Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

dangerous dogs

should danger dogs be banned??

  • Total voters
    83
Status
Not open for further replies.
Guru888 said:
Staffys are actually the best dogs with kids, not the best with other dogs sometimes but nothing wrong with them with kids, BS post.
Guru
Click to expand...
Not known for being possessive breed and recommended to be round children. For sure it's not a dog to be left to just walk round the garden for ever more, they need proper exercise which probably where the problem arises with them.
 
Devanski said:
Don’t understand the license argument.
Surely the characters that are being outed here would be the last people to be arsed getting said license.
Responsible dog owners would be first in line to get one. No?
Click to expand...
But it would give police the powers to round up the scruffs before an attack.

As it stands nothing can be done about some troglodyte sauntering round an estate with a toddler killer until it's satisfied it's lust for young blood or savagely attacked a guide dog.
 

ClausThomsen said:
But it would give police the powers to round up the scruffs before an attack.

As it stands nothing can be done about some troglodyte sauntering round an estate with a toddler killer until it's satisfied it's lust for young blood or savagely attacked a guide dog.
Click to expand...
I understand the sentiment but can’t see the practical implementation of such a policy.
Do (named organisation) vet potential owners and their suitability, before issuing a license ? If so, what about vetting the current owners and their suitability.
How long does this process take? What are the added costs to an, arguably, already stretched resource.
What about the, ‘I’ve only just got the dog and I’m in the process of applying for a license’ defence that they will undoubtedly proffer.
I’m not trying to defend the ‘troglodytes’ at all, I’m just trying to understand how such a scheme can be costed and workable.
 
Devanski said:
I understand the sentiment but can’t see the practical implementation of such a policy.
Do (named organisation) vet potential owners and their suitability, before issuing a license ? If so, what about vetting the current owners and their suitability.
How long does this process take? What are the added costs to an, arguably, already stretched resource.
What about the, ‘I’ve only just got the dog and I’m in the process of applying for a license’ defence that they will undoubtedly proffer.
I’m not trying to defend the ‘troglodytes’ at all, I’m just trying to understand how such a scheme can be costed and workable.
Click to expand...
Charities such as Dogs Trust are capable of vetting potential owners and their suitability so a framework to build from is there.
Announce it as coming to force at a fixed point in the future for current owners with a requirement for microchipping before then.
The process takes as long as it takes - there is no urgent need to own a pet.
Make having a license is a prerequisite of having a dog in much the same way as a driving license is a prerequisite for driving a car.
Various categories for licenses - some dogs aren't suitable for people living in flats or with children etc.
Database maintained to ensure dogs are properly vaccinated and receive regular licensed veterinary checks.

All funded by the cost of the license. If that makes dog owning an expensive business then so be it. To look after a dog properly is an expensive business anyway, especially in later life.

If that lowers demand for dogs then so be it. There are far too many of them and the commercial trade of animals as accessories is abhorrent. More so when many are purposefully bred with congenital defects detrimental to quality of life to satisfy the ego of purported dog lovers.
 
Caolam said:
Dog licences should cost £250, with exceptions for the elderly or in some cases those with a disability where owning a pet may help their condition. Any dog running loose should be humanely put down and the owner fined, any dog attacking someone should be humanely put down and their owner jailed, any dog killing someone should be humanely put down and their owner charged with man slaughter.
Click to expand...
You should be humanely put down. It appears it can't be so bad as you are happy to apply it to any dog not fitting your rules.
 

Bohemian Toffee said:
I've been bitten by a dachshund and a hamster.

Not at the same time.

But for purposes of comparison and because I know this forum is a hive for the scientific mind the hamster bite was much more painful.
Click to expand...
Where did the hamster bite you

That that know the reason for that question know why it was asked
Those that don't ..........educate yourselves
 
We should ban all cars then because humans buy cars then can use them as weapons, drive drunk, speed, not pay attention

All cars are potentially child killers.

Ban cars
 
ClausThomsen said:
Charities such as Dogs Trust are capable of vetting potential owners and their suitability so a framework to build from is there.
Announce it as coming to force at a fixed point in the future for current owners with a requirement for microchipping before then.
The process takes as long as it takes - there is no urgent need to own a pet.
Make having a license is a prerequisite of having a dog in much the same way as a driving license is a prerequisite for driving a car.
Various categories for licenses - some dogs aren't suitable for people living in flats or with children etc.
Database maintained to ensure dogs are properly vaccinated and receive regular licensed veterinary checks.

All funded by the cost of the license. If that makes dog owning an expensive business then so be it. To look after a dog properly is an expensive business anyway, especially in later life.

If that lowers demand for dogs then so be it. There are far too many of them and the commercial trade of animals as accessories is abhorrent. More so when many are purposefully bred with congenital defects detrimental to quality of life to satisfy the ego of purported dog lovers.
Click to expand...


Organisations such as Dogs Trust operate for people who choose that avenue of getting a dog.
I feel the people being discussed here are outside of this method of obtaining a dog.
Are they to be the sole source for all dogs to be procured? If so what happens to all the other current methods,dog homes, direct purchase from breeder etc?
Everything else is utopia for the responsible dog owner and most of it is currently available to them but is that what is being discussed here?
These people won’t give a toss if the dog is removed from them, they will get another one on the ‘market’.
Who enforces the vaccinations and regular veterinary checks?
It may well reduce the demand for dogs but mainly for families that would be good homes for an animal.
The ones being discussed here, if I’ve taken the gist of the thread correctly, will still get their dogs by nefarious means.
We are unable to stop puppy farming, with all the good will in the world, so I’m not sure of the chances of a one license cure all being effective either.
Believe me, I am as frustrated as the next man with the mistreatment and mismanagement of dogs in this country but I’m still at a loss as to how taking a ‘punishing the whole class because someone won’t admit they did it’ approach can solve the issue.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top