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

Kitsune said:
That's the thing with stats, they only represent bad data.

No-one compiles stats about all the hundreds of good dogs, do they... ;)
Click to expand...

ahh. So because there's millions of good dogs we should forget about the bad dogs (and bad owners) ? Sweep it under the carpet, mock those who think something needs to be done, and pretend it doesn't happen.

That'll work.
 
itsme123 said:
So what do people propose? What will eliminate the problem?
Click to expand...

I'd like to see zero tolerance across the board, including all breeds and all owners.

If you don't pick up poo - big fine, no excuses. Sounds like a small thing but if people are responsible enough to bag it up, then the chances are that they will be responsible in other ways. It's also the one thing that really winds up non dog owners.
Compulsory microchipping and 3rd party insurance - maybe proof of which can be linked to the MC database?
Attending basic training as a condition of insurance.
Breeding licences that actually weed out puppy farmers rather than facilitating them.
If your dog is causing a nuisance - 3 chances to resolve the issue or the dog is removed but with time allowed to actually attend training classes or similar.
The courts to use the facility to ban repeat offenders from owning dogs for a set amount of time.
More dog wardens.

Yes, it would cost money to start with - both public funds and owners, due to councils having to fund enforcement (absolutely vital if this was to work) and owners having to insure, MC and train but TBH I don't think that is a bad thing.....councils, if clever could recoup funds if only by not spending so much on clearing dog poo and most responsible owners accept that having dogs is a privilege, not a right and that they don't always come cheap.

Basically make it easier to have a well mannered dog than not - it would take time to actually make life unpleasant enough to weed out the bad dog owners but the education given to good (if clueless!) owners would be invaluable.

Just a few thoughts and best of all, no new laws needed to confuse matters - the legislation is already in place.....
 
itsme123 said:
ahh. So because there's millions of good dogs we should forget about the bad dogs (and bad owners) ? Sweep it under the carpet, mock those who think something needs to be done, and pretend it doesn't happen.

That'll work.
Click to expand...

No, it won't! But it is unfair to lump in or penalise the millions of good dog owners just because a minority are scum. Deal with the offenders and recognise that most dogs are harmless...
 
To CBMT's big post!

^ but how many dogs would that force into UK rescue? The stress on them would be unimagineable and that in turn may then cause a lot to turn from "no kill" to kill shelters, which while that answer is great for society - it may turn out to be the death of a LOT of dogs. Just playing devil's advocate..
 
Kitsune said:
To CBMT's big post!

^ but how many dogs would that force into UK rescue? The stress on them would be unimagineable and that in turn may then cause a lot to turn from "no kill" to kill shelters, which while that answer is great for society - it may turn out to be the death of a LOT of dogs. Just playing devil's advocate..
Click to expand...

I agree with you that it may mean a lot of dogs in rescues but then i start thinking about weighing it up with if its a one off influx of dogs and then once the bad owners/ breeders are weeded out it will stop the huge influx of dogs we already have then that is worth it for me.

I also think there should be some concession to people who adopt a dog from a rescue. Such as free classes, cheap vets ect to make that more appealing to people.
 
Oh but Katie, those dogs, they never did anything wrong apart from be owned by scrotes. I know being PTS is not the worst thing, but so many who would be perfect for rehome would be PTS.
 
Kitsune said:
Oh but Katie, those dogs, they never did anything wrong apart from be owned by scrotes. I know being PTS is not the worst thing, but so many who would be perfect for rehome would be PTS.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree but i know that that number will be far less than the number of dogs in the next 5 years if we continue how we are now. 3-4 million here every year.
 
The solution? Move house. :D

No unscooped poop round here. No unfriendly dogs (except in tourism season when joe public brings their collie for its yearly walk...) and no unsavoury characters with status dogs. Just nice old men with labradors and yummy mummies with jack russels.
Simples.
:D
Or is that mocking the issue? :p
 
katielou_houston said:
That's my worst nightmare!
Click to expand...

Well I should specify that the "yummy mummies" round here are different to the ones I encountered in say, Dublin. Very down to earth and just happen to look ridiculously groomed in a wax jacket and wellies! Not some chihuahua toting bint in a Range Rover Sport!
 
Kitsune said:
Oh but Katie, those dogs, they never did anything wrong apart from be owned by scrotes.
Click to expand...

I would just like to *thumbsup* continued use of the word 'scrotes'. :D

The only thing I object to in cbmcts's post is the compulsory training - fine if you live near an excellent trainer or a breed-specific training club but an absolute minefield for some. I still haven't succeeded in finding a husky-compatible training class except for one that's nearly 20 miles away and has a waiting list that will take us into next summer.

I've never not taken a dog to training classes but I've never had such a unique breed, either, and classes that insist on clickers, ban slip/choke collars and don't understand the recall habits of the sibe are no use at all.
 
blackcob said:
I've never not taken a dog to training classes but I've never had such a unique breed, either, and classes that insist on clickers, ban slip/choke collars and don't understand the recall habits of the sibe are no use at all.
Click to expand...

We have a team of 4 sibe's a couple of doors down that have actually done wonders with a clicker :)
 
Kitsune said:
To CBMT's big post!

^ but how many dogs would that force into UK rescue? The stress on them would be unimagineable and that in turn may then cause a lot to turn from "no kill" to kill shelters, which while that answer is great for society - it may turn out to be the death of a LOT of dogs. Just playing devil's advocate..
Click to expand...


It was a big post, wasn't it?:o

Yes, I see your point but in the long tem it should actually reduce the numbers.....as Katie Lou said.
blackcob said:
The only thing I object to in cbmcts's post is the compulsory training - fine if you live near an excellent trainer or a breed-specific training club but an absolute minefield for some. I still haven't succeeded in finding a husky-compatible training class except for one that's nearly 20 miles away and has a waiting list that will take us into next summer.

I've never not taken a dog to training classes but I've never had such a unique breed, either, and classes that insist on clickers, ban slip/choke collars and don't understand the recall habits of the sibe are no use at all.
Click to expand...

TBH, the basic training I had in mind was more for the new owners - what is and isn't acceptable and the consequences of not doing at least the minimum.Then point them in the direction of proper training with incentives - insurers offering discounts if a dog achieves bronze, silver and gold awards from the KC? NCB etc....
But a good side effect of this might be that as more people start going to formal training the market will open up and expand ie I know of only 2 people with huskys that go training out of the 15 odd that I'm aquainted with.....many people seem to think that there is "no point" training their huskies as they can't be off lead and so on (nonsense IMHO) at the moment but if it could save them dosh or hassle?
 
katielou_houston said:
We have a team of 4 sibe's a couple of doors down that have actually done wonders with a clicker :)
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't mean to completely disparage the clicker! :p It's just that it has proven useless for Dax so I had no time for the last trainer I phoned who wittered on about them for about half an hour despite my protestations. She also refused to believe that any dog existed that couldn't be motivated by food, and said I mustn't have been trying hard enough. :o
 
blackcob said:
Sorry, didn't mean to completely disparage the clicker! :p It's just that it has proven useless for Dax so I had no time for the last trainer I phoned who wittered on about them for about half an hour despite my protestations. She also refused to believe that any dog existed that couldn't be motivated by food, and said I mustn't have been trying hard enough. :o
Click to expand...

I know i was pulling your leg:D
 
cbmcts said:
But a good side effect of this might be that as more people start going to formal training the market will open up and expand ie I know of only 2 people with huskys that go training out of the 15 odd that I'm aquainted with.....many people seem to think that there is "no point" training their huskies as they can't be off lead and so on (nonsense IMHO) at the moment but if it could save them dosh or hassle?
Click to expand...

I agree that it's nonsense and I train mine regardless of the fact that she's never off-lead but I would have to object to the KC gold award on the basis that it requires off-lead work...

Exercise 2 - Return to Handler’s Side
The object of this exercise is to be able to bring the dog back under close control during a lead free walk. With the dog off lead
and not less than 10 paces away, upon instruction, the dog will be called back to the walking handler’s side and both should
continue together for approximately ten paces. Note: A dog moving loosely at the handler’s side, under control, is quite
acceptable and there is no requirement for a halt to complete the exercise.

Exercise 3 - Walk Free Beside Handler
The object of this exercise is for the dog to be kept close to the handler’s side as may be necessary on a walk in the park. This is
a test of control whilst walking with a dog off lead beside its handler for approximately 40 paces. Competition heelwork is not the
aim, but is acceptable. Therefore, it is only necessary for the dog to be kept loosely beside the handler. Two changes of direction
will take place and there will be the distraction of another handler passing with a dog on a lead. Upon instruction the handler will
attach the lead to finish to the test.
Click to expand...

This is not a realistic scenario for a Siberian husky in a public space. I expect to be told I'm wrong (I thought the same, until I owned one). :o
 
AengusOg said:
Scientific papers, police and medical reports, expert opinions...it's all out there for those who are interested.
Click to expand...

Bit off topic sorry, but if you're using scientific research to support your argument you really do need to use references. I realise this is a horse forum and not a science forum, but without references to particular studies the mention of research has no weight at all. You need to tell people the original source of your information, so that the source itself can be examined. Also, some of us are just sad hermits and like picking through studies and statistics :)

Be wary also of assuming that supporting evidence is the same as 'proving' something. Particularly with regards to research. That's just not the way scientific hypothesis testing works, whether it's a chemistry experiment or a sociological one.
 
blackcob said:
I agree that it's nonsense and I train mine regardless of the fact that she's never off-lead but I would have to object to the KC gold award on the basis that it requires off-lead work...



This is not a realistic scenario for a Siberian husky in a public space. I expect to be told I'm wrong (I thought the same, until I owned one). :o
Click to expand...

TBF, 90% of dogs wouldn't achieve that standard - mine certainly don't - and it would unreasonable to expect most dogs to.....but 99% of dogs, with work could achieve bronze

As I said earlier, just my musings:p itsme123 asked what was an alternative to breed legislation:D
 
Pix said:
Bit off topic sorry, but if you're using scientific research to support your argument you really do need to use references. I realise this is a horse forum and not a science forum, but without references to particular studies the mention of research has no weight at all. You need to tell people the original source of your information, so that the source itself can be examined. Also, some of us are just sad hermits and like picking through studies and statistics :)

Be wary also of assuming that supporting evidence is the same as 'proving' something. Particularly with regards to research. That's just not the way scientific hypothesis testing works, whether it's a chemistry experiment or a sociological one.
Click to expand...

I think I'm in love!
 
blackcob said:
Yeah, even the untrainable dog herself could pass the bronze test. :p
Click to expand...

And the thing i have found with the tests is that people with dogs who could achieve gold get somewhat addicted after the bronze and would quite possibly continue even if there was no other incentive than just personal achievement and i have seen that happen with even some of the worst dog owners i have met.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top