Does something need to be done about dogs?
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
Exactly, that was the point I just made!
Yes, exactly! You're nearly there...
Last edited:
This is where the vague handwaving comes in...
Comparing legislation for controlled substances to legislation for banning breeds of dog is a weird pointless comparison: you don't get addicted to owning dogs... It's a million times harder to regulate harmful addictive substances than pets, which is why I said it's a terrible comparison.
I just want to see how this {persuading chavs in council estates that owning a BXL makes you look like a berk} could actually be implemented or achieved in a way that would work, it's a pipe dream - surely?
I don't get it lol..
I'm all for a solution to this problem here, I just don't see how there is one that works and allows the continued ownership of mental breeds like BXLs.
It’s not pointless who are these ‘chavs’ that want to own these status dogs and why do you think they want to own them?
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,490
Social change happens through social drivers, not legislation or education. Peer conformity and idolatry are far more influential.
I don't actually know which music artists chavs listen to, but if they all start coming out against status dogs and deriding those who own them, it will have far more of an effect than a PCSO telling a chav off!
If you make a thing uncool, people won't want it. You'll find plenty of examples of how marketing strategists have used this against their rivals' products very effectively... and how marketing fails absolutely sank numerous products.
You could always vote in a different government, see how that works out......
Just ******* say it outright...
Feel free to exit.
I don't think there is but all you'll get from him is vague handwaving and denial about that, that he can't give one hasn't caused the penny to drop yet.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,490
And we're still waiting for your genius solution...
I don't think you really need to get bogged down with the "why" here, you'll never get anywhere trying to answer a question like that.
The simple solution is normally the best:
Outlaw the breed by banning it.*
Heavy fines for anyone breeding the dogs.
Existing dogs live out their natural lives and are neutered**.
* Technically it's not even a real breed, they're not even recognised by official kennel clubs.
**There's no need to go out slaughtering or taking away healthy pets, let existing ones live - just stop them from procreating.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,490
Several breeds are already banned and the fine for breeding, selling, giving away or abandoning such a dog is already unlimited. You can't get heavier than that.
Banning was already gotten around by crossbreeding anyway. Additionally, based on the 120-odd dogs seized by the Met in 2022 that were already banned in 1991, and given that none of them are likely to be 30 years old, people are clearly still breeding and importing banned dogs in spite of the existing laws and penalties.
In total the Met seized 488 dogs in 2022 under both S1 and S3 of the DDA1991, at a cost of £1.03m. Earlier figures were not provided due to cost grounds, but from the 29 other forces that provided some figures under FOI, around 5300 dogs were seized between 2019 and 2021. The wider figures are likely to be approaching 10,000.
The simple solution has already been tried.
5300 illegal dogs removed from the streets doesn't sound like that bad of a result tbh, sounds like something is working - the process might just need tweaking, and the government to throw some cash at it...
If deaths from BXLs continue the way they appear to be, I suspect the government will crack down on it sooner or later anyway, whether we like it or not.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,490
The Police don't go round inspecting peoples' homes, though. These are just the ones that got caught, usually following an incident of some kind.
I expect there are plenty more still out there.
People still speed, drink drive, drive using mobile phones... the simple solution has already been tried and so we should just chuck out the baby with the bath water and go with [vague/handwaving] something something psychology... social change through social drivers etc..
I mean according to that logic, why have any laws at all given that crime still happens?
What is wrong with both? We outlaw drink driving and run campaigns. We outlaw speeding and run campaigns.
We could licence dogs owners and breeders and ban bull terrier types going forwards - can phase that in so as not to need destroy existing dogs, I pointed this out earlier in the thread a few times too.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,490
No, let's just make it even more illegaller. That'll show 'em, the rotters!!
Oh, I know - Let's put out an ad campaign actually telling people it's illegal. I'm sure none of them even realised... because asking nicely has worked so well against determined criminals.
Or we could ban cars. Not all cars, of course, as that would be lunacy... Just the brands and models in which people routinely speed, drink-drive and drive while using their mobile phones. I believe the Toyota Prius is the one most commonly involved in a crash though, followed by the Zafira, Corsa and Astra, so let's ban those.
Or if that's too much, just ban the maintenance of them and prohibit their spare parts. That way they'll all stop working in 10-15 years and while plenty of people will die in the meantime, we'll ultimately remove these devils from our roadways.
That way we'll prevent thousands of deaths, rather than just the mere ten or so that dogs cause.
See this is where the monocausal hang-up you have has clouded the analogy... we literally do ban cars (the UK & EU and US all have regulations re: the cars that can be sold) and/or manufacturers recall them when they're dangerous.
That's a property of the cars not necessarily the people who drive them (thus your failed analogy), likewise, an XL bully type dog is clearly more dangerous than a pug regardless of who owns it and worth banning.
No measure is ever going to be 100% effective, but that’s no reason not to try to do more.
You’re always going to have determined criminals no matter what you do.
However if the threat of a hefty fine and criminal conviction is on the table, it would make a lot of people change their minds.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,490
Firstly, it's your analogy, I'm just running with it.
Secondly, it's banning something based on the statistics of what people do in regards to it, not how dangerous the car is. The Prius has been cited as one of the safest cars on the road, but is also involved in the highest number of crashes (regardless of who owns it), yet it remains un-banned.
Fine - Unlimited.
Conviction - Up to 15 years in prison if your dog kills someone.
The problem is that it's already 'hefty' and it's doing nothing to change the minds of the people who are causing all the issues we're currently discussing.
It's only hefty, once the damage has been done and the dog has gone on a rampage and caused damage or serious harm, up until that point any punishments are going to be minor in comparison.
Just ban the breed thats causing the problem, people who break the law get the book thrown at them - it won't work for 100% of people, but if the punishment is harsh, it will for most.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,490
No, it's hefty right now.
If you're found with a banned breed, it's an unlimited fine and something like 6 months in prison. Right now. Regardless of whether it's caused a problem or not.
Case in point, the guy recently, who was already banned from owning dogs in the first place. People like that are the ones causing the problems and the ones you need to focus on, not the ones who might be too scared of the possible consequences if they happen to get caught...