Free Dog Neutering for Bull Breeds at Dogs Trust in March! *Please get your dog neutered*
285°Expired

Free Dog Neutering for Bull Breeds at Dogs Trust in March! *Please get your dog neutered*

44
Found 22nd Feb 2015
With so many unwanted pooches out there, especially bull breeds (I know as we've just rescued a 12 week old staffy from a dreadful home) There is no reason not to get your bundle of love neutered especially as it's free if you live in certain post code areas and can't afford it...

Offer open to Bull Breed owners in receipt of a means tested benefit living in the following postcode areas: BB, BD, BL, CA, CH, CW, DH,DL,DN, FY, HD, HG, HX, HU, L, LA, LS, M, NE, OL, PR, S, SK, SR, ST, SY, TD,TS, WA, WF, WN AND YO, between the 1st March and 31st March 2015. (excludes French Bulldogs and English Bulldogs) Valid at participating vets only. Operations must be carried out by 31st August 2015. Offer only available during the month of March 2015. Proof of address and benefits required.The promoter: Dogs Trust,17 Wakley Street, London, EC1V 7RQ. Registered Charity Numbers 227523 and SC037843.

Shared Via The HUKD App For Android.

44 Comments

They should new the owners too. If they did Jeremy kyle would be out of a job

Original Poster

I think they should bring in licencing for owning a dog or cat, I hate to think of them being mistreated yet so many are

CAZ8311

I think they should bring in licencing for owning a dog or cat, I hate to … I think they should bring in licencing for owning a dog or cat, I hate to think of them being mistreated yet so many are



They licence guns in America. Doesn't mean America is any safer.

Also, how could you possibly 'licence' a dog or cat? Do you give a licence based on the temperament of the breed? Do you give a licence based on the quality of the home? (rich people's pets are often neglected...which can lead to behavioral problems)

Sorry, but a licence is a terrible idea. The vast majority of pet owners are good...& pets provide a wonderful counterbalance to the mental health issues afflicting so many of us.

The current system works.

We had dog licensing years ago and thankfully it was repelled. People just seem so happy for Government to take more money from us! Poor people are more likely to have time and love than rich, who as someone else said have higher rates of neglect.

CAZ8311

I think they should bring in licencing for owning a dog or cat, I hate to … I think they should bring in licencing for owning a dog or cat, I hate to think of them being mistreated yet so many are


Who is going to pay £10m to set up this licensing system and processes, who is going to pay 1,000 staff administering and enforce this licensing (27 county councils, 55 unitary authorities, 32 London boroughs, 36 Metropolitan boroughs). You are effectively volunteering to pay more tax and your proposal needs money to make it work.
We have a huge licensing system effectively called Disclosure and Barring Service , DBS (CRB) for people and it is impossible to know how much money it is per average effective controlled action or crime prevented.
Edited by: "splender" 23rd Feb 2015

Original Poster

I am an animal lover who has always worked full time and paid tax, whilst this offer does not apply to me as I do not qualify, I feel really strongly about the amount of unwanted dogs in this country particularly bull breeds. There is a clear problem of back street breeding, dog fighting and unwanted dogs from a young age which breaks my heart. I live in Birmingham and regularly visit and donate to Birmingham dogs home which is full of unwanted bull breeds, it relies on donations to feed and keep them warm, alongside volunteers who give up their free time willingly because they want to help, whilst many people offer nothing or no solution to a problem but simply criticise the possibility of licencing for dog owners or even dog breeders. people who purchase a dog should be made to neuter, that's all I'm saying and licensing could be a way of controlling that. I never mentioned anything about a poor/rich divide, it's irrelevant but you should be able to afford to neuter your dog and provide a loving home with food and warmth. I apologise if the thought of tax payers money being spent on dogs offends you but to be honest enough of it is wasted on other things that could be cut back on... but that's a whole other political debate I'm not prepared to go in to.

CAZ8311

I am an animal lover who has always worked full time and paid tax, whilst … I am an animal lover who has always worked full time and paid tax, whilst this offer does not apply to me as I do not qualify, I feel really strongly about the amount of unwanted dogs in this country particularly bull breeds. There is a clear problem of back street breeding, dog fighting and unwanted dogs from a young age which breaks my heart. I live in Birmingham and regularly visit and donate to Birmingham dogs home which is full of unwanted bull breeds, it relies on donations to feed and keep them warm, alongside volunteers who give up their free time willingly because they want to help, whilst many people offer nothing or no solution to a problem but simply criticise the possibility of licencing for dog owners or even dog breeders. people who purchase a dog should be made to neuter, that's all I'm saying and licensing could be a way of controlling that. I never mentioned anything about a poor/rich divide, it's irrelevant but you should be able to afford to neuter your dog and provide a loving home with food and warmth. I apologise if the thought of tax payers money being spent on dogs offends you but to be honest enough of it is wasted on other things that could be cut back on... but that's a whole other political debate I'm not prepared to go in to.



Dog licencing would do nothing to solve the problems you are talking about. It is already ILLEGAL to own an unlicensed Pitbull type dog;

"The type of dog that has most commonly been the subject of cases has … "The type of dog that has most commonly been the subject of cases has been the pit bull terrier. Possessing an unregistered pit bull terrier type dog is unlawful and if you have such a dog you are committing a criminal offence. If you think you have an unregistered pit bull type dog, it cannot be voluntarily registered (ie. at present there is no application you can make to register your dog).However, even if you have an unregistered pit bull terrier type dog, you have a reasonable chance of avoiding a destruction order being made. You must prove to a Court that your dog is not a danger to public safety in proceedings brought against you (usually by the Police, but may be brought by a Council. Throughout this advice-note we shall only refer to the Police as they are most likely to bring a case).As at February 2014, there were 2,658 dogs that are exempted from the prohibition ie. have been registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs. This represents a trebling since 2010To establish whether your dog might be unlawful:-(a) Have a look at the DEFRA guidance on identification of unlawful dogs to see if your dog might fall under the definition of a pit bull type (via the links page on this site - see 'DEFRA guidance on prohibited dogs') as this may provide you with preliminary assistance(b) Take your dog to your vet to ask for an opinion of the dog's type NB Not all vets are sufficiently familiar with this complicated area of identification, so you may be referred to someone else. (There are also some show judges, and others, who have expertise on this issue but we have suggested your vet as the first person to speak to for the sake of convenience).If the Police believe that your dog is a pit bull type, there is a likelihood that your dog will be seized and will remain in a Police appointed kennel until the case is concluded.The Police will have your dog examined by their experts and if they conclude that your dog is a pit bull terrier type:-(a) You will probably be prosecuted under Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. At Court, unless you can prove that your dog isn't a pit bull terrier type dog you will be convicted. Provided you qualify on financial grounds, you are likely to be granted Legal Aid (a representation order), which means that public funding will pay for your dog to be examined by experts of your Solicitor's choosing. Although the Act gives a maximum penalty of 6 months prison, but the most likely sentence is that you will be fined (or given a conditional discharge) and ordered to pay costs. In theory you could be disqualified from having custody of a dog, but this is very rare. There is an appeal available to the Crown Court.(b) As an alternative to using the criminal provisions in Section 1, the Police may use the civil provisions in Section 4B:- * It is commenced by 'application' ie not by complaint or information * There is unlikely to be legal aid available - this is a major problem and is likely to prevent most owners from being able to present a defence * It can be argued that there is no presumption that the dog is a pit bull type (so unless you admit the case the Police will probably have to prove their case on the balance of probabilities)* The Court does not have the power to impose any orders against you (ie. no prison, no fine and no costs - except for kennelling fees pending destruction)As to your dog, (if the case is proven under either Section 1 or Section 4B) you will need to prove that it would not constitute a danger to public safety, and if you can, the Court may allow it to be registered (otherwise it must be destroyed). You will have to pay for the registration fee, the insurance, the neutering, microchipping and insurance. The dog will not be returned to you until all this is completed. Please remember that once the dog is returned then other conditions must also be complied with (see below)."



All that you are advocating is for people like me, who own a very placid Boxer dog, to have to pay a tax to actually own it. You also make it more costly for poorer people to keep animals - when as I have said before, dogs are of tremendous benefit to us mentally fragile human beings!

A question for you - have you ever seen a homeless person mistreat their dogs?! Do you think they should have to licence the one creature that hasn't screwed them over?!

You're fighting the wrong cause. Gangs who want to use Pitbulls for posturing will continue to do so - even though it is illegal. Adding a dog licence to the rest of us will not help solve the problem of unlicensed dogs....it'll simply increase the prevalence of unlicenced puppy farms and what have you.

Here is one of the breeds of the 'dangerous dogs act';

http://static.wixstatic.com/media/57483d_fa3b0774ff5275b2809362e108f9d4dd.jpg

As ever, it isn't the dog, but the owner. & in the UK, we have pretty good mechanisms for preventing bad owners from owning animals. So no to licencing, yes to supporting the laws that are currently in place.

dangerous dogs should simply have their teeth replaced with strips of rubber

Hinzy9

dangerous dogs should simply have their teeth replaced with strips of … dangerous dogs should simply have their teeth replaced with strips of rubber



You miss the point entirely. There is no such thing as a 'dangerous dog'. The only thing that is dangerous is the owner.

youtube.com/wat…YgU

Possibly off subject, but the most aggresive breeds of dog aren't any of the Bull types.

The most aggressive by nature is a Dachshund (bred to take on badgers which is no mean feat) followed by Chihuahuas (people let them get away with everything because they're small) and a Jack Russell (bred predominantly for hunting and killing foxes amongst other things)

I disagree with this notion of "there are no dangerous dogs only dangerous owners" , There are dangerous dogs simple as that . Some are just born that way , the same as in the human population , there will always be those that are just destined to kill , no matter how nice and kind you are to them !

wenttoabetterplace

You miss the point entirely. There is no such thing as a 'dangerous dog'. … You miss the point entirely. There is no such thing as a 'dangerous dog'. The only thing that is dangerous is the owner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_y0L2K1YgU


"There is no such thing as a 'dangerous dog'. The only thing that is dangerous is the owner", is a PR slogan to bamboozle simple minds. Replace that word "dog" with any animal or plant on earth and it works in every case. It is a universal phrase that is neither true or false.
Edited by: "splender" 23rd Feb 2015

splender

"There is no such thing as a 'dangerous dog'. The only thing that is … "There is no such thing as a 'dangerous dog'. The only thing that is dangerous is the owner", is a PR slogan to bamboozle simple minds. Replace that word "dog" with any animal or plant on earth and it works in every case. It is a universal phrase that is neither true or false.



Are you following me on HUKD? I feel like we are having far too many discussions on here!

Anyway, I don't agree with you about the various things you were saying on the World at War thread....and I don't agree with you here

SOOOO, rather than duke it out once more - let's just agree to disagree.

Cold for too many reasons to list.

There are some right funny people on this website. Cheers for posting OP.

all dogs should be neutered by law. and only licensed breeders can breed. same for cats.

The king of kings, the one and only Al Bundy:
I can't believe you're not with me on this thing, Steve. You, me, and Buck... we're guys. We were put on this Earth to conquer, to rule. Then we got married and it's over for us. But Buck... he's in his prime. Look at him, Steve. You can't tell me you're not a little envious. He's got the life. He has the life that all men should have. The life I used to have. A new bitch every night. Doesn't have to take them out to dinner, doesn't have to dress up, doesn't have to take a bath, and the best part of all is that they're not there in the morning. It's all "woof-woof, bam-bam, thank you ma'am. Don't call me. I'll call you". Think about it, Steve. Isn't that the life that you wanted?

Bringing back licensing was considered by the Companion Animal Welfare folks but they agreed it would not work. Instead, it was agreed that it would become law from April 2016 that ALL dogs be microchipped. Dogs Trust also offer this service for free, visit their website and go along to your nearest centre or find out when there is a microchipping event near you. Alternatively, your local dog warden can arrange to chip your pooch.

Far too many opinionated people on here. Join a forum on dog breeding and discuss there

Hinzy9

dangerous dogs should simply have their teeth replaced with strips of … dangerous dogs should simply have their teeth replaced with strips of rubber



Replace the entire skull with a rubber one and teach them how to eat with a straw.

danfr

all dogs should be neutered by law. and only licensed breeders can breed. … all dogs should be neutered by law. and only licensed breeders can breed. same for cats.


Behave!

this deal is the mutts nuts!

The OWNERS should be neutered first. Their combined IQ doesn't get into 3 figures.

digbys

Behave!


These days, he's absolutely right

PhilK

The OWNERS should be neutered first. Their combined IQ doesn't get into 3 … The OWNERS should be neutered first. Their combined IQ doesn't get into 3 figures.


What owners are you referring to exactly?

a jack Russell took a hold of my boxers lips and started swinging from it . I went to remover her dog but I was told to stop as the jack Russell was only trying to establish dominance . to much Cesar Milan can be just as bad as some smackie with a staffy .

jamesphimister50

a jack Russell took a hold of my boxers lips and started swinging from it … a jack Russell took a hold of my boxers lips and started swinging from it . I went to remover her dog but I was told to stop as the jack Russell was only trying to establish dominance . to much Cesar Milan can be just as bad as some smackie with a staffy .



The only dogs that have ever attacked our boxers have been terriers (there is a particular West Highland Terrier in the village that has had a pop at most big dogs around here!).
I would go as far as to say, the bigger the dog, the better the temperament. They don't seem to have little man syndrome

Hunting/aggressive dogs should not be in today's society. There is no place for them in developed countries with vulnerable people/children and animals they should be extinct . It is often (but not always) a neanderthal-type that is accustomed to keeping these breeds of dog.

billyboy1

Hunting/aggressive dogs should not be in today's society. There is no … Hunting/aggressive dogs should not be in today's society. There is no place for them in developed countries with vulnerable people/children and animals they should be extinct . It is often (but not always) a neanderthal-type that is accustomed to keeping these breeds of dog.



" It is often (but not always) a neanderthal-type that is accustomed to keeping these breeds of dog"

I wonder where you picked up your anthropology degree (_;).

You're speaking absolute drivel by the way. On the basis of your comments, Boxer dogs should also be a banned breed. Here are just some of the words used to describe them on Wikipedia;

"Their suspicion of strangers, alertness, agility, and strength make them formidable guard dogs
These strong and intelligent animals have also been used as...police dogs in K9 units, and occasionally herding cattle or sheep"


In the real world, they are wonderful companions. I would suggest you stop talking about things you know nothing about. Oh, and here is the place where we took our Boxer for obedience training. You can see Graham in the video with his Rottweiller...which was the most passive and affectionate dog in the obedience classes (he used it as a demonstration that ANY dog can be wholly good, OR wholly bad. It's all about the owner).

So quit advocating the banning of particular breeds when it is the owners that are at fault.
Edited by: "wenttoabetterplace" 24th Feb 2015

NGC danger

What owners are you referring to exactly?


Dangerous dogs owners.
Would have thought that was blindingly OBVIOUS

As most owners of these dogs have them for "status" would of thought it defeats the reason for having it if ain't got any nuts




wenttoabetterplace .In the real world, they are wonderful companions.

Every year there is approximately 28000 facial dog bites in the UK ,with 19000 reguiring serious plastic surgery ,maybe they think different.

billyboy1

wenttoabetterplace .In the real world, they are wonderful … wenttoabetterplace .In the real world, they are wonderful companions.Every year there is approximately 28000 facial dog bites in the UK ,with 19000 reguiring serious plastic surgery ,maybe they think different.



Never quote statistics without supplying the source...

Also, don't edit the source to suit your argument;

"with just over 19,000 of them requiring some degree of plastic surgery"

dailymail.co.uk/new…tml

Edited by: "wenttoabetterplace" 24th Feb 2015

I hope that people take advantage of this and those that are able to also leave a donation.

billyboy1

wenttoabetterplace .In the real world, they are wonderful … wenttoabetterplace .In the real world, they are wonderful companions.Every year there is approximately 28000 facial dog bites in the UK ,with 19000 reguiring serious plastic surgery ,maybe they think different.



By the way, I don't know where the Mail get their stats from. In that article that I found on your behalf, they quote 28,000 facial dog bites every year...

In the following article from the same rag of a newspaper, they say there are 100 dog attacks a week (or 5,200 a year) from a population of 11 million dogs in the UK;

dailymail.co.uk/deb…tml

SO, as usual, there are lies, damn lies...and then there are statistics!

Point being, don't believe all you read --- and don't, whatever you do, rely on the Daily Mail for anything other than toilet paper.

Original Poster

billyboy1

Hunting/aggressive dogs should not be in today's society. There is no … Hunting/aggressive dogs should not be in today's society. There is no place for them in developed countries with vulnerable people/children and animals they should be extinct . It is often (but not always) a neanderthal-type that is accustomed to keeping these breeds of dog.



This made me laugh a little, whilst I partially agree with you that these dogs do in people's opinions have a 'stereotypical' kind of owner, I have a staffy, I'm a slender 5' 1", 32 year old career woman (insurance broker) who lives with my other half who's also an insurance broker, both animal lovers with our first baby on the way. I hope we're not the neanderthal-type you're referring to?

PhilK

Dangerous dogs owners.Would have thought that was blindingly OBVIOUS


Sarcasm nice, it was a question as you seem to be tarring all owners of dogs as every dog could be considered dangerous.

Im not a dog owner neither do I care much for dogs, however this is a worthwhile cause. Heat added.:{
Edited by: "zshamas" 24th Feb 2015

Love the way people compare digs to any other animals, sick of hearing of kids getting mauled to death by cats.....the thing is they are animals with and can and have turned for no reason or simply been playing and not realized there consequences....they have deadly weapons but at the end of the day are animals so should never be trusted with children....http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-myths.php
Check out the whole website but the article on the owner not the dog myth makes a nonsense of most peoples argument....
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text