Get yerself one of those sonic dog scarers. Cheap enough at Maplin or the like. I take one with me when I take the juniors out on the hills and so far it's worked a treat for me, no harm done to the dog and several owners have expressed their thanks after thinking their dog was going to hurt someone.
Wish my bloody Jack Russell, Dougal, would enter this state. He still insists on sniffing every upright he comes across when we're out running. Dougal goes at his pace and his pace alone. This usually means he lags behind me on the flat and downhill, with me having to shout him to keep up. Of course, as soon as we hit a steep uphill he buggers off at full speed to the top!Originally Posted by shaunaneto
We have our own difficulties with dogs in Durham, in an area where I sometimes run.
On September 25th there was a disturbing headline in The Durham Times:
“Dog attack man has arm amputated”
The paper reported that the man, called Mr Potts, was attacked by two of his own dogs in the street. The police shot one dog dead, and put the other one in a kennel for a bit while they decided what to do with him.
Dog World followed the story closely.
“please don't kill the dog it just acted out of fright!” an anxious reader posted.
In the end, however, the second dog too was put down. But then there were all the other dogs owned by Mr Potts. What about them?
Mr Potts was reassuring:
“I just want people to know it wasn’t the fault of the dogs or the breed, my dogs are good natured - this was a freak incident.” (Daily Mirror 21 October)
Posts on the Durham Police facebook page were reassuring too:
“The owner of the dogs is an excellent dog owner/breeder. It was fireworks that were being set off that triggered this. The dogs are lovely dogs and lovely-natured. …”
Some people living nearby did not appear to wholly share this view. But they did not want to be named, so this was probably all just tittle-tattle. Still the police thought perhaps they had better take a look.
Luckily all was well. Dog World reported:
“Northumbria Police inspected Mr Potts’ other American Bulldogs who are in kennels and runs in his back garden, and said they were being properly cared for; no banned breeds were there.”
So that is all right then.
Oh….What is this in the Newcastle Chronicle today?
“A police investigation is continuing after a man was seriously injured by dogs in the Belmont area of Durham yesterday. At around 1pm police were called to reports of five American bulldogs attacking a man on fields in an area between Pittington and Belmont. The injured man, a 63-year-old from Belmont, was taken by ambulance to the University Hospital of North Durham (UHND) where he remains with serious but non-life threatening bite injuries to his head and leg.”
But not to worry:
“Police have confirmed Mr Potts' dogs were legally held and are not classed as dangerous.”
Thank goodness for that. Very reassuring. … Wait a minute. Mr Potts? That name rings a bell. Yes. it is the same man who had his arm bitten off by two of his own dogs a month earlier. The man who the police very sensibly decided to let keep all his other dogs. But this time it is another man who is in hospital.
Still, it is true of course that it is only a minority.
And perhaps they only do it because they are frightened.
the dogs might be dangerous but Mr Potts is 'armless
It's a topsy turvy world. If a dog worries (euphemism for ripping body parts off) sheep or even is loose in the same field as sheep, the farmer is legally allowed to shoot the dog - dead. How come humans are not allowed the same protection?
Humans are allowed the same protection. If armed police are called to an incident where any dog is acting dangerously (different to the old legal definition of a "dangerous dog" which covered a small list of dogs; the new definition came into force in May) they are legally allowed to shoot it and often do (see above re: Mr Potts) if all other methods have been tried and failed or would be unlikely to succeed if attempted. This is a trivial legal difference when it comes to shooting a dog The police as they were always allowed to, deploy firearms for the human destruction of animals and to preserve (human) life.
Unfortunatley the law is an ass and when it comes to investigations post incident it all falls down. Law enforcement has to obey the law. Any normal person would have gone to Mr Potts' house seen the other dogs of the same breed and thought that it wasn't a good situation and he shouldn't have been allowed to own them. The police are normal people and would have thought this but and unfortunately for them and the general public they can only act as the law will allow them to in these situations. If they had managed to pull together a case to remove the other dogs and possibly gain a ban from keeping dogs for Mr Potts they would have had a right job getting it past the CPS and then if they did there is noguarantee the courts would have seen it the same way and taken action.
It's a poor situation but that's our legal system. So in short (tongue in cheek here) if you must get mauled by a dog make sure you only do it in front of a police armed response vehicle or a farmer.
I have experince of this in Greece when my wife who was pregnant at the time was bitten by some sort of bull terrier; we were walking to the beech at the time. In the process of trying to get something done we found out it had attacked a young girl the week before. The locals were pulling their hair out about it as the authorities response was none existant and thought that if British tourists reported it something would be done. Nothing happened.
To put a degree of perspective on your completely mental view of dogs and their dangerousness, the dog population in the UK is something like 7 million whilst the human population is 64 million. So there are 9 times as many humans as dogs. Remember that figure.
The average number of human deaths each year attributable to dogs is 4 (thats just below cows with 5 and just above bees with 3) whilst humans kill give or take 800 UK residents each year (murder and manslaughter). So you are 200 times more likely to be killed by a human than a dog!
Given that there are 9 times more humans than dogs in the UK, humans though as individuals are only 22 times more dangerous than dogs!
Perhaps humans should be better controlled. eh?
And I'm not in anyway condoning dog attacks on livestock by the way. That said here again us humans win easily, slaughtering 3 million cows, 14 million sheep and lambs and 10 million pigs each year!
Last edited by Stolly; 23-10-2014 at 10:36 AM.
Ft'E's view sounds sensible to me. Well controlled, friendly dogs are fine. Misbehaving, badly controlled and plain dangerous dogs should be destroyed, whether they are endangering livestock or humans. It's commonsense
Poacher turned game-keeper
I ran past about 8 dogs on Tuesday morning no problem at all. All but one of the owners said 'Morning' as well.
Happy days!
Adam Speed
P&B
I've just walked to the Co-op. Our village appears free of Ebola, there's little if any discernable hurricane damage about, and IS aren't invading Ilkley Moor
Poacher turned game-keeper
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote