|
|
Post by OziRiS on Dec 10, 2014 18:43:14 GMT
I say outlaw the breed, and then outlaw the owners, and then outlaw the potential owners who want an outlawed breed. You have to outlaw the breed to stop the idiots who will ignore the law on being a sensible owner. Once its outlawed, you can remove the dog there and then and no ones "Rights" get infringed. You cant fix stupid... remember that bit of advice?... well, you cant, and for every sensible owner, you will find at least 10 stupid twonka's who need a good dose of kick up the back side. Those who will fight for their rights to be stupid. The majority have spoiled it for a few. Anything that becomes "Popular" gets its detractors. I want pure breed Wolf. A whole pack. Mainly because I see them in family groups and they are so social, you wouldnt believe it... But they are outlawed because we see them as a threat... Well, sort of yes, they are... They protect Family, and territory, if you try being a threat to them, they will rip your bloody throat out?... But get to know them, get accepted as part of the pack, stop trying to be an owner an start trying to be part of their family, and they will protect you. I see it as part of my duty as a Human to protect them from the outside world, so if I ever "Win the lottery", I will dedicate a large fenced off area of a remote woodland to them as their home and just let them be wild, as a preservation thing. I get what you're saying, but I don't agree. I still say it's not the dog's fault and the problem is easy to fix. Make it law that a license is required to own certain breeds. As with a driver's license, training and subsequent tests of your knowledge and abilities are required. Training and testing must be reasonably priced as to not kill off the breed, simply because it's too expensive to get the license, but the fine for being caught owning or even dog-sitting a breed that you don't have a license for has to be so expensive that it would never make sense for anyone to own one without having a license. And, of course, the dog is taken away from you, evaluated and either placed with a reputable breeder for re-sale or put down, depending on how much you've messed it up. The fine for selling the breed to someone without a license has to be double the amount the owner is fined, since breeders are required to know better. Let's say you make an online course for would be owners of one of these breeds. The course covers basic knowledge about ownership, training and taking care of the breed you want and is capped off by a test. That'll cost you around $100/£65. After that you need to go to practical training with the breeder you wish to buy your dog from (this also requires the breeders to be licensed, of course), which is also capped off by a practical test. That'll cost you around $200/£130. You're then issued a license and can now purchase the dog you've trained with. Checkups will be required at set intervals, meaning you're on probation as an owner for the first year. If the breeder and an associated veterenarian aren't fully satisfied with the way you care for and handle your dog, it may result in you either having to pay for additional training or losing your right to own the breed and have your dog taken away, depending on how bad you're doing. No refunds. (The breeder and vet have to document that you're not taking properly care of the animal, of course. Otherwise you might end up with perfectly good owners having their dogs taken away in a collaborative scheme between the breeder and the vet to con money from people.) At this point you've paid $300/£195 plus the price of the dog. If you're caught with a breed you don't have a license for, the fine is $3000/£1950 for you and $6000/£3900 for the breeder/previous owner who sold it to you. This would jack up the prices for "black market" dogs of these breeds and give people some serious incentive to either pay for the training or choose another breed of dog to begin with. Granted, this could very well result in some or all of these breeds going extinct because people won't spend the time and money required, but at least we've given the breeds a fair chance at not only survival, but also having good, responsible owners and breeders. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 10, 2014 18:58:26 GMT
I say outlaw the breed, and then outlaw the owners, and then outlaw the potential owners who want an outlawed breed. You have to outlaw the breed to stop the idiots who will ignore the law on being a sensible owner. Once its outlawed, you can remove the dog there and then and no ones "Rights" get infringed. You cant fix stupid... remember that bit of advice?... well, you cant, and for every sensible owner, you will find at least 10 stupid twonka's who need a good dose of kick up the back side. Those who will fight for their rights to be stupid. The majority have spoiled it for a few. Anything that becomes "Popular" gets its detractors. I want pure breed Wolf. A whole pack. Mainly because I see them in family groups and they are so social, you wouldnt believe it... But they are outlawed because we see them as a threat... Well, sort of yes, they are... They protect Family, and territory, if you try being a threat to them, they will rip your bloody throat out?... But get to know them, get accepted as part of the pack, stop trying to be an owner an start trying to be part of their family, and they will protect you. I see it as part of my duty as a Human to protect them from the outside world, so if I ever "Win the lottery", I will dedicate a large fenced off area of a remote woodland to them as their home and just let them be wild, as a preservation thing. I get what you're saying, but I don't agree. I still say it's not the dog's fault and the problem is easy to fix. Make it law that a license is required to own certain breeds. As with a driver's license, training and subsequent tests of your knowledge and abilities are required. Training and testing must be reasonably priced as to not kill off the breed, simply because it's too expensive to get the license, but the fine for being caught owning or even dog-sitting a breed that you don't have a license for has to be so expensive that it would never make sense for anyone to own one without having a license. And, of course, the dog is taken away from you, evaluated and either placed with a reputable breeder for re-sale or put down, depending on how much you've messed it up. The fine for selling the breed to someone without a license has to be double the amount the owner is fined, since breeders are required to know better. Let's say you make an online course for would be owners of one of these breeds. The course covers basic knowledge about ownership, training and taking care of the breed you want and is capped off by a test. That'll cost you around $100/£65. After that you need to go to practical training with the breeder you wish to buy your dog from (this also requires the breeders to be licensed, of course), which is also capped off by a practical test. That'll cost you around $200/£130. You're then issued a license and can now purchase the dog you've trained with. Checkups will be required at set intervals, meaning you're on probation as an owner for the first year. If the breeder and an associated veterenarian aren't fully satisfied with the way you care for and handle your dog, it may result in you either having to pay for additional training or losing your right to own the breed and have your dog taken away, depending on how bad you're doing. No refunds. (The breeder and vet have to document that you're not taking properly care of the animal, of course. Otherwise you might end up with perfectly good owners having their dogs taken away in a collaborative scheme between the breeder and the vet to con money from people.) At this point you've paid $300/£195 plus the price of the dog. If you're caught with a breed you don't have a license for, the fine is $3000/£1950 for you and $6000/£3900 for the breeder/previous owner who sold it to you. This would jack up the prices for "black market" dogs of these breeds and give people some serious incentive to either pay for the training or choose another breed of dog to begin with. Granted, this could very well result in some or all of these breeds going extinct because people won't spend the time and money required, but at least we've given the breeds a fair chance at not only survival, but also having good, responsible owners and breeders. and if they are caught deliberately violating the guidelines (rules) set, then their own personal fines go through the roof, AND they face criminal charges for fraud. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Dec 10, 2014 20:13:29 GMT
and if they are caught deliberately violating the guidelines (rules) set, then their own personal fines go through the roof, AND they face criminal charges for fraud. Exactly. And as a side bonus, having this license and owning one of these particular breeds signals that you're a really good dog handler. If you weren't, you would have never passed the tests. You are now "special" among dog owners, rewarded for putting in the time and effort to prove that you're worthy of owning this particular breed. Human beings are nothing if not suckers for status symbols. Frame it the right way and those licenses and dogs will practically sell themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 11, 2014 10:04:08 GMT
I have to look at the history of the breed.
Pit Bulls...
Bull Dogs were originally bred to "control" bulls, the dogs were taught to jump up and bite down on the soft part of the nose of a bull, most commonly the bit that has a ring through it?...
But then they were bred as Fighting dogs.
Dog fights are illegal now, so why do we have a breed that was designed purely to fight?...
I now have to question the owners.
So you want a Dog...
There is a line of maybe a couple hundred dogs of all different breeds in your area...
Why are you attracted to the breed that is "known" to be dangerous?...
Why do YOU need an aggressive dog?.
"Preservation of the breed"....
No.
Dont give me that crud.
There are breeds now that are labradoodle, and other such strange names where two breed have been crossed...
There is no reason whatsoever to "Protect" a breed at all, because we as humans have been interfering ever since we met them.
I hear that there is a severe problem with breeders of Fox hounds.
Fox hunting by allowing a pack of dogs to chase and rip a fox apart, being a barbaric sport perpetrated by the rich toffs who dont give a stuff, is now outlawed in UK.
There are now complaints that the breeders of the barbaric dogs are going out of business.
And the problem is?...
You breed dogs with the sole intent of allowing that dog to rip another animal apart for "sport", we dont want that any more.
Dog breeds... if it has outlived its usefulness, stop breeding them.
This is not a call to destroy anything, its a call to choose something different, something less aggressive, and wind your bloody neck in, this isnt a war zone.
If you cant choose to adopt a "sensible" choice of dog, I question your "Rights" to own a dangerous one... why?.. what is it you need THAT dog for?..
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Dec 11, 2014 15:01:17 GMT
I have to look at the history of the breed. Pit Bulls... Bull Dogs were originally bred to "control" bulls, the dogs were taught to jump up and bite down on the soft part of the nose of a bull, most commonly the bit that has a ring through it?... But then they were bred as Fighting dogs. Dog fights are illegal now, so why do we have a breed that was designed purely to fight?... I now have to question the owners. So you want a Dog... There is a line of maybe a couple hundred dogs of all different breeds in your area... Why are you attracted to the breed that is "known" to be dangerous?... Why do YOU need an aggressive dog?. "Preservation of the breed".... No. Dont give me that crud. There are breeds now that are labradoodle, and other such strange names where two breed have been crossed... There is no reason whatsoever to "Protect" a breed at all, because we as humans have been interfering ever since we met them. I hear that there is a severe problem with breeders of Fox hounds. Fox hunting by allowing a pack of dogs to chase and rip a fox apart, being a barbaric sport perpetrated by the rich toffs who dont give a stuff, is now outlawed in UK. There are now complaints that the breeders of the barbaric dogs are going out of business. And the problem is?... You breed dogs with the sole intent of allowing that dog to rip another animal apart for "sport", we dont want that any more. Dog breeds... if it has outlived its usefulness, stop breeding them. This is not a call to destroy anything, its a call to choose something different, something less aggressive, and wind your bloody neck in, this isnt a war zone. If you cant choose to adopt a "sensible" choice of dog, I question your "Rights" to own a dangerous one... why?.. what is it you need THAT dog for?.. And just as you could breed aggression into pit bulls and other breeds you can also breed it out of them. Believe it or not, but some people actually like the breeds for the way they look and other, more positive traits they may have. Boxers have now been placed on the list of "dangerous breeds" here in Denmark. I've probably met and handled more than 20 boxers in my life and while they can surely be a little rough when they play, if you don't set clear boundaries, I've never met a boxer that was aggressive by nature. But the radical nanny state supporters want them gone. Destroyed. And why? Because they LOOK dangerous. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 11, 2014 15:31:10 GMT
I have to look at the history of the breed. Pit Bulls... Bull Dogs were originally bred to "control" bulls, the dogs were taught to jump up and bite down on the soft part of the nose of a bull, most commonly the bit that has a ring through it?... But then they were bred as Fighting dogs. Dog fights are illegal now, so why do we have a breed that was designed purely to fight?... I now have to question the owners. So you want a Dog... There is a line of maybe a couple hundred dogs of all different breeds in your area... Why are you attracted to the breed that is "known" to be dangerous?... Why do YOU need an aggressive dog?. "Preservation of the breed".... No. Dont give me that crud. There are breeds now that are labradoodle, and other such strange names where two breed have been crossed... There is no reason whatsoever to "Protect" a breed at all, because we as humans have been interfering ever since we met them. I hear that there is a severe problem with breeders of Fox hounds. Fox hunting by allowing a pack of dogs to chase and rip a fox apart, being a barbaric sport perpetrated by the rich toffs who dont give a stuff, is now outlawed in UK. There are now complaints that the breeders of the barbaric dogs are going out of business. And the problem is?... You breed dogs with the sole intent of allowing that dog to rip another animal apart for "sport", we dont want that any more. Dog breeds... if it has outlived its usefulness, stop breeding them. This is not a call to destroy anything, its a call to choose something different, something less aggressive, and wind your bloody neck in, this isnt a war zone. If you cant choose to adopt a "sensible" choice of dog, I question your "Rights" to own a dangerous one... why?.. what is it you need THAT dog for?.. Pit Bulls are not a bull dog nor have they ever been - they are an offshoot of the Staffordshire Terrier. you know, the one that USED to be called the "nanny dog" because they were so good with children. but "nanny dog" doesn't sound very he-man macho, so when they started breeding them for dogfighting, they named them after the fighting pit. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 12, 2014 9:07:04 GMT
This I know, which is why I moved to Bull Dog in the explanation, then back to fighting dogs of which Pit Bull is a breed designed to fit into.
The origins taken back to the beginning is Wolf, we have bred other characteristics into all breeds over time, the pit-bull is bred aggressive, as that is how many want or wanted them.
To answer another question on those who like the look of the dog.
Why?.
That look is now synonymous with aggressive.
In UK, the deal is that existing dogs MUST be held by responsible people who can prove they are, who carry a full Vet certificate, (Including neutering) and carry insurance of the Public Liability.
Random checks make sure you keep up to date and prove the animal is contained and supervised.
Failure to do so will have the animal confiscated.
Breeding is discouraged.
I know some Staffs are well behaved.
I cant argue with that, and wont...
Its just many, and especially around here, are bought on the sole purpose of being some goit's nasty likkle lead puller that he will threaten will have your leg off....
That behaviour has to be stopped.
The only way to do so is take their toys away.
So control of the dog is necessary...
Tight control.
As soon as the hooligans get the message they cant use an animal as a weapon, job done, get the breed back to being a placid animal.
But illegal imports are a problem.
They are what is fuelling demand around here.
Many of the residents of that Dogs home that was destroyed recently were of illegal import origin, handed over because they owner found they were a little too much aggressive.
Some could be retrained, and those were passed on back to those who would take one as a pet, many real nasty ones would have to be either kept detained or in severe cases destroyed.
But the extreme nasty were a very small minority....
VERY small minority.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 12, 2014 17:15:25 GMT
One of the few dog breeds I'm comfortable with are Staffies. They tend not to get on well with other dogs, but are on the whole loving and rather daft dogs. Sure, there are individual dogs of all breeds who are bad tempered and some breeds that are much more likely to be aggressive than others on the whole. But aggressive dogs tend to be the fault of the owner, who gets a dog but has no idea how to raise one so it isn't dangerous.
In the case of bull terrier breeds it seems that 'gang' members (at least in the UK) are getting them both as status symbols and for protection - its not illegal to walk around with a dog, it IS illegal to walk around with a knife unless you have a very good reason for doing so. (I was warned that the knife I had in my pocket was technically illegal, but let off because I was using it at work to cut boxes and newspaper packets open)
I like the idea of requiring a licence for some breeds of dog, and that getting that licence requires taking a course. If nothing else the costs would make people think twice before getting a dog they later have to give up or which is otherwise unsuitable for them. The problem would be implementing such a licence, it would cost money to set up and maintain.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Dec 12, 2014 23:33:38 GMT
I like the idea of requiring a licence for some breeds of dog, and that getting that licence requires taking a course. If nothing else the costs would make people think twice before getting a dog they later have to give up or which is otherwise unsuitable for them. The problem would be implementing such a licence, it would cost money to set up and maintain. That was the idea. If you really want this breed, you'll gladly pay, you'll gladly take the courses to be approved for owning one and you'll gladly submit to (and pay for) checks for the first year. If you're not willing to do those things, this breed isn't for you. Find something else. Of course it will cost money, but you could limit the amount of money it would cost the government (read: tax payers) by just having the politicians lay down the law and leaving most of the implementation to the enthusiasts behind the breed. If they truly love the breed so much, they'll gladly put in the time, effort and money required to keep it alive under the new law and even have a chance to better the reputation of the breed. All you need to do after that is have someone from the RSPCA (or whatever equivalent your country has) run random checks on the breeders and vets involved to see if they're complying. Once the breeders and vets are up and running, you give current owners a year to either get certified and have their dog evaluated, or turn their dog over to a breeder without repercussions. After that, the law takes full effect and anyone caught with a dog of one of these breeds and no license and approved evaluation of the animal gets fined the full amount and has their dog taken from them. Every X number of generations (I'm no expert on how long it takes) you re-evaluate each breed to find out if the aggression that was the reason for putting them on the list to begin with has been permanently bred out of them through this program. If it has, remove them from the list. If new breeds are emerging as aggressive because the muscle dunces don't want to pay for the breeds on the list and instead start training new breeds for fighting, place those breeds on the list, crack down hard on new offenders and keep those breeds on the list until they've had the aggression bred out of them again. And to make sure this isn't bungled up by politicians, give the power to make decisions about which breeds should or shouldn't be on the list to an RSPCA (or whatever equivalent your country has) board that has been specially appointed for the task. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 14, 2014 11:24:19 GMT
I was stopped and searched on my way home one morning.... (about 2004 I think?...)
In the boot... my work bag.
Inside, a "Bill hook", a LARGE knife, heavy gloves.....
Underneath the bag, the universal door key, [the Crow bar], several tools of dubious nature if you look at it that way, including one five foot long heavy iron "spike" used as a lever under certain pallets, try and persuade anyone who is out looking for "Bad guys" that I wasnt travelling 'tooled up'?....
Why were they not with the works vehicle?.. because I didnt have a regular vehicle, and leaving them at work, they would go missing.
It was only the evidence I had as a current today's Tachograph (paper) disc and the last two weeks worth that I kept always on my person that persuaded them I was a HGV driver....
The coppers were quite friendly at all times, they were doing this random stop and search as a matter of [probably we is bored so lets do something] duty to prevent undesirables moving stolen property...
Plus they wanted to know who was about at silly o'clock of the morning on a trading estate that was being targeted by thieves...
They had seen my vehicle [as in someone has noted amongst the regular patrol officers] several times in the last week around the estate and just wanted to know who I was....
Like me standing there with a large winter jacket and High-Vis vest in full uniform emblazoned with the works logo "HAYS" wasnt enough for them...
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 14, 2014 11:37:16 GMT
If someone is prepared to pay in the thousands for a certain breed of dog, and then they would complain about a £200 bill for licence registration and education course....?... I dont think so....
If they want that breed that bad, and its at a cost, either pay or choose another breed.
It has to be set at a price [and I dont suggest that £200 is the final target] that is high enough to dissuade those that cant afford it, as in if you cant afford that how can you afford to keep the dog.
But low enough to attract support from those that CAN afford it and are willing to pay that to enhance the standing of that breed.
At the moment, the Law is trying to encourage mandatory chip insertion for all dogs...
They hope that eventually all dogs will have chips, and instead of taking the animal to a temp holding cell whist the owners are traced, they can identify the owners on the spot, and either deliver it home or to a local collection centre immediately...
Those without Chips will be sent straight to a dogs home for chipping and treating as no owner stray.
Those allowing an animal to stray frequently can be visited and dissuaded from such actions...
Those who have a dog named Houdini, can be safe in knowing as soon as anyone finds it, it can be immediately identified and returned...
My friend had such a dog.... six times in one year it managed to escape from a locked house.
Until they fimled it one night...
It had worked out how to open a window that swung from the top, it could get out, and the window swung back shut "latching" itself...
As for the cost of owning registering licensing and education, I suggest the cost should be worked out as "Self Funding"...
I dont think tax payers would be amused to find out that their taxes were being spent supporting a dangerous breed of dog?...
Especially if they are Cat owners who hate dogs.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 14, 2014 15:39:58 GMT
I was stopped and searched on my way home one morning.... (about 2004 I think?...) In the boot... my work bag. Inside, a "Bill hook", a LARGE knife, heavy gloves..... Underneath the bag, the universal door key, [the Crow bar], several tools of dubious nature if you look at it that way, including one five foot long heavy iron "spike" used as a lever under certain pallets, try and persuade anyone who is out looking for "Bad guys" that I wasnt travelling 'tooled up'?.... Why were they not with the works vehicle?.. because I didnt have a regular vehicle, and leaving them at work, they would go missing. It was only the evidence I had as a current today's Tachograph (paper) disc and the last two weeks worth that I kept always on my person that persuaded them I was a HGV driver.... The coppers were quite friendly at all times, they were doing this random stop and search as a matter of [probably we is bored so lets do something] duty to prevent undesirables moving stolen property... Plus they wanted to know who was about at silly o'clock of the morning on a trading estate that was being targeted by thieves... They had seen my vehicle [as in someone has noted amongst the regular patrol officers] several times in the last week around the estate and just wanted to know who I was.... Like me standing there with a large winter jacket and High-Vis vest in full uniform emblazoned with the works logo "HAYS" wasnt enough for them... the problem is that those who are up to no good have figured out it is very easy to acquire an official looking uniform, and that it makes them invisible in certain neighborhoods. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 14, 2014 15:41:38 GMT
If someone is prepared to pay in the thousands for a certain breed of dog, and then they would complain about a £200 bill for licence registration and education course....?... I dont think so.... If they want that breed that bad, and its at a cost, either pay or choose another breed. It has to be set at a price [and I dont suggest that £200 is the final target] that is high enough to dissuade those that cant afford it, as in if you cant afford that how can you afford to keep the dog. But low enough to attract support from those that CAN afford it and are willing to pay that to enhance the standing of that breed. At the moment, the Law is trying to encourage mandatory chip insertion for all dogs... They hope that eventually all dogs will have chips, and instead of taking the animal to a temp holding cell whist the owners are traced, they can identify the owners on the spot, and either deliver it home or to a local collection centre immediately... Those without Chips will be sent straight to a dogs home for chipping and treating as no owner stray. Those allowing an animal to stray frequently can be visited and dissuaded from such actions... Those who have a dog named Houdini, can be safe in knowing as soon as anyone finds it, it can be immediately identified and returned... My friend had such a dog.... six times in one year it managed to escape from a locked house. Until they fimled it one night... It had worked out how to open a window that swung from the top, it could get out, and the window swung back shut "latching" itself... As for the cost of owning registering licensing and education, I suggest the cost should be worked out as "Self Funding"... I dont think tax payers would be amused to find out that their taxes were being spent supporting a dangerous breed of dog?... Especially if they are Cat owners who hate dogs. the problem is that it is very likely I could go out with $40.00 in my pocket and come home at the end of the day with an "aggressive breed" dog - and probably some change. the people who are the biggest problem are not those who spend a thousand dollars on a pure bred dog - the problem is the ones who trade in the back alleys. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 14, 2014 15:51:06 GMT
Agreed... but if you dont have the right documentation certificates, no arguments, no ones rights get infringed, you loose the dog that day, its impounded, and you DONT get it back on a "Technicality", and if you go out and get another, they can take that one as well before it causes problems.
Prevention is better than cure, and if dogs can be taken and re-homed with people who have the right attitude, it kind of dries up the demand.
No one is buying a back alley dog (at high price) thats going to get confiscated within a month.....
Yes that is a long term plan, but, if it has to be done, it has to be done?..
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 14, 2014 16:18:49 GMT
remembering we all agree in principle, it is technical details we are negotiating.
one of the technicalities when we got the dog in my picture was that we agreed not to give any kind of aggression training - which included guard dog training from licensed trainers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 14, 2014 17:36:01 GMT
Observation; You have all been talking about pure breeds. What about cross-breeds or those who's parentage is uncertain?
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Dec 14, 2014 22:51:43 GMT
Observation; You have all been talking about pure breeds. What about cross-breeds or those who's parentage is uncertain? It should apply to cross-breeds for any breed on the list as well. And it doesn't matter if it's only 1/4 pit bull. If there's a risk of aggression because of what's mixed in there, it should at least mandate evalutation of the dog. |
|
