Printable View
Well said but what is the probability that an animal will be mistreated vs. that of the government using it as a revenue generating scam (therefore exploiting the citizen/subject instead of the animal)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Oh and the important thing...How do you enforce it? :devil:
You do like asking difficult questions! :help:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I tend to agree that it would be difficult to stop governments using it as a revenue raising scheme.
One might think that a combination of pet shops/breeders having the responsibility to check the license before purchase and a national charity like the British RSPCA to follow up on abuse reports might work. In addition, since owners would be criminally liable both for the welfare of their pets and their behaviour, owning without a license could be taken into further account.
On reflection, it's probably unworkable. Heck, I'd rather there was a license for having children first, for much the same reasons.
I flashed the sheriff, but I did not flash the deputy. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
Oh dear. :rolleyes: (:laugh4: )Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
BG: However I do think that if someone had to actually pay some money, maybe ANY money besides the cost of the pet that they would act more responsibly. Plus it makes a nice tangent charge; I so love tangent charges, even if they tend to get dropped in court.
Or maybe we could just ask if they're happy?
This is sad, Rottweilers usually aren't very aggresive though, they just look tough. Yeah the owners are responsible, poor guy
This isn't news. At least for someone who lives in the human trash beltway of the country. Where is Hamilton, anyway, and how many trailer parks are nearby? Anyone want to have some Rot vs pit bull dogfights? I'll bring the frito chili pie.
Here's how well your stupid dog banning laws work:
http://network.bestfriends.org/oklahoma/news/10215.html
I hate to laugh. But haha. Strays.
If one owns a dog one is responsible for what it does. If you own large dogs that are in the Working Dog Breed Classification as an owner you should darn well know what traits are breed into the dog.
The owners were irresponsible in my opinion because the dogs were running free instead of probably secured on their property.
I agree that banning breeds won't work, but holding people responsible for thier animal's behavior does.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
But this should be expanded: owners of barking, conflict initiating toy dogs should show some responsibility too.
I've seen more than one relaxed big dog gone angry because of those innocent 'toys'.
Look how aggressive that rottweiler is!
My dog attended plenty of obedience classes, yet he still pees on the carpet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Just because they attend classes doesn't mean they'll learn.
If you disagree you can't say that dogs have a "personality" ~;) .Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles
Talking about bad or good animals by human standards is just silly. To be bad or good one has to be aware first. Animals are usually so stupid that they are not aware. They're pure instinct, a warm place and a pack leader can make them comfortable and a nice piece of meat can make them wild beasts.
About banning certain breeds. That will prove as uneffective as banning certain types of drugs, even more considering what Lemur said about cross-breeding. And I'm against it. I believe that all animals by their nature have the capacity to cause disasters, but they're still not responsable, considering they're only objects and have no conscience. Now taking away certain ANIMALS (not breeds of animals) from their owners because they prove to be dangerous that's another thing, and I see no problem with it, it's easily enforceable too.
Boy attended an obedience class too, and refused to do anything there. It wasn't my plan that he had to learn anything there either, but it seemed like a good idea to meet other dogs. Boy is a Kampf Hund, so some :daisy: wouldn't hurt? Boy was kind and so were the other dogs in his class.Quote:
Originally Posted by currywurry
He was 3 months old and assaulted by another dog from the 2nd grade on his first day, while he was just browsing around the field. The other dog, being a toy, must have though: a pitbull! Take him out while I still can. The humans were also thinking: good, show him, that dangerous mammal that will kill our children tomorrow! Take him out!
Just before the code was executed, several other dogs, led by a German Sheppard, nuked the toy. Boy was at the bottom of a pile of dogs then, and not amused at all. I thank the Sheppard for not seeing a pitbull, but a little friendly dog in trouble. I also thank him for not having to waste my boots.Code:if (Boy in danger){
if (Boy != underage){if (Boy = to blame){echo 'Serves you right.'
}if (Boy = hurting others){stopBoy(angry);}else{echo 'You're a big dog.'
}}if (Boy = underage){if (Boy = to blame){rescueBoy(flowers, smile, compassion, understanding, education, patience);
}else{useSize12(lowerbehind);
}}}
A little, civil, chat with the toyhandler, learned that the dog, who assaulted the 3 months old puppy, was 2.5 years old (adult!) and had the habit of being like that. What!
Several other dogs were coloured by the pitbull trauma, perhaps induced by the tunnelvision of their humans. And Boy got his share during his childhood.
Now, Boy is an adult himself. Solid muscles, mighty stamina, unseen agility, enough courage to face a hungry lion and inspiring muscleyaws. He still has to tear the first dog apart, he has the excuse and the power to do so. Of course he had his one second show off explosions when Bordeauxs, Sheppards or other dogs 'interrupted' his beachwalks (those know a tactical retreat is the best option then). But he hasn't harmed any living being or initiated any hostilities in nine years (except for the swan there, but Boy forgot his sunglasses that day and he almost drowned himself).
Boy could easily be doghating for the rest of his live, happens to many traumatised organisms and also to fighting dogs. A great dog could have been spoiled, because a toyhandler thinks it's ok for the innocent little dog to run wild and do as he pleases. This is not academic spielerei, but happens. :embarassed:
The code doesnt have a end
Teachers of "dog obedience" classes are overpaid, lazy mouthpieces of the left. I pulled my dog out when he told me some of the crap they were "teaching."
It's just part of a sub-routine, pseudo-coded to enhance readability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caius Flaminius
Well I tend to drop kick toy dogs. But yes indeed the smaller toy breeds are often more aggressive then some of the working dogs.Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
This story is a rather timely reminder of what can happen when dog breeds are demonised through incidents like that in the original post.
Very sad.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I am a mailman for 16 years now, and been dog-bitten 3 times (right hand, right knee & left calf; a German Shepherd, a Lab, and a Chow).
Each time it's been the same: we startled each other as I approached a mailbox; the startled dog acted like a dog and bit. I've never blamed the dog, just the negligent owners. Luckily for them they have been contrite and cooperative.
I say 'luckily', because our post office keeps a dog-bite specialist lawyer on retainer, who has a 100% success rate for 20 years. Dog bites can be very expensive, once the doctor, insurance, lawyer, county canine worker, vet, etc, etc bills get totalled up.
Hey, I represent dat incineration. :laugh4:Quote:
...and how many trailer parks are nearby
A tragic New Year's incident involves a pit bull in Liverpool:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The dog had a run in the back garden into which it was eventually dragged, unfortunately too late for the little girl. Needing a run for a dog is never a good sign IMO.
well is it the owner's or the dog's fault? I say the owner's fault.
We had a similar incident here where a pit bull was mauling a kid until a passerby managed to beat the dog away with a stick, to my memory the dog was put down but the owners weren't prosecuted. And then this spawned heaps of discussion in parliment about tightening of dog ownership laws and stuff.
My uncle owns a pit bull, I used to be able to go up and pat it since I was 6, but knew to be cautious, however my parents are dog people so I have always been able to deal with dogs. It is also when people go running up to a dog like this expecting to pet it or play with it that can threaten them, I think the public need to be educated on the proper way to deal with dogs too, that they aren't all cuddly adorable creatures.
Now a funny story, my little brother went down a flying fox at a play ground in Auckland in a public park. A small dog was in the path of the flying fox and he hit it with his foot, the dog leaped in the air and grabbed a hold of his behind for few seconds (and left red teeth marks on his buttock). The owner of the dog understandable ran off quite quickly because it was a park which forbad dogs anyway. My parents were furious not at the dog, but at the owner for being stupid enough to ignore the sign saying no dogs allowed.
Had dogs been allowed there they would have accepted that it was really my brother's fault for hitting it with his foot (not that he could help it) and would have been fine with it, but it is the OWNER'S STUPIDITY that was responsible.
I say, a dog will always be a dog, you can't change it's nature, it is the owner's who are responsible for them. If people want to own aggressive dog breeds they should know how to deal with them.
If everyone carried revolvers this wouldn't be an issue. Screw you, Guliani
If Tyrannosaurus Rex were still around there would be no issues at all, period. :smug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
Best way to prevent this sort of thing in my view are clear laws making the owners fully responsible for the behaviour of their pets, with strong penalties attached to such negligent behaviour as described in the opening post. Some people can handle 'bad' breeds, some people can't, but at the very least clear responsibility will make people think about what they're buying and what the consequences may be of not being able to handle their pet.
Whether particular breeds are agressive or not is somewhat beside the point, when it comes down to it it is the owners who buy the pet, who should know the laws, and who are responsible for the consequences of the purchase.
Our former neighbors had a huge rottweiller, she was completely docile.
I wouldn't be so sure. In this case the dog was apparently docile also. My neighbours had an old english sheepdog about 15 years ago. One day it just bit their 5 year old daughter's hand quite badly, and that was it. This dog had been docile, quiet and well behaved up until that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
Also, not far from where I live, a lunatic keeps a rottweiller chained up outside. When you pass by, it goes for you. The only thing stopping it is the chain. This idiot is not a responsible dog owner, but a menace. Anyone that keeps a dog to have it chained up and needlessly harassing passers by should not be allowed to keep a dog at all. It's not as if he has anything to actually guard.
As regards small children, toddlers and babies. It appears that dogs don't know how to differentiate between these and small animals. Their human masters are tall upright beings, the providers, masters and disciplinarians. A dog sees these as the pack leaders and worthy of respect and obedience. A baby or toddler is a much smaller defensless being, lower down than the dog itself. It has no authority at all in the dog's eyes. This could bring out the dogs natural instincts as an opportunist hunter, picking out the seemingly weak animal. It may also be that the dog has suffered taunts and abuse, which is all too common, it will then suddenly snap, and attack when it has the opportunity. I have seen many children that find it funny to blow on the dog, startling it, pulling it's hair, trying to ride on it's back, pulling the tale or putting arms around it's neck. The last is important. When a dog's neck is trapped it struggles to free itself and may panic, yet small children will try to do this when they see a "cute and cuddly" dog.
The simple solution is to keep young children well away from dogs, and certainly not allow them to be alone unsupervised with a dog, but a dog often reacts according to how it's been treated in the past. If kicked, bullied, left chained outside and generally abused it will one day turn on it's owners or others close to them.
Leaving a dog tied/chained up is a good way to create a pissed off dog. They do not like it, and it does make them more aggressive.
But all things being equal, no dog should be left around small children unsupervised.
Turns out the dog's owner was some kind of drug dealer. Still, I expect it was the ideal household....
Edit:
The incident to which Lemur refers that is, not the OP.