Irresponsible Dog owners (1 Viewer)

[dantheman]

This thread seems to be quite vitriolic.Perhaps it should be closed.There will always be dog owners who are totally oblivious to the birds and wildlife,as indeed ,will next door's moggy decimate the blackbirds nest in your privet hedge.

Mmmm...quite.... can quickly become not nice, agreed. After all at the end of the day, have a feeling most on here are going to be generally agreeing on more to do with wildlife and conservation than not. (One of those issues that is/can be emotive. No need to wind up to much and fail to see more than a part of the complete picture.)

Anyway...

Don't actually mind dogs/dog owners in the right place meself, and appreciate they currently have a fairly important place in society (eg companions/guide dogs etc), just maybe not on nature reserves/places I want to go for walks ... but that's my opinion

Keep smiling folks, and soz if I've contributed too much to any winding up earlier on ...

 

[silvercrest]

Silvercrest I do sincerly appologise, It does appear that the poster who my reply was aimed at was correct and I do only have 1 brain cell. I think my confussion was down to a rushed reply. I think I will now start a new thread to ban people from posting whoo have had a drink !!

Dean

thats okay. apology accepted. drink, hey? im just gonna pour myself a big glass of whiskey, then amble around the garden....and yes, see if i can surprise any cats. i really do love cats and dogs, all animals....i just dont like them slicing my frogs up, and killing my birds off the birdtable, thats all. do you know, between 5 homes surrounding my garden there are 15 cats! one home has 8. that was all imeant about banning cats or introducing licences for them. i didnt mean it literally, but there you go. animals and birds are being driven out of the countryside and into our gardens. its our duty to protect them. how can we if pet populations arent controlled a little. so what are we supposed to do? just give up on these animals and birds like the politicians and businessmen do? just let pets take over? but hey, i digress.... as i tried to point out a couple of posts ago, this thread was originally about dogs on nature reserves. anyway, that drink. and thanx for the apology - no probs. and - i think im gonna retire from this thread for good.

 

[Dog]

Earlier this year a couple of us had a contract to clear scrub at Ashlawn railway cutting, a 'Warwickshire Wildlife Trust Reserve' to increase habitat for the Forester moth. Most of the length of the reserve is bordered by house's, at the southern end of the site there was probably 1 turd per sq metre & as you get towards Drugby town centre it increases to 6 turds per sq metre, the air is tainted with the smell of dog crap which is stale & sickley. Half way through the job it started to snow & it was like a breath of fresh air as the snow covered the turds & smell.
Another tree job I did at a Geological site near Warwick where they cut the stone to build Warwick castle, the trees were just full of plastic bags filled with sh*t like a rich crop of fruit. The site is overlooked by a newish so-called respectable middle-class housing estate on the Old Milverton Road where they just flick there dog mess into the quarry, just thought I would share my thoughts with you.

Mike.

 

[Mannix]

Not controversial, just fascist. It is a low intellect mentality that says 'I don't like it, ban it'. You know, I don't like music played loud, let's ban all radios and stereo systems, not too keen on beer bottles chucked in a lake either, should ban beer too. Might as well ban everything else too.

Grow up children, if you have a problem with irresponsible behaviour by some elements of a society, you don't deal with it by blanket banning something enjoyed by a majority, or near majority, of the society.

You talk like a fool. Do you think we can actually pick these ideas up and run with them. As for low intellect, take a look at your avatar. I think that is a good indicator of yours mate.

 

[Howard King]

When in the UK I go birding often with my dog I sit he sits I walk he walks etc etc however when one of us is caught short we have been known to a pee or cr** Him where its convenient - me behind a tree - do I bag both or just then one sample - I leave you to answer that.

 

[ColonelBlimp]

Now, someone calling for a blanket ban on something for mere reasons that they don't like it, regardless that the masses do like it, qualifies on at least the first two grounds (oppressive & intolerant), not far off the fifth too (dictatorial). So, buddy, that makes you one

I seem to remember that slavery (at least in some parts of the world) was 'enjoyed' by a good tranche of the population: I assume that by your standards you would consider someone like Wilberforce to therefore be "oppressive", "intolerant", and "dictatorial" as well???

 

[Pete Mella]

Why are people leaping to condemn someone who was making a valid put down on someone's daft enough to suggest (seemingly without irony) that is should be legal to shoot dead other people's pets? (As if we should all carry shotguns around Spurn Point to mete out our own instant justice Judge Dredd style on those breaking Yorkshire Wildlife Trust rules)

Should dogs be walked with more control? Yes. Should they be banned, or at least strictly kept on short leads in certain sensitive areas? Yes. Are a cross-section of dog-owners irresponsible idiots? Yes. Should there be more to sanction those who break rules and risk the welfare of wildlife due to their dogwalking habits? Probably, yes.

But these points are very different to hating dogs themselves and wanting harm to come to them, and the points ChrisKten made about this thread in post #92 that I lightheartedly refuted have now come true! While "nature lover" and "animal lover" are very different things, and I'm the first to dispense with sentimentality with conservation opinions, it does sometimes begger belief on this forum how ready some people are to relish in the idea of animal cruelty on species they don't like. (See also "two house brick" comments on previous cat threads)

While the term "fascist" is a little strong, Jos's sentiments on Mannix's post were spot on. The problem is stupid and inconsiderate people, not dogs themselves. But, as with every thread where someone even dares to mention cats, this thread started out as legitimate discussion and disappeared into a vortex of hysterical nonsense.

 

[Apodemus]

You talk like a fool. Do you think we can actually pick these iseas up and run with them. As for low intellect, take a look at your avatar. I think that is a good indicator of yours mate.

Oh dear. I really hope we don't start judging people by ther avatars.

 

[deborah4]

You can't get much higher classification than a RAMSAR site

Just come back from a fortnight's birding in a RAMSAR site in Greece - dogs, dogs, dogs! Everywhere! However, strangely enough I didn't see one single dog chasing wildlife in this rich avian habitat - but they did go for cars and people. Imagine hiking through remote rural areas and to be set upon by a pack of semi-feral dogs bounding out from the woods everytime one goes out :smoke: Didn't bother me, I love dogs and think they like me since they stopped 'attack' mode as soon as they got closer! I was more upset seeing numerous dogs as road kills just left to rot. These were essentially working dogs whose main interest was protecting cattle, goats and sheep. They were obviously too busy protecting territories to concern themselves with such trivial sports as chasing wildfowl and seemed to prefer human targets to satisfy their 'hunt & chase' tendancies!

Made me wonder though, what happens to an overly domesticated animal in developed and more urban communities that are essentially kept under lock and chain for the best part of their lives? Is alleviation from boredom through habitual suppression of instinctive behaviour by their owners part of their 'nuisance' factor once they're let off the lead I wonder?

 

[Jos Stratford]

I assume that by your standards you would consider someone like Wilberforce to therefore be "oppressive", "intolerant", and "dictatorial" as well???

I would consider someone who calls for pets on mass to be banned, regardless whether that pet was actually a problem or not, and another who thinks he should have the right to walk up and shoot other people's pets is all of these things.

There are many millions of people who do have dogs and cats that are not responsible for the issues that are raised on these threads - you don't persecute everybody for the actions of a minority. Not in a normal society anyhow. Calls for tightening restrictions at sensitive sites, yes; enforcement of these regulations, yes, but blanket bans of nationwide pet ownership is not only pie-in-the-sky, but totally counter-productive - just makes conservationists look like a lunatic fringe. As for shooting pets, a mind-blowing idea - kind of think you'd get a fair few upset persons totally objecting to anything related to conservation forever, result less chance of conservation ever succeeding.

 

[marcia A]

God I really started a good one here didnt I?:cat:

I think the original subject has somewhat been left by the wayside dont you??

Mind you I would definitely say bring back the dog licence - a minimum £100 fee should do the trick. Real dog lovers shouldnt mind paying such a trivial fee. I would love to have a dog if I had the time to look after one properly ( It wouldnt be fair to leave it at home all the while whilst me and my other half are at work) - I certainly wouldnt mind paying for a licence. Years ago you always had to have one to keep a dog!

Saying that I think cat owners should have a licence too as cats can be a real pain in the bum - frightening birds and leaving unpleasant deposits in neighbours gardens!:C

 

[Howard King]

But the minute the bloke on the gate leaves they come in their droves and let the ridiculous creatures run wherever they like. It should be legal to walk up and shoot them.

It is not clear in your post if you mean the owners or the pets. But my main concern is that once you have removed the problem of wayward pets be its owners or the pets themselves what next - Hikers, itinerant walkers or kids playing ball.

 

[Mike Cross]

It is not clear in your post if you mean the owners or the pets. But my main concern is that once you have removed the problem of wayward pets be its owners or the pets themselves what next - Hikers, itinerant walkers or kids playing ball.

Jet Skiers!! Only joking. I dislike dogs for the following reasons a) Incessant noise, b) excrement, c) jumping at you with muddy paws, d) disturbance to wildlife. The problem , however, is not the dogs. All those things the dogs do as a natural function or instinct. The problem is the owners not the dogs.
To be fair things have improved substantially in recent years. I can recall one local nature-reserve (if that's not an oxymoron) where you had to slalom the first few hundred yards past the mess. It is now rare to see a mess there and that should be comended. The majority of dog owners are responsible and behave just as is the case with birders and in any iterest. The problem is that there are millions of dog owners so even a minority of 10% is a big problem. As far as disturbance is concerned it is a spectrum ranging from those who have their dogs constantly on a tight lead to those who actively throw sticks etc into a wildlife rich (and notionally signposted "out of bounds") piece of water etc
and even join them on ocassion. Most people are in the middle and just don't realise what disturbance they sometimes cause.
Unfortunately whilst most of those are co-operative and receptive there is a minority who just don't care a damn. But that is probably their way in all walks of life. Many of these are people who will fly tip, throw litter out of the car, park on the pavement, drive aggressively, play music loudly, get drunk and get into fights, watch or play soccer (that'll get the wendyball fans going!! ha ha) etc etc etc. They also have a higher likelihood to have breeds that have a higher propensity to be dangerous and this is accentuated by poor or no obedience training. In the dog context I suspect that they are as much of an embarassment and annoyance to the majority of dog owners as they are to the rest of us.
We should be working with dog owners not against them but it's a mammoth task though!!!

 

[ChrisKten]

God I really started a good one here didnt I?:cat:

I think the original subject has somewhat been left by the wayside dont you??

Mind you I would definitely say bring back the dog licence - a minimum £100 fee should do the trick. Real dog lovers shouldnt mind paying such a trivial fee. I would love to have a dog if I had the time to look after one properly ( It wouldnt be fair to leave it at home all the while whilst me and my other half are at work) - I certainly wouldnt mind paying for a licence. Years ago you always had to have one to keep a dog!

Saying that I think cat owners should have a licence too as cats can be a real pain in the bum - frightening birds and leaving unpleasant deposits in neighbours gardens!:C

I think I've made it pretty clear what I feel about some of the posts in this thread, so I won't add more.

I've been thinking quite a lot about the Dog Licence, and I agree that it should be reintroduced. However, I don't think the cost of the licence is important. I believe that prospective dog owners should have to pass a test, in the same way that people have to pass a driving test.

Prospective dog owners should have to prove that they understand what caring for a dog entails. Many have no idea that their dog could kill another dog, or indeed a child. Many mistreat their dog without even realising they are doing it, they just mimic what their parents did with their dog. A classic example is the myth that if a dog relieves itself indoors you "rub their noses in it". This has no effect whatsoever, the dog doesn't make a connection between a wet nose and the puddle on the floor. Well it does, it knows the puddle made it's nose wet, but it has no idea why the owner forced it's nose into it. Yet this practice is passed from parent to child as if it's set in stone.

Part of the test process should involve a follow up where the owner has to prove they have control of their dog. Perhaps a certificate given after attending puppy classes, and, when the dog is old enough, training school.

In fact I believe all prospective pet owners should at least have to prove that they understand their responsibilities. Not just their responsibilities to others and to the environment, but responsibilities to their pet.

Having said all of that, it won't happen. People believe that they have a right to own pets, convincing them that with rights comes responsibility would be almost impossible IMO.

 

[Mike Cross]

I believe that prospective dog owners should have to pass a test, in the same way that people have to pass a driving test.

.

Have you driven on our roads recently! Any clown (myself included) can do and say the right things to get a licence.
But compulsory classes would be a good thing. If every one attending takes just one good thing away from them it would be a huge start.

 

[ChrisKten]

Have you driven on our roads recently! Any clown (myself included) can do and say the right things to get a licence.[...]

Yes, as soon as I typed it I knew it was a bad example, but it was the only test I could think of at the time.

 

[Apodemus]

How about a firearms licence? That really keeps guns out of the hands of anti-social types.

 

[DunnoKev]

Silvercrest I do sincerly appologise, It does appear that the poster who my reply was aimed at was correct and I do only have 1 brain cell. Dean

Dean, nowhere did I imply you had one brian cell. What I did ask you to do was see the thing from my perspective, not your own. I was asking you to consider and to be considerate.

If a dog is on a lead, by its master's side or in it's master's vehicle yup I'll happily stand there and talk with them but I will always say right from the start I can't get too close as I have an extreme allergic reaction to dog hair.

I didn't always have the condition. Came on in my 30s (I blame air-conditioned offices) and suddenly overnight I couldn't go near dogs. My brother and his family had a Cocker Spaniel at the time, and I couldn't go in their house. Now their dog was a family member, they weren't going to get rid of it for me (nor would I ask them to) so I just didn't go to their house for the next eleven years and we dropped to seeing each other about once a year, but I didn't blame him or begrudge him that. He just made sure his dog was always away from me, and I thank him for that.

I don't have a hatred of dogs. If I did I would've made the phone call and the farmer would have been down in a flash and shot that pooch last last weekend. I know Farmer Palmer's not going to be pleased with me when he finds out I didn't tell him, that's for sure. The local paper has been full of stories of savged lambs in the last few weeks.

But, and I know I'm repeating myself here, if I allow some dog to keep jumping on me then I am going to get hair on me, and I will have my throat close. I'm not going to let that happen.

Last year at one place where I was working for a short while I had to put up with a woman who insisted on bringing her collie in the building, and combing it, sometimes in the kitchen area. I asked her not to, because of my condition. But poochy-woochy wasn't going to not be pampered because of some silly man and a week or so later I downed a cuppa with a hair in the cup. The dozen or so people who saw the reaction were stunned by the sight of me all curled up, hurling up and fighting for breath.

The next day, I politely (work situation, no Anglo Saxon) but firmly pointed out that the person in question should respect my wishes and refrain from combing their collie indoors. Since then, the two dog owners of that group has sent me to Coventry for what was me asking them to show consideration but they see as some ghastly attack on doggie-kind.

I'm sorry you seem to doubt I have this allergic reaction and might be making this up. I'm sure there might be one or two of the Sandwich Bay Bird Obs regulars out there who'll remember the times when I worked there when I was rolled up on the floor unable to breathe thanks to dog hair. I never blamed the dogs, but I would make sure their owners knew to keep them away from me. These owners would usually have a little less sympathy than say my brother, and I knew they would never refrain from bringing their pooches into the Obs. Oh the fun we at times had if there was a school visit and we dared ask to have these visiting pets kept away from the kiddiwinks. You'd have thought I'd slit the throat of their first-born. Put in its simplest terms, we have yet another example of dog owners not willing to consider potential dangers because their darlings would never do that.

So, I'm sorry you don't like the idea that if a mutt jumps up on me I take aggresive action to get the thing off me, but it really is because I actually prefer breathing to not breathing.

The land adjoining my property has a footpath on it that is clearly marked 'dogs to be kept on lead'. If I'm on that, the owner has ignored the signs and I've got his "buthe'smybabyjustlikeanotherchildofthefamilyandsonly sayinghelloandbeingfriendly" rubbing itself over me I am going to take action.

I haven't been writing this solely for you Dean, my hope is always one or two dog owners out there actually might re-consider their own behaviour in public places after reading my words. I respect your right to argue the case against my views. But please, after this, don't continue to dismiss my argument as I must surely be making up my condition as part of some sort of anti-dog wind-up.

Inconsiderate dog-owners. They say their off-the-leash hound isn't going to rip the face off a baby in a pram, scare a young child witless by biting legs or attack another pet being walked on a lead.

Responsible dog owners. They keep their animals on leads in public places. And clear up after 'em.

DunnoKev
---------
For those feeling the urge, please send dog hair cakes, cat-poo sarnies and dead chinchilla smoothies labelled "yummy chocs" and marked "for the attention of DunnoKev only", to: Bristow's Taxidermy and Eastern Palearctic Bird Import Company, Shaved Dog Alley, Old-Winchelsea-under-the-Sea, East Suppressex. (Please don't label your package "PETA" or "British Birds Hairities Committee", as DunnoKev will simply return these unopened to sender.)

 

[username]

Dunnokev.....serious sympathies on the dog hair allergy front....sounds bloody horrendous!

ps....like you're 'funny bits'! Chuckle.......

 

[ColonelBlimp]

There are many millions of people who do have dogs and cats that are not responsible for the issues that are raised on these threads - you don't persecute everybody for the actions of a minority. Not in a normal society anyhow. Calls for tightening restrictions at sensitive sites, yes; enforcement of these regulations, yes, but blanket bans of nationwide pet ownership is not only pie-in-the-sky, but totally counter-productive - just makes conservationists look like a lunatic fringe. As for shooting pets, a mind-blowing idea - kind of think you'd get a fair few upset persons totally objecting to anything related to conservation forever, result less chance of conservation ever succeeding.

Hear hear (bloody hell I'm agreeing with you on something- I'd better get taking my belligerence medication again o) but your original remark:

Now, someone calling for a blanket ban on something for mere reasons that they don't like it, regardless that the masses do like it, qualifies on at least the first two grounds (oppressive & intolerant), not far off the fifth too (dictatorial).

...can be applied to the situation you quote, but in its wideness it can also be applied to things of an entirely different bent, e.g. slavery. I was just trying to point that out.