Friday, September 18, 2015

Scotland: Must not speak ill of bull terriers

As a former registered bull-terrier breeder, I know a bit about this.  A Staffordshire bull terrier is basically the same breed as a Pitbull.  Pitbulls have just been bred to be fighting dogs.  So it is reasonable to be wary of a Staffie unless you know it well.  American pitbulls are known in Britain and one could easily be mistaken for a Staffie

Trouble began when Conalter Boarding Kennels, near Crieff, Perthshire, declined to accept a booking from the owner of a Staffie, because of the breed’s supposed aggressive nature.

When the dog owner posted a complaint on the kennels’ Facebook page, a response appeared, branding Staffies ‘ugly, aggressive animals, much like their owners’.

The remark, which was accompanied by a smiley face symbol, attracted the ire of Staffie owners when it was shared on Twitter and Facebook.

Nearly 3,000 people have now signed an online petition urging Perth and Kinross Council to close down the kennels.

One signatory and Staffie owner, Paul Scott from Blairgowrie, Perthshire, said: ‘It makes you wonder how safe any other breed of dog will be if [the kennel owners] don’t have the skills to handle a dog as soft as a Staffie.’

Natalie Holmes, who started the campaign, wrote: ‘Due to the unprofessional approach and the lack of knowledge and integrity, this boarding kennels deserves nothing less than to be shut down.’

Shena Hogg, 60, who runs the kennels with husband Nigel, claims the comment was left by a hacker and has nothing to do with her – but she has maintained her stance against boarding Staffies.

She said: ‘I know there are some that are lovely but I won’t take the risk because I have children and grandchildren here. It’s a blanket policy.

A spokesman for Perth and Kinross Council said: ‘We only investigate kennels when licence conditions have been breached and animal welfare is considered to be at risk.’

Police Scotland have confirmed that they are investigating the threats. A spokesman said: ‘Police Scotland is aware of the matter and is making enquiries.’



Anonymous said...

I would think that the owners would have a right to use caution, but they should be more careful about what they say.

Anonymous said...

The owners have the right to refuse any dog and customers have the right not to take their dog there. My deduction is that there are more owners who would take their dog to a place where no POTENTIALLY aggressive dogs were allowed than boycott because the were banned.
What is at stake here is business owners being able to run their own business with out being forced to do something by vocal special interest groups. This is no different than lgbt's suing or getting the government to fine bakers or florists that do not do gay weddings.


Anonymous said...

I don't think cakes or flowers attack people or animals!