Dogs

millymoose

Oh and it's 'Terrier'

Mikey23

So what's with this picking up your dogs mess, putting in a bag and leaving the bag all about then? I see this so much these days and it makes no sense... Perhaps a dog owner would explain

Bozman

Dogs should only be purchased from licenced breeders, dogs should be registered with a vet, chipped, licenced annually, plus every owner should have to haveto take some kind of responsability test.
The fee from the annual licence should go towards warden control, the elderly should have certain exemptions too.

seanoconn

millymoose wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

millymoose wrote:

Oh and if there are 'thousands' why are there actually so few (relatively) attacks per dog owned?

Do you own a Staffirdshire Bull Terrior?

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?

Maybe that's because I hadn't made my point yet?

As a sensible owner I can understand your sensitivity and bias. Next time you're in London have a good look around and tell me you're happy about the number of gang members, incompetents and generally bad people in charge of these powerful animals.

Apologies... Terrier, no offence intended.

ballysmate

Most people would support the reintroduction of the dog licence, set at a meaningful level, coupled with some sort of compulsory training. But as there is no national database of dog ownership, how do you get the people who are probably in most need of regulation to comply?

millymoose

seanoconn wrote:

millymoose wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

millymoose wrote:

Oh and if there are 'thousands' why are there actually so few (relatively) attacks per dog owned?

Do you own a Staffirdshire Bull Terrior?

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?

Maybe that's because I hadn't made my point yet?

As a sensible owner I can understand your sensitivity and bias. Next time you're in London have a good look around and tell me you're happy about the number of gang members, incompetents and generally bad people in charge of these powerful animals.

Apologies... Terrier, no offence intended.

You asked if I owned a SBT - that was 'the point' and I answered you. As to London - what has that got to do with it? As it happens I am close enough to be considered a London resident and when I has my previous dogs I was London based.

What exactly is your beef/brief here?

seanoconn

millymoose wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

millymoose wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

millymoose wrote:

Oh and if there are 'thousands' why are there actually so few (relatively) attacks per dog owned?

Do you own a Staffirdshire Bull Terrior?

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?

Maybe that's because I hadn't made my point yet?

As a sensible owner I can understand your sensitivity and bias. Next time you're in London have a good look around and tell me you're happy about the number of gang members, incompetents and generally bad people in charge of these powerful animals.

Apologies... Terrier, no offence intended.

You asked if I owned a SBT - that was 'the point' and I answered you. As to London - what has that got to do with it? As it happens I am close enough to be considered a London resident and when I has my previous dogs I was London based.

What exactly is your beef/brief here?

What has London got to do with a large number of irresponsible Staff owners? Quite a lot I should imagine.
I don't have a beef with you or your pets xxx

BillyMansell

Ballysmate wrote:

Most people would support the reintroduction of the dog licence

What evidence do you have for this claim? I'd be grateful if you could share it.

But as there is no national database of dog ownership, how do you get the people who are probably in most need of regulation to comply?

It would be pretty simple. Just as we have an integrated electronic approach to motoring with driver and vehicle licencing, insurance and MOT all sharing information and available to any appropriate person, so you could have an integrated approach where every animal identifiable by a microchip is linked to an owner and registered vet as well as having certification of training. Any appropriate person could scan a dog on the street to ensure it was fully compliant and remove it if it's not.

The rub is there isn't the political will to introduce an integrated system that would need to ensure enforcement of microchipping and the standardization and upscaling of certified training and the increasing of prosecutions at a time when the government is cutting spending on magistrates courts.

And besides, creating such a system is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut as most pet owners are responsible and many breeds are not potentially dangerous.

ballysmate

BillyMansell wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Most people would support the reintroduction of the dog licence

What evidence do you have for this claim? I'd be grateful if you could share it.

But as there is no national database of dog ownership, how do you get the people who are probably in most need of regulation to comply?

It would be pretty simple. Just as we have an integrated electronic approach to motoring with driver and vehicle licencing, insurance and MOT all sharing information and available to any appropriate person, so you could have an integrated approach where every animal identifiable by a microchip is linked to an owner and registered vet as well as having certification of training. Any appropriate person could scan a dog on the street to ensure it was fully compliant and remove it if it's not.

Focus2 posted on here that there are over 7 million dogs in this country. I don't know if that is true, but if it is half that number, good luck with getting all those owners to come forward to get their dogs chipped.

BillyMansell

Ballysmate wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Most people would support the reintroduction of the dog licence

What evidence do you have for this claim? I'd be grateful if you could share it.

But as there is no national database of dog ownership, how do you get the people who are probably in most need of regulation to comply?

It would be pretty simple. Just as we have an integrated electronic approach to motoring with driver and vehicle licencing, insurance and MOT all sharing information and available to any appropriate person, so you could have an integrated approach where every animal identifiable by a microchip is linked to an owner and registered vet as well as having certification of training. Any appropriate person could scan a dog on the street to ensure it was fully compliant and remove it if it's not.

Focus2 posted on here that there are over 7 million dogs in this country. I don't know if that is true, but if it is half that number, good luck with getting all those owners to come forward to get their dogs chipped.

Indeed, but if their dogs could be removed and destroyed then it may encourage them to get them chipped, registered and trained, which most responsible owners do anyway.

Also, the areas where people walk the streets using their dogs as status symbols could be targeted along with areas where attacks have occured, making better use of the limited resources.

CambsNewbie

I have a ten year old German Shepherd. In 10 years he has NEVER shown any aggression to a person. I think he has possibly shown aggression to other dogs on maybe 3 or 4 occasions when they have run up to him growling and barking. All he wants is a stick in his mouth or a ball and he is happy. 99% of his walks he is off the lead. When I call him he comes back. He has never chased horses or livestock. He poos, I pick up after and place in the designated bin (and not the hedge as others do).

He is microchipped, tattooed and insured for both medical expenses and if he were to cause another any kind of loss. He is fully inoculated. I do not need to have a yearly test as to whether I am suitable to own this dog.

A dog is the product of its owners. Mine is calm and relaxed (only yesterday in a pub in Dorset we had kids coming up to him and wanting to stroke and pat him. He generally ignored them or let them stroke him. At all times we were watching his body language to make sure he was comfortable.) I never forget he is a dog. He doesn't go on the sofa, upstairs or on my bed, he has his own. He has clear boundaries as to what he is allowed to do and knows he will be punished if he crosses those boundaries (if he goes through the bin when we are out he will punish himself when we get back and go and sit in the garden!)

If we are going to start muzzling and microchipping animals we should start looking at our High Streets on a Thursday, Friday or Saturday night. The animals out then cause far more damage and injuries at a greater cost to the public purse than the number of dog attacks do.

ballysmate

BillyMansell wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Most people would support the reintroduction of the dog licence

What evidence do you have for this claim? I'd be grateful if you could share it.

But as there is no national database of dog ownership, how do you get the people who are probably in most need of regulation to comply?

It would be pretty simple. Just as we have an integrated electronic approach to motoring with driver and vehicle licencing, insurance and MOT all sharing information and available to any appropriate person, so you could have an integrated approach where every animal identifiable by a microchip is linked to an owner and registered vet as well as having certification of training. Any appropriate person could scan a dog on the street to ensure it was fully compliant and remove it if it's not.

Focus2 posted on here that there are over 7 million dogs in this country. I don't know if that is true, but if it is half that number, good luck with getting all those owners to come forward to get their dogs chipped.

Indeed, but if their dogs could be removed and destroyed then it may encourage them to get them chipped, registered and trained, which most responsible owners do anyway.

Also, the areas where people walk the streets using their dogs as status symbols could be targeted along with areas where attacks have occured, making better use of the limited resources.

I agree that the prospect of having your dog destroyed would be an incentive for some but not all. Not all dog owners are animal lovers, as has been stated already. You would be reliant on scanning every dog that was found in a public place, which is some task. Not all dogs get exercised as they should. Some never leave their owner's garden. The recent attack that I assume prompted this thread, occurred inside. Such dogs would never be scanned.

millymoose

[/quote]
What has London got to do with a large number of irresponsible Staff owners? Quite a lot I should imagine.
I don't have a beef with you or your pets xxx[/quote]

"I should imagine"!! -So you have no idea then> Just because you live in an area that has/has not got a problem that is enough to tar everyone with the same brush?

My area has has a problem with burglaries caused by 17 year olds from single parent families - ergo, we should ban them from the whole country! No - well that is the basis of your argument is it not?

BillyMansell

Apologies for shortening the conversation Ballysmate

Ballysmate wrote:

I agree that the prospect of having your dog destroyed would be an incentive for some but not all. Not all dog owners are animal lovers

True but powers exist to prosecute cruelty to animals and it isn't necessary that an animal removed should be destroyed but the animal rehomed and former owner prosecuted

You would be reliant on scanning every dog that was found in a public place, which is some task.

As with the integrated electronic system employed within motoring, a system for pets wouldn't target everyone but those requiring further investigation thereby targeting resources where they're needed

Not all dogs get exercised as they should.

Which would represent less of a threat to public safety but again may raise issues of animal cruelty

Some never leave their owner's garden.

Again, representing a reduced threat to public safety

The recent attack that I assume prompted this thread, occurred inside. Such dogs would never be scanned.

The reference of the OP was from January 2012 and linking it to current events isn't really appropriate (as in wanting to sensationalise a current tragedy). If we were to refer to the article and the figures of deaths and mamings, should't we be doing more to ban cars and lorries as it highlights that they kill far more people than dangerous dogs?

As regards the recent attack, as you say the attack was indoors and the owner is not to be prosecuted which renders suggestions of dog control in public and much of this thread moot.

seanoconn

millymoose wrote:

What has London got to do with a large number of irresponsible Staff owners? Quite a lot I should imagine.
I don't have a beef with you or your pets xxx[/quote]

"I should imagine"!! -So you have no idea then> Just because you live in an area that has/has not got a problem that is enough to tar everyone with the same brush?

My area has has a problem with burglaries caused by 17 year olds from single parent families - ergo, we should ban them from the whole country! No - well that is the basis of your argument is it not?[/quote]

'I should imagine' was a sarcastic turn of phrase, so I'll give the sarcasm a miss and keep it simple.

And of course I'm using my area as an example, as witnessing problem Staff owners is something I can substantiate. I'd be happy if there was just licencing and chipping, with responsibility placed firmly on the owner, in London alone but it doesn't work like that. What I'm saying is London's a big place, with a big enough problem to warrant stricter controls and some tarring is inevitable unfortunately.

Are you comparing children and single parents to dogs???

canny_lad

Frank the tank wrote:

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.

Well said Frank. IIRC compulsory chipping is on the way for dogs. Not sure how they're gonna enforce it mind as visits to the vets probably don't figure too highly on the lists of knuckleheads who get dogs as status symbols. Lots of venom towards dogs on here but ICGAF, my 2 are well looked after and not aggressive and I would happily buy a license for them. Not sure what this would achieve though as only the owners who give a fook would bother.

ballysmate

BillyMansell wrote:

True but powers exist to prosecute cruelty to animals and it isn't necessary that an animal removed should be destroyed but the animal rehomed and former owner prosecuted.

As with the integrated electronic system employed within motoring, a system for pets wouldn't target everyone but those requiring further investigation thereby targeting resources where they're needed
As regards the recent attack, as you say the attack was indoors and the owner is not to be prosecuted which renders suggestions of dog control in public and much of this thread moot.

Billy, I admire your resolve. If you manage to scan all the dogs, you then want to rehome them. Good luck with that as well. The dog pounds are full now.
The system with cars differs in the fact that there is a database listing every vehicle in the UK. Fixed ANPR cameras as well as those mounted in police cars are used to monitor stolen vehicles, vehicles of interest, uninsured vehicles, untaxed vehicles and vehicles with no mot. Still there are vehicles on the roads that shouldn't be. So good luck with tracking 7 million or so dogs.

gavbarron

Mikey23 wrote:

So what's with this picking up your dogs mess, putting in a bag and leaving the bag all about then? I see this so much these days and it makes no sense... Perhaps a dog owner would explain

Happens my way a lot too, people generally clean up the mess and leave the bag visible by the track to collect on their way back as it is better than sticking it in your pocket. Least that is how it works round here

Yellow Peril

Westill have dog licences inthe IOM. All dogs are meant to display their licence tag but it is believed that there are as many unlicensed as there are licensed. Having a dog licensing scheme is not a panacea it is the enforcement of such and it is way down the list of priorities of those with that task.

I also wonder how many cyclists had a license from British waterways to cycle on the canal towpath. I had mine...

simonhead

99%of the problems with any dog is the owner. Paying for a piece of paper to allow you to have a dog won't solve the problem. Introduce a fit and proper persons test with full training, exams ext and a check on the suitability of the home for a dog .

Mikey23

Tends to stay here... There has been a little bag on a fence I drive past for weeks now... If the owner doesn't I can't see how any would ever take responsibility for it... I don't mind picking up litter but not other people's dog doo doos.

There was a prog the other day about the railways where a small army of BR employees had to pick the little envelopes of the railway line near a popular walking route because people sling shot it over the hedge onto the railway line. The mentality escapes me...

ilm_zero7

seanoconn wrote:

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

what utter TOSH - on my second staffie - both were rescue dogs - the first was the most dedicated and obiedient dog I have ever owned - and the second I got as a pup.

100% loyal - a good guard dog, playful, and a complete softie with those he knows and trusts. If I didnt have to go to work I would have at least one more, and would always have one of my dogs as a staffie just for the fun factor. the most maligned breed by those who are quick to condemn the minority of poorly trained dogs and irresponsible owners

seanoconn

ILM Zero7 wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

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

what utter TOSH - on my second staffie - both were rescue dogs - the first was the most dedicated and obiedient dog I have ever owned - and the second I got as a pup.

100% loyal - a good guard dog, playful, and a complete softie with those he knows and trusts. If I didnt have to go to work I would have at least one more, and would always have one of my dogs as a staffie just for the fun factor. the most maligned breed by those who are quick to condemn the minority of poorly trained dogs and irresponsible owners

Evening Zero.

Utter Tosh is burying your head in the sand and pretending SBT's are owned by a 'minority' of irresponsible owners.

Why are SBT's 'mainly' rescue dogs?? Because they were rescued from irresponsible owners! Meaning STB's are the popular choice for irresponsible dog owners. They are not a minority.

Which is a shame for the breed and responsible owners.

ballysmate

Not just for Christmas. Some left over for boxing day!

pinno

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.

Well, first of all you live in Dundee and its a common occurence round those parts.
Secondly, you probably deserved it.
Thirdly, wearing lycra and riding your bike in East Fife is a rare and strange thing that would probably elicit being beaten up.
Fourthly, if it took 4 men to do you over, then you must be a formidable adversary.
Fifthly, did you stray out of your territory you delinquent old dog?
Sixthly, i've seen a picture of your bike and its worth being beaten up for 'cos your so ticht fisted you won't buy yersel' a decent velocopede worthy of the 19th century.
Seventhly, when you did the Cal Etape, you farted all the way round especially up that little mole hill, wotsit called?...Schich...shuch..Shiech - you know the one.

ben@31

What will happen to the bulldog on the Churchill Insurance adverts? One day he may snap and go all physco on us and rip some poor motorists arm from it's socket.

Does a staffie offer home and car insurance?

BelgianBeerGeek

Staffies are sweet, Spaniels are lovely, blah, blah, blah.

ANY dog can bite and some can be very vicious indeed. Stop all this " my dog would NEVER do that" nonsense.

I used to have a Border Collie and he could be a proper handful. RSPCA dog and lovely. Would I have another dog? Probably not. Most of those I know who have dogs really can't be ar**d to look after them, and treat them as kids and spoil them. They are animals FFS, and should be treated as such.

finchy

ILM Zero7 wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

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

what utter TOSH - on my second staffie - both were rescue dogs - the first was the most dedicated and obiedient dog I have ever owned - and the second I got as a pup.

100% loyal - a good guard dog, playful, and a complete softie with those he knows and trusts. If I didnt have to go to work I would have at least one more, and would always have one of my dogs as a staffie just for the fun factor. the most maligned breed by those who are quick to condemn the minority of poorly trained dogs and irresponsible owners

Nobody's maligning the dogs, just some of the cretins who have them on the end of a lead. Of which there are, unfortunately, rather too many.

millymoose

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Most of those I know who have dogs really can't be ar**d to look after them, and treat them as kids and spoil them.

I suggest you get to know some different people. 'Most' owners are actually very good and have the animals interest at heart - the people you know are clearly tw@ts

BelgianBeerGeek

millymoose wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Most of those I know who have dogs really can't be ar**d to look after them, and treat them as kids and spoil them.

I suggest you get to know some different people. 'Most' owners are actually very good and have the animals interest at heart - the people you know are clearly tw@ts

No, they are generally quite sane people whose brains turn to mush when it comes to dogs. Dogs are animals, not babies or people for that matter. yet some of them think it's ok to ask an animal a question.
Thank you for your opinion on the people I know.