Back with a bang – fireworks display returns
Ryan Taylor
Lerwick’s fireworks display will make a return next month, following last year’s absence from the town’s events calendar.
In a change from the usual location, the display will take place at the Knab instead of Clickimin. Before now the fireworks have been ignited at the now defunct campsite.
Parking will be available at the large multi-court car park at the corner of Knab Road and Gressy Loan. Organisers say disabled parking will also be available on the hard standing area immediately to the south of the skate park and coastguard station.
The display will not, as tradition dictates, be held on Guy Fawkes night itself. Instead, the event is being planned for Saturday 1st November.
A temporary traffic order will prohibit parking on the section of Knab Road between Church Road and Breiwick Road.
Access to the viewing areas will be from Knab Road, Gressy Loan or the golf course path from the Breiwick Road end.
It follows the cancellation of last year’s Guy Fawkes event, run by Islesburgh Pyrotechnic Display Club, due to a shortage of volunteers.
In a statement from member Andrew Anderson, the club said the work of volunteers was key to the event taking place.
“It is important to note that the event would not be possible without the help and support of volunteer stewards.”
He stressed Shetland Islands Council does not contribute financially to the display. The cost of this year’s event, he said, will largely be met by cash donations from local businesses, monies from the cash collection on the night, a grant from Lerwick Community Council and funds from the club itself.
Michael grant
Have the people living in the vicinity of the area of the display been approached about this happening especially those with pets?
Ali Inkster
The law is quite clear on this, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2005/11/04103719 which is surprising for a law that came from hollyrood. must be from a pre SSNP era.
john ridland
Maybe we need to ask the folk in the vicinity if they have been asked about living with other peoples so called “pets”.! At least the fireworks are just one night, Dog crap and barking 365 days and nights…!
michael grant
As a responsible dog owner who picks up after his dog who also doesnt bark at anything that moves what is your point Mr Ridland,if you have a problem with someones dog then report it to the proper department.
David Spence
What I have found quite staggering is the number of dogs that regarded as dangerous, but due to the simple mentality of some people, they need this breed of dog to prove how hard they. This breed of dog is also associated with the criminal fraternity, allegedly.
Personally, this breed of dog, or variations of this breed, have been responsible for several deaths and attacks on people, where irresponsible people who owned such animals have allowed their dog to do as it pleases, whether inside or outside. I suspect, in some cases, these dogs are not disciplined due to their reputation, and as such have been allowed to become more dominant and aggressive.
This breed of dog was specifically bred for hunting or going down burrows and dragging out the prey with their strong jaws holding onto the prey whilst their muscular body takes it out of the burrow.
I do think that such breeds of dog should be banned completely or severely restricted, as their unpredictable behaviour does not justify the risk of having them free within society (regardless as to how affectionate the owner maybe towards the dog).
Any way, getting back to the subject, it is good to see the Fire Works Display again, and look forward to seeing it on the 1st November.
Michael Garriock
@ David Spence: ANY dog is dangerous in the wrong hands. Just because a dog is “regarded as dangerous” doesn’t prove a damn thing. Other than that they’re a frighteningly large body of people out there who through gullibility, naiveity or similar swallow hook line and sinker the latest massively over-hyped media “crusade”, or ill-informed verbal diarrhea that wafts across the garden fence, pub table etc.
Its not certain breeds of dogs that need banning or restricting, its certain humans with particular inherent attitudes, who’ve persistently over the years displayed an affinity to possess a dog from one of a small number of breeds, then completely fail to be responsible for it, that need banning or restricting from all dogs.
An irresponsible dog owner’s dog is a danger to everyone and everything, regardless of its breed. You can’t blame any dog for wanting to do what comes naturally, but you certainly can blame its owner for letting it do it where it shouldn’t.
ian_tinkler
I am not at all surprised to see David Spence waffling on about a subject he shows total ignorance in. Most hunting dogs, hounds, longdogs ect are the very safest of breeds with families and young children, however any large dog in the wrong hands can be dangerous. The large guarding breeds, due to years of selective breeding, can be problematic. But again, only in the wrong or inexperienced hands. The problem nearly always lies with the owner, very few dogs are born nasty, training or lack of competent training is the problem. Compared with the incompetent or stupid car owner dogs are far less dangerous. There is a mentality of aggressive boy racer type car owner which is mirrored by the macho aggressive type dog owner whom due to a deficit of self esteem (genital size) must own a pit bull or the like. Do not blame the dog look to the owner. Do not however ever forget, any giant dog, if untrained, wrongly handled or plainly ill and in pain is potentially as dangerous as a loaded shot gun. To own a gun you need a licence and competency of handling , for some guarding breeds of dogs the same competency of handling and license should be necessary.
David Spence
‘ Just because a dog is “regarded as dangerous” doesn’t prove a damn thing. ‘
eeeeeh It proves that it is dangerous, Michael.
Mind you, with the amount genetic mutations this wolf, sorry, dog has, it is not surprising that certain breeds of dog have, regardless to the owner, suddenly, out of the blue, attacked and killed or seriously injured either other animals or humans without any explanation.
But, a dog that is specifically bred to be vicious (and Japanese experiments proved that you can breed animals with a certain psychological traits which can be a danger to other animals or humans), strong and with a high tendency to psychologically display behaviour which is unpredictable and dangerous.
To say the dog is not to blame, but the owner is, is like saying ‘ a gun and the bullet within it is not dangerous, it is the person using the device that is dangerous. In other words, the production of a device that can kill is harmless, so therefore the production of the device is justified, regardless. This could be a reason why the kill rate in the USA is so high compared to Europe (year 2011 – 2012 Europe 382, USA 111,845)……….nothing to do with guns, but humans which are using them.
Michael Garriock
@ David Spence: To “regard”, is to view something in a certain way, to have an opinion of it, not a statement of fact. It is no proof of anything other than an opinion you would appear to be in agreement with.
Of course you can breed in, or out certain characteristics in any living creature, we didn’t need the Japanese of anyone else to “prove” that. The evidence is clear to be seen around you every day. That said, the point is irrelevant to the issue at debate, as all it proves is that given the necessary circumstances it is possible to breed in unsavoury behavioural characteristics to future generations, not that the existing population of dogs, all already have them at a problem, or even detectable level.
A loaded gun in and of itself isn’t dangerous, its only becomes so when a third party/external force causes it to discharge. Without such it is only a collection of so much benign metals, plastic, wood and a sniff of powder, no more dangerous in and of themselves than any sizeable rock or lump of wood etc lying around anywhere, and both are equally capable to achieving the same damaging results in the wrong hands.
I would certainly argue that the USA kill rate is higher than the European one on account of too many guns getting in to the wrong hands, rather than the existence and availability of guns themselves. A responsible gun owner will neither go around shooting people or causing other trouble with it, nor will they knowingly let any gun of their’s get in to the hands of a person who might not be trusted to be equally responsible with it. The fact that guns get in to the wrong hands and people get hurt lies squarely on the shoulders of the regulators and less than responsible owners.
Likewise, any responsible dog owner realises that a dog, any dog, and all dogs are never 100% predictable, and can, should the ducks line up, launch in to a sudden and apparently without reason attack on another living creature. Animals have moods and good and bad days, just like us, they behave differently when in season etc, the wrong scent, the wrong sound, the wrong type of gesture etc is all it takes. A responsible owner, regardless of breed knows this, and also knows the personality of their dog, and takes whatever precautions are necessary to ensure it can co-exist in harmony with the rest of society.
Ian Tinkler is perfectly right, all dog owners, but especially owners of larger breeds and those breeds in current form known to have heightened aggressiveness than average, need to undergo testing/training/licencing to ensure their competency to own dog(s). A dog belonging to a fully informed and responsible owner is going to require an exceptional and a highly unexpected set of circumstances to ever be problematic, regardless of whichever breed they choose to own. However any dog, regardless of breed, belonging to an ignorant and irresponsible owner, will always be problematic.
It is highly unfair on a dog, if not outright abuse, to suggest that dogs of certain breeds and/or personailities should be eliminated, just because they are the favoured breeds of some of the most ignorant and irresponsible dog owners that exist, while letting those same ignorant and irresponsible owners acquire yet another dog of a different breed to turn in to a problem dog.
The dog just does what comes naturally, the owner is responsible for what the dog becomes, yet the dog gets the chop, and the owner is free to do it all over again with another dog, time and again. To me that highly strange and flawed logic. The problem is the owner – fix the owner. The dog is already a victim of its owner, your logic and solution makes it a victim of society too.
Haydn Gear
All dogs return to the wild if they are untrained and unrestrained. Cats also become feral so the solution is obvious.
ian tinkler
Haydn I have the ideal answer, put down all humans. Solve all the worlds problems in one stroke, eradicate the ultimate predator and polluter.
Haydn Gear
May I please be permitted another short message to Lisa Brumby?My late father had a first cousin called Kenneth Gear but, like me , he hailed from Wales.According to Jim Gear a Robert Gear(clergyman) went to Shetland in the 1800s from Aberdeen.Tel. 01595 753236to find out more.
David Spence
I agree with much of what you have said Michael. However, where does one draw the line between a particular breed of dog that was bred for hunting and/or capturing, killing and rectrieving prey, where this breed of dog was specifically bred through generations and generations until it met a specific size and/or behaviour? This may have been acceptable decades or a few generations ago (human) but for this bred to still have these traits bred into it in todays world, does bring into question ‘ how safe are particular breeds of dogs ? ‘ regardless to how good the owner maybe with the dog.
In regards to certain psychological traits being passed on through genes or dna, I think this evidence is fairly comprehensive. I do not see any difference in breeds of dogs transferring the same genetic behaviour onto other’s of the same breed or even other breeds if the case may be that breeds ar cross-bred?
I also agree Michael, that, in many respects, a dogs behaviour is very much influenced by how the owner treats the dog as well as the social-environment it is brought up in.
I wouldn’t necessary agree with you in that, this is the impression, a dogs behaviour is 100% the responsibility of the owner. Letting the dog loose in an open green area or anywhere to run around to give it exercise is an example of where this control is not under the owner’s control, lets say.
I would also say Michael, that the law should be a lot more stringient that what it is just now in people being allowed to own a dog. I also feel that some form of greater control in terms of identification and restriction on who can own a dog should become a law as well.
ian tinkler
In answer to David, irresponsible owners and irresponsible dog breeding is a serious problem. The Kennel Club has done little to help here. Politicians as always show their usual ineptitude, that is all colours of politician. All dog breeders should be licensed in law, all pups mandatorily micro chipped and all dogs and owners carry a dog passport, rather like the horse passport. That way a stray could be traced back to the owner/ breeder and irresponsible owners/breeders dealt with. This would cost money but, to keep dogs well is expensive. If you could not afford say 75 plus pounds annually for a dog owners license/ passport you cannot afford a dog, vets bills can run into many hundreds. Serious fines should be levied at the bad owners, 1000 pounds plus is already the rate for sheep worriers. The same fine for non pooper scoopers and latch key owners, unlicensed breeders and owners of non-micro chipped and pass ported dogs would soon save a huge problem and perhaps save many a child from a mauling.
David Spence
I would thoroughly agree with you Ian, on the points you have raised. I do think the so-called Kennel Club Organisation caters more towards the owners than it does to the well being and monitoring of the dog itself. There is a lot of evidence that many breeds of dogs do suffer physically, as subsequently psychologically, as a consequence of years of breeding and cross-breeding different types of dogs purely for specific human reasons rather than for the greater good of the dog itself.
A good example of this is the Shetland Collie itself, where, I believe, it was cross-bred with a Border Collie in the early part of the 19th Century purely for the purposes of having the looks of a Border Collie but the Stature of a Sheltie. In other words, what is called, I believe, the insulting description of a ‘ Toy Dog ‘.
The Kennel Club may say that this particular dog is a Sheltie, but in truth, it is nothing like what a Sheltie used to look like. As far as I am concerned, if anybody tells me their ‘ miniature Border Collie ‘ is a Sheltie, I will quickly remind them that it is not a true Sheltie by any standards.
Just because the Kennel Club may classify it as a Sheltie, compared to what a Sheltie truly is, it is nothing like a Sheltie whatsoever.
I also believe that the BBC refused to televise Crufts as a consequence of many people complaining about the appalling genetic misfits being displayed purely for the pleasure of humans regardless to the suffering of the animal.