23-08-2016, 10:11 AM
111
Re: Dangerous Dogs Act
Originally Posted by Mups
->
I have just read a very unpleasant article involving the League Against Cruel Sports work.A Staffy was found which had been used for only 2 purposes it's entire life.
The first purpose was as a 'Bait Dog' for the dog fighters to trial their fighting dogs on. This bitch had many old injuries to her face, eyes, and stomach.
One eye was seriously damaged due to being repeatedly punched, probably by her owners.
Her tongue was ripped and ragged, and her teeth had been crudely broken with pliers.
On top of this, her second purpose was to repeatedly breed puppies to be sold and trained for more fighting dogs.
It is extreme cases like this, that made me make my earlier comment about it can be wrong to condemn some dogs for their brutality without knowing a thing about their miserable existence and what made them act the way they did.
Some have been brutally forced into fights all their life, they know nothing else. Put that with a child who has not been taught any dog awareness whatsoever, and the outcome is probably inevitable.
23-08-2016, 10:29 AM
113
Re: Dangerous Dogs Act
Originally Posted by Mups
->
I am not saying all dogs can be rehabilitated Julie, I don't believe they can.I am merely saying in some cases, there are accidents waiting to happen.
23-08-2016, 10:34 AM
114
Re: Dangerous Dogs Act
Originally Posted by Julie1962
->
Sorry I got that I was just musing on the point they may not be able to be helped. I think we are both agreeing really.
Yes, I think we are, too. Some dogs that have been pushed too far are best PTS for everyone's sake, including their own.
24-08-2016, 09:24 AM
115
Re: Dangerous Dogs Act
Sorry I have come to this discussion late - I've not been around on here much lately (real life getting in the way of digital life).A couple of points:
1. I find it deeply ironic that the RSPCA should now be campaigning against BSL when they were one of the main architects of The DDA. But then we shouldn't be surprised at their hypocrisy.
2. I was opposed to the DDA at the time and still am, however, any legislation is only as effective as the clarity of its regulations and resources (human and financial) allocated to enforce it. So. although I believe that the DDA was wrong in concept, it never stood a chance as it was never enforced. On the council estates in my area, (I'm not being snobby - I live on one!) whereas before DDA there were a tiny handful of pit bulls - owned by the local drug dealers, there are now hundreds owned by ordinary families - many of whom don't have a clue what kind of dog they have ("He's some sort of staffie cross"). So, far from improving the situation, the DDA has worsened it a hundredfold. The only prosecutions seem to have been easy target "show cases" involving harmless family pets. The police haven't had either the time or the bottle to go after the really irresponsible owners.
24-08-2016, 04:23 PM
117
Re: Dangerous Dogs Act
Originally Posted by Mups
->
I am not saying all dogs can be rehabilitated Julie, I don't believe they can.I am merely saying in some cases, there are accidents waiting to happen.
Many people in the Caribbean pet and indulge puppies and then kick them out and /and tie them up when they lose their cute appeal. While this is really distressing for the dog essentially they are still socialized and can very often adapt to a new home.
Other dogs are like Mups says timebombs .
Then there are dogs that have not had a bad home but an incompetent home. These dogs can be anything if more dangerous .They know there own power and consider themselves top dog.
In this breed is important a large aloof breed like the Akita can be a formidable dangerous animal .
The fact is ( as someone has said ) there are rarely bad dogs just bad owners.
The sad thing is that both the dogs and their usually innocent victims will pay the cost.
|
|
