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?

[quote OverweightPidgeon]@VickyEadieofThigh yes I agree, I don’t understand parents not educating their children about not touching strange dogs .[/quote]
That will probably be because so many dog owners are keen to insist their dog is nice, won’t hurt etc… and get upset if a parent tells a child to be careful/not to touch said dog….

Dogs - a massive untapped revenue stream for the country.

Rigidly enforced dog licence akin to theTV licence. At registeration, dog owners pay for a DNA sample to be taken and kept on file. Dog wardens to take samples of any dog poo left in public areas for DNA analysis and comparison to the national database. The owners get sent a fine, £65 if paid promptly.

Once upon a time, if there was nobody in the house during the day who could care for a dog and take it out for walks, then you didn't have a dog

Or you just let it roam the streets all day...used to be fairly common at one point.

@FreedomFaith

I think just all dogs must be on leads when not on private property, and if your dog attacks someone on private or public property, on or off lead, you are banned from ever owning dogs again.

Some people can train their dogs, most can't. Most can't even feed their dogs right, so many are obese.

I agree 100% with this! Putting all dogs on leads when outside the home would go a long way to solving the problems that dogs cause.

Frankly we need to get less dog friendly as a society. More restrictions on where and when dogs are allowed in particular locations such as parks and beaches,

Most dog attacks happen in a domestic setting. Restrictions in public places won’t stop them.

The issue starts with poor ownership, but it can reach the point where the dog is the problem. As appealing as regulation of owners and training sounds, the most problematic owners are the ones least likely to engage and to carry on being anti-social or outright dangerous.

I've had plenty of run-ins with feckless owners (not helped by living in the neighbourhood dog-walking-central). Highlights include the woman who shrieked that I was scaring her nearly full-grown labrador puppy because I told it firmly to "get down" after it jumped up at me for a third time. She did not like me telling her to put it on a lead (first time the dog was near enough to the owner to talk to her) Earlier this year a dog darts over to my 8yo who is standing still concentrating on pokemon, dog jumps up and puts its weight into DS's abdomen, winding him. DS is naturally upset and cries, and the owner takes exception and basically blames us for having a child in a public place in the presence of his puppy. Both DCs are scared of dogs because of countless incidents of dogs approaching them, jumping up, and when they were smaller, being bowled over or having food snatched from their hands.
Last week a dog had wondered off out of the park/woods and was strolling up the road. From the lack of calling from the owner, it looks like they hadn't even realised that the dog had left the area.

Really it's a personal responsibility issue and some objective realisation about the dog's needs. Some dogs should never be off lead and too many owners don't realise that their dog is one of them.

The only thing that toughening regulation would do is to stiffen the consequences of falling wildly foul of them, but I don't think it's enforcable enough to make a major difference to the feckless end of dog owners.

I like dogs, and most owners are fine, I don't tend to remember those!

Far more children are hurt by their parents every single day than those hurt by dogs. Do you suggest we bring in exams and licenses before people are allowed to become parents?

Any child being hurt, or god forbid killed, by a dog is tragic. I actually agree that laws should be far more stringent in terms of allowing dogs to be removed from people who aren’t caring for them properly.

However the vast majority of dog owners - and parents - are responsible and caring.

The type of people who keep an aggressive, untrained dog or are cruel and mistreat dogs are exactly the same type of people who mistreat and are cruel to children. They will always find some way around ‘the system’.

It is an unfortunate, and extremely sad, fact of life that no amount of legislation will prevent all child deaths, either from dog attacks or parental abuse.

Look at the terrible state of social services - underfunded, unmanageable caseloads, huge lack of support services including foster carers - there isn’t the political will to fund effective social services so what hope of regulating dog ownership?

Whenever a tragedy happens the general population are up in arms, pointing fingers, apportioning blame and spouting unrealistic ‘there should be...’ The reality is that it is generally a load of hot air. Very few people would be happy for their taxes to be raised sufficiently to provide the services that they believe ‘should be’ in place to prevent future incidents.

@Babdoc

A and E deal with a quarter of a million dog bites a year in the UK. I would have a law banning the owners of each of those dogs from ever owning a dog again. Automatically, and with no appeal. That would quickly reduce the numbers of dogs in the country, and concentrate the minds of owners on training their feral carnivores properly. I’d also reinstate dog licenses - expensive ones, renewable annually - and use the revenue to fund a proper system of dog wardens.

Totally agree with this. Overwhelmingly, these aggressive dogs are owned by a certain strata of society - where they are perceived as a status symbol FFS. The government should impose a very high yearly fee for the 'privilege' of owning such a dog - a yearly fee that is far out of reach of the type of person who typically wants to own one.

@Brieandcamembert

One of the big problems is people having dogs that don't suit them and that they don't understand.

I have a friend with an obese Springer spaniel as they aren't very outdoorsy and walk it round the block once a day. They clearly don't know the breed.

In fact I know several people with very overweight dogs.

Similarly those that have no basic training.

I was speaking to someone at work a couple of weeks ago and they mentioned that their Dalmatian (i.e. high energy, historically ran with fire trucks and carriages) doesn't need to / like to be walked so it just goes out in the garden. They live in a 3 bed semi not on an estate.

It breaks my heart.

A Dalmatian that doesn't like/need to be walked? Ours must be broken then, requires 2 hours walking a day. Couldn't imagine keeping him locked up in the garden. Seems so unfair.

That poor boy, his family must be heart broken :(

Lot of messages on here so sorry if it has already been said.

We have dog licenses and have to micro chip dogs in Ireland. There are still a lot of CRAP owners, not the most serious thing but on Sunday at one of those big retail parks a woman was coming out of the pet shop with her very young, very bouncy puppy who ran onto the road a few time while she sauntered after it, holding a lead!!

Also someone said about it clamping down on illegal breeders, unfortunately and I am ashamed to say I think Ireland is meant to be a big offender for this.

If you can't walk far enough to exercise your dog every day, several times a day I'm some cases, then don't get a dog or get a breed that doesn't require as many walks.

Walking a dog off lead is not just about physical activity. Dogs engage in many off lead behaviours which are beneficial for their mental well being.

However...

Some dogs should never be off lead and too many owners don't realise that their dog is one of them.

@Aprilx

I would be pleased to see something but I don’t know what is the right answer, would a license really do anything didn’t you just have to go and buy one?

This!

I also don't know the answer.

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.

It really is long overdue, I'm a dog owner but I'm so sick of dogs not on leads jumping, scratching chasing my children on bikes. And owners that will then turn on me and get angry if I suggest the dog should be on lead. So many Dog owners are worse than the parents of feral kids at soft play when it comes to aggressively defending their dog children. I feel it's only time before one of my children is seriously hurt by a dog off the lead. The amount of fatal dog attacks is heartbreaking to read also.

There's a lot more to stimulating a dog than just walking it for hours every day.

Far more children are hurt by their parents every single day than those hurt by dogs. Do you suggest we bring in exams and licenses before people are allowed to become parents?

If it were feasible, yes! (maybe not exams as such, but if people had to have training to understand the realities and responsibilities of parenthood before conceiving a child it could only be a good thing). However, just because one risk exists does not mean that we should ignore, or fail to mitigate, another risk.

I would like to see less of people only wanting a certain breed of dog and shelters being their first point of call when looking for a dog as opposed to breeders.

Equally shelters have their part to play in looking at the practicalities of dog ownership and not have a blanket ban when faced with working families with children or couples that work f/t, who will put the dog in play group type dog care, hire a responsible dog walker, dog sitter for when they are at work etc

All that is happening at the moment appears to be that families arrive at shelters looking for a puppy or dog. They get turned down so they go and get a dog anyway.

If shelters could then have a basic training course that is bought with the dog and a requirement to attend I think it would go somewhere to actually helping the situation we have.

No what is sick is that so many people are on board with such an approach with dogs/animals (see the very posts about how it would make a good electoral decision) but no one wants to go down that route for children/humans.

So yes by any means bring rules in place for dogs.
Once you’ve spent the same amount of effort and money to protect children.
(Issue with the fact there is no money tree blablabla)

I would like to see less of people only wanting a certain breed of dog

I can understand why one would want a certain breed and/or a puppy rather than a rescue dog.

For the simple reasons that some breeds are easier to handle and a puppy will have much less behavioural issues than a rescue.

so many dog owners are keen to insist their dog is nice, won’t hurt etc… and get upset if a parent tells a child to be careful/not to touch said dog….

Not always. Some children are allowed to run straight up to dogs, to poke and prod them, to squeal at them etc. Regardless of what dog owners do or don't do, children need to be taught how to behave around dogs.

Let's say you did a training course and exam on dogs before you let someone have a pet. Who would you have write and deliver the dog training? Whose methods would you have as the government approved way to train a dog?

Pack theory is still popular. Dominance training as per someone like Cesar Milan maybe? Alpha rolls and showing it who is boss? Victoria stilwell is popular, but some people don't agree with her methods either.

Dog training is not an exact science and what's considered good and bad methods changes all the time. What works for one dog and owner combo won't work for another. I use force free reward based clicker training with my dogs. The next person might find that their dog responds better to another way. Who is to say who is right, and should that be proscribed by the government?

As someone posted above. I believe dogs off lead should be banned in all public spaces and we should have dog parks which are fenced off and safe for people to allow their dogs to run freely. Personally, my dog is never off lead in a public place and free runs in a private, fenced off dog field which I pay 10 per hour for. He loves it and gets all the exercise he needs. That’s alongside his daily on lead walk.

@AlternativePerspective

I actually saw a report done years ago that said it was labs that bit most people, just not with as much damage as other dogs. And even if they killed someone, doubt it would get much press or backlash. No one would blame the breed, they'd blame the owner. the numbers are proportional to the breeds. The lab is the most popular breed in the UK, it therefore stands to reason that more dog bites will be from labs than from staffies, because there are more of them.

I have said this countless times but for some reason I am always dismissed for doing so.

First off we need to make profiting from the sale of animals illegal. That way you would shut down the puppy farming industry overnight.

All litters need to be registered, meaning that if a dog bites it can be traced back to the breeder, and if more than one dog from the same litter bites then the breeder should be prohibited from breeding from that bitch again, as should the owner of the stud.

The import of rescues from abroad should be banned. They mostly come from completely unsuitable environments with no proper checks etc. We have enough dogs over here, we shouldn’t be taking on more who will probably end up in the rescues in this country instead.

And I know this is controversial, but we need to do away with the idea of no kill rescues.

Rescues are full to over flowing, but the majority of those dogs are dogs which can never be rehomed to anyone without specialist knowledge, and many of them do have socialisation and even aggression issues. This means that your average dog owner is unlikely to be approved to rescue, not because they aren’t suitable, but because the dogs aren’t. But the rescues can’t admit most of their dogs aren’t suitable for rehoming so they put the onus on the clients.

Dogs coming in who are considered unsuitable for rehoming should be euthanised. The quote from some that “we never put a healthy dog down,” is completely disingenuous. If a dog is so traumatised etc that it can never be rehomed then it is not a healthy dog and should be put down.

Maybe then there would be more space in rescues for dogs who have less behavioural problems and people would be more likely to be approved to rescue them.

The Dogs Trust says that they "never put a healthy dog down", but one of the ways they achieve that is by being selective about what dogs they take in the first place. They assess dogs before surrender, & won't take dogs that are aggressive towards people at all. Dog-reactive dogs may be accepted if they have kennel or foster space.

I don't disagree with their approach necessarily, but if they won't take an aggressive dog and owner won't euthanase, then that dog risks being passed on via Gumtree or dumped at another rescue.

One if the reasons other rescue organisations like the RSPCA get a beating over their euthanasia numbers is that they take anything and everything, usually from extreme neglect and abuse cases, & they have to be realistic about which dogs can be safely rehomed and which are just too traumatised and reactive.

I don't think licensing would make much difference - no one is actively policing microchips and many dogs still aren't chipped, so why would those owners comply with licensing?

I do think parents/owners need to be far more careful about bringing unknown dogs into their homes where they couldpotentiallyhave contact with children. There is a reason why most UK rescues have strict assessments, and rules around children's ages etc. Privately rehomed / sold on Gumtree dogs don't come with those assessments; it's easier but far riskier.

I have a dog & am a dog lover - but people need to be more responsible to keep both humans and dogs safe.

TravelLost

I would like to see less of people only wanting a certain breed of dog

I can understand why one would want a certain breed and/or a puppy rather than a rescue dog

For the simple reasons that some breeds are easier to handle and a puppy will have much less behavioural issues than a rescue

Then go to a breed specific rescue and puppies aren’t exactly an easy choice.

A lot of dogs that arrive in rescue centres are their because of their families/persons circumstances and through no fault of their own. They can be well behaved dogs who have ended up there because of death or house repossession and lack of rental properties that will take pets or for a multitude of reasons that have nothing to do with issues they might have.

I'm in Northern Ireland where we have dog licences. It used to make tracking lost dogs easier but they are all microchipped now anyway. If everyone had a licence it would establish who had responsibility for a dangerous dog or one who was out of control but the type of people who let dangerous dogs get out of control probably don't bother getting a dog licence.
I think dangerous breeds should be illegal, properly illegal. Taken straight from owners. People may say that it is not the dog but the owners that are the problem and that pit bulls etc should be allowed to be kept by good owners. But even if that were true, not all owners who think they are good are good. An out of control and aggressive jack russell can bite you but it would be highly unlikely to be able to pull you apart unlike a pit bull. Getting rid of dangerous breeds would help the situation. I don't understand why people think it is ok for them to go to the park with a beast that has the same power and aggression as a lion.
I don't think a test is a good idea either. You'll just end up with just people who know how to pass tests being able to get dogs. Forced puppy training won't work either. Some puppy training is like a free for all for badly behaved puppies and adolescents. I've been to classes that would make the puppies attending worse as other dogs were jumping all over them constantly and nobody was looking for signs of distress. They were basically classes in how to get your dog to act mental.
I think laws around dog ownership need tightened and penalties given to those with out of control dangerous dogs.