Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 53

Thread: Dangerous Dogs

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    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.
    It might be 200 to start with, but past experience of public sector taxes (e.g. the Council Tax) would suggest that this would rise at a rate far larger than inflation. And why should the payers be levied for the non-payers? I have another idea. Make the scheme free and levy the cost on the general taxpayer as you seem to think the whole community will benefit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    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
    You just don't get it do you? Staffies were bred for fighting. Do you not understand the principle of evolution by natural selection? Well evolution by artificial selection happens at a much quicker pace.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    Seems like a freak incident to me. The Labrador probably believed the puppy was being threatened and acted defensively. And doesn't everyone know that you shouldn't pet a strange dog? The truth is that if this was a Staffie the lad would have been killed and anyone who tried to rescue him seriously injured. And how exactly would your licensing scheme have prevented this incident from occurring?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    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.
    Your plan is "catch-all" because you are proposing a tax on all owners of all breeds of dog. How does taxing a Chiouaoa owner prevent a Staffie attacking a child? It doesn't. Your solution is a typical left-wing idiotic plan ... lets try and solve a problem by taxing people.

    My suggestion is that existing dangerous breed dogs must be neutered, and if taken in public should be muzzled. I'm not saying all dogs should be neutered, only the ones that cause 90% of the problem. After 15-20 years. there should be no dangerous breeds remaining in the country, and then ownership of the breed can be declared illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    No, your dog is a luxury/optional item.
    That is your personal opinion. It is not the opinion of people who own dogs. My dog is a much loved member of my family, and is no more an "item" than our children.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    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,
    Still sounds like a retrospective tax to me. If I didn't know I was going to be taxed for owning a dog at the time I purchased it, then it is immoral to ask me to pay tax at a later date. The only "fair" thing would be to only apply the scheme to puppies born after the scheme is introduced. Fortunately, your hair-brained scheme would never pass through parliament (though I'm sure there are those on the left who are salivating at the possibility of hitting ordinary people with another tax).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    What about a german shepherd or boxer? Would they be on your banned list?
    No they were not bred for fighting. However, they are large powerful dogs and, as with any dog, the responsibility for their behaviour should lie with the owner.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    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.
    I could write the textbook on dog safety and welfare. Why do I have to pay 200?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    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
    But would they want to be educated? Probably not. They certainly wouldn't want to pay 200 and many of them wouldn't do. All in all a pointless exercise. At least it would create a few thousand public sectors jobs to administer it!

  2. #22
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    It might be 200 to start with, but past experience of public sector taxes (e.g. the Council Tax) would suggest that this would rise at a rate far larger than inflation. And why should the payers be levied for the non-payers? I have another idea. Make the scheme free and levy the cost on the general taxpayer as you seem to think the whole community will benefit.
    As has been pointed out already, the licence would be more akin to the driving licence - ie it does not massively increase due to non-take up. Paying for it through general taxation would errode the feeling that dog ownership is a privilege to be earned, not one people are entitled to

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    You just don't get it do you? Staffies were bred for fighting. Do you not understand the principle of evolution by natural selection? Well evolution by artificial selection happens at a much quicker pace.
    I do 'get it'. If you are genuinely trying to argue that there are no individual staffs capable of being a good family dog, then you are the one who doesn't get it. It's the owners which make the dog.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Seems like a freak incident to me. The Labrador probably believed the puppy was being threatened and acted defensively. And doesn't everyone know that you shouldn't pet a strange dog? The truth is that if this was a Staffie the lad would have been killed and anyone who tried to rescue him seriously injured. And how exactly would your licensing scheme have prevented this incident from occurring?
    Freak incident or not, it shows that all types of dog (labradors included) can attack and injure children, as was my original point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Your plan is "catch-all" because you are proposing a tax on all owners of all breeds of dog. How does taxing a Chiouaoa owner prevent a Staffie attacking a child? It doesn't. Your solution is a typical left-wing idiotic plan ... lets try and solve a problem by taxing people.
    As I've already said, the function of the licence would NOT only serve to stop attacks, but it would encourage responsible dog ownership in general. So the chiuaua would benefit from having an owner who understands the best ways to look after and care for their dog, instead of the system we have now where every owner "thinks" they are good owners

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    That is your personal opinion. It is not the opinion of people who own dogs. My dog is a much loved member of my family, and is no more an "item" than our children.
    Nope, you decided to get a dog. It was and is an optional expense you decided to have.


    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Still sounds like a retrospective tax to me. If I didn't know I was going to be taxed for owning a dog at the time I purchased it, then it is immoral to ask me to pay tax at a later date. The only "fair" thing would be to only apply the scheme to puppies born after the scheme is introduced.
    I would be open to such a compromise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    My suggestion is that existing dangerous breed dogs must be neutered, and if taken in public should be muzzled. I'm not saying all dogs should be neutered, only the ones that cause 90% of the problem. After 15-20 years. there should be no dangerous breeds remaining in the country, and then ownership of the breed can be declared illegal.
    --
    No they were not bred for fighting. However, they are large powerful dogs and, as with any dog, the responsibility for their behaviour should lie with the owner.
    This is the fatal flaw with your silly idea. When we get rid of the current 'status' dogs like staffs, the irresponsible owners will merely replace them with other powerful dogs which are not on the banned list. Boxers and german shephards can be very ferocious if trained to be so. Your idea tackles to the symptom of having free-for-all dog ownership, it does not even attempt to address the route cause - irresponsible owners. They will still exist in 15-20 years

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    I could write the textbook on dog safety and welfare. Why do I have to pay 200?
    To prove that what you personally think is best practice, is actually in the best interests of your dog. Do you conceed that there are many people who consider themselves to be 'responsible' owners, who are not? There would be no way to distinguish who really are without a test.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    But would they want to be educated? Probably not. They certainly wouldn't want to pay 200 and many of them wouldn't do. All in all a pointless exercise. At least it would create a few thousand public sectors jobs to administer it!
    It's very simple; if they do not take and pass the test, they will be fined and perhaps eventually, have their dog taken away from them.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    London N16
    Posts
    675

    Default

    I agree with all those comments, Rook mostly because you don't make hard and fast rules but seem prepared to leave final decisions to qualified people.

    Northumbrian's down on Staffies suggests an unfortunate personal experience. Checking the Kennel Club's website brought up what I had thought was the case:

    The Staffordshire is one of the most popular of all the terriers. With the human race, he is kindness itself, and his genuine love of children is well known. He is descended from a cross between the Bulldog and a terrier, and thus combines the temperaments of the two breeds.

    Despite his historical connection with fighting, he has become a great favourite in the show ring, but this has not been allowed to affect his traditional rugged looks.

    http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/se...y.aspx?id=3080

  4. #24
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default

    ^Indeed, many other dog associations/charities/websites share the same opinions on staffies as the Kennel Club

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    I do 'get it'. If you are genuinely trying to argue that there are no individual staffs capable of being a good family dog, then you are the one who doesn't get it. It's the owners which make the dog.
    That is exactly the argument I am making. Every single Staffie, no matter how well treated or trained it has been, is a ticking time bomb. This is because it was selectively bred for fighting. Would you keep a grown Chimpanzee in your house, even though you hand-reared it from an infant? No you wouldn't, because you know that unpredictable violence is part of a Chimpanzee's nature. That is why we it is illegal to keep a Chimpanzee as a pet. Exactly the same argument applies to Staffies, Rottweilers and Bull Mastiffs, but fortunately not to most other breeds of dog, including Labradors, Poodles, Chiouaou's.

    At the end of the day, you are entitled to your point of view regarding dog licenses. I'm just glad that no serious politician would touch your idea with a barge-pole, because of the unpopularity it would cause amongst ordinary dog owners like myself.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    That is exactly the argument I am making. Every single Staffie, no matter how well treated or trained it has been, is a ticking time bomb. This is because it was selectively bred for fighting. Would you keep a grown Chimpanzee in your house, even though you hand-reared it from an infant? No you wouldn't, because you know that unpredictable violence is part of a Chimpanzee's nature. That is why we it is illegal to keep a Chimpanzee as a pet. Exactly the same argument applies to Staffies, Rottweilers and Bull Mastiffs, but fortunately not to most other breeds of dog, including Labradors, Poodles, Chiouaou's.

    At the end of the day, you are entitled to your point of view regarding dog licenses. I'm just glad that no serious politician would touch your idea with a barge-pole, because of the unpopularity it would cause amongst ordinary dog owners like myself.
    Almost all breeds of dog have the potential for violence. Despite what you think of your precious labradors, they still have the wolf-like traits of their ancestors - just in less obvious forms. If staffies and their ilk are ever banished from the UK, you WILL see other breeds being bred for the latent 'violence' that lies within in.

    You keep mentioning that politicians will not touch my idea. Are you under the illusion that your hare-brained alterntive will get any traction whatsoever? C'mon, I thought better of you than that.

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    Almost all breeds of dog have the potential for violence. Despite what you think of your precious labradors, they still have the wolf-like traits of their ancestors - just in less obvious forms. If staffies and their ilk are ever banished from the UK, you WILL see other breeds being bred for the latent 'violence' that lies within in.

    You keep mentioning that politicians will not touch my idea. Are you under the illusion that your hare-brained alterntive will get any traction whatsoever? C'mon, I thought better of you than that.
    Oh come on..you know very well that dogs are used a weapons by punks..quite a famous one here was called ''diesel'' because he had diesel poured onto his food..which destroyed his brain cells...Diesel was shot by the police outside a local bank..after killing a dog that had been tied up outside whilst his owner went into the bank..It was quite evident why he was there..he was not a pet..he was a fighting dog..

    I doubt very much if anyone could breed fighting golden retrievers or poodles...

    However..all dogs are wolves...

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfie View Post
    Oh come on..you know very well that dogs are used a weapons by punks..quite a famous one here was called ''diesel'' because he had diesel poured onto his food..which destroyed his brain cells...Diesel was shot by the police outside a local bank..after killing a dog that had been tied up outside whilst his owner went into the bank..It was quite evident why he was there..he was not a pet..he was a fighting dog..

    I doubt very much if anyone could breed fighting golden retrievers or poodles...

    However..all dogs are wolves...
    A good point, and welcome to the forum! I suspect Rook will point out that this dog (a Staffie I assume) had been mistreated by its owner. Quite corrent, of course, and it probably had consequences for the dog's behaviour. No matter how you look at though, no manner of mistreatment is likely to turn a poodle into a killer. Staffies and poodles are just not the same thing, physically or mentally.

    The problem I have with Rook's idea of dog licensing is that Diesel's owner would be exactly the type of person who wouldn't pay the 200 or so license fee, whilst most law-abiding owners would do. Rook would probably say that the police would eventually catch Diesel's owner and force him to pay or confiscate/destroy the dog. Frankly, I don't have that much confidence in the police these to do anything useful like that in our local communities. In fact, you rarely see an actual police officer on the streets in my town - if you do occasionally see one, its one of those plastic PCSO fake cops.
    Last edited by Northumbrian; 04-21-2013 at 08:51 PM.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfie View Post
    I doubt very much if anyone could breed fighting golden retrievers or poodles...
    I doubt you will say the same for german shepherds and boxers . . . two breeds absent from Northumbrians list of banned dogs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    The problem I have with Rook's idea of dog licensing is that Diesel's owner would be exactly the type of person who wouldn't pay the 200 or so license fee, whilst most law-abiding owners would do. Rook would probably say that the police would eventually catch Diesel's owner and force him to pay or confiscate/destroy the dog. Frankly, I don't have that much confidence in the police these to do anything useful like that in our local communities. In fact, you rarely see an actual police officer on the streets in my town - if you do occasionally see one, its one of those plastic PCSO fake cops.
    Your alternative scheme suffers that same fault - police unwillingness to enforce the policy. In fact, I would say that police/social services/vets would be even more unwilling to enforce your idea as it gaurantees death for all listed dogs after your 'exile date' - something a great many people would oppose

  10. #30
    Junior Member bunkum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4

    Default

    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 king charles spaniels should be removed from the homes of all islingtonites working in new media, BEFORE their dogs foul the streets.

    tell you what, let's bundle your law and my law together and see how they get through the house.

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
  •