36 replies to this topic

[kola]

Defra Public Consultation launched today:

http://www.direct.go...sroom/DG_185986


Amanda

Article - Vets Tell Government To Get Rid of Breed Specific Legislation Now:
http://www.dogmagazi...egislation-now/

Edited by kola, 09 March 2010 - 01:37 AM.

[kola]

BBC Radio Five Live are discussing this on the morning breakfast show

Amanda

[kola]

The Press Association;

http://www.google.co...Z6ZMMAbBWKdDmGw

Dog owners facing tough regulations

[kola]

BBC News
All dogs to be insured in proposals on dangerous dogs

http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/8556195.stm

[BillyMalc]

From UK MSN: http://news.uk.msn.c...entid=152463845

What do we think? Would this new proposed legislation be any good in practice? I do like the idea of dogs being confiscated and rehomed - rather than blanket euthanasia for any dog who sets a paw wrong, regardless of the actions of the owner.

[lester]

This consultation is a fandango to appeall to gullible people , so that the false figures can be used for future publicity. Its just so puerile. Who should be responsible ? What a farce.

[Rumpole]

http://www.defra.gov...-dogs/index.htm

[sproggie14]

I don't like the idea of complusory insurance. It won't prevent attacks but will lead to a lot of dogs being abandoned cos people can't/won't pay.

I like the idea of compulsory microchipping though. I'd like to see the breeding regulated as well with people needing a license otherwise neutering being mandatory.

ASBO's etc all well and good as long as they are targeted based on behaviour not breed. I'd like to see owners of dogs who are involved in problems forced to attend training classes.

[Rumpole]

i like the repeal of section one bit


but have an issue with private property as i think it could easily be misinterpreted and misused although i would i think like to see front gardens or points of access to those who are carrying out their duties being included particularly as front garden fence heights are usually restricted to three feet in any case which i do not feel makes it secure enough to keep most dogs under control

sorry am running around like a loony will come back shortly

[Melp]

1) An extension of criminal law (i.e. section 3 of the 1991 Act) to all places, including

private property

I agree with Melf that postal workers etc should be safe on my property and that front gardens [or gardens to which people have free access] should be covered by legislation which they already are under the 1871 dogs act. This is a civil action which allows for control orders to be made regarding dogs who are acting dangerously and can be done before a bite occurs. Criminalising people whose dogs attack will not stop those attacks from happening, it will simply open the doors to people to join the compensation culture.

2) Additions or amendments to (including possible repeal of) section 1 of the 1991 Act

We don't need any additions to, we need a repeal of. Any amendments should include the option to remove and rehome banned breeds from unsuitable owners rather than the destruction orders we currently have.

3) Repeal of the 1997 Dangerous Dogs Act to prevent any more prohibited types of dog

being added to the Index

No absolutely not. We would never ever agree to this. Neither would the RSPCA. Not a chance.

Other options for consideration:

4) The introduction of Dog Control Notices

To be enforced by whom? and what constitutes an offence worthy of a control order? We need to know what makes a person qualified to issue a notice and again, it needs to be a sliding scale.

5) A requirement that all dogs are covered by third-party insurance

Whilst I don't have a problem with insuring my dogs, this just penalises responsible owners who already comply with existing laws. Its already the law that drivers have a licence, tax and insurance and most of us comply. The people who don't are criminals and criminals will not get insurance for their animals.

Whilst insurance is a good idea to protect owners, it will not stop dog attacks and only compensates victims after the event.

No insurance payout will ever compensate for the loss or serious injury of a child.

There is NOTHING in any of these proposals to educate dog owners and make them responsible. Attacks will continue to occur and all this will do is compensate for when they do.

6) A requirement that all dogs, or puppies, are microchipped

Fair enough, but who is going to enforce that? and again, people with a disregard for the law will not comply. What is the penalty going to be for non compliance?

7) More effective enforcement of the existing law, including a consolidation of existing

statutes into one new updated Act

Where are the resources coming from? The police don't have the resources, neither do local authorities. Are they going to create jobs and if so, who is paying for that?

[Rumpole]

i also feel that the breeding and sale of dogs including the breeders responsibility to suitably rehome any dogs they produce as well as seeing an end to puppy supermarkets would go a long way to reducing the numbers of dogs being irresponsibly owned, and am disappointed that none of the consultees mentioned it

[Rumpole]

ha but roger just did on bbc news 24

[kola]

The Shadow Home Sec is currently on BBC Radio 2 discussing the issues and giving his opinions,

Gawd the phone has gone mental

amanda

[kola]

Maria Daines ( http://www.maria-daines.com/news.html ) will be on BBC News 3pm

[kola]

BBC World Service had Kit Malthouse on, he is glad thousands of dogs have been taken off the the streets & supports breed bans, Ryan O'Meara was on live, & in my opinion, making a lot more sense