Salukifan

Tell your friend that an unpapered Stafford pup in a state with Breed Specific Legislation is a dog at risk. No responsible registered breeder would rehome a pup at that age. Can't think of a worse start in life for a dog that needs careful socialisation to end up a decent pet. Your friend should NOT be taking on a pup that is not vaccinated. Even she will constitute a risk to the pup and its now high into parvo season. This is really poor decision making by your friend.

There's also a difference between stealing a dog and convincing the owner to hand it over. And you know it. Appeals to acknowledge your "good works" don't improve the standard of your logic Tralee. You also flatter yourself that your side of this debate is the only one where people have stepped in to help a dog in need.

Yes, it can be dangerous. It is also TOTALLY ineffective on a pup still under the effects of disease antibodies passed down from the mother. I'd run a mile from any "breeder" advocating this. And FYI no decent breeder rehomes 6 week old pups. What breed are we talking about? ETA: No decent vet is going to agree with this anyway.

Given the importance of solid temperament in this breed and the fact that it's not rare, I'd suggest you stick to breeders and litters you can visit. And do yourself a favour and DON'T buy a blue Stafford. They're NOT rare, they shouldn't cost more than other colours and the colour comes with health issues. Responsible SBT breeders do NOT breed for this colour.

And I disagreed with it. "old friend" eh? I gave you every opportunity to further explain your advocacy of citizen initiated dog liberation. Place me on ignore if you must but its for others to determine if that's because you have no decent response to the idea that "dog liberation" might just as validly applied to your own dog by someone forming a quick judgement based on minimal observation That's the problem with "moral behaviour" being placed above the law. There's no right of response and no agreed standards of "wrong". It's a free for all.

So if anything you do to your dogs is "stupid" in my opinion, I should steal them? Or is it only when you think things are stupid that people should have to follow your advice? You seem to have a remarkable inability to place yourself in the shoes of people who'd be the subjects of your version of moral liberation of pets. You may consider yourself to be an exemplary dog owner but if your advice was followed, it wouldn't matter how well your animals were treated if another person found that treatment lacking. Anarchy.... The OP intervened and so would I. The OP was quite justified and pity there isn't more like them. The OP did NOT break the law. Your views were that the pup should be removed from its owner. Hardly the same thing. You appointed yourself the arbiter of standards for dog keeping over and above the RSPCA and pronounced the owners unfit - all based on a second hand reports. Nice work. But when your dog ownership was theoretically called into question based on a similar level of knowledge you defended your behaviour - a chance NOT given to this pup's owners before you handed down your judgment. Few folk suggested that the OP's intervention wasn't a reasonable course of action although my view is that removal of a containment collar on an animal kept in non-secure fencing should have been thought through. If that pup had ended up dead on the road, how would the OP have felt? Do unto others Tralee. If you don't want folk taking the law into their own hands based on minimal information where your dogs are concerned, you might want to reconsider advocating it for other dog owners. That was my point.

So if anything you do to your dogs is "stupid" in my opinion, I should steal them? Or is it only when you think things are stupid that people should have to follow your advice? You seem to have a remarkable inability to place yourself in the shoes of people who'd be the subjects of your version of moral liberation of pets. You may consider yourself to be an exemplary dog owner but if your advice was followed, it wouldn't matter how well your animals were treated if another person found that treatment lacking. Anarchy....

No, I'm trying to demonstrate that your idea that people should take the law into their own hands based on limited observation of a situation and bugger all facts is the "moral" thing to do. All that is known about this GSD pup is that it is young, kept in the back yard and currently wearing an electronic containment collar. Based on those facts alone, you have decided that the pup is being mistreated and that, if you lived next door you'd liberate it. It wouldn't be theft by your moral compass because it would be the right thing to do. So I gave an example of how that rationale could be applied to a dog in YOUR care and you still don't get it. It wouldn't matter a damn if you were giving a dog "compassionate care" if the person stealing the dog thought otherwise. THAT is what you're advocating here. By your standards, every old, underweight or unwell dog might be freely stolen because someone decided that it was being mistreated. There'd hardly be a sighthound safe anywhere because ignorant people think a lean sighthound is being starved. But now you're talking about hospitals, humans and torture?? I find that bizarre.

There's some very fancy footwork being done here. Lets have you actually address the issue raised in response to your calls for more moral behaviour though shall we? I can walk past your house for a week, see a dog with its leg in a sling, decide that it isn't being properly cared for according to my standards and take it. Well according to your take on appropriate behaviour, I can anyway. I don't need to know that its not your dog. I don't need to know how you are treating it and I certainly don't need to know that you have done nothing to exacerbate the dog's injury. Indeed, I don't need facts of any kind. All I need is my own subjective opinion on the issue and your argument is that my theft of a dog in your care is not only justified but necessary. After all, in 2012 there are no innocent bystanders. Is that how you really see such issues?

Every school child is being taught incorrectly. It is NOT illegal to watch folk pounding on each other. Don't confuse morality and the law. If you're teaching children that the solution to moral problems is to take the law into their own hands then all I can say is that is highly irresponsible. What's next - "honour killing"?? *shakes head*

Last time I did a first aid course it was drilled into us that we have absolutely no obligation to act if we didn't feel comfortable. How would you even enforce that? Makes no sense. Correct. There is no legal duty of care that requires anyone to render assistance.

Bound to intervene legally???? I think not. A moral imperative is no excuse to break the law. Being a vigilante is illegal and nobody elected you as the moral police. Who said your values are the correct ones anyway? Today it is the theft of a dog, tomorrow what, maybe the beating of someone you think has wronged you, where does it stop? Today in 2012 there is no such thing as an innocent bystander. Its not limited to a moral imperative. It is the legal duty of those empowered to act, and that is just about everybody, to intervene when necessary. As an example, anyone with first aid qualifications must render assistance; that's the law. Or people could just sit on their a^$# like they used to. Not. But YOU do not have a legal duty, nor are you empowered to act. The law empowers only some folk to enforce it. They're called RSPCA inspectors, rangers and police. Everything else is just vigilante justice.... or in this case common or garden theft. Doesn't matter that it's being dressed up in a 'higher morality' costume. Imagine if someone decided that a Maremma with it's leg in a sling, confined to a verandah and not being given pain killers, was being mistreated and you came home to find the dog gone. Do you really want people subjectively deciding for themselves, based on eff all information, that animals need "liberating" from their owners?? Why should any person get to be judge and jury before the owner even gets to put their side of the case?? God help us. It's right up there with those who find wandering dogs who decide that any dog at large must have a bad owner and then keep the them for themselves.

This can also happen when human children play fight - the dog will reinforce the pack order and have a crack at the 'lower order' child. You 'train' a dog a certain way and suddenly find yourself in a position of vulnerability and the dog will take its chance. Can't say I blame them. Not sure we'll find out if this was the case. Owners are rarely up front about being at fault anyway. Option B is dog got over excited and owner has grabbed it to get it out of the way - redirected aggression can be a real bitch.

I would visit the breeder and pups and decide for myself. It will be as plain as the nose on your face whether the pups are socially confident around strangers etc.

If you think dogs won't wait for their chance to take out a certain kind of owner/handler, you can think again.

Nope, two people fighting, dog attacks its owner. Think about why a dog would do that peeps. The dog simply chomped down on the nearest available flying limb. Twice? And then tore at it? That's not typical of any accidental bite I've heard of.

Most breeds of dog live over 10 years away. If marriage and a family are a possibility (and at your age I'd say highly likely) then factor that into your breed choice. I think bull breeds make fabulous family dogs but not in all situations. In larger sized dogs for families I think the Pointer is massively under rated. Not a nasty bone in most of their bodies but big enough to make anyone think twice before entering your property. And usually lovely with strangers AND very active too.

One more thing to consider. What will your life be like 10 years from now. In all likelihood, he dog you buy now will still be with you.

Nope, two people fighting, dog attacks its owner. Think about why a dog would do that peeps.

Persephone: Or on a chain

I'd rather see a collar on the dog that see it out of its yard. So shoot me. Hardly an ideal situation but there are degrees of worse that need to be considered.

This is where I sit. I was concerned initially but Delilah was clearly not stressed and she seemed to enjoy herself. That she was a rescue dog has been a fabulous advertisement for all rescues.

Not necessarily. Depends on the dynamic between owner and dog. Maybe the dog took its chance.

Scratch both Amstaffs and SBTs from your list then. ANY aggression towards people would be a serious breed fault. If you want a dog that's protective but happy to be patted off its own turf, you're asking quite a bit, particularly when you add in the running partner factor. Frankly I wonder if a utility gundog might suit you better.

In my experience a lot of dogs can't read Boxers well. That can create issues in offlead situations too.