dave the dog

As this is domestic I think you will find that it applies to only England and Wales. Scotland & NI have their own seperate legislation.

Typical Defra consultation questionaire. Poorly thought out and drafted. NDWA members are doing their own individual responses and then we are going to collate an Association response. Despite tackling the Defra Dogs representative about the NDWA being constantly ignored and receiving an apology and promise that we would be added to future lists, old habits die hard and we have been left off again. Do you think they already know our stance? !

Got to agree with Cycas there hon. You be definately not wrong!

It's still full of major holes. It does worry me.

Not really. s.3 of the DDA states: Keeping dogs under proper control (1) If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place— (a) the owner; and (b) if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection. I doubt it was envisaged applying to a stolen dog, but the courts have to apply what is written unless there is case law which gives further guidance. Food for thought for everyone.

I apologise unreservedly. I did think you meant the siezing officer, sorry. As I said, everthing else spot on.

Agreed. I've always got to step in here. If you want someone punished then think Government, use your vote. Think Kennels Owner, they are the ones who agreed to take the dog and 'care' for it. You can't blame whoever 'took him' in the first place. Officers would rarely have any say in where a siezed dog goes, nor would they have much if any opportunity to visit the kennels. Yes, think Saddleworth Kennels. It can be done.

I still can't register to send a 'Letter to the Editor' I have sent an e-mail as well pointing out the inaccuracies and asking them to address them.

I've tried to register to post a comment and advice but it won't let me. I'll keep trying.............

It's been very quiet on this forum, is this a good sign? Discuss.

Well done to all, lets hope it does spead!

"The dogs will be micro-chipped to track their future behaviour " Really? I wonder if they know something about microchipping that I don't.

If that's the case Mel then I retract my comment about the intention being good. This Government has a record of 'Repealing' Acts and then not quite meaning that.

Mel, you're right. I know this is a Private Members Bil and normally wouldn't stand any chance of going through without active Government support. But, what if? That's the problem! In it's present wording it would be far worse than s1. DDA. S2.(possibly(b)) certainly (d) & (e) leaves no option than owners either voluntarily having dogs euthanased or seized by the 'Authorities'. Me included. (not euthanased (I think)) It's not Breed specific but it is certainly has the ability to become a Species pogrom. There would be a lot more dogs seized under these conditions than under s1. & s3. DDA. It's a dogs dinner (pun intended) The intention is good, pity about the (not so fine) detail.

Sorry, but that reply gives me the impression that he really has no understanding of the sections in his own bill! "the first action by authorities depending on the nature of the offence, is a notice order." Half of the offences can't be dealt with by a control order because as previously noted by me and others, the Bill precludes you from owning dogs which contravene a lot of Section 2. The only option is for the dogs to be seized or voluntarily euthanased. "The bill also is aimed at providing effective measures which will outlaw dog fighting" I see nothing in this Bill which will work any better than present. Dog Fighting is already outlawed in more than one Act. "the owners in many of our cities who are using dogs as offensive weapons have to be made responsible for their actions" I am not a Police Constable but this Bill would try to turn me into a facsimile, this is an 'offence against the person' situation. It is not one that Dog Wardens/Animal Control Officers should be, or are trained, equipped or empowered to be, dealing with. I do think the Bill is a good starting point to rectify, mainly, the effect of Section 1 DDA. I just wish that it could have had better advice and input to start with. No NDWA input or even awareness. No DNB. Mainly the big players who have little or no direct knowledge of Animal Control Enforcement. Why only the Met? Why no Merseyside? Why only Wandsworth Council? Kennel Club? Other LA's would love to have had some consultation or even LACORS (Local Authority Coordinators of Regulatory Services)