Why do they need to update it, all the need to do is police the one they have,

There's an 'article' on the BBC news website about 'Dangerous' Staffies & Rotties. I've hit the Contact Us link at the bottom of the page and complained about their stupid, inaccurate scare mongering. The story is on the front page of http://news.bbc.co.uk at the moment.

Why is it, I ask myself, that the people who are supposed to be helping to set us on the path to a future with better dog laws, more educated public views on the perils of dangerous dogs, proponents of the 'no such thing as a dangerous breed' ideal - tend to have a habit of making the situation worse.

Today's status dog news has been instigated by the RSPCA. I received the embargoed press release before today but made a decision that we would not be covering it. It doesn't stack up to scrutiny, I'll get on to that in a moment. But let's look at how it's been covered on the BBC:

BBC - Newsbeat - The P Word - Dangerous 'status' dogs on the rise


Quote:
There's been a sharp increase in the number of dangerous dogs like Rottweilers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers which have become the new weapon of choice on some of our cities' toughest streets, Newsbeat has been told.

OK. Have a read of that. What message does it convey to you? To me, it's unequivocal: it's saying that 'dogs like Rottweiles and Staffordshire Bull Terriers' are dangerous dogs.

Let's move on:


Quote:
The RSPCA is blaming young men for using aggressive dogs as status symbols in urban areas of England and Wales.

In some parts of Liverpool groups of young men in hoodies hang around wearing cool designer gear, with customised cars - and a menacing new fashion accessory - a canine one.

The lads Newsbeat spoke to there said they are proud of their look: "People cross the road to avoid me", said one. "They look the part don't they?"

The RSPCA says 66% of the calls they get about dogs fighting are about young lads fighting their dogs in parks. That's up from 37%.

Here's where things start to get pretty damn flimsy.

I'm not really interested in how many calls are received, who cares? I receive at least 19 calls per year from the same moron in Mansfield trying to order a Pizza from me. But I'm not going to base any kind of trending claim on this.

No, I'm interested in actual cases, actual prosecutions, actual hard, tangible fact. Here's what the RSPCA press release actually said:


Quote:
“Things are worse now than when the Dangerous Dogs Act was passed 18 years ago and I’m seeing more status dogs coming in for treatment than ever. These latest figures only prove what the RSPCA’s inspectors and animal hospitals have suspected for a long time, that more and more people are using dogs as a means of intimidation,”

Oh I'm sorry, what was that? You're seeing more and more 'status' dogs coming in? A new breed is it, the status dog? "And the winner of the best Status Dog Category at Crufts 2009 is Ch Chavy McHard".

These 'status dogs', I'm presuming, are coming in without an owner otherwise we'd be seeing more prosecutions rather than relying on 'phone calls' as the platform to base a case? And if so, how are we determining they're status dogs? Or are these status dog owners also conscientious enough to be taking their prized possessions to the RSPCA for treatment?

I'm not following the logic.

Let's look at another claim from that quote. More and more status dogs are coming in for treatment and this proves that the dogs are being used for 'intimidation'.

OK, how does it?

Seriously, how does that prove that the dogs are used for intimidation if the dogs are injured? Are the dogs being retaliated against by those who they've been intimidating? In which case, they aint' done a very good job of intimidating, have they? Or do the injuries suggest the dogs have been used for fighting other dogs? If so, how does this prove that the dogs are being used for intimidation? Seriously, how? A dog fighter, a professional dog fighter, would no sooner try and use his dog against you for initimidation (certainly in public) than he would be seen celebrating his acceptance to MENSA. Simply not going to happen. So we're talking about something else here then. Lads who are allowing their dogs to roll and dogs who are getting in to scraps - in which case, this can be prosecuted, yes? It's cruelty? And I wonder, how many dogs are off to the vets today after getting in to a scrape with another dog at their local park - dogs who belong to NORMAL dog owners? How many of you have seen or indeed experienced your dogs getting in to physical scraps when out in public?

Is it the same thing, no. One would hope you didn't instigate such a thing. But to the dog, the net result is the same. If these lads are fighting their dogs in public, then the law allows you to prosecute them - simple. But the claim that the injuries prove the dogs are being used for intimidation is bogus - it doesn't correlate. But it does suggest that some people are prepared to offer an opinion as a fact in order to boost a pre conceived theory.

We'll move on:


Quote:
London has emerged as a hot spot for people using dogs as status
symbols. In 2005 there was not a single call to the RSPCA in the capital
reporting impromptu dog fights in streets and parks. The same year there
was just one report concerning youths with status dogs. By 2008 there
were 77 and 45 respectively.

'Reports'. Again, not convictions. Is it really any wonder there's more reports when there has been such media emphasis on this trend? Let me say, K9 Magazine reported on the trend for British kids adopting American gangsta rap culture - including their fondness for Bullbreeds - as far back as 2002. I personally see lots of kids with Bullbreeds, dressed like Ali G and talking as if they come from the Bronx. They're pillocks, not dog fighters though. In fact the ones I've spoken to have better socialised dogs than some of the people I meet at the local park who haven't come in for a JOT of stereotyping by any charities - they'd be white, middle class 'ordinary' dog owners. God, I sound like I was writing for the Guardian then.

If there was a news piece about alien sightings over Plymouth tonight, how many 'reports' do you think would be filed in Plymouth (and beyond) of alien sightings tomorrow? 'Reports' are ten a penny. Where are the cold facts? And just how do you go about 'reporting a youth with a status dog?' Huh? "Hello, RSPCA. Yes, I've just seen some youths and I'm afraid they have status dogs. Please can you come and arrest them." - Believe me, if I were to phone the RSPCA to 'report status dogs' I'd have them on speed dial every time I saw Paris Hilton or indeed any other celeb-type or their followers with their little pocket pets. I'm interested not in 'status dog reports' (the numbers are tiny anyway) - I am interested in CONVICTIONS or arrests made on the basis of cruelty. Simple.


Quote:
This is backed up by statistics from the Metropolitan Police Service
which show that between April 2004 and April 2005, they seized 38 dogs
under the Dangerous Dogs Act, including banned types and those
dangerously out of control. This compares to the period between April
2007 and 2008 when 719 dogs were seized by the Met.

Oh, 'backed up' is it. Right, now you've REALLY got my back up. 'Backed up' my ****. The rise in DDA seizures is because little Ellie Lawrenson was killed by her uncle's PBT and the police, UK-wide, decided they had better get out there and start seizing dogs under this crappy, crappy law. This 'backs up' nothing and I'll tell you, the RSPCA KNOWS this. They KNOW that this DDA seizures are not related to the argument they're putting forward about status dogs. I would like to ask, what is the age of all the owners who have been conveniently labeled as 'status dog' owners from these MET figures? I do hope there are no middle aged, or God forbid, elderly owners of dogs deemed 'type' in that lot - otherwise it wouldn't be 'backing up' a damn thing other than the fact that it is very publicly known that the MET have been on a 'crackdown' of type dogs.

Shall we look again at some real facts rather than 'reports' or spurious figures used to 'back up' a claim which really doesn't stack up?

How about this:

Cade Lee Deacon - Killed by grandparent's dogs on grandparent's property.
Ellie Lawrenson - Killed by uncle's dog whilst in care of grandparent.
Archie Lee Hirst - Killed by grandparent's dog on grandparent's property.
Jaden Mack - Killed by grandparent's dog on grandparent's property.

^^These, my friends, are DEATHS. Human lives ended. So, where is my BBC documentary on the 'danger' of grandparent's and their killer dogs? These are not 'reports', these are facts. May I ask, where is the bigger problem here? 4 human deaths not enough to spot a trend? Seriously?



Quote:
“A big part of the problem is indiscriminate breeding. People can
charge anything up to £500 for a Staffie or Rottweiler puppy and not
declare a penny of it. A lot of people see it as a quick and easy way to
make money.

“I can’t claim to have the answer to all of this, and I don’t want to
tar all young dogs owners with the same brush, but something has to be
done to tackle what is more than just an issue of animal welfare,” said
David.

Uh hu. And this is exclusive to the 'status dog' brigade is it? Or could it be that this is something that rings true for ANY breeder of ANY dog? It's a cash in hand business. Cross breeding got's f-all to do with it. Again, this is a curve ball lobbed in for no good reason. It supports nothing at all to do with the case that's being put forward, so why float it? I also love how the same two breeds keep being cited 'Staffs and Rotts' - (say no to BSL and breed stereotyping kids, seriously.).


Quote:
I'm being judged… because I walk around in trackies and I've got this dog… Yeah, fair enough it's illegal but it's sat down next to you now and it's not ripping your head off ~ Illegal dog owner Ashley

Ashley, I have some sympathy with you pal. We're constantly talking about judging the 'breed not the deed'. But do you know what? Forget it. Because when those people who are supposed to be the strongest advocates of that message join in the process of deciding that it's not quite so bad to tarr a group of dog owners the same because they happen to dress like morons and hang around with their Bullbreeds or Rotts, then that's OK is it? We've learned that sterotyping the breed doesn't work so let's shift tactics, let's now stereotype the owner type.

I will reserve judgment on the documentary that's going out tonight. But, as you may probably gather, I hold out little hope that we won't be getting another dose of bull****.

How's about this for an approach:

If you own a dog and it acts dangerously towards people, you get prosecuted and forced - by LAW - to attend training classes.

If you are out in public fighting your dog - you get your dog taken off you and you get thrown in jail for 6 months.

If you are using your dog as a means to intimidate people - you go to jail. This would need to be PROVEN and not just based on the fact that some people actually happen to feel intimidated by Ali G wannabes and their choice of dog, then you get done. But seriously, how many people have seen or know of someone who has encountered a 'status dog' owner who has confronted them with something like "Give me your cash or I'll set my dog on you?" Because I'm happy to float a theory here, when organisations talk about 'dogs being used to intimidate' I'm going to say that these type of dog owners are incapable of training a truly intimidating dog, so what they actually mean is 'dogs which people have a pre conceived notion about which cause intimidation in some people whether the owner intends that or not'.

Somehow, doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?

There's an 'article' on the BBC news website about 'Dangerous' Staffies & Rotties. I've hit the Contact Us link at the bottom of the page and complained about their stupid, inaccurate scare mongering. The story is on the front page of http://news.bbc.co.uk at the moment.

OK lasted 50 minutes (not bad for me). The pillock saying throwing a ball ie playing with a dog makes it uncontrollably aggressive and people should have to have a test to prove they know that before they`re `allowed` a dog was my line in the sand.
eta - seems like elaineb and I have the same tolerance level