pondering, many subjects rolled into one, DDA, dog licences etc.

There are no laws in place to protect anyone bitten on private property by a dog.
Anyone can walk into my garden. If my dog bites them then that's their problem. That could be the postie, or a burglar.
An elderly woman was bitten badly by one of her friend's dogs in friend's garden. Nothing was done (this was quite big on the news), because there are no laws that cover private property. So if laws were introduced and implemented on a no tolerance basis then surely it would be some way to preventing attacks?

And what about the law on dogs being on leads with a name tag in public? This is another area that i feel people should be pulled up on. Automatic fine if your dog is not on a lead in public. Every area has a dog warden, paid for by the public, so what's to stop them patrolling the streets of their area? I'm sure people would be more likely to ensure they were aware of the law if they knew they would be stopped and fined.

As I said, you cover x y z breeds first, dogs used as status dogs, and take it from there to eventually cover all breeds on the licencing front.
 
itsme123 said:
And what about the law on dogs being on leads with a name tag in public? This is another area that i feel people should be pulled up on. Automatic fine if your dog is not on a lead in public. Every area has a dog warden, paid for by the public, so what's to stop them patrolling the streets of their area? I'm sure people would be more likely to ensure they were aware of the law if they knew they would be stopped and fined.
Click to expand...

So are you saying every dog needs to be on a lead with a name tag - at all times - in public? If I have read it right - I don't think that's a law that's EVER going to be in place somehow and nor should it IMHO!
 
I hate to say this, but it is currently law. It excludes parks etc, but in public places all dogs must be on leads and must wear a name tag.

Look up the law if you don't believe me.
 
Kitsune said:
Well thank God it isn't enforced.
Click to expand...


why not?

because YOUR dog is under control, because YOU don't feel it's right?

(YOU and YOUR referring to an individual, not specifically Kitty)

Dog fouling rules aren't implemented round here, but I still scoop the poop, because it;s just common decency.

Would you expect to walk through a city and have dogs on the loose with no way of identifying their owners? It's pretty reasonable to say, keep your dog on a lead in the park, and have it wear a collar incase a cat catches it's eye and it runs off.

Which is getting the point out, there ARE laws in place, but if good owners refuse to abide by them how can we expect bad owners to?
 
No because plenty of people do have well trained dogs and deserve to enjoy their freedom with their well trained dogs. Not have their freedome curtailed because some people can't/wont cope.

Down the playing fields today there were many people out walking, next to kids playing football and couples have picnics. I would find it tragic if the majority were penalised for the minority. Some lovely children came over to meet Roly and Lil, a lady with a trio of yappy chi chis invited me to sit next to her and help her socialise her dogs. A man with an enormous staffy wandered past.

Yet again it's a fluffy blanket answer rather than actually targeting the trouble makers.

No answer I don't think. The police/dog wardens are only human and you'll get people taking it ridiculously literally and I'd rather not live in a world where I can't walk my dog out of my house and down to my car without having them trussed up in collars and leads when they don't need to be!
 
itsme123 said:
I hate to say this, but it is currently law. It excludes parks etc, but in public places all dogs must be on leads and must wear a name tag.

Look up the law if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...

No, the law is that a dog must be under CONTROL (including all public places )- that isn't defined by being on a lead.

You are correct that every dog must wear a tag.
 
I agree all dogs should have a collar and tag on in public... but why on lead? Obv next to road, in built up area... fine. But open spaces? How is "public" defined?

I have seen the dog warden in my area and he has never commented on people having their dog off the lead in open public places (safely away from roads etc)
 
The thing is there's too many grey areas for my liking.

What if you lose your collar - what if you dog doesn't like a collar? Will there be leeway for common sense or will it be a blanket - no collar = fine? I just don't think it'd ever work.
 
Kitsune, I did say parks etc were excluded.

What would you define as being 'under control'. A previously well behaved dog that gets side traced by a cat running into the road. Is that under control? Would you honestly walk your dog off lead along a public road? Would you trust any dog that much?

It's a bit like saying a horse is 100%. it's an animal and no animal can be relied on completely and utterly.
 
Kitsune said:
The thing is there's too many grey areas for my liking.

What if you lose your collar - what if you dog doesn't like a collar? Will there be leeway for common sense or will it be a blanket - no collar = fine? I just don't think it'd ever work.
Click to expand...

If you lose your collar, you go buy a new one. I've yet to meet a pup that can't be familiarised with a collar. Do you take your pup to classes off lead?

The law is blanket, well, meant to be. problem is, even GOOD owners, such as yourself, refuse to stick to it, because 'why should they' ?

Half of owners aren't even aware of laws.

And this is kind of my point, making these rules and regulations are useless unless people actually know them and all owners abide by them. You hear too much of "but my dog's perfectly behaved". I'm sure the lady with the little chuiah ua (sp never could spell it!) in the other post on here today thought her dog was an angel...
 
Kitsune said:
It wasn't a park it's a rugby field, but thats by the by.

Yes! You clearly don't have roads like ours, but often of an evening Porthcawl sea front is wandered along by many free running paws!

Here's a pic, the road stretches like that for about 3 miles.
http://content.zoopla.co.uk/7165ad4d8dc1be37e601e8cfa626103be349fd09.jpg
Click to expand...

No, I live in a town centre :)

But I used to live in a village, and wouldn't even walk my dog along the side of the road off lead there. Tracks, and lanes maybe, but not roads marked with lines.
 
itsme123 said:
What would you define as being 'under control'. A previously well behaved dog that gets side traced by a cat running into the road. Is that under control? Would you honestly walk your dog off lead along a public road? Would you trust any dog that much?
Click to expand...

Yes. I used to take my lurcher hacking with me daily on and off road until he had to retire from that due to arthritis. My new whippet isn't trained to that level yet but when he is he will be coming with me too - and these are both sighthounds with strong chase instincts. I can honestly say I never had any close shaves with Oscar in the 9 years he came riding with me.
 
Brownmare said:
Yes. I used to take my lurcher hacking with me daily on and off road until he had to retire from that due to arthritis. My new whippet isn't trained to that level yet but when he is he will be coming with me too - and these are both sighthounds with strong chase instincts. I can honestly say I never had any close shaves with Oscar in the 9 years he came riding with me.
Click to expand...

And herein lies the issue.
because good owners, like yourself, refuse to abide by what few laws are in place, why should the government and animal welfare charities want to clamp down on bad owners and back street breeding?

It's always a 'but my dog's fab' reaction. You believe he is, and the chav round the corner thinks his staffie's a prime example to breed from.

Why shouldn't I text on my mobile whilst driving? everyone else does. I'm a good driver, I'm trustworthy... oh, but for that moment of lapse in concentration.... which won't happen to me. It hasn't happened on years of driving....
 
What if I lose my collar while out on a walk - whats to say I'm telling the truth? I could be lying and maybe my dog doesn't even have a collar! How will Mr dog warden know?
 
itsme123 said:
And herein lies the issue.
because good owners, like yourself, refuse to abide by what few laws are in place, why should the government and animal welfare charities want to clamp down on bad owners and back street breeding?

It's always a 'but my dog's fab' reaction. You believe he is, and the chav round the corner thinks his staffie's a prime example to breed from.

Why shouldn't I text on my mobile whilst driving? everyone else does. I'm a good driver, I'm trustworthy... oh, but for that moment of lapse in concentration.... which won't happen to me. It hasn't happened on years of driving....
Click to expand...

Well thanks for saying I'm a good owner and I believe a major part of being a good owner is giving your dog the best quality of life possible and I believe freedom to run is a big part of that. i have also broken no laws as my dogs are under control at all times in public so I fail to understand your point. I would love to see a system in place that ensure dogs are only owned by responsible people but, as with cars, guns, knives etc that is proven to be impossible and as it seems like you are being deliberately argumentative here I'm going off to have my dinner now before I get cross :rolleyes:
 
cool, since when did debate and discussion make someone into being argumentative for the sake of it?

or is there not an element of truth in what' s been said?

There are laws in place, just people choose to ignore them. It the truth. They find ways round them, as Kitty said.

Kitty: I don't know. You said there was no law, I pointed out there was. I'm not in charge of policing it. I guess people do find ways round it to suit themselves (it's a real murky one if you ask me), but could people really find ways round a licencing law if dog wardens did their job properly?
 
And how to enforce the whole shebang? And to get people to understand that their dog is a ruddy nuisance and that they are to blame?

My worst experiences have been with a lab (he'll not hurt your dog, he's very friendly, ooh, he's never done that before) who attacks Brig every time he sees him and another Springer who is hugely aggressive and who's owner just shrugs and says what a b****r he is, ha ha. The only staffs I've come across have been smiley happy, socialised little things.
 
Yes, there are laws in place and human nature being what it is, people will and do break and choose to ignore them.

I'm coming from a position of having a rottie and often walking him in what has become a much more built up area in the past decade.....and as a result having to tolerate peoples reactions to a breed with a bad reputation.

I also believe that, while we all have to accept certain restrictions and laws as part of being productive and considerate members of society individuals should not be directly penalised because others are behaving in an antisocial manner.

I have put a lot of work into my dogs, mainly to make them easier for me to live with but also because I want them to be ambassadors for their breeds. I can stop my dogs from chasing cats, squirrels etc. I don't walk them off lead on busy roads as they might make other people feel uncomfortable but if I did I would have them to heel and still under control. When I have a young dog or one that isn't particularly good in certain situations they will be on a lead as that would define being "under control" at that time. Yes, it is bloody hard work to train a dog to a reasonable standard and there is always room for improvement both in animal and owner. Yes, they are animals and maybe by definition unpredictable but as their owner it is up to you to manage them. Think how many people try and ban horses from the road using arguments similar to yours and how we all scream unfair then!

I have looked into the DDA (**** law that it is) as I have had many years of being told that my dogs are among other things, banned, must be muzzled, killers (quite common, that one) must be kept on leads, I could go but you get the drift and the most common misconceptions are;

It only applies to certain breeds - no, it applies to ALL dogs.
It bans many more breeds than the original four.
It doesn't cover dog on dog attacks - it does but the authorities choose not to enforce that aspect.
The only dogs that have to be muzzled, neutered and kept on leads are the original breeds that were banned and if the act had done as was intended would all have died out by now.....but the courts can put a restraining order covering any breed on an owner to do so but sadly, these don't seem to be enforced either.

As someone who was brought up in the ROI, I do not want to go down the route of the very restrictive legislation that is in place there - it has not reduced the amount of dog attacks but it has reduced a lot of peoples civil liberties, not to mention caused a huge number of dogs that have never put a paw out of place to be pts IMHO for no good reason. I would hate for the UK to become the same and already see worrying signs of it heading in the same direction.
 
There is another exemption as well I believe, if you have a pet from the DDA, I believe it has to be neutered, muzzled and on a lead in public.

When I am older if I'm still in this country with its stupidity I may well look into doing that.
 
There is another exemption as well I believe, if you have a pet from the DDA, I believe it has to be neutered, muzzled and on a lead in public.

When I am older if I'm still in this country with its stupidity I may well look into doing that.
 
That is the restraining order mentioned - if you have a dog that is a type mentioned in the DDA the dog will usually removed to secure kennels for identification by experts and then you can ask the court to return it to you under those conditions
 
cinammontoast said:
And how to enforce the whole shebang? And to get people to understand that their dog is a ruddy nuisance and that they are to blame?

My worst experiences have been with a lab (he'll not hurt your dog, he's very friendly, ooh, he's never done that before) who attacks Brig every time he sees him and another Springer who is hugely aggressive and who's owner just shrugs and says what a b****r he is, ha ha. The only staffs I've come across have been smiley happy, socialised little things.
Click to expand...

my best friend owns a staffie. KC registered, lovely stocky little bitch, good natured and well trained. Plenty of people in my area have staffies, some good owners, some bad. I'm not labelling these breeds as all bad, just more open to abuse and incorrect handling.
 
and I do wish people had took the time to read what i was saying instead of assuming I was blanketing all these breeds as being dangerous or going off on one about how angry they were getting :rolleyes:

Maybe I just live in this secluded little world where breeds such as staffies, rotties, akitas, sibes etc are used as status dogs and often the subject of bad owners and abuse? Maybe this doesn;t happen in the rest of the country?

I get that there are fabulous owners out there, but do they make up for the bad owners? or should we just turn a blind eye because the good owners might get offended?

How far will it go?

IMHO? If you're not prepared to accept that the bad ownership needs stamping out (and thus accepting that your breed has a reputation and that people need educating) then do you really care passionately about your breed and the future of that breed?

I get what people are saying about the licensing not working, really I do. What i don't get is the immediate 'at throat' reaction as soon as someone dares suggest your breed might be subject to chavs and is asking a genuine question as to what other dog owners think could be done to PREVENT these breeds being put under the DDA.

Let alone the 'I'm getting angry' when someone makes a valid point which you don't agree with.
 
itsme123 said:
and I do wish people had took the time to read what i was saying instead of assuming I was blanketing all these breeds as being dangerous or going off on one about how angry they were getting :rolleyes:

Maybe I just live in this secluded little world where breeds such as staffies, rotties, akitas, sibes etc are used as status dogs and often the subject of bad owners and abuse? Maybe this doesn;t happen in the rest of the country?

I get that there are fabulous owners out there, but do they make up for the bad owners? or should we just turn a blind eye because the good owners might get offended?

How far will it go?

IMHO? If you're not prepared to accept that the bad ownership needs stamping out (and thus accepting that your breed has a reputation and that people need educating) then do you really care passionately about your breed and the future of that breed?

I get what people are saying about the licensing not working, really I do. What i don't get is the immediate 'at throat' reaction as soon as someone dares suggest your breed might be subject to chavs and is asking a genuine question as to what other dog owners think could be done to PREVENT these breeds being put under the DDA.

Let alone the 'I'm getting angry' when someone makes a valid point which you don't agree with.
Click to expand...

Honestly its not that we don't get what your saying its that we have had the same discussion in here a million times and always come to the same end. Licensing won't work and there are no other feasible idea's yet other than pushing serious education.

And for what its worth the law states that dogs must me under control in public that does not mean on lead and dog wardens will tell you that they consider that to mean under vocal control weather on lead of off.
 
Well genuinely in my part of the world I very rarely see a dog who has been deliberately made nasty or used as a weapon.

What I do see, which heartens me, are a great deal of wonderfully trained impressive dogs. Just in my housing area alone:

A LITTLE chinese woman walking a massive Akita. Always under control.
A frail old man and his GSD, walking off the lead amongst many other people and/or dogs.
The middle aged man up the road and his two GSDs who both walk off lead (albeit carrying their leads!)
A giant american bulldog who surveys everyone else with the kind of detatchment I wish my two would display!
A 15 year old girl and her rottweiler who I see walking to and from town.

Genuinely, people round here seem to really cherish having well trained dogs. And I live in quite a rough area too.

I don't think its about laws and force, I think its more to do with re-education and changing the way people think about their pets.
 
I am constantly saddened by reports of children being attacked by dogs, and angered by the attitudes of some people who seek to argue that there are no such things as dangerous dogs and that these occurrences are the fault of humans who misunderstand and mis-manage their pets.

If that is really the case, it's high time there were proper, severe, and police-able restrictions put on the breeding and distribution of all dogs. All potential owners should be scrutinised and assessed on their suitability to be a responsible dog owner, and all dogs should be licensed, micro-chipped, and their DNA known.

Why should it be everyone's 'right' to own a dog, regardless of any risk to the rest of our society, and when will we all take a stand against the potential for our children to be injured or killed by what are, after all, supposed to be our best friends? If we truly are a nation of dog-lovers, shouldn’t we be taking a collectively responsible role in the protection of dogs by ensuring that they are not, as our best friends, abused and unfairly treated by those amongst us who don’t care enough about dogs (or children) to protect them?

I think licensing and micro-chipping of dogs would be a good starting point in the fight to prevent more children being savaged or killed by dogs in the UK.

My argument for licensing is based on the need to raise money to pay for an effective body which would be entirely responsible for gathering data with which to counteract the ever-increasing number of dangerous breeds and part-breds produced illegally in the UK.

My argument for micro-chipping is that all dogs, in order to obtain a license, would have to be presented to a vet to be chipped. At that point, their DNA sample would be taken and logged on a central database. Considering the number of dogs this would involve, there would be ample funds available for the cost of this to be subsidised in cases of real hardship.

The database and chip would ultimately be the tools of choice to quickly identify any dogs which were unknown to the database and, therefore, un-licensed. All un-licensed dogs would be assumed to be owned by irresponsible owners, and would be seized, and destroyed after seven days unless the owners made immediate efforts to meet the criteria.

All dogs would have to be muzzled in public places. Any dogs found running free without a muzzle, in a place where members of the public may come into contact with them, would be seized and held for seven days, after which, if the owner was found to be in breach of the law, the dog would be destroyed.

We already have a police force, the SPCAs, and dog wardens on the ground. If they had a coherent criteria to work to, and a commendable commission, it would not be long before a comprehensive knowledge of the UK dog population could be established.

I realise that this will cause a furore amongst adherents of some breeds. They can be relied upon to defend their breeds against all evidence to the contrary when faced with the prospect of a dog being destroyed for savaging a human. They will certainly argue that there exists no such thing as a dangerous dog…only irresponsible owners.

I happen to believe that there are such things as dangerous dogs. They are produced by irresponsible people, right enough, and they are the victims of a disingenuous and dishonourable society, but they are no less dangerous for that.

I would like to see a total clear-out of all illegal breeds in this country, and all bull-type dogs DNA tested for illegal bull terrier influence. I do believe that total eradication is the only answer in the case of banned breeds of dog.

The trouble is, there are too many part-bred dogs with pit blood through them for us to be complacent in future. Where these part-bred dogs are allowed to run loose, they are aggressive enough to claim mating rights over any bitch in season. This means that the pit bull influence is spreading imperceptibly throughout the canine community.

So come on, tell me why this wouldn't work, and what we should be doing to save children from the horrors of dog attacks.
 
Last edited:
If any law was ever brought in to require permanent leashing and/or muzzling for all dogs, I would have mine put down immediately as he would hate this, and would have no quality of life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top