Compulsory insurance for all dogs proposed by Govt. (Now ruled out)

[pem123 10]

And again, the people who currently train dogs to be aggressive and generally aren't particularly law abiding would abide by this law why?

 

Well, hypothetically, it would be enforced

[Cyclone 10]

Hypothetically the dangerous dogs act could be enforced as it stands or modified to be appropriate.

 

Passing this law would be just micturating into an oncoming flow of air as it would not be enforced and would be very difficult to enforce without a huge investment and manpower.

[pem123 10]

Hypothetically the dangerous dogs act could be enforced as it stands or modified to be appropriate.

 

Passing this law would be just micturating into an oncoming flow of air as it would not be enforced and would be very difficult to enforce without a huge investment and manpower.

 

No it couldn't. The DD act is flawed. It only prohibits 4 breeds which were judged to be dangerous back in 1991. There are many more ways to skin a cat should people wish.

[Mathom 10]

No, I'll think you find most happen within the family unit

 

Dogs approaching people, uninvited, in public and attacking for what seems like no reason, happens very rarely.

 

And even so, there are plenty that fulfil my analogy, the two deaths fron hybrid Bull Terriers in Liverpool, the baby and the Rottweiler in Wakefield.

 

I don't think so. There are around 5,000 attacks needing hospitalisation per year according to the BBC and the majority are dogs attacking adults who have a legal right to be on premises, such as postal workers. Many kids are attacked in the street by strange dogs, we only see the high profile cases in the national media, the sad ones where a little baby has been mauled to death, but 'lesser' attacks happen regularly.

 

The owners of dogs that do this are currently not charged unless they are one of the four breeds under the DDA. The new laws will change this. And rightly so.

 

As for whether the chavs will ignore the law, of course they will, but this will mean the police can then confiscate their dogs and take them off the streets. Therefore the law is promising to be an effective one at removing weapon dogs.

[willman 10]

 

As for whether the chavs will ignore the law, of course they will, but this will mean the police can then confiscate their dogs and take them off the streets. Therefore the law is promising to be an effective one at removing weapon dogs.

 

And do exactly what with the dogs?

Euthanasia?

 

Well made point about the general public and dog attacks - it's amazing how many "normal" people think their dog shouldn't be dealt with for biting postie. They just think chavs and staffies are a problem.

[pem123 10]

I don't think so. There are around 5,000 attacks needing hospitalisation per year according to the BBC and the majority are dogs attacking adults who have a legal right to be on premises, such as postal workers.

 

Well they aren't in public then are they? And by entering the dog's home, they've 'provoked' the dog, in the dog's mind.

 

That's the fault of an irresponsible dog owner perhaps, that the dog was able to get at postie, but pretty understandable that a dog will protect it's territory.

 

Many kids are attacked in the street by strange dogs,

 

I suppose it depends on how you define 'many'. I think it's a miniscule number of human/dog interactions.

 

we only see the high profile cases in the national media.

 

We only see the ones where it could have been one of a few breeds. We never seem to hear any follow up stories, inquest/enquiry reports etc. Why?

 

The owners of dogs that do this are currently not charged unless they are one of the four breeds under the DDA. The new laws will change this. And rightly so.

 

 

Oh yes. Dangerous Collies and Spaniels shouldn't be treated any differently to dangerous Bull breeds etc

[Cyclone 10]

No it couldn't. The DD act is flawed. It only prohibits 4 breeds which were judged to be dangerous back in 1991. There are many more ways to skin a cat should people wish.

 

It also prohibits specific behaviour.

[Mathom 10]

And do exactly what with the dogs?

Euthanasia?

 

Well made point about the general public and dog attacks - it's amazing how many "normal" people think their dog shouldn't be dealt with for biting postie. They just think chavs and staffies are a problem.

 

Sad to say, but it might be kinder for dogs to be put to sleep than be left with someone who cannot be responsible enough to look after them properly or learn how particular types of dogs should be handled.

 

I was bitten by a Jack Russell and had no come back for it, lost wages and had to buy new clothes. The old bugger who owned it had it tied on a length of washing line *just* long enough to bite anyone who went to the front door. Anyone who does something like that should be made to pay for the damage their dog does, and insurance is the simplest way.

[pem123 10]

Sad to say, but it might be kinder for dogs to be put to sleep than be left with someone who cannot be responsible enough to look after them properly or learn how particular types of dogs should be handled.

 

 

I'd hope that the first port of call would be rehoming.

[Cyclone 10]

I'd hope that the first port of call would be rehoming.

 

It's being removed from someone for being dangerous? Or because they refuse to ensure it in case it bites someone?

[willman 10]

Regardless of it being kinder or not - rescues are almost at saturation point from the "recession" or sudden upsurge in "allergies". 5000 more dogs in pounds would definitely mean euthanasia.

I'd vigorously defend not too - because you can't always apportion blame correctly and the dog always gets the bad luck.

 

Although i have debated the idea of such measures to reduce the numbers of certain breeds so perhaps if the guilty were destroyed the innocents could have a new home

[Mathom 10]

Well they aren't in public then are they? And by entering the dog's home, they've 'provoked' the dog, in the dog's mind.

 

That's the fault of an irresponsible dog owner perhaps, that the dog was able to get at postie, but pretty understandable that a dog will protect it's territory.

 

Maybe Royal Mail should simply refuse to deliver to homes of dog owners then and instead require them to collect their own mail from the depot, if it's just 'in the dogs' nature' and therefore something they can't be trained out of?

 

I suppose it depends on how you define 'many'. I think it's a miniscule number of human/dog interactions.

 

We only see the ones where it could have been one of a few breeds. We never seem to hear any follow up stories, inquest/enquiry reports etc. Why?

 

I'd say 5,000 needing hospitalisation is enough to need to do something about it, and a significant number will be injuries to kids. You also have to consider that the dreadful consequences of attacks are enough to stop parents allowing their kids out to play. If you go into a play area/park where there is dog muck or dogs are seen off lead, you note it down as one of the places you won't let them play alone - it's not the actual statistical risk which is frightening (going in the car is more dangerous), but the consequences - a person having to live a life with scars and psychological distress. All so Killah or Tyson could run round and have a poo.