Dogs

Lookyhere

i d like to see a return to dog licences, retrictions on max number of dogs registered at an address - i suggest ONE -
money raised from the licence @ £500 -would be used to employ many many more dog wardens to enforce the existing laws on dog xxxx which around here is endemic.
fines would be draconian - ALL would dogs muzzelled and kept on leads at ALL times and ALL breeds - owners forced to pay for the treatment of their dog attacks, so compulsory insurance as well.
there would be no dangerous dogs any more as these controls would ensure the safety of the general public.

oh and im not a dog hater (bought up with dogs on a farm and hunted alot with them as well) i just dislike the vast majority of dog "lovers" who seem to think the rest of us should love their mutts (and the xxxx they produce) as much as they seem to think they do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/pe ... -year.html

ballysmate

At 500 quid for a licence you would need extra wardens to round up all the feckers that would be turned out to roam the streets.

fast as fupp

Lookyhere wrote:

i d like to see a return to dog licences, retrictions on max number of dogs registered at an address - i suggest ONE -
money raised from the licence @ £500 -would be used to employ many many more dog wardens to enforce the existing laws on dog xxxx which around here is endemic.
fines would be draconian - ALL would dogs muzzelled and kept on leads at ALL times and ALL breeds - owners forced to pay for the treatment of their dog attacks, so compulsory insurance as well.
there would be no dangerous dogs any more as these controls would ensure the safety of the general public.

oh and im not a dog hater (bought up with dogs on a farm and hunted alot with them as well) i just dislike the vast majority of dog "lovers" who seem to think the rest of us should love their mutts (and the xxxx they produce) as much as they seem to think they do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/pe ... -year.html

O.D.F.O.

RDB66

Well said Looky...good little rant that. I must say i agree with you 100%.

marksteven

WHAT A NUMPTY IDIOT SUGGESTION FROM A SELFISH POINT OF VIEW
good bye bike radar this was the last straw , idiot with no sense & no imagination asking pointless question over & over .........................................................................................................................

Yellow Peril

Fair comment there are a lot of dog owners out there that are completely irresponsible. I have two dogs (both dalmatians and both from the dogs home) One is a complete f*ckwit but has the last laugh because I clear up his sh1t but he never clears up mine.

geoffgomez

I'm not sure about 500 quid for a license but I'd be very supportive of full registration and total responsibility of the owner for all actions, no exceptions. If you assume a dog to be a weapon under the owner's control in all circumstances then you will have a better incentive for owners to be more responsible and a strong disincentive to the status dog issue that seems to be becoming a greater problem. It wouldn't affect the vast majority of owners whose dogs are no danger whatsoever but for those with animals that have been bred/trained to be agressive, dog kills, manslaughter charge, maims GBH.

mec287

Agree with you 100% looky. Have a 13 yr old Labrador, have always owned dogs, and am horrified by the muppets who just cannot grasp the responsibility they take on when they own a dog. Am astounded by the number of 'responsible dog owners' who let them sh*t on the footpath near me where the local kids walk to school......

mec287

PS: think you might have hit a nerve there with marksteven....:-)

APIII

I think you should fuck off

the playing mantis

a perefctly reasonable post undermined by a couple of ridiculous points. i agree with licensing and insurance,

however disagree with muzzling all the time and on lead all the time. why should perfectly behaved, trained soft dogs be persecuted for no reason? if our cocker even tried to bite you you would just be gummed by her floppy mouth. she responds to calls and always stops when called when off the lead.

the simple solution is license, insurace, stop letting chavs have dogs, and the sterilisation/destruction of all breeds that owe there existence purely for fighting, and have a history of viciousness, (thus excluding british bulldogs) things like bull terries, staffies, bull mastiffs etc, sure ther enot all bad and yours could be sweet and loving, but they have it in their nature to be nasty and all have it in them.

ballysmate

Staffies seem to be in the news every few months or so for attacking people. Perhaps someone with a better memory than me could help, as I seem to recall that Alsatians enjoyed similar notoriety back in the '70s. Or is my mind playing tricks?

the playing mantis

before my time, but alsatians are originally sheep dogs, for guarding a flock, they are a multi purpose dog, guarding, shepharding, guide dog, hearing dog etc.

a staffie is none of those things, just a fighter.

ballysmate

Unless you are of a certain age this will mean FA to you. But for all you oldies out there. Would Sgt Belker from Hill Street Blues need a licence?

Yellow Peril

Ballysmate wrote:

Staffies seem to be in the news every few months or so for attacking people. Perhaps someone with a better memory than me could help, as I seem to recall that Alsatians enjoyed similar notoriety back in the '70s. Or is my mind playing tricks?

That's correct. Their reputation was also enhanced by thefact that they are the used by the police mainly because they are the best combination of tracker and biter for general police duties.

Rotweilers and dobermans had a period of notoriety thereafter and now it is staffies as the choice of chavs. It is usually down to owners not the dogs

gavbarron

the playing mantis wrote:

a staffie is none of those things, just a fighter.

Only if bred to be so, much like any other dog. Bit of a sweeping statement really. They are currently branded as such as they seem to be the dog of choice for most chavs and end up being raised in the resulting bad environment where an aggressive nature in encouraged and nurtured, much like the upbringing of their owners. I'm not a fan of Staffs from a purely aesthetic view I find them quite ugly but friends who own them responsibly have raised them as wonderfully good natured and obedient animals.
Other dogs go through periods of 'bad pr' too, Rotties used to be the other 'bad' dog but having owned many I can honestly say they are one of the most loving, playful and obedient breeds I've owned and only the presence of small children in my house and my long periods working away has prevented me still owning one (more from the difficulty walking a big dog with a pram and the size of dog knocking my child over rather than fear of aggression).
I think statistically the dogs that bite most and are most aggressive is actually the Jack Russell and Yorkie.

I think breed is to some extent irrelevant, yes different breeds have different characters but as with children, it is their upbringing that defines a great deal of what sort of person/animal they become.

Lookyhere

marksteven wrote:

WHAT A NUMPTY IDIOT SUGGESTION FROM A SELFISH POINT OF VIEW
good bye bike radar this was the last straw , idiot with no sense & no imagination asking pointless question over & over .........................................................................................................................

Even though you wont actually read this.................
So whats your suggestion for the growing number of dog attacks and dog mess left by dog owners? current laws are inadequate and not enforced.

tbh you sound like the dog "walker" who gave my 12yo daughter a mouthful of abuse whilst out xc running training, apparently she should nt have been running as her dogs chased her and wouldnt come back!?! how about training them and or having them on a lead? not too mention the shxt she didnt clean up, this was in a nature reserve and a SSSI.
or the other woman who when asked politely to clean up her dog shixte replied with a string foul language@ Burrator - Dartmoor nat pk (and it wasnt me, our family just heard it all)

I accept that £500 licences or muzzles are controversial but so is having your child go blind or attacked and scared for life.

mamba80

Lookyhere wrote:

i d like to see a return to dog licences, retrictions on max number of dogs registered at an address - i suggest ONE -
money raised from the licence @ £500 -would be used to employ many many more dog wardens to enforce the existing laws on dog xxxx which around here is endemic.
fines would be draconian - ALL would dogs muzzelled and kept on leads at ALL times and ALL breeds - owners forced to pay for the treatment of their dog attacks, so compulsory insurance as well.
there would be no dangerous dogs any more as these controls would ensure the safety of the general public.

oh and im not a dog hater (bought up with dogs on a farm and hunted alot with them as well) i just dislike the vast majority of dog "lovers" who seem to think the rest of us should love their mutts (and the xxxx they produce) as much as they seem to think they do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/pe ... -year.html

Completely agree too many dogs and too many irresponsible owners that have "messed" it up for others.
The norm down here is for dogs to be let out of car at beauti spot, run off and cxxp, dogs and owners then go for a 10min walk, return to car and go home.

millymoose

Deed NOT Breed

RSPCA chief vet Mark Evans said: "Staffies have had a terrible press, but this is not of their own making - in fact they're wonderful dogs. If people think that Staffies have problems, they're looking at the wrong end of the dog lead! When well cared for and properly trained they can make brilliant companions. Our experience suggests that problems occur when bad owners exploit the Staffie's desire to please by training them to show aggression

capt_slog

I remember the fuss about 12-15 years ago when they said that certain dogs had to be castrated (?). They all had to be done by a certain date, and then the government changed their minds and put an extension on the order by a couple of weeks. I'm uncertain of the details.

But what i do recall quite well was a bit of radio where they were talking to a 'gentleman' in a vets who had just had his dog operated on, and then heard about the extension. His response went something along the lines of......
" yer facking joking intcher? I've I 'im done and now you say he could have kept his nuts fer anuther fackin two weeks?".

I remember thinking at the time that they had castrated the wrong animal.

laurentian

I'm not against dog licensing, I have had dogs for most of my life but, in all seriousness, I would like to see licensing and more controls on cats.

seanoconn

millymoose wrote:

Deed NOT Breed

RSPCA chief vet Mark Evans said: "Staffies have had a terrible press, but this is not of their own making - in fact they're wonderful dogs. If people think that Staffies have problems, they're looking at the wrong end of the dog lead! When well cared for and properly trained they can make brilliant companions. Our experience suggests that problems occur when bad owners exploit the Staffie's desire to please by training them to show aggression

Staffie's by nature are lovely soppy dogs.... but and it's a BIG but, they have the potential to be lethal weapons, more so than other breeds of dog. A gun in the hands of someone sensible is low risk, that's why we have licensing laws, to stop guns falling into the wrong hands.

Licence, muzzle and castrate Staffie's. It's mainly the wrong people who buy/breed these dogs and the risk is too high in my opinion.

Personaly I'd be embarrassed to walk down the street with a Staffordshire Terrior because of what they represent.

seanoconn

I can't think of one good reason why anyone needs to own a Staff.

Tom Butcher

Really ? I've had a couple of Staffies and the inlaws have had quite a few and I certainly didn't get the impression that I or other Staffie owners were mainly the "wrong people". A Staffie can be quite a powerful dog but certainly no more so than a lot of other breeds and they haven't been bred for fighting for well over 100 years.

I don't think that it is entirely deed not breed - some breeds do pose more of a potential threat than others and I wouldn't pretend Staffies pose no more threat than say a cavalier or something - but there are plenty of breeds including all the bigger breeds with a guarding instinct and the sled dog breeds that have as much or more potential to cause harm to people. The shocking death of that girl also involved an American Bulldog and a Bull Mastiff and it's entirely possible - in fact I'd say likely - that one of those dogs initiated the attack - but I don't suppose we will ever know.

As far as expensive dog licences and insurance goes - well I don't see how either stops a dog attack. For me it's like the call that all cyclists should be insured and licensed - a knee jerk reaction. If they want to introduce a licence for dog ownership then it should at least be meaningful - linked to some kind of dog training - otherwise it's just a tax on dog ownership.

CYCLESPORT1

Why, do you s*** in a field as well

Yellow Peril wrote:

Fair comment there are a lot of dog owners out there that are completely irresponsible. I have two dogs (both dalmatians and both from the dogs home) One is a complete f*ckwit but has the last laugh because I clear up his sh1t but he never clears up mine.

seanoconn

Tom Butcher wrote:

Really ? I've had a couple of Staffies and the inlaws have had quite a few and I certainly didn't get the impression that I or other Staffie owners were mainly the "wrong people". A Staffie can be quite a powerful dog but certainly no more so than a lot of other breeds and they haven't been bred for fighting for well over 100 years.

I don't think that it is entirely deed not breed - some breeds do pose more of a potential threat than others and I wouldn't pretend Staffies pose no more threat than say a cavalier or something - but there are plenty of breeds including all the bigger breeds with a guarding instinct and the sled dog breeds that have as much or more potential to cause harm to people. The shocking death of that girl also involved an American Bulldog and a Bull Mastiff and it's entirely possible - in fact I'd say likely - that one of those dogs initiated the attack - but I don't suppose we will ever know.

As far as expensive dog licences and insurance goes - well I don't see how either stops a dog attack. For me it's like the call that all cyclists should be insured and licensed - a knee jerk reaction. If they want to introduce a licence for dog ownership then it should at least be meaningful - linked to some kind of dog training - otherwise it's just a tax on dog ownership.

I take it you don't live in London? Or possibly a city?

I guess the 'mainly' are unlikely to posting on a road bike forum though..... so you're excused

alihisgreat

laurentian wrote:

I'm not against dog licensing, I have had dogs for most of my life but, in all seriousness, I would like to see licensing and more controls on cats.

Cats are just pests. Don't see any attraction in owning one at all.

CYCLESPORT1

Staffies ARE great dogs in the right hands, this is OURS, as for I'd be embarrassed to walk down the street with a Staffordshire Terrior because of what they represent have you ever walked down the street with a dog :?:

seanoconn wrote:

millymoose wrote:

Deed NOT Breed

RSPCA chief vet Mark Evans said: "Staffies have had a terrible press, but this is not of their own making - in fact they're wonderful dogs. If people think that Staffies have problems, they're looking at the wrong end of the dog lead! When well cared for and properly trained they can make brilliant companions. Our experience suggests that problems occur when bad owners exploit the Staffie's desire to please by training them to show aggression

Staffie's by nature are lovely soppy dogs.... but and it's a BIG but, they have the potential to be lethal weapons, more so than other breeds of dog. A gun in the hands of someone sensible is low risk, that's why we have licensing laws, to stop guns falling into the wrong hands.

Licence, muzzle and castrate Staffie's. It's mainly the wrong people who buy/breed these dogs and the risk is too high in my opinion.

Personaly I'd be embarrassed to walk down the street with a Staffordshire Terrior because of what they represent.

seanoconn

CYCLESPORT1 wrote:

Staffies ARE great dogs in the right hands, this is OURS, as for I'd be embarrassed to walk down the street with a Staffordshire Terrior because of what they represent have you ever walked down the street with a dog :?:

seanoconn wrote:

millymoose wrote:

Deed NOT Breed

RSPCA chief vet Mark Evans said: "Staffies have had a terrible press, but this is not of their own making - in fact they're wonderful dogs. If people think that Staffies have problems, they're looking at the wrong end of the dog lead! When well cared for and properly trained they can make brilliant companions. Our experience suggests that problems occur when bad owners exploit the Staffie's desire to please by training them to show aggression

Staffie's by nature are lovely soppy dogs.... but and it's a BIG but, they have the potential to be lethal weapons, more so than other breeds of dog. A gun in the hands of someone sensible is low risk, that's why we have licensing laws, to stop guns falling into the wrong hands.

Licence, muzzle and castrate Staffie's. It's mainly the wrong people who buy/breed these dogs and the risk is too high in my opinion.

Personaly I'd be embarrassed to walk down the street with a Staffordshire Terrior because of what they represent.

Yes thanks. An Alsation and two Labs in the family

Giraffoto

Totally agree - compulsory licensing, compulsory neutering unless you're a licensed breeder, compulsory insurance, compulsory microchipping, owner assumes all responsibility for their pets' actions. I read only the other day there are more than 200,000 dog attacks in this country every year - I'd have guessed the figure at a tenth of that and still thought it excessive.

And as I said in another long thread about this subject . . .

I wrote:

As for anyone who claims to be a "responsible dog owner" because they pick up after your pet. Having done that, would you happily rub your hands over the place you've picked up from? Because you're happy for anyone else to do it. Here's one way you can be "responsible": only go out when you're sure your pet has discharged all of its spotlessly clean $h!t and p!$$ in your garden (or in your house - because picking it up works so well).

APIII

Giraffoto wrote:

Totally agree - compulsory licensing, compulsory neutering unless you're a licensed breeder, compulsory insurance, compulsory microchipping, owner assumes all responsibility for their pets' actions. I read only the other day there are more than 200,000 dog attacks in this country every year - I'd have guessed the figure at a tenth of that and still thought it excessive.

And as I said in another long thread about this subject . . .

I wrote:

As for anyone who claims to be a "responsible dog owner" because they pick up after your pet. Having done that, would you happily rub your hands over the place you've picked up from? Because you're happy for anyone else to do it. Here's one way you can be "responsible": only go out when you're sure your pet has discharged all of its spotlessly clean $h!t and p!$$ in your garden (or in your house - because picking it up works so well).

Believe me, dog mess is the least of Aylesbury's problems.