Proposed new dangerous dog law

[WILL*REMAIN*STRONG]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwes ... l-estates/

The comments on this subject are interesting.

As some people are having problems with their neighbours and their so called ‘dangerous dogs’, whether council tenants or not, do you think people should be forced to insure their dogs in case of attacks?

Should everyone be forced to pay for the idiocy of others?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqyU2z-F ... 3&index=11

What are the police doing if they are not arresting this kind of scum? And if the police feel their hands are tied when it comes to dealing with youngsters on what seems like a suicide mission, why aren't their hands being untied? I wish we could make politicians live on one of these estates for a year, I actually think that is the only way something would be done. As for the poor dogs, what choice does a dog have when a piece of scum buys one?

[robj191269]

The funny thing is that pet insurance excludes any breed of dog registered under the dangerous dogs act...ho hum

[juliet]

I think that its all a bit like tackling the symptom rather than the cause.

I can't imagine that a change in the law will make non responsible dog owners suddenly take responsbility. Car insurance is compulsory but not everyone has it.

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.

[WILL*REMAIN*STRONG]

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.

[Midori]

I feel that all dogs should be microchipped, also that whilst out in public they should all be muzzled, except for police dogs in the performance of their duty. (I can hear the screams of outrage already, 'My little Fifi has never bitten anyone!')

It isn't the point, even little Fifi can have a off-day, and cause serious harm to a small child. Open spaces, hot summer weather and very small children are a volatile mix, dogs of any size are protective of their owners, and cannot be relied on, as they do not have the same code of conduct humans have.

Dogs caught without muzzles in a public place should be impounded, should they also prove to be without microchip they should be put down, without delay and the owner given massive fines (if he or she can be found).

Don't get me wrong, I am a doglover and owner, but only strong measures will bring those who have uncontrolled dogs or fighting breeds to heel!

Cheers, Midori

[WILL*REMAIN*STRONG]

Hi Midori.

I agree that compulsory muzzling if practiced by everyone would cut down on serious dog attacks. But dogs can still do harm with their claws or bodies when allowed to jump at a child or frail person, because they can be knocked to the ground. People will still be intimidated by a large dog barking and jumping at them and the threat of taking the muzzle off is always available to these filthy people who use them to intimidate.

There is also the worry that if a potentially dangerous dog is next door and jumping at the fence and barking and growling, the dog won’t be muzzled on private property and if it gets through the fence it can then attack.

I don’t disagree with you but think there has to be more deterrent/harsher punishments that come with any new law. I must admit I can understand if people don’t want to muzzle their dogs when they have been well trained and are always on a tight lead. When walking my dogs when I was younger I would keep them close to me and on a couple of occasions other dogs were allowed to attack mine and thankfully they fended off the attack themselves, because I wouldn’t have been able to get a large dog off of one of mine should it have gone too far.
Yes if they were all muzzled an attack might be less likely but there are still those who allow their dogs to lunge at anyone and cause menace.

I don’t see anything making a difference without strong penalties being dished out to those who use dogs to intimidate or become a menace.

[Midori]

Agreed. I wasn't proposing universal muzzling as a standalone remedy, but as an add-on to other control measures

Cheers, Midori

[Mattylad]

Wont make a jot of difference to the low lives who have the illegal dogs for the danger the present to others.

They wont get anything done & certainly wont use a muzzle.

And the dogs cant read the law.

[Sudynim]

Wont make a jot of difference to the low lives who have the illegal dogs for the danger the present to others.

They wont get anything done & certainly wont use a muzzle.

And the dogs cant read the law.

Sadly, it will be necessary to seize and destroy uninsured dogs (just like cars).

[WHJOHNSON]

I just wish we could apply the same types of suggested measures to out-of-control kids too.

[WILL*REMAIN*STRONG]

I just wish we could apply the same types of suggested measures to out-of-control kids too.

Muzzle or seize and destroy?

[Midori]

Children are animals too

[WILL*REMAIN*STRONG]

I treat my cat like a baby some times.

But yes, some children are animals. You wouldn't know which was human if you caged some nasty children up and put them alongside of badly behaved animals. Although if 'some' half arse parents walk their dogs and don't do anything with their children but give them a key or open and close the door on them, perhaps a law should be made to make the parents accountable for the actions of their children. But that is a different story altogether.

[Uriah Heap]

But yes, some children are animals.

The ones next door to us behave more like vegetables. Come to think of it, the older lad even smells a bit cabbagey.

perhaps a law should be made to make the parents accountable for the actions of their children.

Absolutely. Some people just don't see that responsibility comes along with the "right" to have children. And your better off if you do. The law, the tax system and society in general favours families at the expence of others. Having kids is an easy way to up your benefits and everybody else pays.

[TO]

Hi

Bit off piste for me really, but speaking from my own experience.

It's not the law per-se that's a problem. The bit about "pitbull type" dogs is, and there will always be the argument from the owner that pooch isn't a pitbull type.

The other problem is enforcement, and the misunderstanding by the Police of exactly what the DDA is meant to achieve.

Having been at the pointy snarling biting end of three very large powerful dogs which attacked my little dog, my experience of the Police was at best dire. Only after half an hour of discussion, and when I quoted the DDA and accompanying notes for enforcement officers would the Police Officer accept that the dogs were out of control.

Despite saying that he would not want to have been in my situation, commenting that he would not want to go unannounced to the dog owners property for fear of being mauled, and telling me about a similar incident (different dogs), where the innocent dog owner was badly mauled, he still wouldn't accept that they were dangerous.

I asked repeatedly for his interpretation of reasonable apprehension of being bitten, he wouldn't answer. At one point the Officer started the phrase "duty of care" but didn't finish it, realising no doubt that he was about to put his foot in it. So I raised the duty of care issue, the Officer would just not accept that the dogs were dangerous and reverted back to his original position that they were not out of control.

I explained that the DDA was meant to prevent tragedies, not to be printed off after someone is mauled in order to provide something with which to mop up the gore.

A Lawyer friend strongly advised a formal complaint to the police authority. I let the matter rest, but requested that a record was made of the incident.

As for me, I was ok albeit somewhat shaken, my little dog was less lucky.

Dog licences, novel idea I know, but why not. If not licensed and chipped to correspond, bye bye pooch. Muzzled in public, yes to that too, but lets not forget a lot of these tragedies happen at home to family members attacked by the family pet, and how do you deal with that.

TO