Attacks On Guide Dogs

[Castiel]

Where would the money come from to fund this though? Even if there was such funds available, how could it be policed effectively?

You charge for the licences, tax ownership......much in the same way as any other licensing works.......as for policing, routine annual checkups at the vets and annual relicencing (think car mot) and I'm sure the details wouldn't be that difficult to iron out......

It would make dog ownership more expensive, but I see nothing wrong with that as owning a dog should be something that is taken extremely seriously and the most effective way of doing that is to make people consider the cost.

 

[Tefal]

You charge for the licences, tax ownership......much in the same way as any other licensing works.......as for policing, routine annual checkups at the vets and annual relicencing (think car mot) and I'm sure the details wouldn't be that difficult to iron out......

what bout people who just don't bother to get it licensed?

After all it's nothing like cars which have number plates which can be quickly read with no effort by police cars to find out if they're legal.

 

[The Halk]

what bout people who just don't bother to get it licensed?

"Excuse me sir, we're doing spot checks on dog licenses. What address do you have your dog licensed to? I see. And what's your name? I see, I cannot find a license at that address. I'm afraid I have to seize this dog and you will be able to collect it when you bring proof of your license down to the dog pound, you have one week to bring proof or request an extension. If you'd like to accompany us to the station we can get the paperwork filled out. No, I'm afraid I have to insist, I will place you under arrest if you don't comply."

No license? Dog destroyed, owner charged and fined.

 

[Castiel]

what bout people who just don't bother to get it licensed?

After all it's nothing like cars which have number plates which can be quickly read with no effort by police cars to find out if they're legal.

Make sure there are punitive measures that can be taken against them, the registration and policing of breeders, importers, sellers and owners should create an overlap of enforcement which should limit the availability of illegal dogs (ie those without a licence) to begin with, the same with routine vet visits, almost every dog has to visit the vet at some time, even if it is only to be innoculated......just because a minority will ignore a law doesn't mean you should not have the law.

 

[Energize]

No, I meant ban all those.
Pick a point where the attacks relating to a dog breed are average and ban everything above that.

You'd lose say ten or twenty large breeds, no big loss to the world.
Chavs won't get very far with training a collie to be aggressive, they have no muscle.

You'd lose the most popular dog breeds like Labradors. Almost any breed of dog can be trained to be an attack dog.

I think there are a 150 breeds of dog, just lose the ones an average person couldn't kick off.
I don't see why the process needs to be repeated unless someone is breeding giant mutant Chihuahuas

You don't normally let people keep animals they can't control, like Lions

We do, they're called cats.

There's also horses and cattle, which are far more dangerous.

Make sure there are punitive measures that can be taken against them, the registration and policing of breeders, importers, sellers and owners should create an overlap of enforcement which should limit the availability of illegal dogs (ie those without a licence) to begin with, the same with routine vet visits, almost every dog has to visit the vet at some time, even if it is only to be innoculated......just because a minority will ignore a law doesn't mean you should not have the law.

Many people don't have the legally mandated horse passport for their animals, it's very difficult to enforce with large expensive animals, with dogs virtually impossible. There's no point in having a law where the majority flout it, like the last dog licencing scheme. And mandating licenses for veterinary treatment results in many illegally owned animals going without medical treatment, which is worse from an animal welfare perspective.

 

[w3bbo]

The amount of ignorance of dog breeds in this thread is astounding.

The link showing the horrific pictures puts such a biased misinformed slant on the subject it makes for a very tedious read. Clearly any dog and I do mean ANY dog can make a mess of a childs face. A dogs teeth, by their very nature are designed to tear flesh, much the same as our own 'canine' teeth.

When I was a paperboy in the 80's I had my fair share of run ins with dogs and you can be assured, it was the so called 'friendly' dogs that caused the most grief. Springer spaniels and the poodle at no14 were but clenchingly frightening yet the dopey Doberman towards the end of my round never gave me any hassle - go figure? The simple fact is it's the OWNER, not the breed that dictates how a dog acts. Sadly, people who read the daily trash sensationalist tabloids rarely take the time to think for themselves and instead believe everything that is spoon fed to them. Ask yourself why the press report a childs death at the hands of a 'dangerous dog'. Then ask yourself why few of the 1000's of children who are maimed/killed on the roads each year go unreported in the press.

Any dog is dangerous in the wrong hands. Some are more dangerous than others. Much the same as car drivers but we don't call for an end to allowing the socially inept to drive do we?

To balance out what has been pointed out above, have a read of some of the stories on this page:

http://www.sbtfun.com/Stories_Index.html

Punishing the breed isn't the answer, punish the irresponsible owners imo. Oh and it isn't just 'council estate chavs who own Staffordshires - very few could afford a proper K.C reg'd dog and thus most are crossbread.

I have owned staffies for years, never had a problem with any of them apart from one protecting my daughter every time I chased her which was my fault, not the dogs. If you have the time to train yourself to correctly train the dog then they are the perfect family pet and lifelong companion.

 

[Castiel]

Many people don't have the legally mandated horse passport for their animals, it's very difficult to enforce with large expensive animals, with dogs virtually impossible. There's no point in having a law where the majority flout it, like the last dog licencing scheme. And mandating licenses for veterinary treatment results in many illegally owned animals going without medical treatment, which is worse from an animal welfare perspective.

Do you have official or reliable figures to support your claims regarding Equine Passports?

Who says the majority would flout it.....the problem isn't the licening but the penalties for not having one.....if they are punitive enough and enforced enough then people will get the message soon enough, and if you tax ownership you have a State benefit to ensuring the adequate provision of the statutory and enforcement tools needed.

Just because one system was inadequate doesn't mean a new one will necessarily be so, otherwise it would be pointless licencing anything, from Cars to TVs......

 

[Tefal]

"Excuse me sir, we're doing spot checks on dog licenses. What address do you have your dog licensed to? I see. And what's your name? I see, I cannot find a license at that address. I'm afraid I have to seize this dog and you will be able to collect it when you bring proof of your license down to the dog pound, you have one week to bring proof or request an extension. If you'd like to accompany us to the station we can get the paperwork filled out. No, I'm afraid I have to insist, I will place you under arrest if you don't comply."

No license? Dog destroyed, owner charged and fined.

yeah great cause we have so many spare policemen at this time to go around questioning dog walkers?

Make sure there are punitive measures that can be taken against them, the registration and policing of breeders, importers, sellers and owners should create an overlap of enforcement which should limit the availability of illegal dogs (ie those without a licence) to begin with

Not really.

the same with routine vet visits, almost every dog has to visit the vet at some time, even if it is only to be innoculated......just because a minority will ignore a law doesn't mean you should not have the law.

yes but it means that the law isn't affecting the people you intended it to affect.

if a small minority ignore the law but they are the people who you're trying tostop with the law then yeah it does mean it's alittle poiuntless.

 

[The Halk]

yeah great cause we have so many spare policemen at this time to go around questioning dog walkers?

I don't think it'd have a huge impact. Just do it for a one day every 6 months. Not only would it get the police seen in and around the area, but destroying a dozen dogs every 6 months would quickly get the message out. The fines will help to some degree.

In addition it would grant the police additional powers - they go to some chavs house who has a dog... got a license? Oh, bye doggy.

 

[Tefal]

I don't think it'd have a huge impact. Just do it for a one day every 6 months. Not only would it get the police seen in and around the area, but destroying a dozen dogs every 6 months would quickly get the message out. The fines will help to some degree.

In addition it would grant the police additional powers - they go to some chavs house who has a dog... got a license? Oh, bye doggy.

puts them at a bit of risk though doesn't it?


You're probably going to need a few polcie men working to getehr to safely enforce that, dogs can be pretty damn dangerous and thier owners more so if you say you want to kill thier dog...

In addition it would grant the police additional powers - they go to some chavs house who has a dog... got a license? Oh, bye doggy.

^that however i did not think of and could be quite usefull.

 

[dowie]

The licensing suggestions seems sensible tbh... though I'd also like to see a law enforcing dog owners to use leads when not in a park/open countryside. I see it quite a lot in London - dog owner with the stereotypical 'bull type dog walking around with it off the lead... no control whatsoever if the dog were to do something unpredictable.

 

[Narj]

I absolutely despise they way that chav scum have hijacked staffies. Many of my family had Staffs during my youth and they were absolutely fantastic dogs - the worst damage they might do is jump on you and knock you over, followed by licking your face raw.

Bring back the Dog Licence in all honesty. At least it'll provide a means of confiscating dogs from the scum that use them for nothing else than a status symbol.

Also, yes, Jack Russells can be really ******* hostile, and I'm glad my mum's bitch was because she scared the **** out of someone that jumped into our garden once! They are awesome dogs though, if treated right. My sister has two and I love them to bits.

 

[The Halk]

The licensing suggestions seems sensible tbh... though I'd also like to see a law enforcing dog owners to use leads when not in a park/open countryside. I see it quite a lot in London - dog owner with the stereotypical 'bull type dog walking around with it off the lead... no control whatsoever if the dog were to do something unpredictable.

If the license was there then a police officer could add a condition to the license.. he may for example if a dog has been causing bother require it to be on a lead all the time in public, or muzzled. The next time the dog is checked by the police they'd see that it was required to be muzzled, if it wasn't then destroy it.

 

[Castiel]

Not really.

The details at this juncture are less important than the concept, but effective licencing is not impossible.

yes but it means that the law isn't affecting the people you intended it to affect.

if a small minority ignore the law but they are the people who you're trying tostop with the law then yeah it does mean it's alittle poiuntless.

It is not only about limiting ownership, it is also about effective statutory training and appropiate care for the animal, and this would apply to every dog owner, the majority of whom are law abiding.........also having statutory instruments regarding the care, training, ownership and culpable responsibilty of Dog Ownership is not pointless even if a minority ignore the laws as they are still subject to those laws regardless. It gives the authority powers to act which they do not currently have....

 

[G18241]

A good read, and some very good comments made

I agree with the fact that any dog, no matter what breed, if not trained properly, can cause serious injury to small children. Yes a staffie is going to cause more injury quicker due to their build, but any dog attacking a child is going to cause damage.

The whole animal licensing seems to be completly out of control, a staffie is up there on the list as in general it is young lads who get them as it makes them look "hard" and will not train them to NOT attack people / other dogs.

Different animal completely but the licensing on big snakes has recently come into effect in America and a few other places which is preventing people from keeping the bigger snakes without a very expensive license, on the notion that they are "dangerous". I honestly cant think of a single news story about someone being injured, never mind killed, by any of the large snakes now on this list. I know in America some people had let them free in the everglades and they had started breeding but that was effecting the wildlife around the area, not killing people, yet with a similar kind of license you can legally keep cobras / rattle snakes and a number of other, very venemous animals.

All in all, ANY animal that is not trained and/or looked after properly can be a threat if it is deemed in anyway dangerous. A large domestic cat could cause a lot of damage to a baby, as could a small dog, you can legally keep some rather venemous spiders with no license what so ever, which again to a baby, could be fatal.

If you buy an animal, it is your responsibilty for everything it does, if one of my spiders were to escape and bit someone, thats my fault, not the spiders, in the same way if a dog attacks someone, it is the owners fault for not having it trained / not having it on a lead

 

[mattyg]

You can't be serious, huskies are popular pets, they are not bought because they are intimidating, they are bought because they are cute, german shepherds and rottweilers are more intimidating, they aren't even that large compared to other dog breeds.

Only because the media says so.

Years ago the press made Doberman's the devil dog, Then a few years later it was the rotty's turn. Then it was any dog in the hot weather now they are onto staffies. Its not the breeds fault the breed is not an aggressive dog Working in the Veterinary industry I see many many dogs each day and aggression comes from ANY breed.

The damage done by Terrier breeds (staff's, Jack russell's etc) is that they only really bite once but its a strong bite and they then shake to kill.
You should see a Jrussell kill a rat "bite shake dead"

 

[realBabelfish]

You charge for the licences, tax ownership......much in the same way as any other licensing works.......as for policing, routine annual checkups at the vets and annual relicencing (think car mot) and I'm sure the details wouldn't be that difficult to iron out......

It would make dog ownership more expensive, but I see nothing wrong with that as owning a dog should be something that is taken extremely seriously and the most effective way of doing that is to make people consider the cost.

chavs wouldnt do it. its not as easy to spot as seeing a tax disk is out of date.

all it would do is cost us decent dog owners more and wouldnt help anyone.

 

[SeraphX]

Dogs are only "fierce" if the owners are clowns.

yup, my next door neighbour has a huge rottweiler, thing scared my senseless a few times but getting to know him, he's as soft as they come, just wanted some loving haha

 

[Nexus]

Its the enforcement that is the real problem.
The only way of really checking somebody is spot checks in the street where they would have to demonstrate they have the relevant licence or microchip.

This would also likely only be possible currently by the Dog Unit, who are trained to handle dogs, because lets face it, those of unsound mind with dangerous dogs may well use them against a Police Officer. It's why they have intimidating dogs in the first place.

As myself and others said in the thread earlier, many of the people who keep dangerous dogs and breed them for fighting and such don't walk them regularly like responsible owners. Thus how are you going to catch them? The real offender who is breeding them all probably never takes them out the house.

 

[Castiel]

chavs wouldnt do it. its not as easy to spot as seeing a tax disk is out of date.

all it would do is cost us decent dog owners more and wouldnt help anyone.

I disagree.....if you licence the entire industry and not only ownership you would have multilayer enforcement and detection meaning less likelihood of dogs being in the wrong hands to begin with, it would also give the authorities more legal powers to actually do something, unlike today when the authorities can rarely remove dogs from irresponsible owners unless the dog has actually bitten someone outside of their home environment or in the cases highlighted in this thread...the young child in Swindon for example, the dog had already bitten a police officer, yet the powers do not exist to do anything about that. The very act of not having a licence would indicate an irresponsible owner.

That needs to change, and licencing and more effective and targeted enforcement can do that.