Daminxa
|
Re: Dog ban
Sep 28, 2006, 09:59
|
|
I think they are still banned but I saw something on telly a couple of weeks back about people in Brixton keeping pit bulls instead of guns. As someone else said earlier in the thread, bans are rarely treated seriously in this country. I mean, look at the people who are supposedly banned from driving but it doesn't stop them getting back in the driving seat and mowing down innocent pedestrians. People who are gonna break the law are gonna break the law, and I don't know how easy it'd be to police whether or not you've got illegal dogs. Doubt they go out for walkies all that often.
|
anthonyqkiernan
|
Re: Dog ban
Sep 28, 2006, 10:30
|
|
During WWII anything 'german' came out of favour. SAo, the term alsatian was used. Mainly because the people of Alsace were regarded as collaborating and therefore the ""lap-dogs of the Nazis". It's a small region, but even conservative estimates have 60% of the poulation being slaughtered by the Nazis.
|
mojojojo
|
Re: Dog ban
Sep 28, 2006, 10:58
|
Cheers aqk - interesting stuff.
Mind you, I didn't even know that German Shepherds and Alsations were the same breed of dog so I'm not hard to educate in canine matters.
x
|
handofdave
|
Re: Dog ban
Sep 28, 2006, 11:06
|
|
Daminxa wrote: Yeah, see personally I do find little dogs scarier than the larger variety. All snappy and unpredictable like.
My mother was bitten by the small dog bug (no pun intended, flea threaders!) when I was in High School and decided she just must order one of those 'adorable' little Yorkshire Terriers from England.
'Baby' (ugh) was a psychotic little terror who'd sleep at the foot of the bed and then ragingly refuse to let you rise in the morning. If the little monster was 100 pounds bigger I swear it would have ripped out all our throats.
|
Daminxa
|
Re: Dog ban
Sep 28, 2006, 13:53
|
|
Aye see that's what I mean! I'm none too fond of Yorkies in particular. They look greasy. The only small dogs I really like are sausage dogs, whaddayacallem - Daschunds (sp?) but I wouldn't get one myself. All of those smaller breeds have also been given bad press by the likes of twats of the Paris Hilton variety - I mean why in God's name would any self-respecting soul keep a DOG in their HANDBAG??? Thousands of dollars worth of Gucci covered in dogshit? Don't understand it!
|
shanshee_allures
|
Re: Dog ban
Sep 28, 2006, 13:57
|
Me and my wee girl go down the park alot, only to find your usual ignorant dog owner letting their pets run amok, and there is at least one 'Rotty' as they say amongst them.
They don't respect our fear, so I carry a small bottle of the nastiest, most ozone unfriendly hairspray I could find ready to defend myself with if I have to, right in the eyes...
I am an animal lover, I have a cat at home, and can't stand animal cruelty. But if it's me, my child or some fuckwit of a dog, I know how the pecking order goes. Salute.
|
Daminxa
|
Re: Dog ban
Sep 28, 2006, 13:58
|
|
Oh I SEE! See you learn a lot from this site. I do love them, whatever they're called but mine did go a bit schiz. Not anything on the scale of the Leicester Rotties but terribly over-protective of me and my daughter, to the point where nobody outside our immediate family was allowed anywhere near us! I think when you get a dog you make a choice; either you have a guard dog or a pet; ask both of any one animal and they get a tad confused. The dog I've got now is the opposite; soft as an exceptionally soft thing - absolutely no good at protection whatsoever but very gentle wi' the youngsters. Can't say she'd be any too happy to spend her life on a pub roof though; think that could turn the most stable of hounds into a viscious psycho!
|
Daminxa
|
Re: Dog ban
Sep 28, 2006, 14:01
|
|
No dog should be allowed off its lead in a public place unless it is completely under control, which if it bounds up to a small child it is not. I'm not keen on walking my dog in the park cos I understand that not all people, particularly kids, like dogs and parks should be primarily for kids not dogs. If you do see dogs that are out of control and they do cause a nuisance, I believe you're entitled to report the owners, or at the very least ask them to put their dogs on leads as you and your daughter go past.
|
shanshee_allures
|
Re: Dog ban
Sep 28, 2006, 14:54
|
Asking owners to put their dogs on leads sound great, but you know, I've had more than my share of 'fuck off' to that one in the past. Dog owners just assume everyone likes dogs, and the attack on this poor baby happened partly because the owners were convinced their dogs wouldn't do a thing like that, right?
As the law stands, if a dog attacks someone on that dog owner's own property, the law falls on their side. These dogs under such barmy legislation could well have had the option to go on living.
I'm afraid my own personal protection approach is the only one that will work here.
|
grufty jim
|
Edited Sep 28, 2006, 16:09
Re: Dog ban
Sep 28, 2006, 16:08
|
|
Daminxa wrote: I think when you get a dog you make a choice; either you have a guard dog or a pet
I think you've hit the nail on the head with this one. Unless you are exceptionally good at training dogs, you either choose one or the other. My father is a natural when it comes to dog-training. My whole life we've had German Shepherds which were family pets, extremely well-behaved with strangers, and guard-dogs. The trick is to ensure that they are 100% subordinate, and that they know their role.
Anyone who walks onto my parent's land in Cork will be barked at unless the dog knows them, or until they've been greeted by one of the family. Then the dog ignores them (unless they call it over to pet it obviously). The dog will ignore people when being walked, but will be alerted and stand guard should a stranger physically approach my mum or dad. Again, as soon as the stranger is greeted, the dog is put at ease. It's all about establishing for the dog what his/her territory is. Once it understands that, it will protect that territory (including people) but ignore anything outside it (I say "ignore"; naturally it scampers off to investigate other dogs). Badly trained dogs have a bad sense (or no sense) of what constitutes their territory.
The point, however, with the Leicester case is that these Rotts were very clearly trained as guard dogs. They were trained to attack anything that trespasses on their territory. So when they went for that poor baby, they were simply doing what they believed to be their job. It was entirely the fault of the owners to have allowed the dogs access to the child.
|
