Ten Years of Hell

And an article i was just now made aware of.

RSPCA(or arsepca as some may call it) Hits Back At Dangerous Dog Seizure Allegations

 http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/462/coveted-animal-industry-award-goes-to-dogs-trust-director/

Stupid people

 They even banned Dogo's

And when you read the part about types it is downright scary. I hope it never comes here as if it does I will be on the news as no one is dragging my dog off my property for some silly socialist law.

 Currently New Mexico seems to be a pretty Bully friendly place. I will do everything I can to ensure it stays that way.

My heart goes out to those of you who reside in the UK.

"Dogs found to be of the type faced the compulsory death penalty by court order. Courts were and still can be subjected to days of conformational analysis. Originally a points system was developed and using this score system a Great Dane scored 85% and a Dachshund was shown to be 76% type."

 scary

"Following the introduction of the DDA it became almost routine for pet dogs to be seized often amidst scenes of great distress. Taken away frantically struggling on the end of a catch pole, whilst children cried and pleaded for their dogs life, to be kept kennelled at secret locations with no contact allowed was and is still remarkably acceptable according to the Act."

makes me angry!

anger fear and sadness are the emotions i battle with while reading this sort of thing..... and yet people will keep turning a blind eye to it.... DACHSHUND scoring 75%???? are you KIDDING??? 

to be honest with you the dog laws are not as bad as the reports would suggest. I live in the u.k. and I dont know anyone who has ever had a severe problem with the laws.

 The problem was a combination of people not training their power breed dogs and an increase in dog fighting. There were also some cases of dogs not being suitably enclosed whilst not supervised and a number of cases where people have used dogs to threaten others. The dog laws were very controversial before they first came out but to the vast majority of people there is no problem.

There is the issue of the laws assuming some dogs are guilty of things they have not done but ultimately when there were children being scarred for life etc something had to be done.

DumDog

anger fear and sadness are the emotions i battle with while reading this sort of thing..... and yet people will keep turning a blind eye to it.... DACHSHUND scoring 75%???? are you KIDDING??? 

Welcome to my world! 

Something should always be done if a dog attacks a child and scars that child for life, but I do not believe banning a breed for the actions of one dog within that breed is the correct something.

 People need to be punished for not properly containing their dogs, they need to be sued when their dogs attack and injure someone without cause, they need to be jailed for fighting their dogs and their dogs need to be taken from them if there is abuse or neglect.

 I own a Dogo, a breed that is banned in England. I think that is sad because that tells me that there is not one single person in England who will be able to own a Dogo or show the world what a wonderful dog they can be. They are not for everyone, but then what breed is, and in my opinion those people who wish to own one, who are willing to do the research and provide the enviorment needed should be able to. Who is the goverment to penalize everyone and the entire breed for the actions of a few?

 If my neighbor has a Dogo and it causes injury to someone, because he let it roam or because he taught it to be mean then punish my neighbor, convict him in court of his negligance and remove his right to own a Dogo but do not come and take mine away because my neighbor turns out to be a fool.

 And if all of my neighbors get Dogos and allow them to cause injury then revoke their rights and privelages one by one as they are convicted of their negligance, but again do not take mine until such time that I prove to be unfit to own one.

i'm aware of the ones using the dogs to threaten people. that was in the news last year where some little thug wanna-be used a staffy to mug someone. and if you asked the people i talk to on a regular basis (working men, with working dogs) they will get snarly and angry just like us at the wrong doers. and the majority of them (older men) will quickly point out that its unruly teenagers with a "Ghetto" mentality that are at fault for having vicious dogs.

these people mostly keep to themselves and are reluctant to give away too much information because there are a lot of "antis" hiding out on their forum. one man had his windshield bashed out and his windows broken while he and his young son were hunting in a nearby field. this was in the middle of winter! snow and rain on top of it all.

others in this forum have had their dogs stolen by "travelers" and lord only knows what happens to them after that.
 

 DG, no they arent allowed to have Dogos - but those that do call them by another name to throw people off the scent.. and while they cant LEGALLY have a Dogo they CAN have American Bulldogs, Alaunts, and StaffyxGreyhounds .... which really just amounts to a new age pit bull. and those are for hunting/coursing purposes. i'm not naive enough to believe these guys are ALL 100% little angels with halos bobbing over their heads. i know for a fact that there are poachers on that board.. but i also know that there isnt a single one of them that uses his dog to intimidate a person, nor would they keep a dog if they thought it would injure a child.

one new comer came in asking our opinions on adopting an English Bull Terrier with a mysterious past. nearly fifty guys talked him out of it because the risk of it biting one of his toddlers was too great.  

as usual dgriego you make a well considered point, I would think that if the laws were brought in on the basis of a small amount of incidents I would agree with you, but they were brought in after a significant rise in the levels of dog attacks and very often (almost always) the dogs owners were at fault, usually through lack of training, sufficient exersice, or simply not careing etc. This then leaves a problem. Left alone the problem would remain and maybe increase, tackled case by case the problem will remain with a possible decrease but with a remaining probability that people will be injured by dogs (irresponsible owners), tackle the problem by forcing registration which includes stipulations of responsible care and training and the situation for potential owners becomes difficult, therefor reducing the amount of irresponsible owners and the risk of problem dogs.

 It is important to think that it is not only people that the laws protect, there were many times of people walking other breeds and having watched their own dogs attacked by a dog of the banned breeds, often with the dogs owner in the area, unable to control the dog. If you own a collie and it is set upon by a power breed it is going to come off worse. And once again I stress it was the frequency of such events that prompted the dog laws.

my20cents

as usual dgriego you make a well considered point, I would think that if the laws were brought in on the basis of a small amount of incidents I would agree with you, but they were brought in after a significant rise in the levels of dog attacks and very often (almost always) the dogs owners were at fault, usually through lack of training, sufficient exersice, or simply not careing etc. This then leaves a problem. Left alone the problem would remain and maybe increase, tackled case by case the problem will remain with a possible decrease but with a remaining probability that people will be injured by dogs (irresponsible owners), tackle the problem by forcing registration which includes stipulations of responsible care and training and the situation for potential owners becomes difficult, therefor reducing the amount of irresponsible owners and the risk of problem dogs.

 It is important to think that it is not only people that the laws protect, there were many times of people walking other breeds and having watched their own dogs attacked by a dog of the banned breeds, often with the dogs owner in the area, unable to control the dog. If you own a collie and it is set upon by a power breed it is going to come off worse. And once again I stress it was the frequency of such events that prompted the dog laws.

You said it yourself, though - the people were unable to control their dogs.  That's why any dangerous dog laws should be aimed at human conduct, and not at specific breeds.  Why should someone get to slide because they own a nasty Kerry Blue Terrie or Swiss Mountain Dog, rather than a nasty Dogo or Pit Bull???   It is the conduct of the humans that needs to change, not the breeds they choose to love.  I am not a bully owner, but I support well crafted legislation.  I do NOT, nor will I ever, support any legislation that bans a particular breed.  On some lists, Australian Shepherds are considered dangerous.  When will people realize that ALL dogs have weapons in their mouths, and it's up to the humans to train, manage, and contain their dogs so that they don't ever use them inappropriately.

 My20cents

a friend from the working dog forum owns a staffy bull (working bred type, not the runty little show types) he was walking his "pitbull" sized dog- with all the capability of a pit bull- through a park when they were attacked by three offleash westies. his dog nearly lost his eye, had to get stitches on his dogs face plus cuts on his legs. and the westies? their owner came running up cussing at the man with the vicious fighting dog. gathered her crew and left him with dirty looks and rude comments. her dogs didnt have a scratch on them. how do i know this? Because he didnt get his dog taken away by authorities and himself put in jail. if the tables were turned and his dog was loose and did this then "watch out! they're comin to getcha!"... no one went after this particular woman. even if his dog had tried to defend himself and injured one of the westies this man would still be punished.

and yes this was in the UK and fairly recent.

whats it matter?

his dog was well trained, healthy, and on a leash. hers? obviously offleash, not well trained, and probably so hyped up on high pro kibble that you couldnt hope to control all three on leashes. 

i dont know why more dog owners are stamping their feet, clenching their fists and shouting how unfair it is... they need to get their butts to work and get active in making things equal for ALL DOG OWNERS.

your friend had every right to pursue legal action against the lady. Its not true that there would have been an outcry against his dog defending itself either. In the u.k. the law states that your dog must be under control and this includes being trained to be recalled under any circumstances, the lady was in breach of this.

 But this highlights the problem that was evident in the u.k. before the new laws were introduced. This sort of thing was much more widespread. The pet ownership laws are constantly being updated. It is now against the law not to give your animals the required duty of care which includes a regular diet, exersice, housing etc. your animal can now be taken from you if you fail to give it proper care, the authoroties do not have to wait until the animal has been suffering severly before taking action.

It is o.k. to take pity on the banned breeds but it is important to remember there was no cull, animals that were currently homed were allowed to continue to be so. On the other hand every one in the u.k. just like in many other countries has the right to be in public areas without the risk of being attacked, or their pets being attacked etc. The system of judging each case at a time was failing, and at massive cost to the tax payer, the situation was getting beyond reasonable control. That is why the laws were brought in, and although there will always be exceptions the number of attacks has dropped significantly. Maybe with the new laws in place the old ones may be relaxed a little. But they are not bad laws. I love tigers, i cant get one of those either.

my20cents

The system of judging each case at a time was failing, and at massive cost to the tax payer, the situation was getting beyond reasonable control. That is why the laws were brought in, and although there will always be exceptions the number of attacks has dropped significantly. Maybe with the new laws in place the old ones may be relaxed a little. But they are not bad laws. I love tigers, i cant get one of those either.

 I wonder if you would agree with the laws had it been your dog that was banned.

 One day it just might.

And comparing a pitbull, or a Dogo or a Fila to a tiger is a bit of a stretch IMO. Hektor is large and I suppose he could be scary if he were mean, but he is no tiger and IMO being attacked by an out of control border collie, or a doberman, or for that matter any dog that is doing it's best to bite you is scary and dangerous. But no dog breed is even close to being considered a tiger. And tigers are not domesticated nor has mankind kept tigers for centuries as guardians, workers and pets.

my20cents

The point you have missed is that pit bulls are dangerous if not kept by responsible owners, the trend in the country at the time was for these dogs to be owned by such owners.

There are dozens of breeds that are dangerous if not kept by responsible owners.  I think I've missed your point too....