Friday, 23 March 2012

Local councils must lead the devil dog cull

The Staffie-cross bull terrier is the weapon of choice for London street thugs. The seats of childrens' swings in the local parks bear deep toothmarks and tears, and the lower branches of trees are torn where both these things have been used to 'train' the dogs in aggression and attack. These are not devoted companion animals, not man's best friend, but brutally and ignorantly treated creatures who have only ever known curses and blows. The animal charities' pens are full of these dogs, rejected and thrown out as not aggressive enough, but no one wants to re-home them and take the risk. Quietly, they are euthanised as they are found. 

The failure to deal with the menace of these dogs is local. Parliament may legislate as many Dangerous Dogs Acts as it likes, but without trust and action at the most local level we will never be rid of this danger. I have met my local Council's dogs officer, a man extremely fond of dogs, as they have to be. His wisdom and experience as to whether a dog is dangerous or not is far, far superior to any objective biological tests set by Parliament, yet we are not permitted to rely on his professional skill. Such men and women, who can coax a fearful and mistreated stray from its cowering hiding, will be reluctant to condemn any dog to death, but they will do their duty and comb out the worst of the devil dogs from our scum estates if supported and permitted to do so. What's lacking is not the skills and resource, but the political will.  

13 comments:

JuliaM said...

Oh, lord, here we go again with the hysterical demands for 'action' that lead to the useless, expensive and counter-productive Dangerous Dogs Act we currently have.

The one that did nothing but enrich lawyers.

Now, your council bloke might just be shit-hot, but can you say that for every council?

After all, this 'devil dog' had already been reported as dangerous, and the Newham council officers seem to have reacted to that report with all the speed and alacrity of an arthritic sloth on Quaaludes.

DeeDee99 said...

We should reinstate a Dog Licence - a one-off fee paid when the dog is bought.

ANY dog found which is not wearing one should be held for a week, in case its owners come forward, and then be destroyed.

G. Tingey said...

Painlessly euthanise the OWNERS ????

Ahem.

Edward Spalton said...

Funnily enough Greg, that great socialist advocate, George Bernard Shaw, advocated "humane" gas chambers for the socially useless.

It is now over 25 years since some lads set a dog on our son (aged 8 or 9), who was walking home from junior school. A kindly shopkeeper saw what was happening and pulled him inside.

I was away on business and my wife had a terrific struggle to get anyone official to take notice. The police, local authority and RSPCA all played "pass the parcel". They wanted to class the dog as "out of control" but, as my wife had to repeat often, the dog was doing exactly what those in control of it wanted it to do. I think eventually a policeman did go and have a few serious words with the adult owner. That was all.

I think it was the Spectator which produced a cartoon on this subject a while ago. A group of thugs talking, saying "We're worried about Wayne. He's got a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel".

Onus Probandy said...

Anyone who has had anything to do with dog (aggressive or otherwise) will tell you that aggression is nothing to do with the breed of dog.

You can turn a poodle into a ravenous beast if you are so inclined.

The fact that the current fashion amongst the underclass is for staffies says no more about staffies than does their penchant for berghaus hoodies (or whatever they're wearing these days).

Isn't it obvious? Every breed of dog that has ever been banned is instantly replaced in the underclass with a new one. Which they train from birth to be aggressive evil hounds of hell.

One day it will be golden retreivers and then it'll be really hard for the knee-jerker to get a ban through.

I have no problem at all with going after dangerous dogs -- those dogs aren't having a happy life anyway, regardless of the additional danger they are to the rest of us. But the idea that this problem can be solved by banning breed-of-the-month is hopelessly naive.

Sean said...

Simples, If they are not chipped the authorities should have the right to destroy them.

The chip can be tested every year by the vet at vaccination.

If it fails you can also have a tattoo or just make sure they have ID on their collar.

Anonymous said...

Sean: No.
My dog isn't being chipped or licenced(and don't kid yourself that political scum want those things for any other reason than extorting money from dog owners). Plus, anyone who destroyed my dog for any reason short of rabies would get his (or her) face pounded through to the back of their head.
If a dog has been trained to do harm and has done so then find the owner and beat him to death. It would take about two such episodes before the entire cult of dangerous dog fanciers will turn their arses on their canine interests and flee.

Elby the Beserk said...

Poor Staffies - they were bred to protect babies and small children. Similarly, the English Bull Terrier was bred to be a "Gentleman's Companion".

Castrate the owners, not the dogs?

JuliaM said...

"Simples, If they are not chipped the authorities should have the right to destroy them."

Chips can 'wander' under the skin. They aren't 100% effective.

"If it fails you can also have a tattoo or just make sure they have ID on their collar."

"Oh, the tattoo? Yeah, my dog was bitten by another right on the tattoo, officer, imagine that?"

And....what collar?

JuliaM said...

This is not a problem that requires more laws, or different laws, to deal with.

It's a problem that requires the authorities to use the existing laws and not just pass the buck to the council dog warden.

However, sorting out the ludicrously lenient judiciary would need to be done first; even where the cops do their job, some bewigged fool is apt to err on the side of the poor little poochie-woochie.

As, indeed, I've just blogged myself.

anon 2 said...

Surely all their spy materials can show up the evil *****************s who hurt these wonderful animals in the first place? Maybe the culprits should suffer a similar fate to their own victims.

I never met a bad domestic animal yet, but that an in-human made it so.

God, it makes me angry.

Fausty said...

Be careful what you wish for. Is it a coincidence that suddenly, all over the world, governments are troubled by 'dangerous dogs'? At the same time?

I predict that this is being hyped to usher in compulsory chipping or dog licensing. (See Sean, above).

From there, cats. Then all animals. Then watch small farmers go bust and the number domestic animals decrease over time, as the government (EU) gains more control and extracts yet more money from you.

This is a flyer put out by the government. Let's not fall for their trojan horse.

We already have sufficient laws in this country to deal with the problem. Why are we not enforcing them?

Anonymous said...

The problem is not the breed but the training subjected by the owner. The Staffie as a breed is loveable and loyal, very intelligent and eager to be trained. Do not punish the breed but the owner who trains the animal to attack. As has been said above "you can turn a poodle to be a beast" and this is quite true as statisticly most bites are inflicted by the smaller breeds, but their bite is not as destructive and a larger dog. Stop with the kneejerk BS, it belittles the view of your inteligence.....