Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 53

Thread: Dangerous Dogs

  1. #11
    Super Moderator eatmywords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kingston upon Hull
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    I was always under the impression you did need a dog licence: http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/dog-licensing
    Faced with certain disaster, defiance is the only answer.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    London N16
    Posts
    675

    Default

    Don't think we've needed to licence here dogs since the 1980s — just noticed, your link is to Northern Ireland...

  3. #13
    Super Moderator eatmywords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kingston upon Hull
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patman Post View Post
    Don't think we've needed to licence here dogs since the 1980s — just noticed, your link is to Northern Ireland...
    Fair point, but I was always under the impression we needed a licence, which is why I don't have a dog.
    Faced with certain disaster, defiance is the only answer.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eatmywords View Post
    Fair point, but I was always under the impression we needed a licence, which is why I don't have a dog.
    Dog licences were abolished in 1987 in the UK, except in NI.


    The Dogs Trust is against licensing, but it does support compulsory micro-chipping - which sounds like much of a sameness to me.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    Costing you money how exactly? Do you pay extra for your licence or for your insurance . . . ? If it is for your insurance, then your fear that dog licences will increase because others are not licenced, is unfounded, as there would be no equivilant 'dog insurance' which would cost more (AFAIK)
    I assume if fewer people pay the "dog license" fee, then the cost of the scheme will increase for each person who does pay the license. Someone will have to pay all those civil servants. Even if this was not the case, I feel it is fundamentally unfair that I will end up paying yet another tax because of chavs who own dangerous dogs, and who will likely not pay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    If the authorities find an unlicenced dog, it could be removed and potentially destroyed. It would give the police the ability to act on the "skinheaded chav" BEFORE his dog causes a problem. That is a tangible benefit I think, and whilst it would cost money to set up, I think most law abiding dog owners and animal lovers would support a scheme that gives the police the power to remove dogs from "skinheaded chav" environments - even if it does cost them a one off 1-200 fee
    I think you have an unwarranted faith in the ability of the police and the "authorities" to deal with unlicensed dogs. The police don't seem to have much luck getting knives or drugs off our council estates, so why would unlicensed dogs be any different? Chances are that unlicensed dogs will only come to light once they have bitten somebody.

    You seem to forget that dog licensing used to exist up until the 1970's, but was abandoned because it didn't work and most dog owners didn't pay ... and that was when the cost was only something daft like 40p! It is nice of you to volunteer me to pay a "one-off" fee of 200 (we've all heard the words "one-off" before). Unfortunately I am already taxed to the hilt and can't afford 200. Secondly, why should I have to pay for somebody else's problem? The only thing my Labrador has ever bitten is his own tail when he chases it. I'm sure most dog owners would agree with me.

    What about a license for CERTAIN breeds of dogs, such as Staffies or Rottweilers? Now that I would consider supporting, not that I think it would solve the problem of dog attacks. However, it might deter a few council estates chavs from acquiring "status dog" breeds in the first place, especially if the license fee was set high enough (say 1000) and the punishment for not paying was severe (i.e. prison).
    Last edited by Northumbrian; 04-03-2013 at 04:00 PM.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    I assume if fewer people pay the "dog license" fee, then the cost of the scheme will increase for each person who does pay the license. Someone will have to pay all those civil servants. Even if this was not the case, I feel it is fundamentally unfair that I will end up paying yet another tax because of chavs who own dangerous dogs, and who will likely not pay.
    If we take the NI program as a blueprint for a second, and fine non licence holders with a 1000 fine, that one fine could pay for 80 other licence fees . . Sure, many will not pay, but I think the money it would raise would be sufficient to run the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    I think you have an unwarranted faith in the ability of the police and the "authorities" to deal with unlicensed dogs. The police don't seem to have much luck getting knives or drugs off our council estates, so why would unlicensed dogs be any different? Chances are that unlicensed dogs will only come to light once they have bitten somebody.
    It's more difficult to hide a dog than it is a knife. I accept that on most occasions, police will only be called once the dog has biten someone. But, the police could (and should) use the power to check on a dog whenever they come into contact with a group of misbehaving chavs, a power they do not have at the moment. If they see a dog in amongst a group of young men, they have no real power to intervene

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    You seem to forget that dog licensing used to exist up until the 1970's, but was abandoned because it didn't work and most dog owners didn't pay ... and that was when the cost was only something daft like 40p!
    People didn't pay it because of the cost, but because the police rarely took action to check on the status of your dog. But nowadays, that would be a piece of piss. The greater the chance of detection, would invariably equal a greater take up of the licence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    It is nice of you to volunteer me to pay a "one-off" fee of 200 (we've all heard the words "one-off" before). Unfortunately I am already taxed to the hilt and can't afford 200. Secondly, why should I have to pay for somebody else's problem? The only thing my Labrador has ever bitten is his own tail when he chases it. I'm sure most dog owners would agree with me.

    What about a license for CERTAIN breeds of dogs, such as Staffies or Rottweilers? Now that I would consider supporting, not that I think it would solve the problem of dog attacks. However, it might deter a few council estates chavs from acquiring "status dog" breeds in the first place, especially if the license fee was set high enough (say 1000) and the punishment for not paying was severe (i.e. prison).
    My idea of a dog 'licence' is not the same as the one operated in NI. It would be an actual 'test' of the owners abilities to look after an animal in the right way. Much like the highway code needs to be learnt before taking to the road, a 'dog code' test would need to be passed. It would not be a mere application form that needs to be filled in and which is (invariably) automatically granted. You could just as easily fail the test as the chav down the street.

    As has been mentioned already, any dog can bite someone. Any owner (regardless of class) can mistreat their animal. You and your labrador should not be excluded from the test just because you yourself consider you to be a responsible owner.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    It's more difficult to hide a dog than it is a knife. I accept that on most occasions, police will only be called once the dog has biten someone. But, the police could (and should) use the power to check on a dog whenever they come into contact with a group of misbehaving chavs, a power they do not have at the moment. If they see a dog in amongst a group of young men, they have no real power to intervene
    Many irresponsible dog owners just keep their dog in the house and never walk it. How does that affect your idiotic plan?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    People didn't pay it because of the cost, but because the police rarely took action to check on the status of your dog. But nowadays, that would be a piece of piss. The greater the chance of detection, would invariably equal a greater take up of the licence.
    Yeah, because everyone buys car insurance nowadays knowing that the police have technology in their cars which can detect uninsured number plates. Have you been to Blackburn or Bradford? Every other driver is uninsured.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    My idea of a dog 'licence' is not the same as the one operated in NI. It would be an actual 'test' of the owners abilities to look after an animal in the right way.
    And therefore much more expensive to administer. MORE TAX for me then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    Much like the highway code needs to be learnt before taking to the road, a 'dog code' test would need to be passed.
    I am a responsible dog owner who would undoubtedly pass any test. Nonetheless, If I owned a Staffie I would not be able to guarantee that dog wouldn't kill anyone in the way I certainly can guarantee my Labrador wouldn't. That is just the nature of certain breeds, and it is what makes a mockery of your idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    It would not be a mere application form that needs to be filled in and which is (invariably) automatically granted. You could just as easily fail the test as the chav down the street.
    The chav down the street wouldn't take the test, and if he did then the test would have to be designed for an illiterate person in order for him to pass.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    As has been mentioned already, any dog can bite someone. Any owner (regardless of class) can mistreat their animal.
    You obviously know nothing about dogs. When was the last time a Poodle killed somebody? Or don't Poodles ever get mistreated? Different breeds have different temperaments and physically different bite strengths. I would never EVER trust a Staffie or a Rottweiler, even if they had been trained by a top dog expert and had never shown any sign of aggression in their life. They were selectively bred as fighting dogs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    You and your labrador should not be excluded from the test just because you yourself consider you to be a responsible owner.
    Right so because of the self-righteousness of people like you, I suddenly have to pay an extra 200 on top of all the tax I already pay because I own a harmless Labrador on a measure to stop Staffies in council estates ripping out childrens throats, which would actually have no effect whatsoever on the said problem. What if I don't have 200? I've already paid for my dog to be micro-chipped, vaccinated, neutered etc.

    I'm sure that responsible dog-owners like myself would find ways to sabotage this rotten scheme. I PAY ENOUGH TAX ALREADY!!!!!!! I wish you suggested policies for the Labour Party, because that one would help the Tories out no end.

    Back to my sensible idea of banning dangerous breeds.
    Last edited by Northumbrian; 04-04-2013 at 10:38 AM.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Many irresponsible dog owners just keep their dog in the house and never walk it. How does that affect your idiotic plan?
    But not 'status' dogs though eh? They are paraded around. Don't pretend I am saying that this is a magic silver bullet, it isn't. It's just a hell of a lot better than culling entire breeds of dogs en masse

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Yeah, because everyone buys car insurance nowadays knowing that the police have technology in their cars which can detect uninsured number plates. Have you been to Blackburn or Bradford? Every other driver is uninsured.
    Do you have a source for that claim or have you just made it up?

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    And therefore much more expensive to administer. MORE TAX for me then.
    The 1-200 we've already stated should suffice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    I am a responsible dog owner who would undoubtedly pass any test.
    According to YOU . . I'm sure many 'chavs' believe they are responsible as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Nonetheless, If I owned a Staffie I would not be able to guarantee that dog wouldn't kill anyone in the way I certainly can guarantee my Labrador wouldn't. That is just the nature of certain breeds, and it is what makes a mockery of your idea.
    Can you guarantee your labrador will never ever bite someone? I don't think you can

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    The chav down the street wouldn't take the test, and if he did then the test would have to be designed for an illiterate person in order for him to pass.
    If he did not take the test, and was later found to be walking the estate with a dog, he would be heavily fined and the dog removed from his care until he passed the test. In your world, he would remain free to keep his dog

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    You obviously know nothing about dogs. When was the last time a Poodle killed somebody? Or don't Poodles ever get mistreated? Different breeds have different temperaments and physically different bite strengths. I would never EVER trust a Staffie or a Rottweiler, even if they had been trained by a top dog expert and had never shown any sign of aggression in their life. They were selectively bred as fighting dogs.
    I know that biting is NOT the same as killing. Two separate things. As I say, any dog can bite someone, can bite (and seriously disfigure) a child.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Right so because of the self-righteousness of people like you, I suddenly have to pay an extra 200 on top of all the tax I already pay because I own a harmless Labrador on a measure to stop Staffies in council estates ripping out childrens throats, which would actually have no effect whatsoever on the said problem. What if I don't have 200? I've already paid for my dog to be micro-chipped, vaccinated, neutered etc.

    I'm sure that responsible dog-owners like myself would find ways to sabotage this rotten scheme. I PAY ENOUGH TAX ALREADY!!!!!!! I wish you suggested policies for the Labour Party, because that one would help the Tories out no end.
    If you choose to own a TV you pay a TV 'tax', if you choose to own a car, you pay a car tax. I will not feel sorry for you for choosing to own a dog and being subject to the relevant taxes on said dog. Feel free to decry other aspects of my idea all you like, but the cry of "over taxed" on 'luxery'/optional items is not something I'm going to get too bothered about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Back to my sensible idea of banning dangerous breeds.
    It's the owner who is more responsible for creating a 'dangerous' dog than the dog itself. Sure, certain breeds are naturally more agressive and what have you, but it's the owner who trains/turns them into a real danger
    Last edited by Rook; 04-04-2013 at 11:26 AM.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    But not 'status' dogs though eh? They are paraded around. Don't pretend I am saying that this is a magic silver bullet, it isn't. It's just a hell of a lot better than culling entire breeds of dogs en masse
    I didn't suggest culling entire breeds. I suggested having them neutered and banning imports so the breed dies out naturally, at least in the UK.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    The 1-200 we've already stated should suffice.
    I think you'll find that 200 is rather a lot of money for a family with one earner and a mortgage to pay, in these economic conditions. Just because 200 is not a lot to you, don't assume the same for others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    According to YOU . . I'm sure many 'chavs' believe they are responsible as well.
    Perhaps they are. In which case they should avoid breeds like Staffies and purchase a good family dog like a Spaniel or a Labrador.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    Can you guarantee your labrador will never ever bite someone? I don't think you can
    Once again I ask you to tell me the last time a Labrador killed, or even seriously injured, a child. I know the nature of my dog and he would never bite anyone, except possibly in self-defence. The "any dog can bite" argument is wheeled out time and time again by the defenders of dangerous breeds. It is as tired as it is bogus. My Labrador does not have a bite pressure of 2000psi and he was not bred as a fighting dog.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    If he did not take the test, and was later found to be walking the estate with a dog, he would be heavily fined and the dog removed from his care until he passed the test. In your world, he would remain free to keep his dog
    What is the difference between that and having the police stop someone walking a dangerous dog and asking them for the certificate to show the dog has been neutered? Except that the latter case is targetted at the dogs/owners which are actually likely to cause a problem instead of your wasteful and expensive "catch-all" approach.

    And who is to say some stupid test guarantees that the dog won't attack anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    If you choose to own a TV you pay a TV 'tax', if you choose to own a car, you pay a car tax. I will not feel sorry for you for choosing to own a dog and being subject to the relevant taxes on said dog. Feel free to decry other aspects of my idea all you like, but the cry of "over taxed" on 'luxery'/optional items is not something I'm going to get too bothered about.
    My dog isn't a luxury/optional item, he is a part of the family. But then if you are not a dog owner I wouldn't expect you to understand that. When I purchased my car and TV, I knew in advance that there would be certain taxes and fees expected, and I accepted those charges. What you are proposing is a retrospective tax, unless you are suggesting that existing dogs should be exempt. As everyone knows, retrospective taxes are unfair and possibly illegal.

    It wouldn't be so bad if what you were proposing would actually change anything, but it would be completely and utterly pointless. Fortunately, I am sure no serious politician would touch your idea with a barge-pole, unless they want to lose the votes of 4 million dog owners.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    It's the owner who is more responsible for creating a 'dangerous' dog than the dog itself. Sure, certain breeds are naturally more agressive and what have you, but it's the owner who trains/turns them into a real danger
    I would say a dogs temperament is 70% nature and 30% nurture. However, its physical strength is, of course, 99% nature. At the end of day, no amount of misuse will turn a Poodle or a Labrador into a killing machine. Yet it has been known for Staffies from good homes who have been well trained and looked after, to turn on a child and kill them. Presumably the owners of these Staffies would pass your ridiculous test, so what is the point of your test?
    Last edited by Northumbrian; 04-04-2013 at 01:00 PM.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    I think you'll find that 200 is rather a lot of money for a family with one earner and a mortgage to pay, in these economic conditions. Just because 200 is not a lot to you, don't assume the same for others.
    I did not suggest it was not a lot of money, merely that the 1-200 would be sufficient to administer the system even when non-payers have been accounted for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Perhaps they are. In which case they should avoid breeds like Staffies and purchase a good family dog like a Spaniel or a Labrador.
    Many would argue that staffies can make good family dogs. many would argue that 'good family dogs' like german shepherds could be turned into 'bad' dogs

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Once again I ask you to tell me the last time a Labrador killed, or even seriously injured, a child.
    Here you go
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-Harbour.html. Is that bad enough?


    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    What is the difference between that and having the police stop someone walking a dangerous dog and asking them for the certificate to show the dog has been neutered? Except that the latter case is targetted at the dogs/owners which are actually likely to cause a problem instead of your wasteful and expensive "catch-all" approach.
    Isn't your "neuter certificate" a licence in all but name? Costly and effectively a tax? Considering you want entire breeds of dog banished from the country, it's a bit silly of you to bandi around phrases like "catch-all approach" in response to my plan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    My dog isn't a luxury/optional item, he is a part of the family. But then if you are not a dog owner I wouldn't expect you to understand that. When I purchased my car and TV, I knew in advance that there would be certain taxes and fees expected, and I accepted those charges. What you are proposing is a retrospective tax, unless you are suggesting that existing dogs should be exempt. As everyone knows, retrospective taxes are unfair and possibly illegal.
    No, your dog is a luxury/optional item. I would be open to a compromises on the taxing of existing dogs - say, a grace period of X years to allow people to prepare for the tax, and assistance for those on lower income, or those who have already been micro-chipped etc,

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    I would say a dogs temperament is 70% nature and 30% nurture. However, its physical strength is, of course, 99% nature. At the end of day, no amount of misuse will turn a Poodle or a Labrador into a killing machine.
    What about a german shepherd or boxer? Would they be on your banned list?

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Yet it has been known for Staffies from good homes who have been well trained and looked after, to turn on a child and kill them. Presumably the owners of these Staffies would pass your ridiculous test, so what is the point of your test?
    There are a number of points to my test. Firstly, it would educate all dog owners on what is best practise - not only regarding dog safety, but general welfare. Secondly, it would establish the idea that dog ownership is badge of honour to be earned, not just something you can do because you want it. It would reinforce the idea of responsible ownership, and duty of care. It would offer the chance of educating those irresponsible 'chavs' of yours

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •