Dangerous Dog Act Change

[Teki187]

Just been watching the BBC and they did a piece on changes to the dangerous dog act.

Now, you will be able to own any type of dog, but any type of dog can be classed as dangerous if it acts aggressive to a human. (define aggressive please.....geez)

There seems to be a 2 strike system, 1 = police force you and the dog to training, which will not work. I can not see a chav who bought a staffy to look cool and act aggressive going to training

2nd = Dog taken off you and destroyed and the owner banned from owning dogs.

What are your opinions on this?

Personally its a step in the right direction, i agree to a certain extent that dogs who are poorly trained and socialised are far more likely to be aggressive, but i also believe that certain breeds are born aggressive also.

Removing certain dogs that were once banned from being bred again and kept as pets is extremely dangerous.

I haven't been able to find a source, still looking.

 

[Raumarik]

"aggressive" is a bit vague, agree about some breeds simply being born more aggressive or being naturally more dangerous. A lot of this is down to the owner though, responsible owners don't get that relaxed around their animals, they know what they're capable of and don't let the dogs get into situations where they'd react.

It's an improvement, but can't see it being used that often or to much effect.

 

[spitzoid]

All dogs should face a test whereby they have to resist a delicious ham for 10 minutes. Pass = live, fail = destruction (by firing squad)

 

[VFR_KID]

Oersonaly, i think its all down to owner. i know someone with a springer spaniel and it will rip your hands off as soon as you look at it, but mines will sooner lick you to death

 

[Dolph]

The dangerous dog act was always flawed, but I'm not sure this is better, the problem is not aggressive dogs per se, but unprovoked aggression in dogs. If someone is prodding and poking the dog, in many cases they should expect the results...

 

[Glaucus]

It's a very good idea. as they said their is no genetic basis for the dangerous dogs act and as such, no real way to enforce it.

The new act would mean any dog/owner behaving poorly will be dealt with.

 

[wozzizname]

There are far too many chavs strutting about with bull terriers and acting tough, as they know no-one wants to challenge them when they are with a dog like that.
I'm not sure how much effect this sort of legislation will have though, I suspect that proving ownership of dogs could prove to be an issue and I'm certain that a lot of yobs will rush out and get pit-bulls again if it becomes easier to do.

 

[Richiev4]

The dangerous dog act was always flawed, but I'm not sure this is better, the problem is not aggressive dogs per se, but unprovoked aggression in dogs. If someone is prodding and poking the dog, in many cases they should expect the results...

I agree - most of these reports say the dog attacked the child, for example. What they don't say is what was the child doing to the dog in first place.

Rich

 

[int]

The problem is, if people want an aggressive dog, they'll bring it up to be be aggressive. It's more likely they'll do it with a pitbull/staff as they're already endogenously more aggressive, however with this new law you've got to go through the unfortunate event of someone being hurt before anything is done.

Just ban aggressive dogs outright and leave it at that. If an animal is bought to look tough and menacing I don't think it's fair on the animal and the person who eventually gets attacked.

 

[Glaucus]

The problem is, if people want an aggressive dog, they'll bring it up to be be aggressive. It's more likely they'll do it with a pitbull/staff as they're already endogenously more aggressive, however with this new law you've got to go through the unfortunate event of someone being hurt before anything is done.

Just ban aggressive dogs outright and leave it at that. If an animal is bought to look tough and menacing I don't think it's fair on the animal and the person who eventually gets attacked.

I don't think the new law requires anyone to get hurt before action is taken. Or at least that's he way it came over on the bbc.

Also any dog can be made dangerous, that's why banning aggressive breeds isn't a solution. Also things like pitbulls do not have a certain genetic makeup, so it's hard to confiscate dogs, as you say it's one thing, the law says it's another. But it can't be proved.

 

[RickST]

I have a german shepard which is the nicest dog ever... except to vets (he was pinned down as a puppy by a poorly trained vet). So we have to tranq him before we can go for a check up, but he still growls and snaps if he can.

would that class as aggressive?

 

[int]

I don't think the new law requires anyone to get hurt before action is taken. Or at least that's he way it came over on the bbc.

Also any dog can be made dangerous, that's why banning aggressive breeds isn't a solution. Also things like pitbulls do not have a certain genetic makeup, so it's hard to confiscate dogs, as you say it's one thing, the law says it's another. But it can't be proved.

When was the last time you heard of a dog being confiscated/terminated because it was acting aggressively without harming anyone? It's rare for this to happen and it's more than likely injury will be caused before someone finally decides to take action!

I understand any animal can be bred to be aggressive (maybe not a sloth ) but the chances are an owner of a golden retriever or a collie isn't going to bring it up to be aggressive. Mr chav and his pitbull has more than likely gone out of his way to get the scariest dog he can find

 

[Glaucus]

When was the last time you heard of a dog being confiscated/terminated because it was acting aggressively without harming anyone? It's rare for this to happen and it's more than likely injury will be caused before someone finally decides to take action!

But the new law is to send the dog and owner to training if it acts aggressively or is intimidating. what the actual guidelines are for determining that, I don't know.

Mr chav and his pitbull has more than likely gone out of his way to get the scariest dog he can find

On the bbc it said that is stupidly hard to confiscate pitbulls as you can't prove it's a pitbull as it's a cross-breed.

 

[Wossi]

My friend's sister had a rottweiler and it was the softest thing in the world. All the times I saw it I can not ever remember it barking, all it wanted was fuss and food and beer.

 

[semi-pro waster]

It might be a better idea but it still doesn't seem like a complete solution, should such a thing exist. As Dolph says unprovoked aggression is the problem, not simply aggression - if a dog has been aggressive to me then in almost every single case it has been because I didn't pay attention to the signs it was clearly giving me. If you know how to approach animals then generally speaking you will have very few problems with them.