thinking its now time to get super tough on dog ownership?

[adam7485]

after what has happened in wales to that poor little boy i can't help thinking its time to not jus bring back dog licences but before you buy a dog you should have to take an exam to prove that you can look after it properly. not only that but if your dog attacks someone not only should it be taken away from you but from that moment on your banned from ever owning dogs. anyone agree with me?

There should be ownership regulations/licensing/mandatory training for dog ownership which get stricter depending on combination of breed size, features such as lock jaw, temperament. Mandatory microchipping.

Cost borne by dog owners.

Not sure how you an enforce- sometimes even a dog walking over for a sniff /jogging over might seem like an attack on someone. And then what, you get that owner fined or dog put down for the slightest mistake? Where will the rules stop?

My dog is still a puppy and 85% of the time has brilliant recall, but he is also a dog and it's not going to be perfect all the time. But he is learning. And one thing that helped his recall training, would you believe was not be on the lead in large spaces and always come back to me on his own accord. And hes got his bronze certificate.

It's absolutely tragic what happened to the kid but I don't think enforcing so many rules on the many other good dog owners is the way.

Dog friendly cafe and restaurants are the best and most places implement a doggy section with more ventilation near the doors or outside seating and non doggy section inside more so i really don't see the issue with so many people here

I love dogs.
I am in favour of them being licensed, also tighter controls on sales of puppies and rescues from abroad.

Less popular, I imagine, I would severely restrict the breeding and sale of all large/bully breeds.

The advantage of a small dog is it won't kill anyone. Why would you have a dog that is big enough to kill you in your home?

If you are a good owner, what is the issue? I think we are talking about standards that make you a good owner, and what makes you a bad one. Nothing wrong with that given the risks.

At the least I think to own certain breeds people need a license, and to get the license they need to pass a course first to understand the needs of the dog and the basics of training.

We need to break the cycle of a certain type of person - usually men - thinking that a certain type of dog is an indicator of how tough they are.

Sorry if that makes me sound like a "Karen" but I've seen that type of person/dog often and it rarely looks like a partership that is beneficial for the dog.

This summer I was dogsitting for my friend. Walking her in the park one day we went past a group of men with two pitbulls who were just sitting there minding their business (the dogs). One of the men went "our dogs could eat your dog for breakfast!" and then starting jabbing his shoe into the ribs of one of the dogs to rile it up. And yes, I'm sure they could make mincemeat of my friends' timid little rescue dog to satisfy someone's fragile masculinity. And then they would be destroyed. It's incredibly unfair on the dogs that are made into these "My dog is so tough ergo I am also so tough" status symbols. We need to break that cycle.

People who own these dogs, that kill people are usually irresponsible owners. They won't take an exam, buy a license or a pay attention if they get ban.

And that's why we need licenses. I don't think it would be too hard to give police officers a scanner app on their phones so they can scan dogs and see if they are licensed. And as I said, I think licenses should be for the breeds that come up in these attack stories over and over.

If the police stop and scan a pitbull or rottweiler, etc, and it has no license, the dog could then be instantly seized, and hopefully before the owners have had a chance to fuck it up too much.

@Strawbales

There aren’t enough animals needing homes, though.

All insisting that people rescue in this country only will achieve is increase the demand for puppies!

So regulate breeding.

@GatoradeMeBitch

People who own these dogs, that kill people are usually irresponsible owners. They won't take an exam, buy a license or a pay attention if they get ban.

And that's why we need licenses. I don't think it would be too hard to give police officers a scanner app on their phones so they can scan dogs and see if they are licensed. And as I said, I think licenses should be for the breeds that come up in these attack stories over and over.

If the police stop and scan a pitbull or rottweiler, etc, and it has no license, the dog could then be instantly seized, and hopefully before the owners have had a chance to fuck it up too much.

Actually this is quite clever, combine chip with licence, if not licensed, confiscate. But you can't discrimate between breeds can you because of crossing, so very expensive licensing. It at least gives you a method of control, which be targetted at antisocial owners.

@GoodnightGrandma

I often see pit bull looking types walking round, so someone is breeding them. If you stop the breeders people can’t buy them.

[sigh]

You mean staffy crosses perhaps. Maybe you don't, but as the owner of a bull terrier I am often accused of having a dangerous dog, a pit bull type, and I should be ashamed, arrested, shot etc.

There are puppy breeding laws, since 2018, acros the UK

puppycontract.org.uk/puppy-buyer/puppy-breeding-laws

Whilst I would agree that a license is a good idea in principle what good would it actually do?

Like the puppy breading laws it would depend entirely on members of the public to police it - and I dame well wouldn't be showing nosy bastards my dog's license, they could be dog thieves!

I'd say the same about puppy training too. It's essential, but how could you make it mandatory? The good breeders and owners already do everything suggested. The bad ones still wouldn't if all suggestions were mandated!

Actually this is quite clever, combine chip with licence, if not licensed, confiscate. But you can't discrimate between breeds can you because of crossing, so very expensive licensing. It at least gives you a method of control, which be targetted at antisocial owners.

That only ensures the first owner is responsible. If the dog is rehomed, stolen etc?

And police just don't have the time for it. Even PCSOs couldn't make that work - and ours pet my dog every chance they get

I think the point is that there needs to be a consequence for not having a licence. You lose the dog, and gain a criminal record, for example. There's some precedent for that and not impossible to do.

@JohnDee007

Tbh I think the problems that are being shown up through problem dog ownership reflect the problems we face on society at large. People valuing things by their price tag, insta readiness, people not taking responsibility for their own actions, people thinking the whole world revolves round them, people valuing something that looks good over it’s suitability, wanting to keep up with the joneses, not willing to put in an effort, disposing of stuff they don’t want, following fashion, lack of thinking ability, removing themselves from nature and anthropomorphising everything rather than understanding nature, not giving a fuck for anything apart from themselves, thinking everything can be bought. Everything being someone else’s fault,

Solve the above and you’ll solve the problem dog ownership.

Absolutely love this. So very, very true.

Generally speaking if a person wants to own one of these type of dogs they need to demonstrate that their IQ is higher than the dog's.

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

Actually this is quite clever, combine chip with licence, if not licensed, confiscate. But you can't discrimate between breeds can you because of crossing, so very expensive licensing. It at least gives you a method of control, which be targetted at antisocial owners.

That only ensures the first owner is responsible. If the dog is rehomed, stolen etc?

And police just don't have the time for it. Even PCSOs couldn't make that work - and ours pet my dog every chance they get

This is all easily addressed. The person who stole the dog has an unlicensed dog. Confiscate it. The person who rehomes the dog and does not declare rehomed is fined or otherwise punished. That should have happened with the owners of the dog in this disgusting crime where they have zero responsibility.

Make it expensive, and fund it. The police will have time if they have time to pet your dog.

I am extremely wary of large dogs - there are always so many of them running around my local park, chasing each other, snapping at each other and the owners are just ambling along chatting to each other. They aren’t even looking at what their dogs are doing. But then why would they, I’m pretty sure “they’re big softies really who wouldn’t hurt a fly…..”

Chasing and play "fighting" is how dogs play with one another. I know it can be worrying when big dogs do it, but usually it's quite controlled.

I used to have a tiny lakeland terrier bitch who would play fight and have chasing games with a neighbour's big German Shepherd dog. It was alarming to watch, but the GSD never put a paw wrong and neither of them came close to getting hurt - just tired!

@LexMitior I wish you were right! Really I do!

But what worked by common consent in yesteryear won't fly these days.

@trumpisagit i am sorry but any dog can kill you whatever size if its in the right frame of mind, has been treated badly, lack of exercise and socializing. A child was killed here in Ireland during the summer by a small terrier. Some big dogs are so gentle and placid they wouldn't hurt a fly . As i keep saying no such thing as bad dogs only bad owners

[quote HoardingSamphireSaurus]@LexMitior I wish you were right! Really I do!

But what worked by common consent in yesteryear won't fly these days.[/quote]
I'm not talking about consent. I'm talking about making it criminal law. And using it in the same way that we do to other dangerous risks in the UK. Why can't you see that? Shrugging and say it won't work is a case to do nothing.

No, I don't agree with you.
What good would licenses do apart from maybe generate a bit of income and paper?
There will always be irresponsible owners.
I don't agree with dogs being removed and a life time ban on owning them is a not proportionate response to dogs biting when there are so many reasons dog bite. Puppies bite, because they use their mouths to explore. There is also resource guarding that can be trained out of dogs, and sometimes a dog will bite because it is in pain or unwell.
There needs to be better education on how to read dog body language, and to teach children not to pull ears, climb on dogs etc.
I know someone who was ordered to put his beloved dog down after it had bitten a child in his own home. The dog was deaf, and fast asleep. The child went to sit on it, and it woke up and snapped. Poor dog paid with its life, and the owner was heartbroken.

I also don't agree with the people saying importing dogs should be banned. In some countries, dogs are treated awfully, and rescues who import are an absolute lifeline for them. In Spain, galgos (Spanish greyhounds) are used for hunting and when no longer useful, end up hung from trees or just abandoned to live on the streets.
The rescue Galgos del Sol does amazing work with such dogs. They sometimes will keep a dog for years until it is ready to rehome, and they rehome worldwide. They would be fucked if they could not do that.
I think the problem with dogs from abroad comes form well meaning smaller rescues who bring a dog over from Romania with no real assessment or full history, and get it in whatever home.
The rescues who are strict and spend time assessing the dogs, are the better ones IMHO.

Well I don't agree - placing the onus on children is unfair and dangerous. That is part of the problem that has resulted in this tragedy.

I'm not talking about consent. I'm talking about making it criminal law. And using it in the same way that we do to other dangerous risks in the UK. Why can't you see that? Shrugging and say it won't work is a case to do nothing

I think you have utterly misunderstood the point I was making @LexMitior

Well what is your point so I might better understand?

To the people saying if a dog bites anyone the dog should be pts and owners never allowed a dog again. Well sometimes accidents happen that aren't the fault of the family or the dog.

I deal with difficult dogs, troubled fosters and bully breeds every single day. They have never bitten anyone.

I was bitten at home as a child by my DMs support dog, a golden retriever.
A dog that had over 30k spent in training. She wasn't a vicious dog, she was a neccasary part of the family. It was an accident and blanket laws like the ones being proposed here don't seem to take situations like this into account.

There needs to be better education on how to read dog body language, and to teach children not to pull ears, climb on dogs etc.

When women get raped it is their fault, when children get killed by dogs it is their fault...

Always blame the victims. This is why I lose respect for a lot of dog people, even when dogs kill they blame the children.

I think licences are a good idea. I also think that dogs should be on-lead unless the owner has ability to control/quickly recall the dog. There definitely needs to be a tougher stance.

@rrhuth

There needs to be better education on how to read dog body language, and to teach children not to pull ears, climb on dogs etc.

When women get raped it is their fault, when children get killed by dogs it is their fault...

Always blame the victims. This is why I lose respect for a lot of dog people, even when dogs kill they blame the children.

Rape and a dog bite are worlds apart. Dogs can bite as a reaction. Rape is totally inexcusable.