Shame you're not using your noggin and actually reading what you've posted which explains that the benefits stem from EMOTIONS.
Does something need to be done about dogs?
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
Shame you're not using your noggin and actually reading what you've posted which explains that the benefits stem from EMOTIONS.
It really doesn't matter where you think they stem from, the physical benefits are real and they are demonstrable therefore you cannot claim the only benefits of dog ownership are emotional.
Well it does matter where they stem from when the root is emotion. The very thing you keep whinging about!
Congrats, hope it made you feel better telling the forum.
Yeah this is worse than a lot of the larger ones in GD.
No one is ever going to see eye to eye on this one and when legislation changes, its just on us to follow like good boys.
Either that of BBCC will keep pumping out asbo tunes with asbo related dogs in them and the cycle continues.
I know what I have my bet on.
Perhaps a dog would help you control those emotions
Ahh haa, I’m with you now. So you’re no suggesting ban all dogs but ban them in public? While I’d agree with that to a certain extent, I’d be less draconian. I’d suggest all dogs, whether they be a ‘handbag’ poodle/thing or a Labrador or whatever must be muzzled and on a lead in public, expect for designated dog fields. Never fly though. Folk love their dogs too much.
Apologies, the knocking one out over my ma’s face threw me, I wasn’t sure if you were admittong some fantasy or trying to hurfdurf me into wanting fight you!
Lol no, i'm sure your mum's bloody lovely and if we ever meet i'll refrain. Even if she is a stunner!
Yes, that's what I was referring to, bit silly to act otherwise. You said "the simple solution has been tried" and the point was:
You do in fact oppose that "simple solution" and your argument for it seems to be that illegal dogs still exist... are you not following the point there that speeding and drink driving still exist?
Part of the issue with the current ban on pitbulls is, as I've already pointed out, that it is narrow in scope, there is no reason for bull terriers to exist in general, we could just phase them out.
Currently someone with say kids and a guy next door breeding XL Bully dogs doesn't really have much they can do about it, if you ban that breed then in the future they can call the police.
I've suggested that we don't need XL Bully type dogs (or bull terrier types in general) to exist, that breeders and owners should be licensed and dogs registered, much easier to ban irresponsible owners that way too. So far you've just come up with some vague handwaving claims re: psychology and social stuff which you don't seem to be able to elaborate on.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,491
I oppose the idea of the 'simple solution' as you have presented it, because that has not worked so far and you have not proven that it will work going forward.
Illegal dogs are still being bred and sold, and dogs are still killing people - More than ever before, in fact - So what you propose is clearly not a solution, because the problem is not solved.
Dog licences are no more necessary than a licence to operate DIY tools, as the laws that replaced the licence and with which every dog owner must comply are the same as would be the conditions of the licence.
Having a licence would not make it any easier to ban than the current methods by which someone can be banned anyway - Some judge banning you is the same as him taking away your licence. It'd be a token piece of paper these days.
There would be some merit in a requirement for compulsory training, but that would require that a person acquired the dog before doing the training, since bonding with your specific dog is a fundamental component of the course.
As pointed out earlier, every dog in the UK already must, by law, be microchipped and registered along with the owner's details. To date, compliance percentage is in the upper 90s, whereas fewer than 50% of people complied with the dog licence, which is why it was replaced with the EPA1990 and DDA 1991.
Breeders already are required to have a licence too.
So far you've basically suggested we put in place a bunch of things we already have, and enact the very same bans that are already being ignored or circumvented anyway. At least my ideas explore new approaches and are based on widely proven methods.
As for the rest - You seem to be assuming that every criminal is a law-abiding citizen, living in a nice house next door to vigilant neighbourhood watch volunteers, who will call the Police if that criminal ever steps over the mark. You also seem to assume that everyone knows about an illegal puppy farm, and that they're cited in nice convenient locations where everyone can see.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, almost every aspect of that is the opposite. These people are breaking the law. They're going to do it out of sight, in order to avoid getting caught.
As for people calling the Police, they already can do that, too - The mere suspicion of a banned breed is sufficient to seize a dog, as is the suspicion of running an illegal breeding operation, suspicion of owning a dangerous dog, and several other offences.
It also doesn't have to be a banned breed, and you don't even need to know what ******* breed it is, as you can call the Police or local dog warden if it's causing problems or you feel intimidated by it.
And I've already asked you - What exactly do you need elaborating?
What specifics do you want to know more about?
Ask me the questions, so I can actually answer them for you....
Again... people still speed, people still drink drive. Currently, if someone complains their neighbour has a bunch of XL Bully type dogs (an obviously dangerous breed) the police can do nothing about it. Or indeed someone spots one in their local park... perhaps hanging off a tree branch surrounded by a bunch of chavs. If you've got to have a license and you ban that sort of dog then it becomes far easier to deal with the issue.
No, I've not assumed that, I pointed out a simple example to show an obvious flaw re: the current system, all you seem to have is some vague handwaving claim re: a psychological solution.
It's like talking to an anti-masker during the pandemic, any nuance re: how masks can work in some situations is totally lost.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,491
Exactly - So explain how adding more laws that will be ignored by the same people will have any effect.
It provides some minor reduction in bureaucracy if that specific dog presents a problem. Otherwise it's just like any other dog.
A few outliers out of however many other owned examples is not sufficient to warrant a ban that will be ineffective, probably make things worse, and may even put other breeds at risk.
You'll also have to explain how you think having a licence will do anything...
I've explained how the flaw you perceive can still be addressed through existing methods.
I've also asked you several times what you find so vague about my solution.
You seem very keen on bleating about the vagueness, but seem very reluctant to actually enquire further or provide any guidance on what would resolve this for you.
No, I fully understand how your measures would work in some situations... just not the ones that matter, ie:
- Preventing people from getting ANY status dog
- Preventing the breeding and/or cross-breeding of ANY dog to have fighting or status traits
- Preventing the neglect of dogs to the point they become dangerous
- Preventing owners failing in their responsibilities, resulting in peole getting hurt
You seem to be saying that just because a small minority of people will carry on regardless, that nullifies any attempt to do anything
You realise that just because some people ignore some rules or laws, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have any rules or laws….
.
It’s not practical and it is vague.
This idea of simply asking people to not buy a certain type of dog, or reeducate them to like softer breeds.
How exactly do you do this? Have some people like Jehovah’s witnesses, canvassing really rough council estates in the north east?
“Knock knock”
“Scuse me mate, sorry to bother you - but your dog Brutus, he’s a bit narsty lookin, that old lady across the street is proper scared of him - you thought about swapping him for a poodle?, or maybe a hamster instead?”
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2021
- Posts
- 4,591
- Location
- Land of Gin (I wish)
Also seen more dog **** on the ground. If people CBA picking up their dog’s excrement, then don’t own a dog.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,491
You realise that this 'small minority' are also the very people causing all these problems being discussed here, right?
And again, I never said we shouldn't have any rules. Just that adding more will not achieve anything, because they'll get ignored.
Very practical, because it's what media, corporate marketing and social media use every day to sell you products and direct your opinions.
Also - Not asking. Telling.
It's social engineering and political science. Same concept as the government campaigns, but using peer influence to persuade instead of government dictation.
It’s why I made the comparison with Drugs and it’ll be the very same people owning these dogs. Making drugs illegal has done nothing to prevent the availability and issues that come with it, you could argue it’s actually made it worse.
I’m sat at home and I have a Bully XL tell me exactly how this works and how I end up changing my mind?
And and if people will ignore rules or laws like you seem to think they will, why will they pay attention to this?
It’s not though, comparing owning dangerous dogs to controlled substances is facile.
This idea that because something is banned and therefore is spawns a black market, therefore bans don’t work is idiotic when applied to dangerous dogs.
No it’s about the mentality of the people in question.
But surely because there are deaths it would be better to ban them? People can just live near there job. No one really needs these child murdering cars.
Can you imagine trying to ban dogs? Or would be worse than banning guns in the USA.
I'd emigrate. And I'm sure many others would rather than giving up thier dogs.
And how exactly are you going to change that?
By asking nicely, handing out leaflets or something, @ttaskmaster still needs to explain…
Cars don't take it upon themselves to kill people.
People can't just live near 'there' job.