Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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*

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
    • Niko 07818 607 583 has been doing jobs for us for several years, he is reliable, always there for us, highly recommended! 
    • I am keeping my fingers crossed the next few days are not so loud. I honestly think it is the private, back garden displays that are most problematic as, in general, there is no way of knowing when and where they might happen. For those letting off a few bangers in the garden I get it is tempting to think what's the harm in a few minutes of 'fun', but it is the absolute randomness of sudden bangs that can do irreparable damage to people and animals. With organised events that are well advertised there is some forewarning at least, and the hope is that organisers of such events can be persuaded to adopt and make a virtue of using only low noise displays in future.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...