For instance, type of 'pet':
American bulldogs are strong, stocky dogs, which have been kept as pets in the UK and around the world for centuries.
A male dog weighs about 45 kilograms when fully grown, and lives for between 10 and 15 years if healthy.
American bulldogs are not on the government's banned dogs list, which is made up of four breeds of dog which it is illegal to own or sell. They are often confused with pit bull terriers, which are on the banned list.Conditions in which it was kept:
The dog is believed to have been kept in a wooden outhouse at the side of the property, which was yesterday being examined by forensic officers.
Neighbour Scott Nowell, 19, who called the police after realising what had happened, said: ‘They have only had the dog about a week because we heard it barking.’And type of owner:
Jade Dunne, 29, who lives in the house is understood to have been arrested for allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control and remains in police custody.
She is believed to have four children, including one young son around the same age as Dexter, who was heard screaming by neighbours during the horrific attack.The demand for collective punishment, because a chihuahua owned by a 70 year old lady or a collie owned by a working farmer is exactly the same as a four-legged status dog/weapon kept by a chav:
The Labour MP Barry Sheerman, who represents Huddersfield, called for a new system of dog licensing...
...
He said: “These two deaths in four days mean we have got to seriously look at the evidence of a proper licensing system for dogs. Other parts of the world do it so much better than us.”
...
“My son recently homed two kittens from Battersea Dogs & Cats Home. There was a rigorous interview, a rigorous check on background and a home visit. Why can’t we have a dog licence system of that quality up and down the country?”It could have been any one of the 356 posts I've written on this subject (minus - so far! - the police or local council indifference), couldn't it?
8 comments:
I'm going to start what I'm going to say with the fact that I'm a dog owner and I love dogs, and generally speaking consider there are few dangerous dogs, just dangerous owners.
BUT. Something has got to give on this dog owning issue. Its getting completely out of hand. There is no need to have dogs like these ones as pets in small domestic settings. There are a myriad of breeds that make perfect pets, and never are involved in incidents like this.
I think the time has come to bring back dog licences. Microchipping of dogs has made keeping tabs on exactly who owns and is responsible for a dog perfectly feasible, and I would make a new licence not specific to just a person, I would make it specific to both a person and a property. Thus if anyone registers a dog to a property, and that dog attacks someone and the licence is revoked, it covers anyone else at that address too, until the original person moves house. This would stop the 'its not my dog its the girlfriends', or 'I'm looking after it for a mate' scenarios.
I also think there should be restrictions of what dogs may be kept in houses with small children in them, and all of the aggressive breeds should be muzzled at all times in public.
All of this could be tied into the licence, which could be removed for breaches of the law. Owning a dog is a privilege and shouldn't be used as some sort of 'statement' about what a hard nut you are. If thats the reason you want a dog then you shouldn't be allowed to have one IMO.
Yes it is mostly the owner. But then how many people have you heard of being savaged by a poodle? Some breeds are just more likely to cause serious injury.
No easy answer. Luckily fatal dog attacks are rare. Licensing might be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. On what grounds would licence be refused? In many cases it might just be locking the stable door etc after an attack.
"On what grounds would licence be refused?"
Initially none, unless you have existing relevant convictions. But once you have a register, and people get struck off from being allowed to own a dog you would slowly start to prevent the wrong sort of people being able to own a dog. A licencing system would also create a revenue stream to pay for dog wardens in every area who could police the system, and that would also start to winnow out the wrong sort of dog owner. Basically any new system needs to concentrate on eliminating the wrong sort of dog owner, not on the dogs themselves so much.
Though I would also outlaw the entire pitbull/staffie class of dog. There is no practical need for such dogs, they are fighting dogs, they have no positive working role at all. If a family pet is all you want there's plenty of non-aggressive breeds. The vast majority of the owners of such dogs get them as a fashion statement, as a signal they they are some sort of hard case. Which needs to be prevented.
"Though I would also outlaw the entire pitbull/staffie class of dog. There is no practical need for such dogs, they are fighting dogs, they have no positive working role at all. If a family pet is all you want there's plenty of non-aggressive breeds."
Bollocks. I've kept these dogs for most of my life and naturally they are a placid loving breed and make good family pets. And what does a 'working role' have to do with a family pet?
There's a lot of misinformation about these breeds, they were bred as fighting dogs and so have the strength and capability and it is those things that the vile kind of owners take advantage of. That's why you don't see poodle attacks. But the dogs are not naturally nasty unless TAUGHT to be.
Also, pitbulls are already outlawed and to own one requires registration that means jumping through multiple hoops. Microchipping is now mandatory for all dogs.
I don't happen to want a poodle. I own pitbulls and staffies because I like the breed. They have been kept to strict regimes (as I would with any breed) and my children have grown up with them without any problems. Does that make me a 'chav'?
I also see no mention of the breeds that, over the years have made the greatest number of attacks, Rottweilers and German Shepherds. I wonder why..
" And what does a 'working role' have to do with a family pet?"
What I meant was there is no practical reason for having a pitbull/Staffie breed, unlike say a collie (sheepdog), or a German Shepherd (guard dog) or spaniel (hunting dog). The only reason is as a family pet, and there are plenty of other breed that can fulfil that role.
"But the dogs are not naturally nasty unless TAUGHT to be"
Precisely. And unfortunately there are plenty of people in society who do exactly that. Which is the problem we are facing, not so much the dogs themselves as the people. And (sadly) as we can't put the people down and eliminate them from the DNA pool, the dogs will have to go instead.
"I also see no mention of the breeds that, over the years have made the greatest number of attacks, Rottweilers and German Shepherds. I wonder why.."
Because I hadn't thought of them either. Rottweillers are certainly ones that perform no real use in society other than as 'hard man' accessories. GSD do have some practical uses and should probably be retained but for strictly controlled ownership, where a need can be shown.
Basically some dog owners will have to suffer because other dog owners are not responsible. We cannot continue down this road of allowing anyone to own virtually any dog they like, whatever their circumstances (massive dogs in tiny flats for example) and whatever their attitude to other people and dogs. As I said I consider owning a dog a privilege, not a right.
"What I meant was there is no practical reason for having a pitbull/Staffie breed, unlike say a collie (sheepdog), or a German Shepherd (guard dog) or spaniel (hunting dog). The only reason is as a family pet, and there are plenty of other breed that can fulfil that role."
Practically every breed originally had a working role, even poodles, if you look into their history. The Kennel Club may breed in different appearances and traits but the original working roles have not been bred out. Staffies are not fighting dogs but hunting dogs. American Pitbulls were originally bred from Staffies and American Bulldogs, giving them the agility of the terrier and the strength of the bulldog. It may surprise you to find that the American Pitbull's working role was originally as catch dogs in America for semi wild cattle and pigs, and today they successfully fill roles as Police dogs and therapy dogs, whilst the Staffie is a recognised companion dog.
As far as you idea of a licencing system goes, I think that is an excellent idea and would hit the right spots regarding weeding out bad owners. But I disagree that any breed should be outlawed, the classic example of what this does is what we see now, years down the road.
American Pitbulls were outlawed in or around 1990. I do not have a dog at the moment due to the length of time spent away from home on a daily basis, and it is unlikely that I could ever have another. Although I am properly licenced and registered to own one, it is illegal to breed, buy, sell, give or import these dogs into the UK, so the registration means nothing now that my dog is gone. My point is, years on from the early 90's, what have those regulations done to eliminate the breed? Bugger all, that's what. The breeders of these dogs have just been driven underground by government's knee-jerk reactions. The number of pitbulls and breeders in the UK has remained largely unchanged and those bad owners that you talk of simply buy and own the dogs illegaly. They are not registered nor are the dogs microchipped. It is those owners and the illegal breeders who need to be outlawed, not the dogs.
"Basically some dog owners will have to suffer because other dog owners are not responsible."
I will have to agree to disagree on this point. If no breeds were outlawed there would be no illegal market for them. If anyone could just buy a pitbull or rehome one from the local dog's home, there would be no status symbol. Registration, microchipping and all the rest could be done at the point of sale, followed up by visits to check out the dog's environment, otherwise the owner to be doesn't get the dog. If, after all that the owner turns out to be irresponsible then I would suggest black marking and removal from the register, a ban on owning any animal for life and a draconian fixed jail term. I think that would also gel nicely with your licencing system, which would provide the funds for the dog wardens who could also make the initial home visit assessment.
"Something has got to give on this dog owning issue. Its getting completely out of hand."
Everyone agrees with this, but...the issue is what needs to be done.
I'm strongly against collective punishment like licensing. I truly don't know what the answer is, but allowing owners to have a dog bred to fight off bears and wolves in an urban environment seems deranged...
"Some breeds are just more likely to cause serious injury.
No easy answer."
Indeed not. Certainly, more police intervention should be on the cards, though.
"But once you have a register, and people get struck off from being allowed to own a dog you would slowly start to prevent the wrong sort of people being able to own a dog."
I don't know. We don't seem to have much success stopping disqualified drivers from obtaining cars, do we?
"Also, pitbulls are already outlawed and to own one requires registration that means jumping through multiple hoops. "
And yet there seems to be more and more of them...
"Basically some dog owners will have to suffer because other dog owners are not responsible."
That's unacceptable. There must be a better way.
Post a Comment