Slim Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Kopek - How about just making it really simple. You have to pass a test to get a dog. Written and practical. Any 'good' dog owner wouldn't object if it meant we could all enjoy our four legged friends (or fiends looking at GD4ELI's monsters:) Sure, we still get bad drivers on the roads but just think how much worse it would be without the driving test. Costs would have to be able to cover themselves but maybe, unlike the driving test, you could have mass participatory tests to keep costs down. It may help cut down on what is the only real problem - cr4p owners. It's harder to achieve the same thing though. Would you need to pass the test to own a dog, or take it out in public? It's not like a car where the driver has to pass a test, a family dog might be fine out with mum, but out of control when out with the kid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Good post Kopek, having been the victim of dogs attacks, more could be done to prevent these incidents rather than waiting for something to happen to prove a dog is dangerous. This of course needs balancing with an increasingly risk-adverse society where all dogs must be on a lead, muzzled, banned from all public places and wear a nappy. If a dog hurt one of my kids, I would kill it, locate the owner (at leisure, not straight away), tie him up and burn his family while he watched, before doing the same to him LOL, this from the lickle crybaby who wanted to report me to the police a fortnight ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 A test sounds like a reasonable idea. I see what you're saying about the dog not being okay when the kids take it out for a walk Slim, but if you're bringing down the number of violent dogs by education/testing, then whether it fixes the entire problem or not surely it's worth doing? The less dogs that have to be put down because a moronic owner didn't train them properly, the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 It's harder to achieve the same thing though. Would you need to pass the test to own a dog, or take it out in public? It's not like a car where the driver has to pass a test, a family dog might be fine out with mum, but out of control when out with the kid. Here it's the registered dog owner (all dogs are registered at the commune). Course has to be completed within 6 months of buying / adopting the dog. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 LOL, this from the lickle crybaby who wanted to report me to the police a fortnight ago Yeah, being concerned about your empty threats is quite funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Kopek - How about just making it really simple. You have to pass a test to have a child. Written and practical. Any 'good' parent wouldn't object. Sure, we still get bad drivers on the roads but just think how much worse it would be without the driving test. Costs would have to be able to cover themselves but maybe, unlike the driving test, you could have mass participatory tests to keep costs down. It may help cut down on what is the only real problem - cr4p parents. If only..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 A test sounds like a reasonable idea. I see what you're saying about the dog not being okay when the kids take it out for a walk Slim, but if you're bringing down the number of violent dogs by education/testing, then whether it fixes the entire problem or not surely it's worth doing? The less dogs that have to be put down because a moronic owner didn't train them properly, the better. Yep, sounds reasonable, but I've still got my doubts. The dog that attacked me a few years ago was just an accident waiting to happen. The owners had other dogs, and seemed to be responsible owners, but they treated this dog differently from their others. They clearly knew he was a problem, yet I suppose as responsible owners of dogs they'd have passed a test. But when you've an emotional attachment for a dog, what are you going to do? They're not going to get rid of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slackbladder Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 A test sounds like a reasonable idea. I see what you're saying about the dog not being okay when the kids take it out for a walk Slim, but if you're bringing down the number of violent dogs by education/testing, then whether it fixes the entire problem or not surely it's worth doing? The less dogs that have to be put down because a moronic owner didn't train them properly, the better. Yep, sounds reasonable, but I've still got my doubts. The dog that attacked me a few years ago was just an accident waiting to happen. The owners had other dogs, and seemed to be responsible owners, but they treated this dog differently from their others. They clearly knew he was a problem, yet I suppose as responsible owners of dogs they'd have passed a test. But when you've an emotional attachment for a dog, what are you going to do? They're not going to get rid of it. Like anything, you'll never completely eradicate the problem. At best, cut it down and keep it manageable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slackbladder Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Kopek - How about just making it really simple. You have to pass a test to have a child. Written and practical. Any 'good' parent wouldn't object. Sure, we still get bad drivers on the roads but just think how much worse it would be without the driving test. Costs would have to be able to cover themselves but maybe, unlike the driving test, you could have mass participatory tests to keep costs down. It may help cut down on what is the only real problem - cr4p parents. If only..... How one little word change can make such a difference... V Funny! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanna Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 Kopek that's flawed, a labrador (which would be on the list of ok dogs) can be aggresive and do as much damage as any other breed, all dogs mouths are desgined to rip & crunch, rip the skin/meat & crunch the bone (i don't mean of people but food wise) The only difference is pit bulls, rotts, staffs, boxers, dobes, bulldogs etc have the stronger jaws meaning they can hold on longer in an attack sitution but i would say if a labrador was going for the kill it'd hold on just as long aswell Im sorry but that's literally rubbish. The pitbull, staff, rott type dogs are lean, pure muscle dogs. They are extremely strong animals (hence why they are used in illegal fighting.). Labradors are not extremely strong. Its the strength of these types of dogs that is the issue. Most dogs types will bite someone if they want too but its these dangerous dog types that do extreme damage to people/pets as they are too strong to get off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Grew up with a Dalmatian/Doberman cross - coolest dog ever. Body of a Doberman but white with black spots Peaceful as anything but was well trained. Had a Rotty after that - again, well trained and never had any problems with the dog doing anything untowards. Only time I ever had a problem was when a German Shepherd attacked her when she was still small. Also the only dogs I don't trust or like - they're evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 LOL, this from the lickle crybaby who wanted to report me to the police a fortnight ago Yeah, being concerned about your empty threats is quite funny. Concerned enough to want to go crying to the police about them? Yes, I thought that was funny, and I remember challenging you to do so. You were too scared even for that. You are beyond pathetic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 German Shepherd ............... they're evil. I have to disagree with that. I've had a number of Shepherds and they have all been soft family dogs. Usual story - it's how they are raised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanna Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 Its not how they are raised. They are animals and we don't have the scientific knowledge to understand their minds fully. An animal can turn for no reason and we will never understand why that is the problem but one way to combat if they do turn is to have them on leads in public places. Simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wing of the Nut Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 LOL, this from the lickle crybaby who wanted to report me to the police a fortnight ago Yeah, being concerned about your empty threats is quite funny. Concerned enough to want to go crying to the police about them? Yes, I thought that was funny, and I remember challenging you to do so. You were too scared even for that. You are beyond pathetic Actually, beyon pathetic would be you and your "I'm dead 'ard" comments. A course of strong medication would be better suited to you than wasting police time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.