# Home secretary comments on new DDA rules. .



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

Here is what he is proposing, looks like a pretty good idea and would stop people just buying animals on a whim and disguarding them when they get bored. . 


The proposed new rules could require dog owners to insure themselves against the risk of their pet attacking someone. 
Ministers are also considering introducing "new dog control notices" for misbehaving animals where "Dogbo" orders would allow police and officials to force miscreant owners to muzzle, leash or even neuter their pets. 
In extreme cases the dogs could even be confiscated and given to new owners.
The measures, part of proposed changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act, are aimed at tackling the growing problem of vicious animals being bred for use as weapons.
Figures uncovered by the Conservatives suggested 100 people every week are treated in hospital after being bitten by a dog.
Ministers are also considering making it a criminal offence for a dog owner to allow their animal to be "dangerously out of control". Currently the law is only broken if the dog is out of control in a public place.
The change would extend the law to private residences, and could provide extra protection for postmen.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson said although "Britain is a nation of animal lovers…people have a fundamental right to feel safe on the streets and in their homes."
"The vast majority of dog owners are responsible, but there is no doubt that some people breed and keep dogs for the sole purpose of intimidating others, in a sense using dogs as a weapon," Johnson added. 
"It is this sort of behaviour that we will not tolerate; it is this sort of behaviour that we are determined to stop."
The number of cases has gone up from 3,079 in 1997-8 to 5,221 last year.
Animal welfare groups welcomed the plans.
A spokesman for the Dog's Trust said: "Just a third of dog owners currently have their dog microchipped, but should this become a legal requirement more stray dogs can be reunited with their owners, thus ultimately reducing the 9,000 dogs that are destroyed by local authorities every year.


----------



## tomwilson (Feb 27, 2010)

this seems like a good idea but i could see it going to far one way. eg if someone provoked the dog into attacking then it would be the dogs fault. or even if someone broke into your house and the dog attacked then the dog would be in the wrong. i could be wrong this is just how i could picture it ending up


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*dog controls*

I'm in favor of something being done not least for the sake of the breeds who are being abused and mis represented by tossers.I can't help being suspicious that decent people are going to end up paying the price and nothing much else will change.I've got five dogs and I don't want to end up paying five lots of inflated insurance just because others can't conform.As I care about my dogs I choose to have them micro chipped anyway.I pay enough in taxes and insurances as it is:bash:


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

Im worried that if someone breaks into your house and your dog kills them it will be PTS?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8556195.stm


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

bobby said:


> Im worried that if someone breaks into your house and your dog kills them it will be PTS?
> 
> BBC News - All dogs could be insured under dangerous breeds plans


 
Any dog that kills someone should be PTS IMO. I have 2 PP guard dogs and its an essential part of training that they know what line they can and cant cross. No dog should kill somone just because they break into your house!!

You get 3rd party insurance with all dog insurance anyway so any sensible owners wont actually be paying any extra as you should always insure your dog


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*dog insurance*



girlsnotgray said:


> You get 3rd party insurance with all dog insurance anyway so any sensible owners wont actually be paying any extra as you should always insure your dog


I'm sensible and my dogs aren't insured.Thats my choice.I pay vets bills as they occur,again my choice.


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

sarahc said:


> I'm sensible and my dogs aren't insured.Thats my choice.I pay vets bills as they occur,again my choice.


 
So if they cause a car accident or attack another dog/person or intruder you could pay for all the fines/court fees and compensation claims? Even if you can afford the vets bills you should have insurance just to cover this! I would rather pay my £22 a month and have the piece of mind that if I lost my house and buisiness tmrw I could still afford if they had an accident.


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

the british can't be trusted to have dogs... they need laws and saftey devices to ensure the public's saftey...


then they'll need hammer laws to protect them from accidents with hammers... then....


pretty soon they'll have all the british saftey laws in place... rubber sidewalks... rounded corners on brick buildings... what else?

c'mon folks! you can't legislate personal responsibility... it's just a way of making government even bigger and of course you'll need higher taxes and fees...


nanny state...


----------



## corny girl (Aug 30, 2009)

I just feel that the responsible owners are yet again being penalised for the numpty's that don't give a s:censor:t. I have 5 Dogs, 4 are already microchipped, if we had to insure them for 3rd party liability how much will this cost us? Could it be added to household insurance etc... Who is going to police this to make sure it is enforced. Just look at the Pitbull, they are still about even though they shouldn't be as the new Dangerous Dog Act came into force in 1991 (nearly 19 years ago). So with this new law again it's the likes of us law abiding citizens who will suffer as those who had illegal Pitbulls will continue to have illegal Staffs, Rotties, GSD's, American Bullies etc.. (all the so called status breeds) as they won't bother with microchipping or insurance. I know there are plenty of good owners who own these breeds & these are well adjusted Family pets but they too will suffer under these new laws :bash:. It just isn't fair on normal people, once again this government act b4 thinking things through :devil:.


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

HABU said:


> the british can't be trusted to have dogs... they need laws and saftey devices to ensure the public's saftey...
> 
> 
> then they'll need hammer laws to protect them from accidents with hammers... then....
> ...


:no1:

I want to relocate at some point, this country busts my balls :devil:


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

sarahc said:


> I'm in favor of something being done not least for the sake of the breeds who are being abused and mis represented by tossers.I can't help being suspicious that decent people are going to end up paying the price and nothing much else will change.I've got five dogs and I don't want to end up paying five lots of inflated insurance just because others can't conform.As I care about my dogs I choose to have them micro chipped anyway.I pay enough in taxes and insurances as it is:bash:


 

i totally agree,why should reasonable people have to pay becuse there are idiots out there.
nothing will change,nothing at all...


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*insurance*



girlsnotgray said:


> So if they cause a car accident or attack another dog/person or intruder you could pay for all the fines/court fees and compensation claims? Even if you can afford the vets bills you should have insurance just to cover this! I would rather pay my £22 a month and have the piece of mind that if I lost my house and buisiness tmrw I could still afford if they had an accident.



I've considered insurance but having weighed up the pros and cons consider it not cost effective or likely to be necessary.Very small chance of my dogs causing a car accident,I live in a cul de sac,they aren't allowed out alone and the park I walk in is walled.Unlikely in my opinion to attack another dog or bite a person.I'll take my chances on the intruder but they aren't big enough to kill a person,only bite.So I choose to take my chances based on my assessment and do not want extra costs foisted on me because of others.I wonder if people that have breeds such as retrievers and yorkies that appear in the top ten for biting list will be stung extra?


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

bobby said:


> :no1:
> 
> I want to relocate at some point, this country busts my balls :devil:


 
the difference between the average yank like me and a brit is that you all follow rules i think... an american sees a no littering sign and looks around to see if anyone's watching... a brit just doesn't litter...

british folks seem more easily to go along with a new rule than an american... we tend to fight any new rules tooth and nail and disobey them whenever we can...


every new law is a lost freedom and right... cops will be busy there chasing dogs....


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

when will they ban bees and wasps?... they are a danger to society right?


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

rach666 said:


> i totally agree,why should reasonable people have to pay becuse there are idiots out there.
> nothing will change,nothing at all...


Ofcourse it will work, all the other laws regarding dangerous dogs have worked


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

bobby said:


> Ofcourse it will work, all the other laws regarding dangerous dogs have worked


 

lmfao and how is this? people still breed and own pittbulls on the sly.


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

rach666 said:


> lmfao and how is this? people still breed and own pittbulls on the sly.


Thats a lie and you know it, our government always think our laws through and they always dedicate specialist teams to deal with said laws :whistling2:


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

bobby said:


> Thats a lie and you know it, our government always think our laws through and they always dedicate specialist teams to deal with said laws :whistling2:


 

well yeh,i get cha now:lol2:


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

sarahc said:


> I've considered insurance but having weighed up the pros and cons consider it not cost effective or likely to be necessary.
> I wonder if people that have breeds such as retrievers and yorkies that appear in the top ten for biting list will be stung extra?


We have 2 of our dogs on the buisiness and house insurance as they are working dogs but im not sure if you could add it to a normal household policy, the other two are insured sepretly as they are pets. Personally i believe people should have to have 3rd party insurance as you never know what could happen and for such a small amount per month you wouldnt even notice it gone from your account!
Insurance is generally done on the breeds reputation for claims history (GSD's hips, sharpei's skin etc) so i very much doubt it would affect them much where they came on the bite list.


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

How much does insurance for dogs cost a month?

Im want a dog this year and it will be insured, just wondering how sore its going to be :lol2:


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

corny girl said:


> Pitbulls will continue to have illegal Staffs, Rotties, GSD's, American Bullies etc.. (all the so called status breeds) as they won't bother with microchipping or insurance. I know there are plenty of good owners who own these breeds & these are well adjusted Family pets but they too will suffer under these new laws :bash:. .


 
We have 4 bull breeds or so called "status dogs" and as a dog owner i expect to have to chip and insure them, I dont see it as suffering and if any law stops people buying dogs on a whim and means less dogs end up in rescue then im all for it.


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

bobby said:


> How much does insurance for dogs cost a month?
> 
> Im want a dog this year and it will be insured, just wondering how sore its going to be :lol2:


Well our two pet dogs are insured with tesco for £22 a month, both are staffy mix's and have the premium cover (£4k per dog per incident) and 3rd party liability. It costs more if you want theft cover or loss of use for breeding.


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

girlsnotgray said:


> We have 4 bull breeds or so called "status dogs" and as a dog owner i expect to have to chip and insure them, I dont see it as suffering and if any law stops people buying dogs on a whim and means less dogs end up in rescue then im all for it.


i have two called dangerous dogs,both of mine are neatured and chipped.
i havent insured them as i chose to pay vets bills as of when i need to.
the law wont stop people buying dogs on a whim as people will still buy dogs and puppies and just choose not to go along with it,there is no way they can enforce the law so i just cant see it happening i also do not see how it will effect the number of dogs in rescues if anything it will increase due to people not wanting to pay out becuase of this.
thats just my two pence worth.


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

rach666 said:


> i have two called dangerous dogs,both of mine are neatured and chipped.
> i havent insured them as i chose to pay vets bills as of when i need to.
> the law wont stop people buying dogs on a whim as people will still buy dogs and puppies and just choose not to go along with it,there is no way they can enforce the law so i just cant see it happening i also do not see how it will effect the number of dogs in rescues if anything it will increase due to people not wanting to pay out becuase of this.
> thats just my two pence worth.


 
Its a hard one to decide what will actually work but something does need to be done, the dogsbo idea seems a good idea in principal, how they would enfore it I have no idea!
Its beyond me why people class rotties as "dangerous dogs" the last one we had would have licked you to death!


----------



## RhianB87 (Oct 25, 2009)

bobby said:


> How much does insurance for dogs cost a month?
> 
> Im want a dog this year and it will be insured, just wondering how sore its going to be :lol2:


I pay £15 a month for mine, 
But it does depend on breed.

The only real reason I have insured mine is because I worried about leg injuries as he is a crazy dog when he starts running and I cant afford a bit chunk of vet bills, but saying that the worse he has done in 5 years is break a nail!!!

I am not quite sure how they would enforce the insurance part of the law, I dont tend to carry around his certificate with me whenever i go out!


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

girlsnotgray said:


> Its a hard one to decide what will actually work but something does need to be done, the dogsbo idea seems a good idea in principal, how they would enfore it I have no idea!
> Its beyond me why people class rotties as "dangerous dogs" the last one we had would have licked you to death!


 
yeh my two are big mongs and are currently watching kittens on the tv:flrt::lol2:
it is a tricky one,i would love something to be done as idiots + dogs = dogs getting a bad name., but tbh i think people take dogs for granted yeh its nice buying a cute puppy but there are responsibilities etc training
socialising,socialising and more socialisiling you cant just exspect a dog to be ok with a situtaion if it has never dealt with it before. it just annoys me.


----------



## snakewhisperer (Nov 13, 2009)

In principle there are some good ideas but I bet a pound to a pinch of poodle poo that the final legislation will be complicated, costly to the average law abiding citizen and generally a complete cluster:censor:. The human version of the ASBO has on the whole been a dismal failure with people breaking them continually and just being issued with another and another. The powers that be however do not care about dogs particularly so I can see destruction orders being thrown about like confetti. Those that have a dog as a fashion/ status symbol (and from what I've heard recently thats a helluva lot of people who've gone out and got a dog on a whim. I personally know two people who got dogs in the last fortnight, both claiming to have 'rescued' them from people who didn't want them anymore and yet after a week both these people were saying they did'nt know if they were going to keep the dogs:bash Will either ignore the law or dump the dogs, and who will be responsible for admin/checking of new laws?? I can see a large amount of our tax money being used to set it up.


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*enforcing the law*

just out of interest Girlsnotgray,is it compulsery for equines to have a passport and what about insurance for taking them on the road.Do responsible people do these things and do others,travellers for instance not give a hoot.Some people seem to slip the net and I'm fed up of always being the payer with others always being the takers.


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

girlsnotgray said:


> So if they cause a car accident or attack another dog/person or intruder you could pay for all the fines/court fees and compensation claims? Even if you can afford the vets bills you should have insurance just to cover this! I would rather pay my £22 a month and have the piece of mind that if I lost my house and buisiness tmrw I could still afford if they had an accident.


normal people don't have dogs which attack people or cause car accidents. They are concientous enough to ensure their dogs are well socialised, well behaved and don't get to roam the streets. The sorts of dogs who do cause the problems you mention are owned by people who won't be held responsible, let their dogs roam loose and dopn't bother training them. One of my friends has rescue kennels and takes in van loads of death row dogs, collected weekly from the large council estates up in west yorkshire. Apparently people get dogs and instead of looking after them properly, they open the door for them in the morning, to roam the streets with the other dogs who get put out in thwe morning. If the owner comes home after a day at the pub/dole office/shopping, and the dog is there waiting for them, all good and well, but if it isn't, no problem, they go out and buy another cute pups off someone on the estate who pokes out staffies and staffy crosses for a hundred a time or less.If the dog warden has picked the dog up, they won't pay the kennel release fee. If the dog has bitten someone or caused a car accident, they won't want anyohne to know it is there dog and be liable so there's no way they'll get insurance or a chip. Heck, most never bother with vaccinations or worming and flea treatment. 



rach666 said:


> i totally agree,why should reasonable people have to pay becuse there are idiots out there.
> nothing will change,nothing at all...


 exactly. Those of us who'll pay will be the ones who don't have dogs which are a problem. As per usual, it's just another tax on responsible people. :bash:



HABU said:


> the difference between the average yank like me and a brit is that you all follow rules i think... an american sees a no littering sign and looks around to see if anyone's watching... a brit just doesn't litter...
> 
> british folks seem more easily to go along with a new rule than an american... we tend to fight any new rules tooth and nail and disobey them whenever we can...
> 
> ...


 Haha, you have such a sweet idea about how we British are. We aren't all polite. Plenty of people do drop litter despite it being illegal (and downright bloody antisocial)
All of us are lawbreakers. We can't help it or avoid it because our government makes so many new laws to cover all kinds o ridiculous things that we will all end up breaking them occasionally, even the most respectable ones. Luckily, there are so many laws brought out that there aren't enough resources to actually enforce or police them so this'll go the same way.



girlsnotgray said:


> We have 4 bull breeds or so called "status dogs" and as a dog owner i expect to have to chip and insure them, I dont see it as suffering and if any law stops people buying dogs on a whim and means less dogs end up in rescue then im all for it.


 This won't stop idiots buying dogs though,.There will not be less dogs in rescue. I b elieve that changes have to be made at the breeder level with every single person who breeds a litter, having to microchip and vaccinate the puppies and their details remainning on the chip forever and if that dog ends up homeless, they have to have it back and rehome it themselves or pay a huge penalty if they won't have it back and it ends up in rescue. Say £500. This is a law which can easily be policed. Random spot checks on every breeder advertising a litter to check for a microchip and the litter confiscated if they aren't chipped. That way, those who are only out to make some cash and are not careful about who buys a pup. Those who never ask questions to weed out unsuitable owners and will sell to anyone who has the money, will find themselves getting a lot of problem dogs brought back when they are too much hassle for the owners.Hopefully it'd make people think twice before breeding.


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

Totally agree with Fenwoman, this has to be tackled at breeder level!


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

bobby said:


> Totally agree with Fenwoman, this has to be tackled at breeder level!


And may I point out that I am a hobby breeder.


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

fenwoman said:


> And may I point out that I am a hobby breeder.


....and a responsible one!:lol2:


----------



## SilverSteno (Feb 12, 2006)

People treat ASBOS as some kind of status symbol, they are not a deterent and I doubt dogbos would either, it is giving them a "hard" label and the people that own these problem dogs will probably find it more cool than anything else. They won't bother with insurance, they won't bother with micro-chipping, they'll still get their dogs from black market sources same way people continue to buy other illegal products and if one gets taken they will probably just buy another. Unless they are constantly monitored they will keep getting dogs resulting in more problem dogs and even more dogs PTS as a result. All it does is give insurance companies more power to take more money. Are the government going to ensure there is a cap placed on the insurance to make sure these companies don't get pound signs in their eyes at the thought of people having to give them more money and start charging higher prices because it is compulsory?

I don't think this tackles the problem of problem owners one bit, all it does is place more restrictions on those dog owners that do follow the law. Those that don't will just be breaking a couple more laws than they already do and won't care! What is needed is police on the street trained and prepared to tackle offenders with dangerous dogs, patrolling the problem areas and arresting those people that are a problem and the courts to actually do more than give them a slap across the risk or some ASBO for being caught, not more paperwork to fill out for everyone else.


----------



## clairebear1984 (Dec 13, 2009)

i dont agree like someone else said, i dont have insurance but if need to go to vets they do and i pay.

insurance is con at times as half times they wont pay out and other times u have to pay for so much anyhow.

they kiss my ARSE no way hould i b punished cos other people can not control there dogs. There on about it to try control dangerous dogs, any dog can bite doesnt have b a staffie etc. also how will control dangerous breeds. someone who is a criminal a own a pittie isnt going to ring pet inurance sayin hey can i inure my banned breed that i am not meant to have in the uk. so again why should some get away with it, while others day


----------



## clairebear1984 (Dec 13, 2009)

girlsnotgray said:


> Its a hard one to decide what will actually work but something does need to be done, the dogsbo idea seems a good idea in principal, how they would enfore it I have no idea!
> Its beyond me why people class *rotties as "dangerous dogs*" the last one we had would have licked you to death!


yea and staffies lick u to death but there classed as a dangerou breed. i have never being bitten or nearly bitten by a staffie but have by a rottie a young one at that. but there still lovely x


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

girlsnotgray said:


> We have 4 bull breeds or so called "status dogs" and as a dog owner i expect to have to chip and insure them, I dont see it as suffering and if any law stops people buying dogs on a whim and means less dogs end up in rescue then im all for it.


I think it's te way to go or alone tem lines.The bit that worrys me is i own a pure Staffordshire bull terrier am i or anyone else owning such a breed going to be penalized for that.Am i going to end up paying three times more than someone that owns a yorkshire terrier'etc.Or is it a fixed all round price.


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

gazz said:


> I think it's te way to go or alone tem lines.The bit that worrys me is i own a pure Staffordshire bull terrier am i or anyone else owning such a breed going to be penalized for that.Am i going to end up paying three times more than someone that owns a yorkshire terrier'etc.Or is it a fixed all round price.


it wont be fixed,most insurrance companys go on breed.


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

rach666 said:


> it wont be fixed,most insurrance companys go on breed.


So there's the first pit full.

Coz i have a pure staffie i get s:censor:t on.

But all the staffie cross owners just say they have a cross breed and they get low rate.


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

gazz said:


> So there's the first pit full.
> 
> Coz i have a pure staffie i get s:censor:t on.
> 
> But all the staffie cross owners just say they have a cross breed and they get low rate.


 
yeh thats prob how the cookie would crumble.


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

load of :censor:


----------



## clairebear1984 (Dec 13, 2009)

gazz said:


> So there's the first pit full.
> 
> Coz i have a pure staffie i get s:censor:t on.
> 
> But all the staffie cross owners just say they have a cross breed and they get low rate.


 
yea that how it goes but yet to there firneds its staffie x

i did work experimce in a vets once and a young couple came in with a puppy was a staffie x border collie. now how i go with crosses i, how they look now that puppy looked more border collie then taffie so me its border collie x staffie but i uppoe cos its got a staffie better being staffie x.


just like two of my dogs both crosses but ones a deerhoundx as looks more deerhound and other is papxpom as it looks more pap


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

I think it needs to start at owner level.

There is no real reason why all dogs shouldnt be chipped and registered to the breeder and owner (this would help a great deal with strays and the pressue on rescues) All breeders/owners should have to made accountable and responsable for every dog they breed/own.

All dogs should also be neutered unless registered to be bred from. 

I have two bull breeds who are already nuetered, chipped, insured and are under control at all times when I am out.

Insurance companies go on breed and area you live in. My two cost me £22 a month and I have clamed for Jacob who has an ongoing medical condition.


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

marthaMoo said:


> I think it needs to start at owner level.
> 
> There is no real reason why all dogs shouldnt be chipped and registered to the *breeder and owner* (this would help a great deal with strays and the pressue on rescues) All breeders/owners should have to made accountable and responsable for every dog they breed/own.
> 
> ...


:no1:


----------



## bignosesmum (Feb 29, 2008)

If breeders were made to chip all the pups before sale and arrange for free insurance for 6 weeks (such as Pet Plan) this would start the new owners off on the right foot and it would cut the numbers of breeders as those who are less respectable wouldnt want to pay to chip the pups and insurers wouldnt be offering them the free introductory insurance...........hey presto, reducing the numbers of pups!!


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

Crackdown on dangerous dogs to make microchips compulsory for all | UK news | The Guardian


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

I think laws like this should be run past RFUK first :whistling2:


----------



## Schip (Mar 31, 2007)

bignosesmum said:


> If breeders were made to chip all the pups before sale and arrange for free insurance for 6 weeks (such as Pet Plan) this would start the new owners off on the right foot and it would cut the numbers of breeders as those who are less respectable wouldnt want to pay to chip the pups and insurers wouldnt be offering them the free introductory insurance...........hey presto, reducing the numbers of pups!!


 
Most responsible breeders are qualified chippers anyway so don't need to pay vets prices to chip their pups, they go out chipped, registered to breeder and of course with the breeders choice of Free 6wks insurance from one of a number of companies including the KC.

What you are asking for here and far more is normal practice amongst many responsible pedigree show breeders but unfortunately they're the people who will be penalised by todays' proposals rather than the genuine culprits.


----------



## tomwilson (Feb 27, 2010)

clairebear1984 said:


> yea that how it goes but yet to there firneds its staffie x
> 
> i did work experimce in a vets once and a young couple came in with a puppy was a staffie x border collie. now how i go with crosses i, how they look now that puppy looked more border collie then taffie so me its border collie x staffie but i uppoe cos its got a staffie better being staffie x.
> 
> ...


i've seen this kind of cross before the pattern and body buildwas that of a collie the only staff trait was the head and snout shape he was very cute

i like irish blues but i would never buy one because of the stigma that staffs carry expecially in liverpool


----------



## clairebear1984 (Dec 13, 2009)

tomwilson said:


> i've seen this kind of cross before the pattern and body buildwas that of a collie the only staff trait was the head and snout shape he was very cute
> 
> i like irish blues but i would never buy one because of the stigma that staffs carry expecially in liverpool


 
sorry about my posts my s doesnt always work and then i dont realise lol


----------



## Aquilus (Feb 22, 2007)

Because clearly the people causing the problem, the yobs with the abused-until-they're-deadly banned dog breeds who use them to intimidate others, are going to be first in line to hand over their debit card details to purchase third party dog liability insurance. :roll:

Just for once, I wish there was someone with an iota of common sense in government, who could step back, take a critical look at proposed policy, and point out the flaws that are blindingly obvious to us non-political sorts.


----------



## corny girl (Aug 30, 2009)

When they are talking of insurance being compulsary i think they mean liability insurance not vet insurance :2thumb:. Does anyone know where you can get just liability insurance from? I still think it's madness penalising people like this just because certain types of people have Dogs that could be capable of causing serious damage to someone. Think about it, most Dogs are capable of doing some damage, even a little Yorkie can inflict a nasty bite on someone & could seriously injure a small child (often it's the smaller types that are worse than the bigger breeds as these tend to be "spoilt" by their often elderly owners & don't get the discipline they need). I've known more snappy Jacks, Yorkies, Chi's etc.. that are owned by elderly people than i have known GSD's or Rotties :2thumb:. This Government is an arse & the sooner they are booted out the better it will be for everyone :whistling2:.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

how on earth are they going to police it?!?

The roads are full of people driving without insurance and the police do a pretty much full time job trying to stay on top of it, unfortunately as good as it sounds its unworkable.


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

SiUK said:


> how on earth are they going to police it?!?
> 
> The roads are full of people driving without insurance and the police do a pretty much full time job trying to stay on top of it, unfortunately as good as it sounds its *unworkable*.


:no1:


----------



## bignosesmum (Feb 29, 2008)

Schip said:


> Most responsible breeders are qualified chippers anyway so don't need to pay vets prices to chip their pups, they go out chipped, registered to breeder and of course with the breeders choice of Free 6wks insurance from one of a number of companies including the KC.
> 
> What you are asking for here and far more is normal practice amongst many responsible pedigree show breeders but unfortunately they're the people who will be penalised by todays' proposals rather than the genuine culprits.


This is precisely my point, if these were all compulsory things the "back street boys" wouldnt continue to breed!!

I cannot see why you think you are going to be penalised if you are already doing it all though??


----------



## tinks30 (Nov 2, 2008)

I am sure that when the laws were changed and people had to tax and insure cars, people kicked up a fuss, but it is the responsible thing to do! I don`t really like paying insurance on my pets and would rather if i could afford to just pay the bills, but that is just for if your dog gets ill, what if ur dog attacks another dog or a person, or runs it to a road and god forbid gets hit? Surly the other person deserves some payment. I mean if someones car hit ur dog, u would want them to be brought to justice and receive a payment. I am all for it!


----------



## snakewhisperer (Nov 13, 2009)

tinks30 said:


> I am sure that when the laws were changed and people had to tax and insure cars, people kicked up a fuss, but it is the responsible thing to do! I don`t really like paying insurance on my pets and would rather if i could afford to just pay the bills, but that is just for if your dog gets ill, what if ur dog attacks another dog or a person, or runs it to a road and god forbid gets hit? Surly the other person deserves some payment. I mean if someones car hit ur dog, u would want them to be brought to justice and receive a payment. I am all for it!


 This sounds like a product of the nanny state, health and safety obsession and the compensation culture, I remember a time when we just said :censor: happens learn and move on. Nowadays common sense has gone out of the window and everybody expects their safety to be assured no matter how stupid their actions. There is consequently no personal responsibilty.


----------



## Nebbz (Jan 27, 2008)

i like this! :2thumb:

also think microchipping should be free, and nuturing a dam site cheeper for those who seek to have it done, we should be rewarded rather than slapped in the face with hudge vet bills :lol2:


ide do anything to feel comfortable walking my dog in the streets again!, even if it costs me extra to insure him because of his breed. Its nice to know with the insurence you have that cover there if needs be! im a s:censor:t happens get on with it kinda person but when it involves my dog...chances are few and far between hes too special to chance!


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

snakewhisperer said:


> This sounds like a product of the nanny state, health and safety obsession and the compensation culture, I remember a time when we just said :censor: happens learn and move on. Nowadays common sense has gone out of the window and *everybody expects their safety to be assured no matter how stupid their actions. There is consequently no personal responsibilty.*


:no1:


----------



## Elina (Jul 22, 2009)

I agree with Fen and I do not think I could phrase it better then she already has.

-
Elina


----------



## Shelley66 (Feb 19, 2007)

corny girl said:


> When they are talking of insurance being compulsary i think they mean liability insurance not vet insurance :2thumb:. Does anyone know where you can get just liability insurance from?


Yes it is just liability insurance they are on about, which actually shouldn't cost much. But I have a feeling if this is brought in we will see the cost rocket!! All this is supposed to be up for consultation as well, though who are we supposed to send our views too? If it is anything like the consultation our local council had when they decided all dogs had to be kept on leads in the local parks, it will be a case of dog owner saying it is no good and the government saying tough it is happening.

All my life I have lived with German Shepherds, I have had one that wanted to bite anyone, but they would all naturally guard our house and garden if anyone got in. Under the Animal Welfare Act that surely is part of their job, and so they should be allowed to do it. Now we are being told they can't!!

All but one of my dogs are chipped, the only one who isn't is a rescue that I have only had a few weeks. Non have insurance, and since they are well behaved I don't see why I should be forced to pay for it when I know the people who actually should have it (and shouldn't have dogs anyway) won't bother!! 

I love the way the government and newspapers are saying about how many dog attacks there are everyday. I bet nearly all of those are simple accidents that someone goes to A&E with ie I grabbed a ball one of my dogs was playing with last week, the dog bit it bought caught my hand, which resulted in a puncture wound... A dog bite!!! A complete accident, but if I had gone to hospital it would have been put down as a dog bite!


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

Nebbz said:


> i like this! :2thumb:
> 
> also think microchipping should be free, and nuturing a dam site cheeper for those who seek to have it done, we should be rewarded rather than slapped in the face with hudge vet bills :lol2:
> 
> ...



What breed is your dog?


----------



## tinks30 (Nov 2, 2008)

bobby said:


> What breed is your dog?


Does / Should it matter??????????????????


----------



## tinks30 (Nov 2, 2008)

Nebbz said:


> i like this! :2thumb:
> 
> also think microchipping should be free, and nuturing a dam site cheeper for those who seek to have it done, we should be rewarded rather than slapped in the face with hudge vet bills :lol2:
> 
> ...


 
That is what i wanted to say. But i crashed and burned and you hit the nail on the head! Thanks: victory: from everyone who can`t word it right! :lol2:


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

tinks30 said:


> Does / Should it matter??????????????????


No not at all, just being nosey :blush:


----------



## tinks30 (Nov 2, 2008)

bobby said:


> No not at all, just being nosey :blush:


 
Sorry, if i can across as shirty!:blush:


----------



## cathspythons (Jun 29, 2008)

Personally i believe people should have to have 3rd party insurance as you never know what could happen and for such a small amount per month you wouldnt even notice it gone from your account!

You or i might not notice £20 a month going out of there bank account,but im sure half of the pensioners in this country who own dogs as companions would!


----------



## cathspythons (Jun 29, 2008)

girlsnotgray said:


> We have 2 of our dogs on the buisiness and house insurance as they are working dogs but im not sure if you could add it to a normal household policy, the other two are insured sepretly as they are pets. Personally i believe people should have to have 3rd party insurance as you never know what could happen and for such a small amount per month you wouldnt even notice it gone from your account!
> Insurance is generally done on the breeds reputation for claims history (GSD's hips, sharpei's skin etc) so i very much doubt it would affect them much where they came on the bite list.


You or i might not notice £20 a month going out of our bank account,but im sure half of the pensioners in this country who own dogs as companions would!


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

sarahc said:


> just out of interest Girlsnotgray,is it compulsery for equines to have a passport and what about insurance for taking them on the road.Do responsible people do these things and do others,travellers for instance not give a hoot.Some people seem to slip the net and I'm fed up of always being the payer with others always being the takers.


Equines have to have a passport and now bringing in microchip laws. Even before this ever one of my foals leaves the yard chipped,registered and passported and declared not for human consumption (owners further down the line cant change this if the breeder states it). As I run a buisiness I have 3rd party insurance and liability cover anyway aswell as covering the horses for injury but most equine policies have 3rd party cover included as with dog insurance.
we wont see the impact of bringing in horse passports for a few years as one of the main problems is going to be when horses without passports get sick or start dying as no hunt/abbotoir in the Uk can take or destroy them without one. Most vets are now asking for passports upon seeing horses, when the law was brought in i had to produce passports for all our horses to the vet. All competitions are now requiring passports to be shown aswell.



bobby said:


> Totally agree with Fenwoman, this has to be tackled at breeder level!


 
Totally agree with this, fining breeders that dont comply.



tinks30 said:


> Surly the other person deserves some payment. I mean if someones car hit ur dog, u would want them to be brought to justice and receive a payment. I am all for it!


Tecnicaly the car owner could sue the dog owner, legally your dog is supposed to be on a lead and if it runs out into the road and causes an accident you could be faced with the car/medical bill.



Nebbz said:


> i like this! :2thumb:
> 
> also think microchipping should be free, and nuturing a dam site cheeper for those who seek to have it done, we should be rewarded rather than slapped in the face with hudge vet bills
> !


 
Why should it be free? It costs next to nothing and as a responsible dog owner you should be prepared to pay to keep your animal safe.



cathspythons said:


> You or i might not notice £20 a month going out of our bank account,but im sure half of the pensioners in this country who own dogs as companions would!


If you cant afford the costs of having a dog dont have one - its not a right you know! If you cant afford £20 then how could you afford a huge vets bill?


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*dog insurance*

thanks for the info on the horses.Although I'm not keen on the insurance idea ,I would like to something done about the plight of the many poor bull breeds that never asked to be born.I just don't know what.


----------



## miss_ferret (Feb 4, 2010)

cathspythons said:


> You or i might not notice £20 a month going out of our bank account,but im sure half of the pensioners in this country who own dogs as companions would!


i agree with this. its all very well saying you shouldnt own a dog if you cant afford insurance but for many pensioners that dog is the only freind they have.


----------



## sophs87 (Jan 25, 2009)

I think its a ridiculous idea, What numb skull chav is goint to train their dog to attack, make it attack some one then say "Heres my insurance details!!!!" 
I wont pay Insurance thats my choice, when they bring in something that will ensure dangerous dogs and their owners are dealt with accordingly (and i dont mean just pits rottis ect i mean unrully JRT's ect ect) i will support that, but i wont be forking out for something that wont/cant be managed. 
I mean whos going to take their Pit bull, agresive staff, ect to the vets to be micro chipped, not the chavs they want to be able to manage because the couldnt give a hoot about their dogs.
plus the vets would probly just report them any way.
Silly money making scheme, because they know the stupid general public will pay for it all :bash:


----------



## vonnie (Aug 20, 2007)

I agree something needs to be done, but I'm not happy with the insurance proposals at all.

I do not currently have insurance for any of my animals. I have more than enough in savings to cover any vet bills now or in the future. Pet insurance IMO is a rip off. And I can just imagine if we're all forced to have this third party insurance what will happen.

For one, they'll charge according to breed. So no doubt staffies will be in the highest bracket and yet more will be abandoned, or overlooked for months or even years in rescues.

And I can just see the no win no fee ads now. The rush of petty claims for stupid compensation figures. And the dogs put at risk of PTS by it.

And yet again of course ... who will pay for the policing of this? What are the chances of action actually being taken against the owners who do not buy the insurance - bearing in mind they're the ones most likely to have an out of control dog in the first place! It'll be like car insurance no doubt. The law abiding among us end up paying extra to compensate for those who don't pay at all.


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

so if you dont have insurance,you cant afford to have a dog?...
i chose not to insure my dogs,but i can afford to care for them and i can afford vet bills.most insurance companys take a while to pay out any way so you would still have to fork out either way.
i think people are just miffed at the fact that if this comes into play,personally i cant see it,..is that the people that are idiots and shouldnt have dogs wont pay or abide just like people swerve car insurance and car tax etc.


----------



## sophs87 (Jan 25, 2009)

vonnie said:


> I agree something needs to be done, but I'm not happy with the insurance proposals at all.
> 
> I do not currently have insurance for any of my animals. I have more than enough in savings to cover any vet bills now or in the future. Pet insurance IMO is a rip off. And I can just imagine if we're all forced to have this third party insurance what will happen.
> 
> ...


 Yep agree there 100%, i dont have nor want insurance, i can cover it. 
I wont be getting it either :Na_Na_Na_Na: :lol2:


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

vonnie said:


> I agree something needs to be done, but I'm not happy with the insurance proposals at all.
> 
> I do not currently have insurance for any of my animals. I have more than enough in savings to cover any vet bills now or in the future. Pet insurance IMO is a rip off. And I can just imagine if we're all forced to have this third party insurance what will happen.
> 
> ...


 

thats the thing it will be by breed so people like me will be hit the most!
if i get attacked or my dog gets attacked by a so called uninsured owner where does that leave me? in the :censor: just like it does with car insurance.


----------



## Caz (May 24, 2007)

I do have insurance via NFU and have always found them to be very good at paying out. However treatment has to be paid for then a claim made. My last bill was just over £3000 and they paid out within a month. Although money vs treatment wouldn't be an issue with me perhaps it would save the money consideration when deciding whether to treat their sick dog? (Not intended to be directed at anyone - just a thought really!)


----------



## jaykickboxer (Feb 11, 2008)

I against this I already pay 25 quid a month for insurance and speaking to a few people after claiming tge next year it goes up massively, im defanatly not intersted in any more legislation in this country it's pathetic and there's more important things to worry about I can imagine that Having breeds which are considerd more dangerous I'll get stung yet another thing to damage the rehoming of a already involatile situation with dogs considerd dangerous, there's better ways to go about this like the licensing of nuisance dogs, and penialising the owner not every dog it's getting to the point were I'll have to muzzle my own dog in your own home it's pathetic and another example why this country is going down the drain, I most defantly wanna move just gotta work out were, I may not be much but imagine if u have a few digs it's another expence not needed.


----------



## jaykickboxer (Feb 11, 2008)

Statistickly uve more chance to get bite by a lab then a staff but tge chances of a labrador Owner paying more then a staff owner?


----------



## clairebear1984 (Dec 13, 2009)

its stupid, i for one will break the law as i wont get insurance, y should i wen chavs and other people wont. Also might seem stupid but u get idiots in this world that will prevoke a dog to bite just to claim. like wen i got sued for appanlty running over a old womans foot with my 17s yet walked away perfectly fine and never mention how her foot hurt, the fact she didnt go to hosp till nxt day and changed her story TWICE. y cos idiots claim for money my word against hers.


----------



## andy007 (May 13, 2008)

This proposed legislation is being brought in aimed at the generally young people who frequent city areas with their dog that makes them feel hard. Obviously the Goverment want to cover all dog owners though, but what back street breeder of Pitbulls is going to advertise the fact they are breeding illegally? I'll tell you, not one! They will continue to breed these dogs illegally and sell them to irresponsible people to use as an extension of their manhood. The legislation will do nothing to stop the use of Pitbulls and their mixes in dog fighting rings either.

And who are they proposing carries out stop checks on people walking their dogs? The dog warden down here only comes out when called!! The Police barely have time to catch murderers and rapists, let alone carry out checks on dog walkers.

The dangerous dogs act was supposed to have stopped Pits being bred, but all it did was drive these breeders underground which makes them even harder to monitor. What makes anyone think that this proposed legislation is going to stop these activities?

Sadly, and through no fault of their own, Staffies get the rough end of the stick as more and more Chavvy gits use them as status symbols, and purposely make them as aggressive as possible. I'm not a great lover of Staffies, but every one i have met has been very friendly. I personally find that the designer Lap dogs are more highly strung and more likely to snap:whip:

My parents dont have a dog anymore, but did have until recently. They are in their late seventies and survive on a measily pension and would not have been able to afford extra costs of insurance, but once again our wonderful government see's fit to try and implement laws which will NOT hit the people who should be hit:devil:


----------



## JPP (Jun 8, 2009)

why dont they just fix the problem where it is.
pussys wo are scared of walking "da hood" in whatever place they live, and use them instead of a knife coz they cant fight themselfs.
idiots who thinks it cool to have a vicious dog.
c:censor:ts who make dog fights.
picks who just let thier dogs run wild cause trouble.

and just make people with dogs get a letterbox on the gate i it attacks the postman


----------



## jaykickboxer (Feb 11, 2008)

dont get it?


----------



## snakewhisperer (Nov 13, 2009)

I don't have insurance for my dog I have an ISA. Its a win win situation, I've got the money if anything should happen and if it doesn't I've still got the money plus interest. I think the problem is if the government do, do something it'll be a cock up, but hey they won't be around for much longer and the Tories are gonna be pretty busy with sorting out the country so it may not come to anything. What about a simple licensing system? You, as a dog owner already can purchase one for a nominal amount and have your dogs listed on it. New dog owners could undergo a short course/test to get their license, put together and run by proper dog people. Anyone wanting to breed must have a seperate or additional license and anyone causing problems to public or to the dogs could have their license taken away. Ofcourse this working would rely on there being stiff punishment for those that did not comply. I'm not necessarily saying I would like to see this but if something HAS to be done then it must be simple and effective.


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

snakewhisperer said:


> I don't have insurance for my dog I have an ISA. Its a win win situation, I've got the money if anything should happen and if it doesn't I've still got the money plus interest. I think the problem is if the government do, do something it'll be a cock up, but hey they won't be around for much longer and the Tories are gonna be pretty busy with sorting out the country so it may not come to anything. What about a simple licensing system? You, as a dog owner already can purchase one for a nominal amount and have your dogs listed on it. New dog owners could undergo a short course/test to get their license, put together and run by proper dog people. Anyone wanting to breed must have a seperate or additional license and anyone causing problems to public or to the dogs could have their license taken away. Ofcourse this working would rely on there being stiff punishment for those that did not comply. I'm not necessarily saying I would like to see this but if something HAS to be done then it must be simple and effective.


That really made sense to me, are there any risks with an ISA?


----------



## snakewhisperer (Nov 13, 2009)

bobby said:


> That really made sense to me, are there any risks with an ISA?


 Not that I know of.


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

Going to look into it mate, cheers : victory:


----------



## snakewhisperer (Nov 13, 2009)

bobby said:


> Going to look into it mate, cheers : victory:


De nada


----------



## swede.speed (May 1, 2009)

girlsnotgray said:


> Its a hard one to decide what will actually work but something does need to be done, the dogsbo idea seems a good idea in principal, how they would enfore it I have no idea!
> Its beyond me why people class rotties as "dangerous dogs" the last one we had would have licked you to death!


 
rottweilers kill baby at pub - Google Search


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

swede.speed said:


> rottweilers kill baby at pub - Google Search


*Some people should be put down?*


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

I have had the pleasure of looking after a 5 year old male rottie with serious dominance and aggression issues towards people and other animals.

Looked after him for nine months, we had a few stand-offs, noone is dead?

Some people shouldn't be allowed a bloody hamster never mind a dog


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

swede.speed said:


> rottweilers kill baby at pub - Google Search


 

the reason for posting this was?.....


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

rach666 said:


> the reason for posting this was?.....


I agree irrelevant, just proves that idiots shouldn't be allowed dogs


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

bobby said:


> I agree irrelevant, just proves that idiots shouldn't be allowed dogs


 
dont get me started on so called dangerous rottis,load of shit.


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

rach666 said:


> dont get me started on so called dangerous rottis,load of shit.


They do have the potential to be dangerous, unfortunately we have to accept that. 

So does any dog though?


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

bobby said:


> They do have the potential to be dangerous, unfortunately we have to accept that.
> 
> So does any dog though?


yes i agree that,in the wrong hands a gun or car is.

never on the news when a pomeranian kills a child though.which happened last year.


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

rach666 said:


> yes i agree that,in the wrong hands a gun or car is.
> 
> never on the news when a pomeranian kills a child though.which happened last year.


Wonder how many people died falling down in the shower?

Ban soap!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

bobby said:


> Wonder how many people died falling down in the shower?
> 
> Ban soap!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 
thing is, you label something dangerous and idiots want it and will abuse it becomes one big viscous circle :bash:


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

rach666 said:


> thing is, you label something dangerous and idiots want it and will abuse it becomes one big viscous circle :bash:


Yeah, the one I was looking after had been trained by a police handler apparently?

He did a shocking job 

The dog was very aggressive towards all adults and other male dogs 

Im not talking about barking and growling, I mean proper trying to hurt 

I had him almost 9 months and within 6 weeks he was much much better.

My mates GF used to give him cheese when he growled at her or wouldn't let her out the kitchen *sighs*

I took himk on for 9 months while he doing a course down south and when I had my accident (Was in hospital 2 months) he went back to the breeder I am pleased to say!

He had the potential to be a cracking dog, just misunderstood and miss treated 

Im told he lives with another entire male rotti now :2thumb:


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

bobby said:


> Yeah, the one I was looking after had been trained by a police handler apparently?
> 
> He did a shocking job
> 
> ...


 
aww thats fantastic news !:2thumb:

i


----------



## swede.speed (May 1, 2009)

girlsnotgray said:


> Its a hard one to decide what will actually work but something does need to be done, the dogsbo idea seems a good idea in principal, how they would enfore it I have no idea!
> Its beyond me why people class rotties as "dangerous dogs" the last one we had would have licked you to death!





rach666 said:


> the reason for posting this was?.....


See above. 



bobby said:


> I agree irrelevant, just proves that idiots shouldn't be allowed dogs


How is it irrellevant to this conversation?????


----------



## miss_ferret (Feb 4, 2010)

TBH i lost any faith in the theory that rotties are nasty a good few years ago when an old freind of mine had one. her dad bought it specialy to guard his pub after closing time as it was from 'good guard dog stock' :whistling2: (it lived in the house until closing time when it moved to a basket behind the bar). they also had cctv instaled. few months after this arangement started the pub was broken into, the family went down to find the dog still fast asleep in her basket and the place trashed. cctv revealed that the burglers had broken in and headed behind the bar for the cash machine, you could see them panic when they clocked the rottie who then woke up greated them like long lost freinds and followed them happily round the pub while they looked for more cash, they then patted her goodbye as they went out the window and she went back to her bed. she was pretty much a permenant house dog after that and ironicly it was my mates poodle that foiled the next attempt at robbing the place :2thumb:


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

swede.speed said:


> See above.


 

not quite up to scratch yet. missed a few from your google search


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

miss_ferret said:


> TBH i lost any faith in the theory that rotties are nasty a good few years ago when an old freind of mine had one. her dad bought it specialy to guard his pub after closing time as it was from 'good guard dog stock' :whistling2: (it lived in the house until closing time when it moved to a basket behind the bar). they also had cctv instaled. few months after this arangement started the pub was broken into, the family went down to find the dog still fast asleep in her basket and the place trashed. cctv revealed that the burglers had broken in and headed behind the bar for the cash machine, you could see them panic when they clocked the rottie who then woke up greated them like long lost freinds and followed them happily round the pub while they looked for more cash, they then patted her goodbye as they went out the window and she went back to her bed. she was pretty much a permenant house dog after that and ironicly it was my mates poodle that foiled the next attempt at robbing the place :2thumb:


:lol2:

I think that's true for most breeds, dogs in general are very trusting if treated properly!


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

swede.speed said:


> How is it irrellevant to this conversation?????


Its an isolated incident that is not the dogs fault?

A dog cannot be wrong, only handlers can be wrong


----------



## swede.speed (May 1, 2009)

bobby said:


> Its an isolated incident that is not the dogs fault?
> 
> A dog cannot be wrong, only handlers can be wrong


This is not the only incidident involving rotties as anyone old enough will remember the "devil dog" status the accrued from years ago.

I have bred dobermans in the past and had all KC registerd and have had contact with all the dogs owners up until all the dogs deaths, i now own, after some 20 years of being dog free, a staff x puppy who i have had for 10 days, she has been taught to sit by the back door when she needs to go out, she sits and gives our 15 and 6 year old cat there comfort zone when eating and has been given 1 weeks worth of bite inhibit training which is very effective in making the dog realise humans cannot tollerate being bitten.:no1:

I think it should be compulsary to do an owner training coarse/test BEFORE anybody is to take control of a new dog, i mean who buys a reptile without doing the research first?


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

swede.speed said:


> This is not the only incidident involving rotties as anyone old enough will remember the "devil dog" status the accrued from years ago.
> 
> I have bred dobermans in the past and had all KC registerd and have had contact with all the dogs owners up until all the dogs deaths, i now own, after some 20 years of being dog free, a staff x puppy who i have had for 10 days, she has been taught to sit by the back door when she needs to go out, she sits and gives our 15 and 6 year old cat there comfort zone when eating and has been given 1 weeks worth of bite inhibit training which is very effective in making the dog realise humans cannot tollerate being bitten.:no1:
> 
> I think it should be compulsary to do an owner training coarse/test BEFORE anybody is to take control of a new dog, i mean who buys a reptile without doing the research first?



I agree with you I think, Rotties are no more likely to bite than any other dog?


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

swede.speed said:


> This is not the only incidident involving rotties as anyone old enough will remember the "devil dog" status the accrued from years ago.
> 
> I have bred dobermans in the past and had all KC registerd and have had contact with all the dogs owners up until all the dogs deaths, i now own, after some 20 years of being dog free, a staff x puppy who i have had for 10 days, she has been taught to sit by the back door when she needs to go out, she sits and gives our 15 and 6 year old cat there comfort zone when eating and has been given 1 weeks worth of bite inhibit training which is very effective in making the dog realise humans cannot tollerate being bitten.:no1:
> 
> I think it should be compulsary to do an owner training coarse/test BEFORE anybody is to take control of a new dog, i mean who buys a reptile without doing the research first?


 

yup hence the rotti in the omen 
and amung other things,i am not old but i did my rotti research.

i got my back up with the link as posting it just fuels the fire.
i have owned lots of different breeds of dogs and nothing has ever touched me or got to me like rotti's do.
people cross over the road,i was in a pub last yr a 5 yr old boy told me that they eat kids 

#it breaks my heart as they are fantastic,intelligent,rewarding dogs
and aslong as i own a rotti i will fight for there reputation which is caused buy yet again... stupid people.

dont get me wrong some dogs are a lost cause etc but most of the time its our fault




p.s i love dobermans:flrt:


----------



## swede.speed (May 1, 2009)

rach666 said:


> yup hence the rotti in the omen
> and amung other things,i am not old but i did my rotti research.
> 
> i got my back up with the link as posting it just fuels the fire.
> ...


My mom fosters dogs and also used to look after them for people when they went on holiday and we have kept everything from hamsters to parrots, and the OHs brother used to breed mastiffs.

One couple have a rottie called spud, now the first time i came face to face with spud, bearing in mind im 6`4", i nearly shat myself because of the devil dog stigma in the newspapers, as i had never had any dealings with rotties, but hes an exceptionally well trained and well tempered dog who now i have had the chance to get to know is a big softie :flrt::lol2:

Edit.

Didnt want to "get your back up" just wanted to point out that, like any dog in the wrong hands, rotties can be dangerous.:notworthy:


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

swede.speed said:


> My mom fosters dogs and also used to look after them for people when they went on holiday and we have kept everything from hamsters to parrots, and the OHs brother used to breed mastiffs.
> 
> One couple have a rottie called spud, now the first time i came face to face with spud, bearing in mind im 6`4", i nearly shat myself because of the devil dog stigma in the newspapers, as i had never had any dealings with rotties, but hes an exceptionally well trained and well tempered dog who now i have had the chance to get to know is a big softie :flrt::lol2:


 
my auntie runs a boarding kennels and she was given two rottis by a lady who was moving back to england (auntie is in spain)
and the spannish are petrified of them,i mean scared to death by this pair of rottis who followed my 5yr old sister round for a month sitting for her,giving there paw and rolling on there back was awesome:flrt:
when i grows up im going to live in a big house full of rottis and a little boy called damien:blush: (im 25) lmfao


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

swede.speed said:


> My mom fosters dogs and also used to look after them for people when they went on holiday and we have kept everything from hamsters to parrots, and the OHs brother used to breed mastiffs.
> 
> One couple have a rottie called spud, now the first time i came face to face with spud, bearing in mind im 6`4", i nearly shat myself because of the devil dog stigma in the newspapers, as i had never had any dealings with rotties, but hes an exceptionally well trained and well tempered dog who now i have had the chance to get to know is a big softie :flrt::lol2:
> 
> ...



Yeah they are :no1:


----------



## swede.speed (May 1, 2009)

rach666 said:


> my auntie runs a boarding kennels and she was given two rottis by a lady who was moving back to england (auntie is in spain)
> and the spannish are petrified of them,i mean scared to death by this pair of rottis who followed my 5yr old sister round for a month sitting for her,giving there paw and rolling on there back was awesome:flrt:
> when i grows up im going to live in a big house full of rottis and a little boy called damien:blush: (im 25) lmfao


(Whispers) well i was 42 yesterday and my little boy, Josh and girl, Yve are now 22 and 20 and have fled the nest:lol2:


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

swede.speed said:


> (Whispers) well i was 42 yesterday and my little boy, Josh and girl, Yve are now 22 and 20 and have fled the nest:lol2:


Its past my bedtime :whistling2:


----------



## swede.speed (May 1, 2009)

bobby said:


> Its past my bedtime :whistling2:


Not a nocturnal species then :lol2:


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

swede.speed said:


> (Whispers) well i was 42 yesterday and my little boy, Josh and girl, Yve are now 22 and 20 and have fled the nest:lol2:


 
*says quietly* happy birthday for yesterday...:lol2:
threads gone a bit off the beaten track... but i suppose its nice to share nice stories and exsperiences of these so called dangerous dogs:flrt:


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

Nah, I dont sleep lol


Ment 'cause im the same age as your youngest :blush:


----------



## swede.speed (May 1, 2009)

rach666 said:


> *says quietly* happy birthday for yesterday...:lol2:
> threads gone a bit off the beaten track... but i suppose its nice to share nice stories and exsperiences of these so called dangerous dogs:flrt:


Thank you, :2thumb:


----------



## swede.speed (May 1, 2009)

bobby said:


> Nah, I dont sleep lol
> 
> 
> Ment 'cause im the same age as your youngest :blush:


Stop it your making me feel old :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

swede.speed said:


> Thank you, :2thumb:


SORRY!!!!


*HAPPY BIRTHDAY *
:2thumb::2thumb::2thumb::2thumb::2thumb::2thumb:


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

bobby said:


> SORRY!!!!
> 
> 
> *HAPPY BIRTHDAY *
> :2thumb::2thumb::2thumb::2thumb::2thumb::2thumb:


 
:lol2::lol2::lol2:


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

rach666 said:


> :lol2::lol2::lol2:


I try lol


----------



## diddykip (Jan 15, 2010)

should this law be for buying or owning any animal on a whim?
me and moh are responsible animal lovers, would love a dog but don't have one cause we both work full time and would not have the time to care and walk the dog when we come home from work and its no good just letting your dog out int garden just to save your legs or cause there's a howling gale and raining,it's much more fun in the summer time when you get home from work and its light and maybe not too cold and also don't for get there's the poo to pick up!
there are lots off other animals people have to take in to consideration with their life stile before they think about owning any animal,cost,time etc.
we have got a bearded dragon i know its not a dog but we've been looking for a pet that we would both love and care for and have the time and money for and thats taken 10yrs of careful and responsible thinking and we love him to bits.
so please lets get a law passed for all animals that stop irrisponsible people owning any animal not just dogs!
cause at the end of of a bad dog or animal is a bad owner!


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

diddykip said:


> should this law be for buying or owning any animal on a whim?
> me and moh are responsible animal lovers, would love a dog but don't have one cause we both work full time and would not have the time to care and walk the dog when we come home from work and its no good just letting your dog out int garden just to save your legs or cause there's a howling gale and raining,it's much more fun in the summer time when you get home from work and its light and maybe not too cold and also don't for get there's the poo to pick up!
> there are lots off other animals people have to take in to consideration with their life stile before they think about owning any animal,cost,time etc.
> we have got a bearded dragon i know its not a dog but we've been looking for a pet that we would both love and care for and have the time and money for and thats taken 10yrs of careful and responsible thinking and we love him to bits.
> ...


:no1:


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

swede.speed said:


> rottweilers kill baby at pub - Google Search





swede.speed said:


> See above.
> 
> 
> 
> How is it irrellevant to this conversation?????


You are an idiot , shame to see the goverments/papers scaremongering is working.



swede.speed said:


> This is not the only incidident involving rotties as anyone old enough will remember the "devil dog" status the accrued from years ago.
> 
> I have bred dobermans in the past and had all KC registerd and have had contact with all the dogs owners up until all the dogs deaths, i now own, after some 20 years of being dog free, a staff x puppy who i have had for 10 days, she has been taught to sit by the back door when she needs to go out, she sits and gives our 15 and 6 year old cat there comfort zone when eating and has been given 1 weeks worth of bite inhibit training which is very effective in making the dog realise humans cannot tollerate being bitten.:no1:
> 
> I think it should be compulsary to do an owner training coarse/test BEFORE anybody is to take control of a new dog, i mean who buys a reptile without doing the research first?


 
Okay you so own these types of dogs but still want to brand them as dangerous breeds? Rotties are no more likely to attack someone that say a JRT, have you not looke dat the top 10 bite list recently???:whip:


----------



## swede.speed (May 1, 2009)

girlsnotgray said:


> You are an idiot , shame to see the goverments/papers scaremongering is working.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You were the one who said Its beyond me why people class rotties as "dangerous dogs" i posted that to show you why these dogs got there bad reputation, mauling babies.

I dont see your point here, every dog can still be dangerous even if they are so called house pets as most owners dont train the dog NOT to bite and isnt this what this threads about, responsible ownership so no more breeds get banned for attacking someone.: victory:


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*would insurance have helped*



swede.speed said:


> You were the one who said Its beyond me why people class rotties as "dangerous dogs" i posted that to show you why these dogs got there bad reputation, mauling babies.
> 
> .: victory:


I live down the road to where those dogs lived and my sister in the next street.They weren't treated as pets,they spent all of their time on the pub roof.It's hard to see what difference insurance would have made in this case or the other recent child deaths.All the dogs seem to have been owned by relatives,not dog attacks on random strangers


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

My point was that there really is no need to start posting scaremongering stories from the tabloids!


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

sarahc said:


> I live down the road to where those dogs lived and my sister in the next street.They weren't treated as pets,they spent all of their time on the pub roof.It's hard to see what difference insurance would have made in this case or the other recent child deaths.All the dogs seem to have been owned by relatives,not dog attacks on random strangers


Finally some sense, sure most of the incidents happened whilst the children and dogs were under the supervision of grandparents?


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

rach666 said:


> the reason for posting this was?.....


 to prove that all rottweilers are *devil dogs!!!!!:gasp::gasp::gasp::gasp::gasp::gasp:
*


----------



## LoveForLizards (Apr 20, 2008)

girlsnotgray said:


> have you not looke dat the top 10 bite list recently???:whip:


I have to say I personally think the supposed 'top 10 aggressive breeds list' is far from accurate. I'd beg to differ that the fact most (if not all) of the Dogs are working breeds, is little more then coincidence. : victory:


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

LoveForLizards said:


> I have to say I personally think the supposed 'top 10 aggressive breeds list' is far from accurate. I'd beg to differ that the fact most (if not all) of the Dogs are working breeds, is little more then coincidence. : victory:


 
I said BITE list not agressive list, its made from hospital reports and bites reported to the police!


----------



## steveyruss (Feb 19, 2008)

More rubbish from the government I see and a lot of it is just unpractical and it cannot be enforced on a day to day basis so it's a waste of money. I cannot comprehend why the government injects new laws into society when they are so lenient with those that break them. 

"The vast majority of dog owners are responsible, but there is no doubt that some people breed and keep dogs for the sole purpose of intimidating others, in a sense using dogs as a weapon,"

If he really believes this then why does the majority have to be burdened yet again with more laws because of a few idiots. If someone has an unruly dog they are not going to change their ways because of some whitehall pen pusher. The type of people who he describes here have probably never had any respect for the law since they were born so why would they care about his legislation. They probably won't even be aware of the new law because they cannot read. We need police with batons patroling the estates doing their jobs properly instead of obeying petty human rights laws and wasting time on being sensitive because of community relations. Sentences in the entire justice system need beefing up in this country, lack of prison cells is not an excuse force them to build their own prisons and contribute to society.

What is worse is that they are even now talking about forcing all owners to pay for pet insurance because of 'irresponsible owners', I'm sure Churchill will be expecting a plethora of insurance quotes from illegal pitbull owners and dog fight organisers! All this government has been interested in is stealth taxing us for the past 13 years to bloat the public sector. Has anyone ever told them that taxing takes money from the productive part of the economy to the unproductive I wonder? 

I'm not surprised by these new laws because the public sector bureaucrats need to give the impression that they are busy when they are not arguing whether pringles should really be classified as potato snakes under EU law. Honestly I cannot understand why anyone defends this government apart from those that are employed by the public sector.... which must be most of the country by now no wonder they keep getting power if people are scared about losing their jobs.


----------



## andy007 (May 13, 2008)

The problem with the Dangerous dogs Act is that it concerns itself with breeds of dogs rather than the social behaviour of its owner. Its similar to insurance companies charging all young people excessive premiums for their car insurance because a percentage of young drivers are idiots.
The only reason the particular breeds are listed in the DDA, is because they are seen as status dogs by the Anti-social types. If the government had taken statistics into account then the West Highland White, Golden Retriever and Jack Russel (Kennel club liaison committee statistics) would have been included in the DDA banned list too. Why? Because each one of these has been responsible for the death of a person in the UK over the last 50 years. Every single dog is capable of biting and capable of being made aggressive, but i suppose a Retriever doesn't look hard enough for the chavs:whistling2:
If the government really want to address the issues that have lead to these new proposals, then they should first address the ever increasing Anti-social behaviour that seems to be infecting the UK, because the only people that these proposals are going to affect "are" the responsible owners.


----------



## steveyruss (Feb 19, 2008)

andy007 said:


> The problem with the Dangerous dogs Act is that it concerns itself with breeds of dogs rather than the social behaviour of its owner. Its similar to insurance companies charging all young people excessive premiums for their car insurance because a percentage of young drivers are idiots.
> The only reason the particular breeds are listed in the DDA, is because they are seen as status dogs by the Anti-social types. If the government had taken statistics into account then the West Highland White, Golden Retriever and Jack Russel (Kennel club liaison committee statistics) would have been included in the DDA banned list too. Why? Because each one of these has been responsible for the death of a person in the UK over the last 50 years. Every single dog is capable of biting and capable of being made aggressive, but i suppose a Retriever doesn't look hard enough for the chavs:whistling2:
> If the government really want to address the issues that have lead to these new proposals, then they should first address the ever increasing Anti-social behaviour that seems to be infecting the UK, because the only people that these proposals are going to affect "are" the responsible owners.


Yep. Unfortunately legislation like this targets the wrong crowd. It's like car insurance, my excess is over £500 now and that is mostly because I have to subsidize illegal drivers like millions of law abiding citizens. 

Someone last year crashed into me who was uninsured and had no licence. What happened to him? He got banned from driving and points added onto his fictitious licence he never had and never will have. The police had known him and he'd been doing it for years, he never has any intention of driving legally but it doesn't stop him. 

I can't wait for forced insurance of domestic animals! We'll see armies of lawyers trained specially for it and huge sums of money being thrown around for the silliest claim. 'The rottie bit me when I was sleep walking onto someone elses property'. 'The staffie growled at me because I'm a lesbian'. 'I tripped over a Chihuahua and want 150k from cut knee'. 'Muslim man claims £3million against Jack Russell over damaged Prayer Matt and hurt feelings'. 

Oh and all of the adverts claiming 100% compensation on tv what glee! 

You and me will be the ones funding this crap and many animals will be uninsurable simply because of their breed leading to homelessness.


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

fenwoman said:


> to prove that all rottweilers are *devil dogs!!!!!:gasp::gasp::gasp::gasp::gasp::gasp:*


 


hahahaha well thats true narla is so my monster devil dog :flrt:


----------

