Dogs
Comments
-
Lookyhere wrote: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)
Just because you're daughter came across a disgusting excuse for a human being does not give you the right to put every dog owner under the same umbrella. On this logic, why don't you suggest we all pay for a license so we can walk the streets in the dark to pay for extra police to ensure street muggings and assault are reduced!? Then fine anyone who doesn't have their license but is caught walking around at night!?
You're logic is seriously flawed.0 -
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!$$ in your garden (or in your house - because picking it up works so well).
On this logic, why don't we just fine any wild animal that takes a dump in a public area!?0 -
Giraffoto wrote:Totally agree - compulsory licensing, compulsory neutering unless you're a licensed breeder, compulsory insurance, compulsory microchipping, owner assumes all responsibility for their pets' actions. I read only the other day there are more than 200,000 dog attacks in this country every year - I'd have guessed the figure at a tenth of that and still thought it excessive.
And as I said in another long thread about this subject . . .I wrote:As for anyone who claims to be a "responsible dog owner" because they pick up after your pet. Having done that, would you happily rub your hands over the place you've picked up from? Because you're happy for anyone else to do it. Here's one way you can be "responsible": only go out when you're sure your pet has discharged all of its spotlessly clean $h!t and p!$$ in your garden (or in your house - because picking it up works so well).
What a ridiculous statement. Are you saying that other than dog cr@p the whole outside world is germ free? I don't think my dog has ever gone for a sh!t in the local river, shall I get you a pint of that to drink?0 -
Whoa lads! Wait til I get me popcorn!
0 -
gavbarron wrote: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.
no doubt true, but my point is the sole purpose of the whole breed, indeed its very existence is as a fighter. if they hadnt been bred as a dog to fight bulls they would not have existed. simples.0 -
A Staffie was not bred to fight bulls - it was bred to fight other dogs when bull baiting was made illegal - they needed a faster more athletic dog and crossed bulldogs with terriers. They were not and never have been bred to attack people. You may as well say other terriers were all bred to attack other animals, or certain other breeds have been bred for their guarding instinct - any flock guardian breed for a start. If you want to go down the route of what a breed was originally developed for then you'd be banning many of them.
There is some nonsense posted in this thread. Anyone with a German Shepherd who thinks Staffies should be banned but not their own breed is in denial.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
junglist_matty wrote:On this logic, why don't we just fine any wild animal that takes a dump in a public area!?
Because they're wild animals, not animals bought by humans who've decided they're going to get a dog and the rest of the world just has to put up with it
No, I'm saying that merely picking up the larger chunks when other people can see you does not adequately address the very specific pathogens that occur almost exclusively in cr@p.then Yellow Peril wrote:What a ridiculous statement. Are you saying that other than dog cr@p the whole outside world is germ free?
Only if you don't curl one down on the pavement after eating it, I'm peculiarly fussy about that kind of thingBallysmate wrote:Whoa lads! Wait til I get me popcorn!Specialized Roubaix Elite 2015
XM-057 rigid 29er0 -
Only if you don't curl one down on the pavement after eating it, I'm peculiarly fussy about that kind of thing[/quote]Ballysmate wrote:Whoa lads! Wait til I get me popcorn!
That's probably why I have never fancied corn on the cob 0 -
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 .........................................................................................................................
Not as selfish as a dog owner knowingly leaving **** on the pavement / park and walking off."The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby0 -
I seem to remember that dogs used to be licenced in the early 80's? I remember going to pick ours up when I was a kid (the licence, not the dog), I dont see what the problem with this is. Similarly, insurance etc etc.
If you're a responsible owner you would have no problem with these measures designed to prevent the wrong type of people having the wrong kids of dogs - by this I mean middle aged women owning 5 enormous mastiff and pitbull types (American pitbill, not Staffs), teenagers strutting around in their Reebok classics with Staffys chained up, etc etc.
The current laws regarding responsibility also need to be changed. An owner can only be charged through the dangerous dogs act if an attack takes place in a public space, meaning that dogs can do whatever they like in their own houses - for example kill teenage girls - and it could well be the case that no one is punished for it, as might well be the case with the latest tragic incident.
I don't advocate knee-jerk reactions to incidents such as this, however there have been a number of attacks and fatalities in recent years and our laws and processes regarding animals need to be redressed and brought up to date to deal with the modern issues that arise from dog ownership.
Incidentally, living in Spain now - they need to do something about their bloody cat problem. The place is infested with the horrible feral flea ridden types.0 -
junglist_matty wrote:Lookyhere wrote: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)
Just because you're daughter came across a disgusting excuse for a human being does not give you the right to put every dog owner under the same umbrella. On this logic, why don't you suggest we all pay for a license so we can walk the streets in the dark to pay for extra police to ensure street muggings and assault are reduced!? Then fine anyone who doesn't have their license but is caught walking around at night!?
You're logic is seriously flawed.
No its not and its certainly NOT based on, solely my experiences with dog owners (or you would be correct)
Muzzling, insurance and licences would do away with branding specific breeds, its the owners that should be targeted, in exactly the same way as gun ownership or cars etc any argument that its not enforceable is incorrect or on that logic, we d not bother trying to enforce traffic law..or any other law come to that.
of course a fee of £500 would be expensive but broadly in line with the cost of the licence had they not been revoked and certainly in line with the cost of certain breeds of dog and the general cost of ownership ie food vet bills etc.
Perhaps if dog owners stopped treating their pets as surogate children instead of the pack animals they really are, the high rise in dog attacks would never have occurred.
Even those folk on here who dont agree with what im saying have not come up with any alternative suggestions - so the present situation is ok is it? i even heard one dog expert say that the girl was eating a pie and thats why they, the 4 dogs attacked and killed her...so its her fault now is it?0 -
I was once beaten up by 4 men. I demand that all men should have their hands tied behind their backs at all times.0
-
bompington wrote:I was once beaten up by 4 men. I demand that all men should have their hands tied behind their backs at all times.
Fair enough. But I draw the line at a gimp mask.
0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:A Staffie was not bred to fight bulls - it was bred to fight other dogs when bull baiting was made illegal - they needed a faster more athletic dog and crossed bulldogs with terriers. They were not and never have been bred to attack people. You may as well say other terriers were all bred to attack other animals, or certain other breeds have been bred for their guarding instinct - any flock guardian breed for a start. If you want to go down the route of what a breed was originally developed for then you'd be banning many of them.
There is some nonsense posted in this thread. Anyone with a German Shepherd who thinks Staffies should be banned but not their own breed is in denial.
ok fair enough, i was wrong on that point, but they were bred to fight, pure and simple. you cant compare it with other terriers who were bred to rat or attack small animals. such animals dont have the power,a nd have little history of attacking people. staffies have the power and the means.
german shepherds actually serve a purpose, be it guide dog, police dog, army dog etc.
i care for neither breed. if im walking our cocker and see a lose staffie in the park i pick her up. if they are on a lead i make sure she goes nowhere near them. i have friends whose dogs have been attacked by staffies, and the staffie oweners have just completely ignore it and give a mouthfull of abuse.
i know people who have a soft and soppy staffy too, but ther animal still has it in them to do a lot of damage.
if staffies and bull terriers and other 'weapon' dog breeds were banned, attacks would diminish considerably. however in time the scum would probably just breed fighting dogs out of dobermans, rotties and alsatians.0 -
What percentage of german shepherds actually work as police or armed forces dogs ? Whether a dog breed still does a job is irrelevant - what is relevant is whether it has the potential to do harm. Any large breed with a guarding or defensive drive has the potential to do harm - German Shepherds, Rotties, Akitas, Bull Mastiffs etc are all just as potentially dangerous as staffies and some of them more so. Yes there is a minority of people attracted to staffies who are irresponsible, probably do see them in terms of a macho image and have done the breed immeasurable harm but if you ban staffies all they'll do is move on to another breed - and imo some of the breeds they may move on to have much more potential to do harm.
Personally I wouldn' t mind them introducing a dog licence - if as I said it was linked to some kind of proof you were a responsible dog owner, you'd passed a training course and made a commitment that each new dog you own had done the same. What I would object to is it being a tax on dog ownership serving no purpose whatsoever.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
The most recent figures, for the year ending April 2012, showed a total of 6,450 admissions for dog bites or strikes, an increase of 5.2% on the previous year. Of those 1,040 were of under-10s, with nearly half (494 admissions) requiring plastic surgery, and 27% (278 admissions) resulting in oral or facial surgery.There are 27 million pets in the UK with dogs and cats being the animal of choice for pet lovers with over 7.3 and 7.2 million across the UK respectively. (The UK’s Top Ten Pets can be found in the notes below)
Of all dogs in the UK (according to 2012 statistics) 0.08% of dogs cause attacks0 -
junglist_matty wrote:The most recent figures, for the year ending April 2012, showed a total of 6,450 admissions for dog bites or strikes, an increase of 5.2% on the previous year. Of those 1,040 were of under-10s, with nearly half (494 admissions) requiring plastic surgery, and 27% (278 admissions) resulting in oral or facial surgery.There are 27 million pets in the UK with dogs and cats being the animal of choice for pet lovers with over 7.3 and 7.2 million across the UK respectively. (The UK’s Top Ten Pets can be found in the notes below)
Of all dogs in the UK (according to 2012 statistics) 0.08% of dogs cause attacks
Out of all the people in the UK, how many are convicted sex offenders on the sex offenders register? There are 31,800 Life Registers, given that the population of the UK is approx 60 million that a very low percentage, at yet we still have it. By your reasoning, as the offence rate is so low, we shouldnt bother.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 2w0007.htm0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:What percentage of german shepherds actually work as police or armed forces dogs ? Whether a dog breed still does a job is irrelevant - what is relevant is whether it has the potential to do harm. Any large breed with a guarding or defensive drive has the potential to do harm - German Shepherds, Rotties, Akitas, Bull Mastiffs etc are all just as potentially dangerous as staffies and some of them more so. Yes there is a minority of people attracted to staffies who are irresponsible, probably do see them in terms of a macho image and have done the breed immeasurable harm but if you ban staffies all they'll do is move on to another breed - and imo some of the breeds they may move on to have much more potential to do harm.
Personally I wouldn' t mind them introducing a dog licence - if as I said it was linked to some kind of proof you were a responsible dog owner, you'd passed a training course and made a commitment that each new dog you own had done the same. What I would object to is it being a tax on dog ownership serving no purpose whatsoever.
Sensible suggestions like that have no place on this thread. Get out!- - - - - - - - - -
On Strava.{/url}0 -
I'd like to see the re-introdution of a dog license and compulsory "chipping" of them (if it's not already).
While I appreciate some breeds are naturally more aggressive than others it's owners that need educating in a lot of things. Dogs are a serious undertaking and should you take up ownership of one you should be prepared to put the time in.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
To single out Staffs might seem a little unfair but for people who should never be allowed to own pets but want to, Staffs are the dog of choice. There needs to be a deterrent. And unfortunately these people are not in a minority.Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0
-
seanoconn wrote:To single out Staffs might seem a little unfair but for people who should never be allowed to own guns but want to, Staffs are the dog of choice. There needs to be a deterrent. And unfortunately these people are not in a minority.
FTFY.
They're not really pets, are they. Staffies are a status symbol.- - - - - - - - - -
On Strava.{/url}0 -
DesWeller wrote:seanoconn wrote:To single out Staffs might seem a little unfair but for people who should never be allowed to own guns but want to, Staffs are the dog of choice. There needs to be a deterrent. And unfortunately these people are not in a minority.
FTFY.
They're not really pets, are they. Staffies are a status symbol.
What a complete load of tosh. The majority of Staffs are owned by people who have rescued them and go on to train them. Just because a minority treat them as status dogs does not make a 'catch all' policy of banning them right. On that basis we could ban or destroy all people as they have the potential for harming another person.0 -
Banning or destroying people isn't as straightforward as it should be.millymoose wrote:DesWeller wrote:seanoconn wrote:To single out Staffs might seem a little unfair but for people who should never be allowed to own guns but want to, Staffs are the dog of choice. There needs to be a deterrent. And unfortunately these people are not in a minority.
FTFY.
They're not really pets, are they. Staffies are a status symbol.
What a complete load of tosh. The majority of Staffs are owned by people who have rescued them and go on to train them. Just because a minority treat them as status dogs does not make a 'catch all' policy of banning them right. On that basis we could ban or destroy all people as they have the potential for harming another person.
If the majority of people own rescued dogs, it would suggest that it isn't a minority that mistreat/breed these dogs that need rescuing.
Have a look in the cities. Thousands of scumbags own Staffs and it's dangerous.Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0 -
I live in Staffs.
STOP PICKING ON ME! :evil:0 -
seanoconn wrote:
Banning or destroying people isn't as straightforward as it should be.millymoose wrote:DesWeller wrote:seanoconn wrote:To single out Staffs might seem a little unfair but for people who should never be allowed to own guns but want to, Staffs are the dog of choice. There needs to be a deterrent. And unfortunately these people are not in a minority.
FTFY.
They're not really pets, are they. Staffies are a status symbol.
What a complete load of tosh. The majority of Staffs are owned by people who have rescued them and go on to train them. Just because a minority treat them as status dogs does not make a 'catch all' policy of banning them right. On that basis we could ban or destroy all people as they have the potential for harming another person.
If the majority of people own rescued dogs, it would suggest that it isn't a minority that mistreat/breed these dogs that need rescuing.
Have a look in the cities. Thousands of scumbags own Staffs and it's dangerous.
"Thousands of scumbags" - and your well researched thesis to back this statistic plucked out of the air is published where exactly?0 -
Oh and if there are 'thousands' why are there actually so few (relatively) attacks per dog owned?0
-
Do you own a Staffirdshire Bull Terrior?millymoose wrote:Oh and if there are 'thousands' why are there actually so few (relatively) attacks per dog owned?Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0 -
incidents similar to this have happened before , and will happen again , stricter laws need to be brought in and enforced , bringing back the old dog licence would be a good idea ,£50 at least , dog fouling, there are signs up where i live , but i have not known of any prosecutions ,0
-
seanoconn wrote:
Do you own a Staffirdshire Bull Terrior?millymoose wrote:Oh and if there are 'thousands' why are there actually so few (relatively) attacks per dog owned?
Yes - and your point is exactly? I had my last Staff X for 16 years who had to adapt to the arrival of my first son and the emigration to the US and then back and then birth of number 2 son. I had her 16 years. Just rescued a 'Full' Staff and have had her for 8 weeks.
I have in the past owned a Lurcher, a JRT and a JRT X - I fail to see your point?0
