Why bother to post at all then? I was just hoping for some rational debate, I wasn't going to round on you for your views-I was merely interested as to what they were.
"Never tell the truth"? How utterly pathetic.
Never tell the truth about cats not no truth at all.
Some things people just don't want to hear and they do react badly when faced with the truth about situations. Best to just stay quiet on those subjects.
And whether you rounded on me or not I can well predict many would. So again best stay quiet.
In real life people are better listeners and can see the other side of things I find.
Never tell the truth about cats not no truth at all.
Some things people just don't want to hear and they do react badly when faced with the truth about situations. Best to just stay quiet on those subjects.
And whether you rounded on me or not I can well predict many would. So again best stay quiet.
In real life people are better listeners and can see the other side of things I find.
As much as I respect you as a member here, I have to strongly disagree here.
Nobody should 'stay quiet' on an issue that is important to them.
Speak up, with a solid argument..... that's what changes the world
As much as I respect you as a member here, I have to strongly disagree here.
Nobody should 'stay quiet' on an issue that is important to them.
Speak up, with a solid argument..... that's what changes the world
I have seen good people banned and others who do now keep quiet, it's only a few posters who make the forum difficult and I am sure they know who they are. Just look at cat threads in pets and you will see the almost silence from those with other opinions. I have been a cat owner and learned a lot but never impart what I now believe just not worth the trouble of then being followed from the pet forum into other areas by the people who try to get me and others banned.
The trouble is that we have it the wrong way round (in the main) Something happens, the dog is killed immediately. The owner, who in the vast majority of cases hasn't looked after the dog properly goes to court, tells a sob story, gets a slap on the wrist, maybe a few years ban from keeping animals and walks off laughing. They've turned the dog into a dangerous one in one way or another, not been responsible with it and don't get the punishment they deserve. The dog dies.
They can go on to have other animals as they belong 'to the girlfriend' (happened with one of my dogs who was an innocent in a cruelty case) or a family member, mate etc. I'd happily put them to sleep.
I honestly don't think there really is an answer as whatever attempts are put in place to stop the wrong people having dogs will be ignored and the people and dogs who will abide by the law will be the ones who suffer if off lead bans etc are imposed. Muzzling in public should help in theory but only if everyone did it but they won't.
Over the last 10 years the vast majority (if not all I think possibly) of fatalities involving dogs - of many different breeds / crosses - have taken place on someone's private property.
Can anyone briefly run past me how logically having a bit of paper with your name and address on, and a law requiring you to muzzle and keep your dog on a lead in public would have prevented these incidents? How would a piece of paper affect the dog's behaviour? Or Owners come to that?
Over the last 10 years the vast majority (if not all I think possibly) of fatalities involving dogs - of many different breeds / crosses - have taken place on someone's private property.
Can anyone briefly run past me how logically having a bit of paper with your name and address on, and a law requiring you to muzzle and keep your dog on a lead in public would have prevented these incidents? How would a piece of paper affect the dog's behaviour? Or Owners come to that?
Thanks.
Nothing apart from banning some breeds or some people from owning dogs will do anything to stop that. My stance on leads is to protect other dogs more than these cases, which need a different approach.
Over the last 10 years the vast majority (if not all I think possibly) of fatalities involving dogs - of many different breeds / crosses - have taken place on someone's private property.
Can anyone briefly run past me how logically having a bit of paper with your name and address on, and a law requiring you to muzzle and keep your dog on a lead in public would have prevented these incidents? How would a piece of paper affect the dog's behaviour? Or Owners come to that?
Thanks.
I think what it would do is mean that every dog had a legal owner and together with the compulsory microchipping should - in theory mean that there is always someone who can be held accountable if something happens. I'm not sure that will necessarily change people's attitude to owning a dog but it might.
I'm like mollipops in that I'm fed up of off lead dogs causing me problems on walks. I'd like to make it clear that I believe that if dogs can safely and responsibly go off lead then they should be allowed to in suitable places. Both dogs and people do get bitten by dogs not on public property. Since having 2 of my dogs bitten through no fault of their own I am now thinking that muzzles if off lead in a public place wouldn't be such a bad idea!
I think that dog ownership is taken too lightly and as long as a dog licence was cheap (I've got 4 dogs) and the money was put into animal welfare I'd be happy to have one. I'm not sure which country it is, one of the scandinavian ones I think you have to attend a course before you're allowed to have a dog - seems like a good idea to me.
Nothing apart from banning some breeds or some people from owning dogs will do anything to stop that. My stance on leads is to protect other dogs more than these cases, which need a different approach.
With the greatest of respect though mollie, the APBT has been banned for over 20 years and there are more of them now than before the ban. And there has not been a drop in fatal dog attacks. So quite obviously breed specific bans quite patently do not work.
In the fatal attacks there are other common factors - usually that the dog was not owned by the person in charge of it (Or in one case, a stray very new to the household). There are other socio-economic factors also.
Is it not better to have an overhaul of the law and restrict ownership of any dog by means of chipping, licensing, insuring, training (for the owner) rather than to expand and perpetuate a bad law?
With the greatest of respect though mollie, the APBT has been banned for over 20 years and there are more of them now than before the ban. And there has not been a drop in fatal dog attacks. So quite obviously breed specific bans quite patently do not work.
In the fatal attacks there are other common factors - usually that the dog was not owned by the person in charge of it (Or in one case, a stray very new to the household). There are other socio-economic factors also.
Is it not better to have an overhaul of the law and restrict ownership of any dog by means of chipping, licensing, insuring, training (for the owner) rather than to expand and perpetuate a bad law?
I find it hard to agree because it will catch people who are not ever going to have a dog that can kill and stop them ever having a dog. Personally we live on a shoestring, have been told several times on DS we shouldn't have dogs if we can't afford them but they are our family and I know many people in the real world who feel like that too.
Why should someone with a dog or two who will never be allowed to harm anyone pay more than someone who breaks the law and keeps a dog in a dangerous way ?
Like I've said before I have, or rather my dog, has been attacked/charged by a Lab Mix, a Collie and small dogs. My cat has been chased by small dogs. I have even had a Basset Hound bark aggressively at me.
I even had German Shepherd though he was a nice dog that kept escaping from it's owners to pursue my dog. He was not aggressive but he was persistent and skittish. My dog told him off a few times for invading her space when she was outside in the garden (I have access to a front garden only with no gate but my dog knew the limits of the garden and never strayed outside of it) but he was lucky she was just correcting him and not being aggressive. They left the poor dog in the garden most of the time to bark his head off and seemed rather relaxed about him escaping.
All incidents were from poor pet ownership. The dogs that went for my dog were not lead trained or escaped from an owner or were not well socialised with people. I have not had such issue with owners of Bull breeds (so far). Focus SHOULD be on the ownership and NOT the breed.
Reminds me of that saying about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Or in other words don't kill the dog to fix the owner.
I'm fairly sure you suggested banning dogs that can kill.
Yes but that isn't all dogs, large dogs bred for fighting have no place in family homes, has been said several times and doesn't mean all dogs as you are suggesting.
Yes but that isn't all dogs, large dogs bred for fighting have no place in family homes, has been said several times and doesn't mean all dogs as you are suggesting.
The last I heard dog fighting was banned decades ago.
Besides Rottweilers were bred as herding dogs. German Shepherds are trained by the police force to attack people on command. Dachshunds were bred to hunt and attack small animals (I.E Children can be seen as small animals too) Pekingese were trained as guard dogs.
Then you have small dog owner syndrome where because the dog is small the owners tend to laugh at aggressive tendencies or push them off as the dog has a small mouth and assume it can do little damage. When a small dog at child's height could easily tear open a throat or bite into a vein.
What I'm saying is, a dog's size and looks does not always mean the dog is going to be nice or nasty. They have bred history of viciousness or are currently treated with a different level of respect based on their popularity. As in Rottweiler's were not bred for fighting but German Shepherds are and yet more people fear a Rottie than a German Shepherd and the Police would balk out a ban on the Shepherd.
Yes but that isn't all dogs, large dogs bred for fighting have no place in family homes, has been said several times and doesn't mean all dogs as you are suggesting.
Like I said, everything from a Jack Russell upwards. That's what you're suggesting.
Oh I should also add, Larger dogs are treated by ignorant owners as if they will tolerate anything a child does to them. I see too many videos online of parents laughing as their young child pokes and prods and climbs all over their large dog.
The last I heard dog fighting was banned decades ago.
Besides Rottweilers were bred as herding dogs. German Shepherds are trained by the police force to attack people on command. Dachshunds were bred to hunt and attack small animals (I.E Children can be seen as small animals too) Pekingese were trained as guard dogs.
Then you have small dog owner syndrome where because the dog is small the owners tend to laugh at aggressive tendencies or push them off as the dog has a small mouth and assume it can do little damage. When a small dog at child's height could easily tear open a throat or bite into a vein.
What I'm saying is, a dog's size and looks does not always mean the dog is going to be nice or nasty. They have bred history of viciousness or are currently treated with a different level of respect based on their popularity. As in Rottweiler's were not bred for fighting but German Shepherds are and yet more people fear a Rottie than a German Shepherd and the Police would balk out a ban on the Shepherd.
If you genuinely believe we have no dogs bred for fighting I think you must live in a more lovely place than I do, the staffies taught to strengthen their jaws by hanging from trees, stamina increased by putting them on a treadmill from young. The cats ripped apart by the dogs and the laughing idiots who own them are not uncommon IME. I have no problem with rotties and shepherds we rarely see any it's all bull breeds and huge terriers.
Having owned small terriers most of my adult life I know what a terrier can do and the idea of the monsters we see here being off lead is terrifying.
Small dogs and humans and cats must be safe to walk and live their lives unmolested by bigger dogs.
For god's sake. You had one encounter with a dog with was badly trained/owned and now you want everything that might be able to to do it again killed. You're paralysed with fear and it clouds your judgement. Reply if you want, I'm out.
If you genuinely believe we have no dogs bred for fighting I think you must live in a more lovely place than I do, the staffies taught to strengthen their jaws by hanging from trees, stamina increased by putting them on a treadmill from young. The cats ripped apart by the dogs and the laughing idiots who own them are not uncommon IME. I have no problem with rotties and shepherds we rarely see any it's all bull breeds and huge terriers.
Having owned small terriers most of my adult life I know what a terrier can do and the idea of the monsters we see here being off lead is terrifying.
Small dogs and humans and cats must be safe to walk and live their lives unmolested by bigger dogs.
Of course specific dogs are trained to fight by scummy owners But by banning certain breeds won't stop them from training up other legal dogs to replace them. It's a disgusting reality that such people exist which is why more should be done about them, then killing innocents dogs for what might be.
The BIB that's a part of the issue isn't it? Just because you don't frequent past such breeds as much, may cloud your judgement? And of course the higher population number of a breed just means by statistics you will have higher attack numbers. Like a big Town will have more crimes than a smaller one in general.
And you have no issue with German Shepherds yet I said in my other post that the police train them to attack (a reason you gave for banning certain other breeds)
As for cats being ripped apart. My cat was chased into my own home by a small terrier and could have easily been torn apart by that small dog if it really meant it. It was I believe a Jack Russel.
As for your last bit... oh boy. What about large dog rights not to be snapped and charged and molested at by smaller dogs or poked by little kids?
Of course specific dogs are trained to fight by scummy owners But by banning certain breeds won't stop them from training up other legal dogs to replace them. It's a disgusting reality that such people exist which is why more should be done about them, then killing innocents dogs for what might be.
The BIB that's a part of the issue isn't it? Just because you don't frequent past such breeds as much, may cloud your judgement? And of course the higher population number of a breed just means by statistics you will have higher attack numbers. Like a big Town will have more crimes than a smaller one in general.
And you have no issue with German Shepherds yet I said in my other post that the police train them to attack (a reason you gave for banning certain other breeds)
As for cats being ripped apart. My cat was chased into my own home by a small terrier and could have easily been torn apart by that small dog if it really meant it. It was I believe a Jack Russel.
As for your last bit... oh boy. What about large dog rights not to be snapped and charged and molested at by smaller dogs or poked by little kids?
Your last bit - I have said repeatedly all dogs should be on leads ALL dogs including tiny ones.
Kids I have no idea how to make people responsible for them, mine never bothered anyone's dogs they knew better. Discipline these days needs looking at perhaps ?
Comments
Never tell the truth about cats not no truth at all.
Some things people just don't want to hear and they do react badly when faced with the truth about situations. Best to just stay quiet on those subjects.
And whether you rounded on me or not I can well predict many would. So again best stay quiet.
In real life people are better listeners and can see the other side of things I find.
As much as I respect you as a member here, I have to strongly disagree here.
Nobody should 'stay quiet' on an issue that is important to them.
Speak up, with a solid argument..... that's what changes the world
I have seen good people banned and others who do now keep quiet, it's only a few posters who make the forum difficult and I am sure they know who they are. Just look at cat threads in pets and you will see the almost silence from those with other opinions. I have been a cat owner and learned a lot but never impart what I now believe just not worth the trouble of then being followed from the pet forum into other areas by the people who try to get me and others banned.
They can go on to have other animals as they belong 'to the girlfriend' (happened with one of my dogs who was an innocent in a cruelty case) or a family member, mate etc. I'd happily put them to sleep.
I honestly don't think there really is an answer as whatever attempts are put in place to stop the wrong people having dogs will be ignored and the people and dogs who will abide by the law will be the ones who suffer if off lead bans etc are imposed. Muzzling in public should help in theory but only if everyone did it but they won't.
Can anyone briefly run past me how logically having a bit of paper with your name and address on, and a law requiring you to muzzle and keep your dog on a lead in public would have prevented these incidents? How would a piece of paper affect the dog's behaviour? Or Owners come to that?
Thanks.
Nothing apart from banning some breeds or some people from owning dogs will do anything to stop that. My stance on leads is to protect other dogs more than these cases, which need a different approach.
I'm like mollipops in that I'm fed up of off lead dogs causing me problems on walks. I'd like to make it clear that I believe that if dogs can safely and responsibly go off lead then they should be allowed to in suitable places. Both dogs and people do get bitten by dogs not on public property. Since having 2 of my dogs bitten through no fault of their own I am now thinking that muzzles if off lead in a public place wouldn't be such a bad idea!
I think that dog ownership is taken too lightly and as long as a dog licence was cheap (I've got 4 dogs) and the money was put into animal welfare I'd be happy to have one. I'm not sure which country it is, one of the scandinavian ones I think you have to attend a course before you're allowed to have a dog - seems like a good idea to me.
With the greatest of respect though mollie, the APBT has been banned for over 20 years and there are more of them now than before the ban. And there has not been a drop in fatal dog attacks. So quite obviously breed specific bans quite patently do not work.
In the fatal attacks there are other common factors - usually that the dog was not owned by the person in charge of it (Or in one case, a stray very new to the household). There are other socio-economic factors also.
Is it not better to have an overhaul of the law and restrict ownership of any dog by means of chipping, licensing, insuring, training (for the owner) rather than to expand and perpetuate a bad law?
I find it hard to agree because it will catch people who are not ever going to have a dog that can kill and stop them ever having a dog. Personally we live on a shoestring, have been told several times on DS we shouldn't have dogs if we can't afford them but they are our family and I know many people in the real world who feel like that too.
Why should someone with a dog or two who will never be allowed to harm anyone pay more than someone who breaks the law and keeps a dog in a dangerous way ?
So let's ban them all? That's a terrific idea. I can hardly wait to see all the guide hamsters and sniffer budgies at work.
Who has suggested banning all dogs ? no one here.
I even had German Shepherd though he was a nice dog that kept escaping from it's owners to pursue my dog. He was not aggressive but he was persistent and skittish. My dog told him off a few times for invading her space when she was outside in the garden (I have access to a front garden only with no gate but my dog knew the limits of the garden and never strayed outside of it) but he was lucky she was just correcting him and not being aggressive. They left the poor dog in the garden most of the time to bark his head off and seemed rather relaxed about him escaping.
All incidents were from poor pet ownership. The dogs that went for my dog were not lead trained or escaped from an owner or were not well socialised with people. I have not had such issue with owners of Bull breeds (so far). Focus SHOULD be on the ownership and NOT the breed.
Reminds me of that saying about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Or in other words don't kill the dog to fix the owner.
I'm fairly sure you suggested banning dogs that can kill.
The last I heard dog fighting was banned decades ago.
Besides Rottweilers were bred as herding dogs. German Shepherds are trained by the police force to attack people on command. Dachshunds were bred to hunt and attack small animals (I.E Children can be seen as small animals too) Pekingese were trained as guard dogs.
Then you have small dog owner syndrome where because the dog is small the owners tend to laugh at aggressive tendencies or push them off as the dog has a small mouth and assume it can do little damage. When a small dog at child's height could easily tear open a throat or bite into a vein.
What I'm saying is, a dog's size and looks does not always mean the dog is going to be nice or nasty. They have bred history of viciousness or are currently treated with a different level of respect based on their popularity. As in Rottweiler's were not bred for fighting but German Shepherds are and yet more people fear a Rottie than a German Shepherd and the Police would balk out a ban on the Shepherd.
Like I said, everything from a Jack Russell upwards. That's what you're suggesting.
No that's from your mouth not mine.
Having owned small terriers most of my adult life I know what a terrier can do and the idea of the monsters we see here being off lead is terrifying.
Small dogs and humans and cats must be safe to walk and live their lives unmolested by bigger dogs.
No terrier is huge.
Of course specific dogs are trained to fight by scummy owners But by banning certain breeds won't stop them from training up other legal dogs to replace them. It's a disgusting reality that such people exist which is why more should be done about them, then killing innocents dogs for what might be.
The BIB that's a part of the issue isn't it? Just because you don't frequent past such breeds as much, may cloud your judgement? And of course the higher population number of a breed just means by statistics you will have higher attack numbers. Like a big Town will have more crimes than a smaller one in general.
And you have no issue with German Shepherds yet I said in my other post that the police train them to attack (a reason you gave for banning certain other breeds)
As for cats being ripped apart. My cat was chased into my own home by a small terrier and could have easily been torn apart by that small dog if it really meant it. It was I believe a Jack Russel.
As for your last bit... oh boy. What about large dog rights not to be snapped and charged and molested at by smaller dogs or poked by little kids?
Kids I have no idea how to make people responsible for them, mine never bothered anyone's dogs they knew better. Discipline these days needs looking at perhaps ?