Banned dogs - thoughts
- Thread starter Scottieoutdoors
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
So the proposals changed from being a simple idea thats easy to establish to needing a more nuanced method of checking in the space of a few days.
Thats kind of what I'm getting at and is an example of how something like Zombie Knife bans on blades with more than one hole in em affects cheese knives.
In fact I wonder if the more than one hole includes the pivot bolt hole in which case every folding Spyderco could fall foul of it? Hmm.
Right... so now , these people that police these legal restrictions need to travel the country ( funding coming from where? ) with some electrical impedance device or a DEXA Scan set up to measure these dogs. And return each year one would assume to provide it the annual weight sign off.
That sounds like it would just create a further black market in canine breeders.
To be fair - I think Hippos are also quite dangerous.. from what i've read.
And they have four legs and are quite weighty... and blubbery ( Not fat shaming - just true.. )
And the Hungry Hungry ones can really be quite " bitey " also - so maybe there is a connection between weight and aggression.
I wouldnt rule out two legged animals. I was once badly bitten by an African Grey parrot. Just think, if we ban dogs there'll be people with killer parrots on their shoulders, arguing about what to put first on their scones.
I just love the way that BCUK threads meander, go off on a tangent, and occasionally reach orbit 
My parrots aren't killers, but you can get some pretty pointed looks if there's no half of custard cream in their bowl at breakfast time.
Over recent years I've had a few altercations with dogs and their owners, always due to the dogs being off lead and thinking my children were something to chase - or in some cases when I've been out jogging and the dogs thought I was something to chase, despite the fact that when running I generally stop or slow for dogs and give them a wide berth. Sometimes the incidents are 'playful', sometimes far less so. None of these involved dangerous breeds. I like dogs and I know how to behave around an aggressive dog and I've had to teach my children the same, but it's not something I feel I should have to put up with.
I don't think a ban on off-leash dogs (as has been suggested) is the answer. There are already laws in place. In all the incidents I've described above, the owner has probably committed the offense of having a dog dangerously out of control i.e. the dog has either injured someone, or caused someone to fear being injured. Unfortunately there is little chance of any enforcement and therein lies the problem.
I don't think a ban on off-leash dogs (as has been suggested) is the answer. There are already laws in place. In all the incidents I've described above, the owner has probably committed the offense of having a dog dangerously out of control i.e. the dog has either injured someone, or caused someone to fear being injured. Unfortunately there is little chance of any enforcement and therein lies the problem.
Yes, I essentially agree with that.
But I really do feel that require all dogs to be on a lead in public would solve 90% of the problem.
Like you, whilst out I have had to contend with other people's animals on numerous occasions. Only a weekly basis. Most if the time it's barking, quite often it's jumping around me and barking. Sometimes jumping up me and barking. On a couple of occasions being bitten (Never broke the skin). And on ALL occasions the owner has been a 'respectable person. Interpret that how you like, but I am referring to someone well dressed (for the location) and well spoken. NOT a Grant Mitchell clone.
This suggests it occurs across all social groups. So by requiring a dog to be on a lead it will stop the 'well meaning' (again, who in my experience have always been the owners) as well as the not so well meaning (who, as someone will suggest, will always flout the law).
When I am out, minding my own business, it is not my responsibility to know how to act around a dog. It is the owners responsibility to ensure the dog knows how to act in public.
I truly think a law requiring dogs to be on a lead in public solves the lions share of the problem. The problem is across all social classes, not just the ill intentioned, so claiming 'there will always be law breakers' is no excuse to do nothing and letting all those guilty to get away with it.
If all those 'decent' people I've encountered had their dog on a lead I would never have had problems. A law would be about them taking responsibility as much as those who don't give a damn.
But I really do feel that require all dogs to be on a lead in public would solve 90% of the problem.
Like you, whilst out I have had to contend with other people's animals on numerous occasions. Only a weekly basis. Most if the time it's barking, quite often it's jumping around me and barking. Sometimes jumping up me and barking. On a couple of occasions being bitten (Never broke the skin). And on ALL occasions the owner has been a 'respectable person. Interpret that how you like, but I am referring to someone well dressed (for the location) and well spoken. NOT a Grant Mitchell clone.
This suggests it occurs across all social groups. So by requiring a dog to be on a lead it will stop the 'well meaning' (again, who in my experience have always been the owners) as well as the not so well meaning (who, as someone will suggest, will always flout the law).
When I am out, minding my own business, it is not my responsibility to know how to act around a dog. It is the owners responsibility to ensure the dog knows how to act in public.
I truly think a law requiring dogs to be on a lead in public solves the lions share of the problem. The problem is across all social classes, not just the ill intentioned, so claiming 'there will always be law breakers' is no excuse to do nothing and letting all those guilty to get away with it.
If all those 'decent' people I've encountered had their dog on a lead I would never have had problems. A law would be about them taking responsibility as much as those who don't give a damn.
Unfortunately it is nigh on impossible to properly exercise a dog on a lead but if a dog is being properly entertained (fetching a ball for example) it is unlikely to chase after someone in my experience. So, how would one define where a dog has to be on a lead or not?
I don't have a solution; I genuinely believe some breeds are more inclined to chase than others and some breeds are far more capable of causing severe harm, or even kill, than others. How we control that I have no idea.
I don't have a solution; I genuinely believe some breeds are more inclined to chase than others and some breeds are far more capable of causing severe harm, or even kill, than others. How we control that I have no idea.
You could apply similar laws to kids! Imagine, only letting teenagers out on a lead, might stop a lot of the stabbings!
Wasn't the UK the first country in the world to recognise that certain animals were sentient and had rights? Is there a conflict between sentientcy and reasonable freedom vs constraint? Afterall it is the owner / handler that's the issue really.
Wasn't the UK the first country in the world to recognise that certain animals were sentient and had rights? Is there a conflict between sentientcy and reasonable freedom vs constraint? Afterall it is the owner / handler that's the issue really.
