Pit bull attack

aare

(Sorry, with those two ladies looking up curiously at me as I posted I couldn't resist the above, and I am afraid it IS a fair summary of their actual attitude to life in general and pit bulls in particular, gurriers have been known to die laughing at the left hand Yorkie scrabbles frantically at the car window to get at their, deeply puzzled, white pit bull)

peasant wrote:

Well, here's my solution ...the dog control act as drafted by peasant.

The owner or handler at the time carries the responsiblity for the proper control of his/her dog. Proper control is deemed to be the prevention of bites or attacks on other people or animals

This is law already.

peasant wrote:

1) on the owners premises: a fence or wall that prevents the dog from leaving the premises

Grossly impractical and not always necessary. What happens to all the dogs that poorer owners cannot afford to provide such walls for (whether they need it or not)? I'll tell you, they would have to be killed, because there aren't enough people who can afford such fencing to go around.

peasant wrote:

2) outside the owners premises:
a) in large public areas such as parks, woods, beaches unless otherwise restricted.
- a working recall of the dog
- failing working recall the dog needs to be on a leash

How are you going to prove a failed working recall? Or even create a legal definition of a working recall?

peasant wrote:

b) in confined public spaces
- the dog needs to be on a short leash at all times
- the dog needs to be trained and/ or restrained such as not to attack without severe provocation

Again how are you going to prove a dog is not trained and/ or restrained such as not to attack without severe provocation? Or even create a legal definition of trained and/ or restrained such as not to attack without severe provocation

peasant wrote:

Failing to comply with the above will result in the following:

a) dog found wandering in large open public space or failing to display working recall ...fine 50 Euro
b) dog found wandering in confined public space or not leashed ... fine 100 Euro
c) dog has attacked other animal or person, but not caused injury that required medical assistance beyond assessment and minor wound care ... fine 500 Euro

So that people who cannot afford, or simply cannot be *rsed paying such draconian fines deny owning the dog, the dog is impounded and killed.

How is that humane to ANY breed of dog?

peasant wrote:

d) dog causes injury to animal or person that requires intensive medical attention ...fine 25 % of the owner's annual net income for injuries to persons
2500 euro for injuries to animals
e) dog causes the death of another animal or person ... fine for death of person 33% of owners annual net income payable for the next five years, for death of animal 5000 euro

You cannot create a legal precident for relating fines to income, put simply, persons thus fined tend to get fired and sign on. You are also punishing the spouse and children by such draconian measures...

...and as a above, the quick thinking deny owning the dog, which is then impounded and put to death...I do NOT see how that "does not punish" the dog...who is, effectively, pretty certain of a death sentence if he wanders off!

peasant wrote:

F) c, d, and e do not apply to the owners premises unless the injured person had the express permission of the owner to enter the premises and / or the injured animal was not a wild or stray animal but there with the knowledge of the owner

You cannot set a precedent for a dog to be recognised as a legal, lethal weapon by default!!

Tired of your heavily insured spouse? Get a barring order, make sure there are no witnesses when you invite him round to collect his other pair of socks/discuss reconciliation and then set the shutzhunds of your choice on him...nobody can prove a darn thing that ain't legal...

Edited to add:
And how would this relate to the execution of a search warrant which is almost always at the "innocent until proved guilty" stage?

peasant wrote:

(sporting activities, dog races, hunts or working police dogs are regulated seperately)

Why?

peasant

MorningStar

Here is the the same question you refused to answer at least 3 times. Why allow the breed?

Once again ...as a matter of principle. Pitbulls are not as dangerous as they are made out to be. In most cases where they cause harm, the owner is at least partially to blame, which means to say the dog is not necessarily agressive all by itself.
The only thing that distinguishes them from other dogs of similar size is a strong jaw, powerful muscles and a tendency not to let go once they bite. These are things that can and need to be controlled (by the owner)

Your only argument for banning pitbulls seems to be the perceived danger because they "don't let go".

Ok ...so we ban them.

What happens next?
We ban greyhounds, as they are dangerously fast ..closely followed by whippets, salukis and any other sighthound.
Then we ban all dogs over a certain size or weight ...because they are just plain dangerous because of their size.
Then we ban all dogs of Terrier origin, because they have been found to be dangerously tenacious, aggressive and thick headed.

And then ...oh, wait ...no more dogs left.

Danger is something that comes with having dogs. We either have all dogs or none. You yourself said that Dachshunds are not without danger ...why do you breed them then? Why do you have them?

As I previously stated, personally I wouldn't want a pitbull. I don't particularly like the looks of them and they are not "my kind of dog". But by preventing another responsible owner from having one, they might in return prevent me from having "my" dog. I don't want that to happen ...ever!

I do agree though, that something needs to be done about owners who misuse and abuse pitbulls for the wrong purposes or those who are simply to stupid to realize that their dog could be a danger to others.

aare

nesf wrote:

I do however agree that it's far easier to legislate against dogs than it is against owners. But I would feel that dog licences need to be looked at again.

Dog ownership should be a privilidge not a right. Far too many dog owners don't have even the basics of how to care for a dog in their head. With some dogs it means a miserable dog, with other breeds it means a dangerous one.

Banning a breed and letting it die out through sterilisation is NOT legislating "against dogs". It's not about punishment. The dogs won't suffer...and many of them will be allowed to live out the same lives they would have had in any case.

But the harder and more expensive you make it for people to own dogs, the more unwanted dogs and strays you will have, and the less still their chances of rehoming.

Then all you can do with those unwanted dogs is kill them.

How is that "not legislating against the dog"?

In my book, a certain death sentence for so many of them is as "against" as it gets.

nesf

I didn't mean legislating as in punishing but in it's legal meaning. I was using it in the context as legislating against a particular breed versus legislating against dog owners.

Apologies if I wasn't clear.



Yorkies are vicious, vicious animals btw. Lost an Irish Wolfhound to two of them once. Tore him apart they did!

aare

nesf wrote:

Yorkies are vicious, vicious animals btw. Lost an Irish Wolfhound to two of them once. Tore him apart they did!

My Yorkies appreciate that statement so much that they would like to have your puppies.

peasant

aare

The owner or handler at the time carries the responsiblity for the proper control of his/her dog. Proper control is deemed to be the prevention of bites or attacks on other people or animals

This is law already

I know ...i just wanted to state it again

Originally Posted by peasant
1) on the owners premises: a fence or wall that prevents the dog from leaving the premises

Grossly impractical and not always necessary. What happens to all the dogs that poorer owners cannot afford to provide such walls for (whether they need it or not)? I'll tell you, they would have to be killed, because there aren't enough people who can afford such fencing to go around.

I'm sorry ...but dog ownership is a priviledge, not a right. If you can't afford to create the right cirumstances for owning a dog, you should't have one.

It IS necessary that dogs do not wander off, in order not to create traffic accidents, dog fights, injuries to people or make other doggies
A proper fence is the only way to ensure that, while giving them freedom to move on their own grounds.

How are you going to prove a failed working recall? Or even create a legal definition of a working recall?

Very simple ... a person of authority sees me with my dog off the lead. They ask me to call the dog. Dog does not come ...i get fined. Submissions of third parties are not accepted ... no snitch phoneline here

Again how are you going to prove a dog is not trained and/ or restrained such as not to attack without severe provocation? Or even create a legal definition of trained and/ or restrained such as not to attack without severe provocation

Again, very simple ...once it bites, it wasn't. Doesn't really matter whether it was because of lack of training or lack of muzzle.
The "severe provocation" bit is a bit shady though ...i must admit. Basically I wanted to rule out self defence. Needs some more work.

So that people who cannot afford, or simply cannot be *rsed paying such draconian fines deny owning the dog, the dog is impounded and killed.

Getting rid of the dog would not relieve you from having to pay the fine ...might as well keep it. 50 or 100 Euro for not controlling your dog is not draconian ...but noticeably painful. One less weekend on the crawl might make some people actually sit up and listen.

You cannot create a legal precident for relating fines to income, put simply, persons thus fined tend to get fired and sign on. You are also punishing the spouse and children by such draconian measures...

I know i can't do that ...but i would love to. By relating fine to income you hit everybody equally hard. And it's supposed to hit hard.
About the wife and children ...well they are part of the family just as the dog. one has to show the same responsibility towards all. So if you want to take good care of your family ...take good care of your dog.

Originally Posted by peasant
F) c, d, and e do not apply to the owners premises unless the injured person had the express permission of the owner to enter the premises and / or the injured animal was not a wild or stray animal but there with the knowledge of the owner

You cannot set a precedent for a dog to be recognised as a legal, lethal weapon by default!!

Tired of your heavily insured spouse? Get a barring order, make sure there are no witnesses when you invite him round to collect his other pair of socks/discuss reconciliation and then set the shutzhunds of you choice on him...nobody can prove a darn thing that ain't legal...

You may have a point there about the disliked spouse ...might need some fine tuning.
But i find it equally unfair, that a burglar can break into your house, your dog does its job and bites him and he can sue and WIN !! That is not on. You should be able to put up a sign at your door "beware of dog, enter at your own risk" and it should actually mean something and not (as it does now) drive up the compo because you basically admitted to your dog being dangerous. Our dogs probalby would lick any burglar to death ...but still, I'd rather be on the safe side.

Originally Posted by peasant
(sporting activities, dog races, hunts or working police dogs are regulated seperately)

Why?

Because I wanted to make it easy for myself. hunting dogs, racing dogs and police dogs would temporarily break all sorts of "my" laws while on "duty".
Furthermore i personally dislike most of these "duties" ...so basically I just didn't want to go there ...the thread is long enough as it is

aare

peasant wrote:

We ban greyhounds, as they are dangerously fast ...

Actually I would consider the possibility of a similar ban on Greyhound breeding, but not because they are fast, and certainly not because they are dangerous...they aren't...

Rather because if they are fast enough, thousands of Greyhounds are allowed to live in kennels until they are three or four and then destroyed, not always humanely, or sold on to countries where the dog racing culture is even less humane...

If they are not fast enough they are often simply destroyed.

No matter how good and gentle greyhounds are, and in my experience they ARE good and gentle, though they tend to be cunning and incorrigable thieves, there is no way to find retirement homes for the tens of thousands that become redundant every year.

It would be a LOT kinder if those poor doomed creatures were never born in the first place.

peasant

aare wrote:

But the harder and more expensive you make it for people to own dogs, the more unwanted dogs and strays you will have, and the less still their chances of rehoming.

That one i don't get at all ...
How is difficult and expensive dog ownership going to create more unwanted dogs?

Once the costs are made clear upfront, some people might actually not "want one" any more.

please elaborate


btw ...i like yorkies ...they pack a lot of "punch" for their size

nesf

Banning the breed officially could have a backlash with illegal breeding of them. That would be hard to counter considering this is already an area lacking in funding and thusly legislation.

*shrugs*

aare

peasant wrote:

aare
I'm sorry ...but dog ownership is a priviledge, not a right. If you can't afford to create the right cirumstances for owning a dog, you should't have one.

So what do you propose should happen to all those extra unwanted dogs that nobody can afford to keep? Apart from a mandatory death sentence?

peasant wrote:

Very simple ... a person of authority sees me with my dog off the lead. They ask me to call the dog. Dog does not come ...i get fined.

Define "person of authority"? Who should this be? A Police Officer (who probably hasn't got the time to Police dog walkers)? A Dog warden (who often hasn't got any training of ANY kind)? ISPCA or Animal Welfare (who are almost invariably "self-appointed" experts the it isn't wise to hand any "authority" to)?

Define "calling the dog", what must you call? "Come", "Here", "Are you coming in the car?" (the only one my lot listen to). At what distance must this "person of authority" stand to observe? Because some dogs will not come to a stranger and are never walked with other people...

peasant wrote:

Again, very simple ...once it bites, it wasn't. Doesn't really matter whether it was because of lack of training or lack of muzzle.
The "severe provocation" bit is a bit shady though ...i must admit. Basically I wanted to rule out self defence. Needs some more work.

I'm glad you realise that!

peasant wrote:

Getting rid of the dog would not relieve you from having to pay the fine ...might as well keep it. 50 or 100 Euro for not controlling your dog is not draconian ...but noticeably painful. One less weekend on the crawl might make some people actually sit up and listen.

But they have to prove you OWN the dog first...how will they do that?

And when they cannot how is it to the dog's advantage to be impounded and killed...along with all those other innocent dogs people cannot afford the expense of owing because of impractical and draconian legislation.

peasant wrote:

I know i can't do that ...but i would love to. By relating fine to income you hit everybody equally hard.

No you don't.

peasant wrote:

About the wife and children ...well they are part of the family just as the dog. one has to show the same responsibility towards all. So if you want to take good care of your family ...take good care of your dog.

So how far do you propose to punish the family?

Would "unto the third generation" do you or would you like to take it further?

peasant wrote:

You may have a point there about the disliked spouse ...might need some fine tuning.

Too right it does...that is why law is always so wordy and convoluted, it has to achieve it's aim while also closing all the loopholes.

peasant wrote:

But i find it equally unfair, that a burglar can break into your house, your dog does its job and bites him and he can sue and WIN !! That is not on. You should be able to put up a sign at your door "beware of dog, enter at your own risk" and it should actually mean something and not (as it does now) drive up the compo because you basically admitted to your dog being dangerous. Our dogs probalby would lick any burglar to death ...but still, I'd rather be on the safe side.

Well, on this one, under current legislation, you dog is in the same position you are. Personally I am not too fond of any legislation that curbs the individual's freedom of expression towards intruders, but that is a whole different area of law. Sufface to say that you cannot leave a dog to be a legitimate lethal weapon by default in ANY circumstances, but you could, for example, legislate to pro-actively licence a dog as a lethal weapon of defence.

peasant

aare
as you are obviously legally versed, which i am not, I'm going to refrain from further replies.

But i think you get my underlying sentiments. In other legislations that have written law books rather than a "grown" law (compare Germany / England-Ireland-USA) "my" laws could be quite possible btw ...after some fine tuning, of course.

Just one more thing on calling the dog ...what does it matter what you say, as the long as the dog comes when you say it ...

And dog ownership is something that desperately needs some more control in ireland ...also in regards to breeding, puppy milling, abandoning dogs, etc, etc,

and on this:

So what do you propose should happen to all those extra unwanted dogs that nobody can afford to keep? Apart from a mandatory death sentence?

The market will regulate itself fairly quickly ...once the demand dies down, the supply will as well. For a few years the current, terrible situation would continue, but finally it would fizzle out. (which i would regard as an overall improvement in the long run)

aare

peasant wrote:

The market will regulate itself fairly quickly ...once the demand dies down, the supply will as well. For a few years the current, terrible situation would continue, but finally it would fizzle out. (which i would regard as an overall improvement in the long run)

A curious closing argument for someone who originally asserted that the answer lay in ceasing to think of dogs as commodities.

peasant

A curious closing argument for someone who originally asserted that the answer lay in ceasing to think of dogs as commodities.

Yes, but that is exactly my point. As soon as people start to value their dogs, either due to a true understanding of their nature and abilities or more painfully through their purse things WILL get better. I would prefer people to value their dogs morally/ethically, but if it has to be financially ...so be it


Currently in this society dogs have next to no value (of either kind), that is why there are so many things going wrong.

aare

peasant wrote:

That one i don't get at all ...
How is difficult and expensive dog ownership going to create more unwanted dogs?

Once the costs are made clear upfront, some people might actually not "want one" any more.

please elaborate

Very simple, there are ALREADY more dogs than there are people who want them, as a result thousands are destroyed every year. If less people want dogs there will be even less homes available, to the same amount of dogs, so more "unwanted" dogs and more dogs will be killed.

They don't make dogs to order you know.

peasant wrote:

btw ...i like yorkies ...they pack a lot of "punch" for their size

A wise choice of attitude

It is a VERY brave soul that will dis a Yorkie...

aare

nesf wrote:

Banning the breed officially could have a backlash with illegal breeding of them. That would be hard to counter considering this is already an area lacking in funding and thusly legislation.

True enough, but it will be a lot simpler, cheaper and more effective than trying to Police overall dog ownership.

peasant

True enough, but it will be a lot simpler, cheaper and more effective than trying to Police overall dog ownership.

Hmmm ...

I would say, though, that the current situation clearly shows that the simplest, cheapest and most effective (??) solution isn't necessarily the best one.

aare

peasant wrote:

Hmmm ...

I would say, though, that the current situation clearly shows that the simplest, cheapest and most effective (??) solution isn't necessarily the best one.

Depends on how you define "best", because it certainly seems to be the one that works...and does the least harm to the innocent dogs.

Too many people aspire to use the Welfare of Animals as an excuse for imposing their own ideas on other people, without the slightest regard for the real overall effect this will have on the same animals they affect concern for, let alone the people they seek to impose their ideas upon..

MorningStar

peasant wrote:

MorningStar


Once again ...as a matter of principle. Pitbulls are not as dangerous etc...

And there you go again. You never answered the question I asked AGAIN!

I am asking you why allow the bred? Not why not allow a a ban. As you said yourself dog ownership is not right so I am asking the question from that view if that helps you.

To make it easy why not limit your answers to bullet points

e.g.
I think pit bulls should be allowed because:
1)
2)
3)

All you have to do now is fill in your reasons and you can add more reasons.

Note saying because it might mean other dogs are baned doesn't fit in there.

If you find this all a little condescending it probably is but after repeated attempts to get you to answer a question there is no other option.

peasant

The current policy on "animal welfare" (in regards to dogs) is in a nutshell:

No restrictions or controls in regards to breeding numbers / numbers of breeding bitches / overall "output" of puppies per breeder ...hence the puppy farms

Next to no control over how dogs are sold or traded, no minimum standard, no protection for seller or buyer, no minimum health requirements, no nothing

Next to no restrictions on keeping a dog, (none of them enforced, anyway)

All and any enforcment that takes place is usually done by private organisations, there is little or no state funding.

The only thing that works effectively is that all "excess" animals are collected and destroyed within five days. (Due to no ownership regulations, also lots of dogs with homes get destroyed)

So how is an improvement on any of the above going to affect dogs to their detriment??

peasant

MorningStar wrote:

And there you go again. You never answered the question I asked AGAIN!

I am asking you why allow the bred? Not why not allow a a ban. As you said yourself dog ownership is not right so I am asking the question from that view if that helps you.

To make it easy why not limit your answers to bullet points

e.g.
I think pit bulls should be allowed because:
1)
2)
3)

All you have to do now is fill in your reasons and you can add more reasons.

Note saying because it might mean other dogs are baned doesn't fit in there.

If you find this all a little condescending it probably is but after repeated attempts to get you to answer a question there is no other option.

Man (woman?) ...you're really waering me out ....
No matter how many times you ask, my answer is going to stay the same. I want pitbulls unbanned as a matter of principle. As the statistics show, today the pitbull is deemed to be the most dangerous dog, yesterday it was the Great Dane, before that the Alsatian. Tomorrow it's going to be the Rottweiler and after that ...who knows.
It has yet to be proven that banning a specific breed makes any improvement to the dog bite statistics. But it is evidently clear that changing owner behaviour makes a difference. So that is what I am advocating (and have been doing all over this thread)

I am certainly NOT going to justify the pitbull as a breed according to your bullet points. The reasons for that are:
1) breed specifications are very rough generalisations, they may or may not apply to an individual dog
2) the real danger (not the perceived one) has to be judged individually, looking at both the dog and the owner and both their behaviour in different circumstances
3) All and any regulatory action would have to be based on individual behaviour (is this particular dog / this particular owner actually dangerous) and not on some bogous breed classification or (even worse) scientifically unfounded phantasy-figures about biting force and sawing jaws.

Furthermore, justifying the right to live of any breed, as you suggested, would quickly lead down a slippery slope.

Take your beloved Dachshund for example:
Badgers (= Dachs in german) are a protected species and cannot be hunted any more ..therefore your badger-dog is jobless, useless, pointless.
It has been shown in statistics that Dachshunds can kill people, therefore they are deemed dangerous and banned forthwith.

How would you like that? and furthermore, how could you possibly argue against that?

Whether you like that answer not ...this is it.

Please, please don't ask me again, ok? :cool:

nesf

aare wrote:

True enough, but it will be a lot simpler, cheaper and more effective than trying to Police overall dog ownership.

It doesn't mean it's the correct means of approach.

A reworking of what's involved to own a dog would remove a lot of the problems in this country regarding problems with dogs and their welfare. Not all of them, but most, I feel. It'd be worth it in the long run and all that.

MorningStar

nesf wrote:

It doesn't mean it's the correct means of approach.

A reworking of what's involved to own a dog would remove a lot of the problems in this country regarding problems with dogs and their welfare. Not all of them, but most, I feel. It'd be worth it in the long run and all that.

It depends on what you mean by "correct". Effective means are correct in this case IMHO. In a country that has an inabilty to manage it's money the correct way has to be the cheapest most effective. To let people live in poverty and spend money so that other people may keep a particular bred of dog sounds incorrect to me.

aare

I'm with you on the need for breeding, animal rescue and trading restrictions (to whatever extent they can be enforced).

I should hope there will NEVER be any state aid for the private, self appointed, unaccountable "dog policing" that tries to happen, which is usually in accord with unrealistic "standards" frequently set somewhere between "whacko" and "wired to the moon" that change according to the season or the latest fashion in SoCal, and are likely to be as objective and impartial as a Mullah on Jihad.

I notice that, earlier in the thread, before I came in you had some misconceptions about "animal rescue" profiteering. As a matter of fact few of these profiteers actually breed puppies at all, they just round up all the pups and small pedigrees they can get their hands on from pounds that can be persuaded to give them out for free and take those to the UK for sale.

It's exactly like Victorian baby farming, profit from exploiting the unwanted.

It's hard to know how to stop that and whatever you try the first and most to suffer will be the dogs. It's a big part of the reason why some of the pounds now charge rescues a fee to take out dogs. But because of that the big brand new "Rescue Vans" go to other pounds and more dogs have to be put down in the pound charging fees.

I would like to see more trained, official state employed dog wardens and cruelty inspectors though

peasant wrote:

Next to no restrictions on keeping a dog, (none of them enforced, anyway)

The only thing that works effectively is that all "excess" animals are collected and destroyed within five days. (Due to no ownership regulations, also lots of dogs with homes get destroyed)

But how in the WORLD do you think that making it harder and more expensive for people to keep a dog will mean less dogs are impounded and destroyed?

Where do you think dogs confiscated due to restrictions will go?

Ans: To the Pound.

Where do you think dogs in the pound will go when regardless of how many people want them nobody can afford to meet the new regulations to have them?

Ans: They will go into the freezer, dead, regardless of age breed or temperament.

Further restrictions will make it harder for the most responsible dog owners of all, pensioners to have dogs, and for some their little dog is their only friend.

The British tried dropping the dog licence completely (that nobody bought THERE either) and are slowly introducing regulation and licencing for breeders, traders, animal rescue etc. rather than private individuals.

It's working.

THe only thing I do not like about it is that the RSPCA are policing it, and big and all as they are, they are only another private animal welfare organisation, at the end of the day, with their own agenda, that cannot be expected to be impartial.

And BTW, Morningstar is right, you STILL haven't answered the question about what POSITIVE advantage you can see in retaining the pit bull breed.

I would also be very interested to know:

a) Who you think should be held responsible for controlling (including any damage) stray dogs who's owners cannot be traced (of which thousands come into the pounds every year).
b) How do you think people who could not afford to comply with your draconian regulations should dispose of the dog they could not afford to keep?

nesf

MorningStar wrote:

It depends on what you mean by "correct". Effective means are correct in this case IMHO. In a country that has an inabilty to manage it's money the correct way has to be the cheapest most effective. To let people live in poverty and spend money so that other people may keep a particular bred of dog sounds incorrect to me.

Your mixing politics with ideal solutions, never a good mix

Our money situation, or more accurately our public funding situation is not something I wish to discuss here tbh.

aare

nesf wrote:

It doesn't mean it's the correct means of approach.

A reworking of what's involved to own a dog would remove a lot of the problems in this country regarding problems with dogs and their welfare. Not all of them, but most, I feel. It'd be worth it in the long run and all that.

See above, I don't agree, not least because "nanny state" doesn't really work here...oh, perhaps in the short term, while the cute find the loopholes...but not in the long term.

What I believe is needed is regulation of those who make animals their profession, breeders, traders and rescues, who are hardly regulated at all under law and largely answerable to no-one.

I would also be in favor of dropping the dog licence entirely and introducing a far more expensive licence for any breeding dog to discourage private breeding.

I would like to see a national, state run database of impounded dogs that owners who have lost their dogs could log on to from home or their local library. You would be AMAZED at how many dogs are destroyed while still being sought by their owners in another part of the country.

I would like to see existing laws on dog bites, damage, neglect and abuse professionally and fully enforced.

...and if you don't agree with me, I'll have to send the Yorkies round to "persuade" you

MorningStar

nesf wrote:

Your mixing politics with ideal solutions, never a good mix

Our money situation, or more accurately our public funding situation is not something I wish to discuss here tbh.

You can't seperate them. It's like saying there should be a cop on every street corner, cost comes into it as it is a reality that has to be considered. It's not a matter of discussing funding as such but the practicallity of it.

aare

MorningStar wrote:

the correct way has to be the cheapest most effective.

DAMN!!

I was gonna say that...

Apart from, how in the world can a "solution" that costs a lot of money, cause a lot of suffering and doesn't work be somehow "better" that a cheap, painless one that does?

peasant

aare wrote:

See above, I don't agree, not least because "nanny state" doesn't really work here...oh, perhaps in the short term, while the cute find the loopholes...but not in the long term.

What I believe is needed is regulation of those who make animals their profession, breeders, traders and rescues, who are hardly regulated at all under law and largely answerable to no-one.

I would also be in favor of dropping the dog licence entirely and introducing a far more expensive licence for any breeding dog to discourage private breeding.

I would like to see a national, state run database of impounded dogs that owners who have lost their dogs could log on to from home or their local library. You would be AMAZED at how many dogs are destroyed while still being sought by their owners in another part of the country.

I would like to see existing laws on dog bites, damage, neglect and abuse professionally and fully enforced.

...and if you don't agree with me, I'll have to send the Yorkies round to "persuade" you

aare
I agree with you on all of the above and would like to add a notional database on who owns which dog (all dogs to be tattooed or chipped)
Therefore it would be easy to follow up, who's dog was straying, who's dog was biting, and who's dog has ended up in the pound.

Forget about "my" laws from further up, they'd never work and were only meant as an item for discussion.

Why do you think that every offenders dog would automatically need to be impounded and finally killed. First of all, one could also impound an offenders TV or car if they don't hand over money and secondly, in a more regulated "market" with strict breeding controls there would be far less dogs, so dogs that end up in the pound for whatever reason needn't be killed but could be re-homed.

and on a side note: I can see that morningstar is not gonna budge from his/her question, but i thought at least you would accept my answer
forgotten all about the appearance of Yorkies in the "death by dog-Statistics", have we?

nesf

MorningStar wrote:

You can't seperate them. It's like saying there should be a cop on every street corner, cost comes into it as it is a reality that has to be considered. It's not a matter of discussing funding as such but the practicallity of it.

No, I was more reffering to your "political" stance in "In a country that has an inabilty to manage it's money the correct way", it could degenerate into a discussion of present politics and public spending. Which doesn't have a place here imho.

Apologies if I was overly flippant, but we're talking in generalities here. We, realistically, have little idea of the costs involved in a change of system, so dismissing alternatives as being too expensive is pointless imho.

nesf

aare wrote:

See above, I don't agree, not least because "nanny state" doesn't really work here...oh, perhaps in the short term, while the cute find the loopholes...but not in the long term.

What I believe is needed is regulation of those who make animals their profession, breeders, traders and rescues, who are hardly regulated at all under law and largely answerable to no-one.

I would also be in favor of dropping the dog licence entirely and introducing a far more expensive licence for any breeding dog to discourage private breeding.

I would like to see a national, state run database of impounded dogs that owners who have lost their dogs could log on to from home or their local library. You would be AMAZED at how many dogs are destroyed while still being sought by their owners in another part of the country.

I would like to see existing laws on dog bites, damage, neglect and abuse professionally and fully enforced.

...and if you don't agree with me, I'll have to send the Yorkies round to "persuade" you

I agree. I wasn't saying that there should be a clampdown by a nanny state. Just a different look taken at educating owners better etc.

I haven't slept, apologies if I'm coming across badly.