BBC News website today DDA

I was surprised that it was so woolly for want of a better term, considering it was a statute.

I do agree with you that it is the owners, however these dogs do have instinct and drive that they average Joe may not be able to handle. I have had dogs for most of my adult life however the dogs I have had have been very docile in comparison to many. I would not consider myself to have the requisite knowledge to be able to manage a dog who was aggressive or even a breed such as a Husky because they are far to clever/driven and have needs that have to be understood.

I would not consider myself experience enough so therefore I would not have one. The problem is when people underestimate / under-research the breed they are getting. So whilst I agree it is the owner I think that some breeds are better not in the hands of the inexperienced. However I dont think the law solved this problem at all(sorry for the waffle)
 
I am so fed up with knee-jerk-reaction legislation, drafted in a hurry in response to a tragedy. Yes, the cases that prompt the legislation are tragedies, and we should do eveyrything we can to stop them from happening again, but an ill-thought-out, ineffective piece of legislation does nothing!

If it's not organ and tissue retention, it's paedophiles, or murderous GPs or dangerous dogs!!! Can't these politicians stop, think and introduce a well-thought-out, measured and effective response?!!
 
Well said...and totally agree, that link is very vague and down right ill thought out, I would like to see stricter breeding and tighter and more bans.........nothing to do with the dog, but like you sggest them getting into the wrong hands, and unless a law is driven more towards owners and not the dog I believe the breeds need to be phased out and banned, I really dont understand how those four breeds are in the list, 3 of which u would rarely see in this Country anyhow, when there are a vast majority more than can cause the same damage in the wrong hands that are highly populating our Country now, alot in or destined for the pounds or in a body bag leaving the owner to think about the next purchase of dog they know feck all about and is way beyong their capbilities
crazy.gif
 
What about the new plans:
"These should include compiling a register of the owners of Rottweilers, German Shepherds and all types of bull terriers, he argued, with orders being made to muzzle these when out of the home."
 
Well I think ALL dogs bred and owned with no acception of breed should be on a register, I think as I have said all dogs should be insured for full liability, obs the larger dogs capable of more damage and injury will be higher to insure but maybe could be brought down via training like your pass plus for driving, if a dog say has a good citizen award and passed certain tests.
 
[ QUOTE ]
What about the new plans:
"These should include compiling a register of the owners of Rottweilers, German Shepherds and all types of bull terriers, he argued, with orders being made to muzzle these when out of the home."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I would raher see the shepherd changed to maybe akitas, bull breeds and rotts and maybe in public area it may not be a bad idea, may make the chavs think twice b4 walking a muzzled dog thats is clearly going to be less threatening(which is the point they walk them around for) but out of public areas, that maybe going a bit far.......I would rather see something put in place that will deter ownership, like compulasary neutering no later than the 1 year mark for all dogs, unless u have a breeding licence which should have to be someone who has taken exams, a license, health tested stock, legally back up the pups they sell for 3 years of life and insurance and has a TAX code
smirk.gif
I think this may put a atop to alot of back street breeding and push the price of well bred dogs up to stop them getting into the hands of tossers, even though they will pay a god rate now, but generally to breed from them and recoup or get shot when they cannot handle them, to which the breeder would be legally obliged to take back.............I doubt many will take back their large breeds at 1 to 3 years old
smirk.gif
 
QR
To put this into perspective, the Animal Welfare Act was being discussed at least 2 years before it came into force. There was intense unease in the department I used to work for about another Bill which went from Green Paper to Bill stage in a longer space of time that the DDA took to go through the whole process. Trust me, civil servants don't really like working in that way - it's sloppy and it leads to loopholes and unforseen consequences.

The DDA was a panic-striken piece of legislation - ok, the scope is much more narrow than for the Acts I have just mentioned, but speaking as someone who has been involved in drafting both primary legislation and secondary legislation, you just can't do a good, thorough job in such a short space of time, particularly when everyone involved, from the MPs to the Minister to the civil servants will have been under such intense media pressure to 'do something'.
 
I think this is yet another ill-thought out, knee-jerk reaction.

A dog licensing system would cost an enormous amount of money to run and an even greater amount of money to police. At the end of the day, all it would allow you to do is impose retrospective fines for not having a license, I doubt anyone who is willing to breed and keep fighting/aggressive dogs could care less about getting a license for them.

Muzzling will just promote fear of certain breeds. I don't know about the other breeds mentioned, but there is nothing inherently aggressive about GSDs. I have seen more small dogs with a tendency to nip and bite than large dogs and I am not at all convinced GSDs present such a danger that they need to be muzzled in public.

In either case none of these measures would have prevented this latest tragedy, which seemed to involve a dog belonging to a family member which attacked the child in its own home (in fact the dog was illegal as the law stands but no one had been able to police the situation sufficiently to prevent the horrible tragedy from happening).
 
Hi

I have Gsd's, I certainly don't think they need muzzling in public they love people. Also I have seen a lot of people cross the street away from a dog in a halti because they thinks its muzzled and might attack them.

I think muzzling all dogs could just make the whole population who don't like dogs more afraid of them by giving the wrong signal.

Cayla I also don't like your idea of having to neuter dogs no matter what.

My gsd's over the last 30 years have not been neutered and have not caused any problems, not everyone with whole male dogs breed from them irresponsibly!
I have never bred and do not want to but neither do I want to neuter my dogs.
 
As GSD owners, we would never take our dogs on holiday to the Republic of Ireland in years gone by because they are classed as a dangerous dog and must be muzzled in public.
Our bitches were fantastic with people and converted a lot of people from hatred and fear to a genuine like and even love of the breed - muzzling them would have made people run the other way and not look back before the first introduction.
(At the bigger dog shows, we have to erect barriers to 'protect' the public, haha)

I have lived at this location for ten years and I have rarely met other walkers where I walk my dog - do they need to be muzzled? What consitutes a public place?

Also, muzzles can cause some horrible rubs on dog's faces and can make them terrible headshy.
 
If they start again trying to make breed specific legislation we will be no further on. I would be in favour of licensing in some way if it was enforced so that every dog owner had to have one, not like the old licences which half the dog owning population didn't bother with. The original act was a total farce, so much for banning breeding pit bulls back then, where did the current ones come from then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top