Pit bull attacks three year old - child has to go and live with gran as parents demand dog's removal

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Neither are pitbulls produced to attack humans, but. that’s not the point. As a matter of fact, the car in my post is totally irrelevant, it’s about the driver. The point is, you can’t throw all pitbulls into the same pot and have them all killed because a few of them have attacked humans for the very same reason you can’t kill all car drivers just because some of them drove drunk and killed pedestrians! 

 

Yes they are... they are bred for their aggression and power. 

 

I agree that not ALL pitfalls and ‘dogs bred for their aggression and power' should be killed. Simply that further breeding should be banned.

 

Any further analogy to ‘car drivers’ is just idiotic. 

[pacovl46]

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Again.. another dumbed down strawman argument...... 

 

Nope... but all drunk drivers should be put down !!!!  - everyone agrees that anyone caught drunk driving should suffer severe penalties - in Thailand these penalties are insufficient and thus not a preventative measure as they should be. 

 

But... the ‘drunk driving’ argument is a very very very different argument to unrestrained dogs mauling children playing in the street. 

 

 

I’m sorry I had to dumb it down, but if someone makes an absolutely ridiculous statement like ‘we have to kill ALL pitbulls because some of them attacked humans” then I’ll gladly stoop down to their level of stupidity! 
 

I used the drunk driving example to point out how ridiculous the idea is to throw everyone/everything in the same pot. 

[Felt 35]

4 hours ago, Bob12345 said:

Maybe ban motorbikes also, and cars, and sugar, and fat, and smokes, and meat, and kitchen knifes, and ladders, and alcohol.

Yes for they not capable to use that/them.

[BangkokReady]

27 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Ok, so if one drunk driver kills a pedestrian should we put down all car drivers as well? 

 

No, because that scenario is not the same in any way.

[pacovl46]

20 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

A valid point.... 

 

The headline is a dog whistle to those such as myself who believe that ALL dogs should be restrained at ALL times unless confined to their owners property and unable to escape. 

Also that that there should be a total ban on breeds which are considered dangerous.

Also that ALL soi dogs should be removed from the streets.

 

 

That said: This remains an emotive and major issue because no situation should ever exist whereby a child should be bitten by a dog - this happens too often in Thailand.

 

 

I totally disagree with that all potentially aggressive dog breeds should be banned because it’s another blanket statement and blanket statements doesn’t hold any water because they’re not fair! There’s millions of dogs out there that belong to the potentially dangerous category that are not aggressive, neither towards other animals nor humans! Believe it or not, but the ones that do attack humans are extremely outnumbered by the ones who don’t! 
 

The way to go is to implement a dog owners’ license, similar to how the US handle venomous snake licenses. You need one thousand working hours with each of the potentially dangerous breeds you want to keep before you can even apply for the license, which will be handed out only if you pass a theoretical and physical test, coupled with a psychiatric evaluation whether you’re even fit to keep a dog, couple that with a psychiatric evaluation for aggression of the dog they keep at age 12 months, 24 and 36 and that will do the trick nicely. 

[worgeordie]

When I was a kid, we played in the streets , up until dark,

nothing to fear, as there were no Pit Bulls then, and not so

many kiddy fiddlers  too , how the World has changed..

 

regards worgeordie

[stretch5163]

5 hours ago, Surelynot said:

Certain breeds need to to phased out as they have been in Germany (they chose the wrong breeds, but that is by the by).

 

Dogs should be chipped and wormed

 

Owners should have to pay a license fee that covers training for both them and their dog (mainly for them).

 

No dogs should be caged like in the photo.

 

All dogs should have a ID collar and, when in public, be on a lead.

 

Any dogs not conforming to all the above should be impounded and re-licensed to new owners or destroyed.

 

 

Good luck with the above.

 

Lets not stop at certain breeds though lets gather up all soi dogs or dogs on the street and have them euthanised. 

 

This problem has stemmed from Thai people getting animals and not looking after them regardless of the species. Leaving them run free after the puppy stage because they get to big. Some of these soi dogs are just as viscious. Lets start fining people that go around moo bans feeding street dogs as they are also part of the problem.

 

There are people who look after their dogs and im sure they would appreciate better rules as well as some of the above..

 

How would you suggest dogs are caged then ? Give them their own house with on suite toilet ? A cage is a cage and better in a cage at certain times and ensuring the cage is the relevant size for the dog.

 

There is no scope or room for impounding and re homing dogs.....there are not enough facilities and the facilities there are generally are charities like Soi Dog in Phuket.

[Gandtee]

4 hours ago, Bob12345 said:

It looks like a bulldog, which is a very lazy British breed that is very harmless. It surprises me the animal was able to run in the heat, normally they would pass out due to health issues and the short nose.

 

But as always the newspapers know what sells: "pitbull". If there was a local CNN in Thailand they would say it was due to Trump and white supremacy, because then people click the article, which is exactly what newspapers want. Informing people comes second to money. 

 

This dog was obviously not properly socialized and supervised. The owners are 100% responsible. There is no need to outlaw certain dog breeds or put them down, maybe they should think about putting down bad dog owners.

Absobloodylutely! Owners who do not train their dogs are the problem.

[pacovl46]

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

 

No, because that scenario is not the same in any way.

It’s very much the same in terms of throwing everyone in the same pot! Just because some pitbulls attack humans doesn’t mean that all of them do and to ban the entire breed because of the actions of a few individuals of said breed is just stupid, just like giving all drivers a ban just because some drive drunk is stupid! 

[BangkokReady]

1 minute ago, pacovl46 said:

just like giving all drivers a ban just because some drive drunk is stupid!

 

Most people need a Staffordshire Pit-Bull Terrier to do their jobs and live their lives?  I had no idea that they were that important!

[AlexRich]

A dog like that needs to be put to sleep. It’s really that simple.

[stretch5163]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

There is no need for anyone to keep one of these breeds of dog.

 

 

 

Why ? Because you say or think so ? whats your point ?

 

People keep dogs for many reasons. You could say that to 90% of the dogs around as they are all dangerous unless looked after and trained.

[hotchilli]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Out of nowhere the beast - that some same make adorable family pets - attacked

Any untrained dog is a danger... they should be kept properly secured within the property and if taken out it must be leashed.

[pacovl46]

2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

Most people need a Staffordshire Pit-Bull Terrier to do their jobs and live their lives?  I had no idea that they were that important!

It’s amazing just how much you’ve missed my point - twice - despite the fact that I’ve explained it in detail the second time!!! 

 

Also, I love how you’ve chosen the Staffordshire Terrier because that breed has been consistently in the top ten of most popular family dog breeds in the UK! The whole purpose of that breed back then after fighting had been banned in the UK was to kill rats and to protect the children. That breed is one of the best ever with children and people in general! 

[Sydebolle]

This sweetheart of a doggie would get invited by me for the very "last supper"; you can take that to the bank! 

[Excel]

9 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

A dog like that needs to be put to sleep. It’s really that simple.

They should and idiots that keep these dangerous animals are as bad as the dog. I always think it must be Karma when a pitbull mauls its owner. No doubt the owner was full of platitudes and BS as to how nice these animals are,  before he got his taste of reality that is.

[MrJ2U]

Trajedy.

 

If it was my daughter I would pay someone to get rid of that dog, permanently!

[garzhe]

2 hours ago, Bob12345 said:

So you mean we make an assessment of the pro's and con's of having certain items? 

That sounds very reasonable I might say.

 

Pets are expensive: not just the buying them but also feeding them, buying toys, and the VET bills which are directly tied to the size (weight) of the dogs. Pets also cost a lot of effort and time: they need to be walked daily and need to be trained. You need to clean up their poo and look after them a lot. I take my dogs for a 1 hour walk in the morning already for example, and walk them once or twice later on the day for a shorter period of time.

 

Wouldn't you agree that people only spend so much time and money on dogs if they "get" something back? Like enjoyment, social interactions with others, a reason to go out daily and walk in nature, friendship, etc? And won't you think those things in life are part of "functioning well"? Like we can all live in pods, eat brown liquid food to stay alive, and work 16 hours per day, but that wont be fun right? It would be "killing" our spirit and will to live. It appears dogs (and other pets) help with that. Doesn't that sound great? 

 

Society can actually "function" without TV, entertainment, alcohol, variety in food, movies, comfortable chairs, warm water, massages, the freedom to pick your own clothes, a weekend where you don't have to work, etc. But we can probably agree that these things make life worthwhile. Right? So purely looking if a society can function without it should not be a very strong argument in this discussion.

 

Edit: you mention "dangerous" dogs, which is completely subjective. 

Yes of course we make an assessment of the pros and cons of owning certain things. In most civilized countries we cant keep a tiger or a lion in our back yard, why should we be able to own any animal that is a danger to others. 

Owning most dogs is fine but not if there is a risk to others and I agree that many get fulfillment from owning dogs.  However, there are enough breeds to choose from if you want to own a dog without resorting to a breed that may cause harm to others. Your analogy to owning a motorbike or car is not the same. If you don't want to take the risk of dying on a motorbike  or in a car then its your choice not to use them. You or your children don't have that choice whether your next door neighbor owns a dangerous dog or not.  If you feel a few kids dying and being maimed every year is a fair trade off for those of you who want to own these macho types of dogs then go and see what the parents of these kids think who have had their lives ruined. Tell them "dangerous dogs" is just subjective and how much pleasure the owner got from his dog before it ripped off the kids face.

[spidermike007]

1 hour ago, pacovl46 said:

Ok, so if one drunk driver kills a pedestrian should we put down all car drivers as well? 

I don't think that is what he was saying. He is directly referring to dangerous and out of control dogs. No problem putting those poorly behaved beasts down. 

 

Many of us love dogs. Well behaved ones. And while I have alot of respect for dog owners, who actually own their dogs and make sure they behave, I have no respect for undisciplined, irresponsible people who have pets that own them! 

[richard_smith237]

30 minutes ago, stretch5163 said:

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

There is no need for anyone to keep one of these breeds of dog.

 

Why ? Because you say or think so ? whats your point ?

 

Yes... because I say so, but your butt hurt reaction implies I am the only one with such an opinion - you would be wrong. 

A lot of other people say so..... The governments of developed nations also say so and mandate strict restrictions.

 

And ultimately, because dogs which have historically been bread for fighting and aggression also have a terrible record when poorly trained or ‘triggered’ and attack people and children - there is just no need for such an animal at all. 

 

30 minutes ago, stretch5163 said:

 

People keep dogs for many reasons. You could say that to 90% of the dogs around as they are all dangerous unless looked after and trained.

 

But not all dogs present the same degree of danger to people and children. 

 

I am not against dog ownership. I am against dog owners who can’t control or train their dog adequately.

 

I am against ownership of any breed of dog which has historically been bred for its aggression and fighting.

 

I am also against all soi dogs - they should be controlled. 

 

 

A dog should either responsibly owned, or removed - there is no middle ground for it is the middle ground where children get mauled and we end up having these discussions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

Can we get away from the drunk driving and car analogy... its utterly idiotic and reminds me of the following quote....

 

“Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon.... the bird will s#it on the board and strut around like it has won !!!"

 

In this discussion, the fools who attempt to dilute the dangers of aggressive dogs by mentioning that other ‘wrong’ things also occur are just like the pigeons who’d cr@p all over the chessboard....  

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

There is a very simple question for those who think the breeds of dogs which are considered ‘dangerous breeds’ in developed nations.... 

 

Owners and dog lovers.....

 

- Would you leave your 5 year old child alone in a room with one of these dogs ????

(most would argue they would).

 

- Would you leave your 5 year old child alone in a room with one of these dogs owned by a stranger ????

 

 

-----------

 

Personally, I would not leave any child alone in a room with any dog, even a family dog.

 

But, there are breeds of dog whereby we would’t be fearful of the child’s life.

 

-----------

 

The only dog owners I’ve ever known who are fully responsible are those who say... Please keep an eye on your child when near my dog. Although my dog has never bitten or growled at anyone, it's still a dog and can bite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[KarenBravo]

Looks to me like an American Bulldog.

 

 

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, pacovl46 said:

I totally disagree with that all potentially aggressive dog breeds should be banned because it’s another blanket statement and blanket statements doesn’t hold any water because they’re not fair! There’s millions of dogs out there that belong to the potentially dangerous category that are not aggressive, neither towards other animals nor humans! Believe it or not, but the ones that do attack humans are extremely outnumbered by the ones who don’t! 
 

The way to go is to implement a dog owners’ license, similar to how the US handle venomous snake licenses. You need one thousand working hours with each of the potentially dangerous breeds you want to keep before you can even apply for the license, which will be handed out only if you pass a theoretical and physical test, coupled with a psychiatric evaluation whether you’re even fit to keep a dog, couple that with a psychiatric evaluation for aggression of the dog they keep at age 12 months, 24 and 36 and that will do the trick nicely. 

 

A fair argument...  and this would work in many western nations where in general, laws are followed and enforced. 

 

Unfortunately, Thailand is not civilised enough for the rule of law to be followed or enforced, thus the blanket ban on any breed considered dangerous is the only way to protect children. 

 

Unfortunately, the imperfect solution is a ‘blanket solution’ and thus the reason for the ‘blanket statement’ - all people in Thailand (Thai and foreign) cannot be trusted to be responsible when owning potentially dangerous animals.

 

The difference with snakes in Thailand is that they can’t jump over a 3 ft fence and attack a child. Snakes in the garden will shy away from playing children, although there are obvious risks that need to be mitigated by responsible parents (such as trimming back the garden etc).

 

 

I completely agree with your measures, but I don’t see them being successfully implemented in a country like Thailand which can’t even manage to enforce a helmet law.

 

No dog should be in public unrestrained... Soi dogs, beach dogs should all be removed. No privately owned dogs should be able to escape their compound. 

 

Breeds considered dangerous should not be permitted to be bred. It is unfortunate that the many who would be responsible owners are faced with such bans because of few who are not responsible - but if that is the cost of protecting children playing outside there houses then I think that cost is a fair one. 

 

The freedom of choice of a dog owner simply cannot be allowed to exceed the freedom for a child to play safety - there is no comparison. 

 

 

 

 

 

[BostonRob2]

5 hours ago, clivebaxter said:

Cue the my Pittie/Staffie would not hurt a fly, there is no such thing as a bad dog only bad owner apologists for this continuing madness of keeping aggressive dogs near kids. Dog should be put down and the owners prosecuted.

Often disagree with you, but I'm in full agreement with you on that one. Bloomin' menace.

[sawadee1947]

6 hours ago, Surelynot said:

Certain breeds need to to phased out as they have been in Germany (they chose the wrong breeds, but that is by the by).

 

Dogs should be chipped and wormed

 

Owners should have to pay a license fee that covers training for both them and their dog (mainly for them).

 

No dogs should be caged like in the photo.

 

All dogs should have a ID collar and, when in public, be on a lead.

 

Any dogs not conforming to all the above should be impounded and re-licensed to new owners or destroyed.

 

 

So you request EU rules or at least those they have in Germany? 

Don't limit your request for dog matters only. ????

To be honest it will be a dream only ????

 

[richard_smith237]

Just now, sawadee1947 said:

So you request EU rules or at least those they have in Germany? 

Don't limit your request for dog matters only. ????

To be honest it will be a dream only ????

 

 

Why not...   many laws and regulations in Thailand are the same as those in other nations. 

 

If Thailand wishes to control such events it would do very well to pay attention to what has successfully worked in other countries and do the same here. 

 

Of course, the significant difference here is Thailands love affair with apathy when it comes to enforcement of laws. 

[EricTh]

Some people just want to buy dogs just because they look 'cute' but they don't know how to restrain or care for them.

 

Some dogs even go around peeing and shxx-ting at neighbors frontyard.

 

What happens if your children were attacked instead?

 

Don't buy dogs unnecessarily.

[Excel]

2 minutes ago, EricTh said:

Some people just want to buy dogs just because they look 'cute' but they don't know how to restrain or care for them.

 

Some dogs even go around peeing and shxx-ting at neighbors frontyard.

 

What happens if your children were attacked instead?

 

Don't buy dogs unnecessarily.

The moral of your story being is definitely never walk in your neighbours frontyard as it is possibly covered in dog s""t ????????

[Venom]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

The dog had got out of a gate not properly closed.

 

 

It's the gates fault! The owners won't let that happen again, promise. Your little girl can rest assured. ????