'Dangerous dog' programme tonight on ITV..

Dobiegirl said:
Though I agree with everything said, before you start blaming the dog wardens, one has to ask how much training they have had and what their take home pay is. Ive always believed if you pay peanuts you get monkeys, a low salary will only attract certain people and if little or no training is given then the problem is compounded. There is no doubt it can be a dangerous job which is made more so when dealt with little or no knowledge.

The dogs which we saw tonight were not dangerous, I think the message they were trying and failing to get across was any dog has the potential to be dangerous, its the owners which make the difference and I think we can all agree with that.

Seeing that lovely dog at the end and then his dead body was so sad but unfortunately is enacted all over the country day in and day out.

Esther hit the nail on the head, we need to clone Cayla or perhaps someone could pay her to go and train dog wardens, there would be an instant improvement Im sure.
Click to expand...

Don't go for a job you cannot do. These dog wardens were are joke.
 
Dobiegirl said:
Though I agree with everything said, before you start blaming the dog wardens, one has to ask how much training they have had and what their take home pay is. Ive always believed if you pay peanuts you get monkeys, a low salary will only attract certain people and if little or no training is given then the problem is compounded.
Click to expand...

I do take exception to this. I did this job for many years. I was paid the minimum but money was not the driving force for doing the job. I did it because I loved doing it and felt that what I did made a difference. I am not, nor ever have been, any kind of monkey. How rude.

Having made that point I have to say that I was totally appalled at the programme and at the unprofessional way the so called "professionals" conducted themselves. They were a total disgrace, and need firing IMO. I've dealt with many unpredictable dogs. The best way forward is with quiet patience but with the back up of the grasper as a last resort. Birmingham council need to take a long hard look at their DW dept PDQ!!
 
Suelin said:
I do take exception to this. I did this job for many years. I was paid the minimum but money was not the driving force for doing the job. I did it because I loved doing it and felt that what I did made a difference. I am not, nor ever have been, any kind of monkey. How rude.

Having made that point I have to say that I was totally appalled at the programme and at the unprofessional way the so called "professionals" conducted themselves. They were a total disgrace, and need firing IMO. I've dealt with many unpredictable dogs. The best way forward is with quiet patience but with the back up of the grasper as a last resort. Birmingham council need to take a long hard look at their DW dept PDQ!!
Click to expand...

As a serving dog warden I found that this programme has made a mockery of the all important role we carry out and will be making a full and just complaint
 
Some years ago,Birmingham, or at least one of the West Midlands local authorities famously advertised in the Dog papers for a Dog Warden with a "No experience of dogs necessary" line.
Looks like they are continuing with this criteria.
I only saw a preview showing incorrect ( & IMO unnecessary -but I wasn't there) use of the nooses - appauling & maybe an offense under the AWA.
 
Our local dog warden is an ex dog breeder (okay only a small breed but at least he understands dogs) and I have only every heard good reports of him. To say the noose was used incorrectly s4s is an understatement, the dog was virtually unconscious by the time she got it out, then had the nerve to say its collapsed state was due to heat in the house and lack of water!
 
I purposely didn't watch as I have 3 bullbreeds and knew this programme would demonise them .

Judging from my FB page everyone thought the same as you guys on here.
 
The word proffessional, for most of us, conjures up an image of someone dedicated and very experienced at what they do.

In reality, it simply means that you receive payment for what you do.
Perfectly illustrated in that programme.

There are plenty of useless people in animal welfare jobs (not necessarily "doing" them) who love to strut about calling themselves proffessionals.
All it does is convince any knowledgable people that they are all the same (not true) or teach the inexperienced owners that its the way to behave.
When I have had occasion to have conversations with these type of people I am often left in despair at their stupidity.

The man who fed two starving ridgebacks from the same bowel and wondered why they kicked off
Should only be clearing up poo, leaving others to manage and handle the dogs.

As for those two girls, they reminded me of Cruella De Vil's bungling dog nappers.
If it hadn't been real traumatised dogs suffering their stupidity, it would have been funny.
 
The message behind the idiots on screen was actually quite positive. They were trying to explain that dangerous dogs are more to do with their owners and treatment than the breed.
Sadly that was lost amongst the behaviour of the numpties the programme makers chose to appear as the good guys.
 
I couldn't believe that they continued to drag a practically passed out akita out of the house once they had caught it.

I spent some time on work experience with our local dog warden 15 odd years ago and just watching her with dogs you knew that she knew what she was doing and was confident with them. If not on specific calls she used to take her rottie in the truck with her as she found that helped when talking to other people in some areas ;). She had a sidekick but said she would never send her out on any aggressive dog calls as she just wasn't able to cope with them.
 
The only heartening thing that came out of the dreadful programme was the Akita being rehomed. I bet he is a most lovely pet and a right clown. Not sure about the white hair everywhere though !
 
Suelin I offended you and for that I'm sorry, there are exceptions to the rule as MM has said, Im sure there are some dedicated and good dog wardens out there but we didn't see them last night, quite the opposite.
 
Dobiegirl said:
Suelin I offended you and for that I'm sorry, there are exceptions to the rule as MM has said, Im sure there are some dedicated and good dog wardens out there but we didn't see them last night, quite the opposite.
Click to expand...


Thankyou Dobiegirl, appreciated. There are many good Dog Wardens I feel sure, hopefully they are in the majority. You are quite right to say that the programme last night showed the worst possible examples of what Dog Wardens actually do.

I was rather stunned at the DW going into an empty house without either council staff with them or a police presence. We would never have been put in that position. Further, the woman shouting at the fouling offender was completely unprofessional. I have always felt that you win more folk over with sugar than vinegar, which was how I carried out my job.

I sincerely hope that she is without a job this morning. Dreadful, truly dreadful in every sense.
 
I just watched this on itvplayer and I was expecting the worst after reading the comments on here but I'm going to play devil's advocate. Yes, at certain times I agree that the dog wardens didn't necessarily display the best knowledge of dog behaviour but you need to remember that this is an edited program. The akita truly looked exhausted (through barking/guarding) rather the from being 'strangled'. I do think these dog wardens have the best interests of the dogs at heart but they are very tied by the laws that they have to work around. The puppies that were sold at 4 weeks... you could see that in the earlier visit she was trying to do her best to get the owner to provide for them as needed, he chose to ignore her and sell puppies for a quick buck down the pub because 'they could eat and drink on their own'. Not her fault, purely a case of greed, or more likely desperation looking at how the guy was living.

I'm not saying that all that happened in this program is ideal and I would like to think that if I or anyone else that frequents this forum were in those situations (particularly the akita) would act in a much more calm and measurable fashion. However, these are extreme situations that even someone who has been trained may have never seen before. I think that improvements need to be made but the demonisation of those people that is currently happening on this thread seems a bit extreme.

I never want to get into an argument in this section but I do think that there has been a slight overreaction here (slight I may add). The shrieking was completely uncalled for and counterproductive, but the rest of the program did seem to emphasise the point that dangerous dogs are made, not a breed/bred. As that is something that this forum rallys for on an almost daily basis maybe it would be good to see what was trying to be achieved here rather than nitpicking at some human reactions, that although far from perfect, are totally understandable to those who have perhaps never or rarely seen dogs at this extreme of behaviour before.

*puts tin hat on to prepare of a slating*
 
I'm certainly not going to slate you but I really strongly disagree with your opinion on the Akita situation. That dog would have had to bark / guard for hours and hours if not all day solid to get in that condition, in fact I don't believe it is possible he could have ever got himself into that state. He wasn't exhausted, he was pretty much unconscious. His airways were seriously compromised and he was unable to move. She then claims it was because he was too hot in the house.
I don't know about failing to display the best knowledge.
There was no sign of ANY knowledge. Stupid stupid woman.
 
You are entitled to your opinion katikins but have to agree with ribbons re the Akita . There seems to be a huge number of people on fb and other social media sites who are also very critical of the dog wardens on this programme .
 
Agree with some of your points katikins, I am an animal warden for a council and have dealt with situations like those on the programme many times.
The puppies were one of those frustrating visits where yes I don't think there was formal action that could be taken - there's a lot that has to be wrong before you can seize a dog. In that situation I would probably have given the owner a warning, advice and offered to try to find rescue spaces for the pups - this may have happened but not been shown.
However I don't feel that lady should be a dog warden, she is clearly terrified. Not surprising given her awful experience but... I do wonder what she was like before that and that may be the reason why she was attacked. That's speculation though, I don't know her.
The akita was handled appallingly and the two dogs in the same kennel! Why were they together? Or in a kennel that had no outside run? To think of them being poled every day to be moved so it can be cleaned. We refused a licence to as kennel that had a similar set up.
Reality is there are good and bad dog wardens as in any job but! There is an increasing number of councils saving money by running a shoddy service. Its being outsourced to companies who pay even less/provide less training or is being dumped on officers such as pest control or general technical officers some of whom don't want to do the job or even like dogs.
I thought the idea behind the programme was good (bad owners create bad dogs) but was lost. If however it raises awareness of the lack of support to decent dog wardens and the cuts to services then could still be some good
 
allyp said:
Agree with some of your points katikins, I am an animal warden for a council and have dealt with situations like those on the programme many times.
The puppies were one of those frustrating visits where yes I don't think there was formal action that could be taken - there's a lot that has to be wrong before you can seize a dog. In that situation I would probably have given the owner a warning, advice and offered to try to find rescue spaces for the pups - this may have happened but not been shown.
However I don't feel that lady should be a dog warden, she is clearly terrified. Not surprising given her awful experience but... I do wonder what she was like before that and that may be the reason why she was attacked. That's speculation though, I don't know her.
The akita was handled appallingly and the two dogs in the same kennel! Why were they together? Or in a kennel that had no outside run? To think of them being poled every day to be moved so it can be cleaned. We refused a licence to as kennel that had a similar set up.
Reality is there are good and bad dog wardens as in any job but! There is an increasing number of councils saving money by running a shoddy service. Its being outsourced to companies who pay even less/provide less training or is being dumped on officers such as pest control or general technical officers some of whom don't want to do the job or even like dogs.
I thought the idea behind the programme was good (bad owners create bad dogs) but was lost. If however it raises awareness of the lack of support to decent dog wardens and the cuts to services then could still be some good
Click to expand...

Excellent and very true comments. Indeed I am a 'Technical Officer' in a Unitary Authority, that has been 'spread' thinly over many aspects despite licensing being my speciality. Nothing will improve whilst the government continues axing services. Lets face it, children's services, elderly services, public health and welfare have all been severely hit. Animal welfare comes second. You would be astounded if I revealed what has gone from the service I am based in.
 
allyp said:
Agree with some of your points katikins, I am an animal warden for a council and have dealt with situations like those on the programme many times.
The puppies were one of those frustrating visits where yes I don't think there was formal action that could be taken - there's a lot that has to be wrong before you can seize a dog. In that situation I would probably have given the owner a warning, advice and offered to try to find rescue spaces for the pups - this may have happened but not been shown.
However I don't feel that lady should be a dog warden, she is clearly terrified. Not surprising given her awful experience but... I do wonder what she was like before that and that may be the reason why she was attacked. That's speculation though, I don't know her.
The akita was handled appallingly and the two dogs in the same kennel! Why were they together? Or in a kennel that had no outside run? To think of them being poled every day to be moved so it can be cleaned. We refused a licence to as kennel that had a similar set up.
Reality is there are good and bad dog wardens as in any job but! There is an increasing number of councils saving money by running a shoddy service. Its being outsourced to companies who pay even less/provide less training or is being dumped on officers such as pest control or general technical officers some of whom don't want to do the job or even like dogs.
I thought the idea behind the programme was good (bad owners create bad dogs) but was lost. If however it raises awareness of the lack of support to decent dog wardens and the cuts to services then could still be some good
Click to expand...

Generally, an excellent post which most would applaud.

One niggling question though, just why should a Council (one that we all pay for, let's not forget), have to pay for individual dog wardens to act on behalf of our Society? Why should we, as tax payers, have to fund such a service? How did we manage 40 odd years ago? Not one question, but 3. How or more to the point, why should society have to face these costs? Can anyone justify it all to me? Yet more questions!!

Alec.
 
Why should we pay for anything Alec??

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 puts the statutory duty on councils to provide a dog warden service. The reason for collecting and containing strays is because they can potentially be a danger to the public, cause traffic accidents, foul, tear open rubbish and generally be a nuisance

The same legislation also made it statutory for the councils to do many other things for example dealing noise nuisances or fly tipping. This is in addition to many other pieces of legislation stating that councils must carry out enforcement/regulatory duties etc. It was and is felt by central government that is necessary as part of general public protection and health to do such things. Does that make sense?

There's lots of things my council tax pays for that has no effect on my life whatsoever. Maybe in the future some of things may be important to me, a lot I will have no use for/involvement with. Is part of being in democracy :)

I don't agree with all the things in legislation or from central/local government but I do believe strongly where people's safety and animal welfare is at risk then the job must be done properly, no excuses
 
allyp, perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree.

Why the bloody hell should I, as a tax payer have to support, without complaint, those who expect Society, and again that's you and I, to pick up their wastage? With the constant cuts to our services, are you really going to tell me that stray dogs take precedence over the welfare of the young or the elderly? and please, don't tell me that either are adequately catered for, because they aren't.

Are you honestly going to tell me that with Councils cutting the services of the needy, that a girl driving around in a van, with a badge and a uniform, catching up the odd dog, or two, takes priority? Really?

Alec.
 
Council cuts are affecting all services and of course vulnerable children and adults have to come first. I didn't say that they didn't. I pointed out that councils (and other agencies to be fair) are responsible in carrying out a vast number (100s if not 1000s) of statutory duties and those that directly affect public health and animal welfare should be run properly by well trained, supported staff

A decent dog warden service is not "a girl in a van picking up the odd dog". They investigate stray dogs, dangerous dogs, nuisance complaints, licensing legislation and welfare complaints amongst other things. They carry out enforcement action where necessary but most importantly of all they educate - on an individual basis, at clubs and in schools. Education is on responsible dog ownership, safety around dogs, legislation and more.

I get angry when dealing with the same people again and again - especially as those people who are using/abusing multiple other services - social, children, anti social behaviour, housing, police, RSPCA. All too often you deal with one family and find that 7,8, 9+ departments/agencies are also dealing with them. However I have also seen people turn their lives around including those that seemed to be a total waste of time. When I see the situations they are raised in then I can understand why they act as they do - understand not codone as they still have a choice although they may not realise it.

Again, I say why pay for any of these things? Sure start services for people who literally don't know how to take care of their children, social housing, medication for drug addicts - the council even bury you if none of your family care or have the money.
The reason why is because we are a democratic society. Its not perfect by long shot (what about high earners using their wealth to find tax breaks so they pay less tax than I do?) and I've worked in local government long enough not to mention dealings at a national level to see the many serious faults in the system. I'm not defending those but am saying again that services should be well run with trained, supported staff. Especially those directly involving people's and animal's welfare

Final point- about 2/3rds of the dogs we collect as strays are owned by nice, ordinary people who are never in trouble with the police, work, pay their taxes and their rent/mortgage etc. Dogs sometimes escape or get lost on a walk or are stolen. The owners pay the fine and just care about getting their dog back
 
ribbons said:
I'm certainly not going to slate you but I really strongly disagree with your opinion on the Akita situation. That dog would have had to bark / guard for hours and hours if not all day solid to get in that condition, in fact I don't believe it is possible he could have ever got himself into that state. He wasn't exhausted, he was pretty much unconscious. His airways were seriously compromised and he was unable to move. She then claims it was because he was too hot in the house.
I don't know about failing to display the best knowledge.
There was no sign of ANY knowledge. Stupid stupid woman.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

I was shocked by the behaviour of the so called professionals.

I was also shocked at the poor ridgeback that was so obviously scared to death and all that chap did at the kennels was shout at her and then pin her into a corner with a riot shield. No wonder she went to bite him. Talk about threatening behaviour from him!!

I appreciate that he only has them for a short period of time but come on, surely he should have a bit of time to try and get them to come round and not just totally freak them out. Also, one bowl?? Are you kidding me!! No wonder they kicked off. Idiot.

I worked at a rescue kennels for 5 years and yes, I was bitten a few times, but, I really believe if you cant get over it and treat each dog individually and not freak out then you shouldn't be working in that profession anymore.

To squawk and squeal and harp on about how she is going to be killed by an Akita, is, to me, totally unprofessional and did the dog no good in keeping it calm. That wasn't a tired dog, it was being strangulated. Absolutely shocking and I hope that she is facing disciplinary action because of it.
 
Bring back the dog licence is my opinion. I don't understand why it was ever stopped.
Every dog must have an annually paid licence at a price of around £25. A fair price I believe. Very strictly enforced.
It would go a long way to weeding out a lot of the moron owners and pay for the manpower needed to enforce it.
Yes I know it would mostly hit responsible owners, but I'd be happy to pay it providing it was strictly enforced. No licence, your dog is removed, simple as that.
Initially it would result in a huge increase in dogs being in rehoming kennels etc, and probably an increase in many being pts. A shame in the short term, but a huge benefit to future dogs lives in the long term.
 
The dog licence was stopped because only the responsible dog owners bothered to get one, and that was when it cost less than £1. Once the new microchip law comes into effect it could make a difference IF the resources are there to check dogs. However I very much doubt much money will be available to do this, and if they still have dog wardens like the 2 in that programme then I am not holding my breath for an improvement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top