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

<rant>What is it with SOME dog owners who think it is acceptable for their Doberman to run at a group of kids bearing its teeth?

I don’t get it, it’s as if some people think that dogs are more important than humans. Well here’s the thing – if a dog bites a human it gets killed. If a human bites a dog they may get a fine.

It also turns out that neds shite it when you tell them that they should have their dog under control and that actually it’s not ok for it to run at your kids.

</rant over>

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 feckless 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 feckless 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 🙄

Dog attacks in Wales up 81% in 10 years.

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 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.

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.
As I said, a different thread.
The government are going to destroy the NHS anyway.

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 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?

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?