ChatterBank1 min ago
Dangerous dogs....
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1 246730,00.html
Why does it take the death of a child before we start rounding up these dogs? Is there any legit use for Pit Bulls etc? why can't they just be rounded up and put down? I mean all of them, I can't imagine any possible reason to own one except for the disgusting activity of dog fighting. They cannot become pets, they are a menace to the public.
Why does it take the death of a child before we start rounding up these dogs? Is there any legit use for Pit Bulls etc? why can't they just be rounded up and put down? I mean all of them, I can't imagine any possible reason to own one except for the disgusting activity of dog fighting. They cannot become pets, they are a menace to the public.
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Loosehead. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
the dogs can be dangerous though it really depends on their owners, my friend had one and it was the most docile dog i ever knew, more people are bit by smaller dogs, its just that do not do as much damage, i'm sure more people are killed by vending machines than these dogs ( same as sharks too) so do we ban them, how many people are killed by cars too, do we ban them, i'm not trying to be sarcastic, i just think there is a fine line between banning someting for our own saftey, and a nanny state
these dogs were dealt with by the governments dangerous dogs act which was supposed to see the gradual extinction in britain of american pit bulls and 4 other breeds of dogs [neopolitan mastiff, dogo argentinia, fila brasilia and 1 that i cant remember] that were deemed as dangerous. unfortunately the dog fighting community operate outside the law so they say their dogs are staffies or cross breeds which buys them enough time to earn some money from them before they are dealt with.
its a bit like banning poaching
the japenese tosa is one but the neapolitan mastiff might not be
anyway i feel staffordshire bull terriers will cop some of the flack even though they are one of the best breeds to have around children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Dogs_Ac t_1991
its a bit like banning poaching
the japenese tosa is one but the neapolitan mastiff might not be
anyway i feel staffordshire bull terriers will cop some of the flack even though they are one of the best breeds to have around children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Dogs_Ac t_1991
All dogs can be dangerous - its the owners who have these dogs who cannot handle or train them properly. Whilst some owners are very responsible with their dogs others are just downright pratts. Of course the idiots who breed these dogs for fighting should be used as bait for these dogs. Laws and common sense dont make any difference to these people They might not be as keen once they have have a good bite on the ar*e a few times!!
As ever youngmafbog you talk the greatest nonsense.
I thought the great complaint was that the police were not patrolling the roads as much now that speed cameras were doing their work for them - and the Police are hardly jumping up and down to enforce "hunting with hounds" are they?
Such drivell!
To get back to Looseheads actual question, one of the biggest problems with the original dangerous dogs act was proving that a particular dog was or was not covered by the law. Was it a cross or a part cross etc. It all got very difficult to enforce and although there was an ammendment in 1997 I don't think many politicians will want to hurry to produce dog legislation because of it's association with bad lawmaking.
However I think somebody in Animals and Nature mentioned that in Germany there's a law requiring owners of any dog over a certain size and weight to be licensed http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Animals-and-Nat ure/Question343371.html which might be a way forward but it wouldn't cover bulldogs for example
I thought the great complaint was that the police were not patrolling the roads as much now that speed cameras were doing their work for them - and the Police are hardly jumping up and down to enforce "hunting with hounds" are they?
Such drivell!
To get back to Looseheads actual question, one of the biggest problems with the original dangerous dogs act was proving that a particular dog was or was not covered by the law. Was it a cross or a part cross etc. It all got very difficult to enforce and although there was an ammendment in 1997 I don't think many politicians will want to hurry to produce dog legislation because of it's association with bad lawmaking.
However I think somebody in Animals and Nature mentioned that in Germany there's a law requiring owners of any dog over a certain size and weight to be licensed http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Animals-and-Nat ure/Question343371.html which might be a way forward but it wouldn't cover bulldogs for example
Yes all dogs can bite, I'm not talking about a single nip or a bite, the dogs in question do not stop after a bite they are relentless, I read of a case where a US pit bull in the US had to be shot 4 times before it stopped. That's what I'm talking about people, there can be no legitimate use for them, they are not even used as guard dogs because they are not controllable.
As you and chitchat say, it's not just "dangerous dogs" that are dangerous. Many dogs can suddenly turn on you.
But even when they're being friendly they're a big nuisance - jumping up at you and slobbering all over you. Walking along a footpath the other day, a large dog jumped up at me, tail wagging, and got muddy paw prints all over my clothes.
I've got two young children and they get quite scared when dogs lurch at them, even if the dog is being friendly. We had a model radio control plane chewed up by a "friendly" dog!
And not mention all the poo!
My local council tried to introduce a law last year that dogs should be kept on a lead in public places but there was such a protest that the council watered the rules down. There is just a requirement now for leads near a road (which of course many dog owners ignore anyway).
I have become really anti-dog whether dangerous or not.
But even when they're being friendly they're a big nuisance - jumping up at you and slobbering all over you. Walking along a footpath the other day, a large dog jumped up at me, tail wagging, and got muddy paw prints all over my clothes.
I've got two young children and they get quite scared when dogs lurch at them, even if the dog is being friendly. We had a model radio control plane chewed up by a "friendly" dog!
And not mention all the poo!
My local council tried to introduce a law last year that dogs should be kept on a lead in public places but there was such a protest that the council watered the rules down. There is just a requirement now for leads near a road (which of course many dog owners ignore anyway).
I have become really anti-dog whether dangerous or not.
Jake, your entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.
I think the problem is determining whether or not a dog falls into the 'dangerous' category. Whilst some fall easily into it others may not.
I have two boxers. One is placid and easy going, the other has shown so much agression I am in contact with the vet and an ex-police dog handler who specializes in dog aggression. One thing my wife and I are considering is putting the dog down and this still may have to be the case. What I am trying to highlight is that you cannot necessarily differentiate by breed.
Much of this comes down to the owners. I consider myself a responsible owners, I carry poo-bags (and use them) and always keep the dogs on leads, with the aggressive one appropiatly muzzled and I never let my dogs jump up at passers by. Much of the problem with 'pets' is that the dog looses its place in the hierarchy and so the owner, who should be the alpha, looses control.
I agree with Loosehead that some breeds are totally unecessary and these ones should be removed. However I dont think that would be the end of stories we have seen recently. I also dont think going on weight has much to do with it either unless your just excuding 'handbag' dogs
I think the problem is determining whether or not a dog falls into the 'dangerous' category. Whilst some fall easily into it others may not.
I have two boxers. One is placid and easy going, the other has shown so much agression I am in contact with the vet and an ex-police dog handler who specializes in dog aggression. One thing my wife and I are considering is putting the dog down and this still may have to be the case. What I am trying to highlight is that you cannot necessarily differentiate by breed.
Much of this comes down to the owners. I consider myself a responsible owners, I carry poo-bags (and use them) and always keep the dogs on leads, with the aggressive one appropiatly muzzled and I never let my dogs jump up at passers by. Much of the problem with 'pets' is that the dog looses its place in the hierarchy and so the owner, who should be the alpha, looses control.
I agree with Loosehead that some breeds are totally unecessary and these ones should be removed. However I dont think that would be the end of stories we have seen recently. I also dont think going on weight has much to do with it either unless your just excuding 'handbag' dogs
I agree with DavidUK. I, and my children have been 'threatened' by dogs on several occasions and I have been bitten twice while walking down the street.
When you ask a dog owner to keep their animal away from you a look of hatred and disgust appears on their face. They think everyone should love their filthy animals. I like many animals, but have grown to hate dogs. What other 'pet' kills it's owner or family members? The worst damage our cat has inflicted is a light scratch when playing. There is no aggression, no worry of will it suddenly turn rabid and attack someone for no obvious reason.
I accept that seeing and hearing dogs perform a useful role, but would like the other 99% got rid of.
When you ask a dog owner to keep their animal away from you a look of hatred and disgust appears on their face. They think everyone should love their filthy animals. I like many animals, but have grown to hate dogs. What other 'pet' kills it's owner or family members? The worst damage our cat has inflicted is a light scratch when playing. There is no aggression, no worry of will it suddenly turn rabid and attack someone for no obvious reason.
I accept that seeing and hearing dogs perform a useful role, but would like the other 99% got rid of.
i have read some dog fighting literature and the overwhelming emphasis is breeding the gamest dog to the gamest bitch for countless generations. animals which can play happily amongst children all of their lives but the mere sight of another dog would send them into a squealing rage and so programmed that they would fight battles of up to 5 hrs long, suffering massive crippling injuries and yet be excessivly keen to continue to rip rend and destroy
there are bloodlines of these dogs going back 300 years
its easy to ban dogfighting but how do you tell the dogs
there are bloodlines of these dogs going back 300 years
its easy to ban dogfighting but how do you tell the dogs
Here are some personal incidences:
I was bitten by a neighbour's dog when I was a child (40 odd years ago).
When I was a teenager I rode a motor scooter and every time I went down the road a horrible little dog chased me snapping at my ankles and eventually, one day, he got his teeth into my trousers and I was dragging him along until I kicked him off.
My brother-in-law's dog went for me but missed and then subsequently went on to bite a neighbour ("it's alright, he won't hurt you!").
I don't remember it, but when I was a baby my parent's had a dog but they had to get rid of it because it kept trying to bite the postman etc.
Despite all of this, I wasn't really anti-dog until now - since having children.
Why anyone wants to keep one of these dirty, smelly, slobbering, barking, expensive, dangerous animals in their house completely baffles me. Perhaps it's that they need to know that there's at least one creature in the world that loves them.
OK - rant over!
I was bitten by a neighbour's dog when I was a child (40 odd years ago).
When I was a teenager I rode a motor scooter and every time I went down the road a horrible little dog chased me snapping at my ankles and eventually, one day, he got his teeth into my trousers and I was dragging him along until I kicked him off.
My brother-in-law's dog went for me but missed and then subsequently went on to bite a neighbour ("it's alright, he won't hurt you!").
I don't remember it, but when I was a baby my parent's had a dog but they had to get rid of it because it kept trying to bite the postman etc.
Despite all of this, I wasn't really anti-dog until now - since having children.
Why anyone wants to keep one of these dirty, smelly, slobbering, barking, expensive, dangerous animals in their house completely baffles me. Perhaps it's that they need to know that there's at least one creature in the world that loves them.
OK - rant over!
Would you keep a wolf in your house? I suspect not! But the dog is a distant relative of the wolf and has the same instincts. Then why do we do it?
http://www.furlongspetsupply.com/dogs_and_wolv es.htm
http://www.furlongspetsupply.com/dogs_and_wolv es.htm
1 to 14 of 14
