example of society's increasing inability to share space and consider or accept others. See any thread re shared cycle/pedestrian/dog walker paths or road use. And if you want to see more representative examples than the levelled headed ivory towers of UKC 😃 try local community FB groups or the comments section of online newspapers. Solipsism, intolerance and hate abound. Even the myriad car threads on here are hotbeds of petty tribalism. Tom Lehrer's 'National Brotherhood Week' is ripe for re-writing.

None of this implies that badly socialised, untrained and/or weaponised dogs aren't an issue.

Anonymously arguing about dogs on a random internet forum?

No they don’t. It’s against the law for a dog to be dangerously out of control in public. Which this dog wasn’t.

I said I’ve got a life, not that I’m not a sad bastard

^^^ This.  I wonder how many dog owners will like me jumping up at them and getting in their face.  One of the local tenant farmers has perennial trouble with dogs worrying his sheep, I'd love to sit up on a scaffold tower with a shotgun in the middle of a field with a small enclosure of sheep below me and wait for the first xxxdoodle to come in and worry them.  The local dog control landscape would change overnight when Karen's gorgeous little baby who'd never hurt a fly dies a slow death in her arms. Same goes for DNA testing, introduce it and watch the dogs' mess problem evaporate.

Two contributions.  One will likely be met with cries of "I told you so" while the other will be followed by howls of fury.

First off, it seems that dog bites are rising in the UK, confirming many of the stories here.  I think the hypothesis that some of this is related to dogs that matured during the time of COVID restrictions has some merit, but might not be the whole explanation.  See article here: https://theconversation.com/dog-attacks-on-adults-are-rising-but-science-sh...

Nonetheless, the overall danger of dog bites remains low.  In another thread, I pointed out that whenever you leave your house in the UK, you have a greater liklihood of suffering a violent or sexual assault from another human rather than getting bitten by a dog.  That still seems to be the case.  I'm happy to be proven wrong--I wish assault and sexual violence were not so common--but the sources seem reputable.

This link seems shows an incidence of dog bites of about 19 per 1,000 people in 2015:  https://jech.bmj.com/content/72/4/331

(There is more recent research that I assume shows higher incidence but I can't access the data)

This link shows an incidence of violent or sexual assaults of 36 per 1,000 people: https://crimerate.co.uk/

So, perhaps people on this thread should direct a portion of their anti-dog rhetoric at preventing common assaults and sexual violence. 

Obviously, I fall into the "dogs aren't the problem, people are the problem" group.

It's to do with bite power. To their owners they're invariably docile, however, they are massively powerful and aren't necessarily docile when there's something wrong - they've been stung by a wasp, or they're tired and irritable, or they thing their owner is threatened and they want to defend them.   Which is why some owners get them, they're good with their family, yet can protect them.  In terms of a risk assessment, the result of them getting angry is so bad that it doesn't matter how unlikely getting angry is, the risk of a bad thing happening is always high.

The question is, who is being assaulted randomly? I suspect the vast percentage of assaults are either at pub chuck out, or in a domestic. Same as shootings & stabbings - if you're not involved in gang warfare you're unlikely to be at a perceptible level of risk.  That's not the same as walking down the road and being bitten by a dog.

Your point doesn't change the numbers, and if you think it through, there are some deeply concerning implications in your statement.

A more interesting point is that average of course mask variability.  If you dig into the crime statistics you can see the safest and most dangerous parts of the the UK for various crimes--that might provide some insight into the nature of these assaults.

I really don't see your point.  I suspect there are far more dog bites that go un reported than violent or sexual assault.  I didn't report my neighbours dog when it bit me last month.

And just because something is worse or more prevalent, doesnt mean the less prevalent is ok.

They aren't actually a breed of dog, are they ? They are a cross breed.  Hard to legislate against mongrels.

This point was addressed in the linked study, so I think the numbers are accurate for 2015, at least. 

"Dog bite studies are typically based on hospital records and may be biased towards bites requiring significant medical treatment. This study investigated true dog bite prevalence and incidence at a community-level and victim-related risk factors, in order to inform policy and prevention."

I agree with your second statement.  However, this entire thread shows the sorts of bias and prejudice that humans are so good at. There seems to be far more vitrol about dogs than about more important public saftey issue, like assault and sexual violence. 

"However, this entire thread shows the sorts of bias and prejudice that humans are so good at. There seems to be far more vitrol about dogs than about more important public saftey issue, like assault and sexual violence. "

UKC in Thread about Dogs does not include discussion about Assault or Sexual Violence shocker. 

Start a thread regarding those issues if you so wish, this is a thread about a specific "breed" of dog which is becoming more popular and is responsible for violent attacks and deaths to other dogs and humans - hence why the discussion focused on this until you once again waded in with some off topic nonsense. 

You wrote: "This is a thread about a specific "breed" of dog which is becoming more popular and is responsible for violent attacks and deaths to other dogs and humans." 

No, this is a thread about every bitter and unhappy person with an axe to grind about dogs spewing their anger and fear into the world. 

That's where I come in--my role is to disrupt the process.

I also post pictures of my dog.  Here is Luna lying in the grass this summer in the alps, just waiting for somebody to walk by so she can jump up wagging her tail and lick their hand.

Haha. Ok, right. 

For what it's worth I like dogs. No more food for this troll, go give your dog a biscuit. 

Yeah that makes sense, like a risk assessment where you consider likelihood of something happening and impact if it does. I had read "dangerous" as the opposite of "soft" but actually I suspect the meaning was 'unlikely to attack' and 'severe consequences if they do', which are compatible. 

My original disagreement with the statement was based on my interpretation of "widely" meaning >50%, which I suppose isn't necessarily the case.

I was also having a tired and stressful day, in case that wasn't obvious... 

I’d call bollocks on that.

In the last 7 years I’ve attended precisely 2 dog attacks, one where the dog was defending its owner from an aggressive partner and the other where a political canvasser lost a finger joint sticking a flyer through a letterbox.

No idea how many random human on human assaults I’ve attended of the same time frame. Too banal and frequent to recall.

on several occasions this year my wife has had to wash clothes because of muddy dog paws from someone's dog jumping up.  We do go to Keswick occasionally for the market and some shopping and it is really difficult there as there are so many dogs and owners of multiple dogs and they really don't seem to be prevented from getting into personal space.  I think it is a problem just because of the sheer numbers there are now and that implies a greater number and variety of ownership attitude and behaviour.  There seem now to be quite a few owners who think it is OK for their dogs to get their bums up on to a chair at a tearoom or coffee shop.

My wife has a friend in this village who is in her 80s and was asked a couple of weeks ago to step aside, in Keswick, to let someone's dogs pass.  Is this a generational thing?

Speaking of dog mess today I spotted a lovely dogshit bag that a nice person had tied up and dropped over the edge of Helvellyn, not far from the trig point.  Nice!  Would have been a serious proposition for the shit faeries to collect so it's become part of the mountain environment.

Hmm, that's really good point in terms of risk. However, I just had a quick google and the currently banned dog types aren't actually the ones with the largest bite pressure so I expect temperament plays a part too. Could defining a maximum bite pressure be a way to update the law and prevent circumvention with cross breeds ect.? Bit like maximum energies for air guns?

No, it's a c**t thing. I experienced this, oddly also in Keswick in the Dog and Gun. A huge (fat) guy with two Great Danes came in and barged through, ordering other customers to, "Move your dog mate." One customer had a very capable looking staffy which had been delightful to us and to the other dogs in the pub. When the two Great Danes saw the staffy they went mental. Staffy man had to pick up his dog which had responded in kind. Great Dane man barged through the customers with his dogs still going utterly ballistic, while going on about how 'Them staffys are always aggressive.' 

I recognise that I am a bit weird and not intimidated by two pony-sized dogs going spare in the same confined space as me, but for the other 99+% of the population this totally unacceptable. I told the barman that he should have immediately shown the big guy and his two dogs the door.

So to summarise, the root cause of dog problems and indeed most of society's problems is c**ts.

Wercat, your post demonstrates that this thread really isn't about XL dogs (which I agree constitute a real danger and should be strictly controlled).  Instead, it's about people venting their general intolerance and prejudice.

"On several occasions this year my wife has had to wash clothes because of muddy dog paws from someone's dog jumping up." 

and

"There seem now to be quite a few owners who think it is OK for their dogs to get their bums up on to a chair at a tearoom or coffee shop."

I think the truly "entitled" are those that go out into public spaces and expect not to have to mix with the public, including dogs.

Here's a picture of Luna on the famous Swiss trains.  Dogs pay a fare, and are thus entitled to a seat.  The Swiss are surprisingly warm-hearted and tolerant when it comes to dogs. 

It's both that and some dogs being more dangerous if they do attack.

Think of it like a risk matrix, (ignoring the fact that some dogs are bred to be more aggressive than others), the "people" problem is the likelihood, a**eh*le owners are a 5, good responsible owners are a 1.

The dog breed/strength/whatever is the consequences, XL Bullies would be a 5, small, frail dogs would be a 1.

So you really don't want your a**eh*le owners to have anything above a "1" dog, and it's questionable whether anyone should have a "5" dog, but if there are any, you really need them to have a "1" owner.

Etc, etc.

However you look at it, there are too many dogs/owners out there that score higher on that risk matrix than is acceptable.

In wercats defence I did specifically ask them about dog experiences

Once again, you miss my point.

Your lack of concern for someone else's safety suggests a general lack of consideration for other people. So that you don't consider that dog owners should make allowance for other people, and be able to show that they have their dog under control if asked.

I would be mortified if my dog jumped up at someone. Thinking of times I have had dogs jump up at me, a Lab that lives down the street where I am chatting to the owner and have a ball in my hand is the only one that comes to mind. It does sound like Keswick has a particular problem with them at the moment, generally the same all the year or more so around the summer? Was there with my dog a couple of years ago, but didn't spend much time in town (opted for having him sleep on the floor of the Old Dungeon Ghyll instead)

In wercat’s further defence, they posted about actual experiences and laid the blame clearly on the dog owner.  Much like the vast majority of comments on this thread, very reasonable and sensible.

Problem is someone has a bone with this and sees it as “[…] a thread about every bitter and unhappy person with an axe to grind about dogs spewing their anger and fear into the world.” and has directly admitted they’re deliberately trying to disrupt what everyone else sees as a sensible conversation.

Trolls aren’t the problem, bridges are.  

Conversely, I get a bit miffed if someone stops their dog from jumping on me and giving me a friendly hello.

That makes good sense Michael.  I like the way you analyzed that.

I agree--whenever a dog approaches me to say hello, and their owner jerks the leash back defensively or with annoyance, I think to myself "a**hole." 

No, I’ve understood your points perfectly well, I just don’t agree with them. Now who’s the one showing a lack of consideration for others?  

One of the things that annoys me most is people who show a lack of consideration for others. People who ride bikes on the pavement, don’t clean up after their dog (I actually had a go at a bully XL owner 2 weeks ago and make him pick up after his dog, gave him a bag and everything!), people who play loud music in an otherwise peaceful spot etc…

But going back to the original incident, nothing remotely of that magnitude has happened at all. In fact other than a woman walking down the road with her dog, minding her own business nothing has happened outside than the unfounded anxiety in Elliot’s head. Are we to hold her responsible for that?

Now seeing as you’re clearly so empathetic… Has it occurred to you that the lady may have heard Elliot first time perfectly well, but not recognised the voice, been alarmed by the annoyed tone and chosen to ignore and keep walking it as she was alone and scared?

Can guarantee it wouldn’t have been this long before someone asked this if there were more women posters on here. But some of us seem to struggle to see things from somebody else’s point of view.

FWIW, my dog is always on a lead when there are other people or dogs around. And I’ll shorten in and keep her close whenever we pass anyone so she wouldn’t be able to get anywhere near them if she tried. I’d be mortified if she even touched anyone who didn’t want to interact with her, especially as I live in a very muslim area, where many people (even if they like dogs) are not able to touch dogs because of their religious beliefs.

Roughly 13 million dogs in the U.K. and only a few thousand XL bullies and yet they account for around half of all dog attacks and fatalities. 

Part of the problem stems from a huge degree of inbreeding (most of the current crop of XLs are descended from just a few dogs imported less than a decade ago). By far the greater problem is the type of people attracted to this breed. Sensible people looking to share their homes with a dog for the next 10 to 15 years tend to do a lot of research with regards to what they’re getting into.

If the briefest Google search turns up the fact that the breed accounts for as many fatal attacks as all other breeds combined and your response is “that’s the dog for me!”, it’s odds on you’re a halfwit unsuited to taking care of a goldfish, let alone a large and potentially dangerous dog.

Maybe we should start licensing and closely regulating halfwits? (if only)

As far as dogs in general go, bit of give and take maybe? 
 

I don't get it.

Saying hello is one thing but why on earth would you want your dog, especially a larger breed jumping up in a stranger's face?

I say this as someone who had a fear of dogs from a toddler to my mid-teens after a "He's just playing" episode from an entitled yappy jack russell owner before I could properly walk!

You'd be sat on the floor if ours jumped up at you, which we had to train out of him, our previous Newfie was the same when we got him.

It's bad manners on the dogs/owners part, imagine it happening to a child or less able person, children especially having a dog in their face can be very intimidating.

We often have kids wanting to pet our saint but if they're nervous I always get him to lie down. 

I wonder how you'd be posting if Luna was on the receiving end of a viscious attack from an XL bully.

The golden rule is: people first every time. Because i was bitten on the leg when out running and the owner said it was my knees going up and down that confused her pet, I always give every dog a wide berth when I'm out and about.  If you must have a dog, you must prioritise the welfare of people. Your dog will thank you. Dogs are much happier if they know, exactly, their place. Which in terms of human society, to which they are admitted, is at the bottom of the pile. 

I've been bitten twice, both on or descending from Helvellyn, in recent years.  Never before.

My wife works part time in a tearoom and they regularly have to tell dog owners that the benches are for humans not dogs - extra cleaning is done for the benefit of subsequent guests after a dog of unknown habits and provenance has been on a seat.

There are just huge numbers of dogs now wherever you go and lots of them are not on the leash or controlled enough not to interfere with other people.  I never had this problem years ago when they seemed far less numerous.

I was sitting eating in a pub the other day, dog and owner come in and sit at neighbouring table. Dog starts to wander over to us and was immediately pulled back, however when I showed interest in saying hello the lead was extended so it could come over to me.

I call this good manners on the behalf of the owner. He had no idea how I felt about dogs, or if I wanted one round me when eating. Also I had no idea if his lovely looking pet was friendly (or nervous) to strangers, or maybe over excited and inclined to launch rather than politely sniff when greeted - respect works both ways and just as I don't want a face full of dog, many dogs don't like being pestered by strange humans.

I noticed the pub had big signs up saying dogs were not permitted in the furniture. This seems totally reasonable to me, I don't want to sit down and find myself covered with fur or sitting in a damp sandy patch from a dog that had just been playing on the beach. A different group did have to be asked to get their dog down on the floor and whilst the complied watching their body language it appeared to be a huge inconvenience to them.

Typical of a bad mannered, entitled dog owner, regardless of paying for the transport on a train the dog shouldn't be on the seat, or do you think its ok to put your feet on the seat as well.

Today's news - man killed outside a school by two dogs.  Awful, and clearly could have been worse still.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-66818862

Expert opinion from those who work with dogs is pretty clear that banning some breeds just makes them more desirable with the worst kinds of owners.

I don't like leaning in to more authoritarian solutions, but it feels like we're at that point when you look at the trajectory of dog-on-human killings in the UK.  More pro-active enforcement including accepting video evidence of dogs being overly aggressive on or off the lead in public without a muzzle, backed by police powers to remove dogs for assessment and potential destruction based on such evidence, along with lifetime bans on owners and their households above some threshold of having an aggressive dog in public that's not muzzled and controlled by a lead.

You might just as well say you like a bit of a bar fight and are a bit disappointed if you go into a bar and don't get one.

And there we have it. Sunak can’t resist the populist move, and expands BSL, despite the fact any organisation with in depth knowledge of the subject campaigning against it. It doesn’t work and never has. https://www.dogstrust.org.uk/how-we-help/stories/end-bsl

That’s ridiculous.

OP/thread: Just announced that the Bully XL has been banned, or as Sunak says, once it’s been defined what it actually is. Jesus wept. “I don’t know what it is, but I’m against it.”

If I had a big staffy or mastiff-looking mutt I’d be very worried right now.

I wonder what breed will be next in line for the chop. A certain demographic likes having weaponised dogs and you can be sure they’ll be busy researching which currently legal breed or mix will help them project the toxic image they want.

good luck with this comment - I made it earlier in the thread and beat my dislike record!  

I waited until the thread was past the knee-jerk "we have to do something" phase.  What you say is backed by a lot of knowledgable groups.

An update to the most recent killing (link above) has this added "One resident, who wished to remain anonymous, said in March a woman and her dogs were seen being chased by the same two dogs who killed the man. The resident said the police were called and the owner was given a caution."

Missed opportunity for earlier, tougher intervention had the legal framework been better?

You want to know something funny?  Here is Switzerland, you will receive absolutely cutting looks and dismissive comments if you put your shoes on a chair...but if you put your stinky/sweaty/sock feet or bare feet on a train seet...that's OK!  Weird. I'd much rather sit where a dog has sat, or where some shoes have rested, than sit where bare feet have smouldered.

That's illogical though? A dog is likely to deposit faecal bacteria on the seat. Likewise shoes from walking in toilets. Far worse than sweat.

From which end?

I remember walking up a steep rocky path to a point where I paused for breath only to see a puddle of human excreta (las night's chilli or curry diluted by too much beer?)

Someone's darling labrador appeared before I'd even moved off and lapped it all up, delicious! Then bounded down below and leapt up to greet the owners.  Something I'll never forget.

You were expecting logic???

Not if backed up with muscular enforcement. I.e. All identified dogs destroyed, public encouraged to dob in owners etc. Hefty fines for ownership after the initial purge.

I agree--it's somewhat illogical.  And yet thats how I feel.  Luna often sleeps in my bed, often on my pillow (!) and that doesnt bother me at all. But If somebody rested their feet on my pillow--yuck!

If people can keep any dog they like, why not expand that to any animal they like? Why not a bear on a chain? Why aren't we allowed to ride an elephant into a shopping mall? Why not  a monitor lizard, a chimpanzee, a leopard? A dog is only a tame wolf; why not have the wilder version? 

It's simply a matter of risk assessment: certain kinds of people shouldn't have any animals and certain animals should not be kept as pets without restrictions and licencing. We shouldn't have to wait for children to get chewed up before we decide. There's plenty of zoologists around to advise.

And by the way if you let your dog climb about on the furniture on public transport you shouldn't be allowed on.

A dog is not a tame wolf, it's a dog. Taming and domestication are different processes.

jk

On the assumption that some of what’s on my dog would end up on your clothes and by extension in your mouth, you’d end up eating dead rat, maggots off a sheeps carcass and some of my shit. I could go on, but it’s before the watershed. 

Well quite. And we know what happens to people who think that their animals are nice, cuddly and totally under control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_%26_Roy

"And by the way if you let your dog climb about on the furniture on public transport you shouldn't be allowed on."

And yet I am allowed on.  Isn't that delightfull?  And maddening for dog haters?  There are some good qualities to Switzerland. 

Luna is great scavenger and omnivorous vaccum clearner--when we walk in the woods, she eats just about anything she can find, the dirtier, smeller, and more disgusting the better.  She also likes to jump in muddly puddles, like Peppa Pig, rinse herself in fetid streams, and what not--she's a happy, healthy labroador-border collie mix.  It's actually astonishing how clean she remains, coat shiny and gleaming, no smell, sleek and smooth. 

I actually think the incidental exposure you get to pathogens living with a dog, or growing up with dogs, as I did, and my daughter is, turns out to be beneficial for the immune system.

Pehaps you've seen the data about children raised on farms and allergies? 

A little poop does the body good.

Look this is getting to the point of absolute nonsense.

The idea that the breed isn't specifically dangerous is obviously ridiculous because they've killed a load of people whereas others haven't, so clearly the breed is specifically dangerous by at least that metric. These dogs are too dangerous to be allowed to be owned by members of the public, and therefore need to be banned.

People can post whatever inane irrelevant waffle they want about how lovely their labrador is all they like; doesn't matter, they need to ban XLs. "Oh well people are the problem" yeah people are bastards, and so what? That's not going to change. "It's not the dog's fault" no probably not, but also that doesn't really matter either. 

Mental gymnastics aside, this is pretty clear cut.

Beleive it or not, Andrew, I actually think these dogs should be banned, at least with the little I've learned from the press.  I think most of the discussion is about how a ban would be enacted (how do you define an XL), how it would be enforced (by police, animal control) and how that would or would not change the situation on the streets (increase in popularity, new cross breeds).

Then there's the whole question of economics--how much resources do civil institutions really have to combat this threat?  It's fine for the politicians to swan around with bold pronouncements, but when they're cutting public services at the same time, it's just hypocritical posturing.

I think if the ban is put in place,and if people face much higher fees and punishments for out of control and aggresive dogs, and if the organized breeders and criminal associations who popularize these dogs are targeted, things could change.  They need to change.  But it will take time. 

I also feel bad for the dogs.  Many will likely have to be destroyed.  That's a tradgedy that rests firmly on our shoulders. 

Do you have a girlfriend? or are you single? Jee whizz.

Hi Steve,

I have a wife and a daughter.  My wife was afriad of dogs, but I gradually brought her around, and now I think she loves Luna more than I do!

Here's a picture of my wife and daugther in bed with Luna.  Note that Luna is sleeping in my space which is her preferred place!

so a lot must be very good. Which is why, presumably,  some dog owners hang it up in gift bags on convenient trees and bushes. The irresponsible dog owners are the ones who throw it up where you can see it ,but it's just out of reach. How inconsiderate of them.

does doggy ice cream contain faecal ingredients?

my wife tells me that the tearoom gets lots of queries as to what kind of doggy ice-cream is available for the darlings

Interesting set of pictures you're posting here for public consumption, Bruno. Does your missus approve?

Anyway - looking forward to the 'money shot'! I think ...

why do people do this?

When I first saw it, I figured they just haven't returned yet, or maybe forgot. But it's everywhere now.

Why would you pick it up just to hang it in a tree. That's the worst possible outcome.

I caught some interesting things on the farm.  Orf, ringworm......

 I'm a little confused as to the link between saying hello to a friendly dog and having a bar fight?

I had a mate with two great Dane pups years ago. It was pandemonium when you came back to the house and they'd not seen people for a while. If first in best bet was to shut the door and take a couple of steps into the hallway, so you could absorb some of the impact before using the door to stay upright.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why owners want to train it out of dogs, and I don't blame them. I just enjoy the interaction, so I kind of wish we lived in a world where everyone got dog behaviour and was comfortable with it.

Ah. As with most things in life, it's very important to realize that we're all different. What you yourself like isn't 'right' in any absolute sense. 

Wife and kid with a dog?

What’s “interesting” about it?

… the money shot comment is just plain weird.

Pah! You should see where I put my dripping wet mountain bike when I buy a bike ticket. 

Hang on there, pal: I didn't introduce this subject. But Bruno is posting photos of people in bed with dogs. And suggesting that eating shit is good for you. Hmmm.

I mean - I'm just a simple guy. But I thought it might have been a prelude to a special 'Friday night video.'

Ah. That could have been a joke by me. Just a remote possibility. Watch that blood pressure mate.

Lemme guess: you've got a dog, right?

And back in the real world?

You really doubling down on your interpretation of an innocent family photo..,

Again. Weird….you’re talking about a bloke’s wife and kid.

I don’t get angry at internet randoms, just pointing out that your comments are distasteful.

You had to guess? Didn’t me posting a photo of my dog give it away?

Yes, Rob, your comments about inappropriate pictures and a "money shot" were just plain weird. 

But I do have the picture below which is sure to send the dog-phobic crowd into paroxysyms of disgust. 

Here is Luna taking a dog biscuit from my daughter's mouth.

I don't pay forensic attention to what you post. Sorry.

Phwoooaarr!

I kind of wish we lived in a world where dog owners trained their dogs not to bark, snarl and attack people posing absolutely not threat to dog or owner.

I'm pretty ambivalent about dogs; those that react happily when you invite them; fine. Those that go mental with rage or excitement, or run into my path, not so much.

Dog lovers love their dogs, and expect everyone else to do the same, and to accommodate their dog's 'little foibles'. As with the 'running up, licking, knocking over, the owner, etc', it's not acceptable; I have no desire to interact dog or owner.

Some do, possibly most of them. It is beyond argument that many don't and they are the ones you notice, especially if you look for them. 

Crass bit of othering there. That's a sweeping generalisation and pretty offensive to dog owners who go to great lengths to be responsible and considerate. When I hear attitudes like yours I think why bother trying. 

Sorry; your comments are fair, and mine are too sweeping. There are plenty of considerate dog owners.

Just that I have been triggered by the more 'enthusiastic' dog owners on this thread, which brings back memories of all the encounters with bad owners in the past, and why their 'fur baby' is so special. Again, not all dog owners; just the shit ones. After all, I was responding to Ciro's comment, which seemed suggest everyone else should change to accept 'love' from all random dogs, rather than dog owners train and control their pets.

+1

That's not on the slightest what I was trying to say.

I was just expressing my personal joy from encounters with enthusiastic dogs, and a whimsical fantasy of a world where dogs were allowed to be dogs and people were fine with it, not suggesting that it should happen in the real world.

Fair play. I do think you got Ciro wrong, but you and they can sort it out. 

PS: Fur baby....<projectile vomit>

The UK is supposed to be a nation of dog lovers to the degree that they've been described as 'Man's best friend'.
However, reading this thread it appears that this is actually wrong and the UK as a whole actually hates dogs.
Something doesn't tally up and I can only assume that the UKC vocal minority have said their stuff and no one can be really bothered to post anything in response.
By the way, I think the only reason why people are disgusted with dogs being able to lick their own bits is purely down to jealousy...     

Maybe climbers and walkers, being out and about, meet more dogs and get importuned, affronted and bitten more often than others. 

As a previous dog enthusiast ( for 18 years) I have some understanding of "dog love", but,  after she bit somebody (out of a clear blue sky) and hurt them and i got bit myself by other dogs, the love wore off. Now the poor old thing has gone i am "dog free". Dog owners get offended when I express it like that. I still like nice dogs and am fascinated by dog behaviour. I love seeing dogs work. But i deplore the deadly uproar they inflict on wildlife as they hurtle around fields and rummage under hedges. And there are so many of them!

God knows what we spend on our dogs (and cats) but whatever thing of public and environmental benefit we say can't afford... we can afford it, you know.  

I’m not

The recent increase in population has not gone unnoticed.  Always a blessing when they ignore you and you get back with clean tyres.

If they don't have any in the tearooms they should consider getting some, great money maker.

People like spending money on their pets, or more in my case, my wife likes spending money on our pet. I think this cost me £2, for some whipped cream and a gravy bone

You were saying that you welcome dogs jumping up at you (which isn't the same as just saying hello to a friendly dog is it?) and get annoyed/disappointed at owners who control their dogs.

So you welcome behaviour that most people wouldn't.

The news today - existing dogs must be neutered, muzzled in public and insured.  Not exactly unexpected as it’s what’s been done before.  

To me the tragedy was and remains the number of humans who suffer 100% unnecessary deaths spending their last moments in fear and agony as they’re brutally killed by an out of control animal as they go about their normal daily lives.  

'Would you like @rse or bollock flavour?'

Yeah; the generalisation that we all love dogs.

Not true, either. But many of us just don't want or need their attention; not loving dogs is not the same as hating dogs. And therefore we get annoyed by owners who don't train or control their dogs.

Of course, some people will hate dogs. Just as some people hate country music, cheese, or any other random thing you care to mention...

It’s the owners you need to ban, not the dog. We live in a society where some unscrupulous owners only have these types of dogs because they can easily train them to be protective, and therefore be aggressive towards others like themselves. The problem arises when they escape, or in environments where the owner is not absent. 

As an obsessive birdwatcher, and mildly keen dog owner, I’ve never been convinced of the damage dogs cause to ground nesting birds. Clearly they cause some disturbance, but my gut instinct and observations makes me think it’s not substantial. Cats cause mayhem though. 

I think it depends on the dog, for instance cockers and springers do that fast in and out of the undergrowth madness and would I am sure cause disturbance. Cats on the other hand can be very destructive.

https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/gardening-for-wildlife/an...
 

On the farm I help out on we have Skylarks nesting.
We’ve got signs up asking for dogs to be on leads, which are completely ignored, and I’ve spent the summer politely informing dog owners of the problem and where the one remaining nest was.

Amazingly it survived and the chicks fledged. No idea how as I regularly saw dogs rampaging through the field.

Im a fellow springer owner.  He's bred for flushing stuff out. Can't deny that. When he's in that sort of a mood, he just goes on the lead, or he's given a ball. All thoughts of disappearing off the path stop if there is a ball near.

He'd be a huge disappointment to those on here who seem to have dogs jump up at them all the time. Unless they are holding a tennis ball, they are utterly invisible to him. He totally ingores people when we are out, often to dog lovers great frustration!

As I tend to walk where there are quite a few dogs, my own experience is that in the last 20+ years I can only recall one instance of a dog jumping at me or bothering me.

Back to the thread, I get the "bad owners" bit and yes that should be sorted....training....insurance....proper penalties for poor behaviour etc. However as much as my lad is the nemesis of pheasants for miles around due to his breed, these Bully XL type things are also bred for a purpose and so you have to question whether anyone owning a dog like that is necessary or appropriate?

And cats....well, death machines with no personality IMHO, but then I'm a dog owner, so definitely unqualified to have any opinion really. 

Right, that's my vow to not take part in UKC dog flaming threads broken. Crack on with telling me I'm wrong, I'm off for a run on the moor. You lot have a good one!

Try going for a run where there lots of dog walkers, you might up the number of instances! 

This seems like a good, fair-minded article. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/17/american-xl-bully-dog-ban-m...

Cheers for the advice 😁

Well, it highlights the dog-whistle tactics of this home secretary, who really ought to know* how much impact the cuts to the police services have had on their ability to do their job. Cuts imposed by her 'party of law & order'...

* but probably has no idea

I agree Captian.  As I mentioned above, resources will be a big problem.  But hopefully things will slowly change.

There is a large population of skylarks on Askham Common and up onto the High Street Range - also curlews - go there quite often.  No dogs are ever on leads and there an awful lot of them - dogwalker central.  I've seen dogs scare the fell ponies and no one with a dog seems to gives a shit about ground nesting birds, sheep or anything other than dogs.

Generally I'm the only cat up there and I love the birds.

I was bitten running down from Helvellyn.  plus cats, more personality in the tips of their tails than any dog in the whole of its head.  I've lived with both.  perhaps indeed you are not qualified

Dogs like to chase me when I'm on bike. 

I'm always perplexed when the owners seem to suggest this is somehow my fault? 

Yay! Let's hear it for the felines. I've had cats that couldn't catch a cold even if they wanted to. The old trope about them being aloof and lacking personality is just so much bottom gas. I agree some of them are bad for local fauna though.

I don't think SBB trains are quite the laissez faire cheesy feet fondue that you portray. The etiquette is using a "20 minutes" onto the seat before the feet. I'm aware of instances of people being asked by the SBB staff to put their ski boots back on (didn't have the feet on the seats just out of the boots).

Dogs are required to be under seats, you were being tolerated.

https://www.sbb.ch/en/timetable/travel-advice/dogs.html

Just come back from a run. Judging by the size of the bulges in the green bags left along the trail, I'd guess the dog owners are overfeeding their pets.

I was in Austria in July and noted that dogs on public transport all got fitted with fabric muzzles. I'm assuming this is a rule, not one I'm opposed to.

Hi Luke--that's interesting.  I had no idea.  In all the years I've lived here, I've never had a SBB of BVB ticket taker ask Luna to get down from a seat.  Usually, she get's pets.  Mayve the word "tolerated" is the important part here? 

By the way...I posted the picture of Luna sitting on the bare seat because I knew it would get the dog owners all steamed up in a lathered fury.  It worked! 

Typically, Luna lies on my jacket, as in the picture below.  That's probably why the staff are so tolerant.

Ok I'm going to say it.  I let my dog sit on seats.  Don't see what the problem is.

Muddy paws, seeping anal glands, shitey arses, a large number of people allergic to dog hair?

My dogs sits on certain items of furniture with rugs over the fabric when at home.

I wouldn't dream of letting him on the seats of public transport or, even worse, a pub/cafe.

She doesn't really ever seem to have any of those things, we live in London so there's no mud, her arse has never wept nor does she even much have hair (she's a staffy).

All the locals and staff adore her in the pub.  I get told off if I go in there without her!

It’s weird how much pride you take in deliberately trying to make people like dogs and their owners less. 

Too many nicey nicey dog photos on here. So, meet Toby. He stole a mushroom. Check those eyes on him. He’d have your hand off if you tried to grab that mushroom.