Allie No Dots Posted January 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Thanks I have looked at the NDWA suggestions (tho not in huge details) IMHO its better but I still see problems with it and think there are other suggestions that should be included. I would ask questions ect but i may not be knowledgable enough and allow emotion to seep in (if you dont know what im talking about ignore it lol am feeling sarky today ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackmagic Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 That is excellent Allie. Have you seen this http://www.bva.co.uk/policy/dangerous_dogs.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted January 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Have now, thanks If it wasnt so serious it would be halarious! For example Future ‘Dangerous Dogs’ Legislation The BVA, through its membership of the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG), supports the introduction of a new 'Control of Dogs Act' to better protect the public against dogs dangerously out of control without compromising any individual dog's welfare. So they support the new Control of Dogs Act drawn up by the DDASG which states: To better protect the public without compromising dogs' welfare by the introduction of a 'Control of Dogs Act' to incorporate the better aspects of the Dogs Act 1871 and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as amended but ultimately repeal them, as they are widely criticised for their deficiencies. Yet go on to say... Kennel Club Request for Help with Identification of Pit Bulls The BSAVA has been asked by BVA and the Kennel Club for assistance in identifying veterinary surgeons who are involved with, or prepared to be involved with the Dangerous Dogs Act. The Kennel Club is looking to put together a 'Panel of Experts' who could advise owners and, where necessary, the Courts regarding the pit bull 'type'. Ideally experience of bull breeds such as the Stafford or Bull Terrier would be a bonus. If you are interested please contact Chrissie Nicholls on [email protected]. But i thought they said the new Act would make BSL vanish. anyone ever think your being taken for a ride?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave the dog Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Sound familiar anyone? I believe that this was the first and the Scottish Bill is based on it. Aliie bring up your points, I think you have well shown you are able. It's what is needed. As a LA Officer and a Rescue volunteer I can be on both sides of the fence and rely on friends and colleagues to point out things I've missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted January 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Is nice to be taken as read, too many people think theres a hidden agenda behind things (there isnt for me) The NDWA from what ive seen is better but I need to check out something that hit me last night about the role of DW as it stands to see if something in particualr is valid or not lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celeste Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Allie, you should send that in to the Scottish parliament, it's very well written and deserves to be heard, how about forwarding it to the Dogs Trust and the Sspca too ? Spuds hug has been administered.........................................he farted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted January 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 DT iirc are part of the DLAG and DDASG . By reading various quotes in the recent weeks Im guessing they back the proposal ... I could send it in but alas, not living in Scotland im likely to be ignored. However if the Scottish people write in stating any points they beleive should be questioned...then you may get somewhere Tell spud hes a true bullbreed, aint no smile like a staffie smile and no other breed farts quite like a bullbreed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celeste Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 I could send it in but alas, not living in Scotland im likely to be ignored. However if the Scottish people write in stating any points they beleive should be questioned...then you may get somewhere Errr, that would be me then , I want to but I'm completly s**t at making sense, what could I write ? Is it better to write or e-mail ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackmagic Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Errr, that would be me then , I want to but I'm completly s**t at making sense, what could I write ? Is it better to write or e-mail ? I am also in Scotland and quite willing to borrow your talents.( maybe using my own words in bits in case duplicate letters would be less effective) I am sure there are others on the site, but they may not read this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted January 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 (edited) Email,write or do both Dont think about sounding like a politician, your a dog owner in scotland. Thats all you need to be. How do you think I got that article down?( dont forget i wee and florm dogs according to the rubbish that comes out my mouth sometimes!) I Went through it step by step stating whatever came to mind. Thats all you have to do, ask whatever question you want answered and say whatever you dont see as working explaining why. If anything I wrote sounds like a point to you, feel free to use it. If theres anything I havent mentioned that you dont get, ask him. Dont underestimate yourself lady Feel free to put your letters up here(or pm me if you want) if your not sure beforehand But tbh you cant say anything wrong (unless you call him names, that might not be wrong tho, just not very polite ) Feel free to forward the link to friends ect who may be interested too Edited January 23, 2008 by Allie No Dots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celeste Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 (unless you call him names, that might not be wrong tho, just not very polite ) Allie, how could you think such a thing Right, I'm going to give it a bash tomorrow, well start it anyway, it might take me a few days to collect my thoughts ( and copy a huge wodge of your excellent piece Allie ) Should DNB be mentioned as a good resource for him if he wanted to really do something ? I think I'll take the line that the guy has been genuinly trying to make things better, that might work better than pointing the finger and getting stroppy about it, what do you think ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merledogs Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 (edited) Thinking out loud here ..... So it's a CIVIL offence if a dog attacks a person on private property if I am reading correctly? So why not make it a CRIMINAL one? Most people don't have the sort of money, time or inclination to bring a civil prosecution, which is why IMO it needs to be criminalised. I for one would like to see one law which covers everything, rather than separate laws which cover bits and bobs but nothing cohesive. If someone didn't do it deliberately and your dog attacks someone at your home…surely you would know whom the dog attacked? Surely you would be horrified? Surely a criminal conviction couldn't make you feel any worse or take it any more seriously? Surely you would have not let it happen if you could have? So I fail to see how a criminal conviction will help. What if a visitor came to your house and your dog was loose and bit them? You can't assume that everyone would then take precautions for it not to happen again, because some people won't. You and I would, but there are plenty of numpties out there who wouldn't (and I speak from experience). If the person who was bitten had no recourse to the Police because it was not a criminal offence, the dog could do it again and next time it could be a lot worse. However, if they reported said dog owner to the Police, the Police could then prosecute and order that the dog is muzzled or locked in a separate room whenever you have visitors round. I am not saying that everyone would comply with the law, because we know that wouldn't happen, but if the law is there in the first place then at least the person bitten has some recourse. Edited January 23, 2008 by madmerle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted January 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 Police and councils can take out a civil case against someone whose dog has bitten. To my knowledge it doesnt have to be the actual person. Making it a criinal offence will raise the bar to beyond reasonable doubt making it harder to get a conviction. Dont get me wrong, im not saying the law we have is right/ok or anything at all. We do need something else. My point is that this proposal isnt it. Its too flawed still. Theres better alternatives if we dont rush in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave the dog Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 Thinking out loud here ..... So it's a CIVIL offence if a dog attacks a person on private property if I am reading correctly? So why not make it a CRIMINAL one? Most people don't have the sort of money, time or inclination to bring a civil prosecution, which is why IMO it needs to be criminalised. I for one would like to see one law which covers everything, rather than separate laws which cover bits and bobs but nothing cohesive. What if a visitor came to your house and your dog was loose and bit them? You can't assume that everyone would then take precautions for it not to happen again, because some people won't. You and I would, but there are plenty of numpties out there who wouldn't (and I speak from experience). If the person who was bitten had no recourse to the Police because it was not a criminal offence, the dog could do it again and next time it could be a lot worse. However, if they reported said dog owner to the Police, the Police could then prosecute and order that the dog is muzzled or locked in a separate room whenever you have visitors round. I am not saying that everyone would comply with the law, because we know that wouldn't happen, but if the law is there in the first place then at least the person bitten has some recourse. Merle The Dogs Act 1871 (this remaining piece of it) is a piece of civil legislation not criminal. In fact it is only one long sentence. (In todays legislation mad world that alone makes it stand out) It has stood the test of time rather well. A person is not prosecuted under it. A complaint is made to the court, this can be a private citizen, police or local authority. A hearing is then held and the court decides on the case on the balance of probabilities not the criminal level of beyond reasonable doubt. If the complaint is found to be proven the court can make a control order (remember the ASBO's for Dogs? they alreasy exist)) That order may be whatever the court decides is most appropriate. There are no central government dictats placing restrictions or sentencing guidlines, unlike in most criminal cases these days. Those orders may be a leash order to muzzling, training requirements, ban on ownership (again, how about that 'rehoming' point in the Scottich Dog Control Bill) restrictions on where the dog may be allowed, right up to euthanasia. One of the good points is that it gives the court a lot of flexibility without the need for automatic destruction of the dog. Any order is also on the dog and not the owner. If the dog is subsequently rehomed, those restrictions still apply. Of course there are problems and people will find ways to get round it, but they would do that whether it was civil or criminal. It's not perfect, but for most cases of injury or aggression, not serious injuries, I would always look at the Dogs Act first before the DDA. I agree that it would be much better if Dog Control laws were brought together into one Act and were reasonably simple to understand, consistent and recognised that the owner should be ultimately responsible. It worries me greatly that only a very restricted portion of the animal world is used in consultation. As a Dog Trainer and handler for over 35 years, a Dog Warden and Animal Health Inspector for seventeen years, a Rescue volunteer for two different charities in my spare time (?) and the keeper of many animals I feel more and more helpless when I read and listen to the proposals of politicians and their Civil Service advisors. I seems that past lessons are rarely learned. Just realised I'm starting to rant. Sorry. I'll go now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted January 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 I seems that past lessons are rarely learned. Exactly, which is why utimatley we need to imho scrap what we have and get something in that spells it out for all concerned exactly what is and isnt acceptable for dog owners, parents , everyone. Some of us no-ones are playing at doing just that...who knows...maybe we will come up with something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts