Dogs and guns are not even comparable! Saying that people shouldn't be educated about dogs is like saying they mustn't be made aware of things that would help keep them safe. I once heard a guy telling his daughter that a wagging tail means that a dog is friendly. That is not true and I told him that. He wasn't too happy, but I didn't care as he was giving his young daughter potentially dangerous advice. It is also quite arrogant to say that humans shouldn't be educated about dog behaviour
Oh and dogs aren't even half as dirty, noisy or dangerous as humans!
Up to a point. Guns are considerably more predictable and a lot safer.
Again, why should the rest of us have to learn about dog behaviour just because a few irresponsible idiots want to strut around with a potentially lethal animal that they can't be arsed to keep under control. I'd also be interested to know just how this knowledge of dog behaviour is of any practical use in the real world. 'Oh , that slavering 10 stone mutt is rushing at me with its teeth bared and snarling. Hmm, according to experts, this means it's going attack me. Oh bugger, it's chewed my face off.'
The dangerous dogs act is stereotypical nonsense. It is not the breed of the dog that is the problem but the owner. What we need is restrictions placed on owners who have an out of control dog regardless of whether its a pitbull or a labrador.
That's precisely what this is! It applies to ALL dogs.
Up to a point. As with the dogs, it's who's on the end of the gun that makes it dangerous or not.
If only that were the case.
However, dogs are not automatons and can respond independently, regardless of training. Some dog owners seem incapable of understanding this simple fact. How many time have we heard the same old 'Oh, he won't bite but he might lick you to death' from some deluded owner before yet another attack? They're always mystified as to why dear old Fido, who wouldn't hurt a fly, suddenly decided to bite 2 year-old Jayden's head off.
Here we go again. This is evidence that this ridiculous change in law is dangerous. It gives folk (who don't know about dogs) the power to report dogs that they think are dangerous. A growl does NOT automatically mean aggression! Lots of dogs will growl when they are happy, playing and excited. Did that dog try to bite you, lunge at you or try to pin you to the ground? Those things are more often associated with aggressive and dominant behaviour.
Educating the public about dogs is what is needed - not these archaic laws!
I've owned dogs all my life so I do know quite a bit about them. If a dog runs at me and circles my ankles whilst growling at me then I feel threatened. It was not under control. Had the owner had it on a lead I would not have been worried in the slightest.
He doesn't need to have it muzzled because there's no law that says he should.
It's the owner at fault here so don't try and make out it's me!
I've owned dogs all my life so I do know quite a bit about them. If a dog runs at me and circles my ankles whilst growling at me then I feel threatened. It was not under control. Had the owner had it on a lead I would not have been worried in the slightest.
He doesn't need to have it muzzled because there's no law that says he should.
It's the owner at fault here so don't try and make out it's me!
Nah, you really don't get it, Hotgossip.
Under the GibsonGirl method of behaviour around dogs, you should have automatically assumed that the dog was perfectly harmless until it was actually tearing your throat out. At that point you might have a valid claim that it wasn't harmless. Thing is, it's a bit late by then...:(
Dogs and guns are not even comparable! Saying that people shouldn't be educated about dogs is like saying they mustn't be made aware of things that would help keep them safe. I once heard a guy telling his daughter that a wagging tail means that a dog is friendly. That is not true and I told him that. He wasn't too happy, but I didn't care as he was giving his young daughter potentially dangerous advice. It is also quite arrogant to say that humans shouldn't be educated about dog behaviour
Oh and dogs aren't even half as dirty, noisy or dangerous as humans!
You must have a very dirty and noisy family then! I can assure you that my family are a lot cleaner than a dog.
Not even an enclosed back garden where the only legitimate access is available to the owner and not a visitor? I agree completely someone walking up to the front door should be protected from attack, I’m a little more dubious about it being reasonable to expect a dog owner to monitor 24/7 just in case someone scales a rear fence. Unfortunately as it stands this law doesn’t seem to make any distinction.
Many otherwise perfectly placid dogs would potentially react aggressively in that situation, simply because they would perceive it as someone encroaching on their territory and therefore a threat to them.
An enclosed, locked area is different, and circumstances would dictate then. What the Act has always done is protect visitors entering someones garden. If the dog is roaming where someone is likely to come into contact with it, and the person is attacked, the dog is deemed dangerously out of control under the 1871 Act, and it looks like the new Act is following that. It is a reasonable sanction.
I've been bitten twice whilst walking towards someones front door.
My daughter got bitten by a rottweiler on her way home from school, of course this left her nervous around big dogs. We were on the beach a few weeks later when a massive rottweiler came bounding towards her, no surprise really that she panicked. Dogs weren't even supposed to be on the beach. The owner gave the usual standard response of he's harmless blah blah. I don't give a crap if you think your dog is harmIess, keep it under control so I don't have to worry about whether it's bloody harmless .
Gibson girl blathers on inanely about parents educating their kids about dogs and keeping them away. How about dog owners keep their big dogs on leads in public places where kids are likely to be about.
My Grandson has had recent similar experiences. A large dog on the loose bowled him over, and he is now terrified of all dogs. The owner always says "He wont hurt you, he doesn't usually do that" etc. He wont if he's on a lead!
The point is the distinction isn't there in the letter of the law, it's wholly reliant on police/CPS using common sense, which has the potential to create problems when there needn't have been any - "when not trespassing" is all that would be required to be included as a caveat, but for whatever reason wasn't included. Implied right of access would still cover the postman/visitor situations.
That wouldn't work, because a dog cant tell if a person is trespassing or not, therefore it needs to be safe for legitimate visitors.
If a criminal climbs into a secure compound where a dog is, the owner wont be prosecuted for having a dangerous dog. However, if a dog is roaming free, anyone entering the garden is a potential victim.
People speak of kids getting their ball back from gardens. I'm sure we've all don't that as kids, and they should not be punished by dog attack for that action. Again, if the dog is in a secure area, and a kid climbs in, that is taken into account.
That wouldn't work, because a dog cant tell if a person is trespassing or not, therefore it needs to be safe for legitimate visitors.
If a criminal climbs into a secure compound where a dog is, the owner wont be prosecuted for having a dangerous dog. However, if a dog is roaming free, anyone entering the garden is a potential victim.
People speak of kids getting their ball back from gardens. I'm sure we've all don't that as kids, and they should not be punished by dog attack for that action. Again, if the dog is in a secure area, and a kid climbs in, that is taken into account.
My back garden is the secure area, it is not possible to get into it without climbing over
12 foot fence or over 12 double doors, which are always looked, so they would be entering mine and the dogs secure area. There is no way into my back garden without climbing over or forcing there way in. So how does that work. Who ever climbed over or forced their way would be committing tresspass. The whole of my back garden is for myself and family uses and nothing to do with the general public, who have no right of way or right of entry
My back garden is the secure area, it is not possible to get into it without climbing over
12 foot fence or over 12 double doors, which are always looked, so they would be entering mine and the dogs secure area. There is no way into my back garden without climbing over or forcing there way in. So how does that work. Who ever climbed over or forced their way would be committing tresspass.
That is taken into account. You cant do anymore than that, therefore you dog is not guilty of keeping a dangerous dog not under proper control if someone climbs in.
Most people have open areas, and anyone can wander into them, and a loose dog there who attacks anyone could leave the owner open to proceedings, and rightly so.
As I said earlier, I've been bitten twice in such circumstances, and I know of plenty of others who have.
My daughter got bitten by a rottweiler on her way home from school, of course this left her nervous around big dogs. We were on the beach a few weeks later when a massive rottweiler came bounding towards her, no surprise really that she panicked. Dogs weren't even supposed to be on the beach. The owner gave the usual standard response of he's harmless blah blah. I don't give a crap if you think your dog is harmIess, keep it under control so I don't have to worry about whether it's bloody harmless .
Gibson girl blathers on inanely about parents educating their kids about dogs and keeping them away. How about dog owners keep their big dogs on leads in public places where kids are likely to be about.
I keep 'blathering' on because people need to get over their selfish and arrogant belief that Planet Earth was created exclusively for humans and that they shouldn't bother themselves learning about things that would help keep them safe.
However, dogs are not automatons and can respond independently, regardless of training. Some dog owners seem incapable of understanding this simple fact. How many time have we heard the same old 'Oh, he won't bite but he might lick you to death' from some deluded owner before yet another attack? They're always mystified as to why dear old Fido, who wouldn't hurt a fly, suddenly decided to bite 2 year-old Jayden's head off.
It might be because little Jayden has just yanked Fido's tail or shoved a crayon down his ear!
That is taken into account. You cant do anymore than that, therefore you dog is not guilty of keeping a dangerous dog not under proper control if someone climbs in.
Most people have open areas, and anyone can wander into them, and a loose dog there who attacks anyone could leave the owner open to proceedings, and rightly so.
As I said earlier, I've been bitten twice in such circumstances, and I know of plenty of others who have.
Most people dont have a open area in the back garden, most people have a fence and gate to stop people wandering round, and also to keep their own children from being able to wander on the road. And if the gate is shut and the only way a dog could come out is by some stranger opening it then the dog and dog owner have done nothing wrong, No one has the right to enter the back of any property without the owners permission
Most people dont have a open area in the back garden, most people have a fence and gate to stop people wandering round, and also to keep their own children from being able to wander on the road. And if the gate is shut and the only way a dog could come out is by some stranger opening it then the dog and dog owner have done nothing wrong, No one has the right to enter the back of any property without the owners permission
Indeed people may not have the right, but that does not mean they should be in danger of a dog attack.
You must have a very dirty and noisy family then! I can assure you that my family are a lot cleaner than a dog.
Let me see. Where does rubbish get sent to? That's right a massive land fill site that produces tonnes of noxious gasses and pollutes the ground and seeps into ground water. Human waste is routinely pumped into the sea and a human has a much bigger carbon footprint than a dog. Don't tell me that humans are cleaner. As for noise. There are lots of people that are far noisier than my dogs. My dogs are also a damned site better behaved than many of the kids around here.
Interesting you should think that a dangerous animal =one with teeth.
I would class certain species as dangerous. It would include the usual breeds as lions, tigers, certain breeds of dog.
A residential environment would be one where there are houses.
Well as far as i know most animals have teeth, so you could class all animals as dangerousst .Most animals in the in thier home enverment proctect their home, and that includes animals living in the wild as well as in a humans home. Dont forget how many people get killed and injured by cows every year, and i mean the general public going into the country side, into fields
It might be because little Jayden has just yanked Fido's tail or shoved a crayon down his ear!
Curiously, that's never shown to be the cause, is it?
It's pointless discussing the issue with you as you have this idealised fantasy of the animal world that bears as much resemblance to real life as a Disney cartoon.
Indeed people may not have the right, but that does not mean they should be in danger of a dog attack.
Well feel free to wonder into a MOD bases and say the same when you get bitten, as that was my job for 10 years training people and their guard dogs. And people should be able live in thier own home and gardens without fear of anyone entering their secure grounds or home.
Most people dont have a open area in the back garden, most people have a fence and gate to stop people wandering round, and also to keep their own children from being able to wander on the road. And if the gate is shut and the only way a dog could come out is by some stranger opening it then the dog and dog owner have done nothing wrong, No one has the right to enter the back of any property without the owners permission
If it is locked, and secure, then there is no problem. Many people have gates at the back, and people can open them to gain access to a back door. Such visitors are legally entitled to do that, without fear of attack.
Comments
Up to a point. Guns are considerably more predictable and a lot safer.
Again, why should the rest of us have to learn about dog behaviour just because a few irresponsible idiots want to strut around with a potentially lethal animal that they can't be arsed to keep under control. I'd also be interested to know just how this knowledge of dog behaviour is of any practical use in the real world. 'Oh , that slavering 10 stone mutt is rushing at me with its teeth bared and snarling. Hmm, according to experts, this means it's going attack me. Oh bugger, it's chewed my face off.'
Up to a point. As with the dogs, it's who's on the end of the gun that makes it dangerous or not.
That's precisely what this is! It applies to ALL dogs.
If only that were the case.
However, dogs are not automatons and can respond independently, regardless of training. Some dog owners seem incapable of understanding this simple fact. How many time have we heard the same old 'Oh, he won't bite but he might lick you to death' from some deluded owner before yet another attack? They're always mystified as to why dear old Fido, who wouldn't hurt a fly, suddenly decided to bite 2 year-old Jayden's head off.
I've owned dogs all my life so I do know quite a bit about them. If a dog runs at me and circles my ankles whilst growling at me then I feel threatened. It was not under control. Had the owner had it on a lead I would not have been worried in the slightest.
He doesn't need to have it muzzled because there's no law that says he should.
It's the owner at fault here so don't try and make out it's me!
Nah, you really don't get it, Hotgossip.
Under the GibsonGirl method of behaviour around dogs, you should have automatically assumed that the dog was perfectly harmless until it was actually tearing your throat out. At that point you might have a valid claim that it wasn't harmless. Thing is, it's a bit late by then...:(
You must have a very dirty and noisy family then! I can assure you that my family are a lot cleaner than a dog.
An enclosed, locked area is different, and circumstances would dictate then. What the Act has always done is protect visitors entering someones garden. If the dog is roaming where someone is likely to come into contact with it, and the person is attacked, the dog is deemed dangerously out of control under the 1871 Act, and it looks like the new Act is following that. It is a reasonable sanction.
I've been bitten twice whilst walking towards someones front door.
My Grandson has had recent similar experiences. A large dog on the loose bowled him over, and he is now terrified of all dogs. The owner always says "He wont hurt you, he doesn't usually do that" etc. He wont if he's on a lead!
That wouldn't work, because a dog cant tell if a person is trespassing or not, therefore it needs to be safe for legitimate visitors.
If a criminal climbs into a secure compound where a dog is, the owner wont be prosecuted for having a dangerous dog. However, if a dog is roaming free, anyone entering the garden is a potential victim.
People speak of kids getting their ball back from gardens. I'm sure we've all don't that as kids, and they should not be punished by dog attack for that action. Again, if the dog is in a secure area, and a kid climbs in, that is taken into account.
My back garden is the secure area, it is not possible to get into it without climbing over
12 foot fence or over 12 double doors, which are always looked, so they would be entering mine and the dogs secure area. There is no way into my back garden without climbing over or forcing there way in. So how does that work. Who ever climbed over or forced their way would be committing tresspass. The whole of my back garden is for myself and family uses and nothing to do with the general public, who have no right of way or right of entry
That is taken into account. You cant do anymore than that, therefore you dog is not guilty of keeping a dangerous dog not under proper control if someone climbs in.
Most people have open areas, and anyone can wander into them, and a loose dog there who attacks anyone could leave the owner open to proceedings, and rightly so.
As I said earlier, I've been bitten twice in such circumstances, and I know of plenty of others who have.
I keep 'blathering' on because people need to get over their selfish and arrogant belief that Planet Earth was created exclusively for humans and that they shouldn't bother themselves learning about things that would help keep them safe.
What is a dangererous animal cats have teeth and claws, same as lion or tiger, all dogs have teeth, and what do you call residential environment
It might be because little Jayden has just yanked Fido's tail or shoved a crayon down his ear!
Most people dont have a open area in the back garden, most people have a fence and gate to stop people wandering round, and also to keep their own children from being able to wander on the road. And if the gate is shut and the only way a dog could come out is by some stranger opening it then the dog and dog owner have done nothing wrong, No one has the right to enter the back of any property without the owners permission
Interesting you should think that a dangerous animal =one with teeth.
I would class certain species as dangerous. It would include lions, tigers, certain breeds of dog etc etc
A residential environment would be one where there are houses.
Let me see. Where does rubbish get sent to? That's right a massive land fill site that produces tonnes of noxious gasses and pollutes the ground and seeps into ground water. Human waste is routinely pumped into the sea and a human has a much bigger carbon footprint than a dog. Don't tell me that humans are cleaner. As for noise. There are lots of people that are far noisier than my dogs. My dogs are also a damned site better behaved than many of the kids around here.
Well as far as i know most animals have teeth, so you could class all animals as dangerousst .Most animals in the in thier home enverment proctect their home, and that includes animals living in the wild as well as in a humans home. Dont forget how many people get killed and injured by cows every year, and i mean the general public going into the country side, into fields
Curiously, that's never shown to be the cause, is it?
It's pointless discussing the issue with you as you have this idealised fantasy of the animal world that bears as much resemblance to real life as a Disney cartoon.
Well feel free to wonder into a MOD bases and say the same when you get bitten, as that was my job for 10 years training people and their guard dogs. And people should be able live in thier own home and gardens without fear of anyone entering their secure grounds or home.
If it is locked, and secure, then there is no problem. Many people have gates at the back, and people can open them to gain access to a back door. Such visitors are legally entitled to do that, without fear of attack.