Government over reaction again, this time attack dog owners

[wordy]

I support the law. If you own a dog it's a commitment which needs backing up.

Because having to pay insurance is the only way that you can show commitment isn't it.

 

[Wicksta]

Yes and of course it is going to be very easy to enforce as dogs carry number plates and chassis numbers.

Actually that would be simple to implement as part of the solution, all of our cats are microchipped which is the equivalent to a chassis number. I can see this working if microchipping is part of it.

 

[Third Opinion]

I dont see how even if they are chipped it is going to be easily enforced. Are we going to put canine ANPR camera's on every street, or make Policeman and traffic wardens carry chip detecting devices.

We will need yet more stop and search laws, then some kind of compulsory registration. More civil servants to run these. As stated before we can't get Chav's to insure there cars yet, what hope would we have with this ridiculous scheme.

 

[wordy]

Actually that would be simple to implement as part of the solution, all of our cats are microchipped which is the equivalent to a chassis number. I can see this working if microchipping is part of it.

Yeah but who is going to scan the dog once it's attacked someone, providing of course it hangs around to be scanned. also if the owners leg it and the dog isn't chipped then what?

 

[zootfloot]

Personally i think its a step in the right direction, however i dont feel it can be as black and white as its being made out to be.

Most dog owners are responsible, but likewise most dog owners dont do their research into a breed before taking ownership of one.

for example i know a family of 5 (Mother,Father and 3 kids under 12) who last year bought a staffordshire Bull Terrier, everything was fine for the first 4-6 months, now the only person who can walk the dog is the Dad because it is so strong.(it doesnt pull on the lead but it doesnt mix will with other dogs despite socialisation classes)

Of course this leads to the problem that the dog plays with the kids etc and usually one of the kids keds knocked/pulled over....because the dog is so frustrated at being kept in the house all day as no one can walk the poor thing.

I dont how the problem can be addressed but something certainly needs to be done, maybe a scheme where you need a licence of some sort to own a dog that becomes more specialised as the size/aggressive nature of the dog increases...dunno.

This also raises another question (may be a controversial one) why on earth do people buy a dog such as a staffy, akita, rottweiler when they have no knowledge of the breed and have small children around....i am not saying that these particular breeds are any more dangerous than say a collie of golden retriever but they certainly have the reputation of being more aggressive.

Whats wrong with a nice mongrel from the rspca?

 

[J!nx]

Actually that would be simple to implement as part of the solution, all of our cats are microchipped which is the equivalent to a chassis number. I can see this working if microchipping is part of it.

Which leads us back to Are dog owners going to be stopped in the streets? and by who? A complete new organisation task-force, or already over-stretched bobbies? Who wants the hassle when you're out for a quiet stroll.

Is it going to be implimented at the vets? No TP insurance = reported? Somehow I see that's going to lead to a rise in less inoculations and dare I say generally poor health of dogs.

Cats faeces pose more of a danger than any of the dogs I've ever owned have.

 

[Cosimo]

If you dont get insurance you get 6 points on your dog license

Nope, your dog gets to visit the big dog in the sky.

 

[bledd]

I wish you needed a dog licence, like a gun licence. No licence? to the pound he goes, with a hefty fine.

Licence cost £5.




Scratch that, they should just make a no chavs/****** law

 

[Rainmaker]

Government ministers, animal welfare organisations and the Lords etc have pretty much all agreed that the Dangerous Dogs Act was knee-jerk, emotive and that it hasn't stemmed the tide of 'dangerous dogs' because in truth, it's "deed not breed".

So why now start rolling out the same old bandwagon about 'dangerous breeds'? As is often the case in these matters, existing legislation caters wonderfully for the situation already. Enforcing it is a different matter though.

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 already prohibits any dog being dangerously out of control in a public place. That's ANY breed (section 5 rather than the infamous "pit bull" section 1). Any dog so found will be liable to be destroyed, or else at the discretion of the court, returned to the owner (who may be fined). Any dog found to be dangerous and subsequently so returned will need to be neutered, microchipped, muzzled in a public place and insured.

Why oh why do we have to roll out the latest bandwagon and start foaming at the mouth, when existing legislation simply needs to be enforced properly?

 

[Fenris]

I support this.

 

[Third Opinion]

Government ministers, animal welfare organisations and the Lords etc have pretty much all agreed that the Dangerous Dogs Act was knee-jerk, emotive and that it hasn't stemmed the tide of 'dangerous dogs' because in truth, it's "deed not breed".

So why now start rolling out the same old bandwagon about 'dangerous breeds'? As is often the case in these matters, existing legislation caters wonderfully for the situation already. Enforcing it is a different matter though.

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 already prohibits any dog being dangerously out of control in a public place. That's ANY breed (section 5 rather than the infamous "pit bull" section 1). Any dog so found will be liable to be destroyed, or else at the discretion of the court, returned to the owner (who may be fined). Any dog found to be dangerous and subsequently so returned will need to be neutered, microchipped, muzzled in a public place and insured.

Why oh why do we have to roll out the latest bandwagon and start foaming at the mouth, when existing legislation simply needs to be enforced properly?

Labour looking for the School gate mum vote again?

 

[Baboonanza]

I'm less bothered about this than stopping all the inconsiderate ****s (that word begins with C btw) letting their dogs crap all over the pavement.

I'd be in favour of a strictly enforced dog license linked to a DNA profile. Pavement crap could then be DNA tested and the owners appropriately sodomised with red-hot pokers.

Part of the dog license could be used for payouts to people mauled by dogs if you like

 

[hood1971]

If it comes into force I wonder how many dogs will be dumped on the overstretched animal shelters?

Shortsighted laws that to cover the fact that current enforcement is not being handled properly. They can strengthen the laws but if the enforcement of them stays at current levels it will just mean that the majority of responsible owners will be paying more with no improvements.

 

[Greebo]

It's a massive over reaction. The only thing which would work is a registration scheme and every dog chipped. If a dog is found without a chip, it is confiscated.

If a dog with a chip is causing problems then they know who the owner is to bring criminal charges against.

Of course the problem owners who have these type of dogs as weapons won't be on the register or have their dog chipped so slowly all these dogs will be removed.

Insurance is pointless as I guarantee that any dog which hurt a person wouldn;t have any insurance so this is just a money making scheme and serves no pupose.

 

[wordy]

Why oh why do we have to roll out the latest bandwagon and start foaming at the mouth, when existing legislation simply needs to be enforced properly?

Election Time!!!!

We subscribe to Your Dog magazine and there was an article about what the 3 main parties would look at with regards to the Dangerous Dogs Act if they got in power.

Labour thought is was fine, and as we can now see want to extend legistlation for dogs.
The other two took the rational "deed not breed" view and would look at and possibly re-write it.

 

[Dolph]

Pointless, retarded and unnecessary legislation.... Check.

Labour party involved... Check.

Massive amounts of money involved in policing the pointless and unnecesary legislation... check.

And yet still people will vote for these muppets...

 

[InvaderGIR]

So what happens if the **** round the corner with the **** of a dog doesn't get insurance? They have resources to chase him and 'fine' him? Even though he'll be on benefits anyway :S

Seems rather pointless as the legit owners that will most likely be semi-respectable will pay the insurance for **** all.

I'm not biased at all. Only dogs we have had are border collies.

Pretty much what I was thinking.

Any 'dangerous breed' is perfectly fine with a sensible owner. Get any breed and scum owner and it'll be dangerous. Government over reacting again.

 

[Nitefly]

Pointless, retarded and unnecessary legislation.... Check.

Massive amounts of money involved in policing the pointless and unnecesary legislation... check.

It's not pointless, there are many in this thread that disagree with you. A system of compulsoruy registration is more to be enforced by a fine if it isn't complied to. I really don't see that as a problem. Plus it will provide a pot for those who are attacked by an uninsured dog to gain compensation in the exact same way that we can get compensation if we are injured by an uninsured car.

Whilst it's obvious that keeping a shamu in 'cage' is going to require extreme caution, I do find it mildly amusing that at the same time people are relatively reluctant to accept any potential dangers of certain dog breeds.

 

[Delvis]

But the majority have been chipped, or should have been anyway.

I own a staffy puppy who is 5 months old and thinks biting you is a game, not hard but we are currently training him and he's doing it less and less. We also decided to not use a harness so his chest muscles won't get stupidly strong and give him that really aggressive staffy stance.

Why ANYONE uses a harness regardless I do nt know!!!!

It gives the damn dog something to pull on

 

[Delvis]

Actually that would be simple to implement as part of the solution, all of our cats are microchipped which is the equivalent to a chassis number. I can see this working if microchipping is part of it.

Not everyone will get it microchipped...how about all the people who just breed dogs and flog them off....do you think they're chipped? Oh, and look who they're sold to