Bull Dogs! (WARNING QUITE SAD)
11 May 2006, 11:04 AM
#92
Scooby Regular
All I was opposing in your posts was when you made it sound as though the owners were SOLELY responsible for their dogs actions...
...which I don't agree with. I'd say on the whole the owners have about 75% influence over their dogs, I don't think you can say the dog is 100% innocent when unfortunate incidents arise.
Originally Posted by davegtt
Im sorry but if theyre charging the owner its clearly saying theyre the responisble one for thier dogs actions....
11 May 2006, 11:19 AM
#93
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im not talking about the influence of a dog though am I, Im talking about the handling of it in public and if done so correctly there should be seriously isolated cases where we would ever see dogs attacking children. That being my reasoning for saying its the owners responsibility, I know unless the postman came in the back yard and left my gate open and my dog managed to escape that, that would be the only opportunity my dog would ever have to attack a child IMO... All the other times he is out he is under my control and where he is let free to roam in a field is where children dont play and if they did he would be kept on the lead.... Its all about taking responsibility. Anyone who says otherwise does not have thier dog under proper control/supervision.
11 May 2006, 11:26 AM
#94
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by davegtt
Im not talking about the influence of a dog though am I, Im talking about the handling of it in public and if done so correctly there should be seriously isolated cases where we would ever see dogs attacking children.
11 May 2006, 11:37 AM
#95
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree but thats indicating that the problem lies with the owner and not the dog....
Dont think we need to say much more to be honest, I think we're both expressing the same points at different angles
Dont think we need to say much more to be honest, I think we're both expressing the same points at different angles
11 May 2006, 11:48 AM
#97
Originally Posted by davegtt
Im not talking about the influence of a dog though am I, Im talking about the handling of it in public and if done so correctly there should be seriously isolated cases where we would ever see dogs attacking children. That being my reasoning for saying its the owners responsibility, I know unless the postman came in the back yard and left my gate open and my dog managed to escape that, that would be the only opportunity my dog would ever have to attack a child IMO... All the other times he is out he is under my control and where he is let free to roam in a field is where children dont play and if they did he would be kept on the lead.... Its all about taking responsibility. Anyone who says otherwise does not have thier dog under proper control/supervision.
Nicely put. If only all owners could be as responsible as you seem to be.
You write a lot of sense, despite having the world's ugliest dog.
11 May 2006, 12:03 PM
#98
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Daft Lad
YES but not all dog owners are the same are they. I'm sure you're a thoroughly responsible owner, but no matter how considerate you are with your dog it doesn't change that fact that not all owners are as respectful and considerate as others!
11 May 2006, 04:38 PM
#99
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good grief, don't you go on! 
Have a read of section 1.c, or get somebody nearby to help you 
I didn't say it wasn't, I said using it as an excuse is claptrap, try telling somebody that has been on the sharp end of one of these delightful 'pets' that it is their fault ... your problem is, Diablo, that you lack objectivity, old son 
That really bothered you, didn't it? ... end of 
I have been hounded as being 'ajm', now this Alex and other names are appearing ... mart360 will verify who I am if it bothers you, and my fan club so
And try, if you can, to stay on topic and please, less of the Diablotribe!
Originally Posted by Diablo
Oik,
the dangerous dogs act was created with PIT bull terriers and Japanese Tosas at the forefront of its focus. There are other bull terriers (Staffordshire, English to name but two) to which it does not apply.
If you are going to finish your post with phrases such as "end of", presumably on the basis of confidence in your knowledge, make sure you get that information correct, or you end up looking just a little bit stupid.
the dangerous dogs act was created with PIT bull terriers and Japanese Tosas at the forefront of its focus. There are other bull terriers (Staffordshire, English to name but two) to which it does not apply.
If you are going to finish your post with phrases such as "end of", presumably on the basis of confidence in your knowledge, make sure you get that information correct, or you end up looking just a little bit stupid.
Originally Posted by Diablo
It is an uncontestable fact that dogs respond to body language. It is, in fact, one of their primary means of communication which, I have to say, they undertake with more success than your attempts to communicate on this BBS
Originally Posted by Diablo
Please, if you are going to project the "oik" personna on the BBS, with all of the attempted wit, irony, sarcasm, wind-ups and attempted "policing" of idiots, at least don't make a tit of yourself with two fairly glaring innaccuracies in the same post, particularly when trying to "stamp" your authority on the matter by finishing your post with "end of"
Originally Posted by Diablo
PS - Alex, I really thought you were more intelligent than this, or have you given Jaycee/Jason the login details again
I have been hounded
as being 'ajm', now this Alex and other names are appearing ... mart360 will verify who I am if it bothers you, and my fan club so And try, if you can, to stay on topic and please, less of the Diablotribe!
Last edited by oik; 11 May 2006 at 04:43 PM.
11 May 2006, 07:11 PM
#100
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Teesside
Posts: 1,564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cookstar
Can you, I cant.
Will I take the risk and leave my childs safety in a strangers hands - NO
Not having a pop at yu mate, just dont see the point of these foul things ever existing in the first place, oh yes thats right they were fighting dogs wernt they
Will I take the risk and leave my childs safety in a strangers hands - NO
Not having a pop at yu mate, just dont see the point of these foul things ever existing in the first place, oh yes thats right they were fighting dogs wernt they
Any breed of dog has the same potential to bite someone as a pitbull.
11 May 2006, 07:35 PM
#101
Originally Posted by leonpoole
They weren't fighting dogs they were bred for catch work on farms as they were agile and strong enough to hold livestock long enough for the farmer to tie it up. It is small minded people who used them for fighting dogs, which along with the odd media story about them biting someone that has given them the bad name they have today.
Any breed of dog has the same potential to bite someone as a pitbull.
Any breed of dog has the same potential to bite someone as a pitbull.
11 May 2006, 07:44 PM
#102
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Teesside
Posts: 1,564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sarasquares
they only difference with a pit bull is that the jaws lock on, same with a staffy etc.
11 May 2006, 10:44 PM
#103
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by davegtt
Maybe your the one whos a bit dim, if you like to read the legistation you'll obviouslly be able to tell that the laws apply to humans and it also says that if a dog was out of control the owner will be charged. Im sorry but if theyre charging the owner its clearly saying theyre the responisble one for thier dogs actions....
So do you want to explain your point again? Or has the light switch been turned off in there?
So do you want to explain your point again? Or has the light switch been turned off in there?
Maybe it should have been called the 'dangerous owners act'
12 May 2006, 09:35 AM
#104
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are allowed to own a dangerous weapon, lets say a gun.... Whos fault is it if the owner is negligent and lets say a kid take the gun out and something happens? The owners shoots somebody, we dont blame the gun do we?
12 May 2006, 12:42 PM
#105
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by oik
Have a read of section 1.c, or get somebody nearby to help you
Section 1 c) states "any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose."
My point stands. The dangerous dogs act was introduced as a knee jerk reaction to public concerns about pit bull terriers. That is why pit bulls are specifically mentioned, and why breeds such as Rotties, Dobermans, German Shepherds, Staffies, etc, etc, etc, are not subject to its restrictions any more than any other breed of dog.
You couldn't resist replying though, could you - your ego precludes your acceptance of your innaccuracies
My objectivity has never been in question, oik, in that I've never made any secret of the fact that I value animal life at least on an equal basis with that of humans
This is a discussion forum. For discussion to have any relevance, there have to be opposing point of views.
"Fan club"...lol...how pathetic to even comment about such matters in the context of a bbs, let alone obtain amusement and satisfaction from the mere thought that people actually give a toss
12 May 2006, 01:00 PM
#106
Originally Posted by Diablo
My lack of objectivity has never been in question, oik, in that I've never made any secret of the fact that I value animal life at least on an equal basis with that of humans
For that to be true you would need to be a vegan who would never use products tested on animals e.g. soap, shampoo, polio vaccine, smallpox vaccine, antibiotics etc. etc.
Sorry I couldn't resist commenting.
Suresh
12 May 2006, 02:35 PM
#107
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Diablo
LOL
Section 1 c) states "any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose."
My point stands. The dangerous dogs act was introduced as a knee jerk reaction to public concerns about pit bull terriers. That is why pit bulls are specifically mentioned, and why breeds such as Rotties, Dobermans, German Shepherds, Staffies, etc, etc, etc, are not subject to its restrictions any more than any other breed of dog.
You couldn't resist replying though, could you - your ego precludes your acceptance of your innaccuracies
My objectivity has never been in question, oik, in that I've never made any secret of the fact that I value animal life at least on an equal basis with that of humans
This is a discussion forum. For discussion to have any relevance, there have to be opposing point of views.
"Fan club"...lol...how pathetic to even comment about such matters in the context of a bbs, let alone obtain amusement and satisfaction from the mere thought that people actually give a toss
Section 1 c) states "any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose."
My point stands. The dangerous dogs act was introduced as a knee jerk reaction to public concerns about pit bull terriers. That is why pit bulls are specifically mentioned, and why breeds such as Rotties, Dobermans, German Shepherds, Staffies, etc, etc, etc, are not subject to its restrictions any more than any other breed of dog.
You couldn't resist replying though, could you - your ego precludes your acceptance of your innaccuracies
My objectivity has never been in question, oik, in that I've never made any secret of the fact that I value animal life at least on an equal basis with that of humans
This is a discussion forum. For discussion to have any relevance, there have to be opposing point of views.
"Fan club"...lol...how pathetic to even comment about such matters in the context of a bbs, let alone obtain amusement and satisfaction from the mere thought that people actually give a toss
A couple of weeks back I read a court case with regard to a Staffordshire Bull Terrier entering the house of an elderly woman and eating her Yorkshire Terrier.
Now, at this point, I would expect you to be smirking ... well it matters not, that is your business.
What I am more interested in here is the psychology and 'primary means of communication' involved, along with where the blame lies.
The dog managed to escape the owners property due to a gate being left open, the owner was unaware and had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent the dog leaving the premises, it left, unknown to the owner.
It entered an elderly womans house and confronted the Yorkshire Terrier.
The owner of the Bull Terrier was aghast, stating that it was completely 'out of character', that it had never shown this kind of potential and was 'great with children', and pleaded for leniency.
1. What happened to the dog on dog communication process? Did the Bull Terrier, in true 'Tweety Pie and Sylvester' fashion simply see a yorkshire terrier in the form of a steaming yummy pie and decide to eat it? Was the unfortunate Yorkshire Terrier simply not persuasive enough ... 'No, please I know you have a bad rep but I like you guys, please don't eat me!'
2. The elderly woman entered the room to see her dog part eaten and attempted to intervene, naturally she was also attacked and hospitalised, presumably because she too lacked the necessary 'dog whispering' skills.
3. Owner. Is the owner the reason the Bull Terrier ate the Yorkshire Terrier?
I am afraid this animal was not exempt from the dangerous dogs act, either ... and as such was destroyed, thankfully
12 May 2006, 02:47 PM
#108
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by oik
Seeing as you have appointed yourself the Scoobynet 'Dog Whisperer', I would be interested in your vast knowledge and experience.
A couple of weeks back I read a court case with regard to a Staffordshire Bull Terrier entering the house of an elderly woman and eating her Yorkshire Terrier.
Now, at this point, I would expect you to be smirking ... well it matters not, that is your business.
What I am more interested in here is the psychology and 'primary means of communication' involved, along with where the blame lies.
The dog managed to escape the owners property due to a gate being left open, the owner was unaware and had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent the dog leaving the premises, it left, unknown to the owner.
It entered an elderly womans house and confronted the Yorkshire Terrier.
The owner of the Bull Terrier was aghast, stating that it was completely 'out of character', that it had never shown this kind of potential and was 'great with children', and pleaded for leniency.
1. What happened to the dog on dog communication process? Did the Bull Terrier, in true 'Tweety Pie and Sylvester' fashion simply see a yorkshire terrier in the form of a steaming yummy pie and decide to eat it? Was the unfortunate Yorkshire Terrier simply not persuasive enough ... 'No, please I know you have a bad rep but I like you guys, please don't eat me!'
2. The elderly woman entered the room to see her dog part eaten and attempted to intervene, naturally she was also attacked and hospitalised, presumably because she too lacked the necessary 'dog whispering' skills.
3. Owner. Is the owner the reason the Bull Terrier ate the Yorkshire Terrier?
I am afraid this animal was not exempt from the dangerous dogs act, either ... and as such was destroyed, thankfully
A couple of weeks back I read a court case with regard to a Staffordshire Bull Terrier entering the house of an elderly woman and eating her Yorkshire Terrier.
Now, at this point, I would expect you to be smirking ... well it matters not, that is your business.
What I am more interested in here is the psychology and 'primary means of communication' involved, along with where the blame lies.
The dog managed to escape the owners property due to a gate being left open, the owner was unaware and had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent the dog leaving the premises, it left, unknown to the owner.
It entered an elderly womans house and confronted the Yorkshire Terrier.
The owner of the Bull Terrier was aghast, stating that it was completely 'out of character', that it had never shown this kind of potential and was 'great with children', and pleaded for leniency.
1. What happened to the dog on dog communication process? Did the Bull Terrier, in true 'Tweety Pie and Sylvester' fashion simply see a yorkshire terrier in the form of a steaming yummy pie and decide to eat it? Was the unfortunate Yorkshire Terrier simply not persuasive enough ... 'No, please I know you have a bad rep but I like you guys, please don't eat me!'
2. The elderly woman entered the room to see her dog part eaten and attempted to intervene, naturally she was also attacked and hospitalised, presumably because she too lacked the necessary 'dog whispering' skills.
3. Owner. Is the owner the reason the Bull Terrier ate the Yorkshire Terrier?
I am afraid this animal was not exempt from the dangerous dogs act, either ... and as such was destroyed, thankfully
What tosh, at least make it believeable by saying the Bull Terrier ate the old woman not the other little doggie.... In fairness though I can see why it ate the Yorkie, it probably gave the BT a headache with all its annoying yapping.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post