My first experience with the dog warden

kkelly77

And it wasn't a good one :mad:

I was stopped by the dog warden on the way home from a 2 hour walk with Grason. First thing he asks is if I know my dog (a Rottie) is on the restricted breed list. I told him I did and he wanted to know why the dog wasn't muzzled. Grason was on a lead and also had a Halti lead on.

The conversation was IMO less than civil on the warden's part. He just kept repeating how a Halti is not the same as a muzzle even though they both achieve the same goal if necessary, keeping the dog's mouth closed. He then proceeded to tell me the dog should have my contact details and address on the dog's collar, even though these details on stored on his microchip. I am reluctant to put Grason's name or my address on his collar for fear of theft.

I think the warden could have shown a lot more discretion on his part. My dog wasn't being a menace or aggressive towards anyone. In fact, within 10 seconds of me stopping to talk to the warden, Grason's butt had hit the ground and within 30 seconds he was lying down. He doesn't even need a Halti let alone a muzzle but I use the Halti as I know he requires muzzling. I think its also better for Joe Public because when they see a muzzled dog they automatically think it's dangerous or aggressive.

I was told I'd be receiving a letter from the council as a warning.

crotalus667

kkelly77 wrote: »

The conversation was IMO less than civil on the warden's part. He just kept repeating how a Halti is not the same as a muzzle even though they both achieve the same goal if necessary,

nope tension must be on the halti for it to prevent a bite

kkelly77 wrote: »

He then proceeded to tell me the dog should have my contact details and address on the dog's collar, even though these details on stored on his microchip. I am reluctant to put Grason's name or my address on his collar for fear of theft.

what you are afraid that if some one steals him and dumps him he could be returned??? the info is not stored on the chip . even if it was the law says your name and details must be on the tag


the guy was just doing his job , you where the one breaking the law , live and learn

kkelly77

crotalus667 wrote: »

nope tension must be on the halti for it to prevent a bite

what you are afraid that if some one steals him and dumps him he could be returned??? the info is not stored on the chip . even if it was the law says your name and details must be on the tag


the guy was just doing his job , you where the one breaking the law , live and learn

Brilliant.

Call me Socket

I know how frustrating it is that your harmless and lovable dog is required by law to be muzzled in public...but it c'est la vie, it is the law (even though it's an ass!) And unfortunately there's no law against rudeness!

Some wardens will accept a headcollar in place of a muzzle, and some won't. But when they're within their rights to insist you abide by the restricted breed guidelines- it would be in your dog's interests to do so. Otherwise, the warden may make things very awkward for you.... My advice would be to avoid inviting trouble from the him- some of them can be just plain nasty (I've met wardens who I'm convinced don't even like dogs...)

Every dog owner, regardless of the dog's breed, must display ID on the dog. A microchip isn't a visibly displayed form of ID. You don't need to put your address on, or the dog's name- but you do have to put on a contact number. It's safer for your dog anyway for people not to know his name- it makes theft easier when you can call a dog to you. Maybe your number on one side and 'Im neutered' on the other...?

DBCyc

I've heard of some dog wardens accepting a halti for a muzzle. It probably just depends on the dog warden. The fact that the law is so ridiculous probably results in the inconsistency of enforcement between different wardens.

I've met wardens who had no problems with our staff with no muzzle, probably cos I don't look like a scrote who has a staff to look hard. In fairness the warden should use common sense and see that you are a responsible owner with a well behaved dog. Sounds like he was being a bit of a pr!ck if you ask me - unless someone reported you walking around with your dog, then I suppose he has to say something to you.

namurt

Sorry to hear that Kelly, it must be very frustrating having to deal with that. I agree with you about not wanting your details on display, especially when, as you say, you have him microchipped.

Crotalus, you might want to get your facts straight before you come on here with such a negative attitude.
First of all a Halti is sufficient instead of a muzzle. It has been discussed on here several times and the information can also be found with a quick search on google.
Secondly the owner's details are stored on the microchip....that's the whole point of it.

Call me Socket

crotalus667 wrote: »

nope tension must be on the halti for it to prevent a bite

what you are afraid that if some one steals him and dumps him he could be returned??? the info is not stored on the chip . even if it was the law says your name and details must be on the tag

the guy was just doing his job , you where the one breaking the law , live and learn

kkelly77 wrote: »

Brilliant.

:eek: Ye're being a bit harsh don't ye think? Why would the OP be 'afraid' her dog would be returned????
OP was peeved about how the warden spoke to him/her....Would ye not have a bit of respect for others and be a bit more mature in your replies?

crotalus667

DBCyc wrote: »

In fairness the warden should use common sense and see that you are a responsible owner with a well behaved dog. .

thats a nice in theory but a dog can not be assesed in 5 mins on the street , iirc some one on here pointed out that the germans allow you to have your dog assesed to avoid the normal restrictions . the law is an ass but it is the law and in fairness he did give a warning not a fine.

The bottom line is most of us knew about the law before we bought a dog on the list and whilst we may not obey the law we can not coomplain when we get cought out

boodlesdoodles

The law is ridiculous. My westie was attacked last week by a large sized dog that's not on the restricted breed list. I had to report it to the warden as the other owner showed no concern for either me or my dog afterwards, not so much as an enquiry the following day. And yes they are a neighbour.

My experience with the local warden was a really good one. He gave me great advice about how to the deal with the matter. Acknowledged that the law was wrong in how he could deal with the other dog, considering we've subsequently found out that he has a history of fighting and had only attacked another dog a week previous and this dog had proved himself more than aggressive. All he could do was advise the other owner to muzzle their dog but he couldn't force them to. They did pay the vet's bill once they'd found out we'd reported it. I've walked past plenty of so-called restricted breeds and never had a problem.

crotalus667

Call me Socket wrote: »

Why would the OP be 'afraid' her dog would be returned????

Thats the point :rolleyes:

Call me Socket wrote: »

OP was peeved about how the warden spoke to him/her....

The op was primarily peeved at the fact they got caught doing some thing they shouldn’t of

namurt wrote: »

Crotalus, you might want to get your facts straight before you come on here with such a negative attitude.
Secondly the owner's details are stored on the microchip....that's the whole point of it.

Now it's not all that is stored on it is a number , the info is stored on one of a number of data base's not all of which are easy to acess ,

crotalus667

boodlesdoodles wrote: »

I've walked past plenty of so-called restricted breeds and never had a problem.

If we went by the numbers of bites we would not see one of the dogs on the list at the moment stay on it :mad:

Call me Socket

crotalus667 wrote: »

The op was primarily peeved at the fact they got caught doing some thing they shouldn’t of

Oh. Thanks.... I must have missed that sentence in the OP's post.
I thought they were peeved because "The conversation was IMO less than civil on the warden's part."

kkelly77

crotalus667 wrote: »

The op was primarily peeved at the fact they got caught doing some thing they shouldn’t of

No I wasn't. It was the warden's attitude about the situation.

crotalus667

Call me Socket wrote: »

Oh. Thanks.... I must have missed that sentence in the OP's post.
I thought they were peeved because "The conversation was IMO less than civil on the warden's part."

any one can quote mine , now try reading the whole post

DBCyc

crotalus667 wrote: »

The bottom line is most of us knew about the law before we bought a dog on the list and whilst we may not obey the law we can not coomplain when we get cought out

As a the owner of a restricted breed, I am obviously well aware of the law as are all responsible owners. The problem that I have with the law is that it seems to have been introduced without consultation with experts and professionals in dealing with dogs such as vets, behaviourists and dog trainers.

I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of these experts and professionals disagree with the restricted breeds law. From my direct experience with vets and behaviourists, they are opposed to the law as are a significant number of dog owners.

So what frustrates the responsible owners of restricted breed dogs is that the law seems to be there to appease certain members of society, who think that certain breeds are inherently "dangerous" from their extensive research of tabloid newspapers :rolleyes:. It does not seem to have been introduced based on the opinion of professional expertise in the area of dog behaviour.

One would expect that a dog warden should have a level of expertise in this area as a minimum qualification for such a job. Maybe some do and these are the wardens we see applying their common sense to certain situations where a dog is under control with a responsible owner and therefore not a danger to anyone and they are satisfied, regardless of the breed.

However there seem to be dog wardens out there who don't have a clue and, in the case of the OP, are on power trips and being pr!cks to people for the sake of it. So a dodgy law is being enforced by some dodgy individuals and I feel that I am entitled to complain about it. If my dog was any way aggressive I would muzzle her straight away, no matter what breed she was.

andreac

Kkelly, your dog should be wearing a collar with a name and contact number on it. I have a tag that has my number, surname and "Chipped" on the other side.

I purposely dont have the dogs name on it so people cant call his name so at least if a stranger found him they wouldnt know his name.

As for the muzzle, dont get me started on that one:mad:

How old is Grason now?

kkelly77

andreac wrote: »

Kkelly, your dog should be wearing a collar with a name and contact number on it. I have a tag that has my number, surname and "Chipped" on the other side.

I purposely dont have the dogs name on it so people cant call his name so at least if a stranger found him they wouldnt know his name.

As for the muzzle, dont get me started on that one:mad:

How old is Grason now?

7 months now. He's lost that puppy look now which is why I'm probably getting this crap now.

andreac

Hes still a baby really and i dont think id be rushing to muzzle him so young, but then again i dont muzzle my fella, and hes 3 and half, he wears his dogmatic headcollar.

Did the warden take your details or how is he going to issue this warning?

Maybe buy a muzzle and carry it with you and if anyone stops you again then just put it on him then.

Discodog

The worrying aspect is the regional inconsistency & even the variation between different wardens in the same council. It is critical to have a tag on a restricted breed. Pounds can treat them very differently & they do not always check for microchips. Pound managers have total authority over the fate of dogs & I suspect that this attitude rubs off on the wardens.

The restricted list is ridiculous but whenever there is a headline grabbing "devil dog" incident then politicians seize the opportunity. Far from decreasing, the trend is that more breeds will end up on the list & some may be banned outright. There are increasing incidents of dogs being used as protection & as weapons by gangs & criminals.

I have spoken with a politician who agrees that the list is wrong. But he argued that no one would take the risk of removing a breed or the entire list & then be blamed if there is an incident.

crotalus667

DBCyc wrote: »

The problem that I have with the law is that it seems to have been introduced without consultation with experts and professionals in dealing with dogs such as vets, behaviourists and dog trainers..

that’s an under statement they didn’t even consult the list of dogs that bite the most (the uk put one out every year and surprise surprise none of the restricted breeds appear in the top ten)

DBCyc wrote: »

So what frustrates the responsible owners of restricted breed dogs is that the law seems to be there to appease certain members of society,..

The problem is we live in a democracy which is lead by tabloid journalists and politicians will to give in to their every whim for fear of losing their seat. The experts are coming out in the uk and where all over the new condemning the proposed introduction of a restricted breeds law (and the already in place banned dogs list) in the uk, so it will be interesting to see how the uk government handles it.

DBCyc wrote: »

Maybe some do and these are the wardens we see applying their common sense to certain situations where a dog is under control with a responsible owner and therefore not a danger to anyone and they are satisfied, regardless of the breed.,..

Given that it seems like a low paying job I doubt it , they are more than likely people that prefer to be seeing dogs kept well than in the pound getting put down (either that or the just don’t like the paper work) In fairness to the guards they seem not to be bothered about the muzzle unless said dog is aggressive)

DBCyc wrote: »

and, in the case of the OP, are on power trips and being pr!cks to people for the sake of it.

All we have is the op's side of the story , and she comes off as stand offish as a lot of people would be when some one questions their pride and joy . If she really feels he was being a prick she can make a complaint .

kkelly77 wrote: »

7 months now. He's lost that puppy look now which is why I'm probably getting this crap now.

I doubt it there seems to be a push on to promote the law over the past few months , my sister was recently (a few months back) told by a nice warden (who others have complained about) to muzzle her rottie (my sister is only very slight and it was obvious it the dog took off she could not stop him+ she is dog aggressive not that she was showing that at the time) I think he took a note of her name and address but she never got a letter

andreac wrote: »

Hes still a baby really and i dont think id be rushing to muzzle him so young,

It may be worth getting him used to it even if you dont intend to use it , i have heard that they can cause a dog to become aggresive if they are not used to it and suddenly find the can not defend themselvs

andreac wrote: »

Did the warden take your details or how is he going to issue this warning?

On a side note I would as for the wardens id before giving any detains to him

Nino Brown

How much is the fine for not having your dog muzzled, and what powers does the warden have if you refuse to give a name and address. I've never been stopped but I think I'd rather pay the fine than muzzle my dog.

crotalus667

Nino Brown wrote: »

How much is the fine for not having your dog muzzled, and what powers does the warden have if you refuse to give a name and address. I've never been stopped but I think I'd rather pay the fine than muzzle my dog.

last i heard it was 32 something but going by one of the rescues there have been 4 dogs put down due to owners refusing to obely the law

Graces7

Discodog wrote: »

The worrying aspect is the regional inconsistency & even the variation between different wardens in the same council. It is critical to have a tag on a restricted breed. Pounds can treat them very differently & they do not always check for microchips. Pound managers have total authority over the fate of dogs & I suspect that this attitude rubs off on the wardens.

The restricted list is ridiculous but whenever there is a headline grabbing "devil dog" incident then politicians seize the opportunity. Far from decreasing, the trend is that more breeds will end up on the list & some may be banned outright. There are increasing incidents of dogs being used as protection & as weapons by gangs & criminals.

I have spoken with a politician who agrees that the list is wrong. But he argued that no one would take the risk of removing a breed or the entire list & then be blamed if there is an incident.

Given the situation, is it not easier to play safe and take all possible precautions for the times the dog is in public?

There was a thread a while ago from someone whose dogs had been removed and there was the threat of destruction.

Sure the law is crazy, but it is there . The dogs matter most in this.

morganafay

I think there should be more restrictions on dog ownership / it should be enforced more. But not muzzles and stuff, just that people should keep their dogs on leads and in secure gardens . . . they're surely more likely to attack others then if they're loose then if they're on leads.

Does a halti really stop a dog biting? I'm genuinely itnerested like. Does it have to be very tight? I just google imaged halti's and all the dogs in the pictures could easily bite . . .