# What would you do if your breed became a banned breed?



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

I'm really surprised more folks aren't outspokenly fighting against breed bans in the UK. It *seems like* (I know it's a generalization, but just commenting on the small sample I see), but it seems like the majority of those posting in opposition of breed bans are folks who own breeds that are already questionable or that might be next. 

So what would you do?
If legislation was passed that made your dog a banned breed, what would you do? Would you move to another country? Would you get rid of your dog? Would you follow the law and keep your perfectly friendly dog muzzled and leashed anytime he left the house?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I think it is highly unlikely that there will any more 'banned' breeds. In fact the new legislation will pretty much cut out the banned breeds wont it, or have I read things wrong.
Not much chance of my breed ever being banned anyway- and none of the breeds that spring to mind appeal to me anyway.

It is a daft law and hardly anyone had ever heard of pit bulls when it came about let alone the other breeds - but now everyone knows all about pit bulls and a certain element of society are determined to own them and breed them.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Well its highly unlikely that Chihuahuas will be banned anytime soon but if they were....I would obey the law and do whatever necessary to keep the Chis with me. It would be the only way to secure their safety. No matter how ridiculous a law is....we have to abide or risk prosecution which in this case could cost a dog its life.


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

Blitz said:


> It is a daft law


That has survived over 20 years. If it's daft, why has it not been repealed?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I would follow the law because I wouldn't want to risk him being seized but I don't think cairns show up on many banlists. It wouldn't be worth putting him through what some of the "Pitbulls" have been though.


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Move elsewhere. lol


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

chichi said:


> Well its highly unlikely that Chihuahuas will be banned anytime soon but if they were....I would obey the law and do whatever necessary to keep the Chis with me. It would be the only way to secure their safety. No matter how ridiculous a law is....we have to abide or risk prosecution which in this case could cost a dog its life.


Just that. Of course I doubt Westie X Paps will be banned.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

ouesi said:


> That has survived over 20 years. If it's daft, why has it not been repealed?


Because people would rather blame the dog than the human that raised it .


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

The simplest response I can give is that I would comply to the new legislation by muzzling keeping on lead my existing dogs and never owning that breed again.
But only so I wasn't breaking the law  or putting dogs at risk of being seized


----------



## thedogsmother (Aug 28, 2008)

I would have to obey the rules of the ban, and they would be on lead and muzzled whilst out of the house, I wouldnt like it but the alternative wouldnt be something I would consider.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

chichi said:


> Well its highly unlikely that Chihuahuas will be banned anytime soon


true...
Lets face it, if Daxies and Chis were banned then every other breed would probably have been banned before them so we would all be walking muzzled, on lead dogs! (ironic.... considering how those 2 breeds are most likely to bite you!!).


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

thedogsmother said:


> I would have to obey the rules of the ban, and they would be on lead and muzzled whilst out of the house, I wouldnt like it but the alternative wouldnt be something I would consider.


I remember that when the DDA first came in quite a lot of people with boxer cross labs and other crosses that looked a bit pit bull like actually did have them put to sleep rather than risking them being taken or demonised and kept on a lead and muzzled all their life.


----------



## gem88 (Jun 2, 2012)

would be very surprised if springers were banned but if they were i would do anything i could to keep them with me and after that i would not have them again, but only so i wasnt breaking the law


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

When it comes to Bob it wouldn't make much difference, as he's DA & HA (with some people) so he's muzzled in public anyway.

If I had the money I'd move to a country where my dog wasn't persecuted if they add even more breeds to the list


----------



## GermanShepardOwner (Aug 20, 2012)

I would keep on lead and muzzled and stick to the law but im lucky enough to have alot of enclosed land so my dog could stil be off lead and have freedom luckly!


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

I'd do what they said to allow me t keep said dog- would then look at my breed choice for the future.


----------



## catseyes (Sep 10, 2010)

I would abide the rules to make sure i could keep my dog, wouldnt be happy about it but would do it.. cant see cockapoos or oes becoming banned any time soon though.


----------



## missRV (Nov 9, 2012)

Well I doubt cav x bichons will become a 'banned breed' or that either dog within her cross would be classed as 'dangerous' but she's always on a leash and harness anyway. She'd look pretty daft with a muzzle  especially as she's the daftest thing ever! But if it's the law and necessary to ensure that I keep her then I would.

I think often it's dogs who are wrongly trained by humans who become dangerous.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

ouesi said:


> I'm really surprised more folks aren't outspokenly fighting against breed bans in the UK. It *seems like* (I know it's a generalization, but just commenting on the small sample I see), but it seems like the majority of those posting in opposition of breed bans are folks who own breeds that are already questionable or that might be next.
> 
> So what would you do?
> If legislation was passed that made your dog a banned breed, what would you do? Would you move to another country? Would you get rid of your dog? Would you follow the law and keep your perfectly friendly dog muzzled and leashed anytime he left the house?


I am in complete opposition to the breed bans. I have seen the descriptions of how to identify a banned breed which are given to staff in a London council and they are so vague it's laughable.

But I doubt Irish setters will be banned - unless someone determines their over exuberance might knock an old lady over.

But let's face it. Knowledgeable dog lovers would never support a ban, but non dog lovers hold sway, and who knows what they might come up with.

I cannot imagine someone telling me my dog had to be neutered , muzzled, and not allowed off lead. My heart goes out to families owning much loved pets that this has already happened to.


----------



## JessIncaFCR (Oct 1, 2012)

I can't see flat coats being banned but I would stick to the rules and muzzle them etc. If they had to remain on the lead, I would probably get some more land or move to a house with a huge garden so they could still have some free running


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Kes isn't a breed but if there was a realistic chance of her being identified as illegal I would muzzle and walk onlead, and save up money to move to another country where we could be free. I get too much enjoyment out of having her off lead in the countryside to restrict her for the rest of her life.


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

I'd just use a muzzle. Being slightly inconvenienced wouldn't stop me owning a dog that I love .


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

I hope this isn't taken in a way to offend anyone  
But I do wonder why people knowingly choose to own/breed a dog that fits the description of a banned dog and spend their time worrying that someone could report their dog or that it may be seized at any time?
One of the considerations I had when thinking about getting our 1st dog was that it would be accepted by our friends, family and neighbours and fit into our lifestyle and social circumstances - I hope that doesn't sound patronising, but I'm finding it difficult to explain what I mean  Sorry

But I do object to the legislation as it stands I do believe it should be deed not breed, major changes need to be made in our society and how we would enforce these changes.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Have to say, I haven't read anywhere that there will be more breeds added to the list, but it's been mentioned a couple of times on here now so I'm getting paranoid


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Fleur said:


> I hope this isn't taken in a way to offend anyone
> But I do wonder why people choose to own/breed a dog that fits the description of a banned dog and spend their time worrying that someone could report their dog or that it may be seized at any time?
> One of the considerations I had when thinking about getting our 1st dog was that it would be accepted by our friends, family and neighbours and fit into our lifestyle and social circumstances - I hope that doesn't sound patronising, but I'm finding it difficult to explain what I mean  Sorry
> 
> But I do object to the legislation as it stands I do believe it should be deed not breed, major changes need to be made in our society and how we would enforce these changes.


As it stands any dog can be reported, it doesn't need to be 'of type' so I don't think it's all that relevant. For people who purposely go out to buy banned breeds well..I don't think we want to know why they choose those types of dogs to be honest. I know for me I like big dogs, I like muscly dogs and I like how their personality is, I couldn't see myself owning a small or fluffy dog, it takes all sorts thankfully as it would be very boring if we all wanted the same things.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Well Brock's a rottie - which is a breed often mentioned...

Neutering's not a problem, I'll be doing that when he's an adult anyway, muzzling I have no plans for - but it wouldn't be too bad, it would stop him eating things and licking random people as they walk past, so it could actually be a good thing, lol.

I would be really sad to not let him off lead, I've just put him through an operation in the hope that his leg will then work well enough to let him run and play. I wouldn't have any option though as buying a house with land just won't be possible and there's nowhere even remotely nearby where I could sneakily let him off.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

simplysardonic said:


> Have to say, I haven't read anywhere that there will be more breeds added to the list, but it's been mentioned a couple of times on here now so I'm getting paranoid


If I'm honest I can't see any law being passed that affected breeds we all know like rotties, staffs etc. It would cause too much uproar as thousands upon thousands of people own them. The reason the DDA got passed imo is tha the dogs on there were not numerous.


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

I'm not sure- I'd would of course do all the reasonable things required to keep my dog within the law but I am not sure I would be entirely honest if I said I would never have it unmuzzled/off leash if in a safe and deserted place. 

The Lennox case made me think about this an awful lot (even though I am unlikely to face it owning a chi), if ever I was in a situation where my dog's life was threatened by the council/authority (for non-compliance versus something like an attack) then I'd get him over the border or over to England sharpish rather than have him legally seized and potentially destroyed. This would only apply if a ban came into place whilst I was already in possession of the dog as I'd never go out of my way to own a banned breed.


----------



## LahLahsDogs (Jul 4, 2012)

What about cross breeds?... I suspect Spencer may have some Staff in him, and I imagine Staffies could be a breed that may be effected by such a legislation.. (or maybe not.. i've not heard too much about it). Would a cross of a certain breed still need to be kept on a lead and muzzled?

It'd be a darn shame but of course i'd do what's necessary rather than risk him being taken away. (Same for Rufus, but i've never heard any bad press about French Bulldogs so doubt he'd be effected)


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Well i probably own 2 of the breeds that alot of people want banned.

Firstly would i give them up? hell no. My dogs are going no where. 

Would i try and get them on exempted lists? i don't no TBH harv would pass the temperament test every day but then what about Chance. Oh forgot the neutering would pee me off as i know with exempted dogs it's mandatory but i do not want harv neutered 

I would just probably carry on as we are keeping out of trouble and not giving anyone any excuse to report the boys


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Fleur said:


> I hope this isn't taken in a way to offend anyone
> But I do wonder why people knowingly choose to own/breed a dog that fits the description of a banned dog and spend their time worrying that someone could report their dog or that it may be seized at any time?
> One of the considerations I had when thinking about getting our 1st dog was that it would be accepted by our friends, family and neighbours and fit into our lifestyle and social circumstances - I hope that doesn't sound patronising, but I'm finding it difficult to explain what I mean  Sorry
> 
> But I do object to the legislation as it stands I do believe it should be deed not breed, major changes need to be made in our society and how we would enforce these changes.


With the law as it stands now, they don't need to be a pitbull or have any pitbull relatives to be declared a pitbull type. Just fit a very vague description. Puppies of mixed or unknown parentage quite often end up looking very different as adults.


----------



## 8tansox (Jan 29, 2010)

pogo said:


> Well i probably own 2 of the breeds that alot of people want banned.
> 
> Firstly would i give them up? hell no. My dogs are going no where.
> 
> ...


this..... got Rotties, always been a worry to me but no, I'd not move to another country, nor would I flout the law. I'd do all I could to keep my dogs safe from idiots.

Wonder how Fletcher would get on in his PAT visits though if he had to be muzzled all the time. :confused1:


----------



## LahLahsDogs (Jul 4, 2012)

8tansox said:


> Wonder how Fletcher would get on in his PAT visits though if he had to be muzzled all the time. :confused1:


That's a point... what about dogs that may be on the list, but have passed something like a PAT assessment? Would they be exempt from having to be kept on lead and muzzled?.. Maybe there should be a qualification that you/your dog can get if it wants to be excluded from having to wear muzzles and kept on a lead. Maybe that'd encourage people to keep certain breeds and be responsible with them?.. or maybe i'm being too naive.


----------



## sharloid (Apr 15, 2012)

Huskies are on lead dogs anyway (well most - mine included), so having to muzzle them wouldn't be so hard. 

However, I wouldn't want to live in a country where my dogs were feared/hated etc so I'd seriously consider moving abroad.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

8tansox said:


> this..... got Rotties, always been a worry to me but no, I'd not move to another country, nor would I flout the law. I'd do all I could to keep my dogs safe from idiots.
> 
> Wonder how Fletcher would get on in his PAT visits though if he had to be muzzled all the time. :confused1:


I've seen a few photos of pits in the US that were therapy dogs when bans came in working muzzled but I can't imagine people would take too well to it.


----------



## Sandysmum (Sep 18, 2010)

What about mongerels, like Jet, would they ever be on a banned list? If so, then I'd do what the law said in order to keep him. Moving to another country isn't an option I'd consider though.


----------



## maisey (Oct 26, 2010)

I was very lucky years ago to meet a red nose pitbull puppy, ever since I met this puppy I would love a pitbull. 
The puppy was so affectinate and intelligent and I can definitly understand why they are so popular in america. 
Unfortunatly the puppy was force to turn vicious and ended up being killed in a dog fight if the rumors were true anyway. 

I don't agree with any dogs being banned, it is the owners and soon enough people will get bored of staffys so we will have to wait and see what poor breed they pick on next. 

I don't think i'll be effected at all by any of it, unless they plan to class being slobbered on as savage and poisonous. lol


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

jetsmum said:


> What about mongerels, like Jet, would they ever be on a banned list? If so, then I'd do what the law said in order to keep him. Moving to another country isn't an option I'd consider though.


If he fell under a certain type he would be, the list doesn't ban breeds but types of dogs.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

tabulahrasa said:


> With the law as it stands now, they don't need to be a pitbull or have any pitbull relatives to be declared a pitbull type. Just fit a very vague description. Puppies of mixed or unknown parentage quite often end up looking very different as adults.


That's why I said 'knowingly' - I see a fair few adverts for Staffie x boxers - to me I'd of thought these would likely to grow up to fit the 'description' so although I love Staffies and Boxers I wouldn't buy this cross thinking all the time that some one could take my dog from me


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

I find it quite sad the aount of people who say it wouldnt happen to their breed  I guess its one of those things which until your possibly in that situation its easy to not worry about but its a dangerous attitude to have. But considering the status and troubled breeds of the past who knows which breed could be next. 

We have a farm in Poland - I love the uk but wouldnt live here if Millie had go be muzzled/ leashed when we have an alternative. I would drive Millie out there before any ban came in, me and hubby would follow permenantly asap - What better excuse for a early retirement. 

Obs without this option I would comply with the law. I would consider pts rather than Millie spending years/ months in a kennel situation if it came to that- as I know this would be horrendousfor her and selfish on me to drag things on whilst she suffers. 


You never know in the future there could be harsher dog laws for alot more breeds or accross all breeds. I dont think any breed or owner is guaranteed safe


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

I'd get myself a paddock and erect secure fencing and allow my dogs to exercise there and at all other times I would adhere to the law. :thumbsup:


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Fleur said:


> That's why I said 'knowingly' - I see a fair few adverts for Staffie x boxers - to me I'd of thought these would likely to grow up to fit the 'description' so although I love Staffies and Boxers I wouldn't buy this cross thinking all the time that some one could take my dog from me


I don't think it necessarily crosses someone's mind though - it wouldn't mine if I was at a rescue looking at a litter of staffy lab cross puppies and they can be quite 'type' looking.

I'd be going ooh, puppies... I like staffs, I like labs...


----------



## Coffee (Jul 31, 2011)

Everything about BSL makes me feel sick to my stomach.

I agree with Milliepoochie above...I really don't think any breed is 'safe' from the mad laws in this ever increasingly ridiculous country 

One of my (and his) greatest pleasures is watching Alfie run... if he were to be never allowed to do this again I would have to consider his quality of life before agreeing to muzzle and lead him for the rest of his days...


----------



## tiatortilla (Oct 1, 2012)

i have to say, even if it is unlikely, it's a big worry for me with tia being reactive on lead, but absolutely fine off lead - i would HATE to restrict her to being miserable on a lead when i know that she's lovely with other dogs when off. i don't know what i'd do tbh - i'm probably at risk as it is if anyone decided to report us, she's a lanky non KC reg staff :/
obv i'd adhere to the rules in order to keep her but i wouldn't be happy about it and would definitely consider moving to another country.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

ouesi said:


> That has survived over 20 years. * If it's daft, why has it not been repealed?*


Because daft laws never are


----------



## Booties (Nov 23, 2012)

I would stick to the rules, while stirring up some major sh*t.

There is absolutely no way I would muzzle, neuter (I don't like to do this unless necessary for health reasons) and confine my perfectly friendly dog without throwing a very, very serious hissy fit. 
There would be angry letters, rallying MPs, touring with petitions and some peaceful-yet-ballsy protesting going on. 

I would pour through every law book in the country to find one law that proves this as being against human/animal rights, etc.

If this is to no avail, I would leave the country without hesitation.
Be arsed if I'm paying taxes to a country where me and my beloved animals are miserable just so that a couple of parents who let their kids touch strange dogs can feel better about themselves


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

I'd like to think that as approximately 23% of households have dogs if the government try to ban more breeds/restrict all dogs us dog owners would vote for which ever other party wasn't.
But apathy is sadly to prevalent


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

No breed I own or am interested is likely to be banned. If they were, presumably every other breed of dog would also be banned, which hopefully will never happen. 

If some ridiculous dictatorial rule came in that all dogs had to be kept on a lead and muzzled, then no way in hell would I be following it. Nor would anyone else I would imagine so good luck to any government that hopes to police such a rule. I don't believe it would ever come to that though; there would be uproar.


----------



## Booties (Nov 23, 2012)

Fleur said:


> I'd like to think that as approximately 23% of households have dogs if the government try to ban more breeds/restrict all dogs us dog owners would vote for which ever other party wasn't.
> But apathy is sadly to prevalent


Considering all the things the current Government are getting away with, it's unlikely, huh?
Especially since it's apparently okay for them to shoot at teenagers peacefully protesting student fees, and they've demonised every single person on any kind of benefits so that disabled folk, single mothers, etc. are all viewed as scum without any personal consideration


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

I find the whole "well I cant see MY breed getting banned" so bizarre. I can not see why ANY breed is banned- becasue I understand that Any dog can be dangerous in the wrong hands- it should be about the individual dog, and that individual dogs behaviour regardless of wether it is a 70kg Mastiff, a 30kg Lab or a 2kg Chi!!


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

Booties said:


> I would stick to the rules, while stirring up some major sh*t.
> 
> There is absolutely no way I would muzzle, neuter (I don't like to do this unless necessary for health reasons) and confine my perfectly friendly dog without throwing a very, very serious hissy fit.
> There would be angry letters, rallying MPs, touring with petitions and some peaceful-yet-ballsy protesting going on.
> ...


 46 posts and FINALLY someone says they would fight the law. Seriously?
Why are you guys not fighting this law that's in place NOW? 
Why do so many of you think your breed is exempt. "Oh well, it won't happen to me, my dogs won't get banned, if it does, I'll just get a different type of dog..." Really?? I'm totally gobsmacked at the laissez-faire attitude.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

ouesi said:


> 46 posts and FINALLY someone says they would fight the law. Seriously?
> Why are you guys not fighting this law that's in place NOW?
> Why do so many of you think your breed is exempt. "Oh well, it won't happen to me, my dogs won't get banned, *if it does, I'll just get a different type of dog..."* Really?? I'm totally gobsmacked at the laissez-faire attitude.


Someone said this?


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Lexiedhb said:


> I find the whole "well I cant see MY breed getting banned" so bizarre. I can not see why ANY breed is banned- becasue I understand that Any dog can be dangerous in the wrong hands- it should be about the individual dog, and that individual dogs behaviour regardless of wether it is a 70kg Mastiff, a 30kg Lab or a 2kg Chi!!


My, very embarassingly  , limited Knowledge of the current laws is that as well as the list of banned breeds, discription of type that is any person feels threatened or is harmed by any dog in a public place then this dog falls under current legislation and could be siezed/destroyed.
However realisticly if a 70kg Mastiff lunged at someone they would feel much more threatened than a if a 2kg chi did the same - they may well take the time to report the Mastiff but brush off the chi.
It's got to be easier to kick a chi half way across the park than to stop a 70kg mastiff attacking

(and I do love big dogs - just being devils advocate )


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

I think you'll find ouesi that in recent times protests are fairly meaningless in this country, and the British as a society are not prone to taking to the streets in protest, we are more sitting in armchairs and moaning types  When all protesting gets you is teargassed, beaten and herded I think we find it quite disheartening.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Fleur said:


> My, very embarassingly  , limited Knowledge of the current laws is that as well as the list of banned breeds, discription of type that is any person feels threatened or is harmed by any dog in a public place then this dog falls under current legislation and could be siezed/destroyed.
> However realisticly if a 70kg Mastiff lunged at someone they would feel much more threatened than a if a 2kg chi did the same - they may well take the time to report the Mastiff but brush off the chi.
> It's got to be easier to kick a chi half way across the park than to stop a 70kg mastiff attacking
> 
> (and I do love big dogs - just being devils advocate )


Being a dog lover and dog person I'd report either, I don't believe size matters in the slightest, perhaps it's just lucky that not everyone thinks the same way.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Blitz said:


> I think it is highly unlikely that there will any more 'banned' breeds. In fact the new legislation will pretty much cut out the banned breeds wont it, or have I read things wrong.
> Not much chance of my breed ever being banned anyway- and none of the breeds that spring to mind appeal to me anyway.
> 
> It is a daft law and hardly anyone had ever heard of pit bulls when it came about let alone the other breeds - but now everyone knows all about pit bulls and a certain element of society are determined to own them and breed them.


The thread and links for the recommendations of adding breeds is here:

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat...eport-wants-extend-abilty-ban-any-breeds.html


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

People are fighting it. Many dog owners who do not own a breed that may be targeted are not tho- which is sad.


----------



## tiatortilla (Oct 1, 2012)

ouesi said:


> 46 posts and FINALLY someone says they would fight the law. Seriously?


oh, that was what i meant by "i wouldn't be happy about it". i didn't mean i'd be sitting at home being annoyed about it, i just didn't elaborate lol.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Fleur said:


> My, very embarassingly  , limited Knowledge of the current laws is that as well as the list of banned breeds, discription of type that is any person feels threatened or is harmed by any dog in a public place then this dog falls under current legislation and could be siezed/destroyed.
> However realisticly if a 70kg Mastiff lunged at someone they would feel much more threatened than a if a 2kg chi did the same - they may well take the time to report the Mastiff but brush off the chi.
> It's got to be easier to kick a chi half way across the park than to stop a 70kg mastiff attacking
> 
> (and I do love big dogs - just being devils advocate )


By this logic only dogs under 10kg should be "allowed" then!! :eek6: It should still be about the behaviour of individual dogs regardless of breed or size!


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Phoolf said:


> Being a dog lover and dog person I'd report either, I don't believe size matters in the slightest, perhaps it's just lucky that not everyone thinks the same way.


But 77% of households don't own dogs so the majority of people in this situation wouldn't have the same attitude as you 
And size does have an impact whether we like it or not if Chi attacked me I'd stamp on it if a Mastiff attacked me I don't rate my chances

(like I say I'm trying to look at it form the non-dog persons point of view)


----------



## sharloid (Apr 15, 2012)

ouesi said:


> 46 posts and FINALLY someone says they would fight the law. Seriously?
> Why are you guys not fighting this law that's in place NOW?


I wouldn't bother fighting the law. This country really isn't worth it. I'd just leave.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

tiatortilla said:


> oh, that was what i meant by "i wouldn't be happy about it". i didn't mean i'd be sitting at home being annoyed about it, i just didn't elaborate lol.


Same. I have quite the Mary Whitehouse relationship with my lovely MP already, rest assured it would be ramped up if this ever got seriously proposed :lol:


----------



## 8tansox (Jan 29, 2010)

Some of us register, march, write to MP's, try to educate against BSL all the time, we just don't bang on about what we do on a _regular basis_. Some of us go about these things quietly.... 

If someone is knocked over by a car, is the car in trouble or the driver?

If someone is stabbed or shot, is the knife or gun to blame or the person using them?

Then WHY is a dog to blame when things go wrong. Blame the other end of the lead not the dog.

Please don't assume that there's nothing going on in the UK about BSL, there most definitely IS! I'm a little part of it.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Fleur said:


> But 77% of households don't own dogs so the majority of people in this situation wouldn't have the same attitude as you
> And size does have an impact whether we like it or not if Chi attacked me I'd stamp on it if a Mastiff attacked me I don't rate my chances
> 
> (like I say I'm trying to look at it form the non-dog persons point of view)


I would report the dog regardless though so what's the difference? :confused1: A chi with bad bite inhibition could do more harm to me than a mastiff with good bite inhibition, it also depends entirely on intent from where I'm sat. A warning bite from a mastiff wouldn't shake me up as much as a truly human aggressive smaller dog. Like I say, perhaps those with smaller dogs are lucky they can probably get away with more.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Lexiedhb said:


> By this logic only dogs under 10kg should be "allowed" then!! :eek6: It should still be about the behaviour of individual dogs regardless of breed or size!


I totally agree - but it's not always logic - how many aggressive small dogs are reported in comparison to large breeds being reported? not saying it 's right just how it is


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

ouesi said:


> 46 posts and FINALLY someone says they would fight the law. Seriously?
> Why are you guys not fighting this law that's in place NOW?
> Why do so many of you think your breed is exempt. "Oh well, it won't happen to me, my dogs won't get banned, if it does, I'll just get a different type of dog..." Really?? I'm totally gobsmacked at the laissez-faire attitude.


people have been fighting the law for years and years guess what it's done? sod all!

As someone else said this country isn't worth it


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

@Phoolf yep, folks said they'd get a different type of dog:


Fleur said:


> The simplest response I can give is that I would comply to the new legislation by muzzling keeping on lead my existing dogs and *never owning that breed again.*But only so I wasn't breaking the law  or putting dogs at risk of being seized





gem88 said:


> would be very surprised if springers were banned but if they were i would do anything i could to keep them with me and *after that i would not have them again,* but only so i wasnt breaking the law





> Lexiedhb said:
> 
> 
> > *I find the whole "well I cant see MY breed getting banned" so bizarre.* I can not see why ANY breed is banned- becasue I understand that Any dog can be dangerous in the wrong hands- it should be about the individual dog, and that individual dogs behaviour regardless of wether it is a 70kg Mastiff, a 30kg Lab or a 2kg Chi!!
> ...


This. This is what blows my mind. "Eh... doesn't affect my breed. Must suck for those poor pitbull type owners, oh well, let's see what's on the telly..."
How can ANY dog owner not be adamantly and vocally opposed to breed bans?? I don't get it!


----------



## SLB (Apr 25, 2011)

Leanne77 once said that if dogs were to be muzzled and kept on leads at all times - she would cease to own them. I think I would do the same. 

Sad sad times ahead I predict.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Fleur said:


> I totally agree - but it's not always logic - how many aggressive small dogs are reported in comparison to large breeds being reported? not saying it 's right just how it is


I dunno. A work collegue (who was a dog owner- collie, sadly passed) got bitten outside her house by a Bichon- or some other little curly white fluffy type she was not sure :lol:

Now this dog was on a lead- and just lashed out and bit her HARD on the calf- the bruise was horrendous, and it broke the skin- yes she reported it - as I think anyone would had they been bitten by a strangers dog, large or small!


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

8tansox said:


> Please don't assume that there's nothing going on in the UK about BSL, there most definitely IS! I'm a little part of it.


This is reassuring to hear. Sometimes on some threads here I don't get that impression at all...


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

ouesi said:


> @Phoolf yep, folks said they'd get a different type of dog:
> 
> This. This is what blows my mind. "Eh... doesn't affect my breed. Must suck for those poor pitbull type owners, oh well, let's see what's on the telly..."
> How can ANY dog owner not be adamantly and vocally opposed to breed bans?? I don't get it!


Same reason many straight folk did not give a fig about the recent marriage for homosexuals thingamy- did not really affect them - so yeah- whats on the TV......:eek6:


----------



## Booties (Nov 23, 2012)

Yup, I have to say, as much as I would protest (and DO protest about things now), I have very little hope that it would do anything.

This country is under glorified dictatorship.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

ouesi said:


> 46 posts and FINALLY someone says they would fight the law. Seriously?
> Why are you guys not fighting this law that's in place NOW?
> Why do so many of you think your breed is exempt. "Oh well, it won't happen to me, my dogs won't get banned, if it does, I'll just get a different type of dog..." Really?? I'm totally gobsmacked at the laissez-faire attitude.


I never said I wouldn't fight it - but I wouldn't break the law - you asked if the legislation had been passed already what would I do - I'd abide by it whilst looking for ways to fight it, I wuldn't flought the law though and out my dogs in danger.



Phoolf said:


> Someone said this?


I said I wouldn't own that breed again if it was banned as I wouldn't risk my dogs being seized kept in kennels for years and finally destroyed


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

ouesi said:


> 46 posts and FINALLY someone says they would fight the law. Seriously?
> Why are you guys not fighting this law that's in place NOW?
> Why do so many of you think your breed is exempt. "Oh well, it won't happen to me, my dogs won't get banned, if it does, I'll just get a different type of dog..." Really?? I'm totally gobsmacked at the laissez-faire attitude.


Well to be fair, I didn't say what I would do other than comply...of course I'd try to fight it, but not by breaking it, I wouldn't risk the life of my dog. I've signed too many petitions and written too many letters to my MP about harmless family pets that have already died because somebody decided that looked wrong to do anything that would jeopardise my dog.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Mine are all insured, neutered and chipped so if it just meant muzzling in public then so be it. They are now walked on private land with permission of the farmer, locked gate which I have a key so I'm not too worried anyway. They are never off lead even in that field so the likely hood of them causing and damage is very slim.

If it were a law I would follow it for the sake of my dogs.

ETA - Many of us have signed petitions, written to our MP's even the PM but still nothing is done. If the RSPCA and other organisations aren't listened to I'm pretty sure they won't take any notice of us pet owners. There are many laws over here that are ridiculous but this is the UK and no matter what you do, you simply aren't taken seriously! This is what we call democracy!


----------



## Kitty_pig (Apr 9, 2011)

I dont have a dog at the moment because I dont have the time to look after one properly or the money. I would love a Rottie or Staffy  I cant understand this law that bans the dog and not the idiotic owners that dont train them correctly or even force them to become violent. I have not seen any petitions about changing the law, are there any? Dont know if they would do any good but if nobody tries then nothing will change. Im sure/hoping someone somewhere is trying hard. And for those saying they doubt their breed woould ever be on the banned list.....it would only take one occassion for the breed to be looked at more closely. And fwiw Ive met some nasty little chiuahahs (sorry if spelt wrong) and yorkies etc in my life :lol:


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

The Sarplaninac is banned in Denmark and as a punishment for that little indiscretion we no longer buy Lurpak butter.


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

I would abide by the law as I would not risk having my dog taking away from me 

I wouldn't like it... .but I would have no other choice


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

I think banning Breeds is pointless as all someone has to do is cross some random dogs and encourage aggresion and they've got what they wanted 
It's almost impossible to use a physical 'discription' to effectively enforce the bans as they end up fitting perfectly calm and friendly dogs and not matching aggresive dogs.
It has to be deed not breed - it has to be about responisble ownership - but I'm afraid I don't know how to go about that and nor do I think does the majority of the country or our politicians


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Fleur said:


> I think banning Breeds is pointless as all someone has to do is cross some random dogs and encourage aggresion and they've got what they wanted
> It's almost impossible to use a physical 'discription' to effectively enforce the bans as they end up fitting perfectly calm and friendly dogs and not matching aggresive dogs.
> It has to be deed not breed - it has to be about responisble ownership - but I'm afraid I don't know how to go about that and nor do I think does the majority of the country or our politicians


Here's one answer - annual dog licenses and all the funds go towards more proactive dog wardens. People fined or given legal warnings for having dogs off lead near roads, for any evidence that their dog has been out of control and dangerous etc. If laws were properly enforced I doubt we would be in the mess. If people didn't feel they could get away with murder then they would HAVE to be more responsible - simple as that. I see off lead dogs next to roads every single day, and always different ones, it's obvious to see that people don't give two hoots about the laws and if they were fined or warned then they may well change their mind.

The issue is enforcement and funding imo.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

I don't know if it's just apathy or that i'm just "one person what can I do?" thing

For anyone who just needs a little guidance the kennel club have a lovely guide to writing a letter to your MP not simply a template letter than will be more easily overlooked. In addition there is guidance for arranging a meeting with your MP and advice on how to make that meeting successful

The Kennel Clubs Guide to Letter Writing - The Kennel Club

I don't know if anyone has linked this before apologies if you have and I missed it ( and if you did great minds and all that )


----------



## Beth17 (Jun 5, 2012)

I wouldn't give up the breed I love because some faceless body believes them to be dangerous. I would abide by the law so that I didn't risk them whilst doing whatever I could to get said stupid law overturned. If that wouldn't work I'm afraid I'd just leave the country.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Fleur said:


> That's why I said 'knowingly' - I see a fair few adverts for Staffie x boxers - to me I'd of thought these would likely to grow up to fit the 'description' so although I love Staffies and Boxers I wouldn't buy this cross thinking all the time that some one could take my dog from me


I don't see why, with crosses like staffy/boxer of staffy/lab that can look rather like pitbulls, people don't take photos of the pups with the lab or boxer mum (with the size difference it's more likely the boxer of lab would be the dam), series of photos as pup grows up = proof of parentage.

But to answer the original question, I'd do whatever it took to keep my dogs safe; if the dogs were young enough to make it worthwhile, I'd look into emigrating to a more liberal country. Can't see collie types being banned though - who would manage the sheep?


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

8tansox said:


> Some of us register, march, write to MP's, try to educate against BSL all the time, we just don't bang on about what we do on a _regular basis_. Some of us go about these things quietly....
> 
> If someone is knocked over by a car, is the car in trouble or the driver?
> 
> ...


As sentient beings rather than inanimate objects, dogs are capable of exercising free will. Comparing dog attacks with car accidents and stabbings is a bad analogy - knives, guns, cars do not possess brains and are unable to act by themselves.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Burrowzig said:


> I don't see why, with crosses like staffy/boxer of staffy/lab that can look rather like pitbulls, people don't take photos of the pups with the lab or boxer mum (with the size difference it's more likely the boxer of lab would be the dam), series of photos as pup grows up = proof of parentage.
> 
> But to answer the original question, I'd do whatever it took to keep my dogs safe; if the dogs were young enough to make it worthwhile, I'd look into emigrating to a more liberal country. Can't see collie types being banned though - who would manage the sheep?


Someone tried that they had the staffy parents of a dog that was seized. They gave them over to the police to be assessed to try and save the puppy. the parents ended up on the register too .

I think banning border collies would be the one step too far. All the agility and obedience people would have a heart attack.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

ouesi said:


> That has survived over 20 years. If it's daft, why has it not been repealed?


Perhaps because our government cannot bear to admit that they were wrong, even though it is a different government. I am not sure what else can be done, we have had petitions and have written to our MPs and in my case had a reply assuring me that it would be looked into.

I understand that in Spain my dogs would be considered a dangerous breed simply because of their size. All dogs over 25 kgs I think I read on an ex-pats forum have to have vet checks and behaviour checks to be sure they are safe and then registered as such.

If they were to ban newfies what would I do? I certainly would not muzzle them nor deprive them of their daily playtime. I may move to another country if that were possible, or I may move to one of our more remote places which still exist, the Outer Hebrides or somewhere. I would possibly even go into the next life and take them with me, though that would be a last resort.

Come to think of it, what is being in done in the US where you have to be sure of your breed before you cross state lines with them, just in case they are banned in that state.

Not much to be done about the stupidity of government except quietly go about your business, I suppose.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

8tansox said:


> Some of us register, march, write to MP's, try to educate against BSL all the time, we just don't bang on about what we do on a _regular basis_. Some of us go about these things quietly....
> 
> If someone is knocked over by a car, is the car in trouble or the driver?
> 
> ...


I think this is a very poor analogy. It is illegal to own a gun without a license and it is illegal to carry a knife in public. It has affected huge numbers of people who have a legitimate reason for having a gun or a knife but because of a very few irresponsible gun and knife users the responsible majority have to suffer.

Before Dunblane shooting was a popular sport - now it is very difficult to do and gun clubs have fallen by the wayside. In my sport carrying a knife is mandatory but it is illegal to do so in a public place so I have to either break the law or risk not having the tools to defuse an accident.

Why do dog owners think the same thing cannot happen to them.


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

Malmum said:


> ETA - Many of us have signed petitions, written to our MP's even the PM but still nothing is done. If the RSPCA and other organisations aren't listened to I'm pretty sure they won't take any notice of us pet owners. There are many laws over here that are ridiculous but this is the UK and no matter what you do, you simply aren't taken seriously! This is what we call democracy!


Malmum, you have very clearly said before on this forum that you agree with the law as it currently stands, that you agree with pitbulls being banned. What letters did you write exactly?



newfiesmum said:


> I understand that in Spain my dogs would be considered a dangerous breed simply because of their size. All dogs over 25 kgs I think I read on an ex-pats forum have to have vet checks and behaviour checks to be sure they are safe and then registered as such.


See, I'm more inclined to put up with a law based on size than based on breed. That makes more sense, especially if it is based on size AND a temperament test. But restrictions based on breed, or worse the "look" of a dog are just ludicrous. Though to be clear I don't support ANY law based on the dog, rather on the owner and how responsible they are.



newfiesmum said:


> Come to think of it, what is being in done in the US where you have to be sure of your breed before you cross state lines with them, just in case they are banned in that state.


There are no state wide bans of any breed in the US. Ohio had a state-wide ban but it was repealed in 2012 - in large part because of public pressure 
Cities, towns and municipalities do have bans and restrictions, fueled in large part, as in the UK, by sensationalistic media coverage of dog attacks. In fact in a town near us, a dog killed a child while the parent slept in the next room (that in itself should be telling). The story ran in many papers with a stock photo of a snarling brindle pitbull, even though the dog in question was clearly a furry, golden colored dog with a long, pointy snout.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

There was a min pin escaped while it in was in cabin on a flight and bit someone. The press said it was a pitbull at first. 
1. It was in the cabin so a toy dog
2.

Min pin









Pitbull









or how the media sees it









Totally the same breed right :confused1:


----------



## Wildmoor (Oct 31, 2011)

Beth17 said:


> I wouldn't give up the breed I love because some faceless body believes them to be dangerous. I would abide by the law so that I didn't risk them whilst doing whatever I could to get said stupid law overturned. If that wouldn't work I'm afraid I'd just leave the country.


As above if GSDs were on restrictions - they need free running, my other breed isnt likely to be banned only my 2 here and they would only bite an intrudor into my property with 7ft fence around nobody as an excuse to be in my rear garden apart from my window cleaner, if I am in the dogs are in the house when he is here when out they are in a secure kennel/run


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

I see the point you're making, oeusi, but to be honest, I have absolutely no idea how to go about changing any things that I think need to be changed.

You can vote for the party that you want in charge of the government - look how that turned out, with a coalition.
You can write letters and have meetings with MPs - I haven't heard of an important issue ever being solved in this way, but I could be wrong.
You can protest peacefully, like when students protested against the university fees rise - that went ahead from this September just gone.
You can protest violently, for example, the riots in London and other cities. Somebody could have stood up beforehand and said exactly why they were rioting, and what against, but I just don't think most of the British have the mindset to be able to display that sort of violence with aforethought. It was mostly thugs, anyway, who takes them seriously? And even if it was normal people, of all ages, I don't think the government would be held to ransom like that.

That being said, I think the last option would be the most likely to succeed. But given that only 23% of households own a dog (thanks, whoever said that earlier) how many of those would bother?

I just have no clue how we can make ourselves be heard - and have our voices acted upon.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Megan345 said:


> I see the point you're making, oeusi, but to be honest, I have absolutely no idea how to go about changing any things that I think need to be changed.
> 
> You can vote for the party that you want in charge of the government - look how that turned out, with a coalition.
> You can write letters and have meetings with MPs - I haven't heard of an important issue ever being solved in this way, but I could be wrong.
> ...


How about 23% of the population go on a dog walk in London? :lol:


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

To be honest, I don't really know what I'd do. If you lobby and lobby and lobby people who actually vote for the damn law to be passed or repealed etc, may not be dog owners themselves so they feel it doesn't affect them. 

And people on here are going on about being muzzled and on-lead in public as if its a travesty. A fair amount of greyhounds and lurchers have to be kept on-lead and muzzled, not necessarily because they will bite a person, but because of chasing smaller prey. They can still lead very fulfilled lives, it doesn't make them any lesser of a dog and it doesn't make an owner any lesser of an owner.


----------



## Wildmoor (Oct 31, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> How about 23% of the population go on a dog walk in London? :lol:


Maybe if enough did they may overturn like the Poll Tax


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

I would comply with the law to keep my dog safe. 

Ex-racing greyhounds are usually rehomed neutered and a large number of them are walked on leads and muzzled. I don't think they suffer because of it. Their owners often seek out privately owned fenced areas for free running.

Given the increasing number of unsocialised and aggressive dogs that I meet on a regular basis, maybe if all dogs had to be leashed and muzzled in public the rest of us could walk our dogs in peace?

If there were lots of properly fenced dog parks where dogs could safely be let off then maybe that would help strike some balance.

Soz, Lurcherowner, just seen your post - barking up the same tree


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

Wildmoor said:


> Maybe if enough did they may overturn like the Poll Tax


Could be... Bikers did actually manage to successfully protest against paying tolls to go over the new Severn Bridge. Let's all do that, a Monday rush hour should be good


----------



## tiatortilla (Oct 1, 2012)

LurcherOwner said:


> And people on here are going on about being muzzled and on-lead in public as if its a travesty.


sorry can't quote the whole post, but it kind of is. comparing it to greyhounds is different... they have a reason to be on lead.
my staffy who doesn't chase small furries, doesn't approach people or dogs, literally does NOTHING wrong when off lead shouldn't suddenly have her quality of life changed and it will make a huge difference to her to life imo!


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

tiatortilla said:


> sorry can't quote the whole post, but it kind of is. comparing it to greyhounds is different... they have a reason to be on lead.
> my staffy who doesn't chase small furries, doesn't approach people or dogs, literally does NOTHING wrong when off lead shouldn't suddenly have her quality of life changed and it will make a huge difference to her to life imo!


But if on leash and muzzled became law and all dogs complied then we would all be in the same boat, and no breeds would need to be banned?


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

tiatortilla said:


> sorry can't quote the whole post, but it kind of is. comparing it to greyhounds is different... they have a reason to be on lead.
> my staffy who doesn't chase small furries, doesn't approach people or dogs, literally does NOTHING wrong when off lead shouldn't suddenly have her quality of life changed and it will make a huge difference to her to life imo!


I do see your point. But let me give you another scenario. 
Lets say there are only two fields in your whole town that let dogs in, then suddenly one had sheep in and another you will be fined if your dog is offlead. Lets say you couldn't drive either. Then what would you do?

If you HAD to keep your dog on-lead, you would, because you would adapt your routine to still give your dog a high quality of life. Being on-lead does not affect quality of life.

I have a lurcher. Up until christmas he could go offlead, then that scenario above happened. We have nowhere safe offlead to go.
Has his quality of life suddenly changed? No! He gets a longer onlead walk with alot more mental stimulation at home. It has been over two months since this sudden change.


----------



## tiatortilla (Oct 1, 2012)

Lurcherlad said:


> But if on leash and muzzled became law and all dogs complied then we would all be in the same boat, and no breeds would need to be banned?


sorry but what an awful attitude! i can't even comprehend why you would want this for other owners and dogs?
idc if it meant we were "in the same boat", my girl is reactive on a lead and a totally different dog when she's running free, she's so much more confident. so no, i wouldn't be happy just because everyone had to!


----------



## tiatortilla (Oct 1, 2012)

lurcherowner (can't quote again sorry!) i'm sorry but i disagree that it doesn't affect their quality of life. maybe it doesn't for all dogs and it's great that yours hasn't been affected by it but mine would. see my post above - she's nervous and reactive on lead but happy and confident off lead, would you still say that doesn't affect her quality of life if she always has to be on a lead?


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

tiatortilla said:


> lurcherowner (can't quote again sorry!) i'm sorry but i disagree that it doesn't affect their quality of life. maybe it doesn't for all dogs and it's great that yours hasn't been affected by it but mine would. see my post above - she's nervous and reactive on lead but happy and confident off lead, would you still say that doesn't affect her quality of life if she always has to be on a lead?


It would initially, but then if she had to stay on-lead all the time, you'd have to work on the nervousness and reactivity till she overcame it. (I AM NOT SAYING YOU HAVE NOT BEEN WORKING HARD ON IT!) 
Of course she may not overcome it (some don't) then of course it would affect her quality of life, but not to the point that is life threatening.

It's a hard one really as every dog is different, but then if a law were passed that dogs of an XYZ breed/size/type had to be onlead and muzzled you would HAVE to adapt your dog to it.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

tiatortilla said:


> lurcherowner (can't quote again sorry!) i'm sorry but i disagree that it doesn't affect their quality of life. maybe it doesn't for all dogs and it's great that yours hasn't been affected by it but mine would. see my post above - she's nervous and reactive on lead but happy and confident off lead, would you still say that doesn't affect her quality of life if she always has to be on a lead?


Sorry to go off topic but what about if your dog sustained an injury that meant free running had to be restricted? Would you still feel that being on lead would diminish her quality of life? Or improve it?

When Florence tore her paw pad she was restricted to on lead exercise only. We actually ended up having a fun few weeks, with interesting visits to towns and National Trust places, lots of attention from people and lots of stimulation, out and about, and at home. I probably spent more time with her than normal. Since then, I do at least three walks a week exclusively on lead, and I'm sure it's improved Florence's focus on me.

On lead walking shouldn't always be viewed as taking away a dog's freedom, and it is an important part of an ongoing training regime, imo.


----------



## ButterflyBlue (Mar 29, 2010)

Ok, having seen the recent DEFRA report, I must say I am extremely worried about my breed. I own two cane corsos - they are italian mastiffs. My eldest who is a sweetheart and is afraid of her own shadow is an imported mastiff. Which DEFRA mention in their report as imposing a ban on imported mastiff types.

But having said this - if they make a law which says they are banned but dogs already owned before the ban with reliable, responsible owners are exempted provided that they are muzzled and leashed in public then I'd definitely abide by this!

Why?

When I'm out in public mine are always on a leash, even when we are in a park and they have their time to run around they are on a training line. Why? Because I want to protect them from strange people/strange dogs (basically the unknown) would I think twice about protecting them from being PTS? no of course not. I would muzzle/leash any time.


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

Slightly off-topic but I used to look after a Cane Corso where I used to work. 

Beautiful! :001_wub:


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

tiatortilla said:


> sorry but what an awful attitude! i can't even comprehend why you would want this for other owners and dogs?
> idc if it meant we were "in the same boat", my girl is reactive on a lead and a totally different dog when she's running free, she's so much more confident. so no, i wouldn't be happy just because everyone had to!


Calm down, just playing devil's advocate here. What if this scenario were to happen? What would you do then? Like Lurcherowner said, he doesn't have any choice now, but to walk on lead. Not his choice, but his dog has adapted. We all have to adapt to situations not of our choosing. I spend most of my walks avoiding other dogs. Not my choice, but I have adapted to the circumstances I face. Most dogs could adapt to wearing a muzzle if done properly.

Is there a reason your dog is reactive on lead?


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

Megan345 said:


> I see the point you're making, oeusi, but to be honest, I have absolutely no idea how to go about changing any things that I think need to be changed.
> 
> You can vote for the party that you want in charge of the government - look how that turned out, with a coalition.
> You can write letters and have meetings with MPs - I haven't heard of an important issue ever being solved in this way, but I could be wrong.
> ...


And that apathy is really frightening to me. We see it on this side of the pond too. It's the old, when they came for the communists thing... (When they came for the communists I stayed silent because I wasn't a communist. When they came for the socialists I stayed silent because I wasn't a socialist. When they came for the trade unionists I stayed silent because I wasn't a trade unionist. When they came for the jews I stayed silent because I wasn't a jew. When they came for me there was no one left to speak for me.) 
Short version - if it doesn't affect me directly why should I care?

IDK how to go about changing things other than to educate educate educate. Ask anyone who will listen, where is the evidence that breed bans work? Ask the media where is the evidence that breed bans work?
What is the government body there that keeps track of dog bite statistics? How many fatal bites, how many bites requiring medical attention? Look at the stats before the ban and after and you can clearly see that there is NOT a reduced rate of injuries.

Oh... and for all you saying you would comply with the law to keep your dog safe. From what I'm understanding, compliance doesn't necessarily mean your dog is safe right? If your neighbor decides to report your dog as "of type" can't the dog be seized regardless of how fully you as an owner have complied with your responsibilities?


----------



## ButterflyBlue (Mar 29, 2010)

LurcherOwner said:


> Slightly off-topic but I used to look after a Cane Corso where I used to work.
> 
> Beautiful! :001_wub:


Thanks  needless to say I am in love with both of my girls they are the best


----------



## tiatortilla (Oct 1, 2012)

bearcub said:


> Sorry to go off topic but what about if your dog sustained an injury that meant free running had to be restricted? Would you still feel that being on lead would diminish her quality of life? Or improve it?


neither, it would simply be a necessity.

and yes i am aware that if the law came in i would have to abide by it, but that doesn't mean i think it's in any way acceptable!
and yes i agree it is an important part of training and something we spend a lot of time on.


----------



## Wildmoor (Oct 31, 2011)

The NHS keeps stats of dog bites along with other animal bites and human bites the latter causing 5% of bites males on males in a certain age range - maybe they should also look at muzzling males in the 18-30 age bracket


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

Lurcherlad said:


> Calm down, just playing devil's advocate here. What if this scenario were to happen? What would you do then? Like Lurcherowner said, he doesn't have any choice now, but to walk on lead. Not his choice, but his dog has adapted. We all have to adapt to situations not of our choosing. I spend most of my walks avoiding other dogs. Not my choice, but I have adapted to the circumstances I face. Most dogs could adapt to wearing a muzzle if done properly.
> 
> Is there a reason your dog is reactive on lead?


Sorry to go offlead but Lurcherowner is in fact a woman. :lol:


----------



## ButterflyBlue (Mar 29, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Oh... and for all you saying you would comply with the law to keep your dog safe. From what I'm understanding, compliance doesn't necessarily mean your dog is safe right? If your neighbor decides to report your dog as "of type" can't the dog be seized regardless of how fully you as an owner have complied with your responsibilities?


I understand the point you make here, which is why I am afraid for my dogs. I've always been against BSL and always fought against it but I want to be in a position where if someone does decide to point a finger at both of my dogs I can actually fight back in court and prove that actually, no they have been raised well. I can start by saying "actually I have abided by the law and muzzled/leashed etc"

Unfortunately where the law is concerned, all we can do is abide by it and hope for the best... Look at what happened to poor Lennox


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

Wildmoor said:


> The NHS keeps stats of dog bites along with other animal bites and human bites the latter causing 5% of bites males on males in a certain age range - maybe they should also look at muzzling males in the 18-30 age bracket


LOL! I'm picturing Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs!

So what do those statistics show? Is there a reduction in the number of dog bites since the introduction of the DDA? Surely with over 20 years of statistics some cold hard data has been collected?


----------



## tiatortilla (Oct 1, 2012)

Lurcherlad said:


> Calm down, just playing devil's advocate here.


how patronising :/ that's not how it came across in your first post at all, in fact i believe you said you thought it was a good idea?
anyway cba with hypotheticals, it won't happen because i live in the middle of the countryside.

think people are getting the wrong idea here - we do constant work on lead to improve her confidence, but it's not an overnight thing and she needs "happy" time too.


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

'First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left
to speak out for me.'
Pastor Martin Niemöller

Yep, perfectly apt for this and a lot of other situations! People just don't care, and they don't even want to be educated. They just want to continue living their safe happy lives in their little bubble, and never worry about anything other than what they're having for tea tonight. :mad2:


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

ButterflyBlue said:


> Ok, having seen the recent DEFRA report, I must say I am extremely worried about my breed. I own two cane corsos - they are italian mastiffs. My eldest who is a sweetheart and is afraid of her own shadow is an imported mastiff. Which DEFRA mention in their report as imposing a ban on imported mastiff types.
> 
> But having said this - if they make a law which says they are banned but dogs already owned before the ban with reliable, responsible owners are exempted provided that they are muzzled and leashed in public then I'd definitely abide by this!
> 
> ...


I understand your concern. As I mentioned in one my recent threads on this subject, low population none KC recognised breeds would be more at risk as the govt can be seen to be doing something without losing votes. Can't see them banning high population dogs like SBT, too much of a vote loser. Not sure about my dogues, banned elsewhere but have a reasonable population.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

LurcherOwner said:


> Sorry to go offlead but Lurcherowner is in fact a woman. :lol:


Oops! so sorry


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

ButterflyBlue said:


> I understand the point you make here, which is why I am afraid for my dogs. I've always been against BSL and always fought against it but I want to be in a position where if someone does decide to point a finger at both of my dogs I can actually fight back in court and prove that actually, no they have been raised well. I can start by saying "actually I have abided by the law and muzzled/leashed etc"
> 
> Unfortunately where the law is concerned, all we can do is abide by it and hope for the best... Look at what happened to poor Lennox


Exactly! I would be terrified if I lived in the UK. We have a rescue mutt who's mostly boxer (we think) but he is very much "of type". So if my neighbors have a bad day and decide to report him, what recourse would I have to prevent him being taken away? I don't see how abiding by the law and proof of responsible dog ownership would do me any good!


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Oh... and for all you saying you would comply with the law to keep your dog safe. From what I'm understanding, compliance doesn't necessarily mean your dog is safe right? If your neighbor decides to report your dog as "of type" can't the dog be seized regardless of how fully you as an owner have complied with your responsibilities?


When the legislation first came in, dogs had to be registered on the index of exemption, neutered, microchipped, tattooed, kept in a secure place, muzzled and leashed in public, couldn't be bought or given away and some other conditions.

Those dogs are all dead (as it was 20 years ago)and in theory as they can't be bred or imported, there shouldn't be any anymore... Some of course will have not complied and not been caught, but mostly the dogs that are destroyed now either have a tiny bit of banned dog in them or are just unfortunate enough to look a bit like them, because it was put through as breed type, not breed.


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Exactly! I would be terrified if I lived in the UK. We have a rescue mutt who's mostly boxer (we think) but he is very much "of type". So if my neighbors have a bad day and decide to report him, what recourse would I have to prevent him being taken away? I don't see how abiding by the law and proof of responsible dog ownership would do me any good!


But then if you WERE to break the law and responsible ownership, then they have more of a case when it comes to the decision regarding your dog...

Oh and Tiatortilla, if it was necessity for your dog to be on-lead permanently due to injure would her quality of life still be lowered?


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

TIATORTILLA


Lurcherlad said:


> Given the increasing number of unsocialised and aggressive dogs that I meet on a regular basis, maybe if all dogs had to be leashed and muzzled in public the rest of us could walk our dogs in peace?
> QUOTE]
> 
> Did you mean this quote? It was a question.
> ...


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Megan345 said:


> 'First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
> Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
> Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
> Then they came for me and there was no one left
> ...


This gets mentioned a lot so I'm not picking on your post, but am I the only one that feels comparing BSL to the Nazi uprising completely inappropriate?!


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

tabulahrasa said:


> When the legislation first came in, dogs had to be registered on the index of exemption, neutered, microchipped, tattooed, kept in a secure place, muzzled and leashed in public, couldn't be bought or given away and some other conditions.
> 
> Those dogs are all dead (as it was 20 years ago)and in theory as they can't be bred or imported, there shouldn't be any anymore... Some of course will have not complied and not been caught, but mostly the dogs that are destroyed now either have a tiny bit of banned dog in them or are just unfortunate enough to look a bit like them, because it was put through as breed type, not breed.


Okay, so here's my question.
Say I adopt a mixed breed puppy from a local rescue. 
Puppy grows up and is clearly "of type".
My dog barks at the wrong person, gets reported, is measured, deemed "of type" and is then seized and destroyed?


----------



## BumbleFluff (Jul 23, 2011)

I would keep blue (border collie) on lead and muzzled in public, but on my own private land she can run off lead and unmuzzled as there should be no members of the public on my land, shr can have all the freedom she wants without being a risk to anyone.


----------



## ButterflyBlue (Mar 29, 2010)

If any of you are on facebook (or google) then search for "DDA WATCH" we have this in the UK and as long as we have someone to fight for us, there is still hope! They have saved so many lives and I'm sure this counts for something! However the only real contribution we can make is to educate people who want to learn about BSL. What sent shivers up my spine was that a lot of people stood by and did not protest at the last public protests, but now they are coming after all of our breeds. Silent onlookers.. beware they will be coming after your dogs now...


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

bearcub said:


> This gets mentioned a lot so I'm not picking on your post, but am I the only one that feels comparing BSL to the Nazi uprising completely inappropriate?!


I see several parallels between BSL and racism.

Mass killing of a certain population because of how they look? Yeah... I see the similarities...


----------



## tiatortilla (Oct 1, 2012)

LurcherOwner said:


> Oh and Tiatortilla, if it was necessity for your dog to be on-lead permanently due to injure would her quality of life still be lowered?


i already answered this question for someone else... but i'll do it again lol. obv yes it would a bit on the confidence front, but it's a necessity because it would be protecting her from injury which is more important, whereas an unjust law isn't a good enough reason for me.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

tabulahrasa said:


> When the legislation first came in, dogs had to be registered on the index of exemption, neutered, microchipped, tattooed, kept in a secure place, muzzled and leashed in public, couldn't be bought or given away and some other conditions.
> 
> Those dogs are all dead (as it was 20 years ago)and in theory as they can't be bred or imported, there shouldn't be any anymore... Some of course will have not complied and not been caught, but mostly the dogs that are destroyed now either have a tiny bit of banned dog in them or are just unfortunate enough to look a bit like them, because it was put through as breed type, not breed.


And I missed out my point, lol... So any new legislation wouldn't mean dogs alive now would be destroyed, just registered and live under those conditions.

Well at least I assume so anyway.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Okay, so here's my question.
> Say I adopt a mixed breed puppy from a local rescue.
> Puppy grows up and is clearly "of type".
> My dog barks at the wrong person, gets reported, is measured, deemed "of type" and is then seized and destroyed?


Yes that's what happens now - in fact it doesn't even need to bark, just be seen by someone in a position to report it as type


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

tiatortilla said:


> i already answered this question for someone else... but i'll do it again lol. obv yes it would a bit on the confidence front, but it's a necessity because it would be protecting her from injury which is more important, whereas an unjust law isn't a good enough reason for me.


Thats fair enough,(Sorry if you did answer it before, people post here quicker then I can type!) but if it were law. Surely the risk of your dog being seized would keep her onlead? Or have I read that last bit wrong?:confused1:

Mind you, its law for dog to where a collar and ID tag but about 50% around here where nothing but slip leads,so....


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

tabulahrasa said:


> Yes that's what happens now - in fact it doesn't even need to bark, just be seen by someone in a position to report it as type


I didn't "like" your post because I like the content - that's horrible 

So saying "I would comply with the law to keep my dog safe" really does NOT necessarily keep your dog safe.

No way... I would be fighting that law tooth and nail...


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

tabulahrasa said:


> When the legislation first came in, dogs had to be registered on the index of exemption, neutered, microchipped, tattooed, kept in a secure place, muzzled and leashed in public, couldn't be bought or given away and some other conditions.
> 
> Those dogs are all dead (as it was 20 years ago)and in theory as they can't be bred or imported, there shouldn't be any anymore... Some of course will have not complied and not been caught, but mostly the dogs that are destroyed now either have a tiny bit of banned dog in them or are just unfortunate enough to look a bit like them, because it was put through as breed type, not breed.


Or volunterally PTS for a pittance of compensation. The window for exemption closed quite quickly and wasn't reopened until 1997. In 1991 they didn't use the ABDA standard to mark dogs against, that wasn't brought in till 1993.


----------



## Wildmoor (Oct 31, 2011)

ouesi said:


> LOL! I'm picturing Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs!
> 
> So what do those statistics show? Is there a reduction in the number of dog bites since the introduction of the DDA? Surely with over 20 years of statistics some cold hard data has been collected?


No - an increase

They record bites and being run into no seperation and only those that require hospital attendance so if like happened with a friend about 15 years ago her dog ran into her knee and discolated the joint (pure accident) this is recorded the same as a bite would


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

ouesi said:


> I didn't "like" your post because I like the content - that's horrible
> 
> So saying "I would comply with the law to keep my dog safe" really does NOT necessarily keep your dog safe.
> 
> No way... I would be fighting that law tooth and nail...


Well I could comply if it was my breed, because I know what he is - so he'd get by on the grace period.

But with a rescue puppy - sometimes you have no clue that they're going to look like a certain type of dog, so yes some dogs could just be doomed, which is awful.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

bearcub said:


> This gets mentioned a lot so I'm not picking on your post, but am I the only one that feels comparing BSL to the Nazi uprising completely inappropriate?!


Although it breaks Godwin's Law, there's a fair comparison with genocide.


----------



## tiatortilla (Oct 1, 2012)

LurcherOwner said:


> Thats fair enough,(Sorry if you did answer it before, people post here quicker then I can type!) but if it were law. Surely the risk of your dog being seized would keep her onlead? Or have I read that last bit wrong?:confused1:


you either read it wrong or i phrased it badly, but i have said several times that i would abide by the law but that doesn't mean i'm okay with it.


----------



## Wildmoor (Oct 31, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Oh... and for all you saying you would comply with the law to keep your dog safe. From what I'm understanding, compliance doesn't necessarily mean your dog is safe right? If your neighbor decides to report your dog as "of type" can't the dog be seized regardless of how fully you as an owner have complied with your responsibilities?


I would use Trevor Cooper and appeal/fight the law


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

ouesi said:


> I see several parallels between BSL and racism.
> 
> Mass killing of a certain population because of how they look? Yeah... I see the similarities...


I think this is my point; you're casually mentioning the holocaust and BSL and simply calling them both 'racism'. The two things in absolutely no way are comparable.

By your justification, breeding traits in and out of dogs to create breeds should be seen as just as abhorrent as eugenics.


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

bearcub said:


> This gets mentioned a lot so I'm not picking on your post, but am I the only one that feels comparing BSL to the Nazi uprising completely inappropriate?!


There's a message behind it that can legitimately be applied to a range of situations. So, I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think it's inappropriate.


----------



## tiatortilla (Oct 1, 2012)

Lurcherlad said:


> Did you mean this quote? It was a question.


yes i did, sounded more like you agreed with it to me but okay.
and yes she's reactive because of being jumped by boisterous dogs whilst on lead but i still don't think everyone should have to have their dogs on lead and muzzled because of a few bad eggs. but this is totally off topic now so i'm off!


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

tiatortilla said:


> you either read it wrong or i phrased it badly, but i have said several times that i would abide by the law but that doesn't mean i'm okay with it.


Ahhhh right!!! I read it wrong sorry. I thought you disliking the law would mean you wouldn't adhere to it.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

I would not be thrilled but would comply if ALL dogs had to be muzzled in public- at least that would not be based purely on looks, or a pile of garbage created by the media surrounding certain breeds. It would at least be " fair" ago all breeds!


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Another issue is that pet insurers do not currently insure banned breeds, meaning you would not be able to insure your dog against costly vet bills.


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2013)

bearcub said:


> I think this is my point; you're casually mentioning the holocaust and BSL and simply calling them both 'racism'. The two things in absolutely no way are comparable.
> 
> By your justification, breeding traits in and out of dogs to create breeds should be seen as just as abhorrent as eugenics.


First off, make no mistake, none of this is casual at all. I feel very strongly about BSL and the welfare of dogs in general. 
Breedism is very much an "ism" just like racism, sexism, etc.

Second of all, eugenics got a bad name because of Hitler and his pseudo-science, but realistically, eugenics is not all abhorrent. People are now able to test themselves to see if they are carriers of genetic disorders before they decide to have children. 
Creating life responsibly vs. taking away life based on how someone looks - not the same thing.


----------



## nickarzia zeke davies (Dec 31, 2012)

appeal and get them irresponisble owners on training course. failing that, put up with muzzling my dogs but hope never comes to that.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I think too much is made about keeping dogs on lead. If you knew my Mals you wouldn't see depressed, out of condition dogs whose lives are torture. They have been on lead all of their lives and yes it is wonderful for me to see the rare occasions they have had a safe area to run free but not knowing anything else they don't actually run anyway. They seem quite happy to have a long lead, creatures around them are safe from their prey drive and they are safe too. 

If a law was enforced that all dogs should be on leads it would actually be a lot safer for dogs too and as dog on dog attacks continue to rise may not be a bad thing, especially for those of us who've experienced off lead attacks on our on lead dogs - once leading to the death of one of mine!


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2013)

Malmum said:


> as dog on dog attacks continue to rise


Where is the evidence of this?


----------



## Howl (Apr 10, 2012)

I read that otterhounds are restricted in one area of Iowa along with all dogs over 100lbs? !! Only allowing the dog to be on 4ft leads. 

I can see my breed to be restricted not banned but they are vocal, along with lots of other hound breeds. I like where we live because it is very dog friendly by comparison. 
I think I would probably move.
It is sad but I think we have got to a stage where some restrictions need to happen not specifically for some breeds but for dog owners. Sadly I can see blanket laws being created and enforced.


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

I would move.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Where is the evidence of this?


Mostly on here but also in the press. Two recently close to me, one belonged to a 93 years old, very independent man left so traumatised he had to live with his daughter to deal with his grief. Very sad! 
Personally I think all dogs should be on lead in public and dog parks should be created. Not all people feel safe with dogs and even though we have laws to keep dogs on leads they are not enforced. No point having bye laws and not enforcing them.

Having dogs on lead so as the general public can feel safe is just courtesy, not all people are responsible enough to be trusted to consider other non doggie people's concerns when it comes to dogs. Unfortunately these kind of owners set a bad example for many good ones so making sure the public can feel safe should be a priority that all us dog lovers understand. At the end of the day people will and should always take priority over dogs, even if we on dog forums think our dogs are far better than many humans we've met it's just common sense that people shouldn't feel threatened in any way by our dogs.

If dog license fees where used to employ wardens to enforce laws that are passed I would be more than happy to buy them. Unfortunately I doubt the money would be used in such a constructive way and will probably be lost in the 'system' as is usually the case. Kind of like what happened in the funds raised for the hurricane Katrina victims, used to repair the Super Bowl stadium while people remain homeless and hungry - STILL after all these years! It never seems to go where it should!


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

Malmum said:


> Personally I think all dogs should be on lead in public and dog parks should be created. Not all people feel safe with dogs and even though we have laws to keep dogs on leads they are not enforced. not all people are responsible enough to be trusted to consider other non doggie people's concerns when it comes to dogs. Unfortunately these kind of owners set a bad example for many good ones so making sure the public can feel safe should be a priority that all us dog lovers understand.


I'd rather just have crap dog owners given a 3 strikes system. If, after 2 warnings, your dog is still out of control, you should be shot on sight.

That's much more appealing to me than having to keep my perfectly behaved dog on a lead in the park.


----------



## Buzzard (Aug 10, 2012)

I would stick to the rules or move abroad possibly. I find it ridiculous that certain breeds are on this list, when it really is about the owners much of the time than the dog.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Hmmmmmm. If RRs were banned in the UK - move I guess.. Or I would stick to the rules anywhere populated, but perhaps not if I took the dogs somewhere very isolated to walk. I have a few walks where I have never seen another dog or person. When I went walking a few months back, part of the walk took me into ROI where RRs are a restricted breed and need to be onlead and muzzled BUT it was somewhere isolated again where I didn't expect to see many folk. The laws are also not rigorously enforced there as far as I understand. I put a muzzle in my day sack 'just in case' but not on Kilo and he was onlead anyway as there was a lot of livestock. I only saw a couple of farmers who said he was lovely :thumbsup:.


----------



## nutty (Feb 17, 2013)

LurcherOwner said:


> To be honest, I don't really know what I'd do. If you lobby and lobby and lobby people who actually vote for the damn law to be passed or repealed etc, may not be dog owners themselves so they feel it doesn't affect them.
> 
> And people on here are going on about being muzzled and on-lead in public as if its a travesty. A fair amount of greyhounds and lurchers have to be kept on-lead and muzzled, not necessarily because they will bite a person, but because of chasing smaller prey. They can still lead very fulfilled lives, it doesn't make them any lesser of a dog and it doesn't make an owner any lesser of an owner.


I have to disagree...My springer would be exremely unhappy muzzled and on lead. His quality of life would be very much affected :sad:


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

ouesi said:


> See, I'm more inclined to put up with a law based on size than based on breed. That makes more sense, especially if it is based on size AND a temperament test. But restrictions based on breed, or worse the "look" of a dog are just ludicrous. Though to be clear I don't support ANY law based on the dog, rather on the owner and how responsible they are.


But it just shows the total ignorance of any ban on any sort or size of dog. I am far more wary of a chihuaha than a Rottweiler, they are the only dogs I have met who have snarled and growled at me for no apparent reason. The idea of temperament testing a dog who is internationally known as the gentle giant is just ludicrous, and makes me so angry. Why the hell don't they put people in charge of these things who know about dogs?



Nicky10 said:


> There was a min pin escaped while it in was in cabin on a flight and bit someone. The press said it was a pitbull at first.
> 1. It was in the cabin so a toy dog
> 2.
> 
> Min pin


That is what I saw on the heath yesterday, and didn't know what it was!



LurcherOwner said:


> To be honest, I don't really know what I'd do. If you lobby and lobby and lobby people who actually vote for the damn law to be passed or repealed etc, may not be dog owners themselves so they feel it doesn't affect them.
> 
> And people on here are going on about being muzzled and on-lead in public as if its a travesty. A fair amount of greyhounds and lurchers have to be kept on-lead and muzzled, not necessarily because they will bite a person, but because of chasing smaller prey. They can still lead very fulfilled lives, it doesn't make them any lesser of a dog and it doesn't make an owner any lesser of an owner.


I realise that a lot of greyhounds and other sighthounds have to be leashed and muzzled for the sake of smaller dogs, which is one reason I would never have one. To suddenly put a muzzle on a friendly dog who has always known freedom and wouldn't hurt a soul, is a travesty. My dogs get to run and play every day, and it would upset them terribly if that was suddenly stopped. Ferdie in particular would become very depressed and what would happen to him? He won't walk on a lead at all, he has to be free.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Malmum said:


> I think too much is made about keeping dogs on lead. If you knew my Mals you wouldn't see depressed, out of condition dogs whose lives are torture. *They have been on lead all of their lives* and yes it is wonderful for me to see the rare occasions they have had a safe area to run free but not knowing anything else they don't actually run anyway. They seem quite happy to have a long lead, creatures around them are safe from their prey drive and they are safe too.
> 
> If a law was enforced that all dogs should be on leads it would actually be a lot safer for dogs too and as dog on dog attacks continue to rise may not be a bad thing, especially for those of us who've experienced off lead attacks on our on lead dogs - once leading to the death of one of mine!


I think that is the point. Yours have been on leads all their lives, as most sled dogs are, but what about dogs who are not used to that, like mine? Diva had never been off lead before she came to me, and I will treasure forever that moment when I let her off - she almost had a smile on her face! She ran like the wind!

I would never comply with some daft law which took that away from her.

When you buy or acquire a certain breed of dog, you should have some idea of its temperament. After years of a mongrel who could never be off lead, I went out of my way to choose dogs who could be so I am not about to let some politician spoil that.


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> I think that is the point. Yours have been on leads all their lives, as most sled dogs are, but what about dogs who are not used to that, like mine? Diva had never been off lead before she came to me, and I will treasure forever that moment when I let her off - she almost had a smile on her face! She ran like the wind!
> 
> I would never comply with some daft law which took that away from her.
> 
> When you buy or acquire a certain breed of dog, you should have some idea of its temperament. After years of a mongrel who could never be off lead, I went out of my way to choose dogs who could be so I am not about to let some politician spoil that.


I understand where you are coming from 100% - When we got Millie at 10 months she hadnt been on a walk let alone off lead. The first day we took her to the secure playing field at my husbands work and and let her off was truely amazing. I will treasure those memories for the rest of my life. Just running and running and running - Because she could. Her whole demeaner changed - She was 'alive'.

Since we got her Millie has been offlead alot - We actually make a point of going on walks where she has to be on lead just to work on lead manners. 

Of course Millie would have to cope if she had to be kept on lead for a valid reason for example if she were dog aggressive or had a high prey drive.

But I would be very very upset at the thought of a dog who has known off lead freedom for years to then be restricted to a lead.

It would also mean no interacting with other dog unless on private land as it would be a accident waiting to happen with Flexi's and trailing lines


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Milliepoochie said:


> I understand where you ar ecoming form 100% - When we got Millie at 10 months she hadnt been on a walk let alone off lead. The first day we took her to the secure playing field at my husbands work and and let her off was truely amazing. I will treasure those memories for the rest of my life. Just running and running and running - Because she could. Her whole demeaner changed - She was 'alive'.
> 
> Since we got her Millie has been offlead alot - We actually make a point of going on walks where she has to be on lead just to work on lead manners.
> 
> ...


You know how I felt then, you know exactly how I felt. Wasn't it the best feeling in the world?

Occasionally when a daft law is proposed, enough protest will change their minds. That happened in 1997 when they were going to change the law about new drivers, they modified to suit the public which wasn't really sensible.

So it is possible that enough of a protest would change their minds. It is the ignorance of these laws that make me angry.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Malmum said:


> I think too much is made about keeping dogs on lead. If you knew my Mals you wouldn't see depressed, out of condition dogs whose lives are torture. They have been on lead all of their lives and yes it is wonderful for me to see the rare occasions they have had a safe area to run free but not knowing anything else they don't actually run anyway. They seem quite happy to have a long lead, creatures around them are safe from their prey drive and they are safe too.
> 
> If a law was enforced that all dogs should be on leads it would actually be a lot safer for dogs too and as dog on dog attacks continue to rise may not be a bad thing, especially for those of us who've experienced off lead attacks on our on lead dogs - once leading to the death of one of mine!


That's different though, you've got a breed of dog knowing that you're not going to be having them offlead.

Having a dog or breed of dog that you don't have offlead for their own good is doing what is right for that dog, having a dog that's perfectly safe to have offlead but not being allowed to do that is very different - especially if it's used to being off and you got it with the expectation of being off.

It also depends on personal circumstances, I have a garden that's nowhere near big enough to play with an adult dog in - but I got a big dog anyway because I live surrounded by places that are fine to have an offlead dog in. To have to restrict it by always being offlead would just be horrible, when the reason is just because someone else has decided that's how he has to live.


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2013)

Malmum said:


> Mostly on here but also in the press. Two recently close to me, one belonged to a 93 years old, very independent man left so traumatised he had to live with his daughter to deal with his grief. Very sad!


But how do you know these incidents are on the RISE? 
You don't. 
With the advent of the internet, forums, and 24 hour news coverage, we are more aware of incidents that we might not have known about before. These things have always happened. We're just more aware of them because the news media has to be sensationalistic to compete.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

I want to see actual DATA collected scientifically that shows dog on dog attacks have risen in recent years. Which strangely, all these fear mongers can't seem to produce. Just stories that they read in the news - usually the same papers that say Elvis is still alive.



Malmum said:


> Having dogs on lead so as the general public can feel safe is just courtesy, not all people are responsible enough to be trusted to consider other non doggie people's concerns when it comes to dogs. Unfortunately these kind of owners set a bad example for many good ones so making sure the public can feel safe should be a priority that all us dog lovers understand. At the end of the day people will and should always take priority over dogs, even if we on dog forums think our dogs are far better than many humans we've met it's just common sense that people shouldn't feel threatened in any way by our dogs.


People might also feel less threatened by dogs if folks like you would quit filling their head with crazy things about pitbulls and attack staffies who are running rampant killing pet dogs and cats.


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> You know how I felt then, you know exactly how I felt. *Wasn't it the best feeling in the world?*
> Occasionally when a daft law is proposed, enough protest will change their minds. That happened in 1997 when they were going to change the law about new drivers, they modified to suit the public which wasn't really sensible.
> 
> So it is possible that enough of a protest would change their minds. It is the ignorance of these laws that make me angry.


Yes it really was  Its so hard to explain but the feeling was just amazing.

At first she just stood there confused then plodded then she ran and ran and ran. We stood in the middle of the field and she ran giant loops round us jumping like a deer. 

It was the start of her new life - Infact for a week it was the only place I felt safe letting her off until we bonded abit. I wish I had taken photos back then but it never even crossed my mind 

I mean we drive nearly an hour each way to take Millie on 'different' and interesting off lead walks. Why - Because the enjoyment she gets from them cannot be compared to an on lead walk. You can read her body language - her energy levels and just how she looks at you - She looooves them.

As a responsible owner of a socialsed and well behaved dog - I would resent Millie having to spend her life on a lead because of such a law. If a country was to bring in such widespread and harsh dog control rules bought about because of irresponsible owners who wont abide by the new law anyway then the Uk wouldnt be a country I would want to continue to live in.


----------



## Beth17 (Jun 5, 2012)

Malmum said:


> I think too much is made about keeping dogs on lead. If you knew my Mals you wouldn't see depressed, out of condition dogs whose lives are torture. They have been on lead all of their lives and yes it is wonderful for me to see the rare occasions they have had a safe area to run free but not knowing anything else they don't actually run anyway. They seem quite happy to have a long lead, creatures around them are safe from their prey drive and they are safe too.


Yes but you have dogs that are well known for not being able to be let off lead. I personally wouldn't want that in a breed and so have chosen accordingly. I don't see why I should have to keep my dogs who have no real prey drive and are of no danger to the general public onlead just to satisfy hysterical dog hating people. 
Likewise not everyone has the opportunity to use a private field and there would be even less of them if a ban was in place due to dog owners seeking them out to allow their dogs to enjoy some semblance of freedom.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

ouesi said:


> But how do you know these incidents are on the RISE?
> You don't.
> With the advent of the internet, forums, and 24 hour news coverage, we are more aware of incidents that we might not have known about before. These things have always happened. We're just more aware of them because the news media has to be sensationalistic to compete.
> 
> ...


Nothing crazy about this. On Saturday I was talking to representatives of 2 local dog rescues (our agility club did a presentation of the money we'd raised for them with press there), and both were having trouble with people going to the rescue kennels trying to BUY bait dogs (preference for Jack Russels, small but give a good account of themselves in a scrap), and becoming violent /abusive when refused. One of the kennels had also been broken into in an attempt to steal dogs, either for bait or lurchers for hunting.


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2013)

Burrowzig said:


> Nothing crazy about this. On Saturday I was talking to representatives of 2 local dog rescues (our agility club did a presentation of the money we'd raised for them with press there), and both were having trouble with people going to the rescue kennels trying to BUY bait dogs (preference for Jack Russels, small but give a good account of themselves in a scrap), and becoming violent /abusive when refused. One of the kennels had also been broken into in an attempt to steal dogs, either for bait or lurchers for hunting.


What does PEOPLE wanting to buy bait dogs have to do with fear mongering about DOGS? It's not the dogs who are dangerous!! 
Again, all but ONE of the pitbulls rescued from Michael Vick's fighting kennels were rehabilitated and went on to live as family pets, some working as therapy dogs.

*On this forum* I have seen posters - not tolls - longtime members, say crazy things about pit bulls - like that their bite force is stronger than any other breed (it's not), that they have locking jaws (they don't), that they cause far more damage when they bite than "normal" dogs (they don't), they are inherently aggressive (they're not), that they're out to kill innocent pet dogs (they're not)... THIS is the kind of fear mongering and misinformation I'm talking about.

It's not the dogs who are the problem.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Malmum said:


> Mostly on here but also in the press. Two recently close to me, one belonged to a 93 years old, very independent man left so traumatised he had to live with his daughter to deal with his grief. Very sad!
> *Personally I think all dogs should be on lead in public and dog parks should be created.* Not all people feel safe with dogs and even though we have laws to keep dogs on leads they are not enforced. No point having bye laws and not enforcing them.
> 
> Having dogs on lead so as the general public can feel safe is just courtesy, not all people are responsible enough to be trusted to consider other non doggie people's concerns when it comes to dogs. Unfortunately these kind of owners set a bad example for many good ones so making sure the public can feel safe should be a priority that all us dog lovers understand. At the end of the day people will and should always take priority over dogs, even if we on dog forums think our dogs are far better than many humans we've met it's just common sense that people shouldn't feel threatened in any way by our dogs.
> ...


Well with the type of dogs you have, you would say that. I also notice a few similar comments from owners of Greyhound and Lurcher types, along the lines of 'my dogs quality of life is not impeded due to being kept on the lead'. In the case of many dogs that may well be true. However, I don't believe it is fair to compare the behaviour of breeds that are generally always restrained to breeds that are designed to operate unrestrained, like most working type dogs are. Try giving a working Springer/Collie/German Pointer etc enough exercise when you have to keep them on a lead at all times; it isn't possible. You might be able to RUN them to try and tire them, but they are not ever going to satisfy their natural instincts to run/hunt/scent/herd being kept on a 6ft piece of nylon. Therefore you would very quickly end up with a miserable dog.

Your suggestion is to build dog parks? so now we are going to stick all of those understimulated worky Springers/Collies/Pointers/terriers etc, into a barren field for their daily 'exercise'. Personally I wouldn't want to see the outcome of a bunch of understimulated but hyped up, energetic dogs confined in a small space....


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2013)

I wonder how gun dog folks feel about all dogs being kept on a lead all the time. Might complicate things out in the field a bit...


----------



## 2Hounds (Jun 24, 2009)

The leash laws and dog parks doesn't seem to be that successful in america, I know some steer clear of dog parks because dogs are just left to it while owners chat, still have same issues with out of control dogs but your more limited to escape them. 

It wouldn't effect us greatly as my dogs stay on lead & will wear a muzzle fine as all do in the car. However its more public view that changes which is think would effect us more, occasionally get it now but can imagine much worse if seen as dangerous breed. I think it would be sad if dogs lost freedom they have now when only a minority cause issue, even if it would probably benefit me if all others on lead.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Burrowzig said:


> Nothing crazy about this. On Saturday I was talking to representatives of 2 local dog rescues (our agility club did a presentation of the money we'd raised for them with press there), and both were having trouble with people going to the rescue kennels trying to BUY bait dogs (preference for Jack Russels, small but give a good account of themselves in a scrap), and becoming violent /abusive when refused. One of the kennels had also been broken into in an attempt to steal dogs, either for bait or lurchers for hunting.


And did those representatives get the names and addresses of these people to report to the police? If not, why not? I would have told them I would contact them when something came in and be straight down the cop shop.



ouesi said:


> What does PEOPLE wanting to buy bait dogs have to do with fear mongering about DOGS? It's not the dogs who are dangerous!!
> Again, all but ONE of the pitbulls rescued from Michael Vick's fighting kennels were rehabilitated and went on to live as family pets, some working as therapy dogs.
> 
> *On this forum* I have seen posters - not tolls - longtime members, say crazy things about pit bulls - like that their bite force is stronger than any other breed (it's not), that they have locking jaws (they don't), that they cause far more damage when they bite than "normal" dogs (they don't), they are inherently aggressive (they're not), that they're out to kill innocent pet dogs (they're not)... THIS is the kind of fear mongering and misinformation I'm talking about.
> ...


I often see a few dogs in Cambridge which look very much like American pit bulls to me. I have never seen one in the flesh that I know of so cannot be sure, but if they are not APB then I have no idea what they are. They are banned here, but I have seen a few of this breed in Cambridge and have wanted to ask. Not being a believer of all these old wives' tales I am just concerned that someone else might report them.

My mum always went nuts if she dropped raw meat and the dog got it, convinced it would give him a taste for blood. I don't believe that either!



labradrk said:


> Well with the type of dogs you have, you would say that. I also notice a few similar comments from owners of Greyhound and Lurcher types, along the lines of 'my dogs quality of life is not impeded due to being kept on the lead'. In the case of many dogs that may well be true. However, I don't believe it is fair to compare the behaviour of breeds that are generally always restrained to breeds that are designed to operate unrestrained, like most working type dogs are. Try giving a working Springer/Collie/German Pointer etc enough exercise when you have to keep them on a lead at all times; it isn't possible. You might be able to RUN them to try and tire them, but they are not ever going to satisfy their natural instincts to run/hunt/scent/herd being kept on a 6ft piece of nylon. Therefore you would very quickly end up with a miserable dog.
> 
> Your suggestion is to build dog parks? so now we are going to stick all of those understimulated worky Springers/Collies/Pointers/terriers etc, into a barren field for their daily 'exercise'. Personally I wouldn't want to see the outcome of a bunch of understimulated but hyped up, energetic dogs confined in a small space....


While I like the idea of dog parks, I do not like what it would lead to which is dogs not allowed off lead anywhere else. The fenced in dog field I used to take Diva to and sometimes still use is great for socialisation and recall, but it would be pretty boring to have to use it all the time.


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2013)

2Hounds said:


> The leash laws and dog parks doesn't seem to be that successful in america, I know some steer clear of dog parks because dogs are just left to it while owners chat, still have same issues with out of control dogs but your more limited to escape them.


Yeah... you won't find any of my dogs at a dog park, that's for sure... Great place for dogs to pick up diseases and learn bad behavior.
Though there are some well-run ones, but they are a huge minority.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

ouesi said:


> *What does PEOPLE wanting to buy bait dogs have to do with fear mongering about DOGS? It's not the dogs who are dangerous!!*
> Again, all but ONE of the pitbulls rescued from Michael Vick's fighting kennels were rehabilitated and went on to live as family pets, some working as therapy dogs.
> 
> *On this forum* I have seen posters - not tolls - longtime members, say crazy things about pit bulls - like that their bite force is stronger than any other breed (it's not), that they have locking jaws (they don't), that they cause far more damage when they bite than "normal" dogs (they don't), they are inherently aggressive (they're not), that they're out to kill innocent pet dogs (they're not)... THIS is the kind of fear mongering and misinformation I'm talking about.
> ...


Once the dogs have been trained to attack other dogs - bait or pet - the dog is then a problem. Do you think dogs trained to fight will walk past a dog in the park and want to play with it?

Maybe many/most fighting dogs CAN be rehabilitated, but what about when they're still in the hands of the people who trained them to fight? What about BEFORE they're rehabilitated (those that can be). There are people living near me with a dog-fighting culture, using staffies that DO just attack other dogs - I've seen it happen. It's NOT scaremongering.

And don't go insinuating (by quoting my post) that I've said anything about locking jaws, stronger bite force etc. I wasn't even talking about pit bulls.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Milliepoochie said:


> Yes it really was  Its so hard to explain but the feeling was just amazing.
> 
> At first she just stood there confused then plodded then she ran and ran and ran. We stood in the middle of the field and she ran giant loops round us jumping like a deer.
> 
> ...


Diva just looked at the whole acre of expanse, and took off! I would never keep mine on a lead, never mind muzzled. It would be Outer Hebrides here we come, even if we had to live in a caravan. No point in having dogs if you cannot give them the quality of life they enjoy and deserve, no point in having dogs if you can't enjoy them.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> And did those representatives get the names and addresses of these people to report to the police? If not, why not? I would have told them I would contact them when something came in and be straight down the cop shop.


False names and addresses, and police won't do anything without evidence.


----------



## Booties (Nov 23, 2012)

Sorry to interrupt the debate, but I just caught up with the thread and saw people mentioning muzzling not impeding quality of life. 

Having a beagle and a mal, I'm not too shook up by the on-lead talk, and I think 99% of people here could make-do with longlines if it was really necessary (obviously they would prefer not to, but it wouldn't impede their dog's quality of life TOO much)...

But the thought of me having a beagle, who takes the utmost joy in sniffing, prodding with her nose, licking, baying, etc. in a muzzle really makes me cringe. That's taking away what the dog was bred to do!
And Mori's a large breed puppy. Don't puppies learn by mouthing, licking, tasting, etc.? But he would be perceived as a threat because he's big already at 4 months old.
Already people pull their dogs/kids away from him or cross over the road from us because he's "wolf-like" and very vocal (typical "talking" that mals & sibes do). Already find that a shame, and makes it harder to socialise him- even at socialisation class he was totally misunderstood.

ETA: before anyone blows up at me about "allowing Mori to be antisocial" or whatever, I literally mean if we're playing in the park and he's chasing me or chewing a toy, or if he sees someone he knows in town (I have to walk through town to get most places), he'll let out low "Awwruuwaaow"s 
He's learning, slowly


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2013)

Burrowzig said:


> Once the dogs have been trained to attack other dogs - bait or pet - the dog is then a problem.


 No, the HUMAN who trained the dog to fight is the problem.



Burrowzig said:


> Do you think dogs trained to fight will walk past a dog in the park and want to play with it?


Do your dogs want to play with every dog they see? If they don't they must be fighting dogs! Seriously? 
What experience do you have with fighting dogs? Like, actual, hands-on experience?
It's not like the dog turns in to a machine that bee-lines for any dog and murders it. Most "fighting" dogs have simply been taught to be afraid of everything and to attack it first before they get attacked. It's not rocket science to turn a dog in to a fear biter.



Burrowzig said:


> Maybe many/most fighting dogs CAN be rehabilitated, but what about when they're still in the hands of the people who trained them to fight? What about BEFORE they're rehabilitated (those that can be). There are people living near me with a dog-fighting culture, using staffies that DO just attack other dogs - I've seen it happen. It's NOT scaremongering.


Have you reported these people and these attacks? If you know it to be true that they are dog fighting, what have YOU done to shut them down?



Burrowzig said:


> And don't go insinuating (by quoting my post) that I've said anything about locking jaws, stronger bite force etc. I wasn't even talking about pit bulls.


But my post that you objected to was about those myths and fear mongering.


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

Booties said:


> Sorry to interrupt the debate, but I just caught up with the thread and saw people mentioning muzzling not impeding quality of life.
> 
> Having a beagle and a mal, *I'm not too shook up by the on-lead talk, and I think 99% of people here could make-do with longlines if it was really necessary (obviously they would prefer not to, but it wouldn't impede their dog's quality of life TOO much)...*But the thought of me having a beagle, who takes the utmost joy in sniffing, prodding with her nose, licking, baying, etc. in a muzzle really makes me cringe. That's taking away what the dog was bred to do!
> And Mori's a large breed puppy. Don't puppies learn by mouthing, licking, tasting, etc.? But he would be perceived as a threat because he's big already at 4 months old.
> Already people pull their dogs/kids away from him or cross over the road from us because he's "wolf-like" and very vocal (typical "talking" that mals & sibes do). Already find that a shame, and makes it harder to socialise him- even at socialisation class he was totally misunderstood.


It wouldnt be as simple as everyone using long lines though I wouldnt of thought though. As the last thing which councils etc would want is all dogs on bloomin lunge lines. IF lead laws came in I would of thought there would be a maximum lead length to prevent everybody using long lines everywhere they go.

Plus it is dangerous for dogs on long lines to be playing together so certainly if Millie was on a lead 100% of the time she would not be playing with other dogs at all when on walks. For those dogs used to off lead walks I think it would impede there quality of life quite considerably especially people like myself who do not have a back garden.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

I think it would potentially impeded the quality of life for those dogs used to off leadness, (saying that we can all train our dogs to do new things and they dont seem to get "depressed" about it"- or have a worse quality of life.

However in what 15 years time all dogs would never know the difference- they would have been on a lead since birth- it would be the norm. We really do impress our human emotions far to much on our dogs. This would cause major issues with everything from agility to police dogs tho!!


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Lexiedhb said:


> I think it would potentially impeded the quality of life for those dogs used to off leadness, (saying that we can all train our dogs to do new things and they dont seem to get "depressed" about it"- or have a worse quality of life.
> 
> However in what 15 years time all dogs would never know the difference- they would have been on a lead since birth- it would be the norm. We really do impress our human emotions far to much on our dogs. This would cause major issues with everything from agility to police dogs tho!!


I would not get a dog if there was nowhere I could let him off lead. It is not just a case of imposing human emotions on the dog, it is also a case of my pleasure in owning dogs is to see them running about and enjoying themselves. I could not have a dog knowing that would never be allowed.

I am sure I can't be the only one, so it would result in less dogs having secure homes and some of the known pullers being almost extinct.


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2013)

Burrowzig said:


> And don't go insinuating (by quoting my post) that I've said anything about locking jaws, stronger bite force etc. I wasn't even talking about pit bulls.


Never mind... 
Just went back to look for the posts about pitbulls being bred to be aggressive, and that they are more inherently dangerous than other breeds, and you were one of the few who "liked" those posts.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> I would not get a dog if there was nowhere I could let him off lead. It is not just a case of imposing human emotions on the dog, it is also a case of my pleasure in owning dogs is to see them running about and enjoying themselves. I could not have a dog knowing that would never be allowed.
> 
> I am sure I can't be the only one, so it would result in less dogs having secure homes and some of the known pullers being almost extinct.


You say that like its a bad thing? there are way to many dogs in rescue that will never realise a good home. If some folk are put off owning dogs demand decreases so hopefully would supply. I understand you think it would ruin "your" dog ownership- that is entirely up to you - but many live like this now, perfectly fulfilled and on leads for any number of reasons.

It would simply become the norm. (not that Im saying it is right, but it is a better option IMO than the current Bull **** Legislation)


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

labradrk said:


> Your suggestion is to build dog parks? so now we are going to stick all of those understimulated worky Springers/Collies/Pointers/terriers etc, into a barren field for their daily 'exercise'. Personally I wouldn't want to see the outcome of a bunch of understimulated but hyped up, energetic dogs confined in a small space....


My idea of a nightmare; the ones I have seen in the US I would never use.



Milliepoochie said:


> It wouldnt be as simple as everyone using long lines though I wouldnt of thought though. As the last thing which councils etc would want is all dogs on bloomin lunge lines. IF lead laws came in I would of thought there would be a maximum lead length to prevent everybody using long lines everywhere they go.


I would think that lead length would be specified. If I cross the border into ROI the law states that restricted breeds should be muzzled, on a strong lead of not more than 2m in length and handled by a person of 16 years of age or older.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> I would not get a dog if there was nowhere I could let him off lead. It is not just a case of imposing human emotions on the dog, it is also a case of my pleasure in owning dogs is to see them running about and enjoying themselves. I could not have a dog knowing that would never be allowed.
> 
> *I am sure I can't be the only one,* so it would result in less dogs having secure homes and some of the known pullers being almost extinct.


You're not. My biggest fear is if Kes were to become aggressive, necessitating her being on lead. I would ideally move to the countryside and walk where we never saw a sole if that ever happened. My biggest pleasure on a daily basis is seeing her sprint around with a daft look on her face


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Lexiedhb said:


> You say that like its a bad thing? there are way to many dogs in rescue that will never realise a good home. If some folk are put off owning dogs demand decreases so hopefully would supply. I understand you think it would ruin "your" dog ownership- that is entirely up to you - but many live like this now, perfectly fulfilled and on leads for any number of reasons.
> 
> It would simply become the norm. (not that Im saying it is right, but it is a better option IMO than the current Bull **** Legislation)


As to whether it is a bad thing, I am not really sure. While I agree it would cut down the number of unwanted dogs, there are some breeds who would become extinct and that would be a terrible shame. So it works both ways I think.

And yes it would ruin my dog ownership, and I emphasize the "my". If others are happy with keeping their dogs on leads, that is up to them. I would not be. I had a dog for elevent years who could never be off lead because he took off for the rest of the day; I am still basking in the novelty of being able to open the front door without the dog taking off down the road.

It did spoil our pleasure in that particular dog so I wouldn't deliberately set out to take it on again.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> As to whether it is a bad thing, I am not really sure. While I agree it would cut down the number of unwanted dogs, there are some breeds who would become extinct and that would be a terrible shame. So it works both ways I think.
> 
> And yes it would ruin my dog ownership, and I emphasize the "my". If others are happy with keeping their dogs on leads, that is up to them. I would not be. I had a dog for elevent years who could never be off lead because he took off for the rest of the day; I am still basking in the novelty of being able to open the front door without the dog taking off down the road.
> 
> It did spoil our pleasure in that particular dog so I wouldn't deliberately set out to take it on again.


What breeds would become extinct? Im only talking about this country......


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> What breeds would become extinct? Im only talking about this country......


Springers for a start. Unless of course we could fashion them into transportation devices instead of being pets.


----------



## Dimwit (Nov 10, 2011)

Booties said:


> But the thought of me having a beagle, who takes the utmost joy in sniffing, prodding with her nose, licking, baying, etc. in a muzzle really makes me cringe. That's taking away what the dog was bred to do!


But muzzles do not prevent a dog from sniffing  I had to muzzle my boy for a while and he could still follow a scent (and could even lick). 
Being muzzled and even on lead does not prevent him from sniffing (his favourite thing in the world) - he is still perfectly free to exhibit this behaviour albeit in a controlled way...


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> You say that like its a bad thing? there are way to many dogs in rescue that will never realise a good home. If some folk are put off owning dogs demand decreases so hopefully would supply. I understand you think it would ruin "your" dog ownership- that is entirely up to you - but many live like this now, perfectly fulfilled and on leads for any number of reasons.
> 
> It would simply become the norm. (not that Im saying it is right, but it is a better option IMO than the current Bull **** Legislation)


I think it would put off the wrong owners though, ones who are actually thinking about whether they can fulfil a dog's exercise requirements on a lead...it wouldn't put off the people who don't think things like that through.

Some dogs and owers would be fine with only on lead walks, I wouldn't be, I'm not sure how it could be fulfilling for a dog to never be able to run or to chase a ball, yes I could do longer walks - but they'd still always be at walking speed.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Lexiedhb said:


> What breeds would become extinct? Im only talking about this country......


The larger breeds certainly would become rarer. I think people would go for smaller dogs that they think would be easier to handle on a lead; I am not saying they are, just that is what people believe.

Also the high energy dogs like border collies; it would just no way be right to keep one of those on a lead all the time.

As Phoolf has said, it is highlight of my life to see them playing with other dogs and enjoying themselves. I don't want another Leo who cannot be off lead, nothing wrong with that is there?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

tabulahrasa said:


> I think it would put off the wrong owners though, ones who are actually thinking about whether they can fulfil a dog's exercise requirements on a lead...it wouldn't put off the people who don't think things like that through.
> 
> Some dogs and owers would be fine with only on lead walks, I wouldn't be, I'm not sure how it could be fulfilling for a dog to never be able to run or to chase a ball, yes I could do longer walks - but they'd still always be at walking speed.


You can forget them going for a swim or retrieving from water too, I'm not about to get in with them. As for going down streams in lovely woodland that's out the window too, as is exploring anywhere off path where a scent or something interesting may be. What a dull life it would be for so many.

Yup, I'd definitely be off! Save me some room in your caravn newfiesmum


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2013)

How do you do agility on lead?
Shutzhund/IPO?
Hunting, pointing, retrieving?
Lure coursing?


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> Springers for a start. Unless of course we could fashion them into transportation devices instead of being pets.


I dont understand that? Not all springers work- many are pets- some even kept permanently on a lead???/



newfiesmum said:


> The larger breeds certainly would become rarer. I think people would go for smaller dogs that they think would be easier to handle on a lead; I am not saying they are, just that is what people believe.
> 
> Also the high energy dogs like border collies; it would just no way be right to keep one of those on a lead all the time.
> 
> As Phoolf has said, it is highlight of my life to see them playing with other dogs and enjoying themselves. I don't want another Leo who cannot be off lead, nothing wrong with that is there?


Many Border collies too kept on lead at all times for various reasons- and many other high energy dogs. Their owners just accept they have to walk further, use their brains more in order to tire them.

Nothing wrong with your opinion at all- but a "on lead all the time" law would not make dogs extinct. In fact i reckon the giant breeds with lower exercise needs would probably see an increase in popularity.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

ouesi said:


> How do you do agility on lead?
> Shutzhund/IPO?
> Hunting, pointing, retrieving?
> Lure coursing?


You cant thats why I said in a previous post it would cause all sorts of problems from agility to police dogs.

All things listed though are not exactly a necessity in life are they?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> I dont understand that? Not all springers work- many are pets- *some even kept permanently on a lead???/*


Yes and I'm sure that's a complete and utter joy. Not.

If your dog is on lead due to problems it has developed such as aggression then you have no choice but to keep them on and deal with the issue. I can imagine nobody would purposely go out to get a steamtrain springer with the express knowledge they would be on lead for life. Any more 'difficult' dogs would become instantly less popular if they were to be on lead.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> You can forget them going for a swim or retrieving from water too, I'm not about to get in with them. As for going down streams in lovely woodland that's out the window too, as is exploring anywhere off path where a scent or something interesting may be. What a dull life it would be for so many.
> 
> Yup, I'd definitely be off! Save me some room in your caravn newfiesmum


We can get two - at least we will have neighbours!



Phoolf said:


> Yes and I'm sure that's a complete and utter joy. Not.
> 
> If your dog is on lead due to problems it has developed such as aggression then you have no choice but to keep them on and deal with the issue. I can imagine nobody would purposely go out to get a steamtrain springer with the express knowledge they would be on lead for life. Any more 'difficult' dogs would become instantly less popular if they were to be on lead.


Unfortunately there are people who have dogs like this and don't let them off for no better reason than they are scared they won't come back. Perhaps it would make people research more before getting a dog, who knows? I doubt it.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> Yes and I'm sure that's a complete and utter joy. Not.
> 
> If your dog is on lead due to problems it has developed such as aggression then you have no choice but to keep them on and deal with the issue. I can imagine nobody would purposely go out to get a steamtrain springer with the express knowledge they would be on lead for life. Any more 'difficult' dogs would become instantly less popular if they were to be on lead.


Eh? You have no idea unless you had a springer, and knew how the individual dog would react- am fairly sure it was a member on here who kept her springer on a lead at all times, for the simple reason she was scared to let it off- dog did not suffer for it.

You can do so much more than have a dog off lead to wear it out.......

You do also realise that you are coming across as very judgemental, and "these dogs can not possibly be fulfilled" to folk who do for whatever reason have to keep their dogs on a lead......


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> Eh? You have no idea unless you had a springer, and knew how the individual dog would react- am fairly sure it was a member on here who kept her springer on a lead at all times, for the simple reason she was scared to let it off- dog did not suffer for it.
> 
> You can do so much more than have a dog off lead to wear it out.......


I don't think you really get it to be honest.

Springers pull, and pull, then pull some more. They are often a complete and utter nightmare to leash train. Does your average dog owner want to sign up to that? I would guess not. I wouldn't be volunteering to be pulled around for years on end, my shoulders and arms suffering.

If I wanted a springer I would get one because I loved them for what they are bred to do - run about like mad hatters going through brush and scenting about. If it is no longer legal to allow dogs to do what they are bred for, what's the point in their existence?

If you couldn't be bothered to teach your dog a recall and it was a breed who was bred to run, then you should have got a dog who is happy to be restrained imo. It does affect their quality of life from where I'm stood and I wouldn't be happy to own dogs if that was the only choice legally available to me.

Seen your edit, if you want to call me judgemental then that's your choice entirely, I don't care in the slightest. I have said my part about people whose dogs have to be on lead for whatever reason, but I have also said that if they knew their dogs would have to be on lead for life they may not have chosen that breed. If you want to call that balanced opinion judgemental then perhaps you are being too sensitive.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Lexiedhb said:


> Eh? You have no idea unless you had a springer, and knew how the individual dog would react- am fairly sure it was a member on here who kept her springer on a lead at all times, for the simple reason she was scared to let it off- dog did not suffer for it.
> 
> You can do so much more than have a dog off lead to wear it out.......
> 
> You do also realise that you are coming across as very judgemental, and "these dogs can not possibly be fulfilled" to folk who do for whatever reason have to keep their dogs on a lead......


How do you know the dog did not suffer for it? There is more to letting a dog run free than wearing it out, things like exploring, sniffing, playing with other dogs. If you are going to be scared to let the dog off lead, don't have one. I think you should at least try, with most breeds.


----------



## sezeelson (Jul 5, 2011)

No way could I ever walk Rossi only on a lead! He is a super high energy dog and it doesn't not matter how many times I take him out or for how long on lead he needs to run. I take Rossi to obedience and I would hope as the instructor knows me and knows him quite well that she wouldn't mind him being there without the muzzle? I would feel really weird about taking him anywhere else though, I can't help but think what people would think of me and my dog being a banned breed. I have a mental health disorder and having to a dog with a label over its head will have a huge effect on me and what I feel safe/comfortable doing. 

Rossi also thrives of socialising with other dogs, he becomes frustrated and leash reactive if he has not had a good meeting/play with another dog for only 2 or 3 days. Forcing him to stay on leash will turn him into a dog that needs a muzzle while now he is perfectly safe with people and dogs. 

I hate muzzles, I have to walk scooby on lead and muzzled and it is so unenjoyable. It does effect their sniffing ability and he becomes frustrated if he can't get his face into a good scent, it also effects his mental state. He is a completely different dog with the muzzle on, it's as though he has shut down and all the training I do with him doesn't really go anywhere. If I do the exact same thing with the muzzle off he is ten times better and will respond to me and actually progress with the training. 

Being muzzled and leashed is no life for a dog and I would hate to put Rossi through it! But I would never let them take him or have him put down I'd go out of my way to make sure his life his fulfilled and that it doesn't effect our relationship to much.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> I dont understand that? Not all springers work- many are pets- some even kept permanently on a lead???/
> 
> Many Border collies too kept on lead at all times for various reasons- and many other high energy dogs. Their owners just accept they have to walk further, use their brains more in order to tire them.
> 
> Nothing wrong with your opinion at all- but a "on lead all the time" law would not make dogs extinct. In fact i reckon the giant breeds with lower exercise needs would probably see an increase in popularity.


There's an older gentleman that I meet frequently when dog walking, I know he's currently undergoing chemotherapy -he has a collie, he manages because he takes her for 3 or 4 short walks off lead and does lots of games of fetch with her... He fits that in round being ill and work, but he isn't physically capable of walking further.

I know it's an extreme example, but he's a good dog owner who gets a lot of pleasure from owning a dog - why should he not be able to?


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> You cant thats why I said in a previous post it would cause all sorts of problems from agility to police dogs.
> 
> All things listed though are not exactly a necessity in life are they?


Herding... I forgot about herding!

Necessity? Well, you could make a case that dog ownership in and of itself is not a necessity. 
Doesn't mean it's not hugely important to some.

For us and our lifestyle, and our needs in our dogs, off leash IS a necessity.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> I don't think you really get it to be honest.
> 
> Springers pull, and pull, then pull some more. They are often a complete and utter nightmare to leash train. Does your average dog owner want to sign up to that? I would guess not. I wouldn't be volunteering to be pulled around for years on end, my shoulders and arms suffering.
> 
> ...


I dont get it do I? I dont know of a perfectly happy PET springer who does not pull on the lead- because someone took time to train it? NOT all springers are the same..... not all dogs of one breed are the same- hence why breed specific legislation is a pile of arse- you can not generalise.

Your view is not balanced, and is judgemental- not that i care. Yes in an ideal world everyone would have the perfectly trained dog, whose recall was 110%, and who got on with every other dog/person/small furry/ child, sadly we do not live in an ideal world.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Herding... I forgot about herding!
> 
> Necessity? Well, you could make a case that dog ownership in and of itself is not a necessity.
> Doesn't mean it's not hugely important to some.
> ...


Everyone is entitled to their opinion on dog ownership/ how to treat dogs etc. There will always be differences.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> I dont get it do I? I dont know of a perfectly happy PET springer who does not pull on the lead- because someone took time to train it? NOT all springers are the same..... not all dogs of one breed are the same- hence why breed specific legislation is a pile of arse- you can not generalise.
> 
> Your view is not balanced, and is judgemental- not that i care. Yes in an ideal world everyone would have the perfectly trained dog, whose recall was 110%, and who got on with every other dog/person/small furry/ child, sadly we do not live in an ideal world.


Talking of inbalanced opinions...out of interest do you happen to have a dog who is on lead only?


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> Talking of inbalanced opinions...out of interest do you happen to have a dog who is on lead only?


Nope. Although probably 90% of the time. I do have a balanced opinion- I have said ideally all dogs would be off lead, but i do not see their lives being diminished by not having that freedom in PUBLIC


----------



## sezeelson (Jul 5, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Everyone is entitled to their opinion on dog ownership/ how to treat dogs etc. There will always be differences.


Either way, every dog owner should have the right to exercise their dogs as they please and under the 5 freedoms of animal welfare act, have the freedom to express normal behaviour. Rossi can not act as a dog whilst permenantly tethered to me...

Also freedom from fear and distress, another thing that scooby is not free from when he is muzzled. Yes I muzzle him for safety but I must be allowed to take that muzzle of in order to train him effectively.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> Nope. Although probably 90% of the time. I do have a balanced opinion- I have said ideally all dogs would be off lead, but i do not see their lives being diminished by not having that freedom in PUBLIC


You don't think any dog would have a diminished life by being on lead only? What was it you were just saying about every dog being an individual? :confused1:


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

If all dogs had to be muzzled and only walked on a lead, I wouldn't have a dog. 

How would you deal with the problem of aggressive dogs? Wait until they've bitten someone and then have them put down? Have all dogs assessed and force those dogs that fail a temperament test to be muzzled and leashed in case they bite someone? Put the owners of aggressive dogs in prison, take the dogs away from them and have them put down? There's too many laws already, so just leave them to it?

What would be an alternative?

The Spanish idea sounded okay until I thought about it. Dogs that should be over 25 kilos starved to keep them under, so you'd need the law to cover that one. If you have a dog that should be over 25 kilos it needs temperament assessing. Or maybe all dogs need to pass the test.

How would it be policed? Cut one ear off the dogs who fail the test, so it can be easily seen and reported if seen without muzzle and lead?

Put down all dogs that fail the test?

When you say it's the owners who should be judged, how would you do that? Before anyone has a dog, making them pass a dog owner and trainer test? Would Cesar Milan pass it? Who would write it? What's to stop someone attending a couple of classes, then going home and kicking their dog to make it aggressive?

So long as people have dogs, some people will have large dogs that they frighten into aggression and that go out and bite people or attack other dogs. So perhaps a ban on all dogs that are over a certain size, so that when they've trained their small lap dog to aggressively attack, it does about as much damage as a rampaging guinea pig. 

I think it's a tough one where the government need to be seen to be doing something every time there's pictures of a toddler with his face mutilated and where some government officials don't like or own dogs themselves, so are keen to see controls, bans etc. Something will happen, perhaps us dog owners need to think about what we'd like to see, rather than what we wouldn't? If there is anything. :confused1:


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Elles said:


> I think it's a tough one where the government need to be *seen to be doing something every time there's pictures of a toddler with his face mutilated *and where some government officials don't like or own dogs themselves, so are keen to see controls, bans etc. Something will happen, perhaps us dog owners need to think about what we'd like to see, rather than what we wouldn't? If there is anything. :confused1:


Perhaps the government should be more honest and ask why exactly the toddler was allowed to get its face mutilated?

But then of course, it's never down the parents these days....


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> I think it would potentially impeded the quality of life for those dogs used to off leadness, (saying that we can all train our dogs to do new things and they dont seem to get "depressed" about it"- or have a worse quality of life.
> 
> *However in what 15 years time all dogs would never know the difference- they would have been on a lead since birth- it would be the norm. We really do impress our human emotions far to much on our dogs.* This would cause major issues with everything from agility to police dogs tho!!


So you think 15 years of lead walking will suddenly eradicate decades/hundreds/thousands of years of instinct bred into working type dogs? it has nothing to do with "never knowing the difference", but forfilling the needs of breeds of dog that have been used for their natural abilities off lead since their creation. This doesn't just vanish due to years of being kept on a lead.

Many dogs WOULD adapt to a life on the lead. Plenty of dogs are now bred solely for companionship and have next to no working instincts or drives. Most of these dogs would probably adapt despite what their owner thinks. However, there are plenty of dog breeds who do NOT fall into this category and would NOT adapt to a restricted lifestyle. No dog is created equally and you could not compare the needs of a ploddy Cavalier to a working bred, continental pointing or hunting breed.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> Nope. Although probably 90% of the time. I do have a balanced opinion- I have said ideally all dogs would be off lead, but i do not see their lives being diminished by not having that freedom in PUBLIC


In public is anywhere that's not your property, at the top of a remote mountain is in public, inside your car while driving is in public...it's not in public as most people would think of it.


----------



## 3dogs2cats (Aug 15, 2012)

sezeelson said:


> Either way, every dog owner should have the right to exercise their dogs as they please and under the 5 freedoms of animal welfare act, have the freedom to express normal behaviour.


While I agree with you, it is just not possible for owners to exercise their dogs as they please, dog restrictions effect all dogs not just those on the banned list. In my area years ago yes dogs could be excercised pretty much everywhere without restriction, not any more sadly

Parks and playing fields have become dog on leads only, areas that were overgrown basically waste ground have become country parks with wildlife in ponds so no dogs allowed off lead. Fields have become housing estates. In the last couple of years this area has gone from dog ownership heaven to a bloody nightmare. In some cases yes the dog owning public have won small victories ie a total ban on dogs on the one park was over turned but overall dog restrictions in one way or another are happening more and more.


----------



## sharloid (Apr 15, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> You don't think any dog would have a diminished life by being on lead only? What was it you were just saying about every dog being an individual? :confused1:


I'd like to think that my two don't have a diminished life by nearly always being onlead. 

I think it would be more diminished if they got squished by a car (or seized if they were an 'illegal' breed).ea

As much as I love to see mine running, I knew when I got Broder that I can chosen an 'on lead breed' and instead of standing at a park, throwing a ball a few times and then going home (which is what I see a lot of owners do) I have to find other ways to tire them out. To be honest I do think it can be a lot harder to have an on lead breed.

If there were less people and more nature we wouldn't have a problem. Less people = less sheep for them to potentially kill.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

labradrk said:


> So you think 15 years of lead walking will suddenly eradicate decades/hundreds/thousands of years of instinct bred into working type dogs? it has nothing to do with "never knowing the difference", but forfilling the needs of breeds of dog that have been used for their natural abilities off lead since their creation. This doesn't just vanish due to years of being kept on a lead.
> 
> Many dogs WOULD adapt to a life on the lead. Plenty of dogs are now bred solely for companionship and have next to no working instincts or drives. Most of these dogs would probably adapt despite what their owner thinks. However, there are plenty of dog breeds who do NOT fall into this category and would NOT adapt to a restricted lifestyle. No dog is created equally and you could not compare the needs of a ploddy Cavalier to a working bred, continental pointing or hunting breed.


Same way we bred the instinct in they could be bred out- no perhaps not in 15 years but eventually, if folk so wanted to.


----------



## sezeelson (Jul 5, 2011)

3dogs2cats said:


> While I agree with you, it is just not possible for owners to exercise their dogs as they please, dog restrictions effect all dogs not just those on the banned list. In my area years ago yes dogs could be excercised pretty much everywhere without restriction, not any more sadly
> 
> Parks and playing fields have become dog on leads only, areas that were overgrown basically waste ground have become country parks with wildlife in ponds so no dogs allowed off lead. Fields have become housing estates. In the last couple of years this area has gone from dog ownership heaven to a bloody nightmare. In some cases yes the dog owning public have won small victories ie a total ban on dogs on the one park was over turned but overall dog restrictions in one way or another are happening more and more.


I understand this, our beach is no dogs allowed during may to September time with leash restrictions along the prominade. There is a section of beach free to dogs off lead further along.

I was speaking more specifically about just being able to exercise your dog off leash or on leash if you wish to and not specifically where. Dog restrictions are necessary in some places. But to have my dog perminanlty restricted to lead and muzzle even if I am in the middle of nowhere not a human or animal in sight is just not on.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Although I do agree that BSL is completely nonsensical, I fail to see an alternative that wouldn't have a hugely negative effect on all dog owners. 

Deed not breed, whilst it makes more sense, is simply not preventative, and surely 'preventative' is the whole point of the legislation.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> You don't think any dog would have a diminished life by being on lead only? What was it you were just saying about every dog being an individual? :confused1:


I guess because I do not have a dog who can be off lead anywhere I look for alternatives, private land, games, friendly farmers with well fenced private land, a house with a decent sized garden, access to secluded countryside would all be priorities for me- as they would be with any dog to be fair. So with a little bit of thought yes i think any pet dog could adapt and not loose quality of life.


----------



## sezeelson (Jul 5, 2011)

bearcub said:


> Although I do agree that BSL is completely nonsensical, I fail to see an alternative that wouldn't have a hugely negative effect on all dog owners.
> 
> Deed not breed, whilst it makes more sense, is simply not preventative, and surely 'preventative' is the whole point of the legislation.


Banning more breeds does not prevent attacks either?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

sharloid said:


> I'd like to think that my two don't have a diminished life by nearly always being onlead.
> 
> I think it would be more diminished if they got squished by a car (or seized if they were an 'illegal' breed).ea
> 
> As much as I love to see mine running, I knew when I got Broder that I can chosen an 'on lead breed' and instead of standing at a park, throwing a ball a few times and then going home (which is what I see a lot of owners do) I have to find other ways to tire them out. To be honest I do think it can be a lot harder to have an on lead breed.


Indeed, but when you choose an on lead breed you know what you're getting into and you make that decision, bringing in a retrospective law that is enforced on people who did not make this choice is cruel and unusual to the dogs imo. Having an on lead breed is certainly not for everyone, like myself who cannot jog or run long distances due to knee problems.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

I have a rescue dog. He is a lurcher and probably was an ex-worker that was dumped by a certain community. (This is my assumption btw, based on his breed and VERY high chase/prey drive and what I have come to learn of such dogs and their lives. I may be wrong.)

He has no recall. I have tried to train him, without success and have lost him 3 times. Luckily, he has been found unharmed. I think the risk of him getting lost, injured, killed, stolen, causing a car accident, etc. etc. far too great to let him off again except in an enclosed area. No matter how much training I do with him, the only way to test it is to let him off. What if it doesn't work again? That may be his last run. I exercise him on a harness and flexi-lead cross country for at least 1 1/2 hours at a time.

Based on some opinions expressed, he is unable to live a fulfilling and happy life. Perhaps he would have been better off pts at the pound when he was picked up originally?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> I guess because I do not have a dog who can be off lead anywhere I look for alternatives, private land, games, friendly farmers with well fenced private land, a house with a decent sized garden, access to secluded countryside would all be priorities for me- as they would be with any dog to be fair. So with a little bit of thought yes i think any pet dog could adapt and not loose quality of life.


Why can't your dog be off lead anywhere? I asked earlier if your dog was on lead for whatever reason and you said no, but it seems from your description this isn't the case if you have to source private land.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

sezeelson said:


> Banning more breeds does not prevent attacks either?


It does in theory, but in practice, no.

What would? Targeting sh*te dog owners who let their dogs run riot could, but again, in practice it wouldn't work.


----------



## sharloid (Apr 15, 2012)

I think we should just start compulsory neutering of humans instead. It is, after all, humans that cause all the problems, not dogs.


----------



## sezeelson (Jul 5, 2011)

How does it? 

My four legged weapon is now banned but this four legged weapon is not...? I don't see the difference. I know not everyone actively use their dogs as a weapon but you get my point. 

Education. People need to learn about canine welfare and canine behaviour, just simple but highly necessary stuff. We also need more dog wardens to enforce laws and to respond to any reports or complaints of aggression, abuse and neglect etc. more money maybe but as it costs 20k to put a potentially banned breed through court, the current legislation is costing loads anyway.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> Why can't your dog be off lead anywhere? I asked earlier if your dog was on lead for whatever reason and you said no, but it seems from your description this isn't the case if you have to source private land.


You asked if he was ALWAYS on lead - i said NO about 90% of the time he is.

He was undersocialised as a pup, and is a rescue, he is rude, bargey and way to OTT for many dogs. I have been to socailisation classes, had behaviourists, trainers etc etc- but he can not contain his excitement- this is still a work in progress- I am very aware of the need to allow other dogs not to be jumped all over, and harassed by a large bull breed- so as a responsible owner of a dog who is also a Staff X i choose not to take him to a busy park and let him off? I fail to see the problem with this?


----------



## sezeelson (Jul 5, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> You asked if he was ALWAYS on lead - i said NO about 90% of the time he is.
> 
> He was undersocialised as a pup, and is a rescue, he is rude, bargey and way to OTT for many dogs. I have been to socailisation classes, had behaviourists, trainers etc etc- but he can not contain his excitement- this is still a work in progress- I am very aware of the need to allow other dogs not to be jumped all over, and harassed by a large bull breed- so as a responsible owner of a dog who is also a Staff X i choose not to take him to a busy park and let him off? I fail to see the problem with this?


Sounds exactly like my boy! But I went to parks more and more rather then restrict his socialising. He has now learned what is acceptable and what is not and is a well socialised dog and the sigh/interaction of another dog has become normal and no longer goes mental jumping all over them like their a celebrity and he's their biggest fan!!

Maybe this was my choice due to not having any access to private land etc as my garden is quite small.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> I guess because I do not have a dog who can be off lead anywhere I look for alternatives, private land, games, friendly farmers with well fenced private land, a house with a decent sized garden, access to secluded countryside would all be priorities for me- as they would be with any dog to be fair. So with a little bit of thought yes i think any pet dog could adapt and not loose quality of life.


I don't know any farmers with well fenced land for dog walkers, they're using it as farmland... Moving is not an option for me, I compromised with my garden because it's near other things I need to live near and has lots of areas for dog walking and secluded countryside is still in public.

So no, a little thought isn't always enough and that's discounting that any dog owner can become ill or disabled at any time. There are many things that could affect how far you can walk that could be worked round off lead but couldn't if they had to have a dog onlead always.

I don't think anyone who only walks onlead out of considerations for the benefit of that dog is doing them a disservice - but there are dogs and owners that taking away the option to be off lead would negatively impact them.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

sezeelson said:


> Sounds exactly like my boy! But I went to parks more and more rather then restrict his socialising. He has now learned what is acceptable and what is not and is a well socialised dog and the sigh/interaction of another dog has become normal and no longer goes mental jumping all over them like their a celebrity and he's their biggest fan!!
> 
> Maybe this was my choice due to not having any access to private land etc as my garden is quite small.


Yeah this was the tactic of our first behaviourist, but in order to keep mine calm he has to be a reasonable distance away from said dog to keep him under threshold in order to actually be able to work with him not so easy in a park where there is an offlead dog in every 10m LOL


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> You asked if he was ALWAYS on lead - i said NO about 90% of the time he is.
> 
> He was undersocialised as a pup, and is a rescue, he is rude, bargey and way to OTT for many dogs. I have been to socailisation classes, had behaviourists, trainers etc etc- but he can not contain his excitement- this is still a work in progress- I am very aware of the need to allow other dogs not to be jumped all over, and harassed by a large bull breed- so as a responsible owner of a dog who is also a Staff X i choose not to take him to a busy park and let him off? I fail to see the problem with this?


I didn't say there was a problem, did I?  I was just confused about your answer, as you were accusing me of biased beliefs and hence I asked if your dog was on lead only, which aside from private land you have to access it seems he is, hence why I got the impression your own views were somewhat biased. That's why I asked. There isn't a problem, I just like to know why people have the views they do.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

tabulahrasa said:


> I don't know any farmers with well fenced land for dog walkers, they're using it as farmland... Moving is not an option for me, I compromised with my garden because it's near other things I need to live near and has lots of areas for dog walking and secluded countryside is still in public.
> 
> So no, a little thought isn't always enough and that's discounting that any dog owner can become ill or disabled at any time. There are many things that could affect how far you can walk that could be worked round off lead but couldn't if they had to have a dog onlead always.
> 
> I don't think anyone who only walks onlead out of considerations for the benefit of that dog is doing them a disservice - but there are dogs and owners that taking away the option to be off lead would negatively impact them.


I agree. There is never going to be a solution that fits everyone perfectly.


----------



## Beth17 (Jun 5, 2012)

Lurcherlad said:


> I have a rescue dog. He is a lurcher and probably was an ex-worker that was dumped by a certain community. (This is my assumption btw, based on his breed and VERY high chase/prey drive and what I have come to learn of such dogs and their lives. I may be wrong.)
> 
> He has no recall. I have tried to train him, without success and have lost him 3 times. Luckily, he has been found unharmed. I think the risk of him getting lost, injured, killed, stolen, causing a car accident, etc. etc. far too great to let him off again except in an enclosed area. No matter how much training I do with him, the only way to test it is to let him off. What if it doesn't work again? That may be his last run. I exercise him on a harness and flexi-lead cross country for at least 1 1/2 hours at a time.
> 
> Based on some opinions expressed, he is unable to live a fulfilling and happy life. Perhaps he would have been better off pts at the pound when he was picked up originally?


No that's not the point at all. If your dog is happy with that then that's fair enough there is no problem with that. The whole point is that dogs like humans are individuals and so whilst being onlead only for your dog works for you and is necessary, for other dogs such as mine that arrangement wouldn't work and would leave them pretty unfulfilled.


----------



## Booties (Nov 23, 2012)

Milliepoochie said:


> It wouldnt be as simple as everyone using long lines though I wouldnt of thought though. As the last thing which councils etc would want is all dogs on bloomin lunge lines. IF lead laws came in I would of thought there would be a maximum lead length to prevent everybody using long lines everywhere they go.
> 
> Plus it is dangerous for dogs on long lines to be playing together so certainly if Millie was on a lead 100% of the time she would not be playing with other dogs at all when on walks. For those dogs used to off lead walks I think it would impede there quality of life quite considerably especially people like myself who do not have a back garden.


I mean- if the law was suddenly imposed, I'm sure most people could live with keeping their dogs onlead in "public areas" and having them on a longline in fields, etc. Obviously it wouldn't be the same and they wouldn't be happy about it by a longshot, but I think most of us would do it for the sake of legal dogs


----------



## sezeelson (Jul 5, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Yeah this was the tactic of our first behaviourist, but in order to keep mine calm he has to be a reasonable distance away from said dog to keep him under threshold in order to actually be able to work with him not so easy in a park where there is an offlead dog in every 10m LOL


I walked him straight over, working with big dogs first and allowing Rossi to meet, as soon as he lifted his paws I done a 180 with Rossi head facing away from the dog. It's not about controlling his excitement when viewing the dog but when actually meeting the dog. He still drags me over to dogs in a hissifit of excitement but no longer jumps on them and no longer gets 'told off' by other dogs for being rude. All dogs I worked with where off lead, and worked with him in a similar way you would to stop a dog jumping up at a person.

I have arthritis and Rossi is essentially but not registered my assistance dog. I lean on him to get up stairs and get up, he picks stuff, he makes sure I exercise everyday to keep me mobile and lots more.

Thankfully I have the ability to ride my electric scooter on most bad days meaning he gets a half decent jog. I couldn't physically exercise him enough to keep him happy without letting him off lead to run and play. It builds up in him and he becomes very frustrated and naughty and will bring areas of his resource guarding which I never want to see again!!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

So, many dog lovers would be happy to keep their dog muzzled and on a lead so long as everyone else has to and they'd just work with it? Rather than breed specific law, they'd actually prefer a blanket all dogs law?

Saves all the effort of training a good recall and socialising so that your dog isn't pushy and impolite I suppose. 

Training schools could all be loose leash walking specialists. Wouldn't be a need for anything else. :thumbsup:



By the time a few ignorant, ill-behaved, just wants to play dogs have turned their own into a quivering wreck, I suppose I can see their point. 

I couldn't imagine keeping my collie on a lead for the rest of her life though. I've put in a lot of effort to try to make sure she doesn't need to.


----------



## purpleskyes (May 24, 2012)

I dont know if everyone read the proposed changes but neutering, muzzling and chipping your dog wouldn't be an option as part of the change is to repeal the exemption legalisation.....

So in that case I would be moving to a country where the breed of my dog wasnt an issue. His breed being added to the list is a strong possibility, according to some I work with who liaison with the MET dog unit most of their officers would have akitas as the next breed to be added to the list.


----------



## Aris (Feb 19, 2013)

thedogsmother said:


> I would have to obey the rules of the ban, and they would be on lead and muzzled whilst out of the house, I wouldnt like it but the alternative wouldnt be something I would consider.


Please I need some help. I am moving to UK and I own a dog which I plan to bring along with me. The problem is that this dog is of unspecified breed and I am trembling of the possibility to be characterized as an illegal type. The dog is the one on my avatar. Can I please have an opinion on what my beloved friend looks like? I can upload more pictures to have a better viewing of him.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Aris said:


> Please I need some help. I am moving to UK and I own a dog which I plan to bring along with me. The problem is that this dog is of unspecified breed and I am trembling of the possibility to be characterized as an illegal type. The dog is the one on my avatar. Can I please have an opinion on what my beloved friend looks like? I can upload more pictures to have a better viewing of him.


You do not appear to have an avatar, if you could post some pictures that would be helpful.


----------



## Aris (Feb 19, 2013)

Oh I see my avatar doesn't appear I will try to upload some photos of him.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> Same way we bred the instinct in they could be bred out- no perhaps not in 15 years but eventually, if folk so wanted to.


So eventually we would be left with breeds with no drive, no get up and go, no amazing natural working instincts? just a bunch of breeds that are happy to plod along aimlessly? I am sure this sort of dog would suit a lot of owners but it certainly wouldn't suit everyone. I would hate to see the sort of dog I adore cease to exist purely because some power-that-be tells me my dog must be on a lead at all times.



Lurcherlad said:


> I have a rescue dog. He is a lurcher and probably was an ex-worker that was dumped by a certain community. (This is my assumption btw, based on his breed and VERY high chase/prey drive and what I have come to learn of such dogs and their lives. I may be wrong.)
> 
> He has no recall. I have tried to train him, without success and have lost him 3 times. Luckily, he has been found unharmed. I think the risk of him getting lost, injured, killed, stolen, causing a car accident, etc. etc. far too great to let him off again except in an enclosed area. No matter how much training I do with him, the only way to test it is to let him off. What if it doesn't work again? That may be his last run. I exercise him on a harness and flexi-lead cross country for at least 1 1/2 hours at a time.
> 
> *Based on some opinions expressed, he is unable to live a fulfilling and happy life.* Perhaps he would have been better off pts at the pound when he was picked up originally?


I think you are taking it a little too personally. I don't believe anyone has said that ALL dogs that are kept on leads are not fulfilled, but rather there are SOME that would _not_ be fulfilled.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Booties said:


> I mean- if the law was suddenly imposed, I'm sure most people could live with keeping their dogs onlead in "public areas" and having them on a longline in fields, etc. Obviously it wouldn't be the same and they wouldn't be happy about it by a longshot, but I think most of us would do it for the sake of legal dogs


I wouldn't. I would take myself and my babies as far away from civilization, so-called, as I could get. Put a lead on Ferdie, he sits down and refuses to move. He hasn't walked on a lead since he lost Joshua and I don't see him about to start any time soon. So then I would have some busy body telling me that he is not cared for because he gets no walks.

I would rather send him and Diva back to their original breeder, who at least has a bit of land for them to run in if not much.



Aris said:


> Please I need some help. I am moving to UK and I own a dog which I plan to bring along with me. The problem is that this dog is of unspecified breed and I am trembling of the possibility to be characterized as an illegal type. The dog is the one on my avatar. Can I please have an opinion on what my beloved friend looks like? I can upload more pictures to have a better viewing of him.


You do not have an avatar nor a profile picture. Go to edit profile at the top of the page, and choose edit avatar from the left hand side list. Does your dog look anything like a bull breed?


----------



## tiatortilla (Oct 1, 2012)

why are people with on lead only dogs taking it so personally? no one is saying that YOUR dog that needs to be on a lead for it's own safety or if it has always been on lead is not fulfilled, merely that it would be unfair for OUR dogs who have always been allowed to run free and have no reason to be on lead all the time. it's totally different!


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

I thought it was those with offlead dogs taking it personally LOL

I guess from my point of view you can not have one rule for one and one for another- like the BSL rubbish- why are Bull breeds who have never put a foot wrong made to be leashed and muzzled? there will always be folk who can not abide dogs- will support laws against them but surely these laws have to encompass all dogs not just ones the daily fail see as "dangerous"


----------



## Aris (Feb 19, 2013)

So here's my friend. Should I feel desperate? What kind of breed would you think he is in your opinion?


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Aris said:


> So here's my friend. Should I feel desperate? What kind of breed would you think he is in your opinion?


Yeah he would be fine, looks like a Staffy x terrier of some sort.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Aris said:


> So here's my friend. Should I feel desperate? What kind of breed would you think he is in your opinion?


I think you would be quite safe. He certainly doesn't look like any bull breed I ever saw, just looks like a little sweetheart.


----------



## Aris (Feb 19, 2013)

You do not have an avatar nor a profile picture. Go to edit profile at the top of the page, and choose edit avatar from the left hand side list. Does your dog look anything like a bull breed?[/QUOTE] I uploaded some pictures of him. Yes that is what I am afraid of. And the thing is that I have noone available to adopt him and the option of not moving at all to UK doesn't exist. I feel completely desperate...


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

I think this thread has gone in circles :eek6: And people are taking it way to personally.

I just wanted to clarify as an owner of a dog who spends more time with no lead on than with a lead on that I have never suggested dogs cannot live a forfilled life with out going off lead. 

I understand that some breeds cannot go offlead in public places and that dogs which have never known the freedom of lead will not miss it. 

BUT I know I would not inflict this upon Millie given her past and freedom she rightly deserves as a (mostly!  ) polite and well trained dog. 

To be honest its just sad that the situation in this country has got this dire that laws are needed to try force owners to be responsible.


----------



## Aris (Feb 19, 2013)

REALLY!!! I THINK I AM GOING TO CRY!! Thank you so much for your help!!!I am so grateful!! And yes he is the most sweet lovable friend I ever had, he is a stray wounded dog I adopted to take care of until he could stand on his feet but... since then we are unseparated!! Thank you so much!!!!


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2013)

Milliepoochie said:


> And people are taking it way to personally.


Well, for many of us, BSL is very personal. 
It's hard to not take it personally when it's your breed, your dog, your family member who might be next.
Heck, if I lived there, one of my dogs would be in constant danger of being taken simply because of what he looks like. 
How do you not take it personally that your dog is judged simply on how he looks??

In fact, that was sort of my purpose is creating this thread. 
For too many dog owners, BSL is this faraway, abstract law that doesn't really affect them. I mean, pages and pages of posts basically saying "my breed won't ever be banned".

Breed bans and BSL is EVERY dog owner's concern. Anyone who enjoys owning dogs as pets and companions should be absolutely OUTRAGED at any sort of law that restricts dog ownership based on breed or appearance or size.


----------



## Wildmoor (Oct 31, 2011)

ouesi said:


> What does PEOPLE wanting to buy bait dogs have to do with fear mongering about DOGS? It's not the dogs who are dangerous!!
> Again, all but ONE of the pitbulls rescued from Michael Vick's fighting kennels were rehabilitated and went on to live as family pets, some working as therapy dogs.
> 
> *On this forum* I have seen posters - not tolls - longtime members, say crazy things about pit bulls - like that their bite force is stronger than any other breed (it's not), that they have locking jaws (they don't), that they cause far more damage when they bite than "normal" dogs (they don't), they are inherently aggressive (they're not), that they're out to kill innocent pet dogs (they're not)... THIS is the kind of fear mongering and misinformation I'm talking about.
> ...


I met one in Canada whilst I was visiting it was kenneled with a Dalmation the owner warned me to stay away because the dalmation was agressive the pit bull was friendly they got her out for me to meet


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Well, for many of us, BSL is very personal.
> It's hard to not take it personally when it's your breed, your dog, your family member who might be next.
> Heck, if I lived there, one of my dogs would be in constant danger of being taken simply because of what he looks like.
> How do you not take it personally that your dog is judged simply on how he looks??
> ...


I meant taking the on lead off lead thing personally.

If you read my first post in this thread youl understand my view and concern for the 'oh it doesnt effect me' view.


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2013)

Milliepoochie said:


> I meant taking the on lead off lead thing personally.
> 
> If you read my first post in this thread youl understand my view and concern for the 'oh it doesnt effect me' view.


Oh yes, I knew you meant the leash thing 
But your point about taking things personally gave me a good starting point to try to circle back to BSL as opposed to leashed or not


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Well, for many of us, BSL is very personal.
> It's hard to not take it personally when it's your breed, your dog, your family member who might be next.
> Heck, if I lived there, one of my dogs would be in constant danger of being taken simply because of what he looks like.
> How do you not take it personally that your dog is judged simply on how he looks??
> ...


Things are really not as bad here as you read on forums. I know of vast numbers of bull breeds and dogs that could easily be of type, and nobody really takes too much notice. As I said, i have seen several in Cambridge which look like APB to me, and they are being walked down the street same as any other dog.

The first time we went to the USA, I was warned by everybody I knew not to talk to anyone I didn't know because it is well known that everybody carries guns. Of course, holidaying in America was not so popular as it is now, but even so it seemed a bit extreme to me.

But that is the sort of perception people get of other countries. As we were arriving at a restaurant, a man pulled up, handed me a bunch of flowers and asked me to take them in to one of the waitresses! Immediately my kids are thinking I am being held up at gun point, instead of held up at bouquet!!


----------



## sskmick (Feb 4, 2008)

Has banning a breed worked - nop, I regulary hear people who claim to have a pitbull or xpitbull or pitbull type. I know this is only one of the four banned breeds.

The current law doesn't work, people are being attacked and in some cases children killed by the family pet dog.

I believe a dog behaves as it has been trained by its owners. I'm referring to all breeds. Its time the law changed to ban the owners from having a dog and impose fines depending on the offence to imprisonment. Personally I like to hang the bees at the end of the day the dog pays with its life.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Newfiesmum has a really good point, Ouesi. Dog owners aren't being persecuted over here, not as much as you think. I would worry about letting my dogs off lead in the US for fear of them getting mauled by a bear  but I'm sure you would tell me the risk is minimal. 

On the whole, if you keep your head down, clean up after your dog and don't allow it to be a nuisance to anyone, you'll be left alone. 

Those who don't adhere to the above rarely get in trouble, whether they own a Pit type or not and to be honest, there are so many idiot owners with nuisance dogs, I wish there were stricter dog laws. I don't think it's that bad a thing really to dish out punishments to those who don't care one way or another, and give the rest of us a bad name!

eta sskmick, when you say ban 'the owners' who are you referring to? Do you mean banning those whose dogs have bitten from owning another dog again?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

bearcub said:


> Newfiesmum has a really good point, Ouesi. Dog owners aren't being persecuted over here, not as much as you think. I would worry about letting my dogs off lead in the US for fear of them getting mauled by a bear  but I'm sure you would tell me the risk is minimal.
> 
> On the whole, if you keep your head down, clean up after your dog and don't allow it to be a nuisance to anyone, you'll be left alone.
> 
> ...


In Florida a small dog is likely to be swooped on and carried off by a vulture and the larger ones are in danger of being gobbled up by an alligator!


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

But one dog being taken away from it's family purely because if what it looks like is one too many- and that IS happening. There is a whole website of dogs that have been destroyed under the bsl nonsense, and many more who have to fight to get these perfectly well behaved dogs released.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> Things are really not as bad here as you read on forums. I know of vast numbers of bull breeds and dogs that could easily be of type, and nobody really takes too much notice. As I said, i have seen several in Cambridge which look like APB to me, and they are being walked down the street same as any other


I know of dogs that are supposed to be pitbulls...but nobody pays attention because they are very like a lot of staffy crosses, which is why staffy crosses are commonly destroyed.

I've never come across dogs that are or anyone claims to be the other breeds mentioned in the DDA, I think because they're much more distinctive and anything that could be crossed and look similar is rarer anyway.

Rottweilers are a breed often mentioned by people discussing BSL and not much ends up looking like a Rottweiler without having some Rottweiler in it - so it would be much more visible than a pitbull is.

The same is true of other breeds.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

tabulahrasa said:


> I know of dogs that are supposed to be pitbulls...but nobody pays attention because they are very like a lot of staffy crosses, which is why staffy crosses are commonly destroyed.
> 
> I've never come across dogs that are or anyone claims to be the other breeds mentioned in the DDA, I think because they're much more distinctive and anything that could be crossed and look similar is rarer anyway.
> 
> ...


Th sad thing is I can't even look at pictures of pits because it puts me under fits of anxiety. Kes has no staff and no pit in her but by god does she resemble some of the taller, black haired pits on google images. Not even worth thinking about


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

tabulahrasa said:


> I know of dogs that are supposed to be pitbulls...but nobody pays attention because they are very like a lot of staffy crosses, which is why staffy crosses are commonly destroyed.
> 
> I've never come across dogs that are or anyone claims to be the other breeds mentioned in the DDA, I think because they're much more distinctive and anything that could be crossed and look similar is rarer anyway.
> 
> ...


The ones I have seen don't look anything like staffie crosses. Victoria Stilwell has had a few American pit bulls on her US show, and these ones look just like them. It is tragic that they are on display for the ignorant to report, which is why no real dog lover would have one.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> The ones I have seen don't look anything like staffie crosses. Victoria Stilwell has had a few American pit bulls on her US show, and these ones look just like them. It is tragic that they are on display for the ignorant to report, which is why no real dog lover would have one.


Sorry I meant to people in general, not so much to people interested in dogs.

I mean I've met what I'm pretty sure are indeed pitbulls and crosses that I'm pretty sure would fit the type - but I wouldn't report a dog for the way it looks, I'd only ever report a dangerous dog whatever the breed.


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2013)

newfiesmum said:


> In Florida a small dog is likely to be swooped on and carried off by a vulture and the larger ones are in danger of being gobbled up by an alligator!


In my area coyotes are the biggest danger. In fact, just this morning at 4 am we could hear them causing a ruckus out in the woods. 
But yeah, Floridians have to worry about aligators as well as coyotes, BOP, snakes etc...

Kind of comical when you really think about it - let's ban pits because they may eat your small pets, but never mind that the same small pet is in much more danger of being a native predator's next snack. What are they going to do, ban coyotes?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

ouesi said:


> In my area coyotes are the biggest danger. In fact, just this morning at 4 am we could hear them causing a ruckus out in the woods.
> But yeah, Floridians have to worry about aligators as well as coyotes, BOP, snakes etc...
> 
> Kind of comical when you really think about it - let's ban pits because they may eat your small pets, but never mind that the same small pet is in much more danger of being a native predator's next snack. What are they going to do, ban coyotes?


I have often said we are really lucky in the UK. We have no dangerous animals running around loose and we have no extremes of weather that could kill. If we do have anything like that, it is very mild and very unusual. Perhaps that is why they are so keen to ban what they think are dangerous dogs, so they can say we have something too!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> I have often said we are really lucky in the UK. We have no dangerous animals running around loose and we have no extremes of weather that could kill. If we do have anything like that, it is very mild and very unusual. Perhaps that is why they are so keen to ban what they think are dangerous dogs, so they can say we have something too!


Pitbulls are illegal yet with the right licence you can buy a lion for £400 :scared:.

We are very lucky here in terms of our weather and predators barring the odd escaped big cat.


----------



## mollydog07 (May 26, 2012)

midnight express! me lucy n molls smuggled across a border....prob end up in tiebet where shiitzus originate from!....are they part of the eu? lol


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> I think that is the point. Yours have been on leads all their lives, as most sled dogs are, but what about dogs who are not used to that, like mine?


They adjust to it. Rupert was used to freedom, enough freedom to chase sheep and get himself into trouble in fact. Yet he spent most of the years I had him never going free because of his aggression and prey drive. He coped with it. And here the law is that they're on leash from April to mid July, again the dogs cope with it. People tend to step up the walks they get to make up for them not being able to be off leash or take up jogging or biking with them. It's more of a hassle for the owners than the dogs it seems.

Not saying I agree with any law forcing dogs to be kept leashed all the time but the whole "but he's used to the freedom, it would be cruel to keep him prisoner on a leash" thing is the excuse I've heard from so many people with aggressive dogs who _should_ be kept leashed so they can't go round attacking other dogs or people.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Sarah1983 said:


> They adjust to it. Rupert was used to freedom, enough freedom to chase sheep and get himself into trouble in fact. Yet he spent most of the years I had him never going free because of his aggression and prey drive. He coped with it. And here the law is that they're on leash from April to mid July, again the dogs cope with it. People tend to step up the walks they get to make up for them not being able to be off leash or take up jogging or biking with them. It's more of a hassle for the owners than the dogs it seems.
> 
> Not saying I agree with any law forcing dogs to be kept leashed all the time but the whole "but he's used to the freedom, it would be cruel to keep him prisoner on a leash" thing is the excuse I've heard from so many people with aggressive dogs who _should_ be kept leashed so they can't go round attacking other dogs or people.


So I should explain to Ferdie that he has to walk on a lead now or not at all, because they have changed the law. He would not adapt, he would rather stay home.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> So I should explain to Ferdie that he has to walk on a lead now or not at all, because they have changed the law. He would not adapt, he would rather stay home.


I cant quite believe that you could not, with persistence, train your dog to accept walking on a lead. Like you do a pup, or rescue who does not instantly take to it.


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> I cant quite believe that you could not, with persistence, train your dog to accept walking on a lead. Like you do a pup, or rescue who does not instantly take to it.


Mind you, I don't think I'd fancy trying to move a Newfoundland who doesn't want to be moved! :lol: I can quite understand this problem, if Rocky decides he's going to lie down, that's it. At 30kg, I can just about manage to haul him to his feet and move him on, but there is absolutely nothing that will distract him to make him do it himself.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> So I should explain to Ferdie that he has to walk on a lead now or not at all, because they have changed the law. He would not adapt, he would rather stay home.


Well if it were the law you'd have the choice of either breaking it and taking him out off leash, not walking him or trying to teach him to walk on a leash.

Personally I'd find my dog refusing to walk on a leash an issue that needed to be dealt with regardless of law though. I understand you don't and that's your choice but for me it would certainly be a problem.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Megan345 said:


> Mind you, I don't think I'd fancy trying to move a Newfoundland who doesn't want to be moved! :lol: I can quite understand this problem, if Rocky decides he's going to lie down, that's it. At 30kg, I can just about manage to haul him to his feet and move him on, but there is absolutely nothing that will distract him to make him do it himself.


Oh I know mine point blank refused to shift anywhere when he first had a headcollar on- we got there in the end tho!! :thumbup1:


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Lexiedhb said:


> I cant quite believe that you could not, with persistence, train your dog to accept walking on a lead. Like you do a pup, or rescue who does not instantly take to it.


It is not a question of training, though. He walked on a lead fine, all his life, until Joshua died. We used to go out together, one either side, and both were as good as gold.



Sarah1983 said:


> Well if it were the law you'd have the choice of either breaking it and taking him out off leash, not walking him or trying to teach him to walk on a leash.
> 
> Personally I'd find my dog refusing to walk on a leash an issue that needed to be dealt with regardless of law though. I understand you don't and that's your choice but for me it would certainly be a problem.


Again, it is not a question of teaching him. It is not a problem for me, no, but I think if you ask you will find that newfies very often just sit down and refuse to move.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Ok coercing, encouraging, persuading, etc to get him to move on a lead. he did it before he could if needs be do it again.........


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Lexiedhb said:


> Ok coercing, encouraging, persuading, etc to get him to move on a lead. he did it before he could if needs be do it again.........


Yes I can get him to walk a few steps by holding a treat but then he will sit down again. It is the way I get him to the car as I don't want him walking across the car park without his lead on. But I am not about to walk round the block like that and even with Diva with us he still won't budge.

I have got him as far as round the corner, whereupon he laid on his back and I had to accost someone walking past to call him so that he got up for this exciting new person.

When Joshua died he became so depressed he was physically ill and I thought I was going to lose him too, so I let him have his little way if that makes him happy.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> Again, it is not a question of teaching him. It is not a problem for me, no, but I think if you ask you will find that newfies very often just sit down and refuse to move.


So I've heard, seems to be quite common in a few giant breeds from what I've been told, but from what you say it's any time he's on leash. THAT is what would be a huge issue for me since it would mean my dog never left the house.


----------



## Dwavid (Apr 28, 2012)

I own 3x staffies, I love'em to bits they are well behaved, neutered, microchipped, insured and I take them to dog socialisation/training classes each week. I would considar myself to be a good owner.

If staffies get banned I would hate it, I know they are not everyones cup of tea & that's fine as everyone is different, and part of living in a democracy is being able to be different & having different things.
I would however be taking my case to the European court to have the law over ruled as it is discriminatory and prejudice.

If they were banned & had to be muzzled whilst I agrued the case then fine I would muzzle them, but so long as if another dog comes over and attacks them I can defend them by incompasitating the other dog as mine wouldn't be able to defend themselves due to the muzzle.
As for always being on leash I would hate it as my staffies are still full of energy after a 7 mile hike, however I have a push bike and would take them out one at a time for a run with the bike.

If any other dog breed, no matter what the breed, gets banned then all dog owners should argue it! and I do mean ALL TOGETHER! what we need is more punishment on bad owners & by that I do not mean bigger fines but prison sentences etc. I would support the Government on such laws. DEED NOT BREED


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> Yes I can get him to walk a few steps by holding a treat but then he will sit down again. It is the way I get him to the car as I don't want him walking across the car park without his lead on. But I am not about to walk round the block like that and even with Diva with us he still won't budge.
> 
> I have got him as far as round the corner, whereupon he laid on his back and I had to accost someone walking past to call him so that he got up for this exciting new person.
> 
> When Joshua died he became so depressed he was physically ill and I thought I was going to lose him too, so I let him have his little way if that makes him happy.


When i was looking after a friends newfie, it started thundering whilst we were out and she lay on the floor and refused to move. She weighs 50kg, i had to wait for an hour and 45 minutes before she got up and carried on


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Sarah1983 said:


> So I've heard, seems to be quite common in a few giant breeds from what I've been told, but from what you say it's any time he's on leash. THAT is what would be a huge issue for me since it would mean my dog never left the house.


That is my point. He goes straight out the front door, jumps in the car and we go usually to the other side of town to Royston Heath, where I open the tailgate and they jump out and take off to play.



tashax said:


> When i was looking after a friends newfie, it started thundering whilst we were out and she lay on the floor and refused to move. She weighs 50kg, i had to wait for an hour and 45 minutes before she got up and carried on


I don't think people realise just how strong these dogs are and once they realise they are stronger than you, you have got no hope! Diva is not stubborn like Ferdie, she will follow me anywhere on lead or off. Joshua had his little stubborn ways where he would like down because he didn't want to come home yet, but I just had to let go and he got up and followed. He was too young to have figured out that I wouldn't really go without him.

Ferdie is a law unto himself. I have had male friends try to shift him as well, no luck. If he feels himself being pulled, it is over on his back and see what you are going to do about that!

There are worse things. I read on here about dogs who cannot be off lead because of dog reactivity or aggression, or simply no manners and I think I can live with Ferdie's little quirks.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> That is my point. He goes straight out the front door, jumps in the car and we go usually to the other side of town to Royston Heath, where I open the tailgate and they jump out and take off to play.
> 
> I don't think people realise just how strong these dogs are and once they realise they are stronger than you, you have got no hope! Diva is not stubborn like Ferdie, she will follow me anywhere on lead or off. Joshua had his little stubborn ways where he would like down because he didn't want to come home yet, but I just had to let go and he got up and followed. He was too young to have figured out that I wouldn't really go without him.
> 
> ...


It actually reminded me of trying to get my horse out of her field, she didnt lie down but she dug her feet in and that is that, there is no way of moving her. My friends newfie has the funniest 'quirk' if i go in and dont say hello to her she does this little huffy noise and throws herself on the floor, refusing to move until i say hi


----------



## dexter12 (Aug 28, 2012)

i have noticed bull breeds have been mentioned a few times which has worried me a little should i be? 

Dexter walks fine on lead but i wouldnt want to walk him all the time on his lead he loves chasing a stick and he couldnt do that on a lead. 

He weighs 45kg and is only 7 months old when he gets stubborn which he does all the time when i have to put his lead on to walk him back home. 
sometimes he just sits down, and what i can do? i can persuade him with a treat but couldnt walk him like that constantly.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> Yes I can get him to walk a few steps by holding a treat but then he will sit down again. It is the way I get him to the car as I don't want him walking across the car park without his lead on. But I am not about to walk round the block like that and even with Diva with us he still won't budge.
> 
> I have got him as far as round the corner, whereupon he laid on his back and I had to accost someone walking past to call him so that he got up for this exciting new person.
> 
> When Joshua died he became so depressed he was physically ill and I thought I was going to lose him too, so I let him have his little way if that makes him happy.


Of course he currently does not need to- I was just saying if a leash law were to come about........ am sure you'd try.



newfiesmum said:


> T
> 
> There are worse things. I read on here about dogs who cannot be off lead because of dog reactivity or aggression, or simply no manners and I think I can live with Ferdie's little quirks.


 Nice little dig.........:thumbup1:


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Dwavid said:


> If staffies get banned I would hate it, I know they are not everyones cup of tea & that's fine as everyone is different, and part of living in a democracy is being able to be different & having different things.
> I would however be taking my case to the European court to have the law over ruled as it is discriminatory and prejudice.


I get your point, but would the European Court consider it discriminatory and prejudiced against the owner? After all, we choose what breed of dogs we have and if it was phased in we would have less cause to complain. I doubt they would act on behalf of a dog's rights?

Staffies are a great example, a breed that has been demonized (unfairly) because of a small minority. But what to do? There are thousands in rescues with little hope of rehoming.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> That is my point. He goes straight out the front door, jumps in the car and we go usually to the other side of town to Royston Heath, where I open the tailgate and they jump out and take off to play.


Just goes to show how what is a huge issue for one person is no issue at all to another really doesn't it? How do you manage places like the vets though? Just out of curiosity.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

newfiesmum said:


> I don't think people realise just how strong these dogs are and once they realise they are stronger than you, you have got no hope!




Let's hope they all have perfect temperaments


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

dexter12 said:


> i have noticed bull breeds have been mentioned a few times which has worried me a little should i be?
> 
> Dexter walks fine on lead but i wouldnt want to walk him all the time on his lead he loves chasing a stick and he couldnt do that on a lead.
> 
> ...


Precisely my point.



Lexiedhb said:


> Of course he currently does not need to- I was just saying if a leash law were to come about........ am sure you'd try.
> 
> Nice little dig.........:thumbup1:


Sorry if you misunderstood, I wasn't digging at anyone. I could not possibly tell you which dogs have these quirks and which do not, so please don't think it was aimed at anyone in particular.



Sarah1983 said:


> Just goes to show how what is a huge issue for one person is no issue at all to another really doesn't it? How do you manage places like the vets though? Just out of curiosity.


Well, there you are you see - he is as good as gold in the vets. Walks in with his lead on and sits down next to me. Not a problem.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Lurcherlad said:


> Let's hope they all have perfect temperaments


I can only tell you that mine do, absolutely wonderful temperaments.


----------



## sezeelson (Jul 5, 2011)

Sorry to mention scooby again! 

But... He is poop scared of like everything... The dark, puddles, bikes, trees swooshing in the wind, lots of people, loud kids.... I could go on 

Anyway often he will stop dead and become a brick! I can't physically move him as he leans so hard into his collar, harness, anything you use to try and move him. My sister and her boyfriend would often return from an unsuccessful walk because they couldn't move him. 

I managed to get him to stop though, first thing was not taking any of his crap! He was just sulking as I would purposely avoid anything to stimulating for him. Food, bit of sausage or liver cake and a decent amount of trickery. As you would start teaching a dog recall I did down the street darting in different direction and he had gotten over it without even realising it. I was getting to go places he had never been before because he would stop moving. It can be done you just gotta find out what worked between you and your dog. 

I know scoob is an on lead dog anyway but I would not allow any of my digs to pick up this habit, I take Rossi out leash training on a daily basis.


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2013)

Dwavid said:


> If any other dog breed, no matter what the breed, gets banned then all dog owners should argue it! and I do mean ALL TOGETHER! what we need is more punishment on bad owners & by that I do not mean bigger fines but prison sentences etc. I would support the Government on such laws. DEED NOT BREED


I agree with this. ALL dog owners are affected by BSL, it's all dog owner's business, not just those who have the breeds who might be next.

Is it not already a crime punishable by imprisonment for your dog to seriously hurt or kill a human? In the US it is. And IMO rightly so. 
Like the mastiffs that attacked those poor girls? That woman should be in jail and not allowed to own dogs.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> I can only tell you that mine do, absolutely wonderful temperaments.


Wish I could meet them newfiesmum, they sound so lovely. 

As an aside Kes just met her first newfie on the park, sadly he did not have the temperament of your two


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2013)

newfiesmum said:


> I don't think people realise just how strong these dogs are and once they realise they are stronger than you, you have got no hope!


This statement made me think of this article:
How Much Does Your Dog&#039;s Cooperation Weigh? | Suzanne Clothier


> Anytime you're aware how strong another being is, how much they weigh, it's probably because they are working against you and not with you. (Unless you are deliberately asking the dog to pull as you might in tracking, agitation work, tug games, or if they sit/lay on top of you, or having to restrain them for a veterinary procedure, etc). Anytime you think, "Heavens, this dog is so strong!" it's probably time to back up and find a way to reconnect.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

ouesi said:


> This statement made me think of this article:
> How Much Does Your Dog's Cooperation Weigh? | Suzanne Clothier


Actually reminds me of the time I was pushing the wheelbarrow across the field with a couple of sack of horse feeds which I could not lift at all. I would tip them from the boot into the barrow then tip them into the feed store. Our New Forest pony, such a gentle soul, came along and lifted one bag right out and into the air with her teeth!

I never could feel quite the same about her after that.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

dexter12 said:


> i have noticed bull breeds have been mentioned a few times which has worried me a little should i be?
> 
> Dexter walks fine on lead but i wouldnt want to walk him all the time on his lead he loves chasing a stick and he couldnt do that on a lead.
> 
> ...


Have you tried dropping the lead and just walking off? Kilo will try and just plant himself if he wants to go a particular way and me another. If it's safe to do so I often just drop his lead and walk off without a word, he soon comes running up.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Dogless said:


> Have you tried dropping the lead and just walking off? Kilo will try and just plant himself if he wants to go a particular way and me another. If it's safe to do so I often just drop his lead and walk off without a word, he soon comes running up.


I used to do that with Ferdie when he was that age, but he has got older and wiser and knows perfectly well I am not going without him!


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> I used to do that with Ferdie when he was that age, but he has got older and wiser and knows perfectly well I am not going without him!


Kilo is too much of a worrier, won't chance it! If he does, then I face him and recall him and he'll walk on fine as he's past the bit that he wanted to go down. Or I run for a bit - he knows he doesn't stop when we're running! Or get the clicker out and do a bit of training and he is more interested in that and comes along fine.


----------

