New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Behead all black dogs

For all you religious fanatics out there!

Ns04

Sorry, couldn't resist!!

And before anyone complains

1) I'm joking
2) My last dog was black..............and he died of old age!!
3) I detest fanatics equally regardless of which religion they profane!
4) I've not yet had my 2nd cuppa of the day so don't really give sh*t!

SJ_Skyline

https://www.scoobynet.com/showpost.p...6&postcount=48

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Beaten to the beheading!!!

Ns04

PS killed by a Cocker Spaniel?? Poor basta*d, was he licked to death???? It wouldn't have hurt the coroner to have lied about the breed just out of common decency!!

Flatcapdriver

Another example of your flawed thinking at work here. We're all familiar with those statistics because they're used every time this debate comes up. All you've done is copied and pasted some statistics but you haven't proposed how they could be implemented as a scale for dogs being dangerous. I had the ill informed from this forum telling me how nasty and dangerous Rhodesian Ridgebacks were, not two months ago and yet according to your 'evidence' they are the least likely to attack. When I tried explaining this, I was shouted down by the usual Daily Mail types who've boxed in their opinions and refuse to acknowledge that there are people out there with far more experience and relevant experience.

As I said at the beginning, license the owners not the dog. It sounds to me as if these dogs weren't properly socialised, poorly trained and shouldn't have been left alone with a child.

As for your analogy about wild animals and dogs - it's crap because comparing a domesticated animal with a feral one doesn't equate. Surely you can see that?

At the end of the day, we're talking about an extremely slim chance of being attacked by a dog and yet the Daily Mail loonies are getting uptight about something that rarely happens.

jasey

Bring back the Dog licence and charge people through the nose to own any dog.

That should stop the Chavs from getting them.

Next - Behead all Daily Mail Readers and then the rest of us can get on with living our own lives without interference from someone who "knows" better.

scoobfan

Charming !

Rob

///\oo/\\\

Personally, I'd be more worried about Muslims.

I'm sure the statistics will show that more people have been murdered or intentionally injured by Muslims in the uk in recent years than have been killed by Rottweilers.

Anyway, it seems there is more to this story than those all to quick to jump on the bandwagon have taken into account

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...544057,00.html

stilover

I have a Staffie, and as most owners will tell you they are very soft and good natured. I've had him in the close contact with small toddlers and he's been fine with them.

However, I'd never leave him alone in a room with a toddler or baby, just in case. A) I wouldn't be able to live with the guilt of him biting a young child, and B) I'd have to put him down.

Dogs aren't dangerous, It's the owners that make them dangerous.

OllyK

Not really because you have to police it, and the police can't seem to cope with all the other legislation that has been brought in, especially if it involves getting out from behind a CCTV VDU, speed camera or doghnut van.

Most pedigree dogs will set you back over £500 these days, if they can find that, they'll find the money for a licence.

jasey

To be fair Rob calling someone Ignorant isn't in the Dale Carnegie book "How to win friends and influence people" .

davegtt

Not forgetting the way dogs are sold, its so easy to get hold of any type of dog, it doesnt take much to pick up the ad mag etc, there is a big monthly magazine which name escapes me, basically you can buy anything from it and its full of rare breeds of dogs every month. You wouldnt need a licence to go pick up an unregistered dog etc.

jasey

Course they could - it's easy money.

Make the LIcence £2,000. Make the fine for not having one £3,000. Use the money to fund more scamera vans

It's right up the street of modern policing

LongTimeLurker

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/5378816.stm

OllyK

TBH if I ran a pub in New Parks, I'd want a whole pack of Rotties and GPMG mounted on the roof to boot

Norman D. Landing

Oh dear, here we go. It's not 'my thinking' I merely found the information and pasted it here as an example of a sliding scalse of how breeds can be rated, in this case according to number of deaths related to breed. You did ask how it could be done so I did what you asked, it's only one example, there will be more and probably better examples.

You seem to be very defensive about this, oh, hang on, I'm supposed to put a here aren't I ?

Thats exactly what I suggested in the first place ! I said '"Dog ownership should be licensed ", I did not say "Dogs should be licensed". As an addendum I suggested that the license fee should be tiered so that breeds which are generally accepted to be more dangerous to others be more expensive to keep as a deterrant.

By all means, get yourself a Rottweiller but be prepared to pay for the privillege. Hopefully this should mean that your average nutcase who cannot afford it, wont !

This of course would have to be implemented in an 'All dogs must be chipped' scheme. Surely nobody can have an objection to that?

gatecrasher3

I agree with anything that would stop scummy chavs buying dogs as accessories to boost their pathetic ego's. These sort of people encourage the dogs to be "hard" which isn't sending the animal the right message straight away.

Similar to the way the chav scum themselves are brought up.

///\oo/\\\

scoobfan

Oooh, where's Moses !

Rob

Flatcapdriver

Strewth, you are hard work. I suggested licensing long before you got involved in the debate and all you came up with was a copy and paste job, not an explanation of how to rank various breeds' susceptibility to attacking humans.

You can't just take that list and assume that its correct. It doesn't take into account the population of each breed, the total dog population nor any other environmental data so you can hardly pin your grand scheme on that set of figures. There's no information about provocation (yes it does happen), nor is there any information about events leading up to the attack so with so little data, it's impossible to formulate any plan based on such evidence.

People should be licensed, not the dog. Licensing, training for both owner and dog as well as any breeder who should be carrying out a decent vetting scheme.

Lastly, I think you're confused between the concept of being 'defensive' and 'offensive'.

LG John

Well you were pretty derogatory or is that dedogatory

Norman D. Landing

I apologise for attempting to provide the information that you asked to be provided with.

I will in future only provide 'copy and paste jobs' when asked specifically for a 'copy and paste job'.

There you go, thats my 'defensive' part of this post.

Heres the 'offensive' part.

Are you perchance a 5'2 Rottweiller owner? Can you spell Napolean?

BrettC

'Doberman 9 1 10 12 1 13'

When he wakes up I'll show him the stats! I must be doing something wrong.

Norman D. Landing

Just for interest's sake heres a copy and paste job from http://www.dogexpert.com/Dog%20Bite%...tatistics.html


Facts & Stats about Dog Bites & Dog Aggression

There are approximately 4.5 million reported dog bites annually in the United States (nearly 2% of the American population). The majority of dog bites are never reported to local authorities.

40% of American dog owners acquired pets primarily for protection-including German shepherds, Rottweilers, mastiffs and Doberman pinschers. (Source: New York Times, 2/26/01)

Nationwide, U.S. Postal Service carriers suffered 3,423 dog attacks and bites in 2003.


According to the American Medical Association, dog bites are the second leading cause of childhood injury, surpassing playground accidents.

Dog bites to people of the male gender are approximately two times greater than the incidence involving females.


Dogs that are licensed with an identifiable owner are implicated in the vast majority of dog bites (compared with strays).


Dogs not known to the victim account for approximately 10 - 20% of all reported dog bites.


Dog between one and five years are involved in more dog bite incidences than dogs older than 6 years. Male dogs are more frequently involved when compared with female dogs.

Mixed breeds and not pure bred dogs are the type of dog most often involved in inflicting bites to people. The pure-bred dogs most often involved are German shepherds and Chow chows.



The list of breeds most involved in both bite injuries and fatalities changes from year to year and from one area of the country to another, depending on the popularity of the breed.



The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention document that a chained dog is 2.8 times more likely to bite than an unchained dog. Click here for a news story about a mauling of a 4 year old child by a chained pit bull



Canines not spayed or neutered are three times more likely to bite than sterilized ones.



Of the estimated 4.7 million people who were bitten by dogs in 1994, 800,000 sought medical care. Of these, 332,000 needed treatment in emergency rooms, and 6,000 were hospitalized. The average hospital stay for a dog-bite injury was 3.6 days.


Emergency room costs for dog bite victims in the United States was about $102 million in 1994, and overall direct medical costs was about $165 million.


The majority of dog bites to adult humans are inflicted to the lower extremities followed by bites to the upper extremities including the head, face and neck. For children, 77% of dog bite injuries are to facial areas.

According to the Insurance Information Institute, dog bites accounted for about one-quarter of all claims on homeowner's insurance, costing more than $321 million in 2003. In 2002, the latest year for which numbers are available, the average claim for a dog bite was $16,600.

Dog attacks account for one-third of all liability claims on homeowners' insurance policies. According to the Western Insurance Information Service, the insurance industry paid out more than $1 billion in dog-bite claims in 1998 alone.



From 1979 to 1996, dog attacks resulted in more than 300 human dog bite related deaths in the United States. Most of the victims were children.



Approximately 20 people die every year as a result of a dog attack in the United States. By far, the majority of the victims are children.



In the two year period from 1997 to 1998, twenty-seven people died as a result of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997, and 9 in 1998).



Annually in the United States there are approximately 20 human fatalities directly resulting from a dog attack; this number is miniscule compared with human fatalities caused by gunshot (approximately 12,000 annually), accidents (approximately 100,000 annually) or health related disease processes (click here for table) (Click here for commentary on this subject)


The breeds most often involved in fatal attacks are Rottweilers and Pit bulls.



In the United States, pit bulls make up one to three per cent of the overall dog population and cause more than 50 per cent of serious attacks.


Of the 27 people who died as a result of dog bite attacks in 1997 and 1998, 67% involved unrestrained dogs on the owner's property; 19% involved unrestrained dogs off the owner's property; 11% involved restrained dogs on the owner's property; and 4% involved a restrained dog off the owner's property.


Of the 27 people who died as a result of dog bite attacks during 1997 and 1998, 67% involved an attack by one dog; 19% involved an attack by two dogs; and 15% involved an attack by 3 or more dogs.


From 1979 to 1998, at least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in bite related deaths. Pit Bulls and Rottweilers were involved in more than 50 percent of these incidences.



In a study reported by a retired professor from California State University at Chino, Robert Plum, it was found that one dog in 55 will bite someone seriously during the course of a year. With respect to breed differences in the tendency to inflict serious injury, Plumb estimates that when a pit bull bites a human, one in 16 (e.g. 1/16) will inflict serious injury; this contrasts with a ratio of 1/296 Dobermans, and 1/156 German shepherds.

Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

Good info Norman.

SJ_Skyline

I'm sure it is but I really can't be ar$ed to read all of it!

Flatcapdriver

I didn't ask to be provided with any evidence about dog attacks. I asked you how you could possibly base your hierarchy model on those statistics which is a question you continue to evade or simply can't answer.

No, I'm 1.91m and I don't own a Rottweiler. I can spell Napoleon, clearly you can't.

David Lock

Horrible twist to this story.

Girl's grandfather and his girlfriend attacked. One dead. Stabbing I think. Unrelated incident. What a bloody mess

Norman D. Landing

Ooh how ironic, my bad.

However, we're both wrong, it's Napoléon

Norman D. Landing

Actually you asked "How would you decide which dog is dangerous?" and I simply listed a table of deaths caused by attacks listed by frequency according to breed.

I'd tend to trust the dogs less the further up in the table. But now you're going to say 'Environmental...........population........etc' again. I'm not professing to be an expert in the field or to suggest that I know how to create a utopian dog owning society. I merely provided some info in a public forum.

However, it's been fun distraction from work.