pondering, many subjects rolled into one, DDA, dog licences etc.

I

itsme123

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 January 2008
Messages
8,268
Visit site
Just a bit of a pondering on my behalf.

I was talking to someone who said that x (friend of theirs) had just bought an Akita pup, which I'd met out walking about two days back. It's about 7 weeks old, on a choke chain.... Think typical chavvy behaviour, pup being let off to run loose with other chav dogs.

I'll be honest, the breed scares me more than a pitbull in those hands would! They grow into whopping dogs, and I've witnessed a previously well rounded, well socialised akita bitch attack another dog for no reason whatsoever. This was a bitch I'd let my kids roll round with!

Now these dogs were designed as fighting dogs and I'm not too sure why people want them as house pets. As far as I know they're a bit like sibes, you can't just let them run round the local park so need to be able to walk them alot or have a large garden. Mostly, you need to know what you're doing and be prepared to work hard with the breed as they're pretty dominant creatures.

It worries me greatly. I was bitten badly by a family dog when i was a child, and know that any breed has potential to attack. My mum was mauled by a collie!

I know I'll get a barrage of akita owners here saying how lovely they are, and I've no doubt that in the right hands they are. So please don't take offence!

But for you akita owners, do you agree they're becoming a status dog a bit like the sibe and staffie? Do you think there should be a licence for such specialist dogs? As far as I can tell (i'm no expert so do correct me if I'm wrong) the akitas closely shave the DDA? Ie properly licencing breeders and thus being able to vet potential owners?
Would it work? Could this be done with all specialist breeds? I understand there's a call to ban Akitas and personally think that's a shame.

But as I understand, to slowly knock out BS breeding, why not start with these breeds? To be policed by local authorities, each breeder paying a small fee in order to help towards keeping their particular breed free from cross breeding and in good homes, and most importantly, out of dogs homes?

Pups advertised without a breeders licence could then face prosecution. See if it works then extend it to staffies and the like. Slowly, over 10 or 20 years make these status dogs expensive to breed and buy, so only serious owners have them?




As i say, just my ponderings, I in no way know much about these things, but having met no less than seven sibes on my walk of 2 miles this morning, it's worrying to think that not all of them have knowledgeable owners.....
 
Every single owner should have to pass a test before you own a dog. I don't care whether its a little Pomeranian or a pitbull.
Idiots shouldn't own dogs.

Idiots shouldn't breed dogs.

Infact only the very very best proven dogs with experienced owners should be bred. But it will never happen because people want cheap disposable dogs.

I've seen akita's be wonderful family dogs and i have seen others that haven't. A chav on my estate in england had one and he was wondeful the boy really did well with him.

Its just like every dog i have seen JRT be wonderful family dogs but others that were horrible. No one should be judging based on breed, that's ignorance.
 
Well **** I suppose I had better have all three of my greyhounds put down then, cos they are capable of killing someone :eek:

There are no bad dogs, there are bad owners, end of
 
CareyR said:
Well **** I suppose I had better have all three of my greyhounds put down then, cos they are capable of killing someone :eek:

There are no bad dogs, there are bad owners, end of
Click to expand...

Why would you need them put down, do you let them off the lead to savage other owners dogs, do you have them purely as a status symbol weapon, do you deliberately have them attack people and brag about it, do you leave them out in a back yard full of filth and rubbish only to bring them out in public to bolster your own pathetic insecurites, well yes, in that case, the sooner the better, and while your there...............
 
Pedantic said:
Why would you need them put down, do you let them off the lead to savage other owners dogs, do you have them purely as a status symbol weapon, do you deliberately have them attack people and brag about it, do you leave them out in a back yard full of filth and rubbish only to bring them out in public to bolster your own pathetic insecurites, well yes, in that case, the sooner the better, and while your there...............
Click to expand...

And that is the owners fault not the dog, not its breed, purely an idiot owner. They shouldn't have ANY dog because EVERY dog is capable of causing serious injury.
 
Pedantic said:
Why would you need them put down, do you let them off the lead to savage other owners dogs, do you have them purely as a status symbol weapon, do you deliberately have them attack people and brag about it, do you leave them out in a back yard full of filth and rubbish only to bring them out in public to bolster your own pathetic insecurites, well yes, in that case, the sooner the better, and while your there...............
Click to expand...

Pedantic, you've just completely agreed with Carey! What you describe there is a bad owner, not a bad dog.

I can pick Henry up and put him under my arm... could he kill a child? Yes, absolutely. It's not the dogs! It's the owners.
 
OH and I were discussing this issue earlier: I was happy for the babies to meet another Spangle, a terrier etc earlier, but the minute I saw a bull mastiff type, off we went. Saying that, the Cocker we saw earlier was poorly socialised and it's owner ignored it getting more and more silly with ours and aggressive-we had to discipline it (verbally and put ourselves in the way). Any dog can be dangerous: it's unfortunate that idiot owners have given some breeds a bad name. Akitas are tough, huge, ideal for fighting, but I bet they roll over and beg for cuddles the same as the average soppy family dog.

I do feel dog licences would go some way towards regulating the 'dangerous' breeds, but will it not end up like horse passports ie pointless paperwork? Who is going to police it? DEFRA? How much would it therefore cost and how effective would it be given the chavtastic determination of some idiot 'under the radar' breeders?
 
I learnt very early on with Harley it's the owners not the breed!

A Springer Spaniel attacked him when he was 4 months old. Took me ages to get him happy around dogs again. It was being walked by 2 teenagers who let it off right next to me. Afterwards they said "oh he has dog issues"!!! HOW IRRESPONSIBLE can you be? Dog should have been on lead, muzzled and not walked by teenagers!
 
I have an akita, she weighs 50kg at her heaviest, and she is indeed capable of killing a dog possibly punching well above her weight, her legs are thicker than my rather chunky arms and she is strong as an oxe and feels no pain with coat that is practically impossible to penitrate with a dog bite, this makes them an even better fighting competitor than most other fighting breeds, they give little to no warning when they go and have little tolerance for any dog setting their buck up to them and they tend to smother their victim (quite uique to watch), HOWEVER she is the msot well behaved dog I possibly own and is free to roam off lead with the rest of my 9 dogs, I am a firm dog owner and my dogs respect me, inc, my akita, when I took her she has serious dominance/aggression issues, I did not want to pass her on to become a status dog, I would like to see these dogs strictly regulated, they are lethal in the wrong hands, as IMO some other breeds, im not one of these who compares breeds, as some are not and never will be capable of the damage another breed will, and until they begin to GET REAL and penalise the OWNER accordingly, then I would like to see these breeds, the ones that are on the DDL and a few more added be banned or seen to be placed in responsible hands ONLY with regulations, my akita is fab, I never recommend them to anyone I deem uncapable or inexperienced, they may look good but they have needs and need a firm hand.
If I had to pay a fee to own such a dog/take a test, pay liability ins, neuter, chip, register, then so be it, I would rather see this than see them become ferocious beasts in the wrong hands.
I dont buy or choose, mine are rescues, but I will def carry on owning akitas, they are a fabulous dog to own.

Alot of these dogs are kept unsocialised and kept as a single dog which makes it hard to resocialise them at a mature full grown state as thye are cappable of such damamge, mine is kept well socialised with many dogs and there lies the difference.

Another down fall, mine is a long coat, so looks very cute and teddy bear like, appearance can be very deceptive:rolleyes:


dogs008.jpg
 
Last edited:
Cayla, she's lovely :)

I do agree, it's bad owners not bad dogs, but on the same vein, yes, some dogs are being used as status animals and therefore statistically more likely to attack.

If the licencing was brought in first and foremost for the dogs currently used as status dogs (and thus the dogs likely to be 'beefed' into fighting and having aggression problems) ie, dobes, GSD, staffies, akitas, sibes and the such, it might stamp the problem down and help prevent these dogs getting into the wrong hands, thus improving the breeds. So we won't be having pups bred from aggressive parents.... if you see what I mean?

I'm only too aware that it's not just bad owners that make dogs aggressive, bad experiences can cause it to but I think half of being a responsible owner is recognising this and undertaking training and advice to combat along with measures of prevention.

Some dogs DO have it in them to have the capability to just 'snap' with incorrect handling. Ie a dog bred for fighting will have a shorter fuse than one bred as a companion (ie a cav).
 
Walking in the park today.

The worst behaved dog who I was actually concerned over was a lab. The staff x who ambled by with a happy smile wasn't even on my radar. The GSD with his frisbee who didn't even blink at Lil, the lumping great boxers... nope - a supposed "family" dog was the one who caused the most upset. Perhaps because his owners were too placated by him being a supposedly "friendly" breed to socialise him properly.

You cannot generalise with breeds.

Give me a socialised Pitbull/GSD/Akita/Staff ANYDAY over a badly brought up non-status dog!
 
itsme123 said:
Some dogs DO have it in them to have the capability to just 'snap' with incorrect handling. Ie a dog bred for fighting will have a shorter fuse than one bred as a companion (ie a cav).
Click to expand...

That's not always true, dalmations for example suffer from rage syndrome. Having two JRTs who are probably the epitome of "snap" capability - after all they are bred to fight and never give up (they are what gave ABPT/Staffs etc their edge and game)

I have seen my JRT bitch "lose it" over a sock, her eyes change, the note of her growl changes, her posture - everything. But still, a touch and a word can take her out of it - just like people with properly trained GSDs are supposed to be able to get their dogs off a bite within 3 times (is that right GSDM?)

Too many people are lulled into a lazy, false sense of security because they have supposed "soft" breeds. A dog is a individual personality and they should always be treated as such.
 
itsme123 said:
Cayla, she's lovely :)

I do agree, it's bad owners not bad dogs, but on the same vein, yes, some dogs are being used as status animals and therefore statistically more likely to attack.

If the licencing was brought in first and foremost for the dogs currently used as status dogs (and thus the dogs likely to be 'beefed' into fighting and having aggression problems) ie, dobes, GSD, staffies, akitas, sibes and the such, it might stamp the problem down and help prevent these dogs getting into the wrong hands, thus improving the breeds. So we won't be having pups bred from aggressive parents.... if you see what I mean?

I'm only too aware that it's not just bad owners that make dogs aggressive, bad experiences can cause it to but I think half of being a responsible owner is recognising this and undertaking training and advice to combat along with measures of prevention.

Some dogs DO have it in them to have the capability to just 'snap' with incorrect handling. Ie a dog bred for fighting will have a shorter fuse than one bred as a companion (ie a cav).
Click to expand...

How do you plan on making the license work? because we have them here and they don't work. The only people that buy the license is people like me, The rest don't bother and without having someone visit every single house you will never be able to police it.

We have something like 2 million licensed dogs in WA and an estimate of around 4 million not licensed.
 
Kitsune said:
That's not always true, dalmations for example suffer from rage syndrome. Having two JRTs who are probably the epitome of "snap" capability - after all they are bred to fight and never give up (they are what gave ABPT/Staffs etc their edge and game)

I have seen my JRT bitch "lose it" over a sock, her eyes change, the note of her growl changes, her posture - everything. But still, a touch and a word can take her out of it - just like people with properly trained GSDs are supposed to be able to get their dogs off a bite within 3 times (is that right GSDM?)

Too many people are lulled into a lazy, false sense of security because they have supposed "soft" breeds. A dog is a individual personality and they should always be treated as such.
Click to expand...

last i saw dalmatians and jack russels weren't strapped into leather studded harnesses and paraded around estates and used to intimidate people...
 
I must be missing something fundamental here then, cause I was sure what you were trying to say was that so called "status" dogs should be subject to dog licenses. And what I'm trying to tell you is its not only "status" dogs who need intelligent owners and potentially some kind of licensing (though we all know it doesn't work but I appreciate the sentiment).

Every dog needs a decent owner, with some common sense and the ability to read a book.
 
Kitsune said:
I must be missing something fundamental here then, cause I was sure what you were trying to say was that so called "status" dogs should be subject to dog licenses. And what I'm trying to tell you is its not only "status" dogs who need intelligent owners and potentially some kind of licensing (though we all know it doesn't work but I appreciate the sentiment).

Every dog needs a decent owner, with some common sense and the ability to read a book.
Click to expand...

I think everyone's missing my point entirely.

I'm not saying every dog doesn't need a decent owner, I'm saying why not start with the worst offending owners. Taking on the whole of the country's dog owners in one fell swoop then failing isn't the way to go, so why not take on the status dog owners first? Ie instead of calling for akitas and the such to come under the DDA (as many people ARE calling for) why not call for them to be the first to be licenced, then extend it over say the next 10 years. make dog wardens work for their wage (which we pay!) scouring local dog ads for advertised litters, and licencing breeders properly. A dog warden for every five mile radius, perhaps, and the payment of licencing would cover the extra cost.

heavens, my JRT bitch has to be muzzled on walks, I'm only too aware any dog can be unpredictable but I'd happily pay a licence fee...

I just don't 'get' why we, as dog owners, constantly come up with why it WOULDN'T work, always the negatives instead of putting ideas forward as to how it COULD work. We're the first to defend a breed if it's labelled as dangerous in the media yet we're typically British in being the first to pooh pooh an idea as to how these owners could be controlled.

If we want an end to back street breeding and more dogs going under the DDA then why not think of a way it could be implemented and put the idea forwards.

That's all I was trying to do, put some thoughts forward to spark a bit of debate and some deep thinking and ideas...
 
itsme123 said:
I think everyone's missing my point entirely.

I'm not saying every dog doesn't need a decent owner, I'm saying why not start with the worst offending owners. Taking on the whole of the country's dog owners in one fell swoop then failing isn't the way to go, so why not take on the status dog owners first? Ie instead of calling for akitas and the such to come under the DDA (as many people ARE calling for) why not call for them to be the first to be licenced, then extend it over say the next 10 years. make dog wardens work for their wage (which we pay!) scouring local dog ads for advertised litters, and licencing breeders properly. A dog warden for every five mile radius, perhaps, and the payment of licencing would cover the extra cost.

heavens, my JRT bitch has to be muzzled on walks, I'm only too aware any dog can be unpredictable but I'd happily pay a licence fee...

I just don't 'get' why we, as dog owners, constantly come up with why it WOULDN'T work, always the negatives instead of putting ideas forward as to how it COULD work. We're the first to defend a breed if it's labelled as dangerous in the media yet we're typically British in being the first to pooh pooh an idea as to how these owners could be controlled.

If we want an end to back street breeding and more dogs going under the DDA then why not think of a way it could be implemented and put the idea forwards.

That's all I was trying to do, put some thoughts forward to spark a bit of debate and some deep thinking and ideas...
Click to expand...

But that's just the thing, no one knows a feasible way to make the dog licensing thing work. Its proven to fail a number of times in a number of different ways in a number of different countries and no one can come up with idea's to fix that.
 
I don't think there's any feasible way of changing things apart from education and a change of perspective.

Dog owners and enthusiasts are saying it wont work, because it wont. Not because we wouldn't like it to, in an ideal world.
 
I don't think there's any feasible way of changing things apart from education and a change of perspective.

Dog owners and enthusiasts are saying it wont work, because it wont. Not because we wouldn't like it to, in an ideal world.
 
I don't think there's any feasible way of changing things apart from education and a change of perspective.

Dog owners and enthusiasts are saying it wont work, because it wont. Not because we wouldn't like it to, in an ideal world.
 
itsme123 said:
I think everyone's missing my point entirely.

I'm not saying every dog doesn't need a decent owner, I'm saying why not start with the worst offending owners. Taking on the whole of the country's dog owners in one fell swoop then failing isn't the way to go, so why not take on the status dog owners first? Ie instead of calling for akitas and the such to come under the DDA (as many people ARE calling for) why not call for them to be the first to be licenced, then extend it over say the next 10 years. make dog wardens work for their wage (which we pay!) scouring local dog ads for advertised litters, and licencing breeders properly. A dog warden for every five mile radius, perhaps, and the payment of licencing would cover the extra cost.


That's all I was trying to do, put some thoughts forward to spark a bit of debate and some deep thinking and ideas...
Click to expand...

IMHO, the problem with the above is that the people your ideas are targeted are the ones that would probably ignore any laws and once again, muggins here and the rest of the law abiding community would end up paying through the nose for an another ineffectual law. After all, it would be discriminatory to target just one sector of the dog owning public so we would all be subject to this law/rule change.

Personally, I would like to see the laws that are already on the statute book enforced - whether it is the DDA or the antisocial/nusiance laws as they target the offenders rather than Joe Bloggs who just happens to have a breed that has a bad reputation but has never put a paw out of place - but that requires a concerted effort by the authorities rather than a quick PR trick of another hard seeming, public pleasing law that is as useless as the rest if it isn't enforced.

Can you tell that I have a breed that is looked at as a killer in many quarters?:p
 
They're doing away with ASBO's as alot of thugs see them as medals. Replacing them with 'rehabilitation'.

One example I know of. A family, well known for being brutes, who each own a staffie. My brother was knocked to the ground on private property and had one of the dogs set on him. It ripped and bit at his face whilst being egged on by it's owner.

As the law stands you cannot be prosecuted if your dog bites someone on private property. Dog on dog attacks are not dealt with.

So would the answer lie in upping the laws regarding dangerous dogs (and by dangerous dogs, I mean those who are owned by bad owners and have an aggression problem as a result - any breed) ie bringing prosecution for dogs who bite on private property, dog on dog attacks, and making aware the availablity of education? Doing something similar to what the CPL do, ie reduced rate spaying and neutering?
 
Next question, where do you draw the line of "biting on private property". There are already laws concerning a dog doing so, and the intention of the dog being on the property etc I believe. But for instance, if someone breaks into my house and my dog bites them, I don't expect to come in for furious penalties when my dog was protecting the home.

And how do you monitor your criteria of a dangerous dog? What factors will come into play? How will people even be aware of these "dangerous dogs" before the action in question takes place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top