Changes to dangerous dog act.

[big soft moose]

Why would I assume otherwise. I've walked a seemingl placid dog, and it just started going mental, barking, pulling on the lead. Not to be trusted.

Theres a big difference between "barking and pulling on the lead" and attacking something or someone though - agauin we are back to your basic lack of understanding of dogs and dog ownership.

The proof that these dogs were badly trained is partly empiracal - ie that a well trained dog doesnt just "turn nasty" for no reason (barring very few causes like brain cancer or rabies), and partly reports afterwards

For example the most recent case the boyfreind bough a malamute off a bloke he barely knew in a pub (in itself indicative of poor ownership decisions) , the previous owner later told journalists " The dig was a bit of a handful and was getting unmanageable, i was glad to see the back of it" - which also indicates poor training as a well trained malamute would not be "unmanageable" - and a responsible owner wouldn't sell his dog to a random bloke in a pub anyway

 

[big soft moose]

FFS! You were walking it, you must know whether there was something there or not!

IT IS NOT WHAT DOGS DO!

IF there was nothing there it was probably trying to get AWAY from you. Please do yourself (and the dog) a favour and don't walk it.

My dog generally pulls on the lead if she see's sheep (she's a collie so her natural instinct is to round them up which I don't let her do) she doesnt generally bark on the lead at all.
and experienced owner understands a dogs vocals and body language and generally knows what the issue is and whether the dog is excited/payful/threatened/scared etc and acts accordingly.

 

[big soft moose]

We also have to wonder what someone who is so afraid of dogs he thinks they should all be banned is doing walking one in the first place ?

 

[SFTPhotography]

FFS! You were walking it, you must know whether there was something there or not!

IT IS NOT WHAT DOGS DO!

IF there was nothing there it was probably trying to get AWAY from you. Please do yourself (and the dog) a favour and don't walk it.

A small bird or something, who knows, its my pals Spaniel. Not a dog I plan on walking again, nightmare

 

[SFTPhotography]

We also have to wonder what someone who is so afraid of dogs he thinks they should all be banned is doing walking one in the first place ?

I did it as a favour, I was free, hes a mate

 

[Nikon_Nick]

Probably get at something else. Its what dogs do.

This....this is the problem. If you had even the slimest shred of credibility left, it pretty much disapeared the second you finished typing this comment.

Youve proved yourself to know absolutely nothing about dogs or dog ownership. I know you keep threatening to leave the thread, so for the sake of your own dignity (if indeed you still have any), please go now.

 

[Nikon_Nick]

A small bird or something, who knows, its my pals Spaniel. Not a dog I plan on walking again, nightmare

I thought you said Spaniels are safe...Now you are saying it was going mental and not to be trusted. Blimey...you need to at least be able to keep up with your own bulls***.

 

[SFTPhotography]

This....this is the problem. If you had even the slimest shred of credibility left, it pretty much disapeared the second you finished typing this comment.

.

Why's that? Dogs are volatile.

 

[SFTPhotography]

I thought you said Spaniels are safe...Now you are saying it was going mental and not to be trusted. Blimey...you need to at least be able to keep up with your own bulls***.

If it attacks, its safer than a Rotwiller, you can physically contain a Spaniel, a Rottie, no chance. A spaniel bites, aye it hurts but a Rottwiller can kill doubt a spaniel can

 

[Nikon_Nick]

Why's that? Dogs are volatile.

You are suggesting that all dogs are the same. An example of your logic...

I was reading the local paer today about a pensioner that got murdered in her own home. I suppose thats just what people do, isnt it?!

 

[Tigger.ufo]

I'm sorry but I have to leave this thread before I get banned.

 

[Nikon_Nick]

If it attacks, its safer than a Rotwiller, you can physically contain a Spaniel, a Rottie, no chance. A spaniel bites, aye it hurts but a Rottwiller can kill doubt a spaniel can

if you dont think a spaniel could kill you, you are a moron.

 

[big soft moose]

if you dont think a spaniel could kill you, you are a moron.

That

Although it depends on the type of spaniel - i doubt a king charles could do an adult much damage - a springer certainly could though, and a clumber is flipping massive (bigger than a rottie)

also spaniels are gun dogs with a really strong chase and fetch instinct - if it was pulling on the lead like a b****r the chances are good it saw something it wanted to chase .. if you were a proper dog owner you'd have been alert to that and if the dog were properly trained you could have called it back to heel before it started pulling

as i said my dog pulls when she sees sheep , but a firm "Kim, no" command stops it instantly

 

[big soft moose]

Why's that? Dogs are volatile.

no they really arent (at least not if they are properly trained) - although some breeds are more higly strung than others , most working dogs like springers and cockers are pretty placcid (although given to chasing things)

 

[Nikon_Nick]

That

Although it depends on the type of spaniel - i doubt a king charles could do an adult much damage - a springer certainly could though, and a clumber is flipping massive (bigger than a rottie)

also spaniels are gun dogs with a really strong chase and fetch instinct - if it was pulling on the lead like a b****r the chances are good it saw something it wanted to chase .. if you were a proper dog owner you'd have been alert to that and if the dog were properly trained you could have called it back to heel before it started pulling

as i said my dog pulls when she sees sheep , but a firm "Kim, no" command stops it instantly

Quite. Werent Cocker Spaniels originally bred as hunting dogs? Im sure if ST4 wanted to, he would be able to find some inflamatory stories on the internet where cocker spaniels have attacked children...in fact i know he could, because I already looked

 

[SFTPhotography]

no they really arent (at least not if they are properly trained) - although some breeds are more higly strung than others , most working dogs like springers and cockers are pretty placcid (although given to chasing things)

it was a cocker, wee thing. Perhaps the more highly strung breeds need looked at in this law

 

[SFTPhotography]

Quite. Werent Cocker Spaniels originally bred as hunting dogs? Im sure if ST4 wanted to, he would be able to find some inflamatory stories on the internet where cocker spaniels have attacked children...in fact i know he could, because I already looked

Why would they be inflamatory if they quote fact or an account of true events? Just asking?

 

[Nikon_Nick]

Why would they be inflamatory if they quote fact or an account of true events? Just asking?

Inflamatory in that not ALL of the facts would be presented. Just the ones that fuel the paranoia of people like you.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Inflamatory in that not ALL of the facts would be presented. Just the ones that fuel the paranoia of people like you.

What a dog attacked someone, there's a fact. Dog lovers like you just look for excuses to excuse the things that they do.

 

[Nikon_Nick]

What a dog attacked someone, there's a fact. Dog lovers like you just look for excuses to excuse the things that they do.

Im not excusing a dog for attacking someone. But at the same time, because I have a lot of years of experience with dogs, know that there are generally reasons/triggers for such behaviour, and its those FACTS that never see final copy.

 

[Gremlin]

Aye, so why are all the good dog owners upset of this if their animal is as good as the proclaim it to be. The fact the clink is on the cards if their dog attacks their child shouldn't bother them as they know thats totally out of the question...right???

Purely and simply because as with licences it is the good owners that will suffer because they are an easy target.
As per my previous post about the child next door pocking sticks through the fence and hedge at my dogs after calling them over, access
to the rear garden was through a 6' padlocked gate and yet I stiil caught him tringying to climb it, knowing full well he had antagonised the dog before
and told his mum they attacked him.
Under the present laws if he had got in, I could be prosecuted, even though I had taken stron precautions to prevent it.
When it happened someone saw him and shouted a warning which I heard, one of the dogs jumped at the gate a shook, causing him to fall,
but luckily not hurt himself, this lad was 11/12 years old at the time so should have known better

 

[viv1969]

If it attacks, its safer than a Rotwiller, you can physically contain a Spaniel, a Rottie, no chance. A spaniel bites, aye it hurts but a Rottwiller can kill doubt a spaniel can

You really are...to keep on topic...quite barking mad

 

[SFTPhotography]

Lad sounds like he has a death wish. He's not old enough to be done for trespass?

 

[viv1969]

Lad sounds like he has a death wish. He's not old enough to be done for trespass?

Of course he can't be "done" for trespass. ..whatever his age. Trespass ...unless committed on crown or MOD land....is a civil offence.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Of course he can't be "done" for trespass. ..whatever his age. Trespass ...unless committed on crown or MOD land....is a civil offence.

Breaking and entering, I dunno I'm no lawyer

 

[viv1969]

Breaking and entering, I dunno I'm no lawyer

Clearly.

 

[SarahLee]

Aye, so why are all the good dog owners upset of this if their animal is as good as the proclaim it to be. The fact the clink is on the cards if their dog attacks their child shouldn't bother them as they know thats totally out of the question...right???

Steve (or anyone else) please help me out here. I feel like I've stepped into the Twilight Zone or I must be reading a completely different thread.
As far as I can see, nobody in this thread is upset about the changes to the DDA - in fact most people have been supportive of them.

 

[Nikon_Nick]

Steve (or anyone else) please help me out here. I feel like I've stepped into the Twilight Zone or I must be reading a completely different thread.
As far as I can see, nobody in this thread is upset about the changes to the DDA - in fact most people have been supportive of them.

Exactly this.

 

[Yv]

Steve (or anyone else) please help me out here. I feel like I've stepped into the Twilight Zone or I must be reading a completely different thread.
As far as I can see, nobody in this thread is upset about the changes to the DDA - in fact most people have been supportive of them.

Agreed, I haven't seen anyone say they are against the toughened up DDA [I mentioned I disagree with licencing and why, but that is separate issue to this]

 

[SFTPhotography]

Steve (or anyone else) please help me out here. I feel like I've stepped into the Twilight Zone or I must be reading a completely different thread.
As far as I can see, nobody in this thread is upset about the changes to the DDA - in fact most people have been supportive of them.

I quoted someones post, and the conversation flowed on from there, its a few pages back.

 

[Yves Geza]

Agreed, I haven't seen anyone say they are against the toughened up DDA [I mentioned I disagree with licencing and why, but that is separate issue to this]

It's akin to the totalitarian self regard of the anti-smoking lobby; for the evangelical fanatic no change less than a worldwide, absolute ban is enough!

I have never felt that about cars or Communists or cats or Christians or cigarettes or carnivores ... although I probably would support a cull of cyclists!

 

[neil_g]

this was your first post in this thread:

Gun ownership was banned due to bam pot gun owners shooting at children in schools.

Why cannot dangerous dogs be banned, just how many children and adults are to be mauled before these beasts are gone.

totally unrelated to anything being discussed as far as i can see and not quoting anyone.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Echo's my view on the subject nicely that....

 

[neil_g]

me and this thread:

 

[Dr_O]

mmm...long day and thought I'd catch up

it's been emotional

 

[POAH]

Is this actually genuine or a load of BS? I can see a lot of trouble getting kicked up if it's true.

http://www.nawt.org.uk/advice/changes-dangerous-dogs-act-advice-owners

why would trouble be kicked up? there is nothing there that doesn't make sense.

please note I'm an owner of a GSD that loves to bark at people who knock on the door.

 

[CaveDweller]

why would trouble be kicked up? there is nothing there that doesn't make sense.

please note I'm an owner of a GSD that loves to bark at people who knock on the door.

Not so much trouble but more fuss than anything from the people that don't agree or can't control their dogs. Not everyone will agree with the new changes.

I'm fine with the changes, doesn't bother me.

 

[Yv]

why would trouble be kicked up? there is nothing there that doesn't make sense.

please note I'm an owner of a GSD that loves to bark at people who knock on the door.

Not so much trouble but more fuss than anything from the people that don't agree or can't control their dogs. Not everyone will agree with the new changes.

I'm fine with the changes, doesn't bother me.

Good grief, are we getting this thread back on track? There are two areas that I see with 'potential' problems - the first is the defining whether a dog 'might' bite, the bit that says if a person feels threatened that is sufficient - as we have seen from this thread, that will vary hugely from person to person and I can see this causing problems of a he said/she said variety. I don't disagree with it in principal but in reality, I predict plenty of future DM headline out of it.

The 2nd part, as I mentioned right at the beginning, is that as this covers dogs on private property, what will happen when [I confidently predict a 'when', not an 'if'] the person involved is a tresspasser/burglar?

 

[CaveDweller]

Good grief, are we getting this thread back on track? There are two areas that I see with 'potential' problems - the first is the defining whether a dog 'might' bite, the bit that says if a person feels threatened that is sufficient - as we have seen from this thread, that will vary hugely from person to person and I can see this causing problems of a he said/she said variety. I don't disagree with it in principal but in reality, I predict plenty of future DM headline out of it.

The 2nd part, as I mentioned right at the beginning, is that as this covers dogs on private property, what will happen when [I confidently predict a 'when', not an 'if'] the person involved is a tresspasser/burglar?

That's the lines I was trying to think of, but at 3am I couldn't quite get my brain to work lol. I know my dogs well and I can tell by their barks and behavior if they are being vicious or not. The problems I can see arising for example, a person walks past a dog owners garden and the dog is barking with excitement at the passer by, but the passer by might not understand the dogs behavior and take it as being vicious. I don't know how the new law will apply to that situation but I can see a lot of overreacting from the people who aren't so clued up about dog behavior.

I take my dogs everywhere with me and quite a few times when I have been visiting friends they have been barking at the gate for a play with people walking past the garden. Normally those people will have to change their underwear when this happens even though my dogs have been in no way vicious or trying to attack them, but with their reactions they didn't quite see it this way. Yes I should have probably been watching the dogs better but when you're around them everyday and know their behavior it's not something I thought about at the time lol.

Now to your 2nd part. It's already a sketchy situation trying to cover yourself if a dog bites a tresspasser/burglar. If you hit someone it will just be like trying to prove that the reason you thumped them was due to self defence. You always here stories of victims getting robbed and they've done something to the tresspasser, but it's the victims of the robbery that have come out worse in court. Touchy touchy part lol, I have CCTV now to cover me for that exact reason because it happened to me a few years back. I eventually got away with it but I don't know the proceedings if one of my dogs was to bite the burglar. In today's state probably taken by the council and shot without full evidence.

 

[POAH]

Good grief, are we getting this thread back on track? There are two areas that I see with 'potential' problems - the first is the defining whether a dog 'might' bite, the bit that says if a person feels threatened that is sufficient - as we have seen from this thread, that will vary hugely from person to person and I can see this causing problems of a he said/she said variety. I don't disagree with it in principal but in reality, I predict plenty of future DM headline out of it.

The 2nd part, as I mentioned right at the beginning, is that as this covers dogs on private property, what will happen when [I confidently predict a 'when', not an 'if'] the person involved is a tresspasser/burglar?

if someone breaks into my house and gets bitten then its their own fault

the part about people at the door I'm assuming refers to people that don't put their dog away - I have the porch door closed so he can't get out. a barking dog is not dangerous but you can feel threatened if they are barking right at you. That's just common sense though.