I like the theory, so lets put it into practice. Lets put a price on it................. Say £500 per dog to stop undisirables having dogs?? That would cost me thats a £1000. I'd pay that, would you? Policing it??............ Microchip, with the licence attached could work?? So you have a fella wandering around with a chip reader asking nicely if can check your dog with the central data base, in a simular style to the way the police check to see if you have a licence/insurance to drive a car and with all due respect we all know how well that works. People still have to obey the rules and all the while there's a dont give a feck attitude it will go on, I'm not sure I have an answer but all I can do is not put myself in that situation. I'll continue to train my dogs to the highest standard achievable and hope it becomes the norm with others although I doubt it.
Why should 99.9% of all dog owners have to pay £500 a year to allow 0.01% of dog owners to own the narrow range of breeds that are responsible for 99.9 % of all these horrific attacks over the last 20 years?
I like the theory, so lets put it into practice. Lets put a price on it................. Say £500 per dog to stop undisirables having dogs?? That would cost me thats a £1000. I'd pay that, would you? Policing it??............ Microchip, with the licence attached could work?? So you have a fella wandering around with a chip reader asking nicely if can check your dog with the central data base, in a simular style to the way the police check to see if you have a licence/insurance to drive a car and with all due respect we all know how well that works. People still have to obey the rules and all the while there's a dont give a feck attitude it will go on, I'm not sure I have an answer but all I can do is not put myself in that situation. I'll continue to train my dogs to the highest standard achievable and hope it becomes the norm with others although I doubt it.
Why should 99.9% of all dog owners have to pay £500 a year to allow 0.01% of dog owners to own the narrow range of breeds that are responsible for 99.9 % of all these horrific attacks over the last 20 years?
I agree with the sentiment of this post but unless the "policing" of dogs is at the very least self financing and probably profit making for local authorities I don't see there being any will to make things much better than the poor state we currently find ourselves. Who knows what the maths are to make it work but as a responsible dog owner I would not object to a very significant license fee to make things better. Dog wardens could be very similar to traffic wardens. I think that could work. It still disgusts me to walk around my local parks and open spaces and see the dog filth that is left by owners of dogs that do not have the right to own one. It's bad for my dog and its bad for children. In fact everyone. A fine of £1000 that has a decent chance of being issued might help. I certainly don't have the answers but something has to change.
There are so many dog owners in the country it will be difficult to start-up and implement a system to track and licence every dog and owner without significant cost.
There are so many dog owners in the country it will be difficult to start-up and implement a system to track and licence every dog and owner without significant cost.
Current laws are pretty stringent, if you own any one of four types (not breeds so that cross breeds are covered) of dog - Pit Bull Terriers, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro then they must be muzzled and kept on a lead in public, registered and insured, neutered, tattooed and receive microchip implants etc.
There's no point getting the family pooch registered and licenced.
There are so many dog owners in the country it will be difficult to start-up and implement a system to track and licence every dog and owner without significant cost.
Make a date say six months ahead when every dog must by law be chipped. From that date have wardens checking dogs in parks or anywhere else for that matter. If its not chipped then the dog is confiscated. You can't get the dog chipped unless you have a valid license. From that point on any un chipped or un licences dog is removed from its owner and unless fine and payment is received in say one week the dog is destroyed. OAP's, disabled etc are exempt from licence but not chip.
There are so many dog owners in the country it will be difficult to start-up and implement a system to track and licence every dog and owner without significant cost.
Make a date say six months ahead when every dog must by law be chipped. From that date have wardens checking dogs in parks or anywhere else for that matter. If its not chipped then the dog is confiscated. You can't get the dog chipped unless you have a valid license. From that point on any un chipped or un licences dog is removed from its owner and unless fine and payment is received in say one week the dog is destroyed. OAP's, disabled etc are exempt from licence but not chip.
A little bit extreme to destroy every unchipped dog after a week purely because its owners haven't got iit chipped. What about all the oap dog owners who may not know about/how to chip a dog. Or be able to afford it! Bit extreme that
There are so many dog owners in the country it will be difficult to start-up and implement a system to track and licence every dog and owner without significant cost.
Make a date say six months ahead when every dog must by law be chipped. From that date have wardens checking dogs in parks or anywhere else for that matter. If its not chipped then the dog is confiscated. You can't get the dog chipped unless you have a valid license. From that point on any un chipped or un licences dog is removed from its owner and unless fine and payment is received in say one week the dog is destroyed. OAP's, disabled etc are exempt from licence but not chip.
A little bit extreme to destroy every unchipped dog after a week purely because its owners haven't got iit chipped. What about all the oap dog owners who may not know about/how to chip a dog. Or be able to afford it! Bit extreme that
If there's a will there's a way. Something has to be done. If a dog is confiscated who is going to pay for it to be kept longer than a week or perhaps two ? If quite draconian measures were brought in and well policed I doubt many caring dog owners would get caught out. Anyone that does get caught out doesn't deserve to keep a dog. If you can't afford to get a dog chipped you can't afford a dog. If it was up to me I would make dog health insurance compulsory too.
That's the default position of most owners of nuisance dogs in my experience.
Rather than making decent responsible dog owners suffer bang up the owners of dogs who kill, injure or otherwise terrorise ordinary people going about their daily business.
That might concentrate the minds of the selfish, irresponsible toerags.
That's the default position of most owners of nuisance dogs in my experience.
Rather than making decent responsible dog owners suffer bang up the owners of dogs who kill, injure or otherwise terrorise ordinary people going about their daily business.
That might concentrate the minds of the selfish, irresponsible toerags.
But that means we'd have to wait for an incident to happen before taking the dog away. Surely it's better to (in the larger breeds) require a license so that only responsible people who are committed to raising the dog well can have them.
That's the default position of most owners of nuisance dogs in my experience.
Rather than making decent responsible dog owners suffer bang up the owners of dogs who kill, injure or otherwise terrorise ordinary people going about their daily business.
That might concentrate the minds of the selfish, irresponsible toerags.
But that means we'd have to wait for an incident to happen before taking the dog away. Surely it's better to (in the larger breeds) require a license so that only responsible people who are committed to raising the dog well can have them.
Would that type of person buy a dog licence?
Wasn't evasion the reason dog licences were abolished in the first place?
7s 6d if memory serves me right for a dog licence in the old days!
But that means we'd have to wait for an incident to happen before taking the dog away. Surely it's better to (in the larger breeds) require a license so that only responsible people who are committed to raising the dog well can have them.
I like the theory, so lets put it into practice. Lets put a price on it................. Say £500 per dog to stop undisirables having dogs?? That would cost me thats a £1000. I'd pay that, would you? Policing it??............ Microchip, with the licence attached could work?? So you have a fella wandering around with a chip reader asking nicely if can check your dog with the central data base, in a simular style to the way the police check to see if you have a licence/insurance to drive a car and with all due respect we all know how well that works. People still have to obey the rules and all the while there's a dont give a feck attitude it will go on, I'm not sure I have an answer but all I can do is not put myself in that situation. I'll continue to train my dogs to the highest standard achievable and hope it becomes the norm with others although I doubt it.
Why should 99.9% of all dog owners have to pay £500 a year to allow 0.01% of dog owners to own the narrow range of breeds that are responsible for 99.9 % of all these horrific attacks over the last 20 years?
Possibly the same reason as high % pay huge insurance premiums in all forms the small minority feck it up for everyone else. All dogs will and have bitten, you say a narrow range but in the the past years its been Dobermans, then Rotties, German Shepherds and now the Bully breeds have all been status dogs. I dont want to introduce licencing, especially at £500 per dog but if you made £5 per dog thats not going to work either. Possibly make it illegal to advertise dogs for sale unless from licenced breeders, ban newspapers/freeads/corner shops from from having animals for sale. Any good breeder doesn't need to advertise its all word of mouth, also their puppies will be tattooed, chipped, vaccinated with at least the first jab, registered with the KC and leave with a puppy pack and a four or five generation family tree available to view from the KC. Mum and Dad should been available to view during the first two months of the puppies being born. Anything missing from that list, just walk away. But people dont, they think they are getting a £1000 dog for 200 quid. But the news is you are getting a 200 quid dog for 200 quid and endorsing the dodgy breeders who just breed for the cash and making the health issues with the various breeds so much worse.
I like the theory, so lets put it into practice. Lets put a price on it................. Say £500 per dog to stop undisirables having dogs?? That would cost me thats a £1000. I'd pay that, would you? Policing it??............ Microchip, with the licence attached could work?? So you have a fella wandering around with a chip reader asking nicely if can check your dog with the central data base, in a simular style to the way the police check to see if you have a licence/insurance to drive a car and with all due respect we all know how well that works. People still have to obey the rules and all the while there's a dont give a feck attitude it will go on, I'm not sure I have an answer but all I can do is not put myself in that situation. I'll continue to train my dogs to the highest standard achievable and hope it becomes the norm with others although I doubt it.
Why should 99.9% of all dog owners have to pay £500 a year to allow 0.01% of dog owners to own the narrow range of breeds that are responsible for 99.9 % of all these horrific attacks over the last 20 years?
I agree with the sentiment of this post but unless the "policing" of dogs is at the very least self financing and probably profit making for local authorities I don't see there being any will to make things much better than the poor state we currently find ourselves. Who knows what the maths are to make it work but as a responsible dog owner I would not object to a very significant license fee to make things better. Dog wardens could be very similar to traffic wardens. I think that could work. It still disgusts me to walk around my local parks and open spaces and see the dog filth that is left by owners of dogs that do not have the right to own one. It's bad for my dog and its bad for children. In fact everyone. A fine of £1000 that has a decent chance of being issued might help. I certainly don't have the answers but something has to change.
Is the fine for your dog crapping and you not picking it up around that figure? I base my ignorance on the fact that, if either of my dogs does crap I remove it. As you say, its a disgusting thing to see and there are the various health issues that go along with it. But as a dog owner I am tarred with the same brush as the person that dont remove it and as an owner of large breed, finger pointing goes on when something horrendous does happen. But as I said, I can only what I think is correct with my dogs legally and morally........
That's the default position of most owners of nuisance dogs in my experience.
Rather than making decent responsible dog owners suffer bang up the owners of dogs who kill, injure or otherwise terrorise ordinary people going about their daily business.
That might concentrate the minds of the selfish, irresponsible toerags.
Len, I wont comment on cases I know nothing about. But would guess that a dog may well have been playing in some cases where something has gone wrong and someone has been bitten. I use play while training and yes I do get bitten. Unfortunately a dog interprets our fear usually associated with running away/waving arms/screaming as play. I use exactly the same methods for training.
That's the default position of most owners of nuisance dogs in my experience.
Rather than making decent responsible dog owners suffer bang up the owners of dogs who kill, injure or otherwise terrorise ordinary people going about their daily business.
That might concentrate the minds of the selfish, irresponsible toerags.
But that means we'd have to wait for an incident to happen before taking the dog away. Surely it's better to (in the larger breeds) require a license so that only responsible people who are committed to raising the dog well can have them.
As I've said, if Redmidland and his wife decide to pay a licence fee for their dogs and I decided not too how do you police it? Unless there was some sort of competence test over say 6 weeks with a written test at the end of it. How do you decide whose responsible?
I think this thread is going off topic. Yes, something needs to be done about irresponsible dog owners and the resulting dog mess in the streets and parks, incessant barking and people suffering bites from dogs. But, all of this has nothing to do with the point of this thread which is about the increasing incidence of babies, children and now defenceless frail elderly people been mauled to death in horrific sustained attacks by weapon dogs. In my mind these are two completely different debates.
Doesn't need to have competence involved at all. You make a dog license at a fee that will pay for the policing of the scheme with the introduction of dog wardens employed by local authorities in the same model as traffic wardens. The new dog wardens will patrol parks and streets within the borough and be able to challenge dog owners and read the compulsory chips. The dog owner has then to produce a valid licence on the spot or within fourteen days at town hall or wherever. No license or chip and big fine and dog removed. It's so simple but its expensive to run. Tough. I love my dog and would happily comply with what I have written. Much harder to police is the issue surrounding dog fouling but once the new "draconian" dog license scheme has scared off all the bad dog owners the problem should also improve.
I think this thread is going off topic. Yes, something needs to be done about irresponsible dog owners and the resulting dog mess in the streets and parks, incessant barking and people suffering bites from dogs. But, all of this has nothing to do with the point of this thread which is about the increasing incidence of babies, children and now defenceless frail elderly people been mauled to death in horrific sustained attacks by weapon dogs. In my mind these are two completely different debates.
And with respect, I think you'll find the connection is the other end of the lead. If they made my favoured breed of dog as you phrased it a weapon dog (I assume your talking about the banned breeds?) and made illegal to own, no matter how much it hurt I would have to let them go (or immigrate) thats because its would be the law and no matter what I thought its there to be obeyed. Some as in all walks of life chose to ignore the law and hopefully will pay the price for their decision. Unfortunately its normally the innocent that get hurt, but until people accept that if they carry a gun/knife, having a dangerous dog, drive while drunk, people will continue to die. Its called taking responsibility for your own actions. but that in my mind thats a completely different debate.
I think this thread is going off topic. Yes, something needs to be done about irresponsible dog owners and the resulting dog mess in the streets and parks, incessant barking and people suffering bites from dogs. But, all of this has nothing to do with the point of this thread which is about the increasing incidence of babies, children and now defenceless frail elderly people been mauled to death in horrific sustained attacks by weapon dogs. In my mind these are two completely different debates.
But surely it is the same debate. We have a problem in this country with dogs. It is a broad problem that at worst results in the incidents you cite but the problem is bigger than that one terrible aspect. In order to address the weapon dogs and the dangerous breeds and the morons walking around with status dogs and the scum that train and fight dogs we have to address the dog issue as a whole. That includes the dog mess and other anti social aspects of some dog ownership.
This is why a baby should never be left in a room alone with an animal, I mean dogs or cats, they can get jealous just like an older sibling could. However, the article reads that it was a case for neglect, one can only assume from this that the baby was left in a room with a dog that they either knew was dangerous or was an illegal breed. RIP baby girl.
There are no bad dogs, only bad owners. You treat and train any dog properly, with love and respect, to behave and not become vicious, and it will not be a threat to anyone - there's thousands of years of breeding to create this specific reaction. That said, leaving a dog alone with a small child is also irresponsible on the part of an owner. As Sadie says, they can get jealous, and quite apart from which, seeing something small, fleshy and vulnerable might trigger innate instincts. I would still put the onus on the owners to make sure this does not happen though.
There are no bad dogs, only bad owners. You treat and train any dog properly, with love and respect, to behave and not become vicious, and it will not be a threat to anyone - there's thousands of years of breeding to create this specific reaction. That said, leaving a dog alone with a small child is also irresponsible on the part of an owner. As Sadie says, they can get jealous, and quite apart from which, seeing something small, fleshy and vulnerable might trigger innate instincts. I would still put the onus on the owners to make sure this does not happen though.
Haven't you just contradicted yourself.
You appear to be saying they dogs can't control their innate instincts to attack a small baby. In which case why are these inherently dangerous creatures allowed out in public.
some dogs are vicious and there are a lot of bad owners. Just as we try to licence and insure people who drive ("there are no bad cars, only bad drivers") because they are potentially dangerous we need to control and licence all dogs.
Yes RIP. But just to put it into context there have been 17 deaths (presumably 18 now and the stats don't say how many kids) due to dog attacks in the UK since 2005. Statistics don't seem very reliable but that compares with a bare minimum of one child per week in the UK killed by their parents and perhaps as many as three or four. Perhaps the priority should be to licence/chip parents? Many of them clearly aren't fit to raise a child.
There are no bad dogs, only bad owners. You treat and train any dog properly, with love and respect, to behave and not become vicious, and it will not be a threat to anyone - there's thousands of years of breeding to create this specific reaction. That said, leaving a dog alone with a small child is also irresponsible on the part of an owner. As Sadie says, they can get jealous, and quite apart from which, seeing something small, fleshy and vulnerable might trigger innate instincts. I would still put the onus on the owners to make sure this does not happen though.
Haven't you just contradicted yourself.
You appear to be saying they dogs can't control their innate instincts to attack a small baby. In which case why are these inherently dangerous creatures allowed out in public.
some dogs are vicious and there are a lot of bad owners. Just as we try to licence and insure people who drive ("there are no bad cars, only bad drivers") because they are potentially dangerous we need to control and licence all dogs.
RIP to the little girl. How many more?
If you're going to licence anyone then it should be owners rather than dogs.
If you were to licence a dog (which would presumably amount to passing it off as safe) and then let the wrong person take ownership of it then that person could quite easily spend the next few months training it into a snarling brute that tries to attack everyone it sees.
No dog is born aggressive or evil or vicious, they end up that way by being poorly treated or by owners deliberately training them to be that way. I have lost count of the amount of times I've seen idiotic wannabe hardmen in Mountsfield Park getting their Staffies to hang from tree branches in order to strengthen their jaws. That's not the dog's fault.
Whilst the consequences are obviously much more severe, it is really no different from seeing a badly behaved child. If you see a 5 year old boy punching all the other kids at school then you think he's been badly brought up, you don't think he was born aggressive and violent. It's exactly the same with dogs.
It's very unfortunate, and quite unfair, that the overwhelming majority of responsible dog owners have to defend themselves (and their dogs) against generalised criticism because of the actions of people like those responsible for the latest tragic story.
We do this damned thread every year and every year nothing changes. Dogs are inherently dangerous and people are inherently stupid. The combination of the two will invariably lead to this tragic situation.
Dogs, all dogs need to be licenced. Dogs, all dogs need to be muzzled in public. Dogs, all dogs need to be kept on a lead when in public. Dogs, all dogs must be chipped. Dogs, all dogs must be insured.
The licence needs to be expensive enough to completely fund the policing of all of the above by local authority dog wardens with powers of arrest. The fines should be draconian. Penalties for an owner whose dog injures someone should be severe.
The difference is that some breeds of dog have been specifically bred to be violent and aggressive. You can't 'breed' aggressive children.
It's an unwinnable argument though - like gun laws in America. You can no more 'unmake' violent dog breeds than you can 'unmake' guns - the genie is out of the bottle.
Comments
http://content.met.police.uk/Site/firearmslicensingfees
There's no point getting the family pooch registered and licenced.
That's the default position of most owners of nuisance dogs in my experience.
Rather than making decent responsible dog owners suffer bang up the owners of dogs who kill, injure or otherwise terrorise ordinary people going about their daily business.
That might concentrate the minds of the selfish, irresponsible toerags.
Wasn't evasion the reason dog licences were abolished in the first place?
7s 6d if memory serves me right for a dog licence in the old days!
The Dangerous Dogs Act covers that...
I dont want to introduce licencing, especially at £500 per dog but if you made £5 per dog thats not going to work either.
Possibly make it illegal to advertise dogs for sale unless from licenced breeders, ban newspapers/freeads/corner shops from from having animals for sale.
Any good breeder doesn't need to advertise its all word of mouth, also their puppies will be tattooed, chipped, vaccinated with at least the first jab, registered with the KC and leave with a puppy pack and a four or five generation family tree available to view from the KC. Mum and Dad should been available to view during the first two months of the puppies being born. Anything missing from that list, just walk away. But people dont, they think they are getting a £1000 dog for 200 quid. But the news is you are getting a 200 quid dog for 200 quid and endorsing the dodgy breeders who just breed for the cash and making the health issues with the various breeds so much worse.
I base my ignorance on the fact that, if either of my dogs does crap I remove it.
As you say, its a disgusting thing to see and there are the various health issues that go along with it. But as a dog owner I am tarred with the same brush as the person that dont remove it and as an owner of large breed, finger pointing goes on when something horrendous does happen. But as I said, I can only what I think is correct with my dogs legally and morally........
Unless there was some sort of competence test over say 6 weeks with a written test at the end of it. How do you decide whose responsible?
If they made my favoured breed of dog as you phrased it a weapon dog (I assume your talking about the banned breeds?) and made illegal to own, no matter how much it hurt I would have to let them go (or immigrate) thats because its would be the law and no matter what I thought its there to be obeyed. Some as in all walks of life chose to ignore the law and hopefully will pay the price for their decision. Unfortunately its normally the innocent that get hurt, but until people accept that if they carry a gun/knife, having a dangerous dog, drive while drunk, people will continue to die. Its called taking responsibility for your own actions. but that in my mind thats a completely different debate.
An 11-month-old baby girl has died after she was mauled by a pet dog in Lancashire, police said.
The baby was taken to hospital from Emily Street, in Blackburn at 23:00 GMT on Monday where she died.
Haven't you just contradicted yourself.
You appear to be saying they dogs can't control their innate instincts to attack a small baby. In which case why are these inherently dangerous creatures allowed out in public.
some dogs are vicious and there are a lot of bad owners. Just as we try to licence and insure people who drive ("there are no bad cars, only bad drivers") because they are potentially dangerous we need to control and licence all dogs.
RIP to the little girl. How many more?
If you were to licence a dog (which would presumably amount to passing it off as safe) and then let the wrong person take ownership of it then that person could quite easily spend the next few months training it into a snarling brute that tries to attack everyone it sees.
No dog is born aggressive or evil or vicious, they end up that way by being poorly treated or by owners deliberately training them to be that way. I have lost count of the amount of times I've seen idiotic wannabe hardmen in Mountsfield Park getting their Staffies to hang from tree branches in order to strengthen their jaws. That's not the dog's fault.
Whilst the consequences are obviously much more severe, it is really no different from seeing a badly behaved child. If you see a 5 year old boy punching all the other kids at school then you think he's been badly brought up, you don't think he was born aggressive and violent. It's exactly the same with dogs.
It's very unfortunate, and quite unfair, that the overwhelming majority of responsible dog owners have to defend themselves (and their dogs) against generalised criticism because of the actions of people like those responsible for the latest tragic story.
Dogs, all dogs need to be licenced. Dogs, all dogs need to be muzzled in public. Dogs, all dogs need to be kept on a lead when in public. Dogs, all dogs must be chipped. Dogs, all dogs must be insured.
The licence needs to be expensive enough to completely fund the policing of all of the above by local authority dog wardens with powers of arrest. The fines should be draconian. Penalties for an owner whose dog injures someone should be severe.
Dangerous breeds should all be destroyed.
Will anything be done ? I doubt it.
It's an unwinnable argument though - like gun laws in America. You can no more 'unmake' violent dog breeds than you can 'unmake' guns - the genie is out of the bottle.