Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,533
He's not wrong though, the problem is the human owners not the dogs, they were the ones who let it off its lead near wild animals and should be fined for animal cruelty
Does something need to be done about dogs?
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
He's not wrong though, the problem is the human owners not the dogs, they were the ones who let it off its lead near wild animals and should be fined for animal cruelty
The problem with guns is the people that use them.
That's why guns are so readily available in the UK.
Wait...
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,533
If punishments for irresponsible behaviour were harsh enough it would deter most from acting irresponsibly that and making people require a license and training to own a dog, just like with Guns
Precisely. So does something need to be done?
Oh boy I know where this has gone by not reading the 13 pages.
A few people recognising dog ownership laws are too soft, up against an army of people blaming dog owners.
My view is simple.
If you think its all down to bad owners and dont recognise any dog can never be trusted then you fall into the bad owner category yourself.
You treat your dog with all the care in the world, leave it with a baby and then I dont want to say the next part.
There is of course owners who get dog for macho reasons, and then dont treat there dog optimally. One reason to have a dog licensing system.
Most popular breed tends to be coincidentally macho dogs, staff bull or variants.
What I consider a responsible owner is someone who gives their dog exercise, attention and never has them off the lead in public places, in addition they should be prepared to keep dogs in another room if someone is scared of dogs as dogs can react to fear, and finally keep away from babies/toddlers.
I also personally think any dog breed thats known to be strong and hold its bite should be muzzled in public places.
I know this is controversial sorry.
Another, unsurprisingly similar breed, honestly do not know why this breed isnt listed as a dangerous dog now, can only be for political popularity reasons. This one I am more angry about as the parents barely had the dog for a week and trusted it with their child. It really is at the point people need to be educated dogs can be dangerous and to not trust them by default.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-60829837
A few people recognising dog ownership laws are too soft, up against an army of people blaming dog owners.
My view is simple.
If you think its all down to bad owners and dont recognise any dog can never be trusted then you fall into the bad owner category yourself.
You treat your dog with all the care in the world, leave it with a baby and then I dont want to say the next part.
There is of course owners who get dog for macho reasons, and then dont treat there dog optimally. One reason to have a dog licensing system.
Most popular breed tends to be coincidentally macho dogs, staff bull or variants.
What I consider a responsible owner is someone who gives their dog exercise, attention and never has them off the lead in public places, in addition they should be prepared to keep dogs in another room if someone is scared of dogs as dogs can react to fear, and finally keep away from babies/toddlers.
I also personally think any dog breed thats known to be strong and hold its bite should be muzzled in public places.
I know this is controversial sorry.
Another, unsurprisingly similar breed, honestly do not know why this breed isnt listed as a dangerous dog now, can only be for political popularity reasons. This one I am more angry about as the parents barely had the dog for a week and trusted it with their child. It really is at the point people need to be educated dogs can be dangerous and to not trust them by default.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-60829837
Last edited:
Indeed, some dogs present a far greater risk of death or serious injury than others.
I think we should just eliminate bull terrier types, I don't mean destroy existing dogs but phase them out - it should be a legal requirement that all of them a neutered and any unneutered after a certain date be confiscated by police. Give it 10-15 years and there shouldn't be any, at that point just make them all illegal.
Dog breeds like that are entirely articfical, dogs are neutered all the time so ending a particular line shouldn't have any ethical objection too.
Should probably do the same with some of those stubby nose dogs which develop breathing problems, just on the basis of animal cruelty issues rather than because they're a risk to the lives of kids etc..
Basically, we could bring back dog licensing and a requirement to register breeders etc.. you should be able to prove you got your dog from a registered breeder/owner or animal shelter etc. Problematic owners could be banned from obtaining dogs and problematic breeds could be eliminated.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,533
Soldato
I'm a dog owner, and not necessarily against there being some kind of licensing and training scheme, as long as it wasn't too onerous. Could make things like preventing abusive people owning dogs, or blacklisting owners of dangerous dogs easier. Would need to be done in the right way so that for example people owning dogs illegally wouldn't be prevented from visiting the vet etc.
One potential barrier is that dog training methodology seems to be a bit of a Wild West. There are a lot of different schools of thought, many of them incompatible. To a non-expert its not really clear which methods are backed by reliable evidence (or even if any methods are backed by reliable evidence).
For example there's a dog training company locally which purports to train dogs by using their three large alsatians to 'correct' bad behaviour. Sounds interesting, until you find out it's ended up just leaving several dogs terrified of other dogs, and the three training dogs have bitten at least one other dog.
If training was part of the licensing process then some authority would have to decide which training methods are valid and can be recommended. Would probably need some research to actually prove which methods have the best outcomes rather than the normal anecdotal stories of 'well it worked on my dog' or 'Victoria on TV did it with a dog and it worked' which seems to be the current standard.
One potential barrier is that dog training methodology seems to be a bit of a Wild West. There are a lot of different schools of thought, many of them incompatible. To a non-expert its not really clear which methods are backed by reliable evidence (or even if any methods are backed by reliable evidence).
For example there's a dog training company locally which purports to train dogs by using their three large alsatians to 'correct' bad behaviour. Sounds interesting, until you find out it's ended up just leaving several dogs terrified of other dogs, and the three training dogs have bitten at least one other dog.
If training was part of the licensing process then some authority would have to decide which training methods are valid and can be recommended. Would probably need some research to actually prove which methods have the best outcomes rather than the normal anecdotal stories of 'well it worked on my dog' or 'Victoria on TV did it with a dog and it worked' which seems to be the current standard.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2020
- Posts
- 760
I think the licensing would be fine for the responsible owners. The others wouldn't give a toss.
?
Then you introduce consequences for them...
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2020
- Posts
- 760
Who would implement that? Who would bear the costs?
All seems very sensible to me.
Caporegime
Eliminating bull terrier dogs. What a stupid idea. Wiping out an entire historical breed of dog because of the, probably less than 1% of them, that have attacked people.
Anyway, this has already been debated in parliament and was chucked out instantly.
Anyway, this has already been debated in parliament and was chucked out instantly.
The police/local councils... charge a fee for licenses and implement fines.
No reason for them to exist... it's just emotive nonsense, people can still own dogs, the proposal isn't to destroy any current dogs etc.. just stop them from breeding.
Far too much common sense.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2020
- Posts
- 760
Yes, it could. The responsible owners would have to cough up. But its the irresponsible owners who are the problem.
Responsible drivers have to cough up for a driving license too but it's irresponsible drivers that are the problem.
So what?
Taxes fund prisons, courts and the police.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2020
- Posts
- 760
The topic here is about problem dogs. A licence fee won't fix that.
It will fund controls on those who cannot responsibly own one.