Dog ripped squirrel apart in Dulwich park

[Delainie]

Is is just me or has anyone else noticed the huge amount of people who entice their dogs to kill squirrels in Dulwich park. I saw a man stand close and watch his dog rip a squirrel apart, in front of two kids who shouted at him to put his dog on a lead. Is it some sort of sport for men without testicles? Are they wishful fox hunters who get a thrill out of seeing something torn apart. Do these people realise this is unlawful and although plenty call squirrels vermin, there are still laws to protect them. Do they feel this behaviour is acceptable for other people in the park enjoying walking their dog, or relaxing with friends and more importantly people with their children, having to witness. I have reported him to the RSPCA and the police and have been informed that I must call the police if I see him again as they want to speak to him. The word 'Chav' is often used to describe working class and with that label comes accusations,ie council estate tenants,benefit scroungers, staffie owners, etc etc, most people may assume the people I have come across in Dulwich park deriving pleasure from cruel behaviour are so called Chav's, well it is always well spoken middle class men.They to me are the real Chav's, they may have an education, however something is seriously missing from their brain. I believe that the poor squirrels have more balls than these meek sad evil sadistic twats. By the way I am working class,own a mastiff type dog, and proud my dog does not rip living things apart.

[Miacis]

You sure he was enticing the dog to catch the squirrel? Some dogs go potty for squirrels and a few are fast enough to catch them. He may have been mortified. Once they have their eye in it is v hard to stop them. Bit like trying to stop my cat killing rats/mice/birds

Don't think there is a law protecting grey squirrels

Would not condone deliberate hunting but that may not have been the case. Did you ask him? Sounds like this is a frequent occurrence ?

[Huguenot]

Regardless of the law protecting grey squirrels or not, this particular activity is subject to the Animal Welfare Act 2005.

The Act introduced tougher potential penalties, including fines of up to ?20,000, a maximum jail term of 51 weeks and a lifetime ban on owners keeping pets.

You wouldn't need to prove that the owner incited the attack, merely that he didn't take such step as were in his power to prevent the attack taking place.

Having the dog off a leash and the dog doing a mental probably wouldn't make him culpable, however a repeat offence would as it would demonstrate intent.

[bucketowater]

Are you sure a grey squirrel is a "protected animal" as defined in the act?

[Chillaxed]

There go those damned middle classes mucking things up again.

Daffodil stealing, M&S loving/independent shop hating, proper boozer destroying, b*stards. And now they're setting their dogs on our squirrels!

[Huguenot]

It doesn't need to be protected, the squirrel is covered by the protection of Wild Mammals clauses regarding suffering and cruelty.

In an isolated offence the owner would get off with a warning, however on a second offence he couldn't claim that his animal's behaviour was unpredictable.

[bon3yard]

Kudos to Chillaxed for sticking up for the downtrodden sandal wearers. ;-)

[bucketowater]

Sure it's not the wild mammals (protection) act 1996 you are trying apply?

[Huguenot]

*sighs*

[Alexthecamel]

I'm not sure about which law you're applying, but surely if it were the case that an owner is liable for his pet's hunting of wild animals, then cat owners would have to keep their cats indoors?

[Annette Curtain]

Protected or not, a Squirrel shouldn't be ripped apart by any dog in a public park.

It's nothing short of barbaric & it's anti-social to say the least

However, I've been to that park hundreds of times and have never

Maybe i'm missing something or I need my eyes tested

And, as much as i'm sympathetic with the original poster, regarding the treatment of animals and the responsibilities of other pet owners. I am not very impressed with their further rant about class, social housing, testicles, education and the likes

I'm almost given to think that this whole thing is a lite-trolling exercise. Incendiary phrase & words wedged in-between seemly legitimate concerns and commendable actions only reinforce my feeling on this one

In future why not add: Gay, Fat, Black, Immigrant and Pedophile into the mix below. That way you're sure to hit all the buttons, touch all the bases as it were.

Chav

Working Class

Council estate tenants

Benefit scrounger

Evil

Sadistic

Well spoken middle class men*

And lastly.

What is it with people and these fear breed dogs like Mastiffs/Staffs. In the old days on the estates it was Alsatians, though the Police and the more enlightened preferred the term 'German Shepherd'

Maybe it's the siege mentality, writ small.

"Watch y'self or my dog will 'ave ya"

Nette(td)

*blows raspberry*

For balance*

[woodrot]

Alexthecamel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not sure about which law you're applying, but

> surely if it were the case that an owner is liable

> for his pet's hunting of wild animals, then cat

> owners would have to keep their cats indoors?

Schr?dinger had the right idea

[Alexthecamel]

(tu)woodrot!

I love cats, but wouldn't have one because of the damage they cause birds- and the fact that they'd crap on my neighbours gardens. At least with a dog you can monitor their behaviour.

[Huguenot]

The Dangerous Dogs Act establishes that humans control dogs, and are culpable for their actions.

No such law exists for cats.

The owner could justifiably argue that the first attack was unprecedented, he couldn't use that defence for the second.

[Alexthecamel]

So which law applies here Huguenot, dangerous dogs or protection of Wild Mammals?

[Huguenot]

I think you understand this completely Alexthecamel, and you're just being an argumentative idiot.

What went wrong in your childhood Alexthecamel, to make you so sad?

[bucketowater]

Huguenot,

Was it being called out for your ignorance that made you so angry and lash out so randomly?

[woodrot]

another tiger sir ?

[Huguenot]

bucketowater, what is it with the ridiculous posturing of you two prats?

In order to prosecute someone you'd need to prove that the owner was culpable, that the outcome was predictable and that it resulted in suffering.

The Dangerous Dogs Act was an illustration that owners are considered to be in control of dogs when the same doesn't apply to cats.

There are various charges could apply from various acts including fighting, baiting and suffering - my intention was to reassure the OP that there was recourse in law.

For some reason known only to you you've yanked your pants down and in between furiously and painfully pleasuring yourself you've jabbed out some sort of nitpicking twaddle that doesn't contribute anything to the conversation.

Are you really proud of yourself? Really? You just sound like a prig.

[Guest]

To return to the original topic, I think it's fair to say that quite a few people DO incite their dogs to chase squirrels, rabbits and rats (I assume this is about principles, not just perceptions of cuteness). I certainly see people doing it, and they're not all men either.

However, they do it as a game without imagining for a moment that one fine day their overfed and underfit dog might actually succeed - they'd be horrified if that happened, especially if there were children around and they couldn't stop the dog once it tasted blood, but they don't think that far ahead. Of course ignorance is no defence, but the point is it would be difficult to prove that the owner's intended outcome was to witness a live animal being ripped apart in front of them.

[bucketowater]

The chemist in the Village has some leaflets for an anger management course on the counter.

[maxxi]

I was surprised to read (on the nature thread) of the heron in Dulwich Park killing a baby rat and can only suppose that the heron in the Rye's Japanese Garden is a lazy bastard who has made all the squirrels complacent.

Buck up Peckham Heron - you're a bloody show-up.

[Sue]

woodrot Wrote:

> Schr?dinger had the right idea

xxxxxxx

:))

ETA: But sorry about the squirrel ......

[Alexthecamel]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In order to prosecute someone you'd need to prove

> that the owner was culpable, that the outcome was

> predictable and that it resulted in suffering.

In which case surely cats should be kept inside? Because every cat, without exception, will kill birds, and an owner couldn't say that it wasn't predictable or that it didn't result in suffering. I'm not being disingenuous, several counties in Australia have a ban on outside cats for that very reason.

[RosieH]

Cats? I'm with Walter Berglund.