Em, ring the star and reporter :thumbsup:
The Most Dog Friendly Community Online
Join Dog Forum to Discuss Breeds, Training, Food and More
Bastard Chav With A Pitbull!
- Thread starter dana
- Start date
That is awful . Some people are a complete menace to society and should not be allowed to own a hamster never mind a dog. Your little JRT wouldn't have stood a chance against a breed like that, try not to feel guilty about it :huggles:
I just hope the dogs that were attacked are ok
I just hope the dogs that were attacked are ok
my mums dog was attacked a few weeks ago by a staffie.........owned by a complete p***k..........his dog had his jaws locked round rosies neck.............the bloody idiot who owned it had to pull it off my mums dog, threw rosie on the ground got his dog and walked off :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:
- Messages
- 6,480
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
I think this is the key :thumbsup: The way I look at it, if one of these breeds attacked my dogs, would I be able to recover my own without being bit? I doubt it, therefore I would say the dog is a danger to human life. It's really important that you get this point across that you felt threatened because once that's logged, the relevant authorities are up s**t creek without a paddle if they don't investigate.naylorwhippets said:
The "magic phrase" does seem to be, to say that you felt threatened and feared being bitten yourself (which would be perfectly true: as wild whippets said, you would most likely be bitten yourself trying to recover your own dog).
For some reason :blink: it is regarded as perfectly reasonable by the authorities, for a dog to fight another dog or attack it (with no warning??) - well not in my book it isn't considered reasonable. They think it is just "normal dog behaviour". So you have to say you thought the dog would bite you, as well.
For some reason :blink: it is regarded as perfectly reasonable by the authorities, for a dog to fight another dog or attack it (with no warning??) - well not in my book it isn't considered reasonable. They think it is just "normal dog behaviour". So you have to say you thought the dog would bite you, as well.
it is part of the dangerous dogs act that any dog not just a pit bull can be seized by the police if a member of the public was in fear of the dog or thought it might bite.it doesnt actually have to bite. :thumbsup:
Dogs out of control in a public place
If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place - then the owner or the person in charge of the dog is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. In proceedings against a person who is the owner of a dog but at the material time was not in charge of it, it should be a defence for the accused to prove that the dog was at the material time in the charge of a person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of it.
Section 10(2) of the 1991 Act defines a public place as meaning any street, road or other place to which the public have, or are permitted to have access. This is a wide definition of a public place and one which specifically includes the common parts of a building containing two or more dwellings. It is intended to cover, for instance, those parts of a block of flats where, although there may be a secure front entry door so that the interior of the flat is not a place to which the public has unrestricted access, nevertheless the common parts are, in all other respects, a public place.
A person found guilty of an offence may face imprisonment or a fine, and the courts may disqualify the offender from having custody of a dog for any period.
Other legislation
Under the Town Police Clauses Act of 1847 it is an offence for any person in any street: to let an unmuzzled ferocious dog be at large so that it obstructs or annoys the residents or passengers in the street or puts them in danger; or to set on or to urge any dog to attack, worry or put in fear any person or animal. A dog will not be at large while it is held on a lead. The word 'street' here is given an extended meaning to include any road, square, court, alley, thoroughfare or public passage.
In the Metropolitan Police District a similar offence has been created by the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839. This differs only from the first part of the 1847 Act offence in that it is sufficient that an unmuzzled dog be at large (no obstruction, annoyance or danger need be shown), and that the place of the offence is described as any thoroughfare or public place.
Under the Dogs Act 1871, any person may make a complaint to a magistrates court that a dog is dangerous, or report the matter to the police. If the court is satisfied that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control, it may make an order for it to be controlled or destroyed.
The Animals Act 1971 provides that the keeper of an animal is liable for any damage it causes, if he knows it was likely to cause such damage or injury unrestrained.
Using the legislation
Section 3(5) of the 1991 Act clarifies the application of the Dogs Act 1871. The strength of the 1871 Act is that as it is not part of the criminal law, it operates on a lower standard of proof and proceedings can be taken even when a criminal offence has not been committed. It provides a remedy in a wide range of circumstances for the destruction, or imposition of controls, on dangerous dogs. A particular advantage of the 1871 Act is the fact that it applies everywhere, even in and around a private house which is why it is particularly appropriate for action on behalf of people such as postmen and women who are regularly at risk from dogs in front gardens.
Dogs out of control in a public place
If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place - then the owner or the person in charge of the dog is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. In proceedings against a person who is the owner of a dog but at the material time was not in charge of it, it should be a defence for the accused to prove that the dog was at the material time in the charge of a person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of it.
Section 10(2) of the 1991 Act defines a public place as meaning any street, road or other place to which the public have, or are permitted to have access. This is a wide definition of a public place and one which specifically includes the common parts of a building containing two or more dwellings. It is intended to cover, for instance, those parts of a block of flats where, although there may be a secure front entry door so that the interior of the flat is not a place to which the public has unrestricted access, nevertheless the common parts are, in all other respects, a public place.
A person found guilty of an offence may face imprisonment or a fine, and the courts may disqualify the offender from having custody of a dog for any period.
Other legislation
Under the Town Police Clauses Act of 1847 it is an offence for any person in any street: to let an unmuzzled ferocious dog be at large so that it obstructs or annoys the residents or passengers in the street or puts them in danger; or to set on or to urge any dog to attack, worry or put in fear any person or animal. A dog will not be at large while it is held on a lead. The word 'street' here is given an extended meaning to include any road, square, court, alley, thoroughfare or public passage.
In the Metropolitan Police District a similar offence has been created by the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839. This differs only from the first part of the 1847 Act offence in that it is sufficient that an unmuzzled dog be at large (no obstruction, annoyance or danger need be shown), and that the place of the offence is described as any thoroughfare or public place.
Under the Dogs Act 1871, any person may make a complaint to a magistrates court that a dog is dangerous, or report the matter to the police. If the court is satisfied that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control, it may make an order for it to be controlled or destroyed.
The Animals Act 1971 provides that the keeper of an animal is liable for any damage it causes, if he knows it was likely to cause such damage or injury unrestrained.
Using the legislation
Section 3(5) of the 1991 Act clarifies the application of the Dogs Act 1871. The strength of the 1871 Act is that as it is not part of the criminal law, it operates on a lower standard of proof and proceedings can be taken even when a criminal offence has not been committed. It provides a remedy in a wide range of circumstances for the destruction, or imposition of controls, on dangerous dogs. A particular advantage of the 1871 Act is the fact that it applies everywhere, even in and around a private house which is why it is particularly appropriate for action on behalf of people such as postmen and women who are regularly at risk from dogs in front gardens.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 1,809
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
what about Rhodiesian ridgebacks (sp) fighting lions, what about wolfhounds, deerhounds, etc ? surely there is no place or need for them then either.naylorwhippets said:
- Messages
- 2,345
- Reaction score
- 23
- Points
- 0
you dont seem to see any bad press about wolfhouds or deerhounds ripping dogs or kids to pieces do you or maybe its just because its sensible respectable people who own them not like some of the retards who own mastiffs , bulls etc the look at me im hard because ive got a big dog brigade. :rant:
- Messages
- 1,809
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Well excuse me but i own a bull terrier and i am no retard and nor does my dog go around ripping dogs or kids to pieces as you so put it. I class myself as one of these so called sensible, respectable people that apparently only own Wolfhounds and Deerhounds. :angry:naylorwhippets said:
I think you were totally missing my point ,I was referring to you stating that they have no place or need in society 'these days' . The point i was trying to make is all breeds have been bred for a specific purpose - most of them dont do what they are bred for though! ( re - the above mentioned breeds for example) Thank goodness! but it doesnt mean there is no need for the breed to be there!!!! what do you suggest? them all being neutered and being made extinct? :wacko:
"do you suggest? them all being neutered and being made extinct?"whippynit said:
No, but compulsory muzzling would be a start and a police force that enforced it would be nice, if some of the knob heads who own these dogs were hit with a on the spot £40.00 fine if their dog was not muzzled in a public place they might think twice about owning one
- Messages
- 4,765
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
If only Masta. It's the same with all these sorts of things, it doesn't matter what laws are put in place, it's enforcing them that makes all the difference.masta said:
I think your on the spot fine thing is a great idea, but I'm sure it would never come off because all that would be said is...we don't have the man power.
TCx
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 2,345
- Reaction score
- 23
- Points
- 0
I did not call the person who owned the bull a retard, she is no doubt a nice person who keeps her dog in check what i did mean was some of the retards who own these dogs ie using them to rip other dogs to pieces why they film it on there camaras , using them for dog fighting or as the lady said on the opening post going around parks setting them on smaller dogs. the idea about muzzling them and on the spot fines is a good one. :thumbsup:
It's a weak argument by the the police, they managed to hide behind a hedge a catch me doing 34mph in a 30 limit recently, having had a dog attacked by a staff many years ago i now carry protection and would definately use it should it happen again may i also add my neice was attacked by a neighbours staff and scarred ( the police told her they would talk to the owner???) my sisters airedale had to have surgery and £600 vet fees and by brothers boxer was also savaged recently by a pitt again reported and p$s$ all done, i dont mind anyone having these breeds but they should be accountable for the dogs actions, if i was to kill one that was attacking me or my dogs i bet it would be me that would be prosecutedTC said:If only Masta. It's the same with all these sorts of things, it doesn't matter what laws are put in place, it's enforcing them that makes all the difference.masta said:
I think your on the spot fine thing is a great idea, but I'm sure it would never come off because all that would be said is...we don't have the man power.
TCx
- Messages
- 2,345
- Reaction score
- 23
- Points
- 0
it may be a good idea to bring in special licencing for these breeds maybe if it was say five hundred pounds to have a licence then it may put people off keeping them. anybody can walk into a dog pound and purchase one of these breeds for one hundred pounds as they are always in there as unwanted pets because of people buying them and not wanting them as they get bigger and hungrier. you have to have a speical licence and a certifacate from your doctor to own a shotgun because it is a lethel weapon mybe it should be the same with these breeds because in the wrong hands they are lethel weapons as well.
- Messages
- 1,809
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Im sorry but i find your suggestion of all these bull breeds having to be muzzled very upsetting and understandly, as a owner of a bull breed, I am very frustrated. I very much sympathize (sp) for Danas ordeal and anyone else for that matter who has had a bad experience, I too get so angry when i see these 'look at me, im hard' types about with these dogs (and believe me we have met a fair few on our walks! )but what annoys me is that they give the breed a bad name. Especially as im there walking past them with my well behaved dog , because it is a direct reflection of my dog, If that makes sense.
I dont think muzzleing is the answer, Please think how you would feel if you owned a bull breed and he was a well behaved, sociable dog. Why should my dog have to suffer and not live a full and happy life,and wear a muzzle and possibly not be let of a lead because of another dog of the same or similar breed has been agressive??? I think someone on a similar topic on another thread hit the nail on the head - some humans are violent people/murders, etc but some/most arent!
We have had plenty of other breeds come dashing over to our dogs having a go, most notably golden retreivers. I am all for bringing dog licences out to own bull breeds though, maybe then it will stop idiots owning them and the sociable, well trained ones will maybe then get some credit that in the right hands they can be happy, friendly family members just the same as any other breed. :thumbsup:
I dont think muzzleing is the answer, Please think how you would feel if you owned a bull breed and he was a well behaved, sociable dog. Why should my dog have to suffer and not live a full and happy life,and wear a muzzle and possibly not be let of a lead because of another dog of the same or similar breed has been agressive??? I think someone on a similar topic on another thread hit the nail on the head - some humans are violent people/murders, etc but some/most arent!
We have had plenty of other breeds come dashing over to our dogs having a go, most notably golden retreivers. I am all for bringing dog licences out to own bull breeds though, maybe then it will stop idiots owning them and the sociable, well trained ones will maybe then get some credit that in the right hands they can be happy, friendly family members just the same as any other breed. :thumbsup:
- Messages
- 2,345
- Reaction score
- 23
- Points
- 0
i agree in most cases its the owners fault not the dogs, but when you see the damage these breeds can cause within a minute it frightens you for life. like i said in a earlier post i had 3 of mine attacked one a 6mth old pup and the dog went on to attack again. also a bull mastiff attacked an old ladys mongrel dog around the corner from were a live the attack was a bad one and the dogs leg was severed and the poor dog died in agony the attacker would not let go one bloke i know a big lad grabbed the bull from behind by the balls and the bastard still would not let go in the end a bloke ran out with a boiling pan of water he had been cooking spuds in and threw it over the animal the dog let go and ran .the police did nothing saying it was a dog on dog and the dog lived to fight another day. :rant: i know all dogs are not the same but like people have said on this thread a speical licence would be a start. :thumbsup:
- Messages
- 2,816
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Years ago when I was Ben's age about 14 we had a jrt. He was an old dog a a bit aggressive when on his lead towards other dogs althoughfine with others when running free.
One day I was walking Tim I was being folowed by a man walking a greyhound and a rough collie. I asked the man if it was ok for me to loose Tim the man said yes his dogs weren't aggressive. Tim was happily running around when suddenly the greyhound dived forward and grabbed Tim .The man had to nearly strangle the grey to get it to let him loose Luckkily Tim survived althought the vet said the dogs fang had missed his brain by less than an inch.
The next time I saw the man the grey was muzzled But this does not mean every greyhound is nasty and will attack I now own 2 greyhounds of my own. It took me along time to get so I didn't cross the road every time I saw a greyhound.Obviously this grey thought Tim was a fluffy rabbit running in the grass.
It is definitely the deed not the breed. I know many bull breeds who go to ring craft and live locally and don't know any ones that are aggressive or nasty
One day I was walking Tim I was being folowed by a man walking a greyhound and a rough collie. I asked the man if it was ok for me to loose Tim the man said yes his dogs weren't aggressive. Tim was happily running around when suddenly the greyhound dived forward and grabbed Tim .The man had to nearly strangle the grey to get it to let him loose Luckkily Tim survived althought the vet said the dogs fang had missed his brain by less than an inch.
The next time I saw the man the grey was muzzled But this does not mean every greyhound is nasty and will attack I now own 2 greyhounds of my own. It took me along time to get so I didn't cross the road every time I saw a greyhound.Obviously this grey thought Tim was a fluffy rabbit running in the grass.
It is definitely the deed not the breed. I know many bull breeds who go to ring craft and live locally and don't know any ones that are aggressive or nasty
No it means that guys greyhound was dog aggresive and he took the correct measures when that trait was discovered, unfortunately with bull breeds they have been selectively bred over 100's of years to display a favourable trait which is agression ie bull baiting dog fighting etc so it can be taken as a given that a high percentage of these breeds will still pocess that trait that is why they should have compulsory muzzling. It is definately the BREED! sighthounds are bred to hunt and for their speed, blood hounds for tracking, labs for gun work, and bulldogs for ????????? yes you will get all breeds that will be aggresive but bull breeds are bred for that purpose it does'nt take a genius to read trough the threads and see how many people have had a bad experience with these dogs,oakmoorehill said:
"It is definitely the deed not the breed. I know many bull breeds who go to ring craft and live locally and don't know any ones that are aggressive or nasty"
tell that to my sister and neice who were attacked by a neighbours staff whilst walking their airedale on a lead
- Messages
- 5,175
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
sadly it is the breed , just doing what they were bred for , stricter rulings must be put in place imo :thumbsup:
how many of us what our sighthounds chasing anything in the park for example? they are just doing what they were bred to do ? :thumbsup:
i had an ebt x who was the most wonderful dog ever but her jaw poundage was exceptional and therefore i was always on my guard as if attacked by anything she could have done major damage , she was indeed a very non aggressive and loving dog and trustowrthy but put in a situation where she could have been hurt , who knows what she would have done
just these breeds designs in the jaw etc shows what could be done , they are capable of breaking a human arm and taking it off in one bite , whippets cant??? its their build?
some are very loving and brilliant family dogs , in the right hands , some however are not and its the society we live in that makes these dogs a lethal weapon
we had one at ringcraft , the chap waited for the breeder he knew for breeding non aggressives, waited a long time for the right one as he had young grandkids etc , socailised the pup well , an experienced bull breed man too in his own right , done every mortal thing to ensure that pup was a very adjusted well mannered friendly dog , he turned out nasty as hell!!! infact it was due to people refusing to attend if this dog was there that a ringcraft club which had been running for over 30 yrs lost so much they were forced to close, you may say they should have refused him there , but he sat in the corner and always arrived early and stayed late to assist the chap who ran it as he was ill as well ? why did that pup turn? right breeding right upbringing?? still turned?? :wacko:
how many of us what our sighthounds chasing anything in the park for example? they are just doing what they were bred to do ? :thumbsup:
i had an ebt x who was the most wonderful dog ever but her jaw poundage was exceptional and therefore i was always on my guard as if attacked by anything she could have done major damage , she was indeed a very non aggressive and loving dog and trustowrthy but put in a situation where she could have been hurt , who knows what she would have done
just these breeds designs in the jaw etc shows what could be done , they are capable of breaking a human arm and taking it off in one bite , whippets cant??? its their build?
some are very loving and brilliant family dogs , in the right hands , some however are not and its the society we live in that makes these dogs a lethal weapon
we had one at ringcraft , the chap waited for the breeder he knew for breeding non aggressives, waited a long time for the right one as he had young grandkids etc , socailised the pup well , an experienced bull breed man too in his own right , done every mortal thing to ensure that pup was a very adjusted well mannered friendly dog , he turned out nasty as hell!!! infact it was due to people refusing to attend if this dog was there that a ringcraft club which had been running for over 30 yrs lost so much they were forced to close, you may say they should have refused him there , but he sat in the corner and always arrived early and stayed late to assist the chap who ran it as he was ill as well ? why did that pup turn? right breeding right upbringing?? still turned?? :wacko:
Welcome to Dog Forum!
Join our vibrant online community dedicated to all things canine. Whether you're a seasoned owner or new to the world of dogs, our forum is your go-to hub for sharing stories, seeking advice, and connecting with fellow dog lovers. From training tips to health concerns, we cover it all. Register now and unleash the full potential of your dog-loving experience!
Login or Register