Dog Control Bill

[sanrossscot]

I got an answer to my letter:

 

"Dear Mrs Ross,

 

Many thanks for your letter. The purpose of this legislation, which has the support of the RSPCA, the police and the Kennel Club, is not to lead to the destruction of a large number of dogs. The bill sets out a number of offences under which action could be taken, the first action by authorities depending on the nature of the offence, is a notice order. The reason for this is that many of the problems associated with dogs are due to the actions and irresponsibility of owners, the notice order, talking to Wandsworth Council, could specify that dog training be undertaken. For a more serious offence action would be decided by a magistrate and therefore minor offences, such as two dogs fighting each other in a park as mine have in the past, would almost certainly not result in a prosecution. However as has happened in Regent's Park on a number of occasions large dogs have killed smaller dogs this would certainly bring about prosecution under the act.

 

The bill also is aimed at providing effective measures which will outlaw dog fighting, which was the original reason pitbulls were imported into this country. I agree with your point that dogs do not automatically attack a human even if they are involved in fights against other dogs. However the Dangerous Dogs Act in its present form has led to thousands of dogs being held in kennels whilst the police try genetically to prove whether they are pitbulls. The Dangerous Dogs Act was a knee-jerk reaction to attacks on children by pitbull terriers. As a dog lover, I am putting forward this bill to make the lives of many dogs much better, but to do this the owners in many of our cities who are using dogs as offensive weapons have to be made responsible for their actions. Dogs that are confiscated from such owners will be re-housed of possible.

 

Many thanks for your letter.

 

Yours sincerely

Rupert Redesdale "

 

I think he sounds reasonable but a lot more would ned to be done to tighten up who decides control orders etc are necessary, amongst other things

[blackmagic]

His reasons are very sound but the Bill needs rewritten

[Melp]

Hmmm

 

sooo if confiscated dogs could be rehoused and section 1 is repealed thats going to make a massive difference to the current situation.

 

I like that [if it goes through]

 

 

 

the rest, hmmmm. Needs a hell of a lot of work.

[dave the dog]

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)

[Rumpole]

agree totally dave we want section one repealing but not at any cost and although i think his heart is in the right place far more consultation and discussion is needed and care taken we do not want to go down the same route as 1991 and rush through another confusing law.

[dave the dog]

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.

[ReikiAnge]

No NDWA input or even awareness.

 

That is bizarre isn't it.

 

The intention is good, pity about the (not so fine) detail.

 

Would agree with you. The intention is better than I thought when I first started reading this thread, but the detail is worrying indeed.

[Melp]

From chatting to someone "in the know" earlier today it would seem that there is no intention to repeal section 1. There would hopefully be some rewording of sec 1 to make it easier for decent owners to have their dogs registered but there would still be 4 banned breeds.

[whether they call it section 1 of the DDA or sec whatever of the dog control act] The draft is in its very very early stages and may never become law but if its considered, it wouldn't be in its present form, there would be a hell of a lot of reworking/amending and consultation long before the final proposal was submitted.

[dave the dog]

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.

[ReikiAnge]

Bum.

[Melp]

yeah I know. dont take my word for it though, I'm only hearing things through the grapevine

[Melp]

This bill is highly unlikely to get anywhere. Its only had its first reading, isn't even high enough on the list for second reading. Even if it got that far, it'd have to go through commons and back to the Lords etc. Its good for debate but never going to happen in its current form.