Japanese Akita eats cats

gomer

patchwork_cat wrote: »

We all seem to be missing something said by IainK- my dog has killed a few cats - so what. You are a disgrace as a dog owner. And yes as I said before I too am a dog owner - you have an irresponsible attitude. I also disagree about that hasn't turned them into killing beasts it is the start and where does it stop. You could well have your dog put down by the RSPCA, asa dangerous dog, if one of the cat owners kicked up enough stink.

We didn't miss it, we just saw it as read - In fairness to Iaink he didn't actually say that his dog had killed a few cats, he said they had 'had' a few cats which isn't quite the same thing, not killed them.

Perhaps he could clarify what he meant.

Mrs_pbradley936

Trainers and behaviourists cannot wave a magic wand. I know many of them and most problems are the result of letting a dog get too far down the road of unacceptable behaviour and then trying to turn the situation around. The "unacceptable" can range from getting on the sofa to chasing people on bikes. However some people do let their dog on the sofa so you first have to decide what is acceptable. Also what is acceptable and cute in a pup may not be so in a fully grown large dog. Many people wrestle with pups from a young age - fine when you can restrain them physically. What about when they grow up and what was a game has become a serious situation about dominance and control? I really do think that large dogs ought to have restrictions placed upon their ownership. I am quite sure that all of the responsible people on here and elsewhere would comply.

gomer

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

Trainers and behaviourists cannot wave a magic wand. I know many of them and most problems are the result of letting a dog get too far down the road of unacceptable behaviour and then trying to turn the situation around. The "unacceptable" can range from getting on the sofa to chasing people on bikes. However some people do let their dog on the sofa so you first have to decide what is acceptable. Also what is acceptable and cute in a pup may not be so in a fully grown large dog. Many people wrestle with pups from a young age - fine when you can restrain them physically. What about when they grow up and what was a game has become a serious situation about dominance and control? I really do think that large dogs ought to have restrictions placed upon their ownership. I am quite sure that all of the responsible people on here and elsewhere would comply.

The problem is it's not the responsible owners who need to comply. As has already been pointed out you are looking at the wrong end of the lead - it is not the breed that needs restrictions placed on it but the sort of people who are buying them.

UKTigerlily

suki1964 wrote: »

Fair enough - but surely only on whats been posted in black and white not on pure conjecture?

And actually this board ISNT for discussion


Perhaps the strong opinions and discussion are best suited to the arms?

Agreed! I think we've all said our bit now!

foreign_correspondent

In summary - it has killed cats, one in the garden, two whilst out. This is very unfortunate, and I assume the OP feels the same to be looking for advice.

Some very good advice has been given -

The OP needs to be very vigilant and take steps to ensure the dog never gets out - that is their duty and is clearly set out in the law. Quite apart from the cats it could cause a RTA etc etc.

The owner cannot be held legally responsible AFAIK for any cats the dog kills on their own garden, however, its probably a good idea to take steps to prevent this happening again, both for compassionate reasons (ie. for the sake of the cats and their owners) and to prevent the dog from honing its chasing and catching skills.

All of this was suggested and mostly agreed in the first couple of pages - why not leave it at that?

p.s. there is no evidence (as has been repeated throughout the thread) that a dog who catches mice, rats, rabbits or cats will somehow start attacking children, however, no dog should be left unsupervised with small children, as both are unpredictable!

Mrs_pbradley936

gomer wrote: »

The problem is it's not the responsible owners who need to comply. As has already been pointed out you are looking at the wrong end of the lead - it is not the breed that needs restrictions placed on it but the sort of people who are buying them.

But if undesirables could not obtain say a Rottweiler wouldn't you be happy with that? An untrained, unsocialised Yorkie causes me and I suspect most people far less concern that an untrained, unsocialised large dog. I propose that you have an owners license for a large breed a bit like we have a special license if you want to drive a lorry or a bus. In other words prove you are capable. The reason I think size works is because it is proven to work in some areas of the USA and as I say small dogs could be exempt. Once you had a license you would keep it unless you dog caused a problem then it could be revoked. I think licensing the owner not the dog is the way forward.

gomer

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

But if undesirables could not obtain say a Rottweiler wouldn't you be happy with that? An untrained, unsocialised Yorkie causes me and I suspect most people far less concern that an untrained, unsocialised large dog. I propose that you have an owners license for a large breed a bit like we have a special license if you want to drive a lorry or a bus. In other words prove you are capable. The reason I think size works is because it is proven to work in some areas of the USA and as I say small dogs could be exempt. Once you had a license you would keep it unless you dog caused a problem then it could be revoked. I think licensing the owner not the dog is the way forward.

I really wish you'd stop going on about what works in the USA. We don't have thier dog laws now & never will for a very good reason, of course i'd prefer undesirables not to own Rottweilers - that's why i would like restriction on who can own them, not restrictions placed on the breed because that is little more than breed prejudice which is very unhelpful as it is not the breeds we need restrictions on but the sort of people who are allowed to buy them, we need restrictions on who can buy the dogs so they don't get into the hands of idiots in the first place. Placing restrictions on particular breeds will only make them more attractive to exactly the sort of people we don't want owning them.

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 placed restrictions on Pitt Bull Terriers & look what that did for thier popularity - they and thier crosses are now the most popular dogs in the UK. Would you feel comfortable with the same amount of Rottweilers and Rottweiler crosses in the UK? I certainly wouldn't. Restrictions on breeds does not work because it makes those breeds more attractive to the wrong people.

UKTigerlily

I'd also worry about people going underground with them etc & then the not knowing if a cross definitely has that breed in it, look at the Staff x's being thought of as Pitbulls. We had a Staff x Boxer & her Son, a Staff x Boxer x Lab in thought to be APBT, luckily it was decided they likely weren't & the Dogs released but if we ban Rotts & such or restrict the breed any Dogs thought to be a x or one will be seized

gomer

UKTigerlily wrote: »

I'd also worry about people going underground with them etc & then the not knowing if a cross definitely has that breed in it, look at the Staff x's being thought of as Pitbulls. We had a Staff x Boxer & her Son, a Staff x Boxer x Lab in thought to be APBT, luckily it was decided they likely weren't & the Dogs released but if we ban Rotts & such or restrict the breed any Dogs thought to be a x or one will be seized

Precisely my point - it causes more problems that it solved. It is exactly because the DDA placed restrictions on certain breeds that we are now flooded to bursting point with the next best thing to a Pitt Bull you can get that is readily available. Breed specific legislation might look fantastic on paper but in practice it couldn't be more flawed.

The idea behind banning the breeding of Pitt Bulls in 1991 was so that they would gradually fizzle out and die away as a breed - and look what that little bit of genius thinking has lead to now with the Bull Breed population. They have never been so ppopular.

gomer

And my spelling has never been so cack. LOL