The dangerous dogs act places too much emphasis on the breed of dog, stigmatising certain breeds as 'dangerous', rather than the behaviour of the owner of a dog. This is especially apparent in the way in which the dog suffers for what is essentially a crime committed by the owner.

The reduction in availability of the so called 'dangerous breeds' has only led to the criminal elements resorting to the use of dogs not on the list rather than stamping out the problem.

Therefore, rather than blanket ban particular breeds of dog, it may be more sensible to target the people who breed and train them using cruel methods and use them as weapons or for intimidation. Surely tightening up the methods controlling who is allowed to own a dog is better than killing dogs who have been used in such a way?

Why is this idea important?

A serious rethink of this policy is needed to prevent cases of animal cruelty and illegal breeding which are occuring all over the country regardless of the law banning these breeds from being bred or owned. A lot of this ownership and breeding is occuring under the radar of the law which means that dogs are not given access to vetinary and other care they may need out of fear of prosecution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.