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 let's common decent people get on with being kind and responsible domestic dogs owners, and lets existing Dangerous Dog legislation deal with some members of the public who defy the law and keep/breed and allow dangerous breeds of dogs on the streets – as signs of 'strret cred' and worse.
Princess Anne's dog bit (one might describe it as being mauled) a child, and her dog was not destroyed – the same common sense should prevail in 2010 and onwards.