Savage dog attacks its East Lancs foster carer

Foster carer’s injured leg

The Staffordshire bull terrier-cross

First published in News Burnley and Pendle Citizen: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

A MAN has been left using crutches after taking in a dog that was about to be put down.

The man, from Basil Street, Colne took the seven-year-old Staffordshire bull terrier-cross a fortnight ago as a foster carer from a Yorkshire charity.

But after two happy weeks, the dog, called Dave, turned vicious and on Sunday night attacked the man’s two other dogs, also Staffordshire bull terriers, before turning on him.

He said: “It had played with my other dogs, Rosie and Dillon, and there had been no problems.

“Then he turned on them and when I shouted at him to stop, he turned on me.

“He locked his head around my leg and I couldn’t get him off. I even tried using a fire extinguisher.

“Eventually, I had to force his mouth open with my hand and he bit that, too.

“It was terrifying.”

Police, including two armed officers, were called to the scene, but no shots were fired and the dog was caught using a pole-catcher.

The dog has been seized by police, but consent to have it destroyed has not yet been given by the owner of the charity.

Paramedics were also called to the address at about 9.15pm.

After treatment at Airedale Hospital, the man was given crutches to help him walk.

He must now attend Burnley General Hospital every two days to have his dressings changed.

The two other dogs, which have been taken to the vets, were left with severe injuries, one suffering from puncture wounds in its leg and the other with bite marks to its head and nose.

The 23-year-old said: “I had been online and seen the dog and it said it was going to be put down, so I said I would have it.

“He had been fine for two weeks and got on with my other dogs.

“It upset me because I had to sign for it to be put to sleep as I did not see any other option.

“But the woman who runs the charity has refused so far, so what I said doesn’t count as I was only its foster carer.”

The man urged people looking for dogs to make sure they got it from an established, reputable charity.

He said: “When you get dogs from the RSPCA or places like that, they do background checks on them.

“But with Dave, nobody knows where he has come from, so anything could have happened to him.”

A police spokesman said: “Police did attend an address in Basil Street, Colne around 9.15pm on Sunday.

“An investigation is now under way into the incident.”

Comments (59)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:29am Tue 29 Jul 14

Just an observer says...

Simple one this, destroy the dog and sue the the owner of the charity for the costs.
Simple one this, destroy the dog and sue the the owner of the charity for the costs. Just an observer
  • Score: -15

9:38am Tue 29 Jul 14

Eric Shawn says...

Night night Dave.
Night night Dave. Eric Shawn
  • Score: -24

9:45am Tue 29 Jul 14

Billy_Bunter says...

Funny thing is there's a completely different story that's on the internet. Apparently he lied to the charity about his credentials to foster a dog with issues! Stupid man!
Funny thing is there's a completely different story that's on the internet. Apparently he lied to the charity about his credentials to foster a dog with issues! Stupid man! Billy_Bunter
  • Score: 35

10:18am Tue 29 Jul 14

The Seagull has landed says...

Why do the Police need consent to have it put down?
Why do the Police need consent to have it put down? The Seagull has landed
  • Score: 9

10:18am Tue 29 Jul 14

GracesDad says...

Blah blah blah....blame the owner not the dog....here we go again!!

People need to understand that domesticated dogs have existed for maybe 2000 years. Before that they were wild animals that roamed in packs. They need to be well trained in order to understand who their leader is. Only then can a dog be considered domesticated.

Dogs like the one in this report have probably been shifted from pillar to post as a chavvy status symbol and most likely it has been mistreated. This dog was clearly trying to become the leader of the new pack it found itself in and did not respect the role of the human.

I'm just glad it turned on its new owner and not an innocent member of the public!
Blah blah blah....blame the owner not the dog....here we go again!! People need to understand that domesticated dogs have existed for maybe 2000 years. Before that they were wild animals that roamed in packs. They need to be well trained in order to understand who their leader is. Only then can a dog be considered domesticated. Dogs like the one in this report have probably been shifted from pillar to post as a chavvy status symbol and most likely it has been mistreated. This dog was clearly trying to become the leader of the new pack it found itself in and did not respect the role of the human. I'm just glad it turned on its new owner and not an innocent member of the public! GracesDad
  • Score: 1

11:08am Tue 29 Jul 14

RoverTheHill says...

This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then).

It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third.

Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse.

There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.
This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then). It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third. Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse. There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew. RoverTheHill
  • Score: 51

11:34am Tue 29 Jul 14

GracesDad says...

RoverTheHill wrote:
This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then).

It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third.

Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse.

There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.
Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked.
[quote][p][bold]RoverTheHill[/bold] wrote: This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then). It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third. Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse. There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.[/p][/quote]Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked. GracesDad
  • Score: -17

11:34am Tue 29 Jul 14

snowdogs says...

I am a foster for the charity in question.
The lady who runs it receives no outside funding besides a few small donations. She works tirelessly for no pay, sometimes into the early hours of the morning.
Dave is an older gentle soul, not a savage dog as the papers have worded it.
From what I can gather from inside info, the fight that occurred was a three way fight, the owner tried to seperate the dogs and was caught in the crossfire! Which dog bit him? Was it Dave?

These situations can occur when dealing with rescue dogs, no matter where you foster from, even the rspca can't guarantee a lifelong history for the animal! Only careful management of the pets in the home can prevent these situations, and that responsibility lies with the foster! If there were signs of animosity amongst the dogs, he should have contacted the rescue, who could've made alternative arrangements for Dave. But I think its very unfair to label Dave a devil dog for a fight that could've occurred in any home. It was unfortunate the owner was bitten, but blowing up this situation and going to the papers really isnt the solution. A defenseless, frightened, innocent dog might be put to death this week because PEOPLE dont communicate.
I am a foster for the charity in question. The lady who runs it receives no outside funding besides a few small donations. She works tirelessly for no pay, sometimes into the early hours of the morning. Dave is an older gentle soul, not a savage dog as the papers have worded it. From what I can gather from inside info, the fight that occurred was a three way fight, the owner tried to seperate the dogs and was caught in the crossfire! Which dog bit him? Was it Dave? These situations can occur when dealing with rescue dogs, no matter where you foster from, even the rspca can't guarantee a lifelong history for the animal! Only careful management of the pets in the home can prevent these situations, and that responsibility lies with the foster! If there were signs of animosity amongst the dogs, he should have contacted the rescue, who could've made alternative arrangements for Dave. But I think its very unfair to label Dave a devil dog for a fight that could've occurred in any home. It was unfortunate the owner was bitten, but blowing up this situation and going to the papers really isnt the solution. A defenseless, frightened, innocent dog might be put to death this week because PEOPLE dont communicate. snowdogs
  • Score: 68

12:52pm Tue 29 Jul 14

ossym says...

Dogs can be unpredictable (some more than others but even so...).
Some dogs are too powerfull to be checked if they turn (even by adults).
People should not be allowed to bring such potential danger into a public place, where children may be playing freely and would not have a hope in hell of defending themselves.
All such dogs should be banned from public places and be highly regulated.
What are we thinking allowing this madess to go on?
Weapons arent allowed on the streets (even by responsible people) why should potentially dangerous dogs be allowed to?
Dogs can be unpredictable (some more than others but even so...). Some dogs are too powerfull to be checked if they turn (even by adults). People should not be allowed to bring such potential danger into a public place, where children may be playing freely and would not have a hope in hell of defending themselves. All such dogs should be banned from public places and be highly regulated. What are we thinking allowing this madess to go on? Weapons arent allowed on the streets (even by responsible people) why should potentially dangerous dogs be allowed to? ossym
  • Score: -24

12:59pm Tue 29 Jul 14

RoverTheHill says...

GracesDad wrote:
RoverTheHill wrote:
This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then).

It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third.

Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse.

There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.
Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked.
http://www.apbc.
org.uk/articles/why-
wont-
dominance-die

Feel free to educate yourself. P.s. who is carrying out research into whether a theory is debated or not? They have a lot of time on their hands.
The reason i throw the point aside is because it's been debunked to the point of ridicule now. It's the 21st century, not 1972 with Barbara Woodhouse.

Moving on.
As much as the facts of this story don't match up properly and throw this mans recollection in the spotlight, this is not a single person culprit incident and shouldn't be about pointing the finger of blame. For once, ensure this man and his dogs are adequately treated and find Dave a home/kennel space where he is better suited. A place free from children and dogs whilst he is properly assessed and the facts of this incident have a chance to come out more.

Those asking for the dog to be put down I ask you; would you put children down who have a school fight i.e. dog attacking another dog? How about putting cats down that fight during the night? How about putting down all the rioters from a few years back, they caused human damage as well? Let's put down people who abuse animals (no arguments from me there!). See how daft it sounds when you look at similar situations involving the human species?
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RoverTheHill[/bold] wrote: This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then). It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third. Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse. There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.[/p][/quote]Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked.[/p][/quote]http://www.apbc. org.uk/articles/why- wont- dominance-die Feel free to educate yourself. P.s. who is carrying out research into whether a theory is debated or not? They have a lot of time on their hands. The reason i throw the point aside is because it's been debunked to the point of ridicule now. It's the 21st century, not 1972 with Barbara Woodhouse. Moving on. As much as the facts of this story don't match up properly and throw this mans recollection in the spotlight, this is not a single person culprit incident and shouldn't be about pointing the finger of blame. For once, ensure this man and his dogs are adequately treated and find Dave a home/kennel space where he is better suited. A place free from children and dogs whilst he is properly assessed and the facts of this incident have a chance to come out more. Those asking for the dog to be put down I ask you; would you put children down who have a school fight i.e. dog attacking another dog? How about putting cats down that fight during the night? How about putting down all the rioters from a few years back, they caused human damage as well? Let's put down people who abuse animals (no arguments from me there!). See how daft it sounds when you look at similar situations involving the human species? RoverTheHill
  • Score: 19

1:15pm Tue 29 Jul 14

GracesDad says...

RoverTheHill wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
RoverTheHill wrote:
This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then).

It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third.

Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse.

There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.
Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked.
http://www.apbc.
org.uk/articles/why-

wont-
dominance-die

Feel free to educate yourself. P.s. who is carrying out research into whether a theory is debated or not? They have a lot of time on their hands.
The reason i throw the point aside is because it's been debunked to the point of ridicule now. It's the 21st century, not 1972 with Barbara Woodhouse.

Moving on.
As much as the facts of this story don't match up properly and throw this mans recollection in the spotlight, this is not a single person culprit incident and shouldn't be about pointing the finger of blame. For once, ensure this man and his dogs are adequately treated and find Dave a home/kennel space where he is better suited. A place free from children and dogs whilst he is properly assessed and the facts of this incident have a chance to come out more.

Those asking for the dog to be put down I ask you; would you put children down who have a school fight i.e. dog attacking another dog? How about putting cats down that fight during the night? How about putting down all the rioters from a few years back, they caused human damage as well? Let's put down people who abuse animals (no arguments from me there!). See how daft it sounds when you look at similar situations involving the human species?
Your comparison between dogs and children borders on the ridiculous. Dangerous dogs should be banned. They bring nothing to modern-day society but cause fear and injury on a daily basis.

I wonder how you would react if a dog mauled one of your children. Would you blame the child for inciting an attack? Given your last post, maybe you would have the child "put down".

Dog-lovers need to get a grip. I don't care that you want a companion, I want a safe world for my children to live in.
[quote][p][bold]RoverTheHill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RoverTheHill[/bold] wrote: This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then). It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third. Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse. There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.[/p][/quote]Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked.[/p][/quote]http://www.apbc. org.uk/articles/why- wont- dominance-die Feel free to educate yourself. P.s. who is carrying out research into whether a theory is debated or not? They have a lot of time on their hands. The reason i throw the point aside is because it's been debunked to the point of ridicule now. It's the 21st century, not 1972 with Barbara Woodhouse. Moving on. As much as the facts of this story don't match up properly and throw this mans recollection in the spotlight, this is not a single person culprit incident and shouldn't be about pointing the finger of blame. For once, ensure this man and his dogs are adequately treated and find Dave a home/kennel space where he is better suited. A place free from children and dogs whilst he is properly assessed and the facts of this incident have a chance to come out more. Those asking for the dog to be put down I ask you; would you put children down who have a school fight i.e. dog attacking another dog? How about putting cats down that fight during the night? How about putting down all the rioters from a few years back, they caused human damage as well? Let's put down people who abuse animals (no arguments from me there!). See how daft it sounds when you look at similar situations involving the human species?[/p][/quote]Your comparison between dogs and children borders on the ridiculous. Dangerous dogs should be banned. They bring nothing to modern-day society but cause fear and injury on a daily basis. I wonder how you would react if a dog mauled one of your children. Would you blame the child for inciting an attack? Given your last post, maybe you would have the child "put down". Dog-lovers need to get a grip. I don't care that you want a companion, I want a safe world for my children to live in. GracesDad
  • Score: -26

1:24pm Tue 29 Jul 14

darwenTower says...

@GracesDad

Despite what you and many other parents seem to think, you don't own the world just because you brought a child into it.

It's my world as much as it is yours now will you please stop overpopulating it, you ignorant, selfish breeder!
@GracesDad Despite what you and many other parents seem to think, you don't own the world just because you brought a child into it. It's my world as much as it is yours now will you please stop overpopulating it, you ignorant, selfish breeder! darwenTower
  • Score: 21

1:28pm Tue 29 Jul 14

snowdogs says...

GracesDad wrote:
RoverTheHill wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
RoverTheHill wrote:
This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then).

It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third.

Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse.

There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.
Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked.
http://www.apbc.
org.uk/articles/why-


wont-
dominance-die

Feel free to educate yourself. P.s. who is carrying out research into whether a theory is debated or not? They have a lot of time on their hands.
The reason i throw the point aside is because it's been debunked to the point of ridicule now. It's the 21st century, not 1972 with Barbara Woodhouse.

Moving on.
As much as the facts of this story don't match up properly and throw this mans recollection in the spotlight, this is not a single person culprit incident and shouldn't be about pointing the finger of blame. For once, ensure this man and his dogs are adequately treated and find Dave a home/kennel space where he is better suited. A place free from children and dogs whilst he is properly assessed and the facts of this incident have a chance to come out more.

Those asking for the dog to be put down I ask you; would you put children down who have a school fight i.e. dog attacking another dog? How about putting cats down that fight during the night? How about putting down all the rioters from a few years back, they caused human damage as well? Let's put down people who abuse animals (no arguments from me there!). See how daft it sounds when you look at similar situations involving the human species?
Your comparison between dogs and children borders on the ridiculous. Dangerous dogs should be banned. They bring nothing to modern-day society but cause fear and injury on a daily basis.

I wonder how you would react if a dog mauled one of your children. Would you blame the child for inciting an attack? Given your last post, maybe you would have the child "put down".

Dog-lovers need to get a grip. I don't care that you want a companion, I want a safe world for my children to live in.
What qualifies as a dangerous dog in your opinion? Are we assuming a breed as a whole should be condemned to death for the actions of the minority? A Yorkshire Terrier or a Jack Russell can be a dangerous dog if the mood takes them. Any dog has the capability to bite a person. Should we just decide on mass extermination of a whole species instead? What gives humans the superiority and right to decide the extintion of a breed? I for one think BSL should be scrapped entirely. Its a dangerous road to travel down in any case. However, If an individual dog is deemed too emotionally damaged to be kept safely in any environment, then fair play.
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RoverTheHill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RoverTheHill[/bold] wrote: This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then). It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third. Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse. There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.[/p][/quote]Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked.[/p][/quote]http://www.apbc. org.uk/articles/why- wont- dominance-die Feel free to educate yourself. P.s. who is carrying out research into whether a theory is debated or not? They have a lot of time on their hands. The reason i throw the point aside is because it's been debunked to the point of ridicule now. It's the 21st century, not 1972 with Barbara Woodhouse. Moving on. As much as the facts of this story don't match up properly and throw this mans recollection in the spotlight, this is not a single person culprit incident and shouldn't be about pointing the finger of blame. For once, ensure this man and his dogs are adequately treated and find Dave a home/kennel space where he is better suited. A place free from children and dogs whilst he is properly assessed and the facts of this incident have a chance to come out more. Those asking for the dog to be put down I ask you; would you put children down who have a school fight i.e. dog attacking another dog? How about putting cats down that fight during the night? How about putting down all the rioters from a few years back, they caused human damage as well? Let's put down people who abuse animals (no arguments from me there!). See how daft it sounds when you look at similar situations involving the human species?[/p][/quote]Your comparison between dogs and children borders on the ridiculous. Dangerous dogs should be banned. They bring nothing to modern-day society but cause fear and injury on a daily basis. I wonder how you would react if a dog mauled one of your children. Would you blame the child for inciting an attack? Given your last post, maybe you would have the child "put down". Dog-lovers need to get a grip. I don't care that you want a companion, I want a safe world for my children to live in.[/p][/quote]What qualifies as a dangerous dog in your opinion? Are we assuming a breed as a whole should be condemned to death for the actions of the minority? A Yorkshire Terrier or a Jack Russell can be a dangerous dog if the mood takes them. Any dog has the capability to bite a person. Should we just decide on mass extermination of a whole species instead? What gives humans the superiority and right to decide the extintion of a breed? I for one think BSL should be scrapped entirely. Its a dangerous road to travel down in any case. However, If an individual dog is deemed too emotionally damaged to be kept safely in any environment, then fair play. snowdogs
  • Score: 24

1:43pm Tue 29 Jul 14

GracesDad says...

snowdogs wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
RoverTheHill wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
RoverTheHill wrote:
This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then).

It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third.

Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse.

There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.
Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked.
http://www.apbc.
org.uk/articles/why-



wont-
dominance-die

Feel free to educate yourself. P.s. who is carrying out research into whether a theory is debated or not? They have a lot of time on their hands.
The reason i throw the point aside is because it's been debunked to the point of ridicule now. It's the 21st century, not 1972 with Barbara Woodhouse.

Moving on.
As much as the facts of this story don't match up properly and throw this mans recollection in the spotlight, this is not a single person culprit incident and shouldn't be about pointing the finger of blame. For once, ensure this man and his dogs are adequately treated and find Dave a home/kennel space where he is better suited. A place free from children and dogs whilst he is properly assessed and the facts of this incident have a chance to come out more.

Those asking for the dog to be put down I ask you; would you put children down who have a school fight i.e. dog attacking another dog? How about putting cats down that fight during the night? How about putting down all the rioters from a few years back, they caused human damage as well? Let's put down people who abuse animals (no arguments from me there!). See how daft it sounds when you look at similar situations involving the human species?
Your comparison between dogs and children borders on the ridiculous. Dangerous dogs should be banned. They bring nothing to modern-day society but cause fear and injury on a daily basis.

I wonder how you would react if a dog mauled one of your children. Would you blame the child for inciting an attack? Given your last post, maybe you would have the child "put down".

Dog-lovers need to get a grip. I don't care that you want a companion, I want a safe world for my children to live in.
What qualifies as a dangerous dog in your opinion? Are we assuming a breed as a whole should be condemned to death for the actions of the minority? A Yorkshire Terrier or a Jack Russell can be a dangerous dog if the mood takes them. Any dog has the capability to bite a person. Should we just decide on mass extermination of a whole species instead? What gives humans the superiority and right to decide the extintion of a breed? I for one think BSL should be scrapped entirely. Its a dangerous road to travel down in any case. However, If an individual dog is deemed too emotionally damaged to be kept safely in any environment, then fair play.
Over the last 3 years, there have been over 6000 injuries per year that required hospital treatment for dog bites. 1 in 6 of these are children under the age of 10.

Over 20 people have died in this country since 1997 due to attacks from dogs.

The NHS spends over £3 million per year treating injuries caused by dogs.

To all who defend dogs and compare them to children, I suggest you pull your heads out your ar ses and begin to understand the misery and suffering that dogs are capable of causing.

One of my relatives was killed by a dog when he was 11 years old. This simply should not happen.
[quote][p][bold]snowdogs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RoverTheHill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RoverTheHill[/bold] wrote: This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then). It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third. Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse. There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.[/p][/quote]Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked.[/p][/quote]http://www.apbc. org.uk/articles/why- wont- dominance-die Feel free to educate yourself. P.s. who is carrying out research into whether a theory is debated or not? They have a lot of time on their hands. The reason i throw the point aside is because it's been debunked to the point of ridicule now. It's the 21st century, not 1972 with Barbara Woodhouse. Moving on. As much as the facts of this story don't match up properly and throw this mans recollection in the spotlight, this is not a single person culprit incident and shouldn't be about pointing the finger of blame. For once, ensure this man and his dogs are adequately treated and find Dave a home/kennel space where he is better suited. A place free from children and dogs whilst he is properly assessed and the facts of this incident have a chance to come out more. Those asking for the dog to be put down I ask you; would you put children down who have a school fight i.e. dog attacking another dog? How about putting cats down that fight during the night? How about putting down all the rioters from a few years back, they caused human damage as well? Let's put down people who abuse animals (no arguments from me there!). See how daft it sounds when you look at similar situations involving the human species?[/p][/quote]Your comparison between dogs and children borders on the ridiculous. Dangerous dogs should be banned. They bring nothing to modern-day society but cause fear and injury on a daily basis. I wonder how you would react if a dog mauled one of your children. Would you blame the child for inciting an attack? Given your last post, maybe you would have the child "put down". Dog-lovers need to get a grip. I don't care that you want a companion, I want a safe world for my children to live in.[/p][/quote]What qualifies as a dangerous dog in your opinion? Are we assuming a breed as a whole should be condemned to death for the actions of the minority? A Yorkshire Terrier or a Jack Russell can be a dangerous dog if the mood takes them. Any dog has the capability to bite a person. Should we just decide on mass extermination of a whole species instead? What gives humans the superiority and right to decide the extintion of a breed? I for one think BSL should be scrapped entirely. Its a dangerous road to travel down in any case. However, If an individual dog is deemed too emotionally damaged to be kept safely in any environment, then fair play.[/p][/quote]Over the last 3 years, there have been over 6000 injuries per year that required hospital treatment for dog bites. 1 in 6 of these are children under the age of 10. Over 20 people have died in this country since 1997 due to attacks from dogs. The NHS spends over £3 million per year treating injuries caused by dogs. To all who defend dogs and compare them to children, I suggest you pull your heads out your ar ses and begin to understand the misery and suffering that dogs are capable of causing. One of my relatives was killed by a dog when he was 11 years old. This simply should not happen. GracesDad
  • Score: -11

2:13pm Tue 29 Jul 14

snowdogs says...

GracesDad wrote:
snowdogs wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
RoverTheHill wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
RoverTheHill wrote:
This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then).

It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third.

Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse.

There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.
Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked.
http://www.apbc.
org.uk/articles/why-




wont-
dominance-die

Feel free to educate yourself. P.s. who is carrying out research into whether a theory is debated or not? They have a lot of time on their hands.
The reason i throw the point aside is because it's been debunked to the point of ridicule now. It's the 21st century, not 1972 with Barbara Woodhouse.

Moving on.
As much as the facts of this story don't match up properly and throw this mans recollection in the spotlight, this is not a single person culprit incident and shouldn't be about pointing the finger of blame. For once, ensure this man and his dogs are adequately treated and find Dave a home/kennel space where he is better suited. A place free from children and dogs whilst he is properly assessed and the facts of this incident have a chance to come out more.

Those asking for the dog to be put down I ask you; would you put children down who have a school fight i.e. dog attacking another dog? How about putting cats down that fight during the night? How about putting down all the rioters from a few years back, they caused human damage as well? Let's put down people who abuse animals (no arguments from me there!). See how daft it sounds when you look at similar situations involving the human species?
Your comparison between dogs and children borders on the ridiculous. Dangerous dogs should be banned. They bring nothing to modern-day society but cause fear and injury on a daily basis.

I wonder how you would react if a dog mauled one of your children. Would you blame the child for inciting an attack? Given your last post, maybe you would have the child "put down".

Dog-lovers need to get a grip. I don't care that you want a companion, I want a safe world for my children to live in.
What qualifies as a dangerous dog in your opinion? Are we assuming a breed as a whole should be condemned to death for the actions of the minority? A Yorkshire Terrier or a Jack Russell can be a dangerous dog if the mood takes them. Any dog has the capability to bite a person. Should we just decide on mass extermination of a whole species instead? What gives humans the superiority and right to decide the extintion of a breed? I for one think BSL should be scrapped entirely. Its a dangerous road to travel down in any case. However, If an individual dog is deemed too emotionally damaged to be kept safely in any environment, then fair play.
Over the last 3 years, there have been over 6000 injuries per year that required hospital treatment for dog bites. 1 in 6 of these are children under the age of 10.

Over 20 people have died in this country since 1997 due to attacks from dogs.

The NHS spends over £3 million per year treating injuries caused by dogs.

To all who defend dogs and compare them to children, I suggest you pull your heads out your ar ses and begin to understand the misery and suffering that dogs are capable of causing.

One of my relatives was killed by a dog when he was 11 years old. This simply should not happen.
Thank you for gracing us with these amazing facts, however, your point holds no water whatsoever on relation to mine. This is still a small percentage in relation to the number of dogs nationally/worldwide
. And my point is that a dog is a dog. Just as a shark is a shark, and a wasp is a wasp and so on. We share our planet with a lot of wonderful creatures. Some of whom can cause us harm. I for instance, dont like wasps. They sting and it hurts, sometimes it can scar. Some people are allergic to wasp stings. Some have died. The government aren't out in force eradicating all the blooming wasps! If people are to cohabit in harmony measures need to be taken. It is human responsibility to ensure dogs are on leads, that poop is collected, that your dog is safe and the people in the vicinity are safe also. That is why many rescues; including the one mentioned in this article, support the call for responsible breeding, as any fool can buy a dog with no concern or knowlage for its needs. Go on gumtree and theres thousands free to good home. This is why dogs like Dave end up alone and abandoned in kennels, with 7 days before they are pts. If dog owners had to be licenced the scenarios you mentioned would be greatly less so. I can see your becoming frustrated now by your use of curse words in your posts, only it makes you look uneducated, and give your point lesss credability than it had in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snowdogs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RoverTheHill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RoverTheHill[/bold] wrote: This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then). It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third. Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse. There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.[/p][/quote]Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked.[/p][/quote]http://www.apbc. org.uk/articles/why- wont- dominance-die Feel free to educate yourself. P.s. who is carrying out research into whether a theory is debated or not? They have a lot of time on their hands. The reason i throw the point aside is because it's been debunked to the point of ridicule now. It's the 21st century, not 1972 with Barbara Woodhouse. Moving on. As much as the facts of this story don't match up properly and throw this mans recollection in the spotlight, this is not a single person culprit incident and shouldn't be about pointing the finger of blame. For once, ensure this man and his dogs are adequately treated and find Dave a home/kennel space where he is better suited. A place free from children and dogs whilst he is properly assessed and the facts of this incident have a chance to come out more. Those asking for the dog to be put down I ask you; would you put children down who have a school fight i.e. dog attacking another dog? How about putting cats down that fight during the night? How about putting down all the rioters from a few years back, they caused human damage as well? Let's put down people who abuse animals (no arguments from me there!). See how daft it sounds when you look at similar situations involving the human species?[/p][/quote]Your comparison between dogs and children borders on the ridiculous. Dangerous dogs should be banned. They bring nothing to modern-day society but cause fear and injury on a daily basis. I wonder how you would react if a dog mauled one of your children. Would you blame the child for inciting an attack? Given your last post, maybe you would have the child "put down". Dog-lovers need to get a grip. I don't care that you want a companion, I want a safe world for my children to live in.[/p][/quote]What qualifies as a dangerous dog in your opinion? Are we assuming a breed as a whole should be condemned to death for the actions of the minority? A Yorkshire Terrier or a Jack Russell can be a dangerous dog if the mood takes them. Any dog has the capability to bite a person. Should we just decide on mass extermination of a whole species instead? What gives humans the superiority and right to decide the extintion of a breed? I for one think BSL should be scrapped entirely. Its a dangerous road to travel down in any case. However, If an individual dog is deemed too emotionally damaged to be kept safely in any environment, then fair play.[/p][/quote]Over the last 3 years, there have been over 6000 injuries per year that required hospital treatment for dog bites. 1 in 6 of these are children under the age of 10. Over 20 people have died in this country since 1997 due to attacks from dogs. The NHS spends over £3 million per year treating injuries caused by dogs. To all who defend dogs and compare them to children, I suggest you pull your heads out your ar ses and begin to understand the misery and suffering that dogs are capable of causing. One of my relatives was killed by a dog when he was 11 years old. This simply should not happen.[/p][/quote]Thank you for gracing us with these amazing facts, however, your point holds no water whatsoever on relation to mine. This is still a small percentage in relation to the number of dogs nationally/worldwide . And my point is that a dog is a dog. Just as a shark is a shark, and a wasp is a wasp and so on. We share our planet with a lot of wonderful creatures. Some of whom can cause us harm. I for instance, dont like wasps. They sting and it hurts, sometimes it can scar. Some people are allergic to wasp stings. Some have died. The government aren't out in force eradicating all the blooming wasps! If people are to cohabit in harmony measures need to be taken. It is human responsibility to ensure dogs are on leads, that poop is collected, that your dog is safe and the people in the vicinity are safe also. That is why many rescues; including the one mentioned in this article, support the call for responsible breeding, as any fool can buy a dog with no concern or knowlage for its needs. Go on gumtree and theres thousands free to good home. This is why dogs like Dave end up alone and abandoned in kennels, with 7 days before they are pts. If dog owners had to be licenced the scenarios you mentioned would be greatly less so. I can see your becoming frustrated now by your use of curse words in your posts, only it makes you look uneducated, and give your point lesss credability than it had in the first place. snowdogs
  • Score: 23

2:37pm Tue 29 Jul 14

GracesDad says...

snowdogs wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
snowdogs wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
RoverTheHill wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
RoverTheHill wrote:
This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then).

It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third.

Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse.

There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.
Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked.
http://www.apbc.
org.uk/articles/why-





wont-
dominance-die

Feel free to educate yourself. P.s. who is carrying out research into whether a theory is debated or not? They have a lot of time on their hands.
The reason i throw the point aside is because it's been debunked to the point of ridicule now. It's the 21st century, not 1972 with Barbara Woodhouse.

Moving on.
As much as the facts of this story don't match up properly and throw this mans recollection in the spotlight, this is not a single person culprit incident and shouldn't be about pointing the finger of blame. For once, ensure this man and his dogs are adequately treated and find Dave a home/kennel space where he is better suited. A place free from children and dogs whilst he is properly assessed and the facts of this incident have a chance to come out more.

Those asking for the dog to be put down I ask you; would you put children down who have a school fight i.e. dog attacking another dog? How about putting cats down that fight during the night? How about putting down all the rioters from a few years back, they caused human damage as well? Let's put down people who abuse animals (no arguments from me there!). See how daft it sounds when you look at similar situations involving the human species?
Your comparison between dogs and children borders on the ridiculous. Dangerous dogs should be banned. They bring nothing to modern-day society but cause fear and injury on a daily basis.

I wonder how you would react if a dog mauled one of your children. Would you blame the child for inciting an attack? Given your last post, maybe you would have the child "put down".

Dog-lovers need to get a grip. I don't care that you want a companion, I want a safe world for my children to live in.
What qualifies as a dangerous dog in your opinion? Are we assuming a breed as a whole should be condemned to death for the actions of the minority? A Yorkshire Terrier or a Jack Russell can be a dangerous dog if the mood takes them. Any dog has the capability to bite a person. Should we just decide on mass extermination of a whole species instead? What gives humans the superiority and right to decide the extintion of a breed? I for one think BSL should be scrapped entirely. Its a dangerous road to travel down in any case. However, If an individual dog is deemed too emotionally damaged to be kept safely in any environment, then fair play.
Over the last 3 years, there have been over 6000 injuries per year that required hospital treatment for dog bites. 1 in 6 of these are children under the age of 10.

Over 20 people have died in this country since 1997 due to attacks from dogs.

The NHS spends over £3 million per year treating injuries caused by dogs.

To all who defend dogs and compare them to children, I suggest you pull your heads out your ar ses and begin to understand the misery and suffering that dogs are capable of causing.

One of my relatives was killed by a dog when he was 11 years old. This simply should not happen.
Thank you for gracing us with these amazing facts, however, your point holds no water whatsoever on relation to mine. This is still a small percentage in relation to the number of dogs nationally/worldwide

. And my point is that a dog is a dog. Just as a shark is a shark, and a wasp is a wasp and so on. We share our planet with a lot of wonderful creatures. Some of whom can cause us harm. I for instance, dont like wasps. They sting and it hurts, sometimes it can scar. Some people are allergic to wasp stings. Some have died. The government aren't out in force eradicating all the blooming wasps! If people are to cohabit in harmony measures need to be taken. It is human responsibility to ensure dogs are on leads, that poop is collected, that your dog is safe and the people in the vicinity are safe also. That is why many rescues; including the one mentioned in this article, support the call for responsible breeding, as any fool can buy a dog with no concern or knowlage for its needs. Go on gumtree and theres thousands free to good home. This is why dogs like Dave end up alone and abandoned in kennels, with 7 days before they are pts. If dog owners had to be licenced the scenarios you mentioned would be greatly less so. I can see your becoming frustrated now by your use of curse words in your posts, only it makes you look uneducated, and give your point lesss credability than it had in the first place.
I disagree entirely with your point. A dog is a dog is akin to saying a lion is a cat and we should treat it as a cat. You're telling me that there is no need for any classification when it comes to canines?

Most dog breeds are now grouped using genetics so no, a dog is not a dog. It is a certain breed of dog. And certain breeds of dog are far more dangerous than other types of dog and have no place in modern society.
[quote][p][bold]snowdogs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snowdogs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RoverTheHill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RoverTheHill[/bold] wrote: This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then). It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third. Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse. There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.[/p][/quote]Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked.[/p][/quote]http://www.apbc. org.uk/articles/why- wont- dominance-die Feel free to educate yourself. P.s. who is carrying out research into whether a theory is debated or not? They have a lot of time on their hands. The reason i throw the point aside is because it's been debunked to the point of ridicule now. It's the 21st century, not 1972 with Barbara Woodhouse. Moving on. As much as the facts of this story don't match up properly and throw this mans recollection in the spotlight, this is not a single person culprit incident and shouldn't be about pointing the finger of blame. For once, ensure this man and his dogs are adequately treated and find Dave a home/kennel space where he is better suited. A place free from children and dogs whilst he is properly assessed and the facts of this incident have a chance to come out more. Those asking for the dog to be put down I ask you; would you put children down who have a school fight i.e. dog attacking another dog? How about putting cats down that fight during the night? How about putting down all the rioters from a few years back, they caused human damage as well? Let's put down people who abuse animals (no arguments from me there!). See how daft it sounds when you look at similar situations involving the human species?[/p][/quote]Your comparison between dogs and children borders on the ridiculous. Dangerous dogs should be banned. They bring nothing to modern-day society but cause fear and injury on a daily basis. I wonder how you would react if a dog mauled one of your children. Would you blame the child for inciting an attack? Given your last post, maybe you would have the child "put down". Dog-lovers need to get a grip. I don't care that you want a companion, I want a safe world for my children to live in.[/p][/quote]What qualifies as a dangerous dog in your opinion? Are we assuming a breed as a whole should be condemned to death for the actions of the minority? A Yorkshire Terrier or a Jack Russell can be a dangerous dog if the mood takes them. Any dog has the capability to bite a person. Should we just decide on mass extermination of a whole species instead? What gives humans the superiority and right to decide the extintion of a breed? I for one think BSL should be scrapped entirely. Its a dangerous road to travel down in any case. However, If an individual dog is deemed too emotionally damaged to be kept safely in any environment, then fair play.[/p][/quote]Over the last 3 years, there have been over 6000 injuries per year that required hospital treatment for dog bites. 1 in 6 of these are children under the age of 10. Over 20 people have died in this country since 1997 due to attacks from dogs. The NHS spends over £3 million per year treating injuries caused by dogs. To all who defend dogs and compare them to children, I suggest you pull your heads out your ar ses and begin to understand the misery and suffering that dogs are capable of causing. One of my relatives was killed by a dog when he was 11 years old. This simply should not happen.[/p][/quote]Thank you for gracing us with these amazing facts, however, your point holds no water whatsoever on relation to mine. This is still a small percentage in relation to the number of dogs nationally/worldwide . And my point is that a dog is a dog. Just as a shark is a shark, and a wasp is a wasp and so on. We share our planet with a lot of wonderful creatures. Some of whom can cause us harm. I for instance, dont like wasps. They sting and it hurts, sometimes it can scar. Some people are allergic to wasp stings. Some have died. The government aren't out in force eradicating all the blooming wasps! If people are to cohabit in harmony measures need to be taken. It is human responsibility to ensure dogs are on leads, that poop is collected, that your dog is safe and the people in the vicinity are safe also. That is why many rescues; including the one mentioned in this article, support the call for responsible breeding, as any fool can buy a dog with no concern or knowlage for its needs. Go on gumtree and theres thousands free to good home. This is why dogs like Dave end up alone and abandoned in kennels, with 7 days before they are pts. If dog owners had to be licenced the scenarios you mentioned would be greatly less so. I can see your becoming frustrated now by your use of curse words in your posts, only it makes you look uneducated, and give your point lesss credability than it had in the first place.[/p][/quote]I disagree entirely with your point. A dog is a dog is akin to saying a lion is a cat and we should treat it as a cat. You're telling me that there is no need for any classification when it comes to canines? Most dog breeds are now grouped using genetics so no, a dog is not a dog. It is a certain breed of dog. And certain breeds of dog are far more dangerous than other types of dog and have no place in modern society. GracesDad
  • Score: -11

3:24pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Cyril baby says...

GracesDad wrote:
Blah blah blah....blame the owner not the dog....here we go again!!

People need to understand that domesticated dogs have existed for maybe 2000 years. Before that they were wild animals that roamed in packs. They need to be well trained in order to understand who their leader is. Only then can a dog be considered domesticated.

Dogs like the one in this report have probably been shifted from pillar to post as a chavvy status symbol and most likely it has been mistreated. This dog was clearly trying to become the leader of the new pack it found itself in and did not respect the role of the human.

I'm just glad it turned on its new owner and not an innocent member of the public!
GracesDad, the dominance theory has been proved wrong, have a look at:

http://www.dogwelfar
ecampaign.org/why-no
t-dominance.php
http://positively.co
m/dog-training/myths
-truths/pack-theory-
debunked/
http://www.whole-dog
-journal.com/issues/
14_12/features/Alpha
-Dogs_20416-1.html

There are a lot more if you look on the internet, even the man who started it has said many times he got it wrong and it has cause more dogs to become aggressive than any other training method.

I have taken dogs straight from a pound, I have 3 now including a Staffy, I have taken on dogs there were going to be pts because their previous owners and fosterers ended up in A & E, he was turned round and became a lovely pet dog, went to a neighbour so I could still work with him.

When taking on a new dog into your home we are advised to walk them together first, this have never worked for me, I have had my dogs attacked when done this, now I introduce them gradually in my home using closed doors, dog gates and crates. Dogs are very stressed when they go into anew home, before they can learn that they are not going to be attacked they need to get rid of the stress, once that has gone the new dog can learn that he is not going to be hurt by my dogs or myself.

There has to be more to this story, why the rescue is refusing to pts the dog needs answering as well. A lot of rescues in Yorkshire take dogs straight from pounds, these dogs have no know history, they should be assessed before going to a foster home. Lancashire has some good rescues, one based in Preston who are very careful were their dogs go and assess them really well, I have fostered for them as well as other rescues and these are one of the best. If you want to foster then please approach them.

My Staffy came from a pound at Oswaldtwistle as have 2 of my other dogs, as there are 2 there I am not saying which one. He is the biggest wimp I have ever come across, he is frightened of his own shadow, white vans and lorries but is not aggressive, even when a dog has gone to attack him he didn't show any aggression so not all Staffies are nasty dogs, in fact he is the best out of my 4 even though he has had a bad start. My smallest dog, only about 10ins high, Cocker Spaniel/Jack Russell is far more likely to bite than my Staffy, if she doesn't like anything her teeth go in, some stupid person has beaten the growl out of her which is dangerous, maybe this has happened to this dog, she is the 3rd dog I have had were the growl has been beaten out of them. Growling is communication, it is your dog telling you he doesn't like what you are doing, listen and back away and you won't get bitten. If you can't come with this then get a stuffed dog, they are the only dogs that will take what is given to them without any problems. Dogs are living beings, they have feelings, they communicate and they feel pain, respect them and you will have a lovely family pet.
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: Blah blah blah....blame the owner not the dog....here we go again!! People need to understand that domesticated dogs have existed for maybe 2000 years. Before that they were wild animals that roamed in packs. They need to be well trained in order to understand who their leader is. Only then can a dog be considered domesticated. Dogs like the one in this report have probably been shifted from pillar to post as a chavvy status symbol and most likely it has been mistreated. This dog was clearly trying to become the leader of the new pack it found itself in and did not respect the role of the human. I'm just glad it turned on its new owner and not an innocent member of the public![/p][/quote]GracesDad, the dominance theory has been proved wrong, have a look at: http://www.dogwelfar ecampaign.org/why-no t-dominance.php http://positively.co m/dog-training/myths -truths/pack-theory- debunked/ http://www.whole-dog -journal.com/issues/ 14_12/features/Alpha -Dogs_20416-1.html There are a lot more if you look on the internet, even the man who started it has said many times he got it wrong and it has cause more dogs to become aggressive than any other training method. I have taken dogs straight from a pound, I have 3 now including a Staffy, I have taken on dogs there were going to be pts because their previous owners and fosterers ended up in A & E, he was turned round and became a lovely pet dog, went to a neighbour so I could still work with him. When taking on a new dog into your home we are advised to walk them together first, this have never worked for me, I have had my dogs attacked when done this, now I introduce them gradually in my home using closed doors, dog gates and crates. Dogs are very stressed when they go into anew home, before they can learn that they are not going to be attacked they need to get rid of the stress, once that has gone the new dog can learn that he is not going to be hurt by my dogs or myself. There has to be more to this story, why the rescue is refusing to pts the dog needs answering as well. A lot of rescues in Yorkshire take dogs straight from pounds, these dogs have no know history, they should be assessed before going to a foster home. Lancashire has some good rescues, one based in Preston who are very careful were their dogs go and assess them really well, I have fostered for them as well as other rescues and these are one of the best. If you want to foster then please approach them. My Staffy came from a pound at Oswaldtwistle as have 2 of my other dogs, as there are 2 there I am not saying which one. He is the biggest wimp I have ever come across, he is frightened of his own shadow, white vans and lorries but is not aggressive, even when a dog has gone to attack him he didn't show any aggression so not all Staffies are nasty dogs, in fact he is the best out of my 4 even though he has had a bad start. My smallest dog, only about 10ins high, Cocker Spaniel/Jack Russell is far more likely to bite than my Staffy, if she doesn't like anything her teeth go in, some stupid person has beaten the growl out of her which is dangerous, maybe this has happened to this dog, she is the 3rd dog I have had were the growl has been beaten out of them. Growling is communication, it is your dog telling you he doesn't like what you are doing, listen and back away and you won't get bitten. If you can't come with this then get a stuffed dog, they are the only dogs that will take what is given to them without any problems. Dogs are living beings, they have feelings, they communicate and they feel pain, respect them and you will have a lovely family pet. Cyril baby
  • Score: 15

3:56pm Tue 29 Jul 14

snowdogs says...

GracesDad wrote:
snowdogs wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
snowdogs wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
RoverTheHill wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
RoverTheHill wrote:
This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then).

It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third.

Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse.

There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.
Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked.
http://www.apbc.
org.uk/articles/why-






wont-
dominance-die

Feel free to educate yourself. P.s. who is carrying out research into whether a theory is debated or not? They have a lot of time on their hands.
The reason i throw the point aside is because it's been debunked to the point of ridicule now. It's the 21st century, not 1972 with Barbara Woodhouse.

Moving on.
As much as the facts of this story don't match up properly and throw this mans recollection in the spotlight, this is not a single person culprit incident and shouldn't be about pointing the finger of blame. For once, ensure this man and his dogs are adequately treated and find Dave a home/kennel space where he is better suited. A place free from children and dogs whilst he is properly assessed and the facts of this incident have a chance to come out more.

Those asking for the dog to be put down I ask you; would you put children down who have a school fight i.e. dog attacking another dog? How about putting cats down that fight during the night? How about putting down all the rioters from a few years back, they caused human damage as well? Let's put down people who abuse animals (no arguments from me there!). See how daft it sounds when you look at similar situations involving the human species?
Your comparison between dogs and children borders on the ridiculous. Dangerous dogs should be banned. They bring nothing to modern-day society but cause fear and injury on a daily basis.

I wonder how you would react if a dog mauled one of your children. Would you blame the child for inciting an attack? Given your last post, maybe you would have the child "put down".

Dog-lovers need to get a grip. I don't care that you want a companion, I want a safe world for my children to live in.
What qualifies as a dangerous dog in your opinion? Are we assuming a breed as a whole should be condemned to death for the actions of the minority? A Yorkshire Terrier or a Jack Russell can be a dangerous dog if the mood takes them. Any dog has the capability to bite a person. Should we just decide on mass extermination of a whole species instead? What gives humans the superiority and right to decide the extintion of a breed? I for one think BSL should be scrapped entirely. Its a dangerous road to travel down in any case. However, If an individual dog is deemed too emotionally damaged to be kept safely in any environment, then fair play.
Over the last 3 years, there have been over 6000 injuries per year that required hospital treatment for dog bites. 1 in 6 of these are children under the age of 10.

Over 20 people have died in this country since 1997 due to attacks from dogs.

The NHS spends over £3 million per year treating injuries caused by dogs.

To all who defend dogs and compare them to children, I suggest you pull your heads out your ar ses and begin to understand the misery and suffering that dogs are capable of causing.

One of my relatives was killed by a dog when he was 11 years old. This simply should not happen.
Thank you for gracing us with these amazing facts, however, your point holds no water whatsoever on relation to mine. This is still a small percentage in relation to the number of dogs nationally/worldwide


. And my point is that a dog is a dog. Just as a shark is a shark, and a wasp is a wasp and so on. We share our planet with a lot of wonderful creatures. Some of whom can cause us harm. I for instance, dont like wasps. They sting and it hurts, sometimes it can scar. Some people are allergic to wasp stings. Some have died. The government aren't out in force eradicating all the blooming wasps! If people are to cohabit in harmony measures need to be taken. It is human responsibility to ensure dogs are on leads, that poop is collected, that your dog is safe and the people in the vicinity are safe also. That is why many rescues; including the one mentioned in this article, support the call for responsible breeding, as any fool can buy a dog with no concern or knowlage for its needs. Go on gumtree and theres thousands free to good home. This is why dogs like Dave end up alone and abandoned in kennels, with 7 days before they are pts. If dog owners had to be licenced the scenarios you mentioned would be greatly less so. I can see your becoming frustrated now by your use of curse words in your posts, only it makes you look uneducated, and give your point lesss credability than it had in the first place.
I disagree entirely with your point. A dog is a dog is akin to saying a lion is a cat and we should treat it as a cat. You're telling me that there is no need for any classification when it comes to canines?

Most dog breeds are now grouped using genetics so no, a dog is not a dog. It is a certain breed of dog. And certain breeds of dog are far more dangerous than other types of dog and have no place in modern society.
@Gracesdad. Yes a Lion is a Cat, correct. However, entirely on the other end of the spectrum that may be. People have on occasion been known to keep Lion's as pets. Do they expect this kitty to use the litter tray and curl up at the foot of the bed? No. Provisions are made for the Lion. It simply wouldn't be kept in the same manor as a domesticated Cat. That being said I think your comparison of a Lion to a Staffy is ridiculous! Every point I've made has been valid. If you read my previous posts carefully & in full, you would see sense. This is not about my being a dog lover, but prevention of the persecution and eradication of an entire breed! Hitler had similar veiws as yourself, but in relation to people. It's quite obvious you're dogist.
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snowdogs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snowdogs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RoverTheHill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RoverTheHill[/bold] wrote: This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then). It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third. Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse. There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.[/p][/quote]Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked.[/p][/quote]http://www.apbc. org.uk/articles/why- wont- dominance-die Feel free to educate yourself. P.s. who is carrying out research into whether a theory is debated or not? They have a lot of time on their hands. The reason i throw the point aside is because it's been debunked to the point of ridicule now. It's the 21st century, not 1972 with Barbara Woodhouse. Moving on. As much as the facts of this story don't match up properly and throw this mans recollection in the spotlight, this is not a single person culprit incident and shouldn't be about pointing the finger of blame. For once, ensure this man and his dogs are adequately treated and find Dave a home/kennel space where he is better suited. A place free from children and dogs whilst he is properly assessed and the facts of this incident have a chance to come out more. Those asking for the dog to be put down I ask you; would you put children down who have a school fight i.e. dog attacking another dog? How about putting cats down that fight during the night? How about putting down all the rioters from a few years back, they caused human damage as well? Let's put down people who abuse animals (no arguments from me there!). See how daft it sounds when you look at similar situations involving the human species?[/p][/quote]Your comparison between dogs and children borders on the ridiculous. Dangerous dogs should be banned. They bring nothing to modern-day society but cause fear and injury on a daily basis. I wonder how you would react if a dog mauled one of your children. Would you blame the child for inciting an attack? Given your last post, maybe you would have the child "put down". Dog-lovers need to get a grip. I don't care that you want a companion, I want a safe world for my children to live in.[/p][/quote]What qualifies as a dangerous dog in your opinion? Are we assuming a breed as a whole should be condemned to death for the actions of the minority? A Yorkshire Terrier or a Jack Russell can be a dangerous dog if the mood takes them. Any dog has the capability to bite a person. Should we just decide on mass extermination of a whole species instead? What gives humans the superiority and right to decide the extintion of a breed? I for one think BSL should be scrapped entirely. Its a dangerous road to travel down in any case. However, If an individual dog is deemed too emotionally damaged to be kept safely in any environment, then fair play.[/p][/quote]Over the last 3 years, there have been over 6000 injuries per year that required hospital treatment for dog bites. 1 in 6 of these are children under the age of 10. Over 20 people have died in this country since 1997 due to attacks from dogs. The NHS spends over £3 million per year treating injuries caused by dogs. To all who defend dogs and compare them to children, I suggest you pull your heads out your ar ses and begin to understand the misery and suffering that dogs are capable of causing. One of my relatives was killed by a dog when he was 11 years old. This simply should not happen.[/p][/quote]Thank you for gracing us with these amazing facts, however, your point holds no water whatsoever on relation to mine. This is still a small percentage in relation to the number of dogs nationally/worldwide . And my point is that a dog is a dog. Just as a shark is a shark, and a wasp is a wasp and so on. We share our planet with a lot of wonderful creatures. Some of whom can cause us harm. I for instance, dont like wasps. They sting and it hurts, sometimes it can scar. Some people are allergic to wasp stings. Some have died. The government aren't out in force eradicating all the blooming wasps! If people are to cohabit in harmony measures need to be taken. It is human responsibility to ensure dogs are on leads, that poop is collected, that your dog is safe and the people in the vicinity are safe also. That is why many rescues; including the one mentioned in this article, support the call for responsible breeding, as any fool can buy a dog with no concern or knowlage for its needs. Go on gumtree and theres thousands free to good home. This is why dogs like Dave end up alone and abandoned in kennels, with 7 days before they are pts. If dog owners had to be licenced the scenarios you mentioned would be greatly less so. I can see your becoming frustrated now by your use of curse words in your posts, only it makes you look uneducated, and give your point lesss credability than it had in the first place.[/p][/quote]I disagree entirely with your point. A dog is a dog is akin to saying a lion is a cat and we should treat it as a cat. You're telling me that there is no need for any classification when it comes to canines? Most dog breeds are now grouped using genetics so no, a dog is not a dog. It is a certain breed of dog. And certain breeds of dog are far more dangerous than other types of dog and have no place in modern society.[/p][/quote]@Gracesdad. Yes a Lion is a Cat, correct. However, entirely on the other end of the spectrum that may be. People have on occasion been known to keep Lion's as pets. Do they expect this kitty to use the litter tray and curl up at the foot of the bed? No. Provisions are made for the Lion. It simply wouldn't be kept in the same manor as a domesticated Cat. That being said I think your comparison of a Lion to a Staffy is ridiculous! Every point I've made has been valid. If you read my previous posts carefully & in full, you would see sense. This is not about my being a dog lover, but prevention of the persecution and eradication of an entire breed! Hitler had similar veiws as yourself, but in relation to people. It's quite obvious you're dogist. snowdogs
  • Score: 9

4:07pm Tue 29 Jul 14

GracesDad says...

Absolutely I'm dogist. Not without good cause.

There's dog muck blighting every single street I ever walk down. I have been set upon myself as a teenager by an Alsatian that caused me to be wary of dogs to this day. I have witnessed the devastation caused by a killer dog. My missus was attacked in a local park by a Staffy a couple of weeks ago and the middle aged woman that was walking it never even apologised. Hell, there's even a dog 2 doors down from me that is locked in the yard all day and never shuts its yapping up.

I'm quite sure that you and many others are very responsible dog owners and that you clean up after your mutt and have trained it never to attack anybody or anything, but there are far too many idiots out there spoiling it for you.

As I've said before on the website many times and will repeat yet again. There is one simple thing that should be made law in this country, all dogs out in public should be wearing a muzzle. Failure to enforce should be punishable by on-the-spot fines for the owners.
Absolutely I'm dogist. Not without good cause. There's dog muck blighting every single street I ever walk down. I have been set upon myself as a teenager by an Alsatian that caused me to be wary of dogs to this day. I have witnessed the devastation caused by a killer dog. My missus was attacked in a local park by a Staffy a couple of weeks ago and the middle aged woman that was walking it never even apologised. Hell, there's even a dog 2 doors down from me that is locked in the yard all day and never shuts its yapping up. I'm quite sure that you and many others are very responsible dog owners and that you clean up after your mutt and have trained it never to attack anybody or anything, but there are far too many idiots out there spoiling it for you. As I've said before on the website many times and will repeat yet again. There is one simple thing that should be made law in this country, all dogs out in public should be wearing a muzzle. Failure to enforce should be punishable by on-the-spot fines for the owners. GracesDad
  • Score: -10

4:22pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Clydey says...

Regardless of all the history of dogs the fact in this case is that Rob (the fosterer) is lying about what happened. His **** was in season and he was stupid enough to allow his ****, his intact male and the foster dog together. Two intact males will fight over an in season ****, common sense. It was HIS dog that attacked the foster dog and the **** joined in. Dave, the foster dog, is now safe thank goodness and away from this idiot who lied to the rescue to get the dog in the first place!
Regardless of all the history of dogs the fact in this case is that Rob (the fosterer) is lying about what happened. His **** was in season and he was stupid enough to allow his ****, his intact male and the foster dog together. Two intact males will fight over an in season ****, common sense. It was HIS dog that attacked the foster dog and the **** joined in. Dave, the foster dog, is now safe thank goodness and away from this idiot who lied to the rescue to get the dog in the first place! Clydey
  • Score: 13

4:23pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Clydey says...

Ok so all the stars in my post are because I used the word b*tch lol
Ok so all the stars in my post are because I used the word b*tch lol Clydey
  • Score: 4

4:24pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Clydey says...

I am also horrified that this paper would pay for a story without talking to the rescue in question!!
I am also horrified that this paper would pay for a story without talking to the rescue in question!! Clydey
  • Score: 14

4:28pm Tue 29 Jul 14

snowdogs says...

GracesDad wrote:
Absolutely I'm dogist. Not without good cause.

There's dog muck blighting every single street I ever walk down. I have been set upon myself as a teenager by an Alsatian that caused me to be wary of dogs to this day. I have witnessed the devastation caused by a killer dog. My missus was attacked in a local park by a Staffy a couple of weeks ago and the middle aged woman that was walking it never even apologised. Hell, there's even a dog 2 doors down from me that is locked in the yard all day and never shuts its yapping up.

I'm quite sure that you and many others are very responsible dog owners and that you clean up after your mutt and have trained it never to attack anybody or anything, but there are far too many idiots out there spoiling it for you.

As I've said before on the website many times and will repeat yet again. There is one simple thing that should be made law in this country, all dogs out in public should be wearing a muzzle. Failure to enforce should be punishable by on-the-spot fines for the owners.
@gracesdad. And I can fully understand why you feel the way you do! But eradication dof a breed is not the solution. This blooming government should have laws on licenced breeding and dog ownership. If breeders had to accept responsibility for a dog for the duration its lifetime for instance, say if a breeder sold a dog to a person. Said person had to be interviewed & home checked, and if they ever wanted to sell the dog on, it had to go back through the breeder, you would have less backstreet breeders selling to any Tom, Dick or Harry. And if owners we're licenced, they would have to prove they have breed knowlage and the facilities and capabilities to manage said dog. All this could be paid for through licence fees and would increase responsible ownership, decrease dog attacks, strays, pounds and rescues, it would also bring in revenue and jobs because people could go on pet management & dog handling couses etc. Its a shame that all dogs have to suffer because of greedy, stupid people.
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: Absolutely I'm dogist. Not without good cause. There's dog muck blighting every single street I ever walk down. I have been set upon myself as a teenager by an Alsatian that caused me to be wary of dogs to this day. I have witnessed the devastation caused by a killer dog. My missus was attacked in a local park by a Staffy a couple of weeks ago and the middle aged woman that was walking it never even apologised. Hell, there's even a dog 2 doors down from me that is locked in the yard all day and never shuts its yapping up. I'm quite sure that you and many others are very responsible dog owners and that you clean up after your mutt and have trained it never to attack anybody or anything, but there are far too many idiots out there spoiling it for you. As I've said before on the website many times and will repeat yet again. There is one simple thing that should be made law in this country, all dogs out in public should be wearing a muzzle. Failure to enforce should be punishable by on-the-spot fines for the owners.[/p][/quote]@gracesdad. And I can fully understand why you feel the way you do! But eradication dof a breed is not the solution. This blooming government should have laws on licenced breeding and dog ownership. If breeders had to accept responsibility for a dog for the duration its lifetime for instance, say if a breeder sold a dog to a person. Said person had to be interviewed & home checked, and if they ever wanted to sell the dog on, it had to go back through the breeder, you would have less backstreet breeders selling to any Tom, Dick or Harry. And if owners we're licenced, they would have to prove they have breed knowlage and the facilities and capabilities to manage said dog. All this could be paid for through licence fees and would increase responsible ownership, decrease dog attacks, strays, pounds and rescues, it would also bring in revenue and jobs because people could go on pet management & dog handling couses etc. Its a shame that all dogs have to suffer because of greedy, stupid people. snowdogs
  • Score: 7

5:38pm Tue 29 Jul 14

ossym says...

Dogs too powerfull to control should not be allowed in public places.
They are potential killers.
Too many have been killed and maimed already.
People who bring such dogs into public places should be held to account. People with offensive weapons are criminalised, but at least they have full control over those weapons, not so with dogs though is it?
Maybe they think it makes them (appear) less responsible, when actually it should be quite the reverse.
Dogs too powerfull to control should not be allowed in public places. They are potential killers. Too many have been killed and maimed already. People who bring such dogs into public places should be held to account. People with offensive weapons are criminalised, but at least they have full control over those weapons, not so with dogs though is it? Maybe they think it makes them (appear) less responsible, when actually it should be quite the reverse. ossym
  • Score: -10

6:53pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Dave from Colne says...

Yum yum
Yum yum Dave from Colne
  • Score: 1

7:02pm Tue 29 Jul 14

The Seagull has landed says...

snowdogs wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
snowdogs wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
RoverTheHill wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
RoverTheHill wrote:
This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then).

It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third.

Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse.

There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.
Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked.
http://www.apbc.
org.uk/articles/why-





wont-
dominance-die

Feel free to educate yourself. P.s. who is carrying out research into whether a theory is debated or not? They have a lot of time on their hands.
The reason i throw the point aside is because it's been debunked to the point of ridicule now. It's the 21st century, not 1972 with Barbara Woodhouse.

Moving on.
As much as the facts of this story don't match up properly and throw this mans recollection in the spotlight, this is not a single person culprit incident and shouldn't be about pointing the finger of blame. For once, ensure this man and his dogs are adequately treated and find Dave a home/kennel space where he is better suited. A place free from children and dogs whilst he is properly assessed and the facts of this incident have a chance to come out more.

Those asking for the dog to be put down I ask you; would you put children down who have a school fight i.e. dog attacking another dog? How about putting cats down that fight during the night? How about putting down all the rioters from a few years back, they caused human damage as well? Let's put down people who abuse animals (no arguments from me there!). See how daft it sounds when you look at similar situations involving the human species?
Your comparison between dogs and children borders on the ridiculous. Dangerous dogs should be banned. They bring nothing to modern-day society but cause fear and injury on a daily basis.

I wonder how you would react if a dog mauled one of your children. Would you blame the child for inciting an attack? Given your last post, maybe you would have the child "put down".

Dog-lovers need to get a grip. I don't care that you want a companion, I want a safe world for my children to live in.
What qualifies as a dangerous dog in your opinion? Are we assuming a breed as a whole should be condemned to death for the actions of the minority? A Yorkshire Terrier or a Jack Russell can be a dangerous dog if the mood takes them. Any dog has the capability to bite a person. Should we just decide on mass extermination of a whole species instead? What gives humans the superiority and right to decide the extintion of a breed? I for one think BSL should be scrapped entirely. Its a dangerous road to travel down in any case. However, If an individual dog is deemed too emotionally damaged to be kept safely in any environment, then fair play.
Over the last 3 years, there have been over 6000 injuries per year that required hospital treatment for dog bites. 1 in 6 of these are children under the age of 10.

Over 20 people have died in this country since 1997 due to attacks from dogs.

The NHS spends over £3 million per year treating injuries caused by dogs.

To all who defend dogs and compare them to children, I suggest you pull your heads out your ar ses and begin to understand the misery and suffering that dogs are capable of causing.

One of my relatives was killed by a dog when he was 11 years old. This simply should not happen.
Thank you for gracing us with these amazing facts, however, your point holds no water whatsoever on relation to mine. This is still a small percentage in relation to the number of dogs nationally/worldwide

. And my point is that a dog is a dog. Just as a shark is a shark, and a wasp is a wasp and so on. We share our planet with a lot of wonderful creatures. Some of whom can cause us harm. I for instance, dont like wasps. They sting and it hurts, sometimes it can scar. Some people are allergic to wasp stings. Some have died. The government aren't out in force eradicating all the blooming wasps! If people are to cohabit in harmony measures need to be taken. It is human responsibility to ensure dogs are on leads, that poop is collected, that your dog is safe and the people in the vicinity are safe also. That is why many rescues; including the one mentioned in this article, support the call for responsible breeding, as any fool can buy a dog with no concern or knowlage for its needs. Go on gumtree and theres thousands free to good home. This is why dogs like Dave end up alone and abandoned in kennels, with 7 days before they are pts. If dog owners had to be licenced the scenarios you mentioned would be greatly less so. I can see your becoming frustrated now by your use of curse words in your posts, only it makes you look uneducated, and give your point lesss credability than it had in the first place.
People don't keep wasps as pets though do they?
Although paddy did once go into a pet shop and ask for a wasp to which the assistant said; "IM SORRY SIR WE DONT SELL WASPS", to which paddy replied; "WELL YOUVE GOT ONE IN THE WINDOW".
[quote][p][bold]snowdogs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snowdogs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RoverTheHill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RoverTheHill[/bold] wrote: This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then). It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third. Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse. There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.[/p][/quote]Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked.[/p][/quote]http://www.apbc. org.uk/articles/why- wont- dominance-die Feel free to educate yourself. P.s. who is carrying out research into whether a theory is debated or not? They have a lot of time on their hands. The reason i throw the point aside is because it's been debunked to the point of ridicule now. It's the 21st century, not 1972 with Barbara Woodhouse. Moving on. As much as the facts of this story don't match up properly and throw this mans recollection in the spotlight, this is not a single person culprit incident and shouldn't be about pointing the finger of blame. For once, ensure this man and his dogs are adequately treated and find Dave a home/kennel space where he is better suited. A place free from children and dogs whilst he is properly assessed and the facts of this incident have a chance to come out more. Those asking for the dog to be put down I ask you; would you put children down who have a school fight i.e. dog attacking another dog? How about putting cats down that fight during the night? How about putting down all the rioters from a few years back, they caused human damage as well? Let's put down people who abuse animals (no arguments from me there!). See how daft it sounds when you look at similar situations involving the human species?[/p][/quote]Your comparison between dogs and children borders on the ridiculous. Dangerous dogs should be banned. They bring nothing to modern-day society but cause fear and injury on a daily basis. I wonder how you would react if a dog mauled one of your children. Would you blame the child for inciting an attack? Given your last post, maybe you would have the child "put down". Dog-lovers need to get a grip. I don't care that you want a companion, I want a safe world for my children to live in.[/p][/quote]What qualifies as a dangerous dog in your opinion? Are we assuming a breed as a whole should be condemned to death for the actions of the minority? A Yorkshire Terrier or a Jack Russell can be a dangerous dog if the mood takes them. Any dog has the capability to bite a person. Should we just decide on mass extermination of a whole species instead? What gives humans the superiority and right to decide the extintion of a breed? I for one think BSL should be scrapped entirely. Its a dangerous road to travel down in any case. However, If an individual dog is deemed too emotionally damaged to be kept safely in any environment, then fair play.[/p][/quote]Over the last 3 years, there have been over 6000 injuries per year that required hospital treatment for dog bites. 1 in 6 of these are children under the age of 10. Over 20 people have died in this country since 1997 due to attacks from dogs. The NHS spends over £3 million per year treating injuries caused by dogs. To all who defend dogs and compare them to children, I suggest you pull your heads out your ar ses and begin to understand the misery and suffering that dogs are capable of causing. One of my relatives was killed by a dog when he was 11 years old. This simply should not happen.[/p][/quote]Thank you for gracing us with these amazing facts, however, your point holds no water whatsoever on relation to mine. This is still a small percentage in relation to the number of dogs nationally/worldwide . And my point is that a dog is a dog. Just as a shark is a shark, and a wasp is a wasp and so on. We share our planet with a lot of wonderful creatures. Some of whom can cause us harm. I for instance, dont like wasps. They sting and it hurts, sometimes it can scar. Some people are allergic to wasp stings. Some have died. The government aren't out in force eradicating all the blooming wasps! If people are to cohabit in harmony measures need to be taken. It is human responsibility to ensure dogs are on leads, that poop is collected, that your dog is safe and the people in the vicinity are safe also. That is why many rescues; including the one mentioned in this article, support the call for responsible breeding, as any fool can buy a dog with no concern or knowlage for its needs. Go on gumtree and theres thousands free to good home. This is why dogs like Dave end up alone and abandoned in kennels, with 7 days before they are pts. If dog owners had to be licenced the scenarios you mentioned would be greatly less so. I can see your becoming frustrated now by your use of curse words in your posts, only it makes you look uneducated, and give your point lesss credability than it had in the first place.[/p][/quote]People don't keep wasps as pets though do they? Although paddy did once go into a pet shop and ask for a wasp to which the assistant said; "IM SORRY SIR WE DONT SELL WASPS", to which paddy replied; "WELL YOUVE GOT ONE IN THE WINDOW". The Seagull has landed
  • Score: 0

8:00pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Samantha ;) says...

Myself and my child got off the bus today , was walking along and an elderly person about 60 yrs old had a pug off a lead my daughter said aww I want one (9yrs) the next minute the pug started growling and following my daughter the woman said oh don't worry it's because she has a bag? Oh So that makes it ok then.. Think il stick to my bulldogs
Myself and my child got off the bus today , was walking along and an elderly person about 60 yrs old had a pug off a lead my daughter said aww I want one (9yrs) the next minute the pug started growling and following my daughter the woman said oh don't worry it's because she has a bag? Oh So that makes it ok then.. Think il stick to my bulldogs Samantha ;)
  • Score: 4

8:24pm Tue 29 Jul 14

The Seagull has landed says...

Samantha ;) wrote:
Myself and my child got off the bus today , was walking along and an elderly person about 60 yrs old had a pug off a lead my daughter said aww I want one (9yrs) the next minute the pug started growling and following my daughter the woman said oh don't worry it's because she has a bag? Oh So that makes it ok then.. Think il stick to my bulldogs
Anyone who doesn't have a car has failed in life.
[quote][p][bold]Samantha ;)[/bold] wrote: Myself and my child got off the bus today , was walking along and an elderly person about 60 yrs old had a pug off a lead my daughter said aww I want one (9yrs) the next minute the pug started growling and following my daughter the woman said oh don't worry it's because she has a bag? Oh So that makes it ok then.. Think il stick to my bulldogs[/p][/quote]Anyone who doesn't have a car has failed in life. The Seagull has landed
  • Score: -8

8:46pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Clydey says...

Please remember, the guy that sold this story is a pathological lier. His story on Facebook has changed sooooooooo many times today it's actually funny!
Please remember, the guy that sold this story is a pathological lier. His story on Facebook has changed sooooooooo many times today it's actually funny! Clydey
  • Score: 10

9:23pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Samantha ;) says...

The Seagull has landed wrote:
Samantha ;) wrote:
Myself and my child got off the bus today , was walking along and an elderly person about 60 yrs old had a pug off a lead my daughter said aww I want one (9yrs) the next minute the pug started growling and following my daughter the woman said oh don't worry it's because she has a bag? Oh So that makes it ok then.. Think il stick to my bulldogs
Anyone who doesn't have a car has failed in life.
Sweetheart we do have a car but seeing as we both work and it's the school holidays it has to be a bit of give and take at this time of year but don't worry your little head sunshine il be thinking of your comment when we are led on the beach for two weeks ;)
Enjoy the dole cue heard it's busy at this time of year ****
[quote][p][bold]The Seagull has landed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Samantha ;)[/bold] wrote: Myself and my child got off the bus today , was walking along and an elderly person about 60 yrs old had a pug off a lead my daughter said aww I want one (9yrs) the next minute the pug started growling and following my daughter the woman said oh don't worry it's because she has a bag? Oh So that makes it ok then.. Think il stick to my bulldogs[/p][/quote]Anyone who doesn't have a car has failed in life.[/p][/quote]Sweetheart we do have a car but seeing as we both work and it's the school holidays it has to be a bit of give and take at this time of year but don't worry your little head sunshine il be thinking of your comment when we are led on the beach for two weeks ;) Enjoy the dole cue heard it's busy at this time of year **** Samantha ;)
  • Score: 9

9:24pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Samantha ;) says...

The Seagull has landed wrote:
Samantha ;) wrote:
Myself and my child got off the bus today , was walking along and an elderly person about 60 yrs old had a pug off a lead my daughter said aww I want one (9yrs) the next minute the pug started growling and following my daughter the woman said oh don't worry it's because she has a bag? Oh So that makes it ok then.. Think il stick to my bulldogs
Anyone who doesn't have a car has failed in life.
Sweetheart we do have a car but seeing as we both work and it's the school holidays it has to be a bit of give and take at this time of year but don't worry your little head sunshine il be thinking of your comment when we are led on the beach for two weeks ;)
Enjoy the dole cue heard it's busy at this time of year ****
[quote][p][bold]The Seagull has landed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Samantha ;)[/bold] wrote: Myself and my child got off the bus today , was walking along and an elderly person about 60 yrs old had a pug off a lead my daughter said aww I want one (9yrs) the next minute the pug started growling and following my daughter the woman said oh don't worry it's because she has a bag? Oh So that makes it ok then.. Think il stick to my bulldogs[/p][/quote]Anyone who doesn't have a car has failed in life.[/p][/quote]Sweetheart we do have a car but seeing as we both work and it's the school holidays it has to be a bit of give and take at this time of year but don't worry your little head sunshine il be thinking of your comment when we are led on the beach for two weeks ;) Enjoy the dole cue heard it's busy at this time of year **** Samantha ;)
  • Score: 4

9:46pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Bellypork says...

He needs to thank his lucky stars that it was only Dave that bit him and not Suarez!!!!!!! He could have lost a limb.
He needs to thank his lucky stars that it was only Dave that bit him and not Suarez!!!!!!! He could have lost a limb. Bellypork
  • Score: 9

10:15pm Tue 29 Jul 14

dig for glory says...

Its Grace I feel sorry for!
Its Grace I feel sorry for! dig for glory
  • Score: -1

12:17am Wed 30 Jul 14

The Seagull has landed says...

Samantha ;) wrote:
The Seagull has landed wrote:
Samantha ;) wrote:
Myself and my child got off the bus today , was walking along and an elderly person about 60 yrs old had a pug off a lead my daughter said aww I want one (9yrs) the next minute the pug started growling and following my daughter the woman said oh don't worry it's because she has a bag? Oh So that makes it ok then.. Think il stick to my bulldogs
Anyone who doesn't have a car has failed in life.
Sweetheart we do have a car but seeing as we both work and it's the school holidays it has to be a bit of give and take at this time of year but don't worry your little head sunshine il be thinking of your comment when we are led on the beach for two weeks ;)
Enjoy the dole cue heard it's busy at this time of year ****
Oooooh are you going anywhere nice? Have a good time :)
[quote][p][bold]Samantha ;)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Seagull has landed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Samantha ;)[/bold] wrote: Myself and my child got off the bus today , was walking along and an elderly person about 60 yrs old had a pug off a lead my daughter said aww I want one (9yrs) the next minute the pug started growling and following my daughter the woman said oh don't worry it's because she has a bag? Oh So that makes it ok then.. Think il stick to my bulldogs[/p][/quote]Anyone who doesn't have a car has failed in life.[/p][/quote]Sweetheart we do have a car but seeing as we both work and it's the school holidays it has to be a bit of give and take at this time of year but don't worry your little head sunshine il be thinking of your comment when we are led on the beach for two weeks ;) Enjoy the dole cue heard it's busy at this time of year ****[/p][/quote]Oooooh are you going anywhere nice? Have a good time :) The Seagull has landed
  • Score: 1

2:15am Wed 30 Jul 14

Mr ptowsend says...

Just an observer wrote:
Simple one this, destroy the dog and sue the the owner of the charity for the costs.
Well this is such a sad case. None of us know the facts of this case unless they was there. I run a rescue centre in London. It is a very hard job to do and things have to be done properly. 1: the dog goes through carful assessments
2: home check done
3: comparability test
This man has two other SBT as stated in the paper. I don't think that was a good place to home him for a start. Then what sex was they, was the neutered?. I don't know what checks have been done but myself wouldn't of placed him there with two other SBT so I see that as a error. It sounds like the person isn't trying to give the dog type a bad name but more making awareness off bad rescues. I don't know this rescue but have googled it and it hasn't come up. So it can't be a large one or a registered charity. I'm not saying it's bad but my opinion is it shouldn't of been pleased with two other SBT dogs. People can spend 24hours a day running a rescue but if you don't follow the correct ways it's pointless and putting both animals and humans at risk. If a home check was done and they knew they had two SBT dogs, they shouldn't of placed the dog there so this could of been prevented. It's not easy to put a dog to sleep but it's also hard rehoming a dog that has done this. I wouldn't rehome a dog that has done this as if it did it again I wouldn't live with myself. People are quick to jump to conclusions and things get said on social media ect but the people who know what happened are the people that was there. The police can't put a dog to sleep unless it kills a human. There are people that want this changing. I feel for the foster person and I hope he makes a good recovery and his dogs. I also hope that this doesn't affect his metal behaviour and also his dogs as things like this can really change a human and the other dogs life. Hope all is well Peter
[quote][p][bold]Just an observer[/bold] wrote: Simple one this, destroy the dog and sue the the owner of the charity for the costs.[/p][/quote]Well this is such a sad case. None of us know the facts of this case unless they was there. I run a rescue centre in London. It is a very hard job to do and things have to be done properly. 1: the dog goes through carful assessments 2: home check done 3: comparability test This man has two other SBT as stated in the paper. I don't think that was a good place to home him for a start. Then what sex was they, was the neutered?. I don't know what checks have been done but myself wouldn't of placed him there with two other SBT so I see that as a error. It sounds like the person isn't trying to give the dog type a bad name but more making awareness off bad rescues. I don't know this rescue but have googled it and it hasn't come up. So it can't be a large one or a registered charity. I'm not saying it's bad but my opinion is it shouldn't of been pleased with two other SBT dogs. People can spend 24hours a day running a rescue but if you don't follow the correct ways it's pointless and putting both animals and humans at risk. If a home check was done and they knew they had two SBT dogs, they shouldn't of placed the dog there so this could of been prevented. It's not easy to put a dog to sleep but it's also hard rehoming a dog that has done this. I wouldn't rehome a dog that has done this as if it did it again I wouldn't live with myself. People are quick to jump to conclusions and things get said on social media ect but the people who know what happened are the people that was there. The police can't put a dog to sleep unless it kills a human. There are people that want this changing. I feel for the foster person and I hope he makes a good recovery and his dogs. I also hope that this doesn't affect his metal behaviour and also his dogs as things like this can really change a human and the other dogs life. Hope all is well Peter Mr ptowsend
  • Score: 1

10:08am Wed 30 Jul 14

say no to unethical uk rescues says...

I blame the home checker then the person who left the dog and the rescue for breaking all the ethical rules when placing a dog ive ran my own rescue for 8 yrs lucky to have funding you cant run a rescue with no funds or cut corners when placing dogs in peoples homes
I blame the home checker then the person who left the dog and the rescue for breaking all the ethical rules when placing a dog ive ran my own rescue for 8 yrs lucky to have funding you cant run a rescue with no funds or cut corners when placing dogs in peoples homes say no to unethical uk rescues
  • Score: 1

10:24am Wed 30 Jul 14

GracesDad says...

dig for glory wrote:
Its Grace I feel sorry for!
Forgive me as I didn't realise that being a dog lover was integral to being a good parent.

Imbecile.
[quote][p][bold]dig for glory[/bold] wrote: Its Grace I feel sorry for![/p][/quote]Forgive me as I didn't realise that being a dog lover was integral to being a good parent. Imbecile. GracesDad
  • Score: -5

12:29pm Wed 30 Jul 14

happyinblue says...

GracesDad wrote:
snowdogs wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
RoverTheHill wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
RoverTheHill wrote:
This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then).

It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third.

Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse.

There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.
Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked.
http://www.apbc.
org.uk/articles/why-




wont-
dominance-die

Feel free to educate yourself. P.s. who is carrying out research into whether a theory is debated or not? They have a lot of time on their hands.
The reason i throw the point aside is because it's been debunked to the point of ridicule now. It's the 21st century, not 1972 with Barbara Woodhouse.

Moving on.
As much as the facts of this story don't match up properly and throw this mans recollection in the spotlight, this is not a single person culprit incident and shouldn't be about pointing the finger of blame. For once, ensure this man and his dogs are adequately treated and find Dave a home/kennel space where he is better suited. A place free from children and dogs whilst he is properly assessed and the facts of this incident have a chance to come out more.

Those asking for the dog to be put down I ask you; would you put children down who have a school fight i.e. dog attacking another dog? How about putting cats down that fight during the night? How about putting down all the rioters from a few years back, they caused human damage as well? Let's put down people who abuse animals (no arguments from me there!). See how daft it sounds when you look at similar situations involving the human species?
Your comparison between dogs and children borders on the ridiculous. Dangerous dogs should be banned. They bring nothing to modern-day society but cause fear and injury on a daily basis.

I wonder how you would react if a dog mauled one of your children. Would you blame the child for inciting an attack? Given your last post, maybe you would have the child "put down".

Dog-lovers need to get a grip. I don't care that you want a companion, I want a safe world for my children to live in.
What qualifies as a dangerous dog in your opinion? Are we assuming a breed as a whole should be condemned to death for the actions of the minority? A Yorkshire Terrier or a Jack Russell can be a dangerous dog if the mood takes them. Any dog has the capability to bite a person. Should we just decide on mass extermination of a whole species instead? What gives humans the superiority and right to decide the extintion of a breed? I for one think BSL should be scrapped entirely. Its a dangerous road to travel down in any case. However, If an individual dog is deemed too emotionally damaged to be kept safely in any environment, then fair play.
Over the last 3 years, there have been over 6000 injuries per year that required hospital treatment for dog bites. 1 in 6 of these are children under the age of 10.

Over 20 people have died in this country since 1997 due to attacks from dogs.

The NHS spends over £3 million per year treating injuries caused by dogs.

To all who defend dogs and compare them to children, I suggest you pull your heads out your ar ses and begin to understand the misery and suffering that dogs are capable of causing.

One of my relatives was killed by a dog when he was 11 years old. This simply should not happen.
A six week old baby was killed by a man, should we ban all men from having contact with children, then we the men who rape and sexual abuse women, again should we ban all men from having contact with women, or should we kill all men. More women are frighten of getting attacked or their children being attacked by men then by dogs
We have children who kill, should we kill them.
It is a stupid view to want to kill all dogs, because of a few, a lot of people are trying to get the law changed around breeding dogs, as there is over breeding, we also want humans to have a test before having a dog, as a lot of dogs behaviour is because of the owner, (same as parents and children). KILL KILL dogs but keep evil humans alive and leave them walk free is mentality for those, who really don't give a **** about anything are so small minded.

In regards of this poor dog, as someone said we only have his word that it was not one of his dogs that bite, I have dogs all my life and taking in strays from the street and know that if anything was going to show it would have done before 2 weeks.

This man has either a vendetta a against the rescue, or is going to sue for money, this could well be set up to happen, before anyone will say no one will do that to themselves, really should get to know humans.
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snowdogs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RoverTheHill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RoverTheHill[/bold] wrote: This has nothing to do with any dog attempting to be a pack leader (ignoring that "pack leader" theory was out of date 20 years ago and was complete baloney even then). It's a rescue dog, highly likely it has come from an unstable home (not necessarily mistreated but highly likely untrained at least) thrown into a kennel where he will likely not have been adequately cared for if they were looking at having him put down (or if the above comments are anything to go off, he was actually not going to be put down and the charity was lied to by this man). Either way, a rescue kennel environment is new and distressing to most dogs. It's also likely he was then put into foster care with a man who, already having two dogs, should have known what he was getting himself into with a third. Whether the man lied or the rescue were negligent in their checks of assessing of the dog is irrelevant. Most people who take a foster dog in, expect the dog to have a few quirks or issues. Some are merely irrational fears or lack of house training, but sometimes you have to expect the worse. There are far too many unanswered questions to this story. At the front of my mind is why has this man ran to the newspapers? Why is he attempting to discredit the charity whom he got the dog from? Why would the charity refuse to kill a dog? Some may scream simple answers back at you. But do not judge the dog OR THE BREED based on the remarks of one man who obviously, excuse the pun, bit off more than he could chew.[/p][/quote]Research shows that the pack leader theory is still highly debated today. Yet you throw that point aside immediately with no evidence to suggest you are correct. This attitude throws your post right out of the window and it is still possible that this was the reason this dog attacked.[/p][/quote]http://www.apbc. org.uk/articles/why- wont- dominance-die Feel free to educate yourself. P.s. who is carrying out research into whether a theory is debated or not? They have a lot of time on their hands. The reason i throw the point aside is because it's been debunked to the point of ridicule now. It's the 21st century, not 1972 with Barbara Woodhouse. Moving on. As much as the facts of this story don't match up properly and throw this mans recollection in the spotlight, this is not a single person culprit incident and shouldn't be about pointing the finger of blame. For once, ensure this man and his dogs are adequately treated and find Dave a home/kennel space where he is better suited. A place free from children and dogs whilst he is properly assessed and the facts of this incident have a chance to come out more. Those asking for the dog to be put down I ask you; would you put children down who have a school fight i.e. dog attacking another dog? How about putting cats down that fight during the night? How about putting down all the rioters from a few years back, they caused human damage as well? Let's put down people who abuse animals (no arguments from me there!). See how daft it sounds when you look at similar situations involving the human species?[/p][/quote]Your comparison between dogs and children borders on the ridiculous. Dangerous dogs should be banned. They bring nothing to modern-day society but cause fear and injury on a daily basis. I wonder how you would react if a dog mauled one of your children. Would you blame the child for inciting an attack? Given your last post, maybe you would have the child "put down". Dog-lovers need to get a grip. I don't care that you want a companion, I want a safe world for my children to live in.[/p][/quote]What qualifies as a dangerous dog in your opinion? Are we assuming a breed as a whole should be condemned to death for the actions of the minority? A Yorkshire Terrier or a Jack Russell can be a dangerous dog if the mood takes them. Any dog has the capability to bite a person. Should we just decide on mass extermination of a whole species instead? What gives humans the superiority and right to decide the extintion of a breed? I for one think BSL should be scrapped entirely. Its a dangerous road to travel down in any case. However, If an individual dog is deemed too emotionally damaged to be kept safely in any environment, then fair play.[/p][/quote]Over the last 3 years, there have been over 6000 injuries per year that required hospital treatment for dog bites. 1 in 6 of these are children under the age of 10. Over 20 people have died in this country since 1997 due to attacks from dogs. The NHS spends over £3 million per year treating injuries caused by dogs. To all who defend dogs and compare them to children, I suggest you pull your heads out your ar ses and begin to understand the misery and suffering that dogs are capable of causing. One of my relatives was killed by a dog when he was 11 years old. This simply should not happen.[/p][/quote]A six week old baby was killed by a man, should we ban all men from having contact with children, then we the men who rape and sexual abuse women, again should we ban all men from having contact with women, or should we kill all men. More women are frighten of getting attacked or their children being attacked by men then by dogs We have children who kill, should we kill them. It is a stupid view to want to kill all dogs, because of a few, a lot of people are trying to get the law changed around breeding dogs, as there is over breeding, we also want humans to have a test before having a dog, as a lot of dogs behaviour is because of the owner, (same as parents and children). KILL KILL dogs but keep evil humans alive and leave them walk free is mentality for those, who really don't give a **** about anything are so small minded. In regards of this poor dog, as someone said we only have his word that it was not one of his dogs that bite, I have dogs all my life and taking in strays from the street and know that if anything was going to show it would have done before 2 weeks. This man has either a vendetta a against the rescue, or is going to sue for money, this could well be set up to happen, before anyone will say no one will do that to themselves, really should get to know humans. happyinblue
  • Score: 6

1:20pm Wed 30 Jul 14

darwenTower says...

By GracesDad's logic, we shouldn't have dogs because they might develop into murderers.
Given that humans are more likely to develop into murderers should our whole race be sterilised?
By GracesDad's logic, we shouldn't have dogs because they might develop into murderers. Given that humans are more likely to develop into murderers should our whole race be sterilised? darwenTower
  • Score: 3

1:48pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Mr ptowsend says...

snowdogs wrote:
I am a foster for the charity in question.
The lady who runs it receives no outside funding besides a few small donations. She works tirelessly for no pay, sometimes into the early hours of the morning.
Dave is an older gentle soul, not a savage dog as the papers have worded it.
From what I can gather from inside info, the fight that occurred was a three way fight, the owner tried to seperate the dogs and was caught in the crossfire! Which dog bit him? Was it Dave?

These situations can occur when dealing with rescue dogs, no matter where you foster from, even the rspca can't guarantee a lifelong history for the animal! Only careful management of the pets in the home can prevent these situations, and that responsibility lies with the foster! If there were signs of animosity amongst the dogs, he should have contacted the rescue, who could've made alternative arrangements for Dave. But I think its very unfair to label Dave a devil dog for a fight that could've occurred in any home. It was unfortunate the owner was bitten, but blowing up this situation and going to the papers really isnt the solution. A defenseless, frightened, innocent dog might be put to death this week because PEOPLE dont communicate.
I'm just wondering where you got the inside info from?, surely the info can only come from parties that was there, correct?. You can work all the hours but if your not doing the job correctly your causing danger. I'm sure the man who got bit wouldn't have had an innocent pts after he did a good deep of taking it in so it wasn't pts. This rescue needs to be careful as this person could pursue legal action due to the mistakes. They need to learn as other humans could be at risk. Him many dogs has she got in homes that have been un tested?. This could be a warning. How you can say he's diffence less and a gentle would after he's attacked a human. Yes it could of happened in any home that's very true. That's the worrying part. I don't mean this in a nasty way but I'm glad it did it to this gentlemen instead of biting a child. To many people think it's easy to run a rescue. And with your defending of this dog after what it's done I hope you don't play a big role in this rescue.
[quote][p][bold]snowdogs[/bold] wrote: I am a foster for the charity in question. The lady who runs it receives no outside funding besides a few small donations. She works tirelessly for no pay, sometimes into the early hours of the morning. Dave is an older gentle soul, not a savage dog as the papers have worded it. From what I can gather from inside info, the fight that occurred was a three way fight, the owner tried to seperate the dogs and was caught in the crossfire! Which dog bit him? Was it Dave? These situations can occur when dealing with rescue dogs, no matter where you foster from, even the rspca can't guarantee a lifelong history for the animal! Only careful management of the pets in the home can prevent these situations, and that responsibility lies with the foster! If there were signs of animosity amongst the dogs, he should have contacted the rescue, who could've made alternative arrangements for Dave. But I think its very unfair to label Dave a devil dog for a fight that could've occurred in any home. It was unfortunate the owner was bitten, but blowing up this situation and going to the papers really isnt the solution. A defenseless, frightened, innocent dog might be put to death this week because PEOPLE dont communicate.[/p][/quote]I'm just wondering where you got the inside info from?, surely the info can only come from parties that was there, correct?. You can work all the hours but if your not doing the job correctly your causing danger. I'm sure the man who got bit wouldn't have had an innocent pts after he did a good deep of taking it in so it wasn't pts. This rescue needs to be careful as this person could pursue legal action due to the mistakes. They need to learn as other humans could be at risk. Him many dogs has she got in homes that have been un tested?. This could be a warning. How you can say he's diffence less and a gentle would after he's attacked a human. Yes it could of happened in any home that's very true. That's the worrying part. I don't mean this in a nasty way but I'm glad it did it to this gentlemen instead of biting a child. To many people think it's easy to run a rescue. And with your defending of this dog after what it's done I hope you don't play a big role in this rescue. Mr ptowsend
  • Score: -3

1:55pm Wed 30 Jul 14

GracesDad says...

darwenTower wrote:
By GracesDad's logic, we shouldn't have dogs because they might develop into murderers.
Given that humans are more likely to develop into murderers should our whole race be sterilised?
Let me make my point once again for those are too dumb to understand plainly written English:

All dogs should be made to wear a muzzle when out in public. And dangerous dogs IE, pitbull types, should all be banned.

At no point have I stated that all dogs should be killed or banned and anybody that suggests I have made such a claim is clearly a simpleton that hasn't read what I've written

And you darwenTower, are a prime example of a simpleton.
[quote][p][bold]darwenTower[/bold] wrote: By GracesDad's logic, we shouldn't have dogs because they might develop into murderers. Given that humans are more likely to develop into murderers should our whole race be sterilised?[/p][/quote]Let me make my point once again for those are too dumb to understand plainly written English: All dogs should be made to wear a muzzle when out in public. And dangerous dogs IE, pitbull types, should all be banned. At no point have I stated that all dogs should be killed or banned and anybody that suggests I have made such a claim is clearly a simpleton that hasn't read what I've written And you darwenTower, are a prime example of a simpleton. GracesDad
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Clydey says...

People, the facts are. The dog did not attack the fosterer. The fosterers 2 dogs atracked the foster dog. In the process of breaking up the fight the guy got bitten by one of the 3 dogs, he doesn't know WHICH one bit him. The foster dog, Dave, was fully assessed prior to being fostered out and a home check was performed by the rescue. BUT the fosterer lied to the rescue about many things. Had he been truthful the dog would never have been placed with him. The rescue is now facing big vet bills for all the injuries poor Dave sustained when he was attacked. The is lucky the rescue isn't suing him, yet!
The story he has sold to the paper is all lies, he fave a very different story before he contacted the paper!
People, the facts are. The dog did not attack the fosterer. The fosterers 2 dogs atracked the foster dog. In the process of breaking up the fight the guy got bitten by one of the 3 dogs, he doesn't know WHICH one bit him. The foster dog, Dave, was fully assessed prior to being fostered out and a home check was performed by the rescue. BUT the fosterer lied to the rescue about many things. Had he been truthful the dog would never have been placed with him. The rescue is now facing big vet bills for all the injuries poor Dave sustained when he was attacked. The is lucky the rescue isn't suing him, yet! The story he has sold to the paper is all lies, he fave a very different story before he contacted the paper! Clydey
  • Score: 5

4:53pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Mr ptowsend says...

Clydey wrote:
People, the facts are. The dog did not attack the fosterer. The fosterers 2 dogs atracked the foster dog. In the process of breaking up the fight the guy got bitten by one of the 3 dogs, he doesn't know WHICH one bit him. The foster dog, Dave, was fully assessed prior to being fostered out and a home check was performed by the rescue. BUT the fosterer lied to the rescue about many things. Had he been truthful the dog would never have been placed with him. The rescue is now facing big vet bills for all the injuries poor Dave sustained when he was attacked. The is lucky the rescue isn't suing him, yet!
The story he has sold to the paper is all lies, he fave a very different story before he contacted the paper!
WELL im not sure where you have got your information from but un less you was there or you have got your information from someone who was there, you input is worthless. your not suing him yet?, im think you would struggle. i think if any is able to be sued it would be the rescue. how do you know he got paid by the papers, do you really think a local paper like this one would pay him, i doubt it very much. people add things to story's. you or me don't know the facts unless im talking to the victim of someone who was there that's fact. If there dog was at fault why does it say online you paid the foster persons vet bills, surely that is admitting that dog was at fault. it also stated he was sedated, why was there need for that?. my opinion is your sticking up for the rescue. you obviously wasn't there so my opinion is you cant state facts. so the foster lied to say he had no dogs did he?.
[quote][p][bold]Clydey[/bold] wrote: People, the facts are. The dog did not attack the fosterer. The fosterers 2 dogs atracked the foster dog. In the process of breaking up the fight the guy got bitten by one of the 3 dogs, he doesn't know WHICH one bit him. The foster dog, Dave, was fully assessed prior to being fostered out and a home check was performed by the rescue. BUT the fosterer lied to the rescue about many things. Had he been truthful the dog would never have been placed with him. The rescue is now facing big vet bills for all the injuries poor Dave sustained when he was attacked. The is lucky the rescue isn't suing him, yet! The story he has sold to the paper is all lies, he fave a very different story before he contacted the paper![/p][/quote]WELL im not sure where you have got your information from but un less you was there or you have got your information from someone who was there, you input is worthless. your not suing him yet?, im think you would struggle. i think if any is able to be sued it would be the rescue. how do you know he got paid by the papers, do you really think a local paper like this one would pay him, i doubt it very much. people add things to story's. you or me don't know the facts unless im talking to the victim of someone who was there that's fact. If there dog was at fault why does it say online you paid the foster persons vet bills, surely that is admitting that dog was at fault. it also stated he was sedated, why was there need for that?. my opinion is your sticking up for the rescue. you obviously wasn't there so my opinion is you cant state facts. so the foster lied to say he had no dogs did he?. Mr ptowsend
  • Score: -2

6:52pm Wed 30 Jul 14

darwenTower says...

GracesDad wrote:
darwenTower wrote:
By GracesDad's logic, we shouldn't have dogs because they might develop into murderers.
Given that humans are more likely to develop into murderers should our whole race be sterilised?
Let me make my point once again for those are too dumb to understand plainly written English:

All dogs should be made to wear a muzzle when out in public. And dangerous dogs IE, pitbull types, should all be banned.

At no point have I stated that all dogs should be killed or banned and anybody that suggests I have made such a claim is clearly a simpleton that hasn't read what I've written

And you darwenTower, are a prime example of a simpleton.
You are a prime example of someone who gave up their own identity when they spawned, this is demonstrated by your identity 'GracesDad'.
Top marks for being fertile.

Now you think that the rest of society should tiptoe around your precious offspring.

My point is that humans are as likely (or more?) to turn out violent as a dog is so what pray tell are we going to do about that?

You have a child and not a dog, I have a dog and not a child (I have two grown up children though, who I didn't expect the rest of society to consider themselves responsible for I should add)
I''m pretty sure that my dog isn't ever likely to attack anyone just like you are sure your kid isn't going to grow up into a serial killer.

But there are no guarantees eh? So let's muzzle all the dogs and force all the humans to wear straight jackets.

Or shall we just leave each other in peace? Live and let live and all that.
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]darwenTower[/bold] wrote: By GracesDad's logic, we shouldn't have dogs because they might develop into murderers. Given that humans are more likely to develop into murderers should our whole race be sterilised?[/p][/quote]Let me make my point once again for those are too dumb to understand plainly written English: All dogs should be made to wear a muzzle when out in public. And dangerous dogs IE, pitbull types, should all be banned. At no point have I stated that all dogs should be killed or banned and anybody that suggests I have made such a claim is clearly a simpleton that hasn't read what I've written And you darwenTower, are a prime example of a simpleton.[/p][/quote]You are a prime example of someone who gave up their own identity when they spawned, this is demonstrated by your identity 'GracesDad'. Top marks for being fertile. Now you think that the rest of society should tiptoe around your precious offspring. My point is that humans are as likely (or more?) to turn out violent as a dog is so what pray tell are we going to do about that? You have a child and not a dog, I have a dog and not a child (I have two grown up children though, who I didn't expect the rest of society to consider themselves responsible for I should add) I''m pretty sure that my dog isn't ever likely to attack anyone just like you are sure your kid isn't going to grow up into a serial killer. But there are no guarantees eh? So let's muzzle all the dogs and force all the humans to wear straight jackets. Or shall we just leave each other in peace? Live and let live and all that. darwenTower
  • Score: 5

8:34pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Clydey says...

Mr Ptownsend: the information comes from the fosterer himself. The first posts he made on Facebook, saying his dog had started the fight, admitting that the b*tch was in season, admitting that it was his fault, admitting that he wasn't sure which dog it was that bit him when he tried to stop the fight. Saying the police were called because he panicked. Only when the rescue was p*ssed off did he start ranting and changing his story, the more people that challenged his stupidity the more elaborate his story became, it was farcical! It was also HIM thats been boasting about getting paid by the newspaper! HIS actions have caused all this! Can the rescue learn from tjus? Absolutely, police background checks on potential fosterers!
Mr Ptownsend: the information comes from the fosterer himself. The first posts he made on Facebook, saying his dog had started the fight, admitting that the b*tch was in season, admitting that it was his fault, admitting that he wasn't sure which dog it was that bit him when he tried to stop the fight. Saying the police were called because he panicked. Only when the rescue was p*ssed off did he start ranting and changing his story, the more people that challenged his stupidity the more elaborate his story became, it was farcical! It was also HIM thats been boasting about getting paid by the newspaper! HIS actions have caused all this! Can the rescue learn from tjus? Absolutely, police background checks on potential fosterers! Clydey
  • Score: 2

1:26am Thu 31 Jul 14

Mr ptowsend says...

Clydey wrote:
Mr Ptownsend: the information comes from the fosterer himself. The first posts he made on Facebook, saying his dog had started the fight, admitting that the b*tch was in season, admitting that it was his fault, admitting that he wasn't sure which dog it was that bit him when he tried to stop the fight. Saying the police were called because he panicked. Only when the rescue was p*ssed off did he start ranting and changing his story, the more people that challenged his stupidity the more elaborate his story became, it was farcical! It was also HIM thats been boasting about getting paid by the newspaper! HIS actions have caused all this! Can the rescue learn from tjus? Absolutely, police background checks on potential fosterers!
Hi can you supply evidence of all the things he's admitted. I joined the site he has made and I can see a consistent story and around 150 people who are on the site against you. So I think you should man up and show evidence because I'm also on the victims friends list and I can see none of the above. So why not join the group and post pictures/screen shots of this so called evidence you have got?. Maybe because you havnt got any. Back street dog abuser who puts people and dogs at risk. Your not fit to look after yoursfs by the sound of it never mind animals. As a post said your nothing but a purse filler. End of!!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Clydey[/bold] wrote: Mr Ptownsend: the information comes from the fosterer himself. The first posts he made on Facebook, saying his dog had started the fight, admitting that the b*tch was in season, admitting that it was his fault, admitting that he wasn't sure which dog it was that bit him when he tried to stop the fight. Saying the police were called because he panicked. Only when the rescue was p*ssed off did he start ranting and changing his story, the more people that challenged his stupidity the more elaborate his story became, it was farcical! It was also HIM thats been boasting about getting paid by the newspaper! HIS actions have caused all this! Can the rescue learn from tjus? Absolutely, police background checks on potential fosterers![/p][/quote]Hi can you supply evidence of all the things he's admitted. I joined the site he has made and I can see a consistent story and around 150 people who are on the site against you. So I think you should man up and show evidence because I'm also on the victims friends list and I can see none of the above. So why not join the group and post pictures/screen shots of this so called evidence you have got?. Maybe because you havnt got any. Back street dog abuser who puts people and dogs at risk. Your not fit to look after yoursfs by the sound of it never mind animals. As a post said your nothing but a purse filler. End of!!!!!!!!! Mr ptowsend
  • Score: 1

8:25am Thu 31 Jul 14

Clydey says...

Mr ptowsend: LMAO. Thank you for your outburst, needed something to make me smile this morning and your posy actually did make me lol.
Of course he is consistent now he's got his groupies. The story is well rehearsed by now. I am nothing to do with the rescue but I do know that screen shots were taken by several people and they have been passed to the rescue. Gosh I bet you were excited to get approved to be on his friends list on his fb group, I mean, he's a celebrity now, been in the paper and everything, well the scratch on his leg has anyway. LMAO
Mr ptowsend: LMAO. Thank you for your outburst, needed something to make me smile this morning and your posy actually did make me lol. Of course he is consistent now he's got his groupies. The story is well rehearsed by now. I am nothing to do with the rescue but I do know that screen shots were taken by several people and they have been passed to the rescue. Gosh I bet you were excited to get approved to be on his friends list on his fb group, I mean, he's a celebrity now, been in the paper and everything, well the scratch on his leg has anyway. LMAO Clydey
  • Score: 0

9:36am Thu 31 Jul 14

Mr ptowsend says...

Clydey wrote:
Mr ptowsend: LMAO. Thank you for your outburst, needed something to make me smile this morning and your posy actually did make me lol.
Of course he is consistent now he's got his groupies. The story is well rehearsed by now. I am nothing to do with the rescue but I do know that screen shots were taken by several people and they have been passed to the rescue. Gosh I bet you were excited to get approved to be on his friends list on his fb group, I mean, he's a celebrity now, been in the paper and everything, well the scratch on his leg has anyway. LMAO
What about sending the proof that he's admitted all these things?. Instead of laughing and talking rubbish prove what your saying. Ppl will then respect you. Ppl that say they can back what they are saying up with evidence usually do. The ones that don't are lying. Which is u!!
[quote][p][bold]Clydey[/bold] wrote: Mr ptowsend: LMAO. Thank you for your outburst, needed something to make me smile this morning and your posy actually did make me lol. Of course he is consistent now he's got his groupies. The story is well rehearsed by now. I am nothing to do with the rescue but I do know that screen shots were taken by several people and they have been passed to the rescue. Gosh I bet you were excited to get approved to be on his friends list on his fb group, I mean, he's a celebrity now, been in the paper and everything, well the scratch on his leg has anyway. LMAO[/p][/quote]What about sending the proof that he's admitted all these things?. Instead of laughing and talking rubbish prove what your saying. Ppl will then respect you. Ppl that say they can back what they are saying up with evidence usually do. The ones that don't are lying. Which is u!! Mr ptowsend
  • Score: 0

9:51am Thu 31 Jul 14

GracesDad says...

darwenTower wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
darwenTower wrote:
By GracesDad's logic, we shouldn't have dogs because they might develop into murderers.
Given that humans are more likely to develop into murderers should our whole race be sterilised?
Let me make my point once again for those are too dumb to understand plainly written English:

All dogs should be made to wear a muzzle when out in public. And dangerous dogs IE, pitbull types, should all be banned.

At no point have I stated that all dogs should be killed or banned and anybody that suggests I have made such a claim is clearly a simpleton that hasn't read what I've written

And you darwenTower, are a prime example of a simpleton.
You are a prime example of someone who gave up their own identity when they spawned, this is demonstrated by your identity 'GracesDad'.
Top marks for being fertile.

Now you think that the rest of society should tiptoe around your precious offspring.

My point is that humans are as likely (or more?) to turn out violent as a dog is so what pray tell are we going to do about that?

You have a child and not a dog, I have a dog and not a child (I have two grown up children though, who I didn't expect the rest of society to consider themselves responsible for I should add)
I''m pretty sure that my dog isn't ever likely to attack anyone just like you are sure your kid isn't going to grow up into a serial killer.

But there are no guarantees eh? So let's muzzle all the dogs and force all the humans to wear straight jackets.

Or shall we just leave each other in peace? Live and let live and all that.
You are attempting to defend the indefensible. You have basically just said that protecting children from attacks by dogs is not your responsibilty even though you are a dog owner. How selfish can you be?

Is it so bizarre that dogs should be made to wear a muzzle when out in public? Do you consider that to be against doggie rights?

Don't you think it is the responsibilty of society to provide a less dangerous world for our children to grow up in? As I mentioned in an earlier post, out of the 6000 plus dog bites that require hospital visits each year, 1 in 6 are on children under the age of 10.

PS, my username is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

PPS, you are even more of a simpleton than I first thought.
[quote][p][bold]darwenTower[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]darwenTower[/bold] wrote: By GracesDad's logic, we shouldn't have dogs because they might develop into murderers. Given that humans are more likely to develop into murderers should our whole race be sterilised?[/p][/quote]Let me make my point once again for those are too dumb to understand plainly written English: All dogs should be made to wear a muzzle when out in public. And dangerous dogs IE, pitbull types, should all be banned. At no point have I stated that all dogs should be killed or banned and anybody that suggests I have made such a claim is clearly a simpleton that hasn't read what I've written And you darwenTower, are a prime example of a simpleton.[/p][/quote]You are a prime example of someone who gave up their own identity when they spawned, this is demonstrated by your identity 'GracesDad'. Top marks for being fertile. Now you think that the rest of society should tiptoe around your precious offspring. My point is that humans are as likely (or more?) to turn out violent as a dog is so what pray tell are we going to do about that? You have a child and not a dog, I have a dog and not a child (I have two grown up children though, who I didn't expect the rest of society to consider themselves responsible for I should add) I''m pretty sure that my dog isn't ever likely to attack anyone just like you are sure your kid isn't going to grow up into a serial killer. But there are no guarantees eh? So let's muzzle all the dogs and force all the humans to wear straight jackets. Or shall we just leave each other in peace? Live and let live and all that.[/p][/quote]You are attempting to defend the indefensible. You have basically just said that protecting children from attacks by dogs is not your responsibilty even though you are a dog owner. How selfish can you be? Is it so bizarre that dogs should be made to wear a muzzle when out in public? Do you consider that to be against doggie rights? Don't you think it is the responsibilty of society to provide a less dangerous world for our children to grow up in? As I mentioned in an earlier post, out of the 6000 plus dog bites that require hospital visits each year, 1 in 6 are on children under the age of 10. PS, my username is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. PPS, you are even more of a simpleton than I first thought. GracesDad
  • Score: 0

10:29am Thu 31 Jul 14

darwenTower says...

"PPS, you are even more of a simpleton than I first thought."

Despite you being convinced that dogs generally present a realistic danger to children you call me a simpleton.

Conveniently this is a news site, have a read over it and reassess the situation.
If you still aren't convinced have a look at the national news.

Dogs are the least of your worries.

PLUS: What do all these anti-dog stories have in common? Dog with issues being handled by someone feckless. If you got your way and I muzzled my dog do you think those whose dogs might be likely to present a danger would muzzle theirs?
No. Net result, no change.

For what it is worth I would reintroduce dog licensing, and there would be training involved in the getting of a license & insurance would be compulsory. I would also regulate breeeding.
What we need are fewer dogs, owned by responsible people who train and socialise them and clean up after them.
But that would require a reasoned debate wouldn't it rather that the usual knee jerk reaction of 'MUZZLE THEM ALL'.

And I note that you choose to ignore all my points which don't relate to dogs.
"PPS, you are even more of a simpleton than I first thought." Despite you being convinced that dogs generally present a realistic danger to children you call me a simpleton. Conveniently this is a news site, have a read over it and reassess the situation. If you still aren't convinced have a look at the national news. Dogs are the least of your worries. PLUS: What do all these anti-dog stories have in common? Dog with issues being handled by someone feckless. If you got your way and I muzzled my dog do you think those whose dogs might be likely to present a danger would muzzle theirs? No. Net result, no change. For what it is worth I would reintroduce dog licensing, and there would be training involved in the getting of a license & insurance would be compulsory. I would also regulate breeeding. What we need are fewer dogs, owned by responsible people who train and socialise them and clean up after them. But that would require a reasoned debate wouldn't it rather that the usual knee jerk reaction of 'MUZZLE THEM ALL'. And I note that you choose to ignore all my points which don't relate to dogs. darwenTower
  • Score: 0

10:54am Thu 31 Jul 14

GracesDad says...

darwenTower wrote:
"PPS, you are even more of a simpleton than I first thought."

Despite you being convinced that dogs generally present a realistic danger to children you call me a simpleton.

Conveniently this is a news site, have a read over it and reassess the situation.
If you still aren't convinced have a look at the national news.

Dogs are the least of your worries.

PLUS: What do all these anti-dog stories have in common? Dog with issues being handled by someone feckless. If you got your way and I muzzled my dog do you think those whose dogs might be likely to present a danger would muzzle theirs?
No. Net result, no change.

For what it is worth I would reintroduce dog licensing, and there would be training involved in the getting of a license & insurance would be compulsory. I would also regulate breeeding.
What we need are fewer dogs, owned by responsible people who train and socialise them and clean up after them.
But that would require a reasoned debate wouldn't it rather that the usual knee jerk reaction of 'MUZZLE THEM ALL'.

And I note that you choose to ignore all my points which don't relate to dogs.
I ignore your other points because they are not pertinent to this report!! This is about dogs not humans.

This is a report about a dog biting somebody. And there are many other reports on this website reporting similar stories. You seem to think it is fair to compare dogs to humans. That is insane in my opinion and is half the problem with over-zealous dog lovers like yourself.

Back in the day there were many incidents where car accidents led to people being thrown through car windscreens. What did the government do? They introduced a law that made the wearing of seatbelts compulsory for ALL drivers. They didn't decide that only dangerous drivers should wear them!

Now we live in an age where dog attacks are on the increase and action should be taken. My idea would be introduce a law that ALL dogs should wear a muzzle in public and failure to do so should results in on the spot fines.

Give me one single valid reason to object to putting a muzzle on your dog for the times you take it out in public.
[quote][p][bold]darwenTower[/bold] wrote: "PPS, you are even more of a simpleton than I first thought." Despite you being convinced that dogs generally present a realistic danger to children you call me a simpleton. Conveniently this is a news site, have a read over it and reassess the situation. If you still aren't convinced have a look at the national news. Dogs are the least of your worries. PLUS: What do all these anti-dog stories have in common? Dog with issues being handled by someone feckless. If you got your way and I muzzled my dog do you think those whose dogs might be likely to present a danger would muzzle theirs? No. Net result, no change. For what it is worth I would reintroduce dog licensing, and there would be training involved in the getting of a license & insurance would be compulsory. I would also regulate breeeding. What we need are fewer dogs, owned by responsible people who train and socialise them and clean up after them. But that would require a reasoned debate wouldn't it rather that the usual knee jerk reaction of 'MUZZLE THEM ALL'. And I note that you choose to ignore all my points which don't relate to dogs.[/p][/quote]I ignore your other points because they are not pertinent to this report!! This is about dogs not humans. This is a report about a dog biting somebody. And there are many other reports on this website reporting similar stories. You seem to think it is fair to compare dogs to humans. That is insane in my opinion and is half the problem with over-zealous dog lovers like yourself. Back in the day there were many incidents where car accidents led to people being thrown through car windscreens. What did the government do? They introduced a law that made the wearing of seatbelts compulsory for ALL drivers. They didn't decide that only dangerous drivers should wear them! Now we live in an age where dog attacks are on the increase and action should be taken. My idea would be introduce a law that ALL dogs should wear a muzzle in public and failure to do so should results in on the spot fines. Give me one single valid reason to object to putting a muzzle on your dog for the times you take it out in public. GracesDad
  • Score: 0

11:04am Thu 31 Jul 14

darwenTower says...

"Give me one single valid reason to object to putting a muzzle on your dog for the times you take it out in public."

Sheesh! Are you broken?
It's because there is absolutely NO point!

I give up. You carry on worrying. Try not to project it onto the child though, it's unhealthy. Probably infinitely unhealthier that the dog bite that's never likely to happen. Little Grace might not get bitten by a dog but she's likely to end up in therapy brought up by someone who finds it impossible to thing independently and reasonably.

Good luck and watch out for germs, falling trees, drink drivers, monoxide, fish bones, thin ice, terrorists, the paedo's that live on every corner, scaffolding with no padding on it etc. etc.
"Give me one single valid reason to object to putting a muzzle on your dog for the times you take it out in public." Sheesh! Are you broken? It's because there is absolutely NO point! I give up. You carry on worrying. Try not to project it onto the child though, it's unhealthy. Probably infinitely unhealthier that the dog bite that's never likely to happen. Little Grace might not get bitten by a dog but she's likely to end up in therapy brought up by someone who finds it impossible to thing independently and reasonably. Good luck and watch out for germs, falling trees, drink drivers, monoxide, fish bones, thin ice, terrorists, the paedo's that live on every corner, scaffolding with no padding on it etc. etc. darwenTower
  • Score: 0

11:05am Thu 31 Jul 14

darwenTower says...

*think* not 'thing'
*think* not 'thing' darwenTower
  • Score: 0

11:08am Thu 31 Jul 14

GracesDad says...

darwenTower wrote:
"Give me one single valid reason to object to putting a muzzle on your dog for the times you take it out in public."

Sheesh! Are you broken?
It's because there is absolutely NO point!

I give up. You carry on worrying. Try not to project it onto the child though, it's unhealthy. Probably infinitely unhealthier that the dog bite that's never likely to happen. Little Grace might not get bitten by a dog but she's likely to end up in therapy brought up by someone who finds it impossible to thing independently and reasonably.

Good luck and watch out for germs, falling trees, drink drivers, monoxide, fish bones, thin ice, terrorists, the paedo's that live on every corner, scaffolding with no padding on it etc. etc.
Over 6000 dog bites a year and you think there is no need to muzzle a dog. And you still can't give me a single reason why they shouldn't wear one in public.

FYI, Grace died 5 years ago. I do have 2 other children who are grown up now so my concern isn't for my children, it's for the children of the world!

Forgive me for putting the safety of children before the comfort of a dog!!!
[quote][p][bold]darwenTower[/bold] wrote: "Give me one single valid reason to object to putting a muzzle on your dog for the times you take it out in public." Sheesh! Are you broken? It's because there is absolutely NO point! I give up. You carry on worrying. Try not to project it onto the child though, it's unhealthy. Probably infinitely unhealthier that the dog bite that's never likely to happen. Little Grace might not get bitten by a dog but she's likely to end up in therapy brought up by someone who finds it impossible to thing independently and reasonably. Good luck and watch out for germs, falling trees, drink drivers, monoxide, fish bones, thin ice, terrorists, the paedo's that live on every corner, scaffolding with no padding on it etc. etc.[/p][/quote]Over 6000 dog bites a year and you think there is no need to muzzle a dog. And you still can't give me a single reason why they shouldn't wear one in public. FYI, Grace died 5 years ago. I do have 2 other children who are grown up now so my concern isn't for my children, it's for the children of the world! Forgive me for putting the safety of children before the comfort of a dog!!! GracesDad
  • Score: 0

11:25am Thu 31 Jul 14

Clydey says...

Lol still ranting Mr towsend. I never said I have the screen shots, I said the rescue has been given screen shots by several people. I am nothing to do with the rescue. The only thing I care about is the fact that the dog is now safe and away from the pr*ck that was meant to be caring for him. Plus he is now known to just about every rescue in the country so he won't be able to con another rescue into giving him a free dog. He'll just have to keep on breeding the poor little dogs he already has. Happy days.
Lol still ranting Mr towsend. I never said I have the screen shots, I said the rescue has been given screen shots by several people. I am nothing to do with the rescue. The only thing I care about is the fact that the dog is now safe and away from the pr*ck that was meant to be caring for him. Plus he is now known to just about every rescue in the country so he won't be able to con another rescue into giving him a free dog. He'll just have to keep on breeding the poor little dogs he already has. Happy days. Clydey
  • Score: 0

11:28am Thu 31 Jul 14

darwenTower says...

Correct, I don't think that well behaved dogs should be muzzled in public. It's pointless.

You won't save the children of the world by making decent folks muzzle their well behaved dogs.

Focus on where the dog problem lies and maybe you'll get somewhere, you'll even have the support of most right minded dog owners.
Tar us all with the same brush though and you'll be banging against a wall.
Correct, I don't think that well behaved dogs should be muzzled in public. It's pointless. You won't save the children of the world by making decent folks muzzle their well behaved dogs. Focus on where the dog problem lies and maybe you'll get somewhere, you'll even have the support of most right minded dog owners. Tar us all with the same brush though and you'll be banging against a wall. darwenTower
  • Score: 1

11:01pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Mr ptowsend says...

Clydey wrote:
Lol still ranting Mr towsend. I never said I have the screen shots, I said the rescue has been given screen shots by several people. I am nothing to do with the rescue. The only thing I care about is the fact that the dog is now safe and away from the pr*ck that was meant to be caring for him. Plus he is now known to just about every rescue in the country so he won't be able to con another rescue into giving him a free dog. He'll just have to keep on breeding the poor little dogs he already has. Happy days.
hahaha hes known to every rescue and wont get another dog. do you think he would want one after you thick people that you call yourself a dog rescue has failed him and the rescue dog in so many ways. all i can see all over the internet is rescues saying they will not release any more dogs to do and someone has put posters up all around Leeds warning people of you. there is so many stories on the internet about you, you have caused so many problems and how long have you been open. just to let everyone know this lady was helping run a charity call yappy ever after but due to disagreements about dogs ect j**** had to set up her own sham rescue. so i wouldn't worry about him not being able to get another dog. im more pleased at the fact of you getting any more dogs is very very slim. well how can you come on here trying to state facts when you havnt seen anything that says this person has admitted anything?, are you really that silly. if you havnt seen anything that states he has said these things then all this typing you are doing is totally worth less. so if i was you i would get to sleep and have dreams about dogs because you wont be getting any from any pounds. i have also contacted my local mp to get him to contact your mp in kirkstall and ask for local authorities to investigate this sham rescue. you should all be totally ashamed of the suffering you have caused to this family and every dog you have properly been in contact with. now nyt nyt clydey and yappy ever after Yorkshire. yeay good nyt for the final time.
[quote][p][bold]Clydey[/bold] wrote: Lol still ranting Mr towsend. I never said I have the screen shots, I said the rescue has been given screen shots by several people. I am nothing to do with the rescue. The only thing I care about is the fact that the dog is now safe and away from the pr*ck that was meant to be caring for him. Plus he is now known to just about every rescue in the country so he won't be able to con another rescue into giving him a free dog. He'll just have to keep on breeding the poor little dogs he already has. Happy days.[/p][/quote]hahaha hes known to every rescue and wont get another dog. do you think he would want one after you thick people that you call yourself a dog rescue has failed him and the rescue dog in so many ways. all i can see all over the internet is rescues saying they will not release any more dogs to do and someone has put posters up all around Leeds warning people of you. there is so many stories on the internet about you, you have caused so many problems and how long have you been open. just to let everyone know this lady was helping run a charity call yappy ever after but due to disagreements about dogs ect j**** had to set up her own sham rescue. so i wouldn't worry about him not being able to get another dog. im more pleased at the fact of you getting any more dogs is very very slim. well how can you come on here trying to state facts when you havnt seen anything that says this person has admitted anything?, are you really that silly. if you havnt seen anything that states he has said these things then all this typing you are doing is totally worth less. so if i was you i would get to sleep and have dreams about dogs because you wont be getting any from any pounds. i have also contacted my local mp to get him to contact your mp in kirkstall and ask for local authorities to investigate this sham rescue. you should all be totally ashamed of the suffering you have caused to this family and every dog you have properly been in contact with. now nyt nyt clydey and yappy ever after Yorkshire. yeay good nyt for the final time. Mr ptowsend
  • Score: 0

7:24am Fri 1 Aug 14

Clydey says...

Mr ptowsend: you really must watch your blood pressure lol although I rather suspect that you're a child so maybe you don't need to.
I'm really not sure who you think I am but I can assure you that you're quite mistaken about me being anything to do with the rescue.
You also need to read posts correctly dear boy. I saw the posts made by the fosterer and saw him change his story as the day went on, building his lies as he went. I never took screen shots, a lot of people did and these have been passed to the rescue.
It's nice that you want to defend someone that you feel has been wronged but you really should pick your battles more carefully. This chap is a nasty piece of work and as I said before, is on the banned list for almost all rescues and many many breeders. He was banned from a lot before this awful attack on Dave the foster dog.
MP's? Lol even if I was who you think I am it's comical thst you see contacting your mp as a threat, also suggests that you are indeed a juvenile. The fact that you think any MP would bother to waste their time looking at a wee rescue is....well....sweet.

Was nice to read earlier that the vet is happy with the way this poor abused dog is healing, including the injuries/wounds that are MUCH older than the published fight but had not received treatment!
Dear little old Dave the dog will be just fine :)
Mr ptowsend: you really must watch your blood pressure lol although I rather suspect that you're a child so maybe you don't need to. I'm really not sure who you think I am but I can assure you that you're quite mistaken about me being anything to do with the rescue. You also need to read posts correctly dear boy. I saw the posts made by the fosterer and saw him change his story as the day went on, building his lies as he went. I never took screen shots, a lot of people did and these have been passed to the rescue. It's nice that you want to defend someone that you feel has been wronged but you really should pick your battles more carefully. This chap is a nasty piece of work and as I said before, is on the banned list for almost all rescues and many many breeders. He was banned from a lot before this awful attack on Dave the foster dog. MP's? Lol even if I was who you think I am it's comical thst you see contacting your mp as a threat, also suggests that you are indeed a juvenile. The fact that you think any MP would bother to waste their time looking at a wee rescue is....well....sweet. Was nice to read earlier that the vet is happy with the way this poor abused dog is healing, including the injuries/wounds that are MUCH older than the published fight but had not received treatment! Dear little old Dave the dog will be just fine :) Clydey
  • Score: 0

11:58am Fri 1 Aug 14

say no to unethical uk rescues says...

its the person on the end of there dogs lead to keep it safe not a muzzle but good ownership

who ever home checked and the rescue owner delivering the dog speaks volumes

ive rehomed nr 900 dogs

never same sex

no third dog

spaying and neutered a must when using foster homes

but then yappy it was the end of the night no cash so you left this poor dog with inexperienced family you made feel sorry for the dog

https://www.facebook
.com/groups/saynotou
nethicalukrescues/

this is happening far to much rescues cutting corners

there's plenty ethical rescues out there all over the uk who have nice dogs needing homes ethical rescues
its the person on the end of there dogs lead to keep it safe not a muzzle but good ownership who ever home checked and the rescue owner delivering the dog speaks volumes ive rehomed nr 900 dogs never same sex no third dog spaying and neutered a must when using foster homes but then yappy it was the end of the night no cash so you left this poor dog with inexperienced family you made feel sorry for the dog https://www.facebook .com/groups/saynotou nethicalukrescues/ this is happening far to much rescues cutting corners there's plenty ethical rescues out there all over the uk who have nice dogs needing homes ethical rescues say no to unethical uk rescues
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree