Animals killing people in public

[KidKruger]

I must confess I'm shocked by the 79 year-old gentleman being attacked and killed by an animal in Liverpool yesterday.

I wonder if what happened is reasonable, whether society should accept a number of maulings and deaths per year to maintain pet owners' rights to keep animals with the power to eat humans alive and expose the public to them.

Or do we draw a line ? A line which significantly reduces the danger to the public and owners, based on an animal's capability to inflict damage.

For me it's the fact that these events happen that matters, the reason (bad training, sick animal, felt threatened) is sort of superfluous - if the animal is minded to attack, from that point it's down to the bottom line of what the animal is physically capable of. This is about any animal, because after all, if you're about to die from being mauled by a tortoise or a stick insect, you won't really care what animal it is.

No, I'm not anti-dog, so park that BS right now, in fact I'm on the cusp of considering owning a dog myself.

[DJKillaQueen]

There are no dangerous dogs per se, jusr irresponsible owners. So the question for me is one of how do we stop the wrong people from keeping animals? It's the same as with children. Some children grow up to kill, and maim, and attack others. But the vast majority of them don't, just as the vast majority of dog owners are responsible too.

Southwark has a policy of requiring social housng tenants to notify them if they keep a dog and the dog is required to be chipped as part of the tenancy agreement.

Edited to add that social housing tenants means council tenants.

[Jeremy]

It's a tough one. I personally cannot understand why people want certain types of dog which have been bred specifically for fighting and blood sports. I guess it's an image thing.

But on the other hand, something like an Alsatian (or other large dog) could be very dangerous in the wrong hands too. So not sure where you would draw the line.