7 ms·

The sinister, shocking rise of dog attacks on postal workers

42 points by mellosouls 2y ago

jncfhnb 2y ago
> I thought the best thing I could do is approach them in a friendly manner, so I put my head down, showing I was not threatening, I don’t know if this is, or is not, the best thing to do but what stands out to me here is it seems to be their best guess. As in, they hadn’t been trained on what to do?
- enthulhusiastic 2y ago
  As a non-expert who has basic fucking sense: first mistake is to approach an animal you know is hostile. Also that specific owner of the lip-biter should be in prison. If someone actively being bitten in the face can maneuver a door closed on the dog, then so can the owner. The owner didn’t try hard enough to help. A person in a dire situation figured this out. The owner did not. The owner is not fit for owning this dog if their level of control is less than someone who’s in panic. There is no way this person is not responsible for buying the dog and then not acting to prevent the attack.
- jjmarr 2y ago
  This is a good point. It's a occupational hazard that's been joked about for decades (as Royal Mail acknowledges). The article doesn't say what the postal service is doing to mitigate this. Is there PPE a worker can use if they're delivering to a house with an animal? Should there be a requirement for mailboxes to be mounted at a certain height so workers don't have to bend over? Is anyone even looking into this?
  - enteeentee 2y ago
    Not saying it’s good or anything but RM used to provided a kind of peg for pushing mail through the letterbox, not sure if its still supplied. I believe has some sort of record of which addresses have suspect animals on the walk.
  - cinntaile 2y ago
    PPE feels like the wrong approach. Loose dog? No delivery.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > I don’t know if this is, or is not, the best thing to do but .. it seems to be their best guess. As in, they hadn’t been trained on what to do? I've walked by very aggressive dogs w/o issue - while the people who followed me were charged. I had made some eye contact and otherwise didn't register them. The other folks were more respectful of the animal and their territory. Objectively, their approach has a better track record. My take: The dogs had been wound up for 3 sec on my approach and 60 sec on theirs. Risky dogs were common where I grew up, including ferals I knew and ran from every time (they were noisy, I had lead time). In my exp, there isn't a standard template. Reading the dog can help sometimes. Other dogs have fully unpredictable behavior. Known behaviors can change over time.
- art0rz 2y ago
  What I've always been told is to not bow but kneel down to their level instead. Although I've always felt that puts me in a vulnerable position. I tell people to do that with my dog and it works (he's not aggressive in any way, just a bit skittish with new people).
  - InitialLastName 2y ago
    > Although I've always felt that puts me in a vulnerable position. If you squat or kneel, you are more stable, facing forward, have your arms in a position where they can manipulate something in front of you (i.e. to defend yourself), and your legs as the forward-most part of your body. If you bow, your torso is off-center of your feet, your center of gravity stays high, your head and face are the most exposed part of your body, and your arms are angled to manipulate something below you. If an attacking dog gets into a position where your arms can deflect it while bowing, your groin, legs and torso are already in trouble.
madars 2y ago
The article does not say but I'd bet $20 that breed-specific legislation would help. Most people can't handle a pet tiger ("it's just how you train them!" yeah right) and when 6% of dogs (pit bulls and pit bull breeds) account for 68% of dog attacks and 52% of fatalities [1] it is time to recognize the fact. (edit: add citation) [1] https://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-pit-bull-attack-of-a-little-girl/ https://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-pit-bull-attack-of-a-li...
- dgfitz 2y ago
  This article doesn’t say it but I’d bet 20 bucks that legislation is fucking useless.
- anothername12 2y ago
  I would bet more. My home owner’s insurance comes with a section on what dogs I can’t own under the terms of the insurance. It’s a couple dozen specific breeds, not just pit bulls.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    I include a similar section in my residential real estate leases. I am simply not willing to accept the unnecessary financial, operational, and reputational risk as a housing provider.
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  I'm extremely sympathetic to folks who have absolutely delightful pit bulls. But the numbers simply don't lie. Pass legislation that creates high mandatory minimum fines for dog attacks on postal workers, and require that home insurers are responsible to pay. Allow and encourage communities to pass ordinances that require home insurance for owners of certain breeds. Require breeders to receive certification that buyers have notified their insurer of the purchase of a dog (regardless of whether it's covered). As soon as there's a financial disincentive to own one of these dogs, the number of owners will drop off dramatically. The first few years will be tough as many people give up their animals, but the are dogs that should never have been bred in the first place. It's heartbreaking but necessary, especially when you look at the consequences of unchecked ownership of dangerous dog breeds. Edit: Really curious why y'all are downvoting. You don't agree that dangerous dogs are dangerous? Or that you should be financially responsible for the risks associated with your animals? Really, what's the disagreement?
trhway 2y ago
down in the article, basically the 2 well known key things - socialization and a "well tired dog is a well behaved dog" - got broken as an effect of the pandemic lockdowns: "The phenomenon of behavioural problems in dogs who missed out on socialisation and training opportunities during lockdowns has been well documented, too. Added to this, Lloyd says, the return to hybrid or full-time, on-site work now means that “a lot of those dogs are spending more time in isolation and they’re not used to that. The doorbell goes and it’s the most exciting thing that’s happened to them all day. They’re increasingly territorial when they protect the home.”" Also it sounds like a UK specific thing - postal deliveries deep into private frontyards. In US the postal boxes are on the edge of the property.
- justincormack 2y ago
  Generally front yards are small or non existent. Where there are large ones boxes are more common eg in the country where posties just drive not walk.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  In many (urban) parts of the US the postal routes are walked and the boxes are mounted on the front of the house.
  - astura 2y ago
    Where I grew up (old neighborhood, mostly multi unit housing) the most common configuration was all mail for the entire building was pushed through a mail slot in the front door.
- hw-guy 2y ago
  In every house I've lived in the US, the postal box was attached to the house near the front door.
thinkingemote 2y ago
The reasons given is lockdown: People got more dogs. Dogs were unsocialised. Return to office left dogs alone. People shopped online so there are more deliveries (and more biting opportunities).
- MisterBastahrd 2y ago
  Yep, but also people kept their dogs inside during COVID. Then they put their dogs outside so that they wouldn't make a mess of the house when they RTO, and the dogs are unsocialized to strangers in a territory they're marking as their own.
  - morkalork 2y ago
    My neighbours got a dog during lockdown and when they finally started to RTO last year, surprise! The dog has separation anxiety and barks non-stop when they leave home.
renewiltord 2y ago
[flagged]
- andybak 2y ago
  > An animal that draws my family's blood will die by my hand In which case you are more dangerous than most dogs. We invented society and law enforcement to stop behaviour like yours.
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    > In which case you are more dangerous than most dogs. We invented society and law enforcement to stop behaviour like yours. Both of these claims sound counterfactual and ridiculous, but setting that aside: "society and law enforcement" clearly has failed to stop the bad behavior which is the root cause here: that of the dog and the owner.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
NotYourLawyer 2y ago
I wonder what percentage of the attacks are pit bulls. Guessing 80% or more.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  In my exp, pit bulls, mastiffs, etc are not the most likely breeds to attack. Their attacks can be the most devastating though.
- observationist 2y ago
  Why ragebait comment? Pitbulls are large dogs. When large dogs are untrained and attack, they do much more harm than smaller dogs. They are more dangerous than smaller dogs. They're not more dangerous than other large dogs. Mastiffs and german shepherds and scottish wolfhounds are also just as lethal and terrifying when untrained, and that is a people problem, not a breed problem. Stop trying to demonize dog breeds and direct whatever angst and anger you have at the real issue - people need to be better at training and socializing their animals. People need to be held accountable for animals that harm other people. In general, pitbulls and bully breeds make up around 6% of the population of dogs and account for 22% of attacks. This isn't inherent to the breed, it's inherent to shitty dog owners wanting a badass looking big dog and not investing the necessary time and effort in training and socializing their pet. This leads to batshit breed restrictions and a perpetual ignorant narrative that demonizes different breeds of dogs. Demonize ignorant pet owners who purchase the animal for appearance or status without putting in the work and taking responsibility for the dog. Essentially, dog breed doesn't impact behavior directly. It impacts their physiology, which impacts how they can behave. A well trained pitbull, or poodle, or shepherd, or collie, or malinois are equally unlikely to attack unprovoked. The point is the training, of which socialization is a big part. Untrained, unsocialized dog attacks are about as antisocial as drunk driving. It doesn't make sense to focus on the model of car the drunk was driving. It doesn't make sense to focus on the breed of the dog shitty owners allowed to attack.
  - NotYourLawyer 2y ago
    #notallpits huh
on_the_train 2y ago
[flagged]
- Simon_ORourke 2y ago
  Not to mention burdening your in-laws with some feckless poop-everywhere dimwit of a canine, which we've been dealing with in this house for the past two weeks while said in-laws are in the Caribbean. "But, but Nellie would hate the kennels, the noise of other dogs distracts her...". Banned is right!
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    "No" is a word you should learn.
- bdcravens 2y ago
  You could probably apply the same logic to cars. Side note: dog feces can be processed by municipal water treatment, but cat feces cannot, as it has too many bacteria and diseases that are dangerous to humans. Those who are pregnant shouldn't even clean the litter box. As such, we should probably include cats in any ban.
  - on_the_train 2y ago
    Cats usually shit in a box, and don't make noises. Most of my problem is really the noise. Dogs make up a significant amount of all nose pollution. They're the reason I can't open the windows in the summer. They offer no benefit to society (only to their owners).
    - bdcravens 2y ago
      Cat waste doesn't stay in the box, but goes into public landfills. I have three cats, and while they don't bark, the amount of damage and noise they make running and jumping around, not to mention the damage they do with their claws, is as annoying as the noise my dogs make (of course, the cat-sized dog is the noisiest one) As for the claim that dogs make up a significant amount of noise pollution, on most lists that I can find, traffic, music, construction, aviation, and other sources seem to be far more predominant than dogs. Again, if we were to start banning sources of noise, I'd start with cars, loudspeakers, and fireworks.
fallinditch 2y ago
Carrying a stick would give a post worker a significant amount of protection. Not complete protection of course but dogs give people with sticks a lot of respect. In a conflict with a dog a stick is an effective weapon. Whenever I go hiking in rural areas near farms I always carry a stick (or tripod) - aggressive farmyard dogs bark a lot but don't attack because I have a stick weapon.
lamontcg 2y ago
Nobody in the comments section considering that it might be the humans who are more distracted and narcissistic and incapable of training a dog these days.

42 points by mellosouls 2y ago

> I thought the best thing I could do is approach them in a friendly manner, so I put my head down, showing I was not threatening, I don’t know if this is, or is not, the best thing to do but what stands out to me here is it seems to be their best guess. As in, they hadn’t been trained on what to do?

enthulhusiastic 2y ago
As a non-expert who has basic fucking sense: first mistake is to approach an animal you know is hostile. Also that specific owner of the lip-biter should be in prison. If someone actively being bitten in the face can maneuver a door closed on the dog, then so can the owner. The owner didn’t try hard enough to help. A person in a dire situation figured this out. The owner did not. The owner is not fit for owning this dog if their level of control is less than someone who’s in panic. There is no way this person is not responsible for buying the dog and then not acting to prevent the attack.
jjmarr 2y ago
This is a good point. It's a occupational hazard that's been joked about for decades (as Royal Mail acknowledges). The article doesn't say what the postal service is doing to mitigate this. Is there PPE a worker can use if they're delivering to a house with an animal? Should there be a requirement for mailboxes to be mounted at a certain height so workers don't have to bend over? Is anyone even looking into this?
- enteeentee 2y ago
  Not saying it’s good or anything but RM used to provided a kind of peg for pushing mail through the letterbox, not sure if its still supplied. I believe has some sort of record of which addresses have suspect animals on the walk.
- cinntaile 2y ago
  PPE feels like the wrong approach. Loose dog? No delivery.
WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> I don’t know if this is, or is not, the best thing to do but .. it seems to be their best guess. As in, they hadn’t been trained on what to do? I've walked by very aggressive dogs w/o issue - while the people who followed me were charged. I had made some eye contact and otherwise didn't register them. The other folks were more respectful of the animal and their territory. Objectively, their approach has a better track record. My take: The dogs had been wound up for 3 sec on my approach and 60 sec on theirs. Risky dogs were common where I grew up, including ferals I knew and ran from every time (they were noisy, I had lead time). In my exp, there isn't a standard template. Reading the dog can help sometimes. Other dogs have fully unpredictable behavior. Known behaviors can change over time.
art0rz 2y ago
What I've always been told is to not bow but kneel down to their level instead. Although I've always felt that puts me in a vulnerable position. I tell people to do that with my dog and it works (he's not aggressive in any way, just a bit skittish with new people).
- InitialLastName 2y ago
  > Although I've always felt that puts me in a vulnerable position. If you squat or kneel, you are more stable, facing forward, have your arms in a position where they can manipulate something in front of you (i.e. to defend yourself), and your legs as the forward-most part of your body. If you bow, your torso is off-center of your feet, your center of gravity stays high, your head and face are the most exposed part of your body, and your arms are angled to manipulate something below you. If an attacking dog gets into a position where your arms can deflect it while bowing, your groin, legs and torso are already in trouble.

madars 2y ago

The article does not say but I'd bet $20 that breed-specific legislation would help. Most people can't handle a pet tiger ("it's just how you train them!" yeah right) and when 6% of dogs (pit bulls and pit bull breeds) account for 68% of dog attacks and 52% of fatalities [1] it is time to recognize the fact. (edit: add citation) [1] https://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-pit-bull-attack-of-a-little-girl/ https://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-pit-bull-attack-of-a-li...

dgfitz 2y ago
This article doesn’t say it but I’d bet 20 bucks that legislation is fucking useless.
anothername12 2y ago
I would bet more. My home owner’s insurance comes with a section on what dogs I can’t own under the terms of the insurance. It’s a couple dozen specific breeds, not just pit bulls.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  I include a similar section in my residential real estate leases. I am simply not willing to accept the unnecessary financial, operational, and reputational risk as a housing provider.
bastawhiz 2y ago
I'm extremely sympathetic to folks who have absolutely delightful pit bulls. But the numbers simply don't lie. Pass legislation that creates high mandatory minimum fines for dog attacks on postal workers, and require that home insurers are responsible to pay. Allow and encourage communities to pass ordinances that require home insurance for owners of certain breeds. Require breeders to receive certification that buyers have notified their insurer of the purchase of a dog (regardless of whether it's covered). As soon as there's a financial disincentive to own one of these dogs, the number of owners will drop off dramatically. The first few years will be tough as many people give up their animals, but the are dogs that should never have been bred in the first place. It's heartbreaking but necessary, especially when you look at the consequences of unchecked ownership of dangerous dog breeds. Edit: Really curious why y'all are downvoting. You don't agree that dangerous dogs are dangerous? Or that you should be financially responsible for the risks associated with your animals? Really, what's the disagreement?

trhway 2y ago

down in the article, basically the 2 well known key things - socialization and a "well tired dog is a well behaved dog" - got broken as an effect of the pandemic lockdowns: "The phenomenon of behavioural problems in dogs who missed out on socialisation and training opportunities during lockdowns has been well documented, too. Added to this, Lloyd says, the return to hybrid or full-time, on-site work now means that “a lot of those dogs are spending more time in isolation and they’re not used to that. The doorbell goes and it’s the most exciting thing that’s happened to them all day. They’re increasingly territorial when they protect the home.”" Also it sounds like a UK specific thing - postal deliveries deep into private frontyards. In US the postal boxes are on the edge of the property.

justincormack 2y ago
Generally front yards are small or non existent. Where there are large ones boxes are more common eg in the country where posties just drive not walk.
SoftTalker 2y ago
In many (urban) parts of the US the postal routes are walked and the boxes are mounted on the front of the house.
- astura 2y ago
  Where I grew up (old neighborhood, mostly multi unit housing) the most common configuration was all mail for the entire building was pushed through a mail slot in the front door.
hw-guy 2y ago
In every house I've lived in the US, the postal box was attached to the house near the front door.

thinkingemote 2y ago

The reasons given is lockdown: People got more dogs. Dogs were unsocialised. Return to office left dogs alone. People shopped online so there are more deliveries (and more biting opportunities).

MisterBastahrd 2y ago
Yep, but also people kept their dogs inside during COVID. Then they put their dogs outside so that they wouldn't make a mess of the house when they RTO, and the dogs are unsocialized to strangers in a territory they're marking as their own.
- morkalork 2y ago
  My neighbours got a dog during lockdown and when they finally started to RTO last year, surprise! The dog has separation anxiety and barks non-stop when they leave home.

renewiltord 2y ago

[flagged]

andybak 2y ago
> An animal that draws my family's blood will die by my hand In which case you are more dangerous than most dogs. We invented society and law enforcement to stop behaviour like yours.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  > In which case you are more dangerous than most dogs. We invented society and law enforcement to stop behaviour like yours. Both of these claims sound counterfactual and ridiculous, but setting that aside: "society and law enforcement" clearly has failed to stop the bad behavior which is the root cause here: that of the dog and the owner.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

NotYourLawyer 2y ago

I wonder what percentage of the attacks are pit bulls. Guessing 80% or more.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
In my exp, pit bulls, mastiffs, etc are not the most likely breeds to attack. Their attacks can be the most devastating though.
observationist 2y ago
Why ragebait comment? Pitbulls are large dogs. When large dogs are untrained and attack, they do much more harm than smaller dogs. They are more dangerous than smaller dogs. They're not more dangerous than other large dogs. Mastiffs and german shepherds and scottish wolfhounds are also just as lethal and terrifying when untrained, and that is a people problem, not a breed problem. Stop trying to demonize dog breeds and direct whatever angst and anger you have at the real issue - people need to be better at training and socializing their animals. People need to be held accountable for animals that harm other people. In general, pitbulls and bully breeds make up around 6% of the population of dogs and account for 22% of attacks. This isn't inherent to the breed, it's inherent to shitty dog owners wanting a badass looking big dog and not investing the necessary time and effort in training and socializing their pet. This leads to batshit breed restrictions and a perpetual ignorant narrative that demonizes different breeds of dogs. Demonize ignorant pet owners who purchase the animal for appearance or status without putting in the work and taking responsibility for the dog. Essentially, dog breed doesn't impact behavior directly. It impacts their physiology, which impacts how they can behave. A well trained pitbull, or poodle, or shepherd, or collie, or malinois are equally unlikely to attack unprovoked. The point is the training, of which socialization is a big part. Untrained, unsocialized dog attacks are about as antisocial as drunk driving. It doesn't make sense to focus on the model of car the drunk was driving. It doesn't make sense to focus on the breed of the dog shitty owners allowed to attack.
- NotYourLawyer 2y ago
  #notallpits huh

on_the_train 2y ago

[flagged]

Simon_ORourke 2y ago
Not to mention burdening your in-laws with some feckless poop-everywhere dimwit of a canine, which we've been dealing with in this house for the past two weeks while said in-laws are in the Caribbean. "But, but Nellie would hate the kennels, the noise of other dogs distracts her...". Banned is right!
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  "No" is a word you should learn.
bdcravens 2y ago
You could probably apply the same logic to cars. Side note: dog feces can be processed by municipal water treatment, but cat feces cannot, as it has too many bacteria and diseases that are dangerous to humans. Those who are pregnant shouldn't even clean the litter box. As such, we should probably include cats in any ban.
- on_the_train 2y ago
  Cats usually shit in a box, and don't make noises. Most of my problem is really the noise. Dogs make up a significant amount of all nose pollution. They're the reason I can't open the windows in the summer. They offer no benefit to society (only to their owners).
  - bdcravens 2y ago
    Cat waste doesn't stay in the box, but goes into public landfills. I have three cats, and while they don't bark, the amount of damage and noise they make running and jumping around, not to mention the damage they do with their claws, is as annoying as the noise my dogs make (of course, the cat-sized dog is the noisiest one) As for the claim that dogs make up a significant amount of noise pollution, on most lists that I can find, traffic, music, construction, aviation, and other sources seem to be far more predominant than dogs. Again, if we were to start banning sources of noise, I'd start with cars, loudspeakers, and fireworks.

fallinditch 2y ago

Carrying a stick would give a post worker a significant amount of protection. Not complete protection of course but dogs give people with sticks a lot of respect. In a conflict with a dog a stick is an effective weapon. Whenever I go hiking in rural areas near farms I always carry a stick (or tripod) - aggressive farmyard dogs bark a lot but don't attack because I have a stick weapon.

lamontcg 2y ago

Nobody in the comments section considering that it might be the humans who are more distracted and narcissistic and incapable of training a dog these days.