26 February 2010
23:5541447howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
27 February 2010
11:3041468i adopted a dog that was very aggressive because of her background.
she was dangerously overweight because of poor diet and was told by someone to stick just vegetables in her bowl for a time.
not only did she lose a lot of weight she lost all of her aggression.
i kept that going just putting small bits of meat in for a treat, the dog was quite content as the volume of food was unchanged.
27 February 2010
12:0341471Howard - as a vegan i applaud your findings!!!
27 February 2010
14:0841477I wonder if Howard's "aggressive fatty" program would work for some humans I know?
27 February 2010
17:0841485Eeeeeeeeeeeeeekk!! I can't think who you might mean Sid.........who's been talking..?!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
27 February 2010
21:1441502sid and bern
that is what i thought, the dog changed within a couple of weeks from nervous, edgy and snappy to a more relaxed and happy creature.
that was after 7 years of no exercise and being fed chocolate and tinned meat.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
I`ve just read on the headlines that dog owner`s may have to take insurance out regarding their pets attacking and injuring people. Tough, (ha,ha ,ha,) new law`s are to come out under the dangerous dog act, as they are being increasingly used as a form of weapon. If the laws are anything like the laws for us, why are they bothering? I`d have thought insurance would already have been in place?
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
There was a big thing on this on the BBC this morning: the Government is considering a series of measures designed to tackle the dangerous dogs issue, described as 'out of control' by the hack covering the story. This includes microchipping the dog, insuring the dog and reintroducing the dog licence; all of which smacks of slamming the kennel door after the dog has bolted (to borrow Sian Williams' phrase).
So, to return to our dog, whom I have referred to earlier in the thread: he's microchipped, insured and always on a lead when there are other people around (for reasons already stated). If a dog licence were reintroduced, I'd gladly buy one if it meant I couldn't keep him otherwise. None of these measures makes him any the less of a risk, I still wouldn't trust him near children, postmen or anyone wearing a high-viz jacket.
It remains the responsibility of the owners to ensure that their dogs are safe and legal; the simple fact is that dangerous dogs are pseudo status symbols among the moron fraternity where an ASBO is seen as something akin to a civil honour, and the Government need to be tackling the morons who keep dangerous dogs as trophies rather than those who keep dogs lawfully and safely. I do agree with the proposal that keeping of certain breeds should be illegal, though - you're not allowed to keep dangerous big cats, so why should you be allowed to keep dangerous big dogs? As for the reintroduction of the dog licence - that wouldn't be yet another form of taxation from our Government, would it? Not with their impeccable record of taxation, surely?
True friends stab you in the front.
Excellent headline in Guardian today with reference to all dogs being implanted with a microchip:-
MAN BYTES DOG
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i doubt if the dog licence would be set at the old 7 shillings and sixpence, so it may be a revenue gathering device.
the main question is how stringent will the new law be enforced, usually they are not.
cyclists still bomb through town ignoring the signs about a fine being imposed.
they know that the chances of being stopped are extremely remote.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Good post Andy and I agree with you but I do wonder that is a licence gets imposed and a requirment for insurance what will the yob and irresponsible dog owning element do? Kick their dog out onto the street maybe, bound to happen in some cases, people do it, thats why the 'dog is not for Christmas was an old campaign brought about because of abandoned dogs.
Terry Nunn
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,304
I'm with all that Andy says. We have a rescued German Shepherd (our second rescued one and third overall). I truely believe that there should be some control of these large and indeed small dogs. However, what good would it do? Only this morning I was cut up on a roundabout by a driver heading for the docks who plainly didn't see me. Why? He was on his mobile phone.
If new legislation can be made to work then all police cars must carry a "wand" and the microchip information must be on the PNC.
Out of interest, when we got our new dog I searched for third party insurance. Most wanted to offer vet's bills only. We eventually got one. However, a few weeks later our house and contents cover came up for renewal. The Pru were ripping us off and we went for Castle Cover at about half price. The Pru then said that could match it asked if we would stay with them. I told them to go forth and pass water.
The joke is that as an aside the Castle chap said by the way you're also covered for third party dogs that you might have. The house and contents insurance is cheaper than the pet insurance!
Terry
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Are politicians so stupid that they think Mr & Mrs Chav will buy a license and or insurance and pay to have Flash chipped? Of course they won't, so, yet again, the responsible owners will be punished.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
this is only at the discussion stage, the full details have yet to be finalised.
i suspect sid will be right on this, the main losers could be old people on a state pension who rely on a dog for companionship.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
in andys post [28] he mentions big cats and a law banning people owning them because of them being dangerous,in which i agree with.looking on the other side of things some of there smaller cousins the common house cat can be as dangerous as there bigger counterparts.
For god's sake, this dumb bunch of ass-holes government does it yet again. A few irresponsible dog owners mean that ALL dog owners now have to pay the penalty. Let's face it, we have car insurance to cover all eventualities of dangerous / careless driving, right? And, of course, all criminals and rogues ALWAYS buy insurance for their cars, don't they?
Let's be realistic - responsible dog owners should have the CHOICE about pet insurance and micro chips. Yobs who use dogs as status symbols or weapons, basically criminals and rogues, will either dump their dogs (causing an epidemic of homeless animals) or simply not bother with insurance - a bit like they do with their cars. Imposing these rules on all dog owners will do nothing - read that word again - NOTHING - to stop dog attacks or remove undesirable animals from the streets. It simply forces everyone into yet another choice-free set of rules and it's just one more little bit of our freedom chipped away.
I find it so hard to get my head around that Labour ALWAYS ALWAYS seem to pick on the entire community to tackle the few rogue elements within that community. This government is bulls**t and I can't wait until they're out of No.10.
Nanny State yet again. It makes me sick sick sick! I've a good mind to set my dogs on those overpaid jumped-up politicians morons.
Hey Rick, don't forget it was the bumbling Major Tories who brought in the fire-arms legislation that hit all the legal gun users in this country. The Brixton, Bethnal Green and Hackney Chavs still carry their "pieces" and use them against rival gang members. Hopefully one day they'll run out of enemies to shoot and turn the things on themselves and do us all a favour.
Whoops, went off on one there, sorry. Yep, as I was saying, not just this current bunch of incompetents, but also Major's Tory mob too.
If our MP's and Councillors want to live in a different world to the rest of us, all the evidence suggests they already do, maybe we could oblige with some help from NASA and Virgin. I hear one or two of Jupiter's moons are particuarly spectacular this time of year.
With all due respect I would suggest that the owners of these various troublesome dogs are rarely owner occupiers.
Most tenancy agreements allow dogs only with the owner's permission and specify that not keeping animals in a responsible manner constitutes a breach of the tenancy agreement and might lead to eviction.
Surely what we need is Councils and others who provide 'social housing' to make sure that un-controlled/uncontrollable dogs are not kept on their premises?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
bearing in mind rick's rant, it should be borne in mind that the issue is at the discussion stage.
it is hardly party political, it will be decided by whoever is in power after the next election.
bob
a lot of landlords and social housing providers have terms and conditions about the keeping of animals.
unfortunately we people tend to adopt or be adopted by animals.
you mention uncontrolled/uncontrollable dogs, who decides the category?
i would imagine that the legal aid solicitors would have a field day.
Guest 672- Registered: 3 Jun 2008
- Posts: 2,119
CALM down you lot.
As Howie says its all talk at the moment, the same as everything else.
A bit like DTIZ realy.
Just how do you think they are going to police the situation?
My 2 Patterdales are 5 yrs old soon, by the time they could bring a law like that in they could well be sitting in a little wooden box.
Don't get so wound up, think like a chav thinks for once and all of your dreams will come true. it does for them.
grass grows by the inches but dies by the feet.
