Well that's you. There are millions of cat owners who disagree.
In law small domestic cats are classed as "free spirits" and as such are entitled to roam freely. That is the law irrespective of how much some may dislike it.
And, that being the case, their owners shouldn't be unduly upset when they're attacked by natural predators.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly wouldn't allow my own dogs to attack cats. In fact, my lab' grew up with a cat and is quite happy around them and my spaniel, for some reason, has struck up quite a friendship with a couple of the neighbour's cats.
Just seems a bit obtuse to let an animal roam freely, deny responsibility for that animal's actions when it's convenient but then moan if they come to harm.
This thread is far fairer than your vegetarianism thread, which I am afraid right from your OP was confrontational.
You haven't started this one with a dig at dog owners, where as you started that one with an obvious dig at meat eaters.
For what it's worth, on this topic I agree with you.
It wasnt a dig at meat eaters. It was maybe a dig at ppl who have no thought about eating a pig but would be horrified at eating a dog. Two animals that have emotions yet one is off limits
And, that being the case, their owners shouldn't be unduly upset when they're attacked by natural predators.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly wouldn't allow my own dogs to attack cats. In fact, my lab' grew up with a cat and is quite happy around them and my spaniel, for some reason, has struck up quite a friendship with a couple of the neighbour's cats.
Just seems a bit obtuse to let an animal roam freely, deny responsibility for that animal's actions when it's convenient but then moan if they come to harm.
"Natural" predators such as a wild dog, I'd agree.
But I'd moan if my cat was attacked and killed by a owned dog, off the lead, especially if it came on my property to attack. Damn right I'd moan.
I mentioned in another thread recently that a large dog off the lead in the street came after the cat who was sitting in my front garden at the time. Fortunately for her she ran into the tiny gap between my garage and the one next door, and the dog was too big to chase in after her, although had his muzzle between the gap and was barking maniacally. .
New act being put forward in scottish parliament for compulsory muzzling , micro chipping and licensing of all dogs.
I agree with the micro chipping ( though a big problem is owners not updating details )
Licensing may also be a good thing
but I dont agree with compulsory muzzling. Dont tar every dog with the same brush.
What does everyone else think
Agree with micro chipping
Agree with licensing
Disagree with muzzling.
Don't leave your dog unattended with a child.
Don't leave your child unattended with a dog.
Both like to play and neither know there own strength - how many times is a child been excused from harming another child on that very basis?
Responsible animal owners and responsible parents shouldn't be punished for the actions and poor judgement from irresponsible animal owners and irresponsible parents.
Agree with micro chipping
Agree with licensing
Disagree with muzzling.
Don't leave your dog unattended with a child.
Don't leave your child unattended with a dog.
Both like to play and neither know there own strength - how many times is a child been excused from harming another child on that very basis?
Responsible animal owners and responsible parents shouldn't be punished for the actions and poor judgement from irresponsible animal owners and irresponsible parents.
Makes me so angry when you see pics of children sitting on dogs backs, taking their toys and clambering all over them.
"Natural" predators such as a wild dog, I'd agree.
But I'd moan if my cat was attacked and killed by a owned dog, off the lead, especially if it came on my property to attack. Damn right I'd moan.
I mentioned in another thread recently that a large dog off the lead in the street came after the cat who was sitting in my front garden at the time. Fortunately for her she ran into the tiny gap between my garage and the one next door, and the dog was too big to chase in after her, although had his muzzle between the gap and was barking maniacally. .
Seems a bit one-sided to condemn the dog in that situation.
I mean, let's say that cat killed one of my homing pigeons. Would the cat, and it's owner, be to blame for that or would it just be "one of those things"?
I definitely don't approve of allowing dogs to be out of control and I hate people who just kick their dogs out into the street, assuming that they're just going to wander around the local area all day, but if you're going to allow an animal out on it's own, you've got to acknowledge the possibility that it will come to harm.
Seems a bit one-sided to condemn the dog in that situation.
I mean, let's say that cat killed one of my homing pigeons. Would the cat, and it's owner, be to blame for that or would it just be "one of those things"?
I definitely don't approve of allowing dogs to be out of control and I hate people who just kick their dogs out into the street, assuming that they're just going to wander around the local area all day, but if you're going to allow an animal out on it's own, you've got to acknowledge the possibility that it will come to harm.
I'm not blaming the dog, I'm blaming the owner for letting it off the lead and allowing it to roam into my property, unmuzzled, and harass the cat .
I think it's reasonable to assume that would piss most people off to be honest.
If every dog should be muzzled in public. Every known criminal should be handcuffed. They're capable of being violent and causing massive amounts of damage to people too.
I am sick and tired of breeders churning out dogs, no checks , no records, etc. easy money. breeders need to be accountable for every one of their puppies. They charge the earth for them.
What I find quite ironic is you think the government would be all over that and tax it to the hilt is quite the loophole for cash, it disgusts me all these people breeding these animals for money money money. Have to bite my tongue daily one person I know is having a litter from her bitch to fund her honeymoon, another to help fund a wedding it goes on and on. No health testing, no behavioural testing
no way would i get my dog chipped, she cost a few bob and the chavs round here would think nothing of digging the chip out with a blunt penknife. Dogknapping has gone down here in recent times though.
dont mind a license, as long as its not more than 5pound for a lifetime, that should cover the administration, any more would be a dog tax.
muzzle your dog? think that should be up to owners, we all know our dogs, if in doubt use a muzzle or face prison if the worst happens.
no way would i get my dog chipped, she cost a few bob and the chavs round here would think nothing of digging the chip out with a blunt penknife. Dogknapping has gone down here in recent times though.
dont mind a license, as long as its not more than 5pound for a lifetime, that should cover the administration, any more would be a dog tax.
muzzle your dog? think that should be up to owners, we all know our dogs, if in doubt use a muzzle or face prison if the worst happens.
We were relieved when we were able to get our dog chipped until she was big enough the vet refused to do it (one of the hazards of owning a Chihuahua I guess) but once she had it we felt safer. At least if she is ever stolen we can prove she is ours.
What I find quite ironic is you think the government would be all over that and tax it to the hilt is quite the loophole for cash, it disgusts me all these people breeding these animals for money money money. Have to bite my tongue daily one person I know is having a litter from her bitch to fund her honeymoon, another to help fund a wedding it goes on and on. No health testing, no behavioural testing
See, this is something that kinda relates to what I've said in other "dog" threads....
The old dog licence was a bit of a "curiosity" really.
You got one when you had a dog and, erm, that was about it.
From memory, it's main benefit was that it could provoke something of a sense of pride in ownership of a dog, if you were a kid, at least.
If you created a system whereby anybody considering buying a dog had to apply for a licence beforehand you could then require everybody who sells a dog to record the licence details of the buyer.
That, in turn, could be used to keep track of who was selling what dogs and, in particular, would create a reason to prosecute anybody who wasn't recording the details of all sales properly.
All that'd have to happen would be for somebody to report a puppy farm and a fairly simple investigation could quickly establish whether the business was selling to people without licences or decide whether the quantity of animals they were selling suggested improper conditions etc.
no way would i get my dog chipped, she cost a few bob and the chavs round here would think nothing of digging the chip out with a blunt penknife. Dogknapping has gone down here in recent times though.
dont mind a license, as long as its not more than 5pound for a lifetime, that should cover the administration, any more would be a dog tax.
muzzle your dog? think that should be up to owners, we all know our dogs, if in doubt use a muzzle or face prison if the worst happens.
Sadly that does happen. Chips can also travel around the body and cause all sorts of problems. They have even killed cats and dogs. A chip will not prevent a dog being stolen to be used as a bait dog. I am also against Greyhounds being chipped. I recently read about this and since they have lean frames and very little fat, a microchip is far more likely to move about in their bodies. It also makes it easier for the chips to be removed with malicious intent. My Greyhound is chipped so I will be getting her scanned the next time she is at the vet. Greyhounds also get their ears tattooed, but countless dogs have been found dumped (either dead or alive) with their ears hacked off.
A licence (unless people who have dogs work for it with a competency test) is just a piece of paper. Those who don't give stuff about their dogs and who only keep them to intimidate others will not bother getting one.
Muzzling should only be done within reason. There is no way that is should be compulsory for every dog.
When it comes to identifying dogs, I would be all for photographic and dental records plus a DNA register. I do not think that dogs should be chipped as they are a welfare issue (as explained above).
A licence (unless people who have dogs work for it with a competency test) is just a piece of paper. Those who don't give stuff about their dogs and who only keep them to intimidate others will not bother getting one.
That's not strictly true, or needn't be, at least.
The old dog licences were a waste of time but if a dog-licencing system was implemented properly it could certainly be used as a tool to clamp down on unscrupulous sellers as well as uncaring owners.
That's not strictly true, or needn't be, at least.
The old dog licences were a waste of time but if a dog-licencing system was implemented properly it could certainly be used as a tool to clamp down on unscrupulous sellers as well as uncaring owners.
Again the kennel club if they actually cared about dogs could really clamp down on breeders registering so a KC registered dog actually meant that it came from a responsible breeder that health tested, temperament tested and stuck to stringent regulations. A good breeder in turn sells to a good owner and keeps in touch, they also take a dog back which unburdens rescues.
An annual licence should be issued and cost a good whack to breeders and any non registered people breeding should be fined in their thousands to put them off doing it again, a couple of hundred wont be a deterant as they will make that easily.
Link the microchipping system to th licence via a database. It's a difficult one...as above posters have said dogknappers etc.
As for muzzling all dogs no either.
Slightly off topic here, but, my five year old ran to a bin to put away rubbish at high speed down our river walk yesterday, a little yorkie was near on an extendable leash, so yorkie barked a bit, it was only a pup. The owner waited for me to catch up. She spent 10 mins walking with me profusely apologetic, I just said well if we were in the dogs position, I would have a bark at a high speed little girl too! The woman said she was being cautious as one nursery mum had a go at her for the dog in question retrieving a toy her kid had dropped...and with all the uproar of dog attacks in the press,meh I felt
bad for her
The dog just wanted a play his tail was wagging and my 5 year old loves dogs and had a pet.
We have a few nice doggy pals on our way to and from the school bus stop, don't want to see them forced to wear a muzzle, would be miserable really all well behaved dogs.
New act being put forward in scottish parliament for compulsory muzzling , micro chipping and licensing of all dogs.
I agree with the micro chipping ( though a big problem is owners not updating details )
Licensing may also be a good thing
but I dont agree with compulsory muzzling. Dont tar every dog with the same brush.
What does everyone else think
I definitely agree with the microchipping and licensing - here in Northern Ireland, licensing is already compulsory. I agree with you though that muzzling shouldn't be compulsory. Thinking as an example of my pet dog - she's 12 years old, would never hurt a fly and would be massively stressed if you tried to put a muzzle on her.
It would be lovely to have dogs muzzled.
Not only to cut the risk of an untamed beast biting someone, but also to stop them putting their nasty noses and tongues on people.
It would be lovely to have dogs muzzled.
Not only to cut the risk of an untamed beast biting someone, but also to stop them putting their nasty noses and tongues on people.
Comments
And, that being the case, their owners shouldn't be unduly upset when they're attacked by natural predators.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly wouldn't allow my own dogs to attack cats. In fact, my lab' grew up with a cat and is quite happy around them and my spaniel, for some reason, has struck up quite a friendship with a couple of the neighbour's cats.
Just seems a bit obtuse to let an animal roam freely, deny responsibility for that animal's actions when it's convenient but then moan if they come to harm.
It wasnt a dig at meat eaters. It was maybe a dig at ppl who have no thought about eating a pig but would be horrified at eating a dog. Two animals that have emotions yet one is off limits
"Natural" predators such as a wild dog, I'd agree.
But I'd moan if my cat was attacked and killed by a owned dog, off the lead, especially if it came on my property to attack. Damn right I'd moan.
I mentioned in another thread recently that a large dog off the lead in the street came after the cat who was sitting in my front garden at the time. Fortunately for her she ran into the tiny gap between my garage and the one next door, and the dog was too big to chase in after her, although had his muzzle between the gap and was barking maniacally. .
gap between garages used as escape by cat
Agree with micro chipping
Agree with licensing
Disagree with muzzling.
Don't leave your dog unattended with a child.
Don't leave your child unattended with a dog.
Both like to play and neither know there own strength - how many times is a child been excused from harming another child on that very basis?
Responsible animal owners and responsible parents shouldn't be punished for the actions and poor judgement from irresponsible animal owners and irresponsible parents.
Seems a bit one-sided to condemn the dog in that situation.
I mean, let's say that cat killed one of my homing pigeons. Would the cat, and it's owner, be to blame for that or would it just be "one of those things"?
I definitely don't approve of allowing dogs to be out of control and I hate people who just kick their dogs out into the street, assuming that they're just going to wander around the local area all day, but if you're going to allow an animal out on it's own, you've got to acknowledge the possibility that it will come to harm.
I'm not blaming the dog, I'm blaming the owner for letting it off the lead and allowing it to roam into my property, unmuzzled, and harass the cat .
I think it's reasonable to assume that would piss most people off to be honest.
What I find quite ironic is you think the government would be all over that and tax it to the hilt is quite the loophole for cash, it disgusts me all these people breeding these animals for money money money. Have to bite my tongue daily one person I know is having a litter from her bitch to fund her honeymoon, another to help fund a wedding it goes on and on. No health testing, no behavioural testing
dont mind a license, as long as its not more than 5pound for a lifetime, that should cover the administration, any more would be a dog tax.
muzzle your dog? think that should be up to owners, we all know our dogs, if in doubt use a muzzle or face prison if the worst happens.
Only when they are unsupervised and in a public place.
We were relieved when we were able to get our dog chipped until she was big enough the vet refused to do it (one of the hazards of owning a Chihuahua I guess) but once she had it we felt safer. At least if she is ever stolen we can prove she is ours.
See, this is something that kinda relates to what I've said in other "dog" threads....
The old dog licence was a bit of a "curiosity" really.
You got one when you had a dog and, erm, that was about it.
From memory, it's main benefit was that it could provoke something of a sense of pride in ownership of a dog, if you were a kid, at least.
If you created a system whereby anybody considering buying a dog had to apply for a licence beforehand you could then require everybody who sells a dog to record the licence details of the buyer.
That, in turn, could be used to keep track of who was selling what dogs and, in particular, would create a reason to prosecute anybody who wasn't recording the details of all sales properly.
All that'd have to happen would be for somebody to report a puppy farm and a fairly simple investigation could quickly establish whether the business was selling to people without licences or decide whether the quantity of animals they were selling suggested improper conditions etc.
Sadly that does happen. Chips can also travel around the body and cause all sorts of problems. They have even killed cats and dogs. A chip will not prevent a dog being stolen to be used as a bait dog. I am also against Greyhounds being chipped. I recently read about this and since they have lean frames and very little fat, a microchip is far more likely to move about in their bodies. It also makes it easier for the chips to be removed with malicious intent. My Greyhound is chipped so I will be getting her scanned the next time she is at the vet. Greyhounds also get their ears tattooed, but countless dogs have been found dumped (either dead or alive) with their ears hacked off.
A licence (unless people who have dogs work for it with a competency test) is just a piece of paper. Those who don't give stuff about their dogs and who only keep them to intimidate others will not bother getting one.
Muzzling should only be done within reason. There is no way that is should be compulsory for every dog.
When it comes to identifying dogs, I would be all for photographic and dental records plus a DNA register. I do not think that dogs should be chipped as they are a welfare issue (as explained above).
Well i have seen some articles in the paper that could lead me to believe that is necessary.
Chastity belts for priests too while we're at it.
That's not strictly true, or needn't be, at least.
The old dog licences were a waste of time but if a dog-licencing system was implemented properly it could certainly be used as a tool to clamp down on unscrupulous sellers as well as uncaring owners.
Again the kennel club if they actually cared about dogs could really clamp down on breeders registering so a KC registered dog actually meant that it came from a responsible breeder that health tested, temperament tested and stuck to stringent regulations. A good breeder in turn sells to a good owner and keeps in touch, they also take a dog back which unburdens rescues.
An annual licence should be issued and cost a good whack to breeders and any non registered people breeding should be fined in their thousands to put them off doing it again, a couple of hundred wont be a deterant as they will make that easily.
As for muzzling all dogs no either.
Slightly off topic here, but, my five year old ran to a bin to put away rubbish at high speed down our river walk yesterday, a little yorkie was near on an extendable leash, so yorkie barked a bit, it was only a pup. The owner waited for me to catch up. She spent 10 mins walking with me profusely apologetic, I just said well if we were in the dogs position, I would have a bark at a high speed little girl too! The woman said she was being cautious as one nursery mum had a go at her for the dog in question retrieving a toy her kid had dropped...and with all the uproar of dog attacks in the press,meh I felt
bad for her
The dog just wanted a play his tail was wagging and my 5 year old loves dogs and had a pet.
We have a few nice doggy pals on our way to and from the school bus stop, don't want to see them forced to wear a muzzle, would be miserable really all well behaved dogs.
I definitely agree with the microchipping and licensing - here in Northern Ireland, licensing is already compulsory. I agree with you though that muzzling shouldn't be compulsory. Thinking as an example of my pet dog - she's 12 years old, would never hurt a fly and would be massively stressed if you tried to put a muzzle on her.
Not only to cut the risk of an untamed beast biting someone, but also to stop them putting their nasty noses and tongues on people.
It would also be lovely having ppl muzzled too.