The idea is to STOP the government dictating who can "seize and destroy" dogs – ANY dog/s.
We all know there are dangerous breeds, by definition, (see Dangerous Dogs Act 1991[c.65] ) but what this all encompasing DOG CONTROL BILL wants to do is tar every dog with the same brush; and that must not happen.
This ludicrous Bill now defines, "been in an attack if it has bitten, mauled, or injured a person or other animal". So if your next door neighbour's dog attacks a thief or a fox, some "officer" may seize your neighbour's dog and get it destroyed or perhaps neutered or re-homed. See Article 3 (1) and (2).
Why is this idea important?
It lets decent, resonsible, law-abiding people keep thier domestic dog without the fear of it being 'taken' by some over zealous "officer" (PCSO for example) who decides the dog has "attacked" somebody or other animal.
Existing Dangerous Dog legislation is doing a good enough job without the need for another deeper and offensive layer of Dog Law inflitrating our freedoms.