Dangerous dogs legislation reform

Re: Dangerous dogs legislation reform

ruths — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:36:11 GMT

The ckcs hurt tho! Actually the dog I was most scared of ever was a St. Bernard. He was volatile and held a grudge. I think it's the combination of ignorance and boisterous dogs thst are the worst. In my experience the police don't always have the salient facts to hand re dog leglislstion either. I've dealt with both the younger officers who have no idea how to manage the paperwork when asked to seize a dog.. Thst was an interesting hour or so that I spent with them and the RSPCA officer, trying to get them to understand the law.... And the police officer who accompanied his son and two pits bull type dogs, saying " we are known locally, everyone knows these dogs aren't put bulls", as he winked at me, smiling. The police do struggle with interpreting the law, either due to ignorance or due to their own sense of importance....

Re: Dangerous dogs legislation reform

Bob Russell — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:30:29 GMT

There cannot be much support within the veterinary profession for this ludicrous legislation. Deed not breed, of course makes more sense. I wonder if the 'emergency' factor was the three week old puppies. These perhaps were considered a welfare issue if admitted with mum to a kennels. Someone was probably thinking properly.

Rotten situation to be in but not within your control.

Our big, soft, incredibly child friendly GSD does look intimidating to outsiders but not to any of the many kids that visit our home. Parents stand warily while the children run over to him to give him a hug. The biggest risk posed by him is he can knock them over in his exuberance!

Re: Dangerous dogs legislation reform

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:21:26 GMT

[quote user="emma_j"]Michael, I hope you didn't intend it this way but I did find your post a little condescending in tone, coming from a colleague! Obviously I am fully aware that I had no compulsion to personally euthanase these puppies; but I happened to be the vet on duty at the time they were presented, and we all - myself and the police officers involved - wished to avoid the pups going into police kennels for any period of time.[/quote]

Emma, I apologise if my tone came across as condescending.

If the police rang me at 1.30am I would not be getting out of bed. The dogs would not have come to any harm in police kennels for 6 hours until the surgery opened.

From reading your original post I took it that you were upset having euthanased two puppies and I was just saying you were perfectly within your rights to refuse.

[I've been nipped by more collie dogs than anything else. The fact is with the pitbull type dogs - when they bite they really do damage. A CKCS I doubt has ever killed anyone]

Re: Dangerous dogs legislation reform

Dagmar Steele — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:03:38 GMT

Any breed lists are complete and utter nonsense in my eyes. We used to see many Pits and Staffies before two of them (belonging to a drug addict, had order to be on the leash and to be muzzled already but nobody ever checked on this) killed a young boy. It was a very sad event and if the authorities had payed for more staff and if staff had checked on the dogs as they should have it would never have happened, this poor boy would still be alive (as so many kids beaten or starved to death by their own parents would, by the way...). They knew these dogs were dangerous! Suddenly all Staffs and Pits had to be destroyed or ended up in one big barn filled with kennels getting mad in no time. It was unbelievably sad, none of my patients but one had ever been a problem to me or other people, most of them were fine with other dogs too. They definitely were not worse than any other breed, don't get me started on the wonderful German Shepherd dog breed :-( Don't get me wrong, I'll not hesitate to put any dangerous dog down, but just because it is of a certain breed?

Re: Dangerous dogs legislation reform

Mark Hedberg — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:54:42 GMT

I got bit in the face by a labrador. I wasn't pleased, as I recollect. Apparently I used naughty words in the practice waiting room.

Re: Dangerous dogs legislation reform

ruths — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:51:03 GMT

Oh, the dog that bit me and left scars....... Cavalier King Charles ;-)) Right on my shin. Really painful!!

Re: Dangerous dogs legislation reform

ruths — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:49:20 GMT

I frequently used to encounter pit bull types as family pets. A common presentation would be as a family pet; they will have been bought in a pub by a teenager or "given" to him one night. The dog would grow up in the family and then when the teenager moved out for whatever reason, the dog was left with the mum and the younger kids. The mum would bring the dog in for check ups or because it was ill and ask if I thought it was a pit bull and what they should do about it. These dogs were usually bonkers, but not mean. It's mad that there is no way of self referring. The police kennels are not a sensible place to keep these dogs whilst the legals are carried out. I have seen a number of quite sad and broken family pets come back out of the kennels after weeks and months of incarceration. I also remember euthanasing some beautiful dogs when the law first came out. It's my understanding that in political circles they refer to the DDA as a kneejerk law that backfired I don't know what I'd have done with the pups, you have my sympathy

Re: Dangerous dogs legislation reform

emma_j — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 07:30:26 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

Emma, the puppies themselves are not dangerous at this time but have the potential to be so. There has to be some kind of extenuating circumstances for the police to be doing this sort of thing at 1.30am.It is certainly not an emergency and could quite happily have waited to the day shift if it is something you didn't feel comfortable doing.

[/quote]

Michael, I hope you didn't intend it this way but I did find your post a little condescending in tone, coming from a colleague! Obviously I am fully aware that I had no compulsion to personally euthanase these puppies; but I happened to be the vet on duty at the time they were presented, and we all - myself and the police officers involved - wished to avoid the pups going into police kennels for any period of time. I do not hesitate to refuse euthanasia that I believe inappropriate (not that it happens all that often) and will seek alternative provisions where possible - my own dog is proof of that! - but obviously this would not have been possible in this case.

I agree, as the great Prof Webster was fond of repeating in his welfare lectures, ''death is not a welfare issue''! But I would have a problem agreeing that euthanasia of healthy animals is not a moral one. We may all have different personal morals on the issue; but it is still a moral issue.

I do feel you missed the point somewhat saying that these puppies have the potential to be dangerous - I would argue that 3-week old shar pei, rottie, jrt or indeed any puppies have just as much potential to be dangerous (if not more, depending on your opinion of the various breeds! my own battle scars come from a westie!), but they would not have been dealt with in this manner.

The kennel club, RSPCA, Dog's Trust are all opposed to BSL; as are BVA and FVE. It simply does not work; it has not been at all effective in reducing injury and death from dangerous dogs; it focuses the attention on the dogs, not the owners; and aside from the moral issue of leading to euthanasia of healthy animals, it does lead to animal welfare issues as well, of these animals being 'underground', owners afraid to seek routine veterinary care because (rightly or wrongly) they are scared of being 'found', not to mention the significant welfare issues involved in kenneling animals whilst they undergo investigation into their breed type, which for some reason, can take months. AND the cost to the public in funds and police time.

Re: Dangerous dogs legislation reform

Anthony Todd — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 21:51:41 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]I find the whole 'dangerous dogs' stuff ludicrous[/quote]

+1, the DDA was rushed through by the then home secretary despite fervent opposition from the vets called in for advice. This was in response to the attack on a young girl by, I think, a "pit-bull".

The history of the Act is ludicrous as well, and dogs were bumped after appeals etc. for not being muzzled in a "public place" which included the interior of a car. [dog was vomiting so owner removed the muzzle....] etc. etc.

A simple amendment to the law from "....."must be destroyed" to "may be destroyed" was ignored such was the irrational hysteria of the time and the said Home Secretary's desire to big-note himself.

Ironically it was at a time when some vets had pit-bulls as pets and I'll guarantee that most vets of the time would have put "pit bulls" low on the list of dodgy dogs. In fact, as far as I know, the only statistics on dog bites treated at casualty departments said that Border Collies were the most likely breed.

See if any of us say they've ever seen or heard of a dangerous pit-bull in the UK. They're usually lethal with other dogs, but fine with people.

Of course, with any breed, there are exceptions; I still bear the scar from a smallish lab. cross I bent down to pet.....

Re: Dangerous dogs legislation reform

Anthony Todd — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 21:34:26 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]I have no moralistic problem with euthanasia of healthy dogs or even puppies.[/quote]

+1, nor geriatric cats which have lived on their own for many years and are then placed in a cat's home with loads of others and expected to cope.

Sheer cruelty in my opinion based on a this moralistic inflexible anti-euthanasia policy, often promoted by the receptionists without our knowledge.

Folk don't realise that euthanasia is a painless end with no premonitions or fears for the animal and the common alternative of dumping on the motorway or being humped around to another vet together with a modified reason is a poor and less humane alternative.

We used to re-home the "lovely" young pets under anguished duress from the nurses only to have them returned to us for totally undisclosed major antisocial behaviour.

Re: Dangerous dogs legislation reform

Michael Woodhouse — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:51:56 GMT

It has been discussed on here before - pets are people's property and they can do with that as they please. If they chose to have them put to sleep or sign them over for that then they can do so. I will give people alternative options, but some are dead set they want the dog put to sleep. I will defend any VSs personal decision not to do so, but they will only take them elsewhere (or worse....). I have no moralistic problem with euthanasia of healthy dogs or even puppies.

Re: Dangerous dogs legislation reform

Gillian Mostyn — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:45:08 GMT

I find the whole 'dangerous dogs' stuff ludicrous. Dogs kill a couple of people every year, and those people are usually known to the dog. Cars kill hundreds. While I agree that legislation should exist to deal with known dangerous animals (owners), the public hysteria about the issue makes me so angry. Completely harmless pets (and their owners) have to suffer ridiculous laws because of a tiny majority of dog owners being completely irresponsible.

Re: Dangerous dogs legislation reform

Mark Hedberg — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 07:37:58 GMT

Really sorry for your rough night... http://blog.caw.ac.uk/index.php/caw-news/dangerous-dogs-amendment-bill-published/ i've got some links in there for the new amendment, with a bva press release, but the new bits are basically another knee-jerk band aid...

Re: Dangerous dogs legislation reform

emma_j — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 06:38:35 GMT

ah, just found the dog control and welfare report online (bleary-eyed wee hours of a night shift is clearly NOT the best time to be undertaking emotive research!) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvfru/575/575.pdf

really doesn't seem to address breed specific legislation though