UA-12921627-3 Jump to content

Another Planned Amnesty


Rumpole

Recommended Posts

And this time for dangerous dogs of all breeds not just those which are banned, which will enable people to dump their dog on the authorities if they think its dangerous, and will also allow people who just dont want their dogs anymore to relieve themselves of the responsibilities to rehome their dogs by saying its dangerous and getting the council/police to deal with the problem payed for by the tax payer.

 

mixed reports about who will implement this with one report saying it will be the police though i dont think they were asked to be involved and other reports stating they will not be involved which are more in line with their previous acceptance that the last one didnt work.

 

A bill has been passed at council level and i have no doubt that fugee power will be desperately needed to attempt to prevent this from happening.

 

we put valid points across last time as to why it wouldnt work which were ignored but we were proved right and this time we have not only valid points but proved points in order to persuade the attourney general to refuse permission should it be requested.

 

 

http://www.clickliverpool.com/news/local-news/127466-liverpool-action-plan-would-combat-danger-dogs.html

 

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/02/03/councillors-call-for-a-new-dogs-amnesty-following-the-death-of-liverpool-boy-john-paul-massey-100252-25750177/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has NOTHING to do with the police, it's all down to the local council, one councillor in particular.

We're liaising with the police on this and they have NO plans to be involved in any amnesty and have in fact made it very clear to the council that an amnesty will not work.

The only involvement the police would have is their usual role of responding to calls of illegal dogs which they do now anyway.

This is their current position but if anything changes it'll be posted on here as soon as we know.

 

Meanwhile the email address for Cllr Cyberchick [as Melf calls him] is-

 

[email protected] he is the councillor for Picton ward.

 

Please contact him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely every man & woman with a dog they don't want and who happens to know Lester's (or anybody elses) Granny in Merseyside is suddenly going to be dumping perfectly nice but unwanted dogs on them?

 

Meanwhile "angry neighbour" who doesn't like the nice but noisy dog who hasn't been reported will be on the phone demanding the police or somebody does something.

 

Unable to home the numbers coming in, even if they bother to assess them first, these perfectly nice dogs could then end up dieing at the hands of the Council whilst every idiot with a "hard" / fighting dog that they don't want to give up is busily hiding them away somewhere.

 

Don't these people realise that there are already vets who will put any genuinely dangerous dogs to sleep if requested to do so?

 

Is it just me or is the world slowly going mad? wacko.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

came across this parlimentary question and answer:

 

Dangerous Dogs: Merseyside

Dr. Pugh: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been admitted to hospital after being attacked by dogs in (a) Southport constituency and (b) Merseyside in the last five years. [304117]

 

 

9 Dec 2009 : Column 471W

 

Ann Keen: The information requested is shown in the following tables:

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091209/text/91209w0029.htm#09120978000038

Link to comment
Share on other sites

any amnesty requesting that criminal charges are not made needs the approval of the attourney general

 

The merseyside amnesty of 2007 was the first dangerous dog amnesty so no one in authority knew if it would be a success or not, it wasnt and even those who implemented it accept that, unfortunately another child death in the area two years later also proves this so we at least have data and backing this time in asking the attourney general to refuse to allow it.

 

Ive gone throught the proposals that were published and written down my thoughts on each i will post it shortly and would appreciate it if anyone had anything to add in order that we can put something together and approach other organisations with valid reasons as to why this is a bad idea :flowers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts in red, your thoughts please :flowers:

 

Liverpool councillors have drawn-up a 10-point action plan and a motion outlining the crack-down on dangerous dogs has been tabled by four Lib/Dem councillors Laurence Sidorczuk, Andrew Makinson, Ian Jobling and Colin Eldridge.

 

This motion suggests a Dog Control Order should be imposed across Liverpool under Sections 55-67 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (2005).

 

Under the new proposals police, dog wardens and Police Community Safety Officers would all have powers to penalise offenders for:-

 

* Failing to remove dog faeces;

 

The Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996, means that if you don't clean up you already risk a fine of up to £1,000.

 

* Not keeping a dog on a lead;

 

The road traffic act 1988 states A person who causes or permits a dog to be on a designated road without the dog being held on a lead is guilty of an offence. “designated road†means a length of road specified by an order in that behalf of the local authority in whose area the length of road is situated. The council can also specify the way in which land owned by them is used and Liverpool already has dog control orders including leashing in place

 

* Not putting, and keeping, a dog on a lead when directed to do so by an authorised officer;

 

Covered by existing bye laws http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/tcm21-155089.pdf

 

*Permitting a dog to enter land from which dogs are excluded;

 

as above http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/tcm21-155089.pdf

 

* The use of unlicensed residential premises for breeding of dangerous dogs.

 

Define dangerous

if dangerous as defined by law (banned breeds) then breeding is already illegal.

 

If this is breeding from dogs that are actually dangerous then a dog can only be known to be dangerous once it has acted dangerously or bitten someone, no one can predict whether a dog will act dangerously during its lifetime and it is only after an animal has died without ever showing any aggression that you can truly say that it was not dangerous.

 

If what is meant is breeding dogs that are (or later become) dangerous then two perfectly nice dogs can produce a puppy that later goes on to be dangerous and can the breeder of that puppy be held responsible as they are only responsible for the care of the puppy up until the age of eight weeks, and the care given after that time and during the critical socialization period is given by the new owner?

The Nurturing, socialization, training, and environment that a puppy is brought up in is, as important if not more important than its bloodlines as such this point would be unenforceable as there is no way of proving who is at fault.

 

In addition anyone who is in the business of breeding and selling dogs requires a licence from the local authority under the 1973 breeding and selling of dogs act as amended by the 1999 Act. The local authority has discretion whether to grant a licence and must ensure that the animals will be suitably accommodated, fed, exercised and protected from disease and fire. Local authorities already have extensive powers under this Act to check on the standards of health, welfare and accommodation provided, and to enforce the requirements of the Act.

In addition, the Breeding of Dogs Act 1991 extended the powers of local authorities to obtain a warrant to enter any premises, in which it is believed that a dog breeding business is being carried out. All outbuildings, garages and sheds are open to inspection. Previously local authority inspectors could enter and inspect only premises which were already licensed. Unfortunately this excludes private dwelling houses.

we have such a huge problem with back yard breeders who are generally people with only one or two dogs at most, and who breed in their own homes either as a hobby or to supplement an income, with little or no thought or knowledge as to breeding for quality, health or temperament these people are not covered by law as the Breeding of dogs act excludes private dwelling houses and yet along with puppy farms it is these people who are the most likely to produce dogs who may have behavioural issues due to the lack of proper early care either through ignorance or deliberately done to reduce costs and improve profit margins. To include private dwellings would most probably require a law change which would be likely be argued against as a breach human rights if approved.

 

The proposals also call for:-

 

* A general amnesty for dogs considered to be dangerous, whether they are banned or not, to be administered by Merseyside Police;

 

An amnesty was held in 2007 and as predicted and proved in the tragic case of the attack on john paul massey it did nothing to protect the public. The owners who handed in their dogs to be examined were decent law abiding people who in the main had their dogs returned to them. The criminals and those who sought to use their dogs as weapons did not come forward, the sheer amount of calls and dogs taken into custody raised serious welfare issues resulting in the deaths of a number of family pets.

Another amnesty for all dogs considered to be dangerous would likely be even more troublesome The word dangerous means different things to different people it could be a look a growl a snarl or a snap, and again those who want their dogs to be menacing will not come forward instead anyone with a grievance against a dog owner will be calling in accusing dogs to be dangerous how is dangerousness proved if no incident has occurred, and if an incident has occurred then the dda or 1871 dogs act cover it.

 

In addition to the above merseyside police appear to have stated they will not be involved

 

so who will be implementing the amnesty?

 

Has any thought been given to the housing of these dogs prior to assessment or who is able or willing to accurately assess whether dangerousness is likely?

 

How will it be possible to tell if dogs are being culled due to their actions and not their owners lack of responsibilty?

Or even because the owners simply no longer want their pets meaning the council rewards their lack of responsibility to rehome by disposing of them free of charge. Such owners will simply get another dog and repeat the cycle which will solve nothing.

 

Have any organizations been contacted for their views?

 

And what about consulting the general public before spending their money?

 

* All 'status' dogs be both muzzled and on a lead in a public place; According to Cllr Sidorczuk 'Status dogs' would be defined as aggressive dogs paraded on the streets in order to give the owners the appearance of authority.

 

This is unenforceable as it relies on an opinion and not evidence, a five foot tall lady walking a German Shepherd would be unlikely to be seen as walking a status dog, however her husband a tall policeman with short cropped hair and wearing a tracksuit or hooded top could be viewed and treated in an entirely different way without doing anything to deserve such treatment.

A dogs muzzle could also be seen as a badge of honour and an indication that the dog is indeed dangerous therefore perfectly fulfilling the purpose of those using their dogs to cause fear and to intimidate. a muzzled dog being walked down the street is likely to cause far more people to cross the street than one which is unmuzzled

 

* A free microchipping service for dogs of any breed to be funded through the Working Neighbourhoods Fund;

 

Though a fantastic idea in order to reduce straying figures and a great asset in recovering dogs who are stolen but those who operate outside the law or who are aware their dogs are illegal will not comply so it would have little value in preventing or assisting in identification of dangerous dogs. In most cases of dog attacks the attack occurs in the home and by a dog that is known to the victim negating the need for identification of the animal responsible. And in those attacks by an unknown dog or stray its use would be limited as the dog would have to be secured until someone who possessed a scanner was present and able to scan the animal, potentially putting more people in danger as due to the natural fight or flight response present in all mammals a cornered dog is left with no other option when its opportunity to flee is removed but to fight its way out of what it perceives to be a threatening situation.

 

* Additional powers for PSCO's to support the work of the Dog Warden Service;

 

The police service relinquished responsibilities for stray dogs some time ago and no longer have funding to deal with non prosecutable dog related issues this would stretch an already tight budget and take away funds, and impact on patrols which could potentially leave the public unsafe in other areas.

 

* Consideration of the feasibility of an online dog registration scheme with details such as photograph, name, breed, veterinary history, ownership and contact details.

 

Who would have access to this database, what about data protection, this information in the wrong hands would be a bible to dog thieves

would it be compulsory or voluntary, if voluntary then again those who are irresponsible would not comply nor would criminals who operate outside of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...