Let's have a Dog Cull.....

mats

So these unpredictable beasts do the same thing every time?

AYE!

mroli

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why the focus on one type of dog?

I've had problems will all sorts.

Come round and meet my dog - he'll love you!

cyclosaurus

By saying that all dogs are vicious animals that deserve to be culled is no different to someone else saying all cyclists are RLJing, pavement riding, child knocking down pretentious w@nkers.

We don't like it when people stereotype us so it's a bit hypocritical to do the same to dogs

Licensing is a good idea though

rick_chasey

mroli wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why the focus on one type of dog?

I've had problems will all sorts.

Come round and meet my dog - he'll love to bite you!

Corrected that for you.

finchy

Tom Butcher wrote:

Yes staffs are popular amongst some younger people of what might have been called working class at one time but that doesn't mean they have them because they think they make them look hard - maybe they just realise what good pets they can be whereas others can't see past what they read in the tabloids.

Unfortunately there is an entire sub-culture in poorer areas based around dangerous dogs. It's always existed. When I was a wee nipper, alsatians were seen as the most aggressive dogs and every cretin had one, then it moved on to rottweilers. Various types of pitbulls (as I say, not the pure bred ones) are the latest manifestation of that culture.

It's not just tabloid speculation, it's what I've seen all through my life - in the UK and abroad.

Tom Butcher wrote:

I do accept staffies have a tendency to be dog aggressive - like a lot of terriers - it comes from their original background and probably not helped by them being popular with inexperienced dog owners who lack the experience to socialise and train them properly.

As many people would point out, that is the entire problem - owners who don't have an idea in their heads. In the same way as a child's behaviour can, in 90% of cases, be explained by their upbringing, the same with dogs.

pauldavid

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why the focus on one type of dog?

I've had problems will all sorts.

I agree, I've had problems with allsorts as well.

Only this morning the ironing boardbroke at the slidy hinge bit underneath and cut my hand drawing blood It was in many ways like a dog nipping at me should I have forced my hand through a letterbox :shock: , what say we have an ironing board cull??

pauldavid

bearfraser wrote:

Mass contraception for the lot of them.!!!!!!!!!!!!

We've tried this with our Labrador, unfortunately he tends to pierce the condoms with his claws whilst putting them rendering them useless and I'm not putting it on for him. However next time he feels the need I can give you a shout if you like and you can put it on.

Be quick though, you don't want him going off in your hand like a creamy hand grenade :shock:

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why the focus on one type of dog?

I've had problems will all sorts.

Spot on.

I've had a Staffie for 10 years now with 2 young kids growing up in the house with absolutely no problems at all. She even took it with good grace when my daughter went through a phase of putting her over dog jumps and when my younger daughter had cancer the dog seemed to sense it and would cuddle up to her at any opportunity. That's not to say all Staffies are safe although they get bad press due mainly to attacks by half breed 'Staffies' that are bred and trained by people specifically to be aggressive. I've had dogs in the house all my life, often up to 4 at a time when living at my parents, and have only been bitten once (by a border collie cross when trying to stop him fighting another dog). It all comes down to ownership and control, I don't let my dog out of the house unless on a lead - I'm 99.9% confident she won't bite a person or dog but I am also aware that many people are nervous of dogs and Staffies in particular due to the sort of ignorant comments thrown around on this thread so I keep her under close control.

Like the majority of dog owners these days I also clean up after her and have nothing but loathing and contempt for those that don't. If you don't like the idea of cleaning up dog muck then it is simple, don't get a dog. Unfortunately it only takes a couple of irresponsible owners to give all dogs and their owners a bad reputation. A bit like RLJers or pavement cyclists giving all law abiding cyclists a bad name.

bompington

bearfraser wrote:

Mass contraception for the lot of them.!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think he was talking more about this kind of thing

Seriously though, as a dog owner (collie, very predictable and not at all sneaky, doesn't attack postmen or cyclists although he likes to play with me, quite roughly, when I exercise him on the MTB) I can sympathise with all the cynophobics, because the behaviours described are indeed not on, and a properly trained dog will not do any of them.

There are two main problems with training a dog: firstly, you need to know how to do it, which a lot of people don't, even ones who have owned a lot of dogs. Jerry is our first pet so we employed a dog trainer (to train us not the dog) and read a lot of books. Pack psychology is the name of the game - if you don't understand, for instance, why your dog has to eat after you do, or why it shouldn't be allowed on furniture, then there's little chance of getting it to obey you: put simply, a dog needs to know that it's the lowest status member of the pack.
Even then, it takes a lot of time, commitment and persistence to train a dog. For example, one thing which would stop almost all the legitimate complaints on this thread is "total recall" - guaranteeing that your dog will always come immediately when called. If your dog runs away, then the chances are your instinctive reaction is to scold it when it comes back - dog thinks "I came back, I got into trouble" and is less likely to come back the next time. Instead you have to spend an age setting up a variety of situations where it wants to come back, and then rewarding it when it does. My dog only got this really well by the time he was over a year old, but at least we had the "stop" command well drilled into him before then, so we could, well, stop him if he looked likely to bother anyone.
I would never have considered having a dog (still less a collie, which despite their intelligence and trainability tend to go mental, literally, if they get too little exercise and stimulation - they have to have a mission) when we lived in the town.
Basically, people shouldn't have dogs, just as they shouldn't have children, if they haven't thought through the implications - bit difficult to know how to police that though without outright totalitarianism, in both cases.

Having said all that, some of the cynophobic rants on this thread are a bit pathetic!

Pross

why were staff originally bred? Was it something to do with attacking bulls?

Staffies weren't originally bred for this. There was a breed known as the Bull and Terrier that was used to attack bulls to help tenderise the meet centuries ago. The current English bull terrier and Staffie I believe have descended from those dogs but have been substantially domesticated and are not the same animal.

pauldavid

bompington wrote:

bearfraser wrote:

Mass contraception for the lot of them.!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think he was talking more about this kind of thing

That's just cruel, why do they have to have false nuts.

When my wife decided I had inflicted enough of my offspring on society she sent me off to have my pipes cut but they left my original plums in(to be honest I would most probably have preferred prosthetic ones, mine are a little large and easy to trap) so why remove a dogs???

bompington

pauldavid wrote:

so why remove a dogs???

Good question, I guess castration for dogs because you want to stop the behaviour as well as the fertilisation, you presumably had a vasectomy for the same reasons but the other way round

Pross

It calms them down to castrate them rather than just vasectomise them.

pauldavid

It wouldn't have calmed me down, it would have made me bloody angry.

Although it would have cut down on the trapping incidents, I might just have one out and see how I go

Pross

You could have made loads of money by singing in your new found sporano voice and would have been very popular with rich ladies (or at least that's how it worked in the good old days, although you may have needed to have it done before your voice broke).

briantrumpet

Pross wrote:

You could have made loads of money by singing in your new found soprano voice and would have been very popular with rich ladies (or at least that's how it worked in the good old days, although you may have needed to have it done before your voice broke).

And you could have sounded like this.

Tinman_66

I get sick to death of nearly getting taken out by idiots riding bikes down the pavement so can we cull all cyclists while we're at it please.

People in glass houses.........

Cheers

tin

MattC59

pauldavid wrote:

bompington wrote:

bearfraser wrote:

Mass contraception for the lot of them.!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think he was talking more about this kind of thing

That's just cruel, why do they have to have false nuts.

When my wife decided I had inflicted enough of my offspring on society she sent me off to have my pipes cut but they left my original plums in(to be honest I would most probably have preferred prosthetic ones, mine are a little large and easy to trap) so why remove a dogs???

Nope, i think he was talking about the owners !

MattC59

pauldavid wrote:

Although it would have cut down on the trapping incidents, I might just have one out and see how I go

I have the same problem, nothing worse than trapping them in a door !

Aggieboy

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why the focus on one type of dog?

I've had problems will all sorts.

That's because you look like a bone.

redddraggon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why the focus on one type of dog?

I've had problems will all sorts.

Dogs have a good sense what people are like.

Aggieboy

redddraggon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why the focus on one type of dog?

I've had problems will all sorts.

Dogs have a good sense what people are like.

He's foreign.

Squillinossett

guinea wrote:

pauldavid wrote:

As a religious fundamentalist labrador owner I resemble that remark.

I've only met the combination once.

Last year a dog tried to eat the picnic I was carrying through the New Forest. It jumped up at me and covered me in mud. I was becoming quite agressive and my wife was getting worried.

It wouldn't stop following and barking at us. Diety knows why. Eventually I feigned a kick at it, to try to scare it off.

You should have heard the owner! I was going to hell, I was the devil, how could I sleep etc... I looked at the owner straight in the face and said if the dog touched me again I was going to remove my cheese knife from my picnic and 'defend myself'.

The owner ran towards the dog, tackled it, put it on a leash and ran away swearing at me.

PS, there wasn't a cheese knife in the picnic. Just a couple of pork pies and an apple.

I must say, that owner was much more gracious than I would have been in that situation. Dog runs up, exited and wanting to play, and you basically attack it. I am afraid to say I would have returned the favour to yourself.

In general though, most breeds are not a huge cause from concern (no more than those that ride their bike on the pavement, through red lights, or speed in cars...) As long as the dog has been trained & socialised well as a puppy, these type of problems can be stopped.

Unfortunately, pretty much every story I have read about a dog attack involves young or the poor.

I fully support the suggestion that dogs should be licensed, with a big enough fee to register in the first place (say £500 - £1000, which quite frankly is not a large amount of money considering how long said dog would be expected to live & general cost of upkeep). If this was strictly enforced then you could avoid the underclass having dog that are both poorly treated, fed on cheap, awful food and never trained. I would also ensure the owner could be vetted to ensure they would be able to care for whatever dog they chose to get.

For one to suggest all dogs should be culled is a very narrow minded and somewhat bigoted approach.

mroli

My dog is licensed though - with the Kennel Club?

rick_chasey

redddraggon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why the focus on one type of dog?

I've had problems will all sorts.

Dogs have a good sense what people are like.

So why aren't they biting the people with staff's who 'use them as a weapon'?

:P

Squillinossett

Yes, as are all Pedigree dogs, but this is for the sole reason of certificates etc to show the breeding line.

I would suggest a separate one to be processed via the RSPCA, or Police. The revenue generated from fees & associated fines would more than pay for this service.

Exactly as one has to be licensed to own a firearm.

pauldavid

Squillinossett wrote:

Yes, as are all Pedigree dogs, but this is for the sole reason of certificates etc to show the breeding line.

I would suggest a separate one to be processed via the RSPCA, or Police. The revenue generated from fees & associated fines would more than pay for this service.

Exactly as one has to be licensed to own a firearm.

Well I've got a purple ended pump action yoghurt gun that isn't licensed and I've never had any bother :shock:

And if I can walk around with that all day without a licence I'm not getting for my savage labrador either!!!

Squillinossett

I prefer the name "purple headed custard gun"

mroli

If you have to be licensed to own a dog then - perhaps all cyclists/cycles should be licensed too? Maybe £500/£1000 which:

"quite frankly is not a large amount of money considering how long said bike would be expected to last & general cost of upkeep. If this was strictly enforced then you could avoid the underclass having bikes that are both poorly maintained, have cheap, awful gear and used to jump red lights. I would also ensure that the owner could be vetted to ensure that they would obey the highway code and be able to ride whatever bike they chose to get".

:twisted:

(See Squilli's post above)...

Squillinossett

But a bike isnt a living things now is it