Dangerous Dogs Act – laws to be tightened
A consultation has been launched to make amends to the UK’s Dangerous Dogs Act.
A public consultation has been launched to help toughen the laws regarding dangerous dogs, following news from the RSPCA of a 12-fold increase in the number of complaints about dog fights between 2004 and 2008.
In particular, the laws look set to be reinforced regarding dangerous dogs on private property, in an effort to offer more protection to people such as postmen, meter readers and visiting salespeople – currently, the Dangerous Dogs Act does not cover attacks on private property where a dog is permitted to be.
According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), police seized 900 dogs in London alone last year. Children are some of the most vulnerable to dog attacks. One of the most recent cases involved a three and a half month old baby boy, who was fatally injured by two pet dogs in February 2009.
Hilary Benn, Environment Secretary, said: “There is a lot of public concern about dog attacks, including the recent tragic deaths of young children, and about the rise in the number of so-called ‘status dogs’ used to intimidate or threaten people.
“This is a serious matter of public safety. The Government wants to hear what people think about the law as it stands and what more we might do to protect people from dangerous dogs, while supporting the vast majority of responsible dog owners.”
There are currently four types of dog that are banned under the Act: the Pit Bull Terrier, the Japanese tosa, the Dogo Argentino, and the Fila Brasileiro. People wishing to keep these dogs have to have permission from a court, which will place the dogs on an Exempted Dogs Index. Owners will then have to ensure the dog is neutered, tattooed, micro-chipped, muzzled and is kept on a lead when in public.
Animal charity, the RSPCA, has welcomed the consultation, however has stressed that it would like to see an emphasis in the law that punishes “irresponsible dog owners” rather than simply a particular breed of dog.
Claire Robinson, RSPCA’s Government Relations Manager, said: “There is a real need for updated legislation that enables enforcers to tackle the problem effectively and prevent serious incidents from occurring, rather than waiting till after a tragedy or penalising certain dogs just because of their breed or type.”
Loading ...
“Deed not breed” should be the criteria. Only ill animals are sometimes dangerous.The others are reacting to how humans have taught them. The law should be the same as guns should be: legal to own, legal to use, illegal with appropriate penalties for abuse.
May 29th, 2010 at 2:49 pmWe have seen what the nanny state has done in so many other situations with catastrophic results, with ridiculous populist rules hurried in, in a panic knee- jerk reaction to sometimes isolated incidents.
All dogs should have identity chips or tattoos. All owners should be registered. Changes of ownership should be reportable by law. This is to establish responsibility. Other than that the existing law banning dogs should be abolished. Being caught promoting dogfighting should have draconian penalties. For their own protection owners of aggressive dogs should muzzle them in public.
I agree with the RSPCA comments asking for the law to be tightened on irresponsible dog owners and/or “dangerous” dogs regardless of breed. My 8 year old daughter was bitten on her finger by a West Highland White Terrier at a Fun Dog Show this weekend. The police have told us that the owner and her friend who were in charge of the dog have stated that my daughter “provoked” the dog by attempting to untangle its lead that it had caught its leg in, my daughter did not give this account of the events - she simply stated that she was sat with my youngest child, on a mat near to the entangled dog and that it turned round and bit her. We spent most of Sunday afternoon in casualty, she has to take antibiotics and will be scarred for life. The police have chosen to disbelieve my 8 year old in favour of the owner and her friend’s account of events. The basic fact of this is that a dog bit my child, she has no earthly reason to lie about how it happened, but they have. The police have informed us that there is no recourse for us. The dog is always introduced as being “a bit nasty” when he is walked in our village and people have regularly been told not to stroke him. What now? Hardly classed as a “dangerous dog” but in my opinion - deadly. Next time it could be a younger child, and it might not be their finger. Where is the protection of the law now - “dangerous dog act” - doesn’t help us. Reform is obviously needed.
July 5th, 2010 at 10:36 pmIt should be the breed, and the deed should be paid by the irresponsible owners who choose to have these horrible, unpredictable Staffies. Just go into any park and they are always off the lead. A weapon on a lead!
July 9th, 2010 at 5:36 pmPeople who have these status dogs should be evicted from the nasty council estates they live on. These kind of people and their Bully dogs have no place in society.
They crap in the parks without picking it up and they damage 80% of the trees in London. It is the breed and there should be special guidelines for people who choose to have thug dogs like Staffs, Pits, Rockweillers, Mastiffs….anything that basically looks as ugly as the owners. Society has gone to the PITS…..