vicious dog

MrsTinks

Well it was... Hohum huh FC

Mely

post 166...FC...bringing back dog licences would go a long way to paying to implement the suggestions Lillibeth made.

dutch12

MrsTine wrote: »

I'd say snarling at the neighbours back door constitutes a danger... ultimately any dog showing aggression towards a human whilst not under control as defined by law is subject to being euthanised - usually if so decided by a judge - until such decision is reached the dog will be kept in secure kennels normally.

I'm "happy" that THIS dog is not under control and DOES pose a danger to the OP and other people - I'm just saying that just because it's part Rottweiler doesn't automatically make it dangerous - it's behaviour and irresponcible owners is what make this dog a potential danger.

Hehehehe this dog is a guard dog, guard dogs by their very nature snarl, growl and generaly arn't cute cudely pootches. they are evil fookers that keep people that want to enter other peoples properties out. I agree the owners need to "controle" this dog and ensure it stays within its garden, and make it wear a mussle when taking it out, but to talk destruction when this dog is doing its job, I still can't get over it.
Seeing that we are soooo scared about dangerous dogs lets look at the numbers:

Dog bites in 2007/08= 3800
Lethal dog atacks= Several
Knife crime= 60.000 victims are mostly young men, perps are mostly young men.(thats 160 per day. As the government has kinda skewed the numbers this is an estimate)
Lethal knife crimes 2007/08= 277
Conclusion: leave the dogs alone and open a post to tackle knife crime:rolleyes:

UKTigerlily

I think most people on here would be more than fit to have a dog if new laws came in & would welcome tighter legislation actually, I for one want the dog licence back

Money_maker

Please op, post an update.

Perhaps another thread can be opened to discuss controls for dogs/owners and horses.

Mely

I was just wondering why being bitten by a horse/pony was being brought into a thread about possible dangerous dogs?

foreign_correspondent

lilibeth wrote: »

Crackpot theory no dear I don't remember postulating any theories, perhaps you should look the word up in the dictionary. And the child isn't theoretical perhaps you should read the OP again.

What I did was suggest that criminals and thick people shouldn't be allowed to own dogs.
But you using keep using strawman arguments in a desperate attempt to steer the topic away from the OP (which is about dangerous dogs and their owners) and considering the seriousness of the subject matter that is offensive.

Considering you advised someone to conceal the crime of dog theft on another thread in this forum I am frankly pleased you dislike me so much. - please clarify??

Hitler hey? Good evening Mr Godwin!
Oh yes gassing men woman and children is really similar to wanting to force dog owners to behave responsibly.
Congratulations you just spat on the memory of every holocaust victim and every soldier who died in battle in that war.
Well done you!

I really do not want to derail this thread any further, however, I feel there is a point to be made here.

One very responsible dog owner of my acquantance is a young man in his early twenties with Down's syndrome who is the proud owner of a springer spaniel. I presume he would fail your IQ tests, just as he would have been selected out by Hitler. I do not dislike you, I do not know you in any meaningful sense but I find your ideas both cranky and offensive. Enforced sterilisation and excluding "thick people" from full participation in society do strike me as offensive and unreasonable.

It may also be worth considering that people with a criminal record can have children and work with children (dependant on the nature of the offense) but you believe they should not be responsible for a dog.

Of course I appreciate the gravity of the subject matter, however, sensationalising it and playing up the threat is not helpful.


I particularly find this distateful - "Congratulations you just spat on the memory of every holocaust victim and every soldier who died in battle in that war." righto. Thats logical, thanks for that.

Mely

FC with respect,...i think Lillibeth meant the tests should be made with the larger more potentially dangerous breeds and not Springer spaniels etc.

UKTigerlily

Mely wrote: »

I was just wondering why being bitten by a horse/pony was being brought into a thread about possible dangerous dogs?

Just because some say there should be all these laws on certain dog breeds or weights, we're just saying it's the owners not the breed or weight of dog to worry about, and that there are also terrible things happening like horse attacks/knife crime & such but do we ban all men? Or all horses? If that makes sense. We all agree it's horrific that any person is even bitten by a dog let alone mauled/killed, we all agree the OP needs help asap & that dog needs to be assessed and that it's a potential risk to her child of course we do.

We just don't feel banning a particular breed is the way to go, but punishing the owners of such dogs severely is. And of course any dog that has bitten except through pain etc should be PTS.

Mely

I think its sometimes the owners fault and sometimes the dogs fault through 'bad breeding'. Sometimes its a bit of both. I really think some kind of legislation needs to happen.
My daughter has 2 horses of her own and also works with others daily. Its a choice she has made and accepts the risks involved. Horses dont go around killing babies and children in their homes etc.
Also the problems with knife crime in this country imho is a different issue altogether.