Dangerous Dogs Act amended
Quote:
What do you think? |
Sounds sensible to me, with these stories recently about the 'family' dog that's attacked kids in their own homes
|
The stricter dog regulations are the better
|
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) |
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 :/
|
Some dogs could be classed as a lethal weapon so yes, I know it's not the dogs fault though.
|
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?!
|
Quote:
|
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for the charity said: 'We do not consider breed specific legislation to be effective and would like to see it repealed.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/arti...ure-dangerous- |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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 |
It should be called The feckless owner act
|
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. |
Quote:
My dog is noisy too if anyone comes in the garden till he knows who it is :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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/...78473527_n.jpg |
Quote:
lol @Jake. We have two dogs now a mongrel and a Westie/Pom cross (eventhough she looks like neither) |
"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. |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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. |
I agree except for registered delivery people or postmen.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.