Dangerous Dogs Act amended

[InOne]

What’s changing on 13 May?

While owners need to be fully aware of all the changes, the biggest difference from now on is the Act also covers incidents on private property in addition to public spaces. This includes your own house and both front and back gardens.

In addition:

It will now be an offence for your dog to attack an assistance dog (Guide Dog, Hearing Dog etc).

Prison sentences will be increased for those convicted of some offences

Police or an appointed local authority now have powers to seize a dangerously out of control dog in a private place. The existing legislation already covers public places.

Read more here: https://www.nawt.org.uk/advice/changes-dangerous-dogs-act-advice-owners

What do you think?

[MTVN]

Sounds sensible to me, with these stories recently about the 'family' dog that's attacked kids in their own homes

[Ninastar]

The stricter dog regulations are the better

[LaLaLand]

Sounds very fair to me.

I still say that they should rethink the ban on pitbulls, they're just leggy versions of Staffys really, very sweet-natured until mistreated (LIKE ANY DOG BREED)

[Vicky.]

I kinda disagree with the private property bit. I can see this ending up with a dog owner charged because a burglar broke into their house and the dog attacked :/

[Kizzy]

Some dogs could be classed as a lethal weapon so yes, I know it's not the dogs fault though.

[Lee.]

Why don't they make it law that all dogs have to be on a lead in public places? It seens glaringly obvious to me that this would cut down the number of dog attacks?!

[Niamh.]

I kinda disagree with the private property bit. I can see this ending up with a dog owner charged because a burglar broke into their house and the dog attacked :/

Yeah, that was my first thought. imo anyone trespassing on your property should not be included in these new law changes, otherwise I agree with them

[Crimson Dynamo]

Its an amendment that deals with the after effects of an attack. Better legislation would be to tackle the issues that lead to them - its the view of The Dogs Trust and one to be admired.
------------------------------
Dogs Trust charity said it had been arguing for 'drastic changes' in dangerous dog laws and claimed other legislation did not go far enough to tackle irresponsible dog owners.

A spokeswoman for the charity said: 'We do not consider breed specific legislation to be effective and would like to see it repealed.

'We have become increasingly aware of the issues caused by ‘problem’ dogs or, more accurately, their problem owners.

'We believe that, in many cases, dangerous dogs are a social issue, rather than exclusively a "dog" problem.

'Crucially, non-legislative interventions to influence irresponsible owners and better educate the public are needed.

'Dogs Trust is encouraged by the Government’s commitment to improving dog control legislation. However, the charity does not believe that the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act goes far enough in tackling the various problems surrounding irresponsible ownership in the UK.

'There is a clear need for a fundamental overhaul of dog legislation.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2625850/Rise-seizure-dangerous-

[cheeky_monkey]

Why don't they make it law that all dogs have to be on a lead in public places? It seens glaringly obvious to me that this would cut down the number of dog attacks?!

I agree.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I agree.

The most recent fatal attacks have occurred in homes

[joeysteele]

Sadly there are a minority of bad dog owners who don't train their Dogs properly,although I don't agree with a dog being made like a robot for humans.
The vast amjority of dog owners not only take precautions to protect others from their pets but also take that same action to protect their pets.

I agree with all dogs being microchipped, I agree that in most public areas the dog being kept on a lead,however pet owners pay their council taxes and should be entitled to have some freedoms when out with their pet too.

I would even agree with a licence for a dog too,where all pets have to be registered and info checked to keep it updated.

If someone climbs over into my garden or goes into my home uninvited, then whatever happened to trespass, my pet knows who should be in the house and who I let in, I find the idea that if he attacked someone who climbed through a window or broke in via a door I would be at fault and him destroyed likely,
Ridiculous.

Sadly some owners will have a dog for the wrong reasons and so problems will still occur, the problem sometimes lies with not even being able to find out who owns the dog who attacked someone in the first place.
This new law will not help in that.

If a dog has a home with a good owner, it should also have protection in the law from people who invade that space,just as I thought the owner of the property had.

Also however, children in particular need to be instructed 'not' to charge in and go to dogs they don't know,I always keep mine away from Children although he loves children.
I am aware that any fear the child or indeed adult may have as to dogs,he would scent that out and from his feeling insecure at their fear,he could obviously go for them.

So I take that action to protect myself,others and more to the point him,becasue I know his real nature.
Laws just set across the board are as bad as doing nothing.I am however appalled that a pet in its own home attacking someone breaking in or coming in uninvited could be put down and the owner sent to jail.

Knee jerk reactions are rarely the better ones and although I agree with a lot of the new rules/laws they do seem a bit too one sided.

[Kizzy]

Yeah, that was my first thought. imo anyone trespassing on your property should not be included in these new law changes, otherwise I agree with them

Maybe you would have to have a disclaimer by the door, 'Guard dogs patrolling' or something like they do in businesses?
But then if it was a family pet you might not think to do that, we have a 'beware of the dog' sign for our lab, not that he would ever hurt anyone but it's a warning that he's there.

[Niamh.]

Maybe you would have to have a disclaimer by the door, 'Guard dogs patrolling' or something like they do in businesses?
But then if it was a family pet you might not think to do that, we have a 'beware of the dog' sign for our lab, not that he would ever hurt anyone but it's a warning that he's there.

mmm maybe but at the same time why should you have to have that if someone is actually breaking into your house? They shouldn't be compensated or you or your dogs punished when they were committing a crime at the time.

Not that my dogs would be much help if someone broke in anyway :laugh: They're pretty good watch dogs though I suppose

But I guess it would be an idea to have a sign there for people who were just calling to your house with a delivery or something like that

[Crimson Dynamo]

It should be called The feckless owner act

[smeagol]

fair enough maybe.

i still remember walking my greyhound and some nutter screaming at me to muzzle him lol a greyhound . you can only guess my reaction and response lol

thats the problem with these laws it makes people the public over react to everything.

[Kizzy]

mmm maybe but at the same time why should you have to have that if someone is actually breaking into your house? They shouldn't be compensated or you or your dogs punished when they were committing a crime at the time.

Not that my dogs would be much help if someone broke in anyway :laugh: They're pretty good watch dogs though I suppose

But I guess it would be an idea to have a sign there for people who were just calling to your house with a delivery or something like that

I think you have to have a warning thing, I was told that if you cement glass to a wall and a burglar injures themselves you can get in trouble :/
My dog is noisy too if anyone comes in the garden till he knows who it is :)

[Niamh.]

I think you have to have a warning thing, I was told that if you cement glass to a wall and a burglar injures themselves you can get in trouble :/
My dog is noisy too if anyone comes in the garden till he knows who it is :)

Burglars claiming off the home owner they were trying to steal from for any reason should be laughed out of court imo, it's ludicrous and completely unjust

[Niamh.]

I think you have to have a warning thing, I was told that if you cement glass to a wall and a burglar injures themselves you can get in trouble :/
My dog is noisy too if anyone comes in the garden till he knows who it is :)

They're actually a great deterrent though if they bark. Years ago we used to live in a mid terraced house in a park and we had a rough collie (RIP Jake :'( ) but one night he kept barking in the early hours, Gav was telling him to shut up out the window (of course we never checked to see why he was barking :facepalm: ) but the next morning we found out that the houses on either side of us had been burgled

[Kizzy]

Burglars claiming off the home owner they were trying to steal from for any reason should be laughed out of court imo, it's ludicrous and completely unjust

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/outdoors/8318985/Shed-owners-warned-wire-on-windows-could-hurt-burglars.html

How weird I have a rough collie called jake (actually he's my son)

and duke the Labrador https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/p526x296/10255434_387572298047656_2154594227678473527_n.jpg

[Niamh.]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/outdoors/8318985/Shed-owners-warned-wire-on-windows-could-hurt-burglars.html

How weird I have a rough collie called jake (actually he's my son)

and duke https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/p526x296/10255434_387572298047656_2154594227678473527_n.jpg

Isn't that crazy??? Warned not to try and protect your property for fear of injuring burglars? Just leave a key out for them altogether :bored:

lol @Jake. We have two dogs now a mongrel and a Westie/Pom cross (eventhough she looks like neither)

[Livia]

"There is a slight grey area in these changes in that if the person attacked is a burglar or trespasser your dog may not be considered dangerously out of control if it is in a building that is your private dwelling at the time of the attack. However, this does not cover incidents in your back or front garden."

That's fair enoughm isn't it? A dog isn't going to differentiate between a postman and a burger in your garden. If the dog bites a burger inside your dwelling, then it may not be considered dangerously out of control.

Bring back dog licences. No one should be able to own a dog without it being registered.

[Niamh.]

"There is a slight grey area in these changes in that if the person attacked is a burglar or trespasser your dog may not be considered dangerously out of control if it is in a building that is your private dwelling at the time of the attack. However, this does not cover incidents in your back or front garden."

That's fair enoughm isn't it? A dog isn't going to differentiate between a postman and a burger in your garden. If the dog bites a burger inside your dwelling, then it may not be considered dangerously out of control.

Bring back dog licences. No one should be able to own a dog without it being registered.

If you have your dog in your back garden it should also be covered imo, what business would a Postman or any usual caller have going into your back garden?

Also, you're supposed to have dog licences here........nobody does though unless they get caught then they get one for that year and never renew it, no one ever follows it up either, we don't have the funds to spend money on policing that properly, there are far more pressing things that or tax money needs to go on

[joeysteele]

If you have your dog in your back garden it should also be covered imo, what business would a Postman or any usual caller have going into your back garden?

Also, you're supposed to have dog licences here........nobody does though unless they get caught then they get one for that year and never renew it, no one ever follows it up either, we don't have the funds to spend money on policing that properly, there are far more pressing things that or tax money needs to go on

Absolutely right, a back garden is in fact for a pet 'its terrotory'. if people are daft enough to climb into that back garden,(where I am now,I have a 6 foot fence all round that back garden),then for me the dog should be protected from any action aginst him or myself too.

Whatever happened to peoples gardens and homes being actually private property.
Unless someone is 'invited' and 'allowed' to be there, then anyone else being there is and should be the ones committing the crime.

[Kizzy]

I agree except for registered delivery people or postmen.

[Livia]

If you have your dog in your back garden it should also be covered imo, what business would a Postman or any usual caller have going into your back garden?

Also, you're supposed to have dog licences here........nobody does though unless they get caught then they get one for that year and never renew it, no one ever follows it up either, we don't have the funds to spend money on policing that properly, there are far more pressing things that or tax money needs to go on

I think back gardens can be a bit of a grey area. You can walk into my back garden through a gate, many people do. Same with my previous house. I can understand the reasoning even if i don't 100% agree, but you can't legislate for every single garden. However, you can legislate for inside a property.

They already have animal wardens here. They investigate truly appalling cases of neglect, people breeding dogs relentlessly to sell the puppies etc.. Currently, the warden cannot remove a dog unless it is in imminent danger and even then the owner has rights. If dogs were licenced and no licence was produced, then the animal could be removed. There are no dangerous dogs, only dangerous owners. If the cost of the licence was, say £25 it might maybe deter some people from getting a dog, or a number of dogs, they cannot afford to care for or do not intend to care for, and the revenue raised could be used to police it. I think it would pay for itself in time.

[joeysteele]

I think back gardens can be a bit of a grey area. You can walk into my back garden through a gate, many people do. Same with my previous house. I can understand the reasoning even if i don't 100% agree, but you can't legislate for every single garden. However, you can legislate for inside a property.

They already have animal wardens here. They investigate truly appalling cases of neglect, people breeding dogs relentlessly to sell the puppies etc.. Currently, the warden cannot remove a dog unless it is in imminent danger and even then the owner has rights. If dogs were licenced and no licence was produced, then the animal could be removed. There are no dangerous dogs, only dangerous owners. If the cost of the licence was, say £25 it might maybe deter some people from getting a dog, or a number of dogs, they cannot afford to care for or do not intend to care for, and the revenue raised could be used to police it. I think it would pay for itself in time.

I take on board what you say there Livia, the sad thing is there doesn't seem nuch in the way as grey areas as to this new law.

Speaking for myself obviously, if I went to someones door and didn't get an answer at the front,even if there was access to the back garden,I still myself would not uninvited go in.

For people who have dogs,(I find the vast majority do keep them on a lead in public), in all fairness to the owner and dog too, they have to have somewhere to be able to run around and play that is their area and for me the back garden is certainly that.
So for me,the back garden is private property and no one uninvited should go in it.

Just the same as having Children playing in the back garden, uninvited people should not be entering at that time either,never mind just applying this to dogs.

[Niamh.]

Yeah, basically what Joey said about the back garden ^ I think any outside area that isn't the main route used to get to someones front door (or main door) should be covered.