dogs

[Softus]

I suppose it balances out the effect of the BNP turning humans into dogs...

 

[noodlz]

...and we all know the Family ban attitude towards racism. Apparently that compassion isn't extended to dumb animals who know no better.

Don't be so hard on yourself......it's never too late to learn

 

[splinter]

I suppose it balances out the effect of the BNP turning humans into dogs...

I hope the BNP publicity campagner does not see what you wrote ,cos they might use it to influence the dog owners vote

 

[scott1968]

You have to be a registered dog owner and pay a yearly license (£50 -£100)

Unworkable - IMO not enough people would vote for this, given the cost of administration and policing.

Does not have to be voted in, the government can introduce it.

You have to be responsible for your dog’s actions (license owner)

That doesn't represent a change.

It does represent a change, there is currently no license and there is currently not enough onuses on dog owners to be responsible.

Hefty fines for not cleaning up after your dog

Also unworkable - do you foresee Pooping Wardens patrolling all streets and parks?.

It would be a start.

Hefty fine for not controlling (and not on lead) your dog designated areas

Ditto. Although I'm certainly in favour of heftier fines for those whose dog is unequivocally the unprovoked attacker.

How many times have you heard some say it’s unworkable (usually from someone that does not like change)?

 

[scott1968]

Sounds good.

Reduction in licence fee for pensioners, benefit claimants etc?

No (just my opinion)

A bit hard on the lonely old widow/widower who only has a dog for company most of the time, and a bit hard on the kids in poor families who will now miss out on yet more things that normal families take for granted.

And how would it be introduced? Would it be for all new dog purchases after a certain date, or would it be that all existing dog owners have to apply?

What would the charge pay for? What benefit does a responsible dog-owner, who may have had dogs continuously for decades with never any problems, get in return for his £50 - £100?

It’s not a perfect world and it’s usually the responsible that have to pay for irresponsible

 

[scott1968]

So I'd like to ask the dog owners here what they think should be done, if anything?

I see all the responsible and irresponsible dog owners have come up with some good ideas - NOT.

It’s mostly the usual suspects with there negative comments “the ones that would cause an argument in a empty room” (yes you sitting yourself).

 

[baldy01]

There are plenty of pets that are not physicaly capable of tearing your face off.

How about a cat, could shred your face but that would be far too undignified. Gerbils, notorious for their inability to rip your arm off.
Rabbit, leg biting skills - 0
Or stick to small dogs - A jack russel might hump your leg occasionally but is frankly not a risk to life and limb.

Licensing and restricting large dog ownership to those who can prove they can act responsibly with them doesn't leave the poor little children and grannies with nothing.

We've never kept a dog and my kids haven't suffered because of it, what with the cats, guinniepigs (never could spell that ), rabbits and the occasional snail farms and spider collections whats to miss?

 

[scott1968]

Licensing and restricting large dog ownership to those who can prove they can act responsibly with them doesn't leave the poor little children and grannies with nothing.

Sounds okay

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It’s not a perfect world and it’s usually the responsible that have to pay for irresponsible

Well you've made this proposal - are you happy that it is imperfect, and makes the world more imperfect than it already is?

Do you not think that new policies should make things better, not worse?

Is that the only answer you can come up with to the questions "What would the charge pay for?" and "What benefit does a responsible dog-owner, who may have had dogs continuously for decades with never any problems, get in return for his £50 - £100?" ?

You've made this proposal - can you not articulate any benefits of it?

And I'd still like to know how it would be introduced. Would it be for all new dog purchases after a certain date, or would all existing dog owners have to apply?

 

[hermes]

We've never kept a dog and my kids haven't suffered because of it, what with the cats, guinniepigs (never could spell that ), rabbits and the occasional snail farms and spider collections whats to miss?

Quite a lot to miss. You can play with a dog all day, you can take it on long walks, you can play hide and seek with them (they always win) you can train it to behave well, you can train it to do tricks or daft things, they can be incredibly loyal and good company. They will catch balls, frisbees etc and they will swim for sticks. They will go and fetch the newspaper and find your slippers wherever they may be.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Licensing and restricting large dog ownership to those who can prove they can act responsibly with them doesn't leave the poor little children and grannies with nothing.

English Bull Terriers weigh between 20 and 30kg. Old English Sheepdogs between 27 and 45kg. A policy based on size is intrinsically flawed.

We've never kept a dog and my kids haven't suffered because of it, what with the cats, guinniepigs (never could spell that ), rabbits and the occasional snail farms and spider collections whats to miss?

I'm sure that's true, but I'm also sure that there are children who would like a dog, or would like the family to have a dog, and given the long-term problems that accrue from social exclusion I think we need to be careful about introducing measures that could create more, not less.

 

[baldy01]

OK Benefits -

You have to be a registered dog owner.

RSPCA know who keeps dogs, anyone unregistered can therefore have the dog removed without lots of legal shennanigans. This would prevent issues where people who are banned from keeping animals for previous offences of maltreatment keep them anyway. No registration, no dog. Benefits everyone.

You have to pay a yearly license. Don't agree with license but you should be forced to maintain third party insurance just as with a motor vehicle, so that when your dog rips a little girls face off there is a chance of decent compensation.

Both of these things cause potential owners to consider the whole thing a bit more seriously.

Fines for not cleaning up should operate in the same way as anybody else causing a nuisence i.e. noise pollution. If someone is a repeat offender then Environmental Health should be able to collect evidence and prosecute. Not clearing dog feaces away in public area's should be considered reckless endangerment. Toxoplasmosis is nasty with long term detrimental effects. I think everybody can see the benefits of not cleaning s**t of their shoes and the potential health hazards that entails.

Hefty fine for not controling your dog in public places.

If I, through irresponsibillity or carelessness, hurt someone with my motorbike Ill quite rightly get heavily penalised. Why is allowing your dog to attack someone any different?

Benefit? Strong incentive for people to be careful with their dogs.

 

[baldy01]

Quite a lot to miss. You can play with a dog all day, you can take it on long walks, you can play hide and seek with them (they always win) you can train it to behave well, you can train it to do tricks or daft things, they can be incredibly loyal and good company. They will catch balls, frisbees etc and they will swim for sticks. They will go and fetch the newspaper and find your slippers wherever they may be.

My kids have plenty of things to keep them busy all day. I don't like walking dogs, I've got enough to do without following an animal around picking up its poo. Catching and fetching? Why do I need an animal to do these things for me?

You fail to mention that they eat huge amounts of food, complicate travel plans, chew your furniture, shed hair all over the place, pick up ticks and fleas , love to chew and roll in things that stink for fun etc etc

I know there are pluses, but there are huge minuses as well, some of us just don't value the ability to catch a ball and fawning obseqiousness that highly.

We are a cat family OK? thats all that needs to said.

 

[baldy01]

English Bull Terriers weigh between 20 and 30kg. Old English Sheepdogs between 27 and 45kg. A policy based on size is intrinsically flawed.

So both animals can get large enough to do you real damage. Whats your point here? Why are these dogs different?

So not being allowed a dog big enough to be dangerous makes someone socially excluded then? I didn't realise the qualification was so simple.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

English Bull Terriers weigh between 20 and 30kg. Old English Sheepdogs between 27 and 45kg. A policy based on size is intrinsically flawed.

So both animals can get large enough to do you real damage. Whats your point here? Why are these dogs different?

Well the original topic was about dogs that are considered dangerous, and what should be done. There are dogs which are considered dangerous, and there are breeds which are favoured, either because of their natural temperament or because of perception, by people who want to create a dangerous dog, and that is the root problem that needs addressing. To try to address it by classifying dogs purely on size is too simplistic.

So not being allowed a dog big enough to be dangerous makes someone socially excluded then? I didn't realise the qualification was so simple.

Sorry - for some reason I thought that your statement about your kids was related to the issue of having a substantial licence fee that could prevent some families from having a dog.

I actually share your opinions on dogs, and I wouldn't have one for exactly the same reasons, but I, and I hope you, also recognise that some people feel very differently, and we must not allow ourselves to call for measures because we don't agree with their view and would like it if everyone felt the same as us. Personally, I would love it if nobody kept cats, but there you go.

Yes there should be measures to make people act more responsibly in terms of cleaning up, control, training etc, and insurance would be a good idea. There would be, however, a cost to enforce all of these measures, and we do need to think about who would pay, and how, and how much, and we do need to think about what we say to the recently widowed woman who can no longer afford the licence on the labrador that her and her recently departed husband had had since it was a puppy, and what we say to the children of the man who has lost his job, or who has run off with another woman, about why their pet has to be taken from them.