GeeGeeboy
Well-Known Member
On in ten mins on itv. Not sure if can face it after last weeks episode!
Part two of 'dangerous dogs'
- Thread starter GeeGeeboy
- Start date
GeeGeeboy
Well-Known Member
7 cats locked up in a bathroom. What the hell?!
ester
Not slacking multitasking
I don't get why that bloke couldn't take his own dog to the vets to PTS, and if current woman got a 5 year ban in 2011 why they can't remove?
Montyforever
Well-Known Member
Didn't see last weeks but oh my god how can that woman live like that!? Obviously never learns either! Shouldn't be allowed within a mile of any animal!!!
ladyt25
Well-Known Member
Hmm, you see these programmes and just think they really need to bring back the need to have a licence to own a dog. Plus, if the RSPCA give someone a ban for keeping animals, than ban should be for life or with at least a minimum of 10 years! No point having a ban when someone can just start their hoard all over again.
It's horrible to see these 'dangerous dogs' as well that are just so blatantly terrified
That poor staffie look petrified. The dog warden wondred whey there were so many dog attacks. Well, one word in my mind is key - exercise! The majority of these animals are kept in pokey gardenless houses (not a problem in itself). They are not let out and just do their business in the house. Is it any wonder they turn. A human would go beserk kept like that so it's no wonder a dog does!
It's horrible to see these 'dangerous dogs' as well that are just so blatantly terrified
That poor staffie look petrified. The dog warden wondred whey there were so many dog attacks. Well, one word in my mind is key - exercise! The majority of these animals are kept in pokey gardenless houses (not a problem in itself). They are not let out and just do their business in the house. Is it any wonder they turn. A human would go beserk kept like that so it's no wonder a dog does!
ladyt25
Well-Known Member
When are they going to rethink this whole system of taking measurements to determine a 'pitbull'? It is so ridiculous. These dogs are most likely staffie crosses. Could be blooming anything!
twiggy2
Well-Known Member
from what the warden said the owner was badly bitten on both hands/arms-maybe he was worried about being bitten again
ladyt25
Well-Known Member
I don't see how the powers that be can seize an animal that has not done anything purely because of 'type'. It is ridiculous. Yes, a dog that is being neglected/mistreated or a dog that has attacked someone, but taking dogs for no reason infuriates me!
GeeGeeboy
Well-Known Member
It's the idiot owner's fault AGAIN!! If he wants a Pitbull, he has to follow the guidelines. Moaning about castration- utterly ridiculous!
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
Because there are four banned breed types in this country.
ladyt25
Well-Known Member
True, I get that bit although he's not the only man who doesn't want his dog castrated. Their dogs aren't just taken away though and 'assessed' to see if they're dangerous. I am sure there are plenty of more dangerous, entire dogs out there that aren't on the 'banned breeds' list. Why confiscate? Why not save the money and monitor them in the home? Maybe we had missed that bit, maybe he has already had a warning and hadn't done what was asked...
Seeing that happy, healthy dog PTs was heartbreaking and, knowing that happens everday makes it worse
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
How much money would it cost to have the resources to monitor all these banned breeds in the home?
If it's law that they are banned in this country, then by turning around and just allowing people to have them, but 'monitor' them in the home, then there's not really any point in the law in the first place is there?
ester
Not slacking multitasking
maybe but he had had it 6 odd years without prior incident.
ladyt25
Well-Known Member
Watching that programme, hey have spent weeks re-visiting that woman and her dogs, puppies etc so it wouldn't be any different surely and in fact would/should be quicker. Simply "get it neuteured, get it insured, if that's not done within 'x' amount of time we will seize the dog and then it will cost you '£x' to have it returned. Otherwise it will be PTS"
Don't think that would be using anymore resource than they use now or what it cost to keep that dog in kennels for 5 weeks and the cost of having it castrated and assessed.
The point about the 'banned breed' is them seemingly not having a definitive way of determining whether a particular dog is a 'banned breed'!
Don't think that would be using anymore resource than they use now or what it cost to keep that dog in kennels for 5 weeks and the cost of having it castrated and assessed.
The point about the 'banned breed' is them seemingly not having a definitive way of determining whether a particular dog is a 'banned breed'!
twiggy2
Well-Known Member
all the more reason to be wary, I have witnessed dogs being PTS after unprovoked attacks on owners and it can be due to brain tumours/seizures, if one of my dogs attacked me i would be reluctant to handle it again
Copperpot
Well-Known Member
The law is ridiculous. Deeming a dog dangerous on measurements and appearance. The poor dogs pay for it and they haven't put a paw wrong. Most of the dogs deemed as type are clearly not pit bulls. If you actually see a properly bred pitbull it looks nothing like a lot of the dogs seized.
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
They are banned because of the characteristics in their physiology and genetic makeup which make them dangerous IF they were to attack. It's not because they are deemed an aggressive natured breed as such.
GeeGeeboy
Well-Known Member
I always thought Pitbulls weren't a breed but a 'type' even in America?
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
Yes they are a type - based on certain characteristics and measurements in their physiology ie jaw width, chest width etc.
Copperpot
Well-Known Member
All dogs have the potential to be dangerous not only ones you can measure to be a certain type.
I simply do not agree with labelling a dog based purely on looks.
lexiedhb
Well-Known Member
Which is total nonsense!!
Its like tarring all of a nation/race/colour/sex/ with the same brush utter garbage
Dry Rot
Well-Known Member
It's really quite simple. The problem is not the indiscriminate breeding of dogs but the indiscriminate breeding of their owners who have no use in society except as stars on the Jeremy Kyle show. Who is for castration and PTS?
MurphysMinder
Well-Known Member
It's really quite simple. The problem is not the indiscriminate breeding of dogs but the indiscriminate breeding of their owners who have no use in society except as stars on the Jeremy Kyle show. Who is for castration and PTS?
That would get my vote !
allyp
Member
Absolutely. And is why so many people and organisations (NDWA, RSPCA, Dogs Trust etc) are against BSL. It isn't fair and doesn't work.
However it is the law so if a dog comes to the police's attention that may be of type they must investigate it. They seize and remove to kennels and measure up according to this breed standard: http://www.adbadog.com/p_pdetails.asp?fpid=32
Temperament is not part of that assessment, it is purely measurements. It is nonsense. I agree that a pit is a large powerful dog but could say the same about 100s of different breeds. They are v intelligent and require lot of exercise but again so do many breeds (think of as large working lab, they can be quite similar). Pits are used in other countries as assistance dogs, PAT dogs, search and rescue and so on.
But that's the law and until it changes it has to be enforced as such, there is no wriggle room
However it is the law so if a dog comes to the police's attention that may be of type they must investigate it. They seize and remove to kennels and measure up according to this breed standard: http://www.adbadog.com/p_pdetails.asp?fpid=32
Temperament is not part of that assessment, it is purely measurements. It is nonsense. I agree that a pit is a large powerful dog but could say the same about 100s of different breeds. They are v intelligent and require lot of exercise but again so do many breeds (think of as large working lab, they can be quite similar). Pits are used in other countries as assistance dogs, PAT dogs, search and rescue and so on.
But that's the law and until it changes it has to be enforced as such, there is no wriggle room
Dizzydancer
Well-Known Member
allyp interesting you say that about large lab.
my working lab doesn't look like a typical lab but did look a little like that stray pts last night- poor dog.
interestingly just looked at the defra guidelines and he would score in most sections- heres hoping he never goes missing!
my working lab doesn't look like a typical lab but did look a little like that stray pts last night- poor dog.
interestingly just looked at the defra guidelines and he would score in most sections- heres hoping he never goes missing!
Last edited:
Alexart
Well-Known Member
Dry Rot definitely agree!!! I think english law is also to blame partly - these dog wardens/RSPCA etc have no legal powers at all so cannot remove animals even if they are being kept like the fat moron family with the hoard of pets who she couldn't care less about, I don't think I'd have the patience to deal with idiots like that, I'd certainly get through blue juice pretty quick though, and not for the animals!! I think a license for any pet should be brought in, they should be made expensive and have to be re-applied for every year and a test of some sort to make sure they are competent to own the animal too, and for breeding it should be made so expensive that no-one would even consider doing it for money - I think pink flying elephants would be as likely!!
I think english law is also to blame partly - these dog wardens/RSPCA etc have no legal powers at all so cannot remove animals even if they are being kept like the fat moron family with the hoard of pets who she couldn't care less about, I don't think I'd have the patience to deal with idiots like that, I'd certainly get through blue juice pretty quick though, and not for the animals!! I think a license for any pet should be brought in, they should be made expensive and have to be re-applied for every year and a test of some sort to make sure they are competent to own the animal too, and for breeding it should be made so expensive that no-one would even consider doing it for money - I think pink flying elephants would be as likely!!
ihatework
Well-Known Member
It's really quite simple. The problem is not the indiscriminate breeding of dogs but the indiscriminate breeding of their owners who have no use in society except as stars on the Jeremy Kyle show. Who is for castration and PTS?
Snigger. too true ...
Dry Rot
Well-Known Member
It is very tempting to shout for new rules and regulations to deal with these situations but have you met the people who have to apply them? (Excluding any here, of course).
We have a mad woman living "near here". She left a dog on a chain and disappeared down south for three months with a local lad popping in once a day to feed and poo scoop.
My call to the SSPCA got me the reply that this was "perfectly alright". As the word went around, they got more complaints and changed their minds. The woman was issued with an order to get her act together.She did nothing. The order expired. The SSPCA did nothing. The matter was finally resolved when a concerned member of the public stole the dog and found it a new home (not me!).
The woman also had several small ponies on her land, attended to by the same person who called in once a day. The "field" was infested with ragwort. The SSPCA inspected the site in late winter when the ragwort had all died off. They declared that there was no ragwort!
Rules and regulations are not enough. I had a young lad working here for a few days (after which he was speeded on his way). His ambition was to become an SSPCA inspector. When I asked him why, he said the pay was good, he'd retire early on a good pension, and he'd get a van to drive around in. No mention of animals. As ever, I remain a cynic. I, on the other hand, is a "bad person" for reporting ragwort where "there was none" and for "arranging" to have the dog stolen .
We have a mad woman living "near here". She left a dog on a chain and disappeared down south for three months with a local lad popping in once a day to feed and poo scoop.
My call to the SSPCA got me the reply that this was "perfectly alright". As the word went around, they got more complaints and changed their minds. The woman was issued with an order to get her act together.She did nothing. The order expired. The SSPCA did nothing. The matter was finally resolved when a concerned member of the public stole the dog and found it a new home (not me!).
The woman also had several small ponies on her land, attended to by the same person who called in once a day. The "field" was infested with ragwort. The SSPCA inspected the site in late winter when the ragwort had all died off. They declared that there was no ragwort!
Rules and regulations are not enough. I had a young lad working here for a few days (after which he was speeded on his way). His ambition was to become an SSPCA inspector. When I asked him why, he said the pay was good, he'd retire early on a good pension, and he'd get a van to drive around in. No mention of animals. As ever, I remain a cynic. I, on the other hand, is a "bad person" for reporting ragwort where "there was none" and for "arranging" to have the dog stolen .
ThoroughbredStar
Well-Known Member
A heartbreaking second episode- very difficult to watch.
On the topic they were portraying last night re monitoring the banned breeds, I felt they should have been targeting the people breeding this banned "type" of dog more so than the people buying them. If you cant breed them you cant sell them- unless I am missing part of the law?? The law says (as afr as I am aware from last night) they can be owned in this country under a number of conditions, and one is it can't ever be re-homed. This must be after it has been sold as a pup, which would actually be its second owner?
As for that "female" Vanessa with all those staffs she was breeding to sell- i'm sorry but they should have been whipped away from her. Absolutely disgusting.
On the topic they were portraying last night re monitoring the banned breeds, I felt they should have been targeting the people breeding this banned "type" of dog more so than the people buying them. If you cant breed them you cant sell them- unless I am missing part of the law?? The law says (as afr as I am aware from last night) they can be owned in this country under a number of conditions, and one is it can't ever be re-homed. This must be after it has been sold as a pup, which would actually be its second owner?
As for that "female" Vanessa with all those staffs she was breeding to sell- i'm sorry but they should have been whipped away from her. Absolutely disgusting.
thewonderhorse
Well-Known Member
Dry Rot definitely agree!!!
This ^^ Totally agree!!