Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Genuinely not looking for an argument here after recent threads, so understand if you don't want to engage in a conversation about this. What's wrong with rehoming a dog? 

It’s a fair question. My response in bullet points:

1. The original owner rehomes a “rescue” dog due to behavioural issues in the vast majority of cases. Happy to pass that problem on to someone else rather than deal with it.

2. 99.9% of these behavioural issues are caused by the original owner’s breed selection and training (nature and nurture) rather than any one incident that happened outside of anyone’s control. Yet the original owner gets off scot free to ruin another dog. 

3. Some people rehome a dog, train it and have it for many years. My first dog was a rough collie, rehomed, once taught to walk to heel, be stock proof, socialised etc he was a gent. We had him for 12 years and not one cross word was needed. 

4. Some people “rescue” a dog and then use that as an excuse to never train it or take responsibility for its behaviour. It is then a liability to the general public, particularly other dogs and small children. If I haven’t heard “he’s a rescue dog!” wailed as an excuse at least 100 times I’d be amazed. No, he’s not “a rescue dog”, he’s “your dog”, get a grip and take responsibility. If you can’t train it either keep it secured in private or have it put to sleep, the kinder option compared to captivity. 

5. The vast majority of dogs that kill people or catastrophically injure people are “rehomed” dogs. I don’t have a source for this but if you read the newspapers it is the common thread each time.

Edited by WalkedUp
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, WalkedUp said:

It’s a fair question. My response in bullet points:

1. The original owner rehomes a “rescue” dog due to behavioural issues in the vast majority of cases. Happy to pass that problem on to someone else rather than deal with it.

2. 99.9% of these behavioural issues are caused by the original owner’s breed selection and training (nature and nurture) rather than any one incident that happened outside of anyone’s control. Yet the original owner gets off scot free to ruin another dog. 

3. Some people rehome a dog, train it and have it for many years. My first dog was a rough collie, rehomed, once taught to walk to heel, be stock proof, socialised etc he was a gent. We had him for 12 years and not one cross word was needed. 

4. Some people “rescue” a dog and then use that as an excuse to never train it or take responsibility for its behaviour. It is then a liability to the general public, particularly other dogs and small children. If I haven’t heard “he’s a rescue dog!” wailed as an excuse at least 100 times I’d be amazed. No, he’s not “a rescue dog”, he’s “your dog”, get a grip and take responsibility. If you can’t train it either keep it secured in private or have it put to sleep, the kinder option compared to captivity. 

5. The vast majority of dogs that kill people or catastrophically injure people are “rehomed” dogs. I don’t have a source for this but if you read the newspapers it is the common thread each time.

I actually agree with most of that, except for paragraph 5, I'd say most rescue dogs, although often come with many different issues, aggression, particularly in large breed dogs is actually quite rare as the rehoming centres are obviously very weary of the potential for something to go wrong. Bear in mind, serious dog attacks always make the news, if you think how many dogs are owned in the country, a life threatening or ending attack on people by dogs is thankfully a rare event, although obviously even one is one too many. 

I'd actually like to see a very strict licencing system for dog ownership, it would be a real shame for the sensible dog owners but a small price to pay to prevent idiots getting hold of dogs and the damage that is caused, not to mention it would limit the suffering to abused and neglected dogs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'd actually like to see a very strict licencing system for dog ownership, it would be a real shame for the sensible dog owners but a small price to pay to prevent idiots getting hold of dogs and the damage that is caused, not to mention it would limit the suffering to abused and neglected dogs. 

My opinion on this is the same as yours, it’s not popular especially amongst the shooting community but I agree it’s a small price to pay. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I actually agree with most of that, except for paragraph 5, I'd say most rescue dogs, although often come with many different issues, aggression, particularly in large breed dogs is actually quite rare as the rehoming centres are obviously very weary of the potential for something to go wrong. Bear in mind, serious dog attacks always make the news, if you think how many dogs are owned in the country, a life threatening or ending attack on people by dogs is thankfully a rare event, although obviously even one is one too many. 

I'd actually like to see a very strict licencing system for dog ownership, it would be a real shame for the sensible dog owners but a small price to pay to prevent idiots getting hold of dogs and the damage that is caused, not to mention it would limit the suffering to abused and neglected dogs. 

With respect, I don’t think it would work. 
The strict licensing of guns did not prevent idiots getting hold of them

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I actually agree with most of that

 

30 minutes ago, WalkedUp said:

My opinion on this is the same as yours

When's the wedding? 😅

I also wish that there were more barriers in the way of people "just getting" a dog but as @London Best says, there's little chance of a workable system ever coming into effect in my opinion.  Us humans are very creative when it comes to disregarding/circumventing the law.  Plus who would police it?  The police?  "We've got enough to do already!" they would cry. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/04/2021 at 18:27, old man said:

Yep, also IMHO the use of fluffy toys is a major factor with attacks on children?

If your referring to squeaky toys I agree, they're not a good thing to give to a dog,as in some dogs with a high pray drive a crying baby they don't know isn't that much of a leap from a squealing toy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...