So, if your vet had another client whose dog/cat etc needed microchipping but wasn't due for an operation that required anaesthetic, would he anaesthetise them solely for the purpose of microchipping?
No idea it never came up in conversation, I could ask him next time I am there (hope not too soon just getting over Elsie's sore ears visit) but I am sure he said we have smallest dog on his list so it may be he was being sensitive to her needs knowing we would want her spayed anyway.
I Know it's DM and I know this breed is not banned but why would anyone want so many of this breed ? why after being attacked would he try to walk 6 at a time ? Why ?
I Know it's DM and I know this breed is not banned but why would anyone want so many of this breed ? why after being attacked would he try to walk 6 at a time ? Why ?
Because he is stupid. Or ill. Or both.
Who tf would walk SIX ABs with TWO arms, never mind after losing one TO HIS OWN ABs.
And did you see the squalor those poor dogs are living in?
BYB of the worst type>:(
If he'd have to pay, say £200 per dog capable of breeding in annual licence/registration* and £200 each dog each year in public liability insurance with the polices able to confiscate dogs without and the magistrates able to fine him for each uninsured, unlicensed dog then this second attack may not have happened.
* Capable of breeding - intact over a certain age without a vets exemption certificate. Vets could exempt for any reason they saw fit including behavioural (some male dogs with fear aggression get worse after castration for example). Neutered and exempt dogs would be much lower fee.
Insurance levels would be up to actuaries to set - the odds of a chihuahua getting lose from older, responsible owners and causing costly harm is negligible so would attract a v small premium.
Who tf would walk SIX ABs with TWO arms, never mind after losing one TO HIS OWN ABs.
And did you see the squalor those poor dogs are living in?
BYB of the worst type>:(
If he'd have to pay, say £200 per dog capable of breeding in annual licence/registration* and £200 each dog each year in public liability insurance with the polices able to confiscate dogs without and the magistrates able to fine him for each uninsured, unlicensed dog then this second attack may not have happened.
* Capable of breeding - intact over a certain age without a vets exemption certificate. Vets could exempt for any reason they saw fit including behavioural (some male dogs with fear aggression get worse after castration for example). Neutered and exempt dogs would be much lower fee.
Insurance levels would be up to actuaries to set - the odds of a chihuahua getting lose from older, responsible owners and causing costly harm is negligible so would attract a v small premium.
The trouble with insurance as I see it is they always want to make bigger and bigger profits so they may well make owning a less dangerous dog cheaper but I would predict not so much cheaper they would just want to make a bigger profit on dogs they would never pay out on.
The trouble with insurance as I see it is they always want to make bigger and bigger profits so they may well make owning a less dangerous dog cheaper but I would predict not so much cheaper they would just want to make a bigger profit on dogs they would never pay out on.
There is always the insurance ombudsman.
And the need to be competitive. I think it would work more like car insurance than dog health insurance - though most of those have public liability insurance included so if you have health insurance, there wouldn't be an additional cost - and for some the cover in their house insurance would be sufficient.
With my clean drivers license, no claims that were my fault and my age, insuring my slightly higher than average group car is very reasonable. I would see a similar system working well for dogs.
Who tf would walk SIX ABs with TWO arms, never mind after losing one TO HIS OWN ABs.
And did you see the squalor those poor dogs are living in?
BYB of the worst type>:(
If he'd have to pay, say £200 per dog capable of breeding in annual licence/registration* and £200 each dog each year in public liability insurance with the polices able to confiscate dogs without and the magistrates able to fine him for each uninsured, unlicensed dog then this second attack may not have happened.
* Capable of breeding - intact over a certain age without a vets exemption certificate. Vets could exempt for any reason they saw fit including behavioural (some male dogs with fear aggression get worse after castration for example). Neutered and exempt dogs would be much lower fee.
Insurance levels would be up to actuaries to set - the odds of a chihuahua getting lose from older, responsible owners and causing costly harm is negligible so would attract a v small premium.
Who tf would walk SIX ABs with TWO arms, never mind after losing one TO HIS OWN ABs.
And did you see the squalor those poor dogs are living in?
BYB of the worst type>:(
If he'd have to pay, say £200 per dog capable of breeding in annual licence/registration* and £200 each dog each year in public liability insurance with the polices able to confiscate dogs without and the magistrates able to fine him for each uninsured, unlicensed dog then this second attack may not have happened.
* Capable of breeding - intact over a certain age without a vets exemption certificate. Vets could exempt for any reason they saw fit including behavioural (some male dogs with fear aggression get worse after castration for example). Neutered and exempt dogs would be much lower fee.
Insurance levels would be up to actuaries to set - the odds of a chihuahua getting lose from older, responsible owners and causing costly harm is negligible so would attract a v small premium.
I agree with most of that though, once again, it seems that it will be 'average' dog owners who be most penalised.
I don't support mass neutering, I don't think that breeding dogs should be the privilege of the wealthy.
I don't think it's fair that a snappy chihuahua would be cheaper to insure than a soppy stafford. JMHO.
I agree with most of that though, once again, it seems that it will be 'average' dog owners who be most penalised.
I don't support mass neutering, I don't think that breeding dogs should be the privilege of the wealthy.
I don't think it's fair that a snappy chihuahua would be cheaper to insure than a soppy stafford. JMHO.
I don't think my suggestions are perfect - but what are the alternatives that will protect dog welfare, restrict unscrupulous breeding and protect people from 'dangerous dogs'? I really liked the model Dogue posted earlier. That is similar and has been shown to work - uses a bit of bribery to get people to register dogs. That could help.
I'm not a major fan of neutering male dogs as standard as I think it can cause more problems than it solves for some. But I don't think £200 a year for a license to have an entire dog is particularly onerous so could be afforded by people who want an entire dog and can't get an exemption certificate or wish to breed. But at the same time incentives neutering and makes breeding by people doing it for a litter of what passes for Staffies in some quarters solely to make a bit of money less attractive.
I agree with most of that though, once again, it seems that it will be 'average' dog owners who be most penalised.
I don't support mass neutering, I don't think that breeding dogs should be the privilege of the wealthy.
I don't think it's fair that a snappy chihuahua would be cheaper to insure than a soppy stafford. JMHO.
Surely any insurance or legislation should take into account the danger the animal poses ? hardly likely a Chihuahua would bring down and kill a fully grown man or even a child whereas any staffie or bigger breed even my soppy lab could do it with ease.
No insurance would be fair to everyone they have to make a profit after all !
The owner makes the dog. That's all I have to say on that story, tragic as it is.
If only it was that simple.
We cannot deny that breed have certain behavioural traits and their brain chemistry is largely inherited, and the affected by experiences in the litter, socialisation periods, health etc.
It's not as simply as 'good owners have good dogs' IMO.
Good owners are more like to have safe dogs, but there are an infinite number of reason why one particular dog, in one particular situation, might display a particular behaviour.... the treatment by the current owner may or may not be relevant
We cannot deny that breed have certain behavioural traits and their brain chemistry is largely inherited, and the affected by experiences in the litter, socialisation periods, health etc.
It's not as simply as 'good owners have good dogs' IMO.
Good owners are more like to have safe dogs, but there are an infinite number of reason why one particular dog, in one particular situation, might display a particular behaviour.... the treatment by the current owner may or may not be relevant
As we know, all breeds contain individuals within them who are -to put it in human terms,- not very nice. Those aside, I believe that a dog is 99% a reflection of it's owner. Inherited traits or not.
As an aside, the Ambull I owned was more of a danger to himself than anything else, he thought he was indestructible.
Surely any insurance or legislation should take into account the danger the animal poses ? hardly likely a Chihuahua would bring down and kill a fully grown man or even a child whereas any staffie or bigger breed even my soppy lab could do it with ease.
No insurance would be fair to everyone they have to make a profit after all !
Maybe insurance should then be based on size/weight of dog?
Cut the breed stereotyping that way completely
If you join the dogs Trust for £25 a year you get full 3rd party cover for your dog, it covers a huge amount. Seems a pretty good deal really.
from their web site
Unlimited access to VetfoneTM – a 24 hour emergency advice service from veterinary professionals.*
3rd party insurance for your dog – up to £1,000,000 per claim if your dog causes damage or injury to another person, their property or pets (an excess of £200 applies for the UK and £500 in the Republic of Ireland).
Peace of mind with our free Canine Care Card. The guarantee that Dogs Trust will take care of your dog should you pass away.
Wag! Magazine three times a year – packed full of doggy news, stories and tips.
Plus you'll be helping Dogs Trust give a second chance of happiness to around 17,000 dogs a year!
I agree with most of that though, once again, it seems that it will be 'average' dog owners who be most penalised.
I don't support mass neutering, I don't think that breeding dogs should be the privilege of the wealthy.
I don't think it's fair that a snappy chihuahua would be cheaper to insure than a soppy stafford. JMHO.
BIB - It costs a LOT of money to breed properly. Finances HAVE to be in place in cases where emergency C-sections may be needed, the right food and medicine, proper shelter and facilities for the mother and litter. Doing the right research, tests etc to ensure that the mating of the two dogs will IMPROVE the breed (because that is the only reason you should be breeding). You may not want it to be a 'privilege of the wealthy', but it's not a right for the financially unstable either.
Maybe insurance should then be based on size/weight of dog?
Cut the breed stereotyping that way completely
Nooo don't give people an excuse to starve dogs that are on the weight boundary - really not a good idea! (and thats speaking as a greyhound owner - large relatively light dogs!)
Nooo don't give people an excuse to starve dogs that are on the weight boundary - really not a good idea! (and thats speaking as a greyhound owner - large relatively light dogs!)
Oh I never thought of that perhaps base on the size/weight the dog should be ? most vets have an idea what each dog should weigh so it shouldn't be too difficult to work out.
Oh I never thought of that perhaps base on the size/weight the dog should be ? most vets have an idea what each dog should weigh so it shouldn't be too difficult to work out.
Oh no I don't want that. Recommended Breed weight would be better or when I say Size I mean by height not width.
Oh no I don't want that. Recommended Breed weight would be better or when I say Size I mean by height not width.
That may be fine for pure bred dogs who are the recommended size for their breed, we have a small Labrador I doubt she will ever be the recommended size for her breed, have also had what must have been biggest Yorkshire terrier in the world, not fat just huge compared with everyone else's !
As I said most vets have some idea what weight a dog should be and it wouldn't be difficult when having them vaccinated to get them to say how much the dog should weigh.
Frankly, I don't think any dog owner should ever endorse the idea of legislating against dogs based on breed or size etc.
I hate to sound all bolshie and militant but you can be damned sure that the people who just flat-out don't like dogs and are seeking to restrict them as much as possible will be looking for any possible opening and the simple fact is that once you concede that a particular breed is some kind of "special case" then you set a precedent for similar consideration to be given for other breeds as well.
As I keep saying, on this subject, there's always going to be a "most dangerous type of dog" and once you've agreed to see one breed banned on that basis then another breed will take up that position. And another, and another....
And, let's face it, if you're thinking that it doesn't matter to you because your dog is a spaniel or a scottie or a sausage dog or whatever, that won't matter.
The same people who're currently claiming that 10,000 dog attacks per year is too many and that some breeds need to be banned will still be claiming that 1,000 attacks, or 100, or 10, are too many and will be seeking further restrictions to lower the figure even more.
Might sound rather stubborn but we can't afford to offer any compromise on this at all or it'll end up being used against us over and over again.
I am sorry you feel like that but unless those of us who are responsible owners don't speak up we become part of the problem. And many of these dogs are causing us problems personally too, dog on dog aggression will never be a priority for anyone but other dog owners.
I am sorry you feel like that but unless those of us who are responsible owners don't speak up we become part of the problem. And many of these dogs are causing us problems personally too, dog on dog aggression will never be a priority for anyone but other dog owners.
Blaming breeds or types of dog will never solve any problems and it'll only ever give those who seek to legislate against dogs ammunition to use against us and I'd hate to think it's dog owners who're providing that ammunition.
Blaming breeds or types of dog will never solve any problems and it'll only ever give those who seek to legislate against dogs ammunition to use against us and I'd hate to think it's dog owners who're providing that ammunition.
So we ignore traits that breeds have and pretend only bad owners have dangerous dogs ? Quick way to have any of our opinions ignored and legislation formed without our input.
So we ignore traits that breeds have and pretend only bad owners have dangerous dogs ? Quick way to have any of our opinions ignored and legislation formed without our input.
If we define traits you could include Staffies are happy go lucky dogs or Border Collies can be neurotic.
Comments
No idea it never came up in conversation, I could ask him next time I am there (hope not too soon just getting over Elsie's sore ears visit) but I am sure he said we have smallest dog on his list so it may be he was being sensitive to her needs knowing we would want her spayed anyway.
I Know it's DM and I know this breed is not banned but why would anyone want so many of this breed ? why after being attacked would he try to walk 6 at a time ? Why ?
Because he is stupid. Or ill. Or both.
Who tf would walk SIX ABs with TWO arms, never mind after losing one TO HIS OWN ABs.
And did you see the squalor those poor dogs are living in?
BYB of the worst type>:(
If he'd have to pay, say £200 per dog capable of breeding in annual licence/registration* and £200 each dog each year in public liability insurance with the polices able to confiscate dogs without and the magistrates able to fine him for each uninsured, unlicensed dog then this second attack may not have happened.
* Capable of breeding - intact over a certain age without a vets exemption certificate. Vets could exempt for any reason they saw fit including behavioural (some male dogs with fear aggression get worse after castration for example). Neutered and exempt dogs would be much lower fee.
Insurance levels would be up to actuaries to set - the odds of a chihuahua getting lose from older, responsible owners and causing costly harm is negligible so would attract a v small premium.
The trouble with insurance as I see it is they always want to make bigger and bigger profits so they may well make owning a less dangerous dog cheaper but I would predict not so much cheaper they would just want to make a bigger profit on dogs they would never pay out on.
There is always the insurance ombudsman.
And the need to be competitive. I think it would work more like car insurance than dog health insurance - though most of those have public liability insurance included so if you have health insurance, there wouldn't be an additional cost - and for some the cover in their house insurance would be sufficient.
With my clean drivers license, no claims that were my fault and my age, insuring my slightly higher than average group car is very reasonable. I would see a similar system working well for dogs.
I agree with most of that though, once again, it seems that it will be 'average' dog owners who be most penalised.
I don't support mass neutering, I don't think that breeding dogs should be the privilege of the wealthy.
I don't think it's fair that a snappy chihuahua would be cheaper to insure than a soppy stafford. JMHO.
I don't think my suggestions are perfect - but what are the alternatives that will protect dog welfare, restrict unscrupulous breeding and protect people from 'dangerous dogs'? I really liked the model Dogue posted earlier. That is similar and has been shown to work - uses a bit of bribery to get people to register dogs. That could help.
I'm not a major fan of neutering male dogs as standard as I think it can cause more problems than it solves for some. But I don't think £200 a year for a license to have an entire dog is particularly onerous so could be afforded by people who want an entire dog and can't get an exemption certificate or wish to breed. But at the same time incentives neutering and makes breeding by people doing it for a litter of what passes for Staffies in some quarters solely to make a bit of money less attractive.
Surely any insurance or legislation should take into account the danger the animal poses ? hardly likely a Chihuahua would bring down and kill a fully grown man or even a child whereas any staffie or bigger breed even my soppy lab could do it with ease.
No insurance would be fair to everyone they have to make a profit after all !
If only it was that simple.
We cannot deny that breed have certain behavioural traits and their brain chemistry is largely inherited, and the affected by experiences in the litter, socialisation periods, health etc.
It's not as simply as 'good owners have good dogs' IMO.
Good owners are more like to have safe dogs, but there are an infinite number of reason why one particular dog, in one particular situation, might display a particular behaviour.... the treatment by the current owner may or may not be relevant
As we know, all breeds contain individuals within them who are -to put it in human terms,- not very nice. Those aside, I believe that a dog is 99% a reflection of it's owner. Inherited traits or not.
As an aside, the Ambull I owned was more of a danger to himself than anything else, he thought he was indestructible.
Maybe insurance should then be based on size/weight of dog?
Cut the breed stereotyping that way completely
from their web site
Unlimited access to VetfoneTM – a 24 hour emergency advice service from veterinary professionals.*
3rd party insurance for your dog – up to £1,000,000 per claim if your dog causes damage or injury to another person, their property or pets (an excess of £200 applies for the UK and £500 in the Republic of Ireland).
Peace of mind with our free Canine Care Card. The guarantee that Dogs Trust will take care of your dog should you pass away.
Wag! Magazine three times a year – packed full of doggy news, stories and tips.
Plus you'll be helping Dogs Trust give a second chance of happiness to around 17,000 dogs a year!
BIB - It costs a LOT of money to breed properly. Finances HAVE to be in place in cases where emergency C-sections may be needed, the right food and medicine, proper shelter and facilities for the mother and litter. Doing the right research, tests etc to ensure that the mating of the two dogs will IMPROVE the breed (because that is the only reason you should be breeding). You may not want it to be a 'privilege of the wealthy', but it's not a right for the financially unstable either.
Yes that may be the way, might make people with obese dogs think twice what they put into their dogs mouths too !
Oh I never thought of that
Oh no I don't want that. Recommended Breed weight would be better or when I say Size I mean by height not width.
That may be fine for pure bred dogs who are the recommended size for their breed, we have a small Labrador I doubt she will ever be the recommended size for her breed, have also had what must have been biggest Yorkshire terrier in the world, not fat just huge compared with everyone else's !
As I said most vets have some idea what weight a dog should be and it wouldn't be difficult when having them vaccinated to get them to say how much the dog should weigh.
I hate to sound all bolshie and militant but you can be damned sure that the people who just flat-out don't like dogs and are seeking to restrict them as much as possible will be looking for any possible opening and the simple fact is that once you concede that a particular breed is some kind of "special case" then you set a precedent for similar consideration to be given for other breeds as well.
As I keep saying, on this subject, there's always going to be a "most dangerous type of dog" and once you've agreed to see one breed banned on that basis then another breed will take up that position. And another, and another....
And, let's face it, if you're thinking that it doesn't matter to you because your dog is a spaniel or a scottie or a sausage dog or whatever, that won't matter.
The same people who're currently claiming that 10,000 dog attacks per year is too many and that some breeds need to be banned will still be claiming that 1,000 attacks, or 100, or 10, are too many and will be seeking further restrictions to lower the figure even more.
Might sound rather stubborn but we can't afford to offer any compromise on this at all or it'll end up being used against us over and over again.
Blaming breeds or types of dog will never solve any problems and it'll only ever give those who seek to legislate against dogs ammunition to use against us and I'd hate to think it's dog owners who're providing that ammunition.
So we ignore traits that breeds have and pretend only bad owners have dangerous dogs ? Quick way to have any of our opinions ignored and legislation formed without our input.
If we define traits you could include Staffies are happy go lucky dogs or Border Collies can be neurotic.