UA-12921627-3 Jump to content

Kennel Club Hails Changes To Dangerous Dogs Legislation In Scotland ‘a Step In The Right Direction’


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, he doesn't mince his words :rolleyes:

 

It's all very well him saying that owners need to be dealt with but how ? the irresponsible ones will still be a problem, I still don't think any laws aimed at them would work.

My prefrence would still be to target the breeding and selling of dogs in the first place, but again, would it have any effect ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does worry me that dog to dog aggression would come under fire, I feel this is going to far, tbh I very much doubt if the avarage dog owner would be able to tell accuratly what had gone on between two dogs for a fight to start.

 

 

apart from giving owners of dogs that attack on private property a criminal record, dog on dog attacks is about the only change this proposal makes. People can already be ordered to muzzle dogs ect or even have them destroyed if their dog attacks on private property. that isnt new, only the record is new, criminal instead of civil.

 

It's all very well him saying that owners need to be dealt with but how ? the irresponsible ones will still be a problem, I still don't think any laws aimed at them would work.

My prefrence would still be to target the breeding and selling of dogs in the first place, but again, would it have any effect ?

 

I know from calls i take that many owners get a dog without realising how important it is to check out parents ect. They mean well but they didnt know how big an effect that could have. If education was forced on all dog owners, a huge number of which mean well then we have a shot of a decrease in attacks.

 

also when dogs do attack we need to look at that dog, Alive, and see why. Get the facts then find out the best answer. This proposal goes through it will not work. It is that simple. Yet if it goes through the chances of changing the law to a better workable effective law wont happen again for years to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well personally, I think it's a step forward, not to sure about the private property bit, although the exclusions mentioned seem sensible, I particularly like the fact he is targeting irrisponsible owners rather than one section, I also think the propasal to ban persistant offenders from owning dogs is a sensible step.

I agree :flowers:

 

No problem with charging people who deliberatly allow their dogs to be a problem. But do you think it will stop any dog attack? I looked at the proposal alot yesterday. It says it will act pre empting any issue but then says it will charge those whose dogs attack or are out of control...thats after not before so it isnt stopping anything from what i can see.

I believe this law, if it is passed, may well stop dog attacks. For instance if a dog bites a visitor and the owner is then forced by this law to muzzle this dog when visitors are around (which could well be children) then that would prevent another attack. Similarly, if he ignores the order to muzzle his dog and then goes on to get banned from having a dog, then that may well prevent other attacks. It is not something that is measurable or visible but I believe it will prevent attacks. :flowers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree :flowers:

 

 

I believe this law, if it is passed, may well stop dog attacks. For instance if a dog bites a visitor and the owner is then forced by this law to muzzle this dog when visitors are around (which could well be children) then that would prevent another attack. Similarly, if he ignores the order to muzzle his dog and then goes on to get banned from having a dog, then that may well prevent other attacks. It is not something that is measurable or visible but I believe it will prevent attacks. :flowers:

 

 

If a dog attacks then its already not stopped an attack has it? We already have a perfectly good law that means if a dog attacks on private property the courts can order the dog be muzzled etc or destroyed.

 

I looked into this a bit more yesterday and as it stands, if a cat climbs into my garden and my dogs chase it (with intent probably!) and i recall them they dont listen then i could be breaking the law. that worries me greatly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It hasn't prevented an attack, it may well prevent another by the same dog but hasn't stopped the first one!

Thats not going to be any consolation to the parent of the next child that dies-someone will always suffer the first time.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about private property, I don't beleive for one minute it'll stop attacks. If it's going to happen it needs to be on a scale. My dog biting a burglar for instance is not in any way the same as my dog biting a child [mine or visiting] all bites and full circumstances surrounding them [if known] need to be taken into consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a dog attacks then its already not stopped an attack has it? We already have a perfectly good law that means if a dog attacks on private property the courts can order the dog be muzzled etc or destroyed.

 

It hasn't prevented an attack, it may well prevent another by the same dog but hasn't stopped the first one!

Thats not going to be any consolation to the parent of the next child that dies-someone will always suffer the first time.

 

That was my point, it would stop a further attack, which is still an attack - unless the first attack is fatal, but then how do you stop a first attack? Unfortunately most dog owners couldn't tell when their dog was about to attack for the first time as the signs can be quite subtle. What regulations could you bring in to cover that?

Edited by madmerle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Education would be a massive start. I dont think for a minute that if any of the recent high profile fatalities from dog attacks could have been avoided, that the owners would have allowed it to happen. They didnt know and now have to live through this forever.

 

the main point is this law doesnt protect. We have laws that cover all of the situations in the proposal already. I fail to see the point of lumping them together and saying what a good move it is. If this goes through we will not be able to get a workable change in for a long time. During that time more people will be attacked and we will be no further forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Education would be a massive start. I dont think for a minute that if any of the recent high profile fatalities from dog attacks could have been avoided, that the owners would have allowed it to happen. They didnt know and now have to live through this forever.

But IIRC didn't some of the reporting at the time say that Ellie Lawrenson's grandmother was told not to let the dog in the house when she was there? Was that not because he had shown aggression before? (Serious question, I don't know the answer but presumed it was because the dog had previously been aggressive).

Edited by madmerle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK the claims where she had been told. In the court case tho they verdict came back they didnt beleive that was the case iirc. Was she told? Who really knows. If she knew what would happen would she have let the dog in? Highly unlikely. IIRc she left them alone? We need this drummed into people...dont leave kids and dogs alone. Make that an offence by all means. That may make people think twice but the proposal doesnt actually do that.

 

The previous incident with the dog, ill google in a bit lol I cant remember the full details but i think it was something about the dog with kiel had gone for another dog walked by an older chap? Iirc it was in a public place. question arises why was this not dealt with at the time. The law covers that (if im right in what happened) yet nothing was done.

 

That doesnt make the need for a new law, it means we have to actually use the ones we have. I read an article y day about a dog that attacked another onlead dog in a public place. Took three people to get the dog off and owner felt fear. The police station where quoted as saying they had recieved a complaint but where not activley looking further into it. Why not?

Edited by Allie No Dots
Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...