...can anyone tell me how
this:
Spokeswoman Jude Clay said: 'The RSPCA believes that a dangerous dog is not defined by breed.
'We believe that a lot of the issues related to dangerous dogs could be tackled with the introduction of a properly enforced dog licence which would raise funds to plough into problems such as injuries from dog bites, dog control and responsible pet ownership.'
...could
possibly have prevented this:
The attack took place on Saturday when Joshua was at his grandparents' farm in Andoversford, near Cheltenham.
'Joshua was stroking the sheep dog, Rossie, when she jumped up and latched onto his face. Rossie pulled him to the ground and wouldn't release him,' Miss Mann said.
Because I can't, for the life of me, see how this would
not have happened had Farmer Giles had a piece of paper with Rossie's name and breed on it, having forked over yet more money to the government...
The RSPCA really have gone over to the Dark Side, havent they?
ReplyDeleteLook you stupid woman, we used to have Dog Licences, for all the good they did, and it cost more money to collect than it generated. That's why they were scrapped.
So they wouldn't generate one penny for your "Pet" schemes.
As for the incident you mention Julia, just one of those horrible things that happen I'm afraid.
You are never completely sure of a dog. Friends of mine had a happy little mongrel that seemed no danger to anything. Then they had their first child. The dog got jealous of it's lack of status in the "Pack" all of a sudden, and it attacked the baby.
A licence would have been no use, they actually had one.
"The RSPCA really have gone over to the Dark Side, havent they?"
ReplyDeleteI don't think there's any doubt about it.
And they wouldn't worry overmuch about whether the license scheme would generate money. It's noy about money. It's about control, as it ALWAYS is with these people...
"You are never completely sure of a dog."
To far, far too many people, it isn't an animal - it's a small human in a fur coat.