Conrod Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Jesus Christmas, I agree with him There's a first for everything (take away the politics and it's amazing how people can actually have things in common). The license for the hosuehold, or dog owner, makes sense - that way, their house, criminal record etc could be vetted (hopefully quickly and cheaply), licensing them to own/keep dogs. They could then just add dog chip numbers to a central register against their own license number. That's a proven system, just the way trade motor insurance works - once you have a trade insurance policy, you can add registrations to the database either by going online or ringing a helpline at the DVLA, and they add the extra reg so it comes up as insured - simple and cheap to run. Vetting of owners and their addresses would hopefully filter out undesirables who have already been prosecuted for related offenses, and (perhaps more often and therefore still importantly) prevent people living in flats or other residences without suitable facilities from having a dog. (I remember some years ago sitting in a traffic queue and watching a very scroatish-looking young man come out of a block of flats with a beautiful mastiff on a lead, walk it 5 yards until it dropped a log the size of a cucumber on the pavement, then take it back into the flats leaving the pavement with a fresh decoration - an example of a situation where a license should not be issued). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I remember some years ago sitting in a traffic queue and watching a very scroatish-looking young man come out of a block of flats with a beautiful mastiff on a lead, walk it 5 yards until it dropped a log the size of a cucumber on the pavement, then take it back into the flats leaving the pavement with a fresh decoration - an example of a situation where a license should not be issued). Yes and no to that. There's many more occupying flats that will not only clean up but exercise the dog with more enthusiasm. A lot of rescus will not consider adopting if there is no garden and I for one find this a peculiar set up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Yes and no to that. There's many more occupying flats that will not only clean up but exercise the dog with more enthusiasm. A lot of rescus will not consider adopting if there is no garden and I for one find this a peculiar set up.Good point, if the owner is within a reasonable distance of good walking area and can either walk there or show sutiable transport to take the dog there 2 or 3 times a day, then fine - but I could not condone, under any circumstances, somebody keeping a giant breed in an inner city block of flats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Good point, if the owner is within a reasonable distance of good walking area and can either walk there or show sutiable transport to take the dog there 2 or 3 times a day, then fine - but I could not condone, under any circumstances, somebody keeping a giant breed in an inner city block of flats. Best will in the world, there's no guarantee that exercise will take place it still comes down to trust and gut feeling as far as adoption from rescues goes. The whole process needs updating from start to finish, too many avenues and outlets to obtain dogs from make it impossible to keep track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Busy morning there sheff Yeah. I was a bit miffed about missing this thread when it was started. It's a pity the forum only logs 20 pages of new posts. It could do with being 25 or 30 pages on a forum this busy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Why not? The main thing is that the owner can be traced. At present if a dog attacks someone or is aggressive to people the owner can only usually be traced if they go to the council pound to collect it. If chipped and registered the owner could be traced whether or not they come to collect the dog. because clearly the people you would want to trace would be the ones who wouldn't do it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 because clearly the people you would want to trace would be the ones who wouldn't do it!In some cases for sure, but the same logic applies to any control legislation - driving licenses, firearms certificates, motor insurance - we have to have those. The people who intend from the start to break the law won't change their behaviour when legislation is enhanced, but there will always be people who do get brought into the system and will be swayed to responsible behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 In some cases for sure, but the same logic applies to any control legislation - driving licenses, firearms certificates, motor insurance - we have to have those. The people who intend from the start to break the law won't change their behaviour when legislation is enhanced, but there will always be people who do get brought into the system and will be swayed to responsible behaviour. I don't think it would ever sway an irresponsible owner to be a responsible owner. It would just tax responsible owners. I think there should be far more stringent controls on dog breeders. They should be partially responsible for who they sell to. The RSPCA don't give animals out to anyone, they check the home is suitable. They can do it and they are a charity so there is no reason why breeders could not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 I don't think it would ever sway an irresponsible owner to be a responsible owner. It would just tax responsible owners. I think there should be far more stringent controls on dog breeders. They should be partially responsible for who they sell to. The RSPCA don't give animals out to anyone, they check the home is suitable. They can do it and they are a charity so there is no reason why breeders could not. I agree that the controls should be tightened up considerably. Breeders, that is to say, legitimate breeders go further than rescues in their attempts to rehome their animals to the right home. By and large the RSPCA can do what they like, donations from misguided members of the public insure that their coffers are full. Respect for this outfit has dipped in recent years and rightly so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Welcome back rickie. Once again you have crawled from under your rock to try and demonize the Staffie again. You make me sick! Not once have you even tried to research the breed itself, yet you come on here and spew your drivel to all and sundry. By posting your bile, you encourage hatred to the breed. You are far more dangerous than any Staffy that ever lived. I wish i could post what i really think of you. More evidence that you are a numpty. If that is a Staffy, i have a 12" todger. Rickie will never acknowledge that though. He is a bigot. ALL of that has been covered many times on here and every time you come out of looking a tool before going in to hiding for a few weeks. Thousands? That is pretty sad, even for you Rickie Sorry for ranting on while most people were asleep but i only just noticed this thread and i will defend the Stafford against any uneducated bigot out there. I thought better of Wath but i always expect Ricki to come crawling out of the woodwork with his pathetic crap every time a dog attack is mentioned. <SNIP> more swivel-eyed wild ranting</SNIP>. I wondered when you'd appear on this thread! Even by your deranged standards that’s pretty excessive. To be so obsessed with me as to get up at 5am on a Saturday to make no less than 8 separate abusive posts suggests you really do have an anger management problem. I have made reference to the fact that the staffy is all too often the dog of choice for violent chavs, and here you are clearly proving me right! If anyone’s wondering why 0742sheff is displaying such extreme aggressive behaviour, I think it’s because he seems to have become obsessed with me, following several disagreements we have had on previous threads about staffy attacks. Every time he loses the argument he resorts to the same old tactic of abusing me and anyone else who has proved him wrong. Personally I think life’s too short to bother with this inadequate man who needs to swagger the streets with a violent dog to prove how a hard man he is, so I won’t bother responding to his posts any further. All I will say though is that we seem to have a new thread about a new staffy attack every week on this forum. That alone clearly shows that staffy attacks on children are so widespread that something needs to be done, and the most rational course of action would be to ban the breed responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.