Four Rottweilers that escaped from their garden and killed an eight-year-old's pet rabbits are on dog death row.Yup, this is the case I blogged earlier.
… Chelmsford Borough Council decided they were dangerous and seized them on Friday.
The council has now applied to Chelmsford Magistrates Court to have them destroyed.There’s no mention of any further attacks, so one can only assume that the publicity that this earlier case generated was too much for the council.
It seems that, unless you get some press behind you, nothing will be done.
Mrs White will appear in court on October 11, to face magistrates over the fate of her dogs.One to watch.
Back when I was a kid our dog got out and killed some chickens at a neighbour's. My parents took him straight around to the vet to be killed. No if's ,buts, nor excuses.
Broke all our hearts and I haven't been able to eat a Curly Wurly since (I was brought one by my distraught parents to console me).
Even thinking about that dog now hurts-even after decades. BUT I know my parents were absolutely right. Any 'pet' (as opposed to working) dog that worries or kills any livestock for whatever reason-be that reason bad training or doggy psychosis- has to be killed asap. It's never the dog's own fault but the risk that they'll attack a child the next time is just too great.
If the owner was at all responsible or a good owner she'd have had the four dogs killed on the spot. In countries with saner gun laws she'd have put a bullet in their heads herself...although judging by her care of her dogs she is the last person who should be trusted with an even deadly weapon.
*edit "even deadlier weapon" (jus' soes yer noes I h'ain't totally h'illiterate like)
+ The pedigree inbreeding over the last 20 years has produced dogs which, from limited observation, are highly resisitant to training and are mentally very unpredictable even when responsible owners think they are under control.
It is even harder for these well-meaning people to accept that their companion dog has become unstable and has got to be always leashed and probably muzzled.
"It's never the dog's own fault but the risk that they'll attack a child the next time is just too great."
The principle that a dog is 'allowed one bite' is a pretty dangerous one to adopt.
"The pedigree inbreeding over the last 20 years has produced dogs which, from limited observation, are highly resisitant to training and are mentally very unpredictable..."
Yup, you're better off with a 'Heinz 57' these days.
Strict liability for dog owners would do the trick. Treat any action by the dog as if the owner had carried it out with a gun.
Won't happen but should.
Why are guns banned but attack dogs aren't? You can't overthrow the government with attack dogs.
If a dog kills a rabbit that is no evidence in itself of any propensity to turn nasty against people. It is in its nature to chase small animals, and also in its nature to accept training from its human master.
A few points here, Gallo, care to elaborate on precisely what you perceive as an "Attack dog"?
Pure breed v Mongrel, Having had some experience in the field of "Selective breeding to improve livestock, some of the comments on the face of both sides of the argument have an element of truth.
The in breeding of livestock can and does improve, but you have to start with the best stock you can afford, and be ruthless with your selection of breeding stock. In breeding brings out not only the best, but also some of the worst characteristics that you're looking for.
You would then cross them with another unrelated strain of the same breed and once again select the best for breeding.
There's also the going down the road of crossing 2 or sometimes 3 of a different breed. this produces in some (but not all cases) something called "Hybrid vigor". Breeding from these 2-3 way crosses don't breed to type and the offspring usually end up all shapes sizes and colours and are basically mongrels, which obviates the point of crossing in the first place.
This belief that all mongrels are somehow genetically superior to purebred stuff is a fallacy, as the mongrels may well have *ALL* the genetic defects of all the stock they're derived from.
"If a dog kills a rabbit that is no evidence in itself of any propensity to turn nasty against people."
Thousands of years of collective humans-keeping-dogs experience says differently I'm afraid.
...because a child isn't 'people' in the dog's eyes just another small not so furry animal.
"Strict liability for dog owners would do the trick. "
It would for those that feared the law, and the consequences of a criminal record. But how many now do?
"... and are basically mongrels, which obviates the point of crossing in the first place. "
I've noticed how many of the current 'designer dogs' - puggles, labradoodles - are, basically, mongrels!
Post a Comment