Dogs too!
what do you think?
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
The PM Privacy Commission
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
- Full Audio and Transcripts
- Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Zac Goldsmith MP
- Max Mosley
- Stephen Abell
- Hugh Grant
- Sir Charles Gray
- Alan Rusbridger
- Helen Wood
- Max Clifford
- Marcus Partington
- John Kampfner
- Christopher Graham
- Louise Mensch
- Andy Trotter
- John Mullin
- Avril Sanders Royle
- Jimmy Wales
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
What type of people keep dogs that have been bred for fighting, as pets?
Hi
KILLER DOGS
The idea of training all dog owners is pie in the sky. I don't think a cocker spaniel is as much a threat to the public as the killer species.
Anyone owning killer dogs such as Pitt Bull terriers or Rotweilers AS PET have, in my opinion, a mental problem. They should be prevented by law from doing this.
If such animals are needed to use as guard dogs then they should costs £1,000s in license fees.
Ban them and make the exceptions pay through the nose.
Jim Kerr
Re. DANGEROUS DOGS
Shouldn't the owner of the dog be prosecuted for cruelty to the dog? as in some reports it was the beating and tormenting of the dog that made the dog so wild and vicious.
While objecting to the law which prohibits the ownership of some types of dogs, your guest said that "if there was a car accident, the police will not prosecute against the car, they would prosecute against the driver" but this is wrong. - If a car was in an accident and this car was later found not to have been in a fit condition to be on the road (knowingly bad brakes or steering), then the owner and/or the drive would feel the full force of the law.
MOVED: from Tues: "Glassbox"... This business over dog mauled babies...
The amount of times that I have heard that dog owners, whose dogs have eaten members of their own families, used the old and stupid 'training' method of punching the dog between its eyes is incredibly sickening. I'm dog-tired of this infantile stupidy!
We should be required to do a weekend course on good dog ownership to gain a licence for an authorised dog breed and not dogs for drug-thugs (which is an accompanying problem in my view).
Regards Mick,
Someone under the influence of alcohol and drugs should not be in charge of a large powerful dog or a child and certainly not at the same time.
Bad dogs are very rare, and good owners of a bad dog generally deal with the problem. rather than expecting someone else to do it for them.
Bad owners are very common, and a bad owner may well ruin a potentially good dog and then try to put the blame onto anything under the sun rather than the owner's incapacity.
That does seem a sensible place to start, but where on earth one is to go from there is quite another question, since the 'right' to have a dog (or a baby or whatever else one wants) is engrained in our culture and suggesting that such a thing should be a privilege or a duty rather than a right is obviously unacceptable.
Before anyone gets too cross, I have kept dogs, and I would have been ashamed of *myself* if those dogs had been unacceptable as visitors to my friends or to local shops or pubs, because I would have felt it was my fault that my dog wasn't fit for company. Not the dog's, mine. I have also known someone who having got a 'rescued' dog that turned out to be vicious had it humanely killed rather than risk it hurting a child, though it almost broke her heart to do it.
This ties in with the other subject, children and roads: if you take on a responsibility (dog or child) surely it ought to be *your* responsibility, not 'someone else's problem'?
MOVED: from Tues: "Glassbox"... This business over dog mauled babies...
The amount of times that I have heard that dog owners, whose dogs have eaten members of their own families, used the old and stupid 'training' method of punching the dog between its eyes is incredibly sickening. I'm dog-tired of this infantile stupidy!
We should be required to do a weekend course on good dog ownership to gain a licence for an authorised dog breed and not dogs for drug-thugs (which is an accompanying problem in my view).
Regards Mick,
I agree with the idea of tests for people before they own dogs to make sure they are responsible enough. That they don't allow them to interfere with other people as they are walking, do not foul the pavements and do not cause a noise nuisance. In fact I think we should have a responsibility check before people breed as well, can they afford to pay for their offspring and are they able to look after themselves and pay their own way before they have either dogs or children. Paying stupid people to breed just results in the juvenile delinquent problem we currently have.
I don't understand the not guilty verdict. She was probably not in full possession of her faculties, in charge of a prohibited dog breed that was as much a dangerous weapon as a loaded gun which she had no control over.
Just because she didn't think the dog was going to harm the child is no excuse. Are the jury suffering from the general social malaise of non-responsibility? Is our education system now so trashed that the jury system is no longer valid?
Why would anyone want a killer dog as a pet, there is no excuse for possession of one of these creatures.
How many more innocent children are going to die or be maimed before this issue is addressed properly?
The breeds of dogs that are a cause for concern are known to everyone - if you want to identify these breeds for yourself just look at those kept by the 'thugs' as a tool for intimidation or fighting.
Once these breeds are identified the solution is easy...put them to sleep!
One more child suffering through these dogs being allowed to exist is too many!!!!!!!
Enough. There is no way the inconsiderate dog owners are going to take any notice of either the law or public opinion. The only way is to ban people owning dogs as "pets". Working dogs only should be allowed and then only under licence.
Twenty years or so ago we had a neighbour that that had a very large Alsation bitch, normally this was a a quiet placid dog that was used to people and children making a fuss of her.
One day I was digging over the veggie patch in the back garden when she spied our young cat through the fence. With one bound she came OVER the fence seperating the properties and grabbed the cat in her jaws.
I was quick enough off the mark to give the dog a hard blow to the skull with the back of my spade, knocking her out straight away. The cat (Soda) was OK. I rang my neighbour at work and explained that their dog was unconcious in our rear garden and perhaps she would care to come and get it.
The neighbour was very angry and indignant that I may have hurt her pooch!
When I explained what had happened and the fact that my three year old son was playing with Soda at the time she calmed down some what.
A couple of months later the same dog ran amok and savaged her eldest son.
The dog was duly put to sleep.
Dogs are dogs, we may attach human attributes to them but they are still dogs. They are animals and though we may think they are all domesticated they are not and at ANY time they can for what ever reason sometimes revert to being basic canines. Just ask a vet!
I'm also amazed the grandmother wasn't prosecuted - was it 10 joints and 2 bottles of wine she admitted consuming? The wine alone would amount to 12 units...
On the dog front, I have met some very gentle Rotties (including one who will sit, allow himself to be petted - even to the extent of "Shake a paw" - albeit moaning and grumbling whilst you do so, but never barking or otherwise opening his mouth!) and Staffies.
As ever, it's a case of nature, nurture (both from the breeder - breeding criteria / environment, and from the owner - environment / training etc.) and common sense.
Dogs are not humans in disguise - they have a very limited grasp of the English Language and cannot innately distinguish between what's acceptable to play with / torture [e.g. soft toys] and what isn't [e.g. children, slippers] - they have to be taught, and the training has to be consistent.
For example, if you're training your dog to not lie on the settee (after all, they see you lying on it, and if they've tried it, they'll know it's more comfortable than the floor!), you can't give in and allow it up one evening when it's looking bored and you're tired - otherwise it will be getting a confused message (well, am I allowed up here or not?)
You also have to disseminate your training regime to others who come into contact with your dog. If you're training your dog to not jump up at people, all your hard work can be ruined when someone offers your dog a treat at their waist level - so your dog has to jump up to get the treat (which is inadvertantly training it *to* jump up - "if I jump up I may get food!").
And as any dog owner will tell you, dogs have three primary motivations in life:
1) Food (given half a chance, labradors in particular will not only scoff all food in sight in the home, but will also clean up any food dropped by teens en-route to/from school - sandwiches, chocolate, chips and crisps are particular favourites - although probably not very healthy!)
2) Attention (they have a very good memory of who's given them a fuss in the past, and will often make a bee-line to them from 100 yards away given half a chance)
3) Muddy puddles (partly to cool down, partly because it's fun, partly to have a drink)
the idea of training for dog owners isnt a stupid one but simply wont address the problems of viscious pit bulls/staffs which are owned mostly by drug dealers or other criminal elements who use such dogs as 'enforcers.' There will still be a black markert and 'dog underworld.'
However a lot of people buy unsuitable breeds especially ones that need a lot of exercise, or leave dogs alone too long. Perhaps a simple 'Dog highway code?'
but dont penalise caring owners with beaurocracy and cost.
and by the way, a not guilty verdict for that grandmother is a travesty .
Sixteen years after they were banned, there are still thousands and thousands of these pit bull terriers (or "staffordshire cross terriers" as their usually thuggish owners have learnt to call them). This is another example of the police ignoring laws which are difficult to enforce, and going after easy targets instead. Much better to prosecute someone for eating an apple whilst driving than to go after the dangerously anti-social types who reguarly mock the law and endanger their fellow citizens by keeping these creatures, even allowing them to roam unleashed in public places. These dogs, and other breeds which are not banned but ought to be, are potentially lethal weapons in the hands of thugs and criminals, who use them to intimidate. If the Government really wants to address social breakdown and health inequalities, removing all the uncontrolled and illegal dogs from streets, parks and playgrounds would be quite a good way to start.
What a strange world we live in. A family own a banned type dog, who has savaged a member of the family already, and, I believe, attacked someone else as well. On New Years Eve, the dog is left outside, I presume in a yard, and is terrified of the bangs and flashes of fireworks (another bane of my life but that's another story!). Grandmother, drunk and drugged, is left in charge of small child, whilst parents go out to enjoy themselves, conveniently forgetting that the household owns a savage, banned pit bull type dog At 4 in the morning, whilst drugged up and drunk grandmother and small child are watching TV (a child of five, watching TV at 4 a.m.??) grandmother lets dog in, whether because she felt sorry for it or because she was drunk and drugged, who knows. Dog kills child. Father of child who one presumes allowed the child to stay in the house with drunk and drugged grandmother and savage dog, is very cross. Uncle of child, who owns savage dog and knew it was savage and a banned type, gets the vast punishment of 2 months prison (presumably only served 1 month). Drunk and drugged grandmother gets nothing, but presumably has to live with this for the rest of her life. The two that have suffered most as far as I can see was the child and the dog.
What a pity that a) grandmother didn't refuse to have dog living in her home b) parents of child hadn't left child in a dangerous environment c) the owner of the dog hadn't had the dog taken off him under the Dangerous Dogs Act.
Perhaps Ellie might have been alive today.
What breed of dog was involved in this story, and which ones are illegal in the UK?
I'm sorry I didn't hear the discussion about this on the programme, but I agree with many of the comments above.
Dr H - the UK's banned breeds are:
the Pit Bull Terrier
the Japanese tosa
the Dogo Argentino
the Fila Brasileiro
Only a court or police specialist can determine whether or not a dog is 'of a type' which is banned. In practice, the only one of these seen with any regularity is the Pit Bull Terrier, although some of the others very probably exist.
In the veterinary practice where I work in merseyside, a large proportion of the dogs are of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier 'type'. These vary considerably, from small squat submissive dogs to taller, wider-headed bullish versions. Somewhere along the line the dog stops becoming a Staffie and is deemed to be
a Pit Bull Terrier, but where you draw the line is extremely difficult, and probably all my colleagues would give you a different answer.
I agree with Mary Tomlinson above who says that nothing was done to enforce the Dangerous Dogs Act, after the initial surge of interest at its inception. The streets of Liverpool are full of Pit Bull types, only now they are also being interbred with other large breed dogs. In addition, other aggressive large breeds are becoming equally popular, such as the Japanese Akita & American Bulldog.
After Ellie Lawrensen's death there was a 'purge' on Pit Bull Terriers in Merseyside, many of them being brought into us to be put to sleep. The size & type of these dogs varied hugely - some were undoubtedly large aggressive Pit Bulls, but others were no different to the Staffie in the cage nextdoor which was in for neutering that day. We had a fair number of tearful families bringing in their much-loved and well cared-for family pet because it had been spotted by a policeman and deemed to be a Pit Bull.
Now the purge is over, the 'real' Pit Bulls are back on the streets, bold as brass, having been kept hidden during a few dangerous weeks.
I think that our attitude to dog ownership in this country is far too lax and would like to see much tighter controls on dog ownership & dog breeders. We have huge numbers of dogs in the UK and huge numbers of unwanted pets & strays are euthanased every year. I think most dogs have the potential to be aggressive, given the wrong set of circumstances but clearly larger more powerful dogs are of a much higher risk. Banning just 4 breeds however, of which 3 are very rare, is nonsense. How many children have been killed or injured by Rottweilers, for example?
I also see dog Owners every day who fail to take their dogs seriously and would never believe that their dog could ever be aggressive. This is usually shortly before it spins round and tries to bite me as I listen to its' heart.
Given a free hand I would bring back the dog licence (including a test to get one), make every dog over 25Kgs have to be muzzled in public places and every dog to be microchipped. But it would nver happen, because we are a nation of 'dog lovers'. Cynical, moi?
I only bark!
Never bite people - cause I was kicked once. -
I'm small
But I don't understand why Daddy lets these nasty people with foreign accents waltz in the back garden everyday and steal all the washing!
I never know what's right or wrong!
Why do they only shout at me sometimes?
I'd like to say Thank you to Gossipmistriss to making my eye better.
And sorry that she doesn't like me very much :-(
I'll go back into my box as my paw is hurting me! I don't know why - maybe a grass seed! - I can't seem to let them know.
Nobody loves me. I'll let the humans watch themselves killing themselves in the wars on the glassbox at six'o'clock every night when I'm allowed my biscuits.
Crawls into the dark - upset and in pain.
Danger: Dogs:
by deduction, in the natural order of things,
are not dog breeds bred for certain specific purposes ?
like, are:
1. alsations for every british soldier's work ?
trained working guard dogs
2. english bull terriers thoroughbred
trained working farm dogs
of old england's shires
for every farmer of breeding bulls ?
3. collies old breed
trained working farm dogs
for shepherds (sheep herders)
of old england's hills and shires ?
4. collies new from old breed
trained working police street patrol dogs
as in the spirit of the police
in the 'heartbeat' television programme ?
5. some breeds never to be trusted ?
are they not all listed
in the UK Gov Dangerous Dogs Act ?
to take the banning a breed of dog
to its logical conclusion
is to exterminate every one of its breed in the land
work for the british army at home
is not the pit bull terrier
bred to fight in enclosed pits ?
where the only way out
is to fight to the vicious bloody death ?
so let the pit bull terrier
be the first breed to be exterminated ?
Rupert! There there! Of course I love you!
I may have been ranting a bit last night. But I do believe the dog laws need a shake up.
Contrary to the tone of my above rant, I do actually like lots of dogs !! :-)
Reading through this thread, I've been struck by the huge variety of feelings that the subject of responsible dog ownership has raised.
I absolutely agree with those of you who are pointing out that all dogs have the potential to cause harm, in the same way that all humans, and most animals, have this potential. And it is this that we need to remember and to guard against.
Dogs in general are sociable animals, who have evolved as companion animals to humans alongside human evolution from cave dwellers into the sophisticated lifestyles we now lead in the 21st century.
Dogs are highly intelligent (which is why they threw their lot in with humans) and generally very trainable. Their desire to please their pet humans will, for the most part, drive their behaviour and thereby ensure they are, for the most part, safe in our homes. But, like humans, they can also become unsettled, angry, and fearful at times, and dogs react to those feelings in ways which are potentially harmful to us. Since we are not dogs, we do not always understand what may trigger these reactions.
Here's an instance which relates to my own dog. I took him into my home when he was 14 months old. He had been brought up on a smallholding in Carmathenshire with other dogs and seemed an extremely loving and affable dog when I took him on. He was friendly to other dogs and humans alike. Then, a couple of weeks later, my neighbour had her four year old grandchild to stay. I was talking with her over the fence, with the grandchild alongside her. My dog came into the garden, spotted the child, and became immediately distressed, hiding behind me, shaking. Eventually he began to growl, looking all the time at the child, but making no attempt to approach the fence.
Feeling disturbed by this, I contacted the person from whom I had taken on the dog to ask if there had been a problem with children. The response was that the dog had had no dealings whatsoever with any children, and had probably not even seen one before.
Since then, as you can imagine, I've kept a very close watch on my dog with children and have kept him away from small children. For it is only children below a certain height which appear to phase him. Assuming that what I have been told to be true (and why shouldn't I believe that?), I think that his intelligence was the problem, i.e. he couldn't make sense of the sight of a small human and didn't know what to make of it. When dogs are fearful, they can act aggressively. And, sadly, for all my monitoring of him, he did one day bite a small child. I was devastated and was going to have him put down, but the parent of the child told me not to, since I had warned that he was not comfortable around small children and the parent had disregarded my warning without my knowledge.
I think there is a need for more education around the dog issue and for a consensus, legally enforceable if necessary, to be drawn up of what constitutes responsible dog ownership. I don't think it can be arrived at by dictat, rather there should be a sensible conversation between animal behaviourists, dog owners and breeders, and other experts and concerned non experts. One thing that I personally would like to see is a tightening up of what constitutes keeping a dog under control. This is very much open to interpretation at the moment and results in dog fights and other incidents where owners are careless or arrogant.
Sorry, such a long posting, and I'd say even more (it being a subject very close to my heart) but will now shut up!
Lord Boothby said there are too many dogs in this country. I agree - about twice as many as there ought to be. I don't love dogs, but I get quite annoyed at the number of these animals that get mistreated.
Bring back the licence; and the first licence includes the cost of a dog loo; subsequent ones a year's supply of chemical.
As for the Elly case, there must be several crimes for which various parties could be prosecuted successfully, with serial sentences for each.
If you were a postman Vyle, you'd be mincemeat.
Just like cars and drivers dog [and owners] should be insured and licensed, under the skin RFID chips already exist that can do this
The whole service could be totaly privatised so the government would not have to be involved with the nuances of what is or is not a dangerous dog. Actuarial science would prevail so the 3rd party element of the premium would be high for a pit bull and negligable for an old ladies lap dog. Dog owners could be rewarded for taking dog training classes and regular visits to the vet by reduced premiums rather like a no claims bonus.
The ID chip would contain owners details in case of loss or theft and the dogs DNA profile to identify owners whos dogs foul the streets and parks, this technique already exists!
Dog fouling of public open space is a major cause of dissatisfaction in urban dwellers lives. By randomised 'turd' sweeps in areas worsed affected offenders could be prosecuted and or additions to peimiums made to post code areas. This might encorage dog owners to clean up after their animals and to put peer pressure on others in the dog loving world to do likewise.
This forensic service could be paid for by an obligatory contribution from the insurers wishing to enter the market, of which there will be many if a licence and insurance are compulsory. They will also wish to control dog fouling if their liabilty extends to faecal disease transmission or the hours wasted by primary school teachers scraping dog mess from floors and childrens shoes.
Just like cars and drivers dog [and owners] should be insured and licensed, under the skin RFID chips already exist that can do this
The whole service could be totaly privatised so the government would not have to be involved with the nuances of what is or is not a dangerous dog. Actuarial science would prevail so the 3rd party element of the premium would be high for a pit bull and negligable for an old ladies lap dog. Dog owners could be rewarded for taking dog training classes and regular visits to the vet by reduced premiums rather like a no claims bonus.
The ID chip would contain owners details in case of loss or theft and the dogs DNA profile to identify owners whos dogs foul the streets and parks, this technique already exists!
Dog fouling of public open space is a major cause of dissatisfaction in urban dwellers lives. By randomised 'turd' sweeps in areas worsed affected offenders could be prosecuted and or additions to peimiums made to post code areas. This might encorage dog owners to clean up after their animals and to put peer pressure on others in the dog loving world to do likewise.
This forensic service could be paid for by an obligatory contribution from the insurers wishing to enter the market, of which there will be many if a licence and insurance are compulsory. They will also wish to control dog fouling if their liabilty extends to faecal disease transmission or the hours wasted by primary school teachers scraping dog mess from floors and childrens shoes.
Just a couple of quick comments:
"Muzzle all dogs over 25kg" - I'm sure that wouldn't work, and indeed might lead some to a false sense of security. Terriers (such as the one featured in the story) fall well under the 25kg mark, but can be just as vicious or even more so than a larger dog.
We have a pet labrador at home - she looks small as far as labs go, but tips the scales at approx. 30kg / 5 stone. She's never been aggressive to humans (although wheelie bins wearing self-adhesive disguises at night time are another matter...), and is much more likely to sit down hard against your legs whilst staring up at you, making various "moans" whilst her tongue hangs out and her tail beats up and down on the floor.
Toilet habits - as with most things, this is an issue of training. I can't speak for other dogs, but Bessie will instinctively pull onto a verge, or if walking in a field, some distance away from the path, before doing her ablutions. I have no sympathy for owners that let their dog 'perform' in the middle of the path, let alone fail to pick it up. Owners should make it a habit to ensure they've got some doggy bags in their pocket before they leave the house.
However, in this respect councils have a part to play as well - I've walked through several housing estates with virtually no public litterbins, let alone doggy bins, as well as several supposedly dog friendly attractions with a similar lack of bins. If you want to encourage us to pick up the waste, it helps if you provide somewhere for us to put it! (On my housing estate there used to be a deficiency until a few years ago, when litter bins galore started popping up - coincidentally along the most popular routes through the estate for teens en-route to/from school... They also clearly indicated the bins were dual-use [i.e. for both human litter and dog waste] by placing prominent "Clean up after your dog - max fine £500" stickers on them)
It's not particularly pleasant walking along with the dog's lead in one hand and a growing collection of bags in the other - and the problem gets worse if the attraction provides no bins whatsoever - do you leave the bags at the edge of the carpark where they're clearly visible for whoever maintains the site to spot and dispose of, or do you take them home in a footwell (not all brands of bag are equally efficient at disguising the smell...)?
Meanwhile, for those that inadequtely train their dog (in a variety of ways), perhaps the civil law system could be used to mete out appropriate remedies - so particularly with young dogs, compulsory attendance at a training class, then if the behaviour doesn't improve within a reasonable period of time move onto a stiffer penalty etc. I like the idea of rebalancing the weighting of the pet insurance system - purebreds from reputable breeders get significant discounts.
A compulsory registration scheme for breeders to ensure minimum standards for care, hefty penalties for non-complience etc. Of course, you'd also have to build in safeguards so that mongrels / crossbreeds without a genetic predisposition to have a temper/short fuse aren't outlawed.
This would have to be phased in based on the dog's DOB - so existing breeders don't have to provide copies of their documentation retrospectively to past customers. But this would only work if it went hand-in-hand with sufficient resources being allocated to weeding out the 'underground' breeders.
Of course, this all sounds fine in theory, but finding a way of implementing it without spending an awful lot of public money would be much harder...
(Did I really say a couple of "quick" comments half an hour or so ago?)
Anyone who cross breeds and Japanese Tosa with a Staffordshire bull terrier does so for one reason and that is acquire a powerful fighting dog legally. One is a notoriously tough breed, the other is on the dangerous dogs act because of it's massive size, power and temprament. The owner has simply jumped through a legal loophole with this and acquired a dog of substantial physical strength and gameness and it has now got loose.
This dog is practically a shark on a leash and has powers of control at all if it randomly attacks people in the street. The owner should be fined and jailed for this irresponsible act.