juliet wrote:Agree with having to have dogs microchipped and those that aren't get lifted and impounded. Think it would cost the tax payer a bit of money mind.
I agree with that too, I just worry that nasty people will keep getting animals and having them impounded and there will be too many to re-home in rescue centres. It is already a major problem to re-home the ones people have got bored with and replaced.
I think those who really use and abuse animals and have been caught once and then carry on should go to prison. That message would put fear in even the most nuisance gangster type of idiot terrorising neighbourhoods.
Banned dogs would not be able to be insured.
Pit Bull Terrier
Fila Braziliero
Japanese Tosa
Dogo Argentino
The dangerous dog act means any dog that is dangerous and out of control. What worries me about this proposed legislation is that those who use dogs to intimidate will not insure them and if someone was to make a claim against such a person for an injury caused by the dog, who will pay? Many of these people are on benefits or low income and often get away with not paying court fines.
I think all dogs should be micro chipped but I suppose this would be another thing that would be hard to enforce. Back street breeders take cash and don't ask questions, if the owner is caught with a dog not micro chipped, they would probably have no problem with the dog being impounded and they go out and get another one.
I think anything is going to cost money and police time, I just don't think this legislation is going to do anything other than cost more money for decent dog owners, and potentially be another thing abused by compensation hungry people.
I still think that inevitably more breeds will come under fire and potentially be added to the banned dogs list. I personally think this should be avoided because there are a lot of breeds that could potentially be used to intimidate or trained to be vicious.