Some people like dogs and others don't.
The problem is that the dog owners take their animals into areas where non-dog owners also visit and are not necessarily appreciated but we cannot get rid of them.
What makes dog owners think that everyone appreciates someone else's dog planting its front paws on your chest thinking its going to get a fuss?

You are welcome to own a dog if YOU as the owner are trained to look after your animal, and make sure it doesn't annoy or endanger anyone else. But please accept that not all the population want dogs running loose around us. That generally also means don't just release them to run around unrestrained, and out of your control.

How do you feel about the solutions I offered in my OP?

Thanks

JN

Originally Posted by Jack Napier

How do you feel about the solutions I offered in my OP?

Thanks

JN

I treated your first post as being solely about aggressive dogs; my point was that many people object to the free-running of dogs even if they are not aggressive.

Originally Posted by soloman

I treated your first post as being solely about aggressive dogs; my point was that many people object to the free-running of dogs even if they are not aggressive.

Do you object to a non aggressive dog being off lead, in a park, for example?

Originally Posted by Jack Napier

Do you object to a non aggressive dog being off lead, in a park, for example?

Yes, when I am walking my bitch on a lead who is on heat and have considerable difficulty in keeping other dogs away.

So answer your own question; do I need to keep my bitch indoors in these circumstances?

Originally Posted by soloman

Yes, when I am walking my bitch on a lead who is on heat and have considerable difficulty in keeping other dogs away.

So answer your own question; do I need to keep my bitch indoors in these circumstances?

Hmm, never owned a female dog, but I can appreciate how that would be irritating.

I always walk my dog on lead, to be honest, as I live in the city centre, too much traffic.

That said, you would be amazed at those that let their dogs run along the pavement, despite the heavy traffic on the road.

I have had occasions when an off lead dog (male) has caused me a concern, however, I believe the law would be on my side, since I am the one with him on a lead.

JN

Do you breed from your dog/planning to?

Never having owned a dog and not particularly liking close contact with them I'd say there are far, far too many of them around, many owned by people who don't really know how to look after them correctly. Although I'm not in favour of the licencing of most things, this is one area where I feel that it should be reintroduced, with quite stringent requirements being set for dog ownership, all the surplus animals, as well as all strays, being put down.

Originally Posted by Midas

Never having owned a dog and not particularly liking close contact with them I'd say there are far, far too many of them around, many owned by people who don't really know how to look after them correctly. Although I'm not in favour of the licencing of most things, this is one area where I feel that it should be reintroduced, with quite stringent requirements being set for dog ownership, all the surplus animals, as well as all strays, being put down.

Hi,

I would agree with all but the closing line of what you have just written.

I have already stated that a licensing system should be introduced, which should require all owners/prospective owners, to microchip their pets, pledge to keep them under control at all times, and attend training classes (sometime for the owner, not the actual dog, btw). I could logically extend this to children, as well. If you wanted to adopt a child, there are quite strict criterea that you must meet, and rightly so, since the interests of the child should come first. Ironically, any moron can make another moron pregnant, and their spawn finish up being the cheap wine swilling, drug taking, knife carrying teens that we see today. Should there be a criterea for having a child? I believe so, however, that is another debate for another day.

The part I do not and cannot concur with you on, would be this proposed widespread extermination of any dogs that are picked up as a stray.

I don't think you would find many vets supportive of that, at all, and rightly so.

I got my dog as a stray, from my local cat and dog home. He has been a great friend to me, and very therapeutic on the days in which I don't feel so good. If your measures were real, then I would have been denied the pleasure he has brought me, and a very lovely, intelligent, and sentient creature, would have been killed.

I'm sorry, but that just sounds horrible.

Would it not be far better to put a ten year ban or breeding and selling dogs for profit, until such a time that all these strays had been rehomed?

JN

Originally Posted by Jack Napier

The part I do not and cannot concur with you on, would be this proposed widespread extermination of any dogs that are picked up as a stray.

I don't think you would find many vets supportive of that, at all, and rightly so.

I got my dog as a stray, from my local cat and dog home. He has been a great friend to me, and very therapeutic on the days in which I don't feel so good. If your measures were real, then I would have been denied the pleasure he has brought me, and a very lovely, intelligent, and sentient creature, would have been killed.

I'm sorry, but that just sounds horrible.

Would it not be far better to put a ten year ban or breeding and selling dogs for profit, until such a time that all these strays had been rehomed?

JN

More a matter of personal opinion than anything. As I said, there are far too many dogs around anyway, a great number in unsuitable conditions, and not having any special affinity for them it's my view that rather than perhaps hundreds of thousands of them being kept in dog's homes at great expense, they might as well be got rid of. I don't think it's horrible at all, simply a practical answer to a massive surplus if the remainder are to be kept under decent and regulated living conditions.

Originally Posted by Jack Napier

The part I do not and cannot concur with you on, would be this proposed widespread extermination of any dogs that are picked up as a stray.

I don't think you would find many vets supportive of that, at all, and rightly so.

I got my dog as a stray, from my local cat and dog home. He has been a great friend to me, and very therapeutic on the days in which I don't feel so good. If your measures were real, then I would have been denied the pleasure he has brought me, and a very lovely, intelligent, and sentient creature, would have been killed.

You cannot make that assumption at all. If such strays were put down there would still be a supply of unwanted dogs because that is the way the general population treat the subject. One day they want a dog but many ultimately grow bored of it and just let it out to roam, mating with other sundry dogs and the problem is magnified.

Licences on the old scale had become uneconomic, and would be costly to administer now.

Somehow we need to licence responsible dog OWNERS of which there are presently few!

Originally Posted by Midas

More a matter of personal opinion than anything. As I said, there are far too many dogs around anyway, a great number in unsuitable conditions, and not having any special affinity for them it's my view that rather than perhaps hundreds of thousands of them being kept in dog's homes at great expense, they might as well be got rid of. I don't think it's horrible at all, simply a practical answer to a massive surplus if the remainder are to be kept under decent and regulated living conditions.

It reads like a canine holocaust(sic).

And I still feel my original plan would work better, and be less, well, less brutal!

By this rationale, we could argue the world is over populated, millions of our species are either unwanted, unloved, or abandoned, therefore, let's euthenise them.

*shrugs*

Originally Posted by Jack Napier

It reads like a canine holocaust(sic).

And I still feel my original plan would work better, and be less, well, less brutal!

By this rationale, we could argue the world is over populated, millions of our species are either unwanted, unloved, or abandoned, therefore, let's euthenise them.

*shrugs*

The issue is Jack that you approach the issue assuming there is no problem which cannot be solved by other than your solution.

What you missed was the fact that there is a significant view that some don't want so many dogs around as at present.

Originally Posted by Jack Napier

By this rationale, we could argue the world is over populated, millions of our species are either unwanted, unloved, or abandoned, therefore, let's euthenise them.

*shrugs*

Half the world seems quite ready to do that to each other anyway; just let them get on with it!

Originally Posted by soloman

The issue is Jack that you approach the issue assuming there is no problem which cannot be solved by other than your solution.

What you missed was the fact that there is a significant view that some don't want so many dogs around as at present.

Eh?

How can I have 'missed' that fact, when I myself flagged it up as a problem, in my very first post? That statement, Soloman, it makes no sense, whatsoever.

It would be akin to you starting a thread to say that the world was over populated, with people, repeating that, over and over, then my saying to you;

'What you missed, Solomon, was the fact that there is a significant view that some don't want so many people around as at present'

That would just be so off the wall stupid for me to state that, that it would almost not be worthy of you responding, yet, here I am, trying to offer workable solutions, rather than not respond, in the hope of intelligent and civil discourse.

You also say;

'you approach the issue assuming there is no problem which cannot be solved by other than your solution'

Again, what is it with this?

But okay, I will bite, and play the game.

Here was my idea;

1) A ten year ban on the breeding of any more dogs

2) People who wanted a dog could take one from their cat and dog home.

3) All owners must microchip their pet.

4) All owners must sign a legal declaration to raise their dog properly.

5) All owners must attend special classes, to make them better owners.

6) A licence scheme to be established.

Here was your 'idea'.

1) Kill all dogs in the kennels.

Fantastic.

Know what, so good was your proposal, when compared to mine, that I am sure if we ran it as a poll on here, your idea would be seen as the better(sic) one, by a landslide.

*shakes head*


JN

Originally Posted by Jack Napier

Eh?

How can I have 'missed' that fact, when I myself flagged it up as a problem, in my very first post? That statement, Soloman, it makes no sense, whatsoever.

It would be akin to you starting a thread to say that the world was over populated, with people, repeating that, over and over, then my saying to you;

'What you missed, Solomon, was the fact that there is a significant view that some don't want so many people around as at present'

That would just be so off the wall stupid for me to state that, that it would almost not be worthy of you responding, yet, here I am, trying to offer workable solutions, rather than not respond, in the hope of intelligent and civil discourse.

You also say;

'you approach the issue assuming there is no problem which cannot be solved by other than your solution'

Again, what is it with this?

But okay, I will bite, and play the game.

Here was my idea;

1) A ten year ban on the breeding of any more dogs

2) People who wanted a dog could take one from their cat and dog home.

3) All owners must microchip their pet.

4) All owners must sign a legal declaration to raise their dog properly.

5) All owners must attend special classes, to make them better owners.

6) A licence scheme to be established.

Here was your 'idea'.

1) Kill all dogs in the kennels.

Fantastic.

Know what, so good was your proposal, when compared to mine, that I am sure if we ran it as a poll on here, your idea would be seen as the better(sic) one, by a landslide.

*shakes head*


JN

Completely unworkable!

Pray do explain how you plan to enforce the ten year ban on the breeding of dogs? etc.

Originally Posted by soloman

Completely unworkable!

I'd agree with that. Having said that, part of Jack's proposals are workable, such as the enforcement of micochipping all dogs and the issuing of licences to all dog owners, a part of which is the compulsory attendance at dog training classes, however I think this can only partly resolve the problem. It has to go hand in hand with the humane removal of stray and unwanted animals to get the population down to manageable quantities as soon as possible; that's the only way I can see that we'd get anywhere with this.

I'm sure that the comment "they're only animals" will raise a few hackles, but why should putting unwanted and problematic dogs down in order to control the their population and ensure a better quality of life for those remaining (as well as for the general public) be any more of an issue than say the breeding and raising of farm animals with the sole purpose of killing them? I know it's for a different reason, but the end result for the animal is just the same.

Just to clarify, I do like animals and in general I'd support any moves to ensure their protection, however I don't see any conflict between that view and the necessity for controlling populations to sustainable sizes. It happens in nature the whole while, but dogs living as pets lead artificial lives in that respect and have no natural controls on their numbers, so that control has to be initiated and carried out by us.

Originally Posted by soloman

Completely unworkable!

Pray do explain how you plan to enforce the ten year ban on the breeding of dogs? etc.

I am noticing a pattern to your posts, Soloman. People appear to, in good faith, take the time to propose ideas, and your retort is to simply dismiss them all as 'unworkable', while offering almost childishly simplistic(or abhorent) alternatives, in return.

I raised a six point plan, and you took a snapshot of one part of it, without going into the other five.

Of course a licence scheme is workable. If you are saying it isn't, then you may as well argue that ANY piece of legal legislation is 'unworkable'. Need a licence to drive a car? How do you force that? It's 'completely unworkable', isn't it? Well, no, actually, it's not. Sure, there are still those who will ignore the need for a driving licence, but if they are caught without one, they face punative measures, in the courts.

Microchipping in totally workable, and I think you would find that most dog owners would fully welcome it. The only one's who would not would be the irresponsible, and in doing so, they would be committing an offence.

All dog owners must sign a pledge. Again, that is totally workable, as is a requirement to have dog owners attend classes.

Encouraging more prospective owner's to take a dog or cat from a D&C home? Again, totally workable.

It just seems to me that rather than welcome ideas, you are the sort of negative person who finds it easier to dismiss and undermine the ideas of others, while offering almost little by way of return.

Ten year ban on dog breeding? You just ban it. Until such a time that all the lovely dogs(and there are many), without a home, have a home. If someone is caught violating the ban, they face a fine, as someone would face a fine for growing cannabis, for example.

JN

Originally Posted by Jack Napier

I am noticing a pattern to your posts, Soloman. People appear to, in good faith, take the time to propose ideas, and your retort is to simply dismiss them all as 'unworkable', while offering almost childishly simplistic(or abhorent) alternatives, in return.

I raised a six point plan, and you took a snapshot of one part of it, without going into the other five.

Of course a licence scheme is workable. If you are saying it isn't, then you may as well argue that ANY piece of legal legislation is 'unworkable'. Need a licence to drive a car? How do you force that? It's 'completely unworkable', isn't it? Well, no, actually, it's not. Sure, there are still those who will ignore the need for a driving licence, but if they are caught without one, they face punative measures, in the courts.

Microchipping in totally workable, and I think you would find that most dog owners would fully welcome it. The only one's who would not would be the irresponsible, and in doing so, they would be committing an offence.

All dog owners must sign a pledge. Again, that is totally workable, as is a requirement to have dog owners attend classes.

Encouraging more prospective owner's to take a dog or cat from a D&C home? Again, totally workable.

It just seems to me that rather than welcome ideas, you are the sort of negative person who finds it easier to dismiss and undermine the ideas of others, while offering almost little by way of return.

Ten year ban on dog breeding? You just ban it. Until such a time that all the lovely dogs(and there are many), without a home, have a home. If someone is caught violating the ban, they face a fine, as someone would face a fine for growing cannabis, for example.

JN

I have noted your view that all your six proposals are workable, although I think that is not true of them all. Rather than respond to that why don't you respond to midas's contra views?

Poor old Jack Napier has no answer!

An answer to what, exactly?


PS - I am not that old!

Originally Posted by Jack Napier

An answer to what, exactly?


PS - I am not that old!

I have noted your view that all your six proposals are workable, although I think that is not true of them all. Rather than respond to that why don't you respond to midas's contra views below?