The Story of a Staffie: Breed Prejudice

In the last few weeks, a Northern Ireland dog has attracted international attention. Two years ago, Bruce the Staffordshire bull terrier was taken away from his family and sentenced to die. Why? Bruce was deemed a “pit-bull terrier type” by the authorities, and therefore a danger to society. Bruce has never bitten anyone. He has never been threatening or aggressive to a member of the public. However under the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991, all pit bull terrier “types” are considered to be dangerous, and because of Bruce’s physical appearance, he has been sentenced to death.

While in captivity over the last two years, Bruce has had to have his tail amputated due to infection. His owners have only been allowed to see him once, and have been shocked at the deterioration of his health.

Thankfully, last week poor Bruce was given a stay of execution until the judge reviews his case again, but his future is by no means certain.

This sad and infuriating case brings our attention to the issue of Breed Specific Legislation. Frightened and poorly informed courts all over the world have put laws in place to ban pit-bull terrier types. I seem to recall a European society in the last 100 years that executed living creatures based purely on “breed”, and the last I heard, we as a society condemned them.

Any well-informed dog lover or expert will tell you that breed is not an indicator of aggressiveness. Irresponsible owners are a much better indicator. We can see evidence of these owners in the recent coverage on “weapon dogs”, dogs bred by gang members looking to use them as an intimidation tactic, or worse, as a weapon. It’s worth noting that even after specifically breeding these dogs to be aggressive, the owners still must train hostility into the dog, generally using violence. Owners and breeders such as these young men ought to be the focus of legal action, not their dogs, who are only trying to please their owners.

American pit bull terriers (APBT) have often been the focus of media attention regarding dog attacks. It’s not hard to imagine why. The words “pit” and “bull” hardly seem synonymous with “fluffy” and “cuddly.” And don’t get me wrong. Strong-willed pit bulls are not a good choice for the first time owner. But they make fantastic family dogs, when trained by the right owner. As for Staffies like Bruce? Their nickname is the nanny dog. They are anything but aggressive and adore children (and I don’t mean for breakfast). An overwhelming number of Staffies become abandoned by reckless owners who were looking for an aggressive guard-dog, and instead got a loving and friendly family dog. Because of their muscular appearance and association with APBTs, organisations like the RSPCA have a difficult time re-homing these sweet and gentle dogs.

Still not convinced? In 2001, a Pomeranian fatally attacked a small child. Yes, a Pomeranian. One of those little dogs that look more like dusters than vicious animals. Any dog can be dangerous. What’s required is proper training and responsible ownership, and our courts would do better to punish an irresponsible owner, rather than an entire breed.

Aushwitz Horse Farm

The man who turned his horse farm into “Auschwitz” has been let out on bail and was seen at a horse fair. Last May, Jamie Gray and his son were arrested when investigators found horses left to die of starvation and surrounded by rotting corpses. They were found guilty of 11 charges under the Animal Welfare Act. He was sentenced for 6 months but walked free after 4 days as he launched an appeal. They were also banned from having anything to do with horses ever again. However just over a year later, outrageous pictures were found of them, at a horse fair.
I think this whole story is disgusting. The fact that this man “had caused the worst case of animal cruelty ever seen” said by the RSPCA, would only be sentenced to six months imprisonment is disgraceful. Also that he should be allowed to appeal as there is nothing he could appeal about. He is a despicable man who should have been sentenced to a murder charge as that is basically what he committed. Animals and human’s aren’t that different so for this man to only get 6 months is shameful. If this was humans he would have a life sentence never mind less than a year.
Also I don’t understand how this man could be even allowed to go near a horse fair. The people there must recognise him, so why they would even give him the time of day to look at their horses, I don’t understand.
However, this wasn’t Jamie Gray’s first conviction of cruelty to animals; he had a record of cruelty to animals and in 2006 was fined £3,500 for unnecessary suffering to animals; however he was still allowed to continue his trading business. The police or whoever is in charge of these types of things should have kept an eye on his future dealings but I think he should have just been banned from working with animals so nothing like this could have ever happened.

Police Officer serves up "hot dogs" from back of patrol car

On Thursday 2nd July, Britain was angered when news was reported that a Police dog handler had left two Alsatian dogs locked in his car during a heatwave. The dogs died from the heat although it was unclear how long they were left in the car for.
I think that this is shameful considering he was a trained dog handler, so he should have known that to leave the dogs in a car which heats up extremely quickly was despicable. Any member of the public could tell you that you should never do that and they’re not trained professional in dog care. Also these were donated dogs from a family; they weren’t breaded especially for the police. Therefore you would assume they would take extra care of them as they belonged to a family who had kindly donated the dogs for public service.
Temperatures soared to 30˚C, so the temperature in the car could have easily reached more than 47˚C within 30 minutes. I think it’s appalling that something like this could have happened. Perhaps it’s because we all have had an idealised and maybe incorrect view that the police officers are supposed to set an example to regular citizens and with that a sense of responsibility and rational thinking would naturally be applied.
I do not believe this happened out of maliciousness or forgetfulness but plain laziness. The dogs kennel’s were only yards away, so the police officer could have easily put them in the kennels while he carried out what he needed to do. However he chose not to bother, therefore leading to the death of the dogs.
Not only is it the fact that two dogs were killed within all of this, but also it is tax payers money which is used to train these dogs and at over £7,000 to train each dog, it doesn’t come cheap. To train these dogs it also takes a 9 week intense course and as one dog was only newly trained, it was a waste of police time and tax payers money, which could have been put to other uses.
A statement from Nottinghamshire Police said the welfare of its animals was "of paramount importance". Yet these dogs were still neglected by the person who was trained to look after them, so obviously the welfare of the dogs is not “of paramount importance” to everyone.
The RSPCA should prosecute; as if this was any member of the public they would surely be charged without investigations. So why should it be any different for this man just because he is a police officer.

Are you Fur Real?

The use of real fur in fashion has, in recent years, sparked huge protest from various extremist groups, People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in particular. But the presence of fur in the fashion world can be contested in numerous ways.

Animal Rights extremists argue that there is no need for designers to use real fur in today’s world when there are such realistic and “ethically correct” imitation furs that can be used.

This is the argument hurled at Blackglama’s new fur campaign headed by Liz Hurley. She has been on the receiving end of some harsh criticism from PETA claiming that “her wardrobe is now as dead as her career”.

With groups such as PETA on the war path you may ask why designers still insist on using real fur when it is so blatantly going to attract such extreme protest with the splashing of red paint, wine, or any other “ethical” substances over any fur garments worn in public.

Maybe these extreme animal rights activists are demonstrating a valid argument and the existence of such realistic fur imitations has made the need for real fur redundant, making the use of real fur in fashion ethically unacceptable.

However, when considering the debate surrounding fur, we must go back to our caveman roots and remember that in those early days, real fur was used for survival to keep warm. There were no ethical issues in those simpler times. So if the cavemen of our primitive world thought it natural to use the animal’s fur, why do we have a problem with it now? And if Liz Hurley wishes to regress to those prehistoric times then who are we, or PETA, to judge?

But perhaps it’s all merely a publicity stunt nowadays with phrases such as “there is no such thing as bad publicity” being coined in the minds of many of those who are hungry for exposure. With well known celebrities such as Natalie Imbruglia heading PETA’s own anti-fur campaign, we must consider the obvious publicity that these situations induce. So we must ask, is this all a PR stunt for the models and the fashion industry that animal rights activists are playing into? Or are groups such as PETA just as aware of the benefit of such publicity as everyone else?

A Dog is for Life, Not Just for the Battery Lifespan

On one hand, the Nintendogs virtual pets are great for those fad loving kids who are easily bored and will lose interest in a real life pet once the novelty wears off. So in that sense they are effective in fulfilling that initial short-lived desire for a pet.

On the other hand, they mislead the owners of these gadgets into believing that owning a pet is less involved and a lot simpler than it really is. Although you have to clean up the pooch’s poops on the console, it fails to include pet care, vet visits, medication costs, and general taming; therefore failing to provide an accurate experience of owning a pet dog. What about the true cost and chores of owning a pet?

If having a pet dog was as simple as the Nintendog suggests then we would all have a cute little odourless puppy in our home that rolls over when we tickle its collar and wags its tails permanently with joy. But this joyful experience of owning a pet dog is vastly different from the reality which involves a muddy, smelly pooch running around on a mission of destruction.

It therefore projects an unrealistic or rose-tinted view of owning a dog that can lead to people upgrading to real life pets without being fully prepared or informed about what this will entail.

In a society where 26 page documents are released informing pet owners on how to entertain and mentally stimulate your pets so ensure their mental stability, it seems ludicrous to simultaneously be “dumbing down” the reality of owning a pet. Surely we are being sent contradictory messages.

If the Nintendogs are meant to be an accurate depiction of a live pet dog then surely the same animal welfare rules should apply and owners should make every effort to ensure and monitor a mentally stable pet, but the software just does not accommodate for the mental support for pets. So, for a hassle free, clean and tidy alternative for a real life pet, Nintendogs offers a simple virtual imitation. But do not be fooled into thinking that owning a real life pet will be quite as simple.

What’s Your Pet Peeve?

In a new code of practice facing pet owners, cat and dog owners are advised as to the ways in which they should care for their pets. The new code contains obvious and excessive instructions that are to be imposed on pet owners when caring for their pets. The obvious being the well made observation that pet owners should feed their pet’s everyday; the excessive being the need for the provision of "entertainment" and "mental stimulation" for their pets under new government advice.

The article tells owners that suitable toys and "entertainment" should be provided for their cats and that they should “ensure that your cat has enough mental stimulation from you and from its environment to avoid boredom and frustration.” According to various sources, a lack in mental stimulation, even when coupled with sufficient physical stimulation, can result in a mental imbalance for pets. Maybe this revelation is all a PR stunt to trigger a rise in the number of pet psychiatrists; or maybe it is just another step towards the ever more present Nanny State.

Whatever the reason for these revelations, it strikes me as ever so slightly excessive. When was the last time your vet told you to hold regular entertainment activities for your pet? Ok cats and dogs are suitable for keeping as pets due to their tame nature and adaptability to the home environment, but that doesn’t mean they need mollycoddling 24/7 like a child. Cats especially can amuse themselves outside without having their owner set up a puppet show for them in order to stimulate their mind.

Providing a decent shelter, taking them to the vet when they are sick, and generally providing care should be sufficient. Without doubt, stories of animal cruelty are disturbing and unacceptable and need to be stopped, but there is no need to go to the extreme and treat them like a child.

Legislation should be targeted at the ignorant abusers who are incapable of providing care to animals. It just isn’t necessary to tell already caring pet owners how to further pamper their animals. Instead they should be inflicting greater punishments for those who abuse animals, and raising more money for saving those animals found deserted or mistreated.