inez

Considering this is a HUGE and very active forum with Total Members 31,477 Let alone the number of people who are members of their respective ANKC state registeries, they would have to be one of the most divisive groups with a common bond in this country surely. The apathy in voting let alone doing anything to protect themselves and their dogs is apalling. believe it or not it only takes one or two thousand agitators to get politicians shaking in their boots and running to appease the angry votes, the greens were a minitory group and look how they grown and achieved. Peta is a pretty manic and believe it or not minority vastly outnumbered by all of us who love and treasure our dogs, yet they have been allowed to take over and influence governement to every dog owners detriment let alone anyone who breeds being at risk. unfortunately the dog fraternity is so divided by so many issues they cant even think of working together. I think it would be the only group willing to stand by and see thousands of innocents risk prosecution as long as it takes out those they despise in the process. Except of course now its beginning to be noticed all the you beaut laws they didnt object to thinking they would eliminate puppy farmes instead are legalising them and even worse giving councils the go ahead to ignore the fact the vast majority of ANKC breeders do so as a hobby, this class is no longer on the table. AS said somewhere else the councils are saying if you breed even just one pup you must register and be recognised as a commercial breeding and boarding facility which then means you either put in the "commercial kennels" or not allowed to breed? How was that not spotted comming and something done to shut that legislative mistake before the horse bolted? I was talking to a chap who works with Animal Welfare about the lady in liverpool who has had to give up breeding (and she has produced some legends in the past) no more for the future though. He said its happening with many councils now doing it and many affected, instead of rehoming themselves are surrendering what they are no longer allowed to keep.

Might have helped if you had actually read the OP? for starter he didnt deliberately 'hoard' there was a recession and he had touble selling. He enlisted the help of a HORSE RESCUE. NOT ANOTHER BREEDER. "An eccentric, bearded figure, Davies became known to millions of TV viewers as The Horse Hoarder, after Channel 4 broadcast a documentary in January about his gruelling court battle with the RSPCA. The deeply moving film told how his life had spiralled out of control following the death of Hayley, his 18-year-old daughter, in a road accident. Suffering from depression, he’d thrown himself into breeding horses and ponies, keeping the animals first at his tenanted farm and later on a 75-acre plot on the outskirts of Wrexham. The financial crash of 2008 and the subsequent recession dealt a heavy blow to the horse trade, however. By early last year, Davies was having difficulty selling his livestock and his herd had ballooned to more than 50 unsold animals. Scraping by on a pension of around £100 a week, Davies was unable to afford to properly feed and care for his animals. Many looked underweight, and some were suffering from the effects of untreated parasites. He duly contacted Michelle, who runs a nearby horse rescue centre, and she began helping him to reduce the herd to a manageable level by finding homes for some of his stock. By late last year, just 22 remained. This summer, we’d have been able to get the number down, probably to a handful, which he could properly care for,’ says Michelle. ‘But, sadly, we never got the chance.’" Everything else you said was top notch and all excellent ideas. Unfortunately and sadly, anyone whose name is mentioned in the same line as animal cruelty loses any chance of sympathy let alone help in most cases. At least the Lady from the Horse rescue was trying her best to help him. I feel so sorry for her, she must be devestated. But timely warning, end up with too many (managable or otherwise) and slip over the new crime line "hoarder" (is it worse or as bad as Puppy farmer?) and you can be toast. no matter like this chap was actively working to solve the problem. only a nice prosecution and public humiliation, will clean the public slate. (I am told any numbers 6 or over is been asked to be considered as "hoarding" for legislation? Is this true , or more rumours?)

Things are really gone mad these days. " We don't allow random people to be persecuted like paedophiles, especially when they have not even been convicted as such in court, " so true, even in the case of the convicted, and out on parole, one phone call to the police and anyone trespassing or threatening them face prosecution. Not so for anyone so much as accused of being a puppy farmer or a hoarder. They are supposed to swallow the "if you are innocent you have nothing to hide". While anyone who my wish to do so stalk them.

This. Even if you are declared %100 innocent and even if there was an ombudsman and ways to appeal and all the rest, once your face and name are out there, that's it. The social media court does not need a legitimate conviction and any nutter, psychopath and loony can become a part of it. People get harassment and death threats for the rest of their lives as you have described above. I realize puppy farming is bad, but destroying people's lives for unproven allegations is completely unforgivable. I still feel bad for the breeder whose place was featured on Today Tonight. That whole thing really made me aware of the powers that can be brought against you without any actual legal action needing to be taken. Personally, I think people who break and enter and trespass in pursuit of damning video and photographic evidence should be exposed to the same harassment as the people they are supposedly exposing. Maybe they will learn some compassion that way. Puppy farming is worse than bad and those that profit from the misery they inflict on dogs until they are no use anymore, are the lowest of the low. They are ONLY interested in profiting from the animals, they are not interested in the welfare of the animals they own nor the ones they ship off to petshops. Agreed but there are adequate laws to enable those in authority to investigate and charge and take action against people who are guilty without the need to have someone who is a fanatic creep around in the night and ruin someone's life often when its not justified. Not all of the people they expose and ruin are puppy farmers but if they are and keeping dogs in poor conditions there is no need to crucify them when the courts do that . The breeder I spoke of in the previous post isnt a puppy farmer - in fact very far from it but she is still hunted relentlessly. Think that last paragraph you posted really did sum up the huge diffeence between the RSPCA 40 years ago and the reality tody. ‘At that very moment, I realised that it was the only time, in all my time covering Clwyd’s case, that I’d seen someone from the RSPCA offer to actually help.’ As for any one like the unfortunate breeder who is now "still hunted relentlesly" That too is now todays reality. I know not just myself, so many friends, actually even people I dont know well at all, have come to that same conclusion. Sad but maybe funny in a way, those affected by BSL probably feel just as vunerable and helpless but never will realise they too are as much caught up in the same reality of today, governments deciding on laws that eliminate the majority to get rid of the harder to spot problem minority. Doesnt the military call that "collateral damage"? "Collateral damage is damage to things that are incidental to the intended target. It is frequently used as a military term where it can refer to the incidental destruction of civilian property and non-combatant casualties."

Your are kidding arent you? No I suppose you arent.. Why would I be kidding in asking a question? wasnt it oversimplification that brought in BSL and naught else? doesnt the AVA paper list a raft of issues just about all ignored in the quick fix mentality?

You really are a concern. Love and embrace only the good? Ignore where there a problem and it will go away? To where?

Your are kidding arent you? No I suppose you arent.. Just keep yourself and your kids off the street if you dont want to be checking out the inside of an ambulance anytime soon or in the future

Yes totally agree, until people accept that all dogs are not created equal and the genetics of a dog cannot be modified in the raising, things will sadly never move forward in a positive direction. I am a very strong BSL advocate to mean "breeder specific legislation" much better response than mine. Endone really messes with your ability to concentrate.

Dear dog, the ignorance & hatred of some people is upsetting, especially on a dog lovers forum. Unfortunately the above response seems to be the general response from anyone that does have the good ones. Complete denial, as if thats going to make the problem when they happen, go poof in the night and dissappear? At least they hope from peoples minds. If a prolem is not addressed and solved it doesnt tend to go away by itself. Its all the joggers fault thinking they were a bull breed or the paper to notice. I have no idea of the figures these days since there are so few of them around now. but in the 70's on average 37 people were killed by Jersey bulls Annually. Did they shoot every bull? Nope. Were they allowed to run the streets? No, The message was NEVER put yourself in needless danger and amazingly when the message went out the numbers dropped. At least most of the unlucky either owned it or worked there. Even public awareness of taking more care has been done to try and drop traffic deaths

What I dont understand who are the actual people "busily legislating" yet ignoring the very research that they should be taking on board? Most of the legislation seems more like it was written by peta than barely anything taken from the AVA recomendations for example.

From where I sit there seems to be bugger all resources being devoted to the issue at all. Why is it that nearly every dog that features in a serious attack seems to be known to Council. Killer dogs don't come out of nowhere. I wish someone would profile the histories of dangerous dogs. Seems to me that the same profile of dog and owner plays out time and again and bugger all is being done to stop these situations repeating themselves. Yes Pathetic isnt it. They spend more on their lunches.

I would be very interested to know your feelings if it was you instead of the jogger in hospital. One of the reasons ive nothing to do but net surf (when I am home that is) 11 days of the last weeks has been at various diagnostic clinics and Hospitals because I too was attacked in a public place minding my own business. It is not a pleasant feeling knowing I could still die from one of the side affects of the attack, namely DVT. So sit in your comfy chair and pontificate over MY angel would NEVER do something like that. The owner of the one that nearly killed me is going through that nightmare and I feel as sorry for him as I do myself. He had absolutely no idea his pet is a nut until that milisecond when he lost the plot because his best mate left his side, his pet he now knows suffers incredibly separation anxiety issues. I am incredilbly lucky I am not dead or you couldnt be upset by my stupid efforts to understand how and or why people can be so easily maimed or killed. Im still comming to terms about how I feel about the creature that nearly killed me. Although I would hate even more to be in the shoes of its owner. Will I ever feel safe again in a public place? Its going to be rather a long time before I get to find out the answer to that one.

Are you saying dogs need to be on lead inside houses? Sometimes I think kids do. I remember a terrying incident at a lady's house, her newly whelped doberman was shut in a side room on the verandah. Another visitors toddler, think he was 18 months old nipped off unnoticed and went outside and opened the door. All we could hear was his terrified screams. He was amazingly unharmed considering stark on his forehead were still the imprint of where the bitch had charged him and hit him right in the centre of his forehead with her closed teeth. She was back curled with her pups when everyone arrived running. Doesnt bear thinking what she could have done. Did speak volumes for her temprement though. She protected her pups without actually injuring the child. Although no doubt many may still blame her for scaring the child.

If you have a "mean" dog then it is your responsibility to keep it under complete control. "Accidents happen" simply isn't good enough. Just thought this bears bumping again. I am amazed at the apparent lack of dog knowledge some posters here seem to display. Young dogs kill old dogs all the time. Breed is irrelevant here. Anybody who has old dogs and acquires young dogs should be well aware of this before leaving them together unsupervised. I am also amazed that there are people on DOL who believe that a dog's behaviour is 100% a result of nurture when there are countless scientific articles on the subject. Even more amazing is that some people don't believe "their" breed or a certain breed who is small or a toy breed or whatever is incapable of aggression. They are all dogs. They are all capable. Their triggers and thresholds may vary but denying this is very naive as some other posters have pointed out. I believe many large breed owners probably have the same attitude ("my dog would never do that") and maybe that is what causes some of these incidents in the first place.... And while I do realize that it makes sense that large breeds are more capable of inflicting damage, I would like to say that small breeds not only have killed people by mauling them but can also cause accidents by chasing people and dogs in front of traffic etc, so saying they are harmless seems a little naive to me as well. All dogs need to be controlled and managed and even tiny dogs can be dangerous to very young children, so awareness of this is important, in my opinion, rather than spouting the old "small dogs do small damage" and possibly leaving less dog savvy people in the belief that leaving their young child alone with a dog is ok because it's small and can't do any damage. Excellent idea. Tragic how few know it. Let alone believe it. Until reality is absorbed such tragedies can only continue to increase instead of decrease.

There are an awful lot of naive people around, mores the pity.

Read the article, mantis. It explains why it is not the dogs or the owners. It's BOTH. : You know what really makes me mad? People grossly oversimplifying complex issues and then developing some kind of fierce belief in the oversimplification. Having owned, bred and shown dogs for 50 years means nothing if you can't grasp the complexity of fairly key issues like temperament. Unfortunately I suspect Mantis is one of the incapable of asimilating what is in that article. The most unfortunate part about that is they are not alone in this. In 50 years of owning dogs I gather mantis hasnt made the mistake of leaving 3 or more of their dogs running together and come home to find one of her dogs had been killed by its 'friends'. I know my sister is still in shock over her two 9 month old cavalier puppies killing the 13 year old chihuahua they grew up with. She still cant believe they ran to her, tails wagging to greet her with no idea they had done anything wrong. DOGS WILL AND DO KILL. Things like this do happen. Not often, maybe thats why its so shocking when it does. Like my sister we humans will never know why? They have absolutely no idea of human morals or mores. Neither are dog agressive, both are typical adoring loving cavalier puppies. What triggered what the vet said is normal pack behaviour if a fight starts no one will ever know. He did not believe they should be put down, time seems to be bearing this out. What happened was almost a year ago now and my sister is still trying to understand why, neither have shown any sign of agression to any other dog or each other since. Dogs are canis familiaris no matter how cute and cuddly the term 'fur child' feels, you have a cute bundle of instincts of the ages, you actually know just about nothing about. A lady was asked to look after her sons three huskies while he was away for the weekend, the next day two of them killed the third. they all grew up together and were litter mates. It isnt a rule, well not yet is it? That to like/love a dog you are not allowed to be realistic and know their strengths and their weaknessnes? actually I think the actual title of the thread is a mistake " Can Some Dogs Just Be Mean? " Dogs have no such concept, only people . I find that really shocking. Your poor sister and poor little chi I would never have believed Cavs were capable of that - thats an eye opener! Who would. As her vet said, "doesnt matter what the breed, more than two dogs is a pack, pack behaviour is instinct from the ages regardless of breed". The implications are more than a little scarey isnt it? Our "fur kids" are just as capable of emulating the children in "Lord of the Flies". Thanks to their teeth and insticts much more capable of kiling in the worst case scenario. Anyone watching a group of unsupervised children can see some awful bullying behaviour, its adults who need to be watching to interfere and train them it is not acceptable. I well remember a 2 year old taking the hand of the 18 month sitting beside him and biting her fingers to the bone before he could be made to let go. If lack of supervision in children can result in such horrific injuries the problem is no less possible in dogs is it? Somehow though even in the worst possible case scenario, if that poor jogger in Liverpool had been attacked by three cavaliers he would not be in hospital with the horrific injuries he does have, They were inflicted by a breed bred for just that purpose, Cavs dont have the size, weight or abilty to inflict so much damage. A irrsponsible cav owner or any toy breed, is still a darnned nusicance, an irrisponsible big hunting and fighting breed owner is a rescipe for disaster.

You are wrong. I agree wholeheartedly with you. All I want is the owners of these dogs to be as responsible for theirs as we are for ours. NONE of my dogs have ever been allowed to roam. I do not believe it is safe for either my dogs or fair for anyone to be confronted with a strange dog be it running in front of their car and causing an accident, or going into their property or risking their stock may be frightened or wost case attacked or cause fear of attack. It is absolutely infuriating to come home and find someone elses are on my property, chasing my stock or attempting to attack my dogs. We shouldnt have to wake up to the screeaming of our neighbours sheep or goats being torn to pieces, to find a foal or a calf mauled through no fault of its own. Of course in surberbia its children, pets and in this latest tragedy that poor jogger. If I and my friends can be responsible for our animals WHY on earth cant others be just the same? If they really cared for their dogs regardless of whether its a toy or a giant breed. It belongs AT HOME and under supervision. What is really needed is strong enough laws that people who dont can be prosecuted with more than a dont be naughty again. Banned for life from ever owing one again if they repeat offend. As for the sickos that get their kicks when they run down working dogs any chance they get on roadsides moving their owners stock or in the case of the poor husky pup shoot it as its happlily running to them? At least that one has had his guns confiscated. But many just use their cars, they should still be held to account if their number plate can be read. It wont ever stop these things happening, murders still happen, but any reduction possible would be at least a cause for celebration. Knowing the potential of your chosen breed and and making sure accidents cant happen is the best start surely?

OKYYYYYYYYYY good point. this thread should nver have been even allowed to start let alone continue since the attack was by a so called "breed" that is not even recognised by any Australian ANKC? I know I didnt even know it existed let alone been here for 18 years according to that website

so mantis didnt have a shot at me? eg this is being realistic. like it or not. Pet Rescue. There certainly is evidence for breed-specific behaviour, people. It doesn't serve anyone to deny it. Which is not to say BSL is evidence-based in the slightest. I quite like this blog post for explaining the interactions of genetics and environment: http://paws4udogs.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/its-all-in-how-theyre-raised/

you have the good dogs. how to make sure they are the only ones being bred really is the problem surely? Once upon a time as others have said, agressive dogs were not tolerated, let alone ever get the chance to be bred from, regardless of breed, now they get conselling. As that link on temprement said. Selection for that is EVERYTHING. counceling and remedial training will only work if the genes were right in the first place. regardless of breed.

The trouble is your dog and so many like him do not represent the entire breed unfortunately. Neither do the other bully breeds that would never ever think of committing the atrocities in these news links. In the wrong hands in the wrong place, with the wrong training whatever, this can be the outcome regardless of breed, although the damage tends to be directly in proportion with the size and weight of the attacker, in relation to the size and weight of the attacked, even more efficient damage when the breed was bred and built for the job. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2156016/Schoolboy-5-scarred-life-face-mauling-attack-Staffordshire-bull-terrier-neighbours-adopted-animal-shelter.html as for the two in the link below no english staffie ive ever seen looks like them. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/swindon-dog-attack-staffordshire-bull-862558 Ive seen some horrid savage maltese, chihuahua's and foxi's but not even ten of em in a fenzied attack could have done the awful damage the poor jogger in Liverpool suffered.

Their consience is clear, they did or do what to them, came naturally. Perhaps "Can some dogs horrify or shock you?" might be more like it?

dont know where to find the link, but some chap did an experiment with a large group of related dogs in which HD was known to affect a significant percentage. he divided the pups over fed one group and sustance fed the second group. the second goup developed 1/4 less HD affected and lived 4 to 5 years longer and equally later arthrtis onset. a realy eye opener of how significant diet is after all to what has been for so long solely genetic.

Read the article, mantis. It explains why it is not the dogs or the owners. It's BOTH. : You know what really makes me mad? People grossly oversimplifying complex issues and then developing some kind of fierce belief in the oversimplification. Having owned, bred and shown dogs for 50 years means nothing if you can't grasp the complexity of fairly key issues like temperament. Unfortunately I suspect Mantis is one of the incapable of asimilating what is in that article. The most unfortunate part about that is they are not alone in this. In 50 years of owning dogs I gather mantis hasnt made the mistake of leaving 3 or more of their dogs running together and come home to find one of her dogs had been killed by its 'friends'. I know my sister is still in shock over her two 9 month old cavalier puppies killing the 13 year old chihuahua they grew up with. She still cant believe they ran to her, tails wagging to greet her with no idea they had done anything wrong. DOGS WILL AND DO KILL. Things like this do happen. Not often, maybe thats why its so shocking when it does. Like my sister we humans will never know why? They have absolutely no idea of human morals or mores. Neither are dog agressive, both are typical adoring loving cavalier puppies. What triggered what the vet said is normal pack behaviour if a fight starts no one will ever know. He did not believe they should be put down, time seems to be bearing this out. What happened was almost a year ago now and my sister is still trying to understand why, neither have shown any sign of agression to any other dog or each other since. Dogs are canis familiaris no matter how cute and cuddly the term 'fur child' feels, you have a cute bundle of instincts of the ages, you actually know just about nothing about. A lady was asked to look after her sons three huskies while he was away for the weekend, the next day two of them killed the third. they all grew up together and were litter mates. It isnt a rule, well not yet is it? That to like/love a dog you are not allowed to be realistic and know their strengths and their weaknessnes? actually I think the actual title of the thread is a mistake " Can Some Dogs Just Be Mean? " Dogs have no such concept, only people .

Pet Rescue. There certainly is evidence for breed-specific behaviour, people. It doesn't serve anyone to deny it. Which is not to say BSL is evidence-based in the slightest. I quite like this blog post for explaining the interactions of genetics and environment: http://paws4udogs.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/its-all-in-how-theyre-raised/ Simply brilliant. Wonder how many will actually read it though.