Does something need to be done about dogs?

potatolord said:
Manslaughter would be more achievable. Even then, you'd likely have to prove recklessness.
Click to expand...

Surely if you've allowed your dog to get into a situation* where it's able to get its jaws around someone, that's by very definition "reckless"?



* Obviously ignoring scenarios outside your control e.g. where someone has climbed a fence and is trespassing on your private land where the dog should be expected to be able to safely roam free.
 
Last edited:
Haggisman said:
Surely if you've allowed your dog to get into a situation* where it's able to get its jaws around someone, that's by very definition "reckless"?



* Obviously ignoring scenarios outside your control e.g. where someone has climbed a fence and is trespassing on your private land where the dog should be expected to be able to safely roam free.
Click to expand...

Possibly- it depends on the situation.

Manslaughter is pretty much based on a test of reasonableness. Did a person do something harmful, where a reasonable person would deem they should be aware it was a dangerous act and did it anyway?

If someone took a dog with a history of aggression into a playground where dogs were not permitted and it killed a child after the parents asked him yo leave, that might count.

If a usually placid lab bites someone and they bleed out after they are breaking up a run of the mill fight between dogs during walkies in the park, probably not.
 
This is getting a bit ridiculous, now. Where are all these Bullies coming from? They all seem to be pre-programmed to kill all humans, but having at least one attack every week is not normal by any measure.
 
I think everyone should have to appy for a license to have a dog. Interviewed, show your salary, where the dog will live, have insurance etc. before you're allowed to buy one. Then the dog must be tagged so its easy to find out of its legally owned
If you dont have a license / its an unlicenses dog then there's a heavy fine and punishment should be a year of emptying dog**** bins :D
 
Guest2 said:
I think everyone should have to appy for a license to have a dog. Interviewed, show your salary, where the dog will live, have insurance etc. before you're allowed to buy one. Then the dog must be tagged so its easy to find out of its legally owned
If you dont have a license / its an unlicenses dog then there's a heavy fine and punishment should be a year of emptying dog**** bins :D
Click to expand...

Salary is probably a step too far.
But I think tagging and insurance should be mandatory
 
Guest2 said:
I think everyone should have to appy for a license to have a dog. Interviewed, show your salary, where the dog will live, have insurance etc. before you're allowed to buy one. Then the dog must be tagged so its easy to find out of its legally owned
If you dont have a license / its an unlicenses dog then there's a heavy fine and punishment should be a year of emptying dog**** bins :D
Click to expand...

Other than the salary part (I'm not sure why this is relevant? Even if you do earn "enough", there's not guarantee you're going to spend it on the dog), this is what most rescues do before they allow you to adopt anyway - I'd hope any legitimate breeder would do the same.

There's already a legal requirement for dogs to be microchipped and wear a collar with a tag allowing the owner to be contacted.

I don't disagree with a licence though - none of the above prevent someone from getting a dog and mistreating it or failing to train and handle it properly, even if they have a history of it. A mandatory training course and licence (which could be revoked if said owner was found to have abused animals in the past or allowed it to foul and attack people) would help.

Before the naysayers wade in saying it won't stop it completely, I'm not claiming it will, in the same way needing a driving licence doesn't stop people driving like idiots/under the influence, or without a licence. It does however make enforcement much easier - no licence = goodbye dog, instead of the current situation which seems to be "well yes, he mauled a child, and he probably will again, but you haven't technically broken any laws, so carry on mate".
 
Josh said:
Why salary?

I'm all in favour of a licence tbh and a ban on the XL Bully breed.
Click to expand...
Someone who doesnt have a salary and (for example) earns only cash in hand from dodgy dealings might not be the type of person that should be owning certain types of dog / any dog.
If someone has low salary and no insurance, what happens when their dog(s) get ill and they cant afford to pay for its vetenary bills? It costs a fair amount of money (and time) to look after a dog so salary should be factored in IMO.
 
Haggisman said:
Before the naysayers wade in saying it won't stop it completely, I'm not claiming it will, in the same way needing a driving licence doesn't stop people driving like idiots/under the influence, or without a licence. It does however make enforcement much easier - no licence = goodbye dog, instead of the current situation which seems to be "well yes, he mauled a child, and he probably will again, but you haven't technically broken any laws, so carry on mate".
Click to expand...

Strongly agree.

I also think, for dogs over certain size or weight implementing the DBS check system would be a good idea. Pretty much any job I've applied for in the last 10 years has required me to provide a DBS certificate (costs about £20), which lists any criminal convictions.

For example, if I go to buy a Rottweiler puppy from a breeder - I have to present my DBS certificate and they enter it into a government portal - it says "yes" or "no" in terms of whether they're allowed to sell me the dog or not, if I don't and they sell me the puppy - they're breaking the law - £10k fine.

The reason I think this would help, is that people with serious backgrounds in criminality, organised crime or violence are far more likely to own dangerous dogs and get implicated into situations where dogs end up hurting or killing people*.

It's not a million miles away from a background check for buying a firearm in the US. (NICS process)

*Of course, like with your example of insurance - it won't stop all attacks, so long as we have 14 million dogs in this country there will always be problems from time to time - that's the price we pay for living in a free society. However, I think measures like these would help lessen the likelihood that these problems do occur and help keep then to a minimum.
 
Rroff said:
It is not a dangerous dog breed and I can't find anything from Googling, unfortunately I can't remember the dog breed.

Coat has similar texture to an airedale but build wise it is squatter and more like a Bernese Mountain dog for colourings only without the white, that area is black.

I can't find anything on Google at all related to breeding restrictions but they definitely have to jump through some hoops with that dog.
Click to expand...

Quoting my own post - it is a Bernedoodle variant which is known for health issues - I'm not sure how much is legally enforced or industry policy but apparently there are restrictions due to wellbeing reasons which are enforced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom