[Closed] No it's not alright. (A dog owner rant)

Yawn.

2014 is all about passive-aggressive badgers.

Was it the group of kids bearing it's teeth en mass or the dog. Either way is quite frightening though tbh

C'mon, dude. It's nearly bedtime.

I think the dog's behavior is understandable. the kids are holding the dog's teeth. he's probably just trying to get them back ffs

I don't get it, it's as if some people think that dogs are more important than humans.

For the right combination of dogs and humans, that could be a tough choice to have to make....

Its the 99% of dog owners that give the rest a bad name.
Bring back the dog license and make it bloody expensive.

I was out biking in a local wood last week, which has a single, very remote house at the top, the people had 3 dogs loose, 1 of which was mahoosive, it's head was well above my handlebars.

I wouldn't have been that bothered, but the owner nearly shat himself when he saw us, he looked so nervous, and that makes me nervous, he obviously didn't trust the dog.

I didn't say anything, the dog owner just blurted "We don't expect anybody to be around at this time of night".

So, you live on a bridleway, in a public access wood, and don't expect anyone around on a nice sunny evening, an hour and a half before dusk, right.

The problem lies in dog owners assumptions.

Many dog owners assume that their dog will treat strangers exactly like it treats them.

They also assume that everyone else is cool with strange dogs.

Both of these assumptions are wrong.

Many parents behave like the ****less moronic dog owners above.

The problem with the dog licence idea is that the people most likely to want to own a dangerous dog are the same people who are likely to think "screw that" when faced with the prospect of getting a licence. Ie, it'll make it easier to remove said dogs from their owners but IMHO is unlikely to make a fig of difference to them owning one in the first place.

Many parents behave like the ****less moronic dog owners above.

Kid licences?

"Irresponsible people are irresponsible" shocker

Cougar - Moderator

The problem with the dog licence idea is that the people most likely to want to own a dangerous dog are the same people who are likely to think "screw that" when faced with the prospect of getting a licence.

Fine.

Employ dog wardens.
Destroy all unlicensed dogs if they are unable to be rehomed.

We had an excellent dog - would have made a brilliant guard dog, not too excitable around children and very protective and loving towards anyone in her "pack". Only problem was everyone was in her pack so guarding wasn't really her thing ... Daft little bugger.

I was just thinking on my way home this am that it's about time we had a dog hater thread on the forum, it must be a week since the last one. Still I suppose whilst Top Gear is not on moaners have to moan.

Idiot dog owners
Idiot car drivers
Idiot cyclists
Idiot horse riders
Idiot parents

Welcome to modern Britain 🙄

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26620370 ]Dog attacks in Wales up 81% in 10 years.[/url]

Drac - Moderator

I was just thinking on my way home this am that it's about time we had a dog hater thread on the forum, it must be a week since the last one. Still I suppose whilst Top Gear is not on moaners have to moan.

I assume you're referring to me?

In every single dog thread I've contributed to, I've emphasized the fact that I love dogs but hate irresponsible dog owners.

I find quite sad that this has to be repeated every time anyone dares to suggest that steps be taken to reduce the amount of dog attacks.

I assume you're referring to me?

I was referring to the thread, hence why I said thread.

You referred to the individuals contributing to the thread as well.

It was the Top Gear/haters (now 'moaners') reference that threw me.

🙂

Rusty Spanner - Member

Employ dog wardens.

Also child catchers for those unlicenced kids from dangerous breeds.

Children are not dogs. 😀
Admittedly, sometimes you have to count the legs to be sure.

If the dogs head is above the handlebars it probably needs its seat to be pushed back a bit

was the dog's name 'Nomad'?

Rusty Spanner - Member

Children are not dogs.

I found this out the hard way, trying to teach my nephew to jump through flaming hoops.

I miss Junior Kickstart. 😐

On the plus side, our grand daughter is surprisingly cheap to feed.
We're making the most of it before she learns to how to read the labels on the tins.

worlds full of bad parents and dog owners, trouble is they all think they are brilliant parents/owners ... sigh

Fine.

Employ dog wardens.
Destroy all unlicensed dogs if they are unable to be rehomed.

Dog is killed, thug immediately gets new dog, rinse and repeat. It's just deferring the problem (and arguably, increasing demand and thus making more animals suffer). These dogs aren't beloved family pets, they're weapons and status symbols.

A bloke buys a dog and turns it into a dangerous animal, it's not the dog we should be euthanising.

worlds full of bad parents and dog owners, trouble is they all think they are brilliant parents/owners ... sigh

The Dunning-Kruger effect.

Cougar - Moderator

Dog is killed, thug immediately gets new dog, rinse and repeat.

It's a deterrent, at least.
Punish repeat offenders.
Employ [i]plenty[/i] of wardens. 🙂
It would also mean that less children are injured, and less unwanted dogs bred.

In the long term, make owning an unlicensed dog socially unacceptable.
Yep, it'll take a long time, but it will be worth it.

The total suffering to the innocent victims in all this - the dogs and those they attack will decrease.
People will feel safer.
The sum total of human and canine happiness increases.

I'd suggest a sliding scale of dog license charges based on the size of the dog - a tax on emissions, if you like.

It's a deterrent, at least.

Is it? If you treat a dog as disposable and have a ready source of replacements, what do you care?

Employ plenty of wardens.

Who's going to fund that? We can't afford police, let alone dog wardens.

Who's going to fund that? We can't afford police, let alone dog wardens.

Perhaps it could be offset by the resulting decrease in hospital admissions and associated costs?
Fine the offenders, that'll help.
And don't forget the revenue from the license fee.

Sometimes, spending money is worth it for the benefits to our society.

And I don't believe the propaganda about all the things the government tells us we cannot afford - they are often the things that they would prefer to be privatised to suit their twisted ideology.
But that's another thread.

If the dogs head is above the handlebars it probably needs its seat to be pushed back a bit

😆

Perhaps it could be offset by the resulting decrease in hospital admissions and associated costs?

You've answered your own question in the same post: "I don't believe the propaganda about all the things the government tells us we cannot afford..." - and do you believe that our government would take the money we save the NHS in dog-related injuries and pump it back into dog-related enforcement? Nor do I.

Fine the offenders, that'll help.

Will it? These offenders, where do you think they're getting the money from to pay these fines? Their day job at the office?

A fine will be either tuppence a fortnight out of their benefits for the next five years or they'll go on the rob a bit more to make the money. Or, of course, plead poverty and not bother paying it.

And don't forget the revenue from the license fee.

In other words, it's a dog-owner tax. Legitimate dog owners have to pay money in order to finance the policing of those who flaunt the law. How is that fair?

In other words, it's a dog-owner tax. Legitimate dog owners have to pay money in order to finance the policing of those who flaunt the law. How is that fair?

I'd be happy to pay a dog license if the result was less suffering for both dogs and humans.
Wouldn't you?

You've answered your own question in the same post: "I don't believe the propaganda about all the things the government tells us we cannot afford..." - and do you believe that our government would take the money we save the NHS in dog-related injuries and pump it back into dog-related enforcement?

Nor do I.

Will it? These offenders, where do you think they're getting the money from to pay these fines? Their day job at the office?
A fine will be either tuppence a fortnight out of their benefits for the next five years or they'll go on the rob a bit more to make the money. Or, of course, plead poverty and not bother paying it.

Bit of a straw man Cougar.
Firstly, you're assuming ALL those who won't buy a license are unable to pay a fine.

As to the rest - they can pay the amount it would cost to feed the dog they no longer have.

Dog license is as daft as a bicycle license for many of the same reasons.

Amazingly, bicycles, like children, are not dogs.

And I've never been attacked by a bicy....
Oh, hang on.
🙂

I'd be happy to pay a dog license if the result was less suffering for both dogs and humans.
Wouldn't you?

Well, no, because I don't have a dog.

It's a moot point though because that's not really what I meant. What I was trying to say was, why should it be [i]only[/i] other dog owners who have to pay to fund Operation Naughty Dog, how are they contributing to the problem by owning a well-behaved dog? It's a problem which affects everyone equally, it should be funded from general taxation should it not?

On the other hand, if the licence premium is going to go towards mandatory third party Bad Dog Insurance, or to fund Council-run dog poo scooper-uppers, then it's a great idea.

Firstly, you're assuming ALL those who won't buy a license are unable to pay a fine.

I wasn't really, but I'd wager that a large proportion of those who have an intentionally dangerous dog are likely to be of lower (legitimate) income and / or likely to be less law-abiding in other areas. If you drew a Venn diagram of "people who intentionally own dangerous dogs" and "people who visit the theatre", do you think the intersection would be a large number?

Thinking about it though, I don't doubt that there are people who own dangerous dogs accidentally, either due to their inability to handle it or because something happens with the dog (it's ill or provoked or some such); the "ooh, he's never mauled off a baby's face before" brigade. If they are the majority case then dog licensing makes a lot more sense.

So I guess the question is, are the bulk of "dangerous dog" cases down to generally law-abiding people being naive, or people being gang members or criminals? I was assuming the latter, but that may be a false assumption.

Hmm. I may have just lost an argument with myself.

is it groundhog day?

I just wish people would be more considerate, don't we all? My 7 year old son is absolutely terrified of dogs (for no obvious reason, never been 'attacked' but he is autistic). If they run up to him he is likely to jump in a stream, into the road, anything to get out of the way.
It's not acceptable for kids to go chasing up to people and wiping their muddy feet on strangers so why do some dog owners think it's ok?
I'm not sure licensing will do any good as previous people have said.
Like a lot of things, it's just the culture and seemingly lack of thought for others that needs to change. Simple as that eh?!

Typical Daily Mail reader thread.

Welcome to modern Britain

Yeah, you're right. Other countries don't have any idiots at all. Life must be so perfect there.

Cougar - Moderator

[b]I'd be happy to pay a dog license if the result was less suffering for both dogs and humans.
Wouldn't you?[/b]

Well, no, because I don't have a dog.

It's a moot point though because that's not really what I meant. What I was trying to say was, why should it be only other dog owners who have to pay to fund Operation Naughty Dog, how are they contributing to the problem by owning a well-behaved dog? It's a problem which affects everyone equally, it should be funded from general taxation should it not?

I'm not particularly fussed how it's funded, tbh.
General taxation is fine by me.

I wasn't really, but I'd wager that a large proportion of those who have an intentionally dangerous dog are likely to be of lower (legitimate) income.....

You might be right:
[url= http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/04April/Pages/Dog-bite-hospitalisations-highest-in-deprived-areas.aspx ]NHS website info.[/url]

But......

If you drew a Venn diagram of "people who intentionally own dangerous dogs" and "people who visit the theatre", do you think the intersection would be a large number?

Dunno.
How many people who go to the theatre own Dacshunds?

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2254479/Sausage-dogs-are-the-most-aggressive-dogs.html ]Telegraph linky. [/url]

The top ten most aggressive breeds, apparantly:
1.Dachshunds
2.Chihuahua
3.Jack Russell
4.Australian Cattle Dog
5.Cocker Spaniel
6.Beagle
7.Border Collie
8.Pit Bull Terrier
9.Great Dane
10.English Springer Spaniel

Of course, a bigger dog is going to cause more damage.....

So I guess the question is, are the bulk of "dangerous dog" cases down to generally law-abiding people being naive, or people being gang members or criminals? I was assuming the latter, but that may be a false assumption.

Complicated isn't it?

richc - Member

is it groundhog day?

I'm sure you said that on the last dog thread.
🙂

devash - Member

Typical Daily Mail reader thread.

Please elaborate.

I'm sure you said that on the last dog thread.

I sure you said that on the last thread as well, which was about someone's dog running up to someone and not actually doing anything and the person who hadn't had anything done to them got offended by what might have happened in a parallel universe and got shouty and abusive at the owner of the dog.... oh hang on......

😀

The top ten most aggressive breeds, apparantly:

"Aggressive" isn't exactly the same as "dangerous" though. You're unlikely to find a group of EDL members carrying attack daschunds for protection.

It does strike me that had a doberman really been running up to a group of kids snarling with teeth exposed the op would be currently at the hospital with the kids not moaning on the interweb.

You're unlikely to find a group of EDL members carrying attack daschunds for protection.

🙂

Ooooh, I dunno.
I'm sure many EDL members have a fondness for all things Teutonic.

"Aggressive" isn't exactly the same as "dangerous" though.

Has anyone got a link to the last dog thread, btw?

Rusty Spanner - Member
Dog attacks in Wales up 81% in 10 years.

Do the Welsh have dogs whose mouths open really wide? 😀

Do the Welsh have dogs whose mouths open really wide?

A combination of that, and their prey not being able to waddle out of harm's way.

You could trip over one very easily.......

That's a good point actually. You could probably do a good deal of damage with chihuahuas if you had a bag of angry ones and could throw them hard enough.

Has anyone got a link to the last dog thread, btw?

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/dangerous-dog-owners-proud

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/sarcastic-comments-from-dog-owners

And the infamous "A dog sniffed my wife's bag, I'm outraged" thread.

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/entitled-dog-owners

Just a few samples.

Ta Drac.
I thought this one went quite well, considering.

[img] ?1[/img]

I'm not particularly fussed how it's funded, tbh.
General taxation is fine by me.

We could add another 10% to concert ticket prices?

TBS, how would you suggest we deal with irresponsible dog owners?

I suggest we focus on application of the current laws but I guess that isnt knee jerk enough.

The current laws only take effect once the dog has been dangerously out of control.
Which is obviously too late for the dog and those affected.

Given the rise in the number of hospital admissions and reported incidents, how do you suggest we minimize the risk of these situations occurring?

We could add another 10% to concert ticket prices?

Its pointless though dogs, like children, can do no wrong in the eyes of their owners and the problems are always caused by other peoples not theirs

The problem with the dog licence idea is that the people most likely to want to own a dangerous dog are the same people who are likely to think "screw that" when faced with the prospect of getting a licence. Ie, it'll make it easier to remove said dogs from their owners but IMHO is unlikely to make a fig of difference to them owning one in the first place.

What do you mean by "dangerous dog"?

Any dog with the wrong person can be a danger to others, it's owner & itself.

It's not dog licensing we need, though I think it has it's place, it's better education of how to be a responsible dog owner & a better understanding of how dogs see us & the world around them. That would end half the negative dog/human interactions in a thrice!

mrlebowski - Member it's better education of how to be a responsible dog owner

I agree.
How do you suggest we go about this?

& a better understanding of how dogs see us & the world around them.

I also agree.
As long as this does not shift responsibility for the dog's actions from owner to victim.

What do you mean by "dangerous dog"?

A dog which is dangerous. In honesty I don't know I can expand on that, I thought it was relatively self-descriptive as phrases go.

I was talking about people who actively want a dog which is actually dangerous, rather than someone just wanting a breed of dog which happens to be on a list of ones which have the capacity to be dangerous in the wrong hands.

I don't disagree with your post, it's the people who need to change. Though it's not always an education issue, people may be doing it deliberately.

And the infamous "A dog sniffed my wife's bag, I'm outraged" thread.

Junkyard - lazarus
Its pointless though dogs, like children, can do no wrong in the eyes of their owners and the problems are always caused by other peoples not theirs

Just acknowledging that the increase in irresponsible ownership is an issue would be a start Junky.

Bah, checked the OP on that thread. All about dogs and bags; not a hint of euphemism. Don't waste you time following drac's link

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/entitled-dog-owners/page/5#post-6148822

 current laws only take effect once the dog has been dangerously out of control.
Which is obviously too late for the dog and those affected.

So are you suggesting pre emptive measures to eliminate any do that sniffs a bag kr scares someone who is scared of dogs and if so what should they be? Wonder how a license would help in eliminating these problems too.

What is this dogs vs kids discussion? Nowt against dog owners in general but if my kids were free to run around frightening other kids and shitting on the pavement I expect the other parents would have a word or two with me. You don't need licences to govern that on either side, just simple common sense.

You don't need licences to govern that on either side, just simple common sense.

Amen to that

anagallis_arvensis - Member
So are you suggesting pre emptive measures

Yes.

to eliminate any do that sniffs a bag kr scares someone who is scared of dogs

and if so what should they be?

I've told you what I think should be done.

I asked you how do you think we can minimize the risk of these situations occurring.
I'd be interested to hear your answer.

I'm not sure you can minimise idiots owning dogs or pant wetting stwers getting upset when a dog looks at them funny.

I am still intrigued by the license idea is, how it would help and how it would do anything that current laws dont

anagallis_arvensis - Member

I'm not sure you can minimise idiots owning dogs

I am still intrigued by the license idea is, how it would help and how it would do anything that current laws dont

No problem, could you return they favour by explain how the dog license would help. I've skim read the thread and cant see how you suggest it would help other than employing more dog wardens(with what new powers?) and rehome and destroy unlicensed dogs. I fail to see how this would help can you spell it out to me?

It's a deterrent, at least.
Punish repeat offenders.
Employ plenty of wardens.
It would also mean that less children are injured, and less unwanted dogs bred.

In the long term, make owning an unlicensed dog socially unacceptable.
Yep, it'll take a long time, but it will be worth it.

The total suffering to the innocent victims in all this - the dogs and those they attack will decrease.
People will feel safer.
The sum total of human and canine happiness increases.

I'd suggest a sliding scale of dog license charges based on the size of the dog - a tax on emissions, if you like.

Repeat offenders of what?
What would the wardens do?
What powers would they have?
How would it reduce attacks and breeding?
Why should larger dogs cost more?

I'd suggest a sliding scale of dog license charges based on the size of the dog - a tax on emissions, if you like.

Only the rich would be able to afford big dogs. As the more money you have means you are more responsible obviously.

Promoting threads like " has anyone had their golden retriever stolen as I saw one being walked down so and so high street by some scroute"

After reading this thread title several times now, I can resist no longer.

anagallis_arvensis - Member

Repeat offenders of what?

What would the wardens do?

What powers would they have?

How would it reduce attacks and breeding?

Bugger how do I link to a pdf?

Why should larger dogs cost more?

Because they consume more, excrete more and have the potential to cause more damage.

Like horses?

I like horses.

U like horses 2?

What about a big dog with a small mouth.

Or if he has had lost some teeth could I get a reduction.

Or how about a gastric band.