Attacks on guide dogs by other dogs have reached a new high, a charity warned today.
The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which breeds and trains dogs for the blind and partially sighted, said more than eight attacks are being reported each month.Yes, it’s a problem. And not one confined just to guide dogs.
It’s also a problem for other service animals and valuable livestock. I’m guessing they don’t have charity mouthpieces to speak for them, though?
Still, maybe they’ve something helpful to suggest to deal with this problem?
The charity is urging the Government to introduce compulsory microchipping for all dogs to protect the vulnerable and control aggressive animals.WTF?
They do realise that the microchipping doesn’t actually prevent an attack, don't they?
And won’t, until someone finds a way to stick the chip in the dog’s head and give us all a universal remote!
But that’s not the worst of it:
Mr Cowdrey called on the police to take more decisive action when a guide dog is attacked.
He said: 'Ultimately we want them to be given the power to treat an attack on a guide dog or any other assistance dog like an attack on a person.'No, no, no, no!
Good grief, I don’t subscribe to the view that there’s a ‘wave of hatred for the disabled’ (as evinced in some corners) but when they urge for special circumstances to apply to them and them only, it makes me want to kick a cripple...
I agree that the RNIB is a typical OTT response and will do nothing to help.
ReplyDeleteThe only solution is vigorous enforcement of the law. No new laws are required. It won't happen of course the police are too busy on irrelevances and even if the police do enforce the law the courts won't.
However do have sympathy for the victims, they are the one innocent party in all this.
I remember taking my mum, with her guide dog, for a walk one day and a dog shot out from nowhere and lept on her guide dog. The guide dog was such a quiet animal he just stood there while I tried to stop the attack (no machete at hand). Eventually the owner arrived and got his dog under control and said he just wanted to play. Of course no chance of getting any details. No point reporting the incident. Got a badly shaken mother home and the dog to a vet.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCome off it, Julia. You're letting yourself down here.
ReplyDeleteBeing blind isn't a move in Victimhood Poker. It's a genuine disability.
Ok, a dog can't be blamed spoecifically for attacking a guide dog, as it doesn't know what a guide dog is. But there was a report on Look East last night- sorry, can't find any link- about a "human" inciting his dog to attack a guide dog.
I for one would be happy to see that sort of thing treated with the same severity as an assault on a human.
I agree microchipping is completely beside the point.
XX a "human" inciting his dog to attack a guide dog. XX
ReplyDeleteBlind it. The "human" I mean.
Courts are just not harsh enough and are severly lacking any creative ability when sentencing.
Microchip the lot I say and mine are done in case of a Great Escape effort. How to cut dog attacks drastically and go a long way to prevent it happening in the first place ..in one fell swoop ? Easy - pass legislation that states ALL dogs must be kept on a lead on a lead AT ALL TIMES in public places and gardens and yards must be secure.
ReplyDeleteA couple of intensive crackdowns on belligerent offenders should get message across fast and deter others.
Dog wardens to round up strays anywhere and fine owners.
Y'know...like it used to be. When I was a kid you never saw anyone "walking" their dog unless it was on a lead and we were taught never ever to approach a dog that wasn't on a lead.
Our own family mutt escaped three times due to my demon-child little brother not closing the front door properly and my dad was fined every time due to the tag with the dogs name and our phone number on it.
Simple measures were so effective so why not still use them. How hard does this need to be, really.
I dunno maybe they've made a chip that can help with dog attacks...
ReplyDeletePerhaps like a chip that can throw an invisible force field around the victim, rendering attack impossible?
Or perhaps a chip that jumps out of the victims net and beats the crap out of the chavvie-pitbull within an inch of it's shitty life - and then does the owner for good measure too.
Or perhaps a chip which is a secret PCSO which will arrest the attacker, capture it's DNA and photographic evidence?
We just need one of these things to be invented. Until then the chipping idea is (I think this is the correct legal term) "utter bollocks"
Why not simply make it compulsory for all dogs to be muzzled whenever in public places ?
ReplyDeleteThe cost of muzzles would be borne by the owners (just as leads or micro-chipping would be) ..
And make the fines for having an un-muzzled dog in a public place, eye-wateringly steep .. with further, more drastic penalties for repeat offenders ?
Captain Haddock said... Why not simply make it compulsory for all dogs to be muzzled whenever in public places ?
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with that simply for the fact that it gives an unmuzzled, on-the-attack dog a massively unfair advantage. Your own dog couldn't fight back and try to protect itself (or you).
Also that it can be difficult to fit a muzzle a dog with a small or non-existent snout and they can restrict the breathing or ability to pant of larger dogs...so basically not all could physically be muzzled.
Anyone enforcing this measure would need to be pretty close up to the dog to even see the muzzle whereas a dog off is something it's lead is something even the doziest fuckwit of a PCSO could spot a mile away. ;)
Should read *a dog off it's lead is something...
ReplyDeleteMade a mess of that sorry, tired :S
"The only solution is vigorous enforcement of the law. No new laws are required."
ReplyDeleteAgreed! But, it seems, we're going to get one anyway, because people are incapable of learning...
"Being blind isn't a move in Victimhood Poker. It's a genuine disability. "
Yes, but the term 'Victimhood Poker' doesn't refer to imaginary ailments, but to the 'oneupmanship' used to get something no-one else can get. Which is what the charity is demanding.
"Y'know...like it used to be. When I was a kid you never saw anyone "walking" their dog unless it was on a lead..."
I can dimly remember a few. But, on the subject of teaching children about dogs, well, there's a post coming up on that...
"Why not simply make it compulsory for all dogs to be muzzled whenever in public places ?"
ReplyDeleteWell, as Tatty points out, it's not 100% effective (neither is a leash, if the beast is stronger than the owner) and besides, it's collective punishment.
No commentary from Mr Blunkett as he did last time?
ReplyDeleteI had my Rhodesian Ridgeback chipped as it was required for both kennel club registration and the accompanying insurance, to say nothing of the pet passport. Never put a muzzle on her but did have a Halty as she was inclined to pull which is not great if you have a bad leg, and that did the trick.
ReplyDeleteI would not have liked either of those things to be made compulsory as the nosey parkers have too much to moan about as it is.
Robert - I've boxers...a big red boy that pulls like a train and little brindle girl that trots happy. A halty on the red couldn't be too tight or it restricted him panting and his snubby nose meant it just slipped off if he dragged backwards...which he quickly worked out :(
ReplyDeleteBack to an ordinairy lead, a right arm like Popeye resulted so now working on building up the left LOL.
A basic rule of dog-ownership needs to be that if you can't control them while out in public you shouldn't have one, simple as, and I never walk mine in public together precisely because of that.