Today’s letters to The Courier.
Sir, – I refer to the letter of February 15, ‘Why should anyone need to possess a breed of dog that is a danger to humans?’
Dangerous dogs are a problem and the public should be protected, but research has shown that banning specific breeds does not solve this problem.
In the UK there has been a ban on four types of dog since 1997, but dog bites have risen by more than 50% since then.
Holland banned pit bulls in 1993, but there was no reduction in the number of dog bites and the ban was repealed in 2008. Such legislation has also been ineffective in various parts of the USA.
Breed bans are also very expensive to enforce. It is estimated that between 1991 and 1996, the Dangerous Dog Act in the UK cost more than £14 million to enforce (more recent figures are not available).
Dogs are not born with an inherent instinct to attack humans. They are naturally sociable animals and rely on their owner to show them what acceptable behaviour is. Owners must understand and accept full responsibility for the actions of their dog.
On the other hand, the public needs reassurance that the legislation and authorities can protect them from dangerous dogs. The current legislation is not fit for purpose and is in urgent need of an overhaul so more preventative powers can be given to the authorities.
If we live with dogs there will always be the risk of dog bites. The only way to be certain of avoiding this is to ban all dogs, which is unrealistic. Therefore, the most effective way to prevent dog bites is to encourage responsible ownership.
Owners should be required, or encouraged, to undertake training to understand their dog’s needs and turn them into well-behaved dogs.
Harry Greig.Thornton, Fife.
What happened to ‘jobs with no strings’?
Sir, – I think its about time someone from our SNP administration and national government made a statement on what is happening down at Dundee port.
What has happened to the promise of jobs from our first minister which came with no strings attached, or at least no mention of biomass plant? And what is this latest joke about a ‘heat network’ a pulp and rubbish burning incinerator, burning other people’s rubbish for the greedy shareholders.
I can guess we will see imported European landfill waste being burned at Dundee to maximise profits, not to mention the north American wood pulp.
They should let us know if they agree that Dundee should be seen in the same context as Grangemouth and Rosyth.
The Courier recently carried the latest attempt from Forth Ports to hold us to ransom over the building of a heat network. It is all too obvious now how Forth Ports manoeuvred and played the renewables card telling Dundee that we must accept the city centre incinerator or lose valuable renewable jobs.
Build it in Leith. I would rather not have the 40 or so jobs promised and look out on a clean River Tay.
Are they happy to line the shareholders’ pockets and watch as Dundee gives up on ever having cruise ship tourists visiting the V&A and a 100m stack sitting quite close the new swimming pool?
It doesn’t have to belch smoke, just the thought that it can is enough.
Scottish Enterprise has played a major roll in developing Dundee port don’t they have a say in its development for the country and not just for SSE and Forth Ports?
Carlos Van Francis.Clepington Road,Dundee.
Scotland a very small fish in a big sea
Sir, – I refer to Jim Crumley’s recent article regarding David Cameron’s visit to Edinburgh.
By all means, Mr Crumley should shout for the freedom of the Scottish heritage, but he should also bear in mind that Scotland is a very small fish in a big sea.
In the forthcoming referendum, we are being asked to vote for a future that looks beyond the wee “granny’s heiland hame” mentality.
For Scotland to prosper, we have to think global and continue to support Adam Smith’s enduring theory regarding the “economies of scale”.
The arguments that got us into the Act of Union in 1707 are as valid today as they were then.
Mr Crumley’s reaction to David Cameron’s visit merely demonstrates our national trait of persecution complex.
His quick response conveniently ignores the SNP grandstanding in Edinburgh Castle’s Great Hall, and makes no reference to the future SNP hijacking of important events such as the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn.
When the time comes, I am sure the average Scottish citizen will be wise enough to see through such narrow mindedness.
J. M. Young.Coldstream Crescent,Leven.
Does what it says on the tin
Sir, – I would like to point out to Diane Ferrie (Letters, February 22), that golf courses actually do what their developers say they are going to do, whereas windfarms frequently do not.
Ron Greer.Armoury House,Blair Atholl.
Going, going…
Sir – Reference your article, February 18, about windfarm opponents’ concerns, by Richard Watt. In our Angus glens we have some of the nicest and unspoilt countryside in Scotland but for how much longer?
Now we have foreign companies and greedy lairds rushing to cash in on this subsided free-for-all.
Eurowind claim to power 56% of Angus households which all sounds very good, but on some of our coldest days in the middle of winter there is not even a breath of wind.
A. Ritchie.The Moorie,St Cyrus.
Get involved: to have your say on these or any other topics, email your letter to letters@thecourier.co.uk or send to Letters Editor, The Courier, 80 Kingsway East, Dundee DD4 8SL. Letters should be accompanied by an address and a daytime telephone number.