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)

"A greater understanding of the potential risks in keeping these breeds will assist pet owners to make more informed decisions on choosing family pets and pets suited to community environments" Aaargh! The legislation is bad enough but to read this! Good job my GSD PAT Dog can't read, he'd pack his bags and emigrate to Antarctica! Oops, NO! He can't do that either. Dogs, (Understandably for environmental reasons) aren't allowed there either. Oh well, he'll just have to join me in my darkened room. "A greater understanding of the responsibilities of keeping dogs will assist potential pet owners to make more informed decisions on choosing family pets and pets suited to community environments" Now that re-wording I wouldn't have a problem with.

You forgot the "Hellooooo" at the start! Sorry, I'll go now

Precisely. That is something a lot of people, Politicians and Civil Servants especially, just don't seem to understand. Or: DON'T CARE!

Already done ;o)

Helloooooo the Mels! You were both fine, it came across very well and DW's were impressed with the presentation and work you do. It was very nice to hear both yourselves and Police referring to each other positively. Well done both

Thanks tybrax, I'll have a look at that later

Zuba I guess I might be one of those 'wrong' people. Don't worry you've given nothing away. First of all the Warden doesn't seem to know the law. If the Warden has decided that it is of type then he/she can't rehome it. If the Warden doesn't know the law then I wonder do they know enough to decide type. The dog really needs to be seen by a couple of different people who have good experience. If they decide it's not, great, arrange for re-homing. If they decide it is then you need to start talking to DNB, EDDR etc. There are plenty on here who will advise. Hope it works out

DANGEROUS cross-bred dogs, including the notorious American pitbull terrier, could be allowed to run free on the Gold Coast under new state laws. Council heavies are perplexed by plans to overhaul the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill, which would weaken restrictions on dangerous dogs. The changes would make it tougher for council officers to keep track of pure-bred and cross-bred dogs and leave the council in the dark on the declaration of dangerous dogs. They are all dogs for pities sake! Pure bred v Cross bred? The dogs don't care about their parentage, only humans seem to put any value on that. I love my GSD's but I don't care if they don't have a pedigree! Dog owners could also cop bigger infringement fines, with a ..wandering at large' charge increasing from $75 to $220 and dangerous dog fines increasing from $375 to $1760. Erm, Doesn't that rather go against the first sentence? We don't have another example of media or political misreporting here, do we? Surely not! Robina councillor and pet expo convener Jan Grew said the victims of dog attacks would be ..outraged' if the relaxation was adopted. An animal lover, Cr Grew revealed that she and her Jack Russell dog had been involved in an attack this week. She said the proposed Bill would remove the ability to prohibit restricted dogs and those dog owners would be able to undermine the system, similar to the ..bad old days'. ....These mooted changes would be horrendous for any person who has been involved in a dog attack,'' said Cr Grew. ....They would be sickened and appalled by this piece of legislation. ....The community expects that council delivers a stringent animal management service and to change this would be outrageous. ....I was involved in a dog attack with my Jack Russell and we need to keep check on what dogs are out there and the types of owners allowed to keep these dogs. '' Council CEO Dale Dickson will write to Local Government Minister Warren Pitt outlining the councillors' fears about the Bill including the removal of cross-breeds from the restricted dog list and the removal of the prohibition on restricted dogs being kept and sold. Mr Dickson will also ask the State Government to re-consider its fine increases because dog owners responded better to smaller fines. (I agree with Melp) Councillors have told The Bulletin they are worried that the State Government will ignore their concerns. In 2004, there were 550 attacks by dogs on the Coast but that figure has dropped dramatically over the years. Mayor Ron Clarke said attacks on humans have also dramatically dropped since the banning of dangerous breeds. (If the 'banning of dangerous breeds' was so successful, why the panic, surely there is no longer a 'dangerous breed' problem?) ....It is not a question of just limiting this to pure breeds. It is the cross- breeds that are the real worry,'' he said. They might bring down the tone of the neighbourhood! (Sorry for being flippant (No I'm not)) ....From what officers tell me they are the big problem and the most dangerous. There is no pure-bred registry. Being on a Registry stops dogs being dangerous? What do they do, sign an ASBO contract! ....So basically according to this Bill, there are no restrictions on breeding, keeping or on-selling of these dogs. '' He said dogs including the pitbull and savage cross-breeds must be included in any restricted dog list. "and savage cross breeds" Wow there is an open door for some people! Council officers would also be removed by the Bill from the process of declaring a dangerous dog. The Bill supports a blanket approach, where officers would not look at attacks on a ..case by case' basis. Surely if they are moving away from BSL then all cases would have to be on a case by case basis. This one sentence seems to contradict both sides. My head hurts........ ....This is just another case of bureaucracy gone mad,'' said Cr Clarke. From the same forum:http://www.pets.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=671495#post671495 "OMG! Bureaucracy must be going mad if they are actually considering passing a bill that not only addresses the issue - dogs running at large - but actually looks at attacks on a case by case basis!! Imagine - people actually being fined for having dogs that attack while running loose on the streets! Can it be true!?" I can't find the Bill via Google so can't really make any informed comments apart from the slight sarcasm above. Perhaps others will have more luck. If it is a move away from BSL and towards case by case judgements based on the deed and background then I would be impressed.

He he I always thought of myself as a GSD man but I guess I'll have to think again now! Two of my favourite dogs in the Army were White/Creams. Lovely dogs. Bit awkward on patrol in the summer but bees knees in the snow! Oh well, plan B.

Unfortunately the 'owner' somehow couldn't see this coming. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story....jectid=10514958 A chained dog kept as a 'guard dog'. An unsupervised 2 year old. The inevitable. It is nice to read the Animal Welfare Managers comment: "The dog - a red-nosed pitbull - was not naturally aggressive, he said." It just needs a total idiot in charge of it!