I always come back to the same thought on all these stories about large dogs versus small dogs being aggressive. I have had aggressive small dogs all I needed to do was pick them up and they could not harm anyone or anything, I could hold them back easily etc but a big dog ? no picking one up, not everyone can hold them back and they when they bite do far more damage than a small dog could ever do.

That is why people scream and shout when big dogs do these things.

And another reason why it would be better to highlight the need for positive upbringing and responsible dog ownership. I know some people disagree with head collars for dogs but I will always have one with me for Tonks. She will either be wearing it or I will pop it on in areas where I think she may lunge if she spotted a cat. It best to reply on mental control than physical control with any dog. Picking up a small dog which is showing aggression often reinforces the problem....but so many little dog owners fall back on that method rather than addressing the issue!

At the end of the day, this lady lost Daisy through absolutely no fault of her own, sitting outside a restaurant for goodness sake!!Had the other dog been on a lead,chances are we wouldn't be reading about it.Can only imagine what type of character this guy is that would give false information after his dog was involved in this incident.He obviously seen the extent of Daisy's injuries,panicked and decided to give false information.Can only imagine that was to save his dog....Daisy's owner unfortunately did not have a choice in whether her dog was saved or not!!!

Indeed. Despicable behaviour. It might be an assumption but I think people who walk their dogs off lead in very public built up areas like to do so as some sort of kudos building exercise to demonstrate the control they have over their dog....obviously not enough in this case!

Indeed and it is something oft repeated in the ongoing debate about 'dangerous dogs' and the arbitrary list of breeds drawn up. Yes all sorts of breeds of dogs can dn DO attack but the chances of a small breed killing within seconds or of no one being able to 'pull it off' are remote. So it is the big, powerful dogs that are targetted. This line of thought is applied to other things - like big powerful motorbikes not being allowed to be ridden by youngsters or being uninsurable. Yes you might have some very experienced and safe young drivers but you cannot pass laws and then enact them taking every individual case into account. So they generalise. Thus it ever was for much stuff not just 'dangerous dogs'. You aren't allowed to keep lions, tigers and leopards without a special licence allowing you to do so.

It's human nature to side with and feel more sympathy with 'David' in a David vs Goliath situation. You will read reports of full grown men who physically attack babies and children describing them as 'monsters'. You will read reports of children or young women set upon by larger aggressors describing them as 'not having a chance to defend themselves'. These reports are not restricted to referring to just an 'aggressor' and a 'victim'.

You will never stop the reporting of large dogs who attack smaller animals, children or people including lots of scary adjectives and colourful descriptions. However much the owners of large powerful dogs might wish the reports would omit the name of the breed and just refer to the animal as a 'dog' or even not say anything about the animal and just reserve all criticism for the dog owner.

That's human nature. I owned GSDs for enough years to know lots of people ARE scared of them. Lots think they are ALL dangerous and vicious. Mine weren't but I didn't take any chances with them either. Not in or out of my home.

Here in Cyprus they are calling for Akitas to be added to the list of banned dogs on account of the latest incident. Again, quite understandable in the wake of the shock and horror at the little boy being killed by one recently.

We have much the same laws here regarding attacks taking place on private property. The owner of that one was arrested to begin (the dog was put down) but no charges were made against him. Mainly because the parents of the little boy (friends of his) did not want him charged with anything.

I sometimes think some owners of large, powerful dogs would only be happy if the incidents of them attacking and killing would not be reported at all. The same stuff gets said every time but none of it stops future attacks does it?

Education and the application of some laws BEFORE people are allowed to own such animals would be more effective than what we have now but that ain't realistically ever going to happen.

While it is not against the law for anyone to buy and own a powerful big dog and there is no requirement for them to undergo training with it (even basic training) these incidents will continue and the way they are dealt with will continue too.

The only change I foresee is that the existing laws will be further tightened up.

Tightening the laws will not help. All dogs can kill dog, babies and people and do!

Golden retriever
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...her-slept.html

Jack Russell

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sy-attack.html

Lab puppy kills baby

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=8746561

The articles go on and on. Education for ALL owners before getting their dogs desptie the size of dog!

I'm not saying tightening existing laws WILL help - I am just saying I foresee increased calls for them to be tightened.

And don't need the stats for all other breeds attacking and maiming I am familiar with them (and already know and have said) but you are never going to stop the 'prejudice' against big, powerful, dangerous 'looking' dogs where this is concerned.

For instance the use of the library or stock photos in articles about Staffies attacking. They never use one of a smiling Staffy.

For the recent attack on a boy by a police dog they are using a 'stock photo' of a snarling GSD baring its teeth. It is not the dog involved.

I doubt they would bother to do this if it were a Westie or a JRT or a Spaniel that attacked - go off and find a nasty looking photo of an example of the breed.

Some understanding of 'human nature' and 'prejudice' is required when trying to understand these things. Not just an insistence that your favourite breeds are NOT dangerous.

Catrina you have outlined what YOU do regarding the way you train and keep and conduct yourself with YOUR dog(s). In a perfect world - EVERY owner of every dog would do the same. Sadly this is not a perfect world and as I've said there is no requirement for even BASIC training when someone decides to buy a dog.

Dog attacks will continue (from what I read they are on the increase?) and while the root causes of them are not addressed and there is no requirement for owners to be educated, screened, vetted, compulsorily made to attend any sort of training with their dogs or provide any proof that their dogs are not dangerous - all I can see happening is more calls for the dog laws to be further tightened up.

Politicians and lawmakers have to be seen to be doing SOMETHING. And the easiest course to take is to clamp down on the dogs themselves.

On here you are preaching to the converted in the main - I think most agree that the existing Dog Laws are ineffective. You should be getting your message across to those who want them tightened up and to the Government Depts responsible for them! Not just repeating that certain breeds are not dangerous at all and shouldn't be banned or that small dogs are as dangerous as large dogs. Direct your energies to this:

Populist rhetoric and promises from the powers that be to win votes. But no ACTION.

Full article here:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/368...on-finally-act

It's true, they don't do it with little dogs. The reports of the jack Russell that killed had pictures of a JRT terrier sitting.

I don't think it is just about defending a certain breed its about bite prevention...which pointing the figure and powerful breeds doesn't do.

Just because humans have the capability to be prejudice doesn't mean that we just accept it. While people are actively avoiding the big breeds they are forgetting that all dogs can and do injure people and other dogs regularly. I'm not someone who has Staffies all my life, I've had a variety of rescued mongrels...she's my first....and I've seen why people have them time and time again. While typing this my toddler has just fallen on top of Tonks while she was asleep. Completely on top of her, and then thrashed about getting up.....not a flicker from Tonks...didn't even raise her head.....partly because she is big and her more substantial form protects her from injury. How many small dogs could handle that situation so calmy? There is place in the world for small and big dogs but much more effort is needed by let owners to prevent such attacks happening despite the breed. The reason I find anti big dog opinions particularly upsetting coming from small dog owners is often it is those owners who admit that their dogs often snarl and growl and snap......but that is forgivable some how because they are less likely to do substantial damage......but a powerful dog who has never bitten or snarled or snapped will forever be judged on their bulk.

If this aimed at me I am already doing so and have always done so, on a personal level and a more public way. .......even before I ever owned a powerful or large breed!

And for the record I have never ever said or repeated that certain breeds are not dangerous at all! I have repeated that all breeds and types have the potential to be dangerous!