seizing & killing dogs because of their breed

this law needs to be repealed – it doesn't get rid of dangerous dogs those are created by "dangerous" and stupid people. Seizing dogs because someone has decided that their breed is dangerous across the board is illogical and has been proved to be so. We have a boarding kennels and see many breeds of dogs and like the human race you can alays fins a "bad" one occasionally but mostly any bad behaviour is due to the actions of their owners and once shown can be rectified.   

Why is this idea important?

this law needs to be repealed – it doesn't get rid of dangerous dogs those are created by "dangerous" and stupid people. Seizing dogs because someone has decided that their breed is dangerous across the board is illogical and has been proved to be so. We have a boarding kennels and see many breeds of dogs and like the human race you can alays fins a "bad" one occasionally but mostly any bad behaviour is due to the actions of their owners and once shown can be rectified.   

dangerous dog act

i would like to see the dangerous dog act repealled as this act has done nothing but murder innocent dogs.A dog in my view is only a reflection of its owner,all dogs can bite, I agree that if a pit bull type bites it causes more physical damage but figures show that you are more likely to be bitten by a dachshound than a pit bull type .The other thing the axt has done is to make these dogs more desirable to the wrong type of owner ,I am a dog rescue & the only dog i have been bitten by(requiring hospital treatment ) was by a Lhasa Apso which resulted in me having ten stiches in my face ,which didnt raise a eyebrow with the media etc ,but there again it wouldnt sell newspapers ,I agree that some sort of dog control is required ,my thoughts are along the lines of the system used to register cars ,Compulsery micro chipping would be a ideal way as in that every dog would be registerd to a owner , Any dog found without a microchip would go to the council pound & be available for re homing a be microchipped to the new owner , it would also be the last registerd owners duty to report a change of owner/adress ,and would be responsable for the dog until details are updated this would then open the doors for fines etc to be enforced,which would fund the scheme. i would like to recieve your response thankyou .

                                                     mr N Holmes a dog lover

Why is this idea important?

i would like to see the dangerous dog act repealled as this act has done nothing but murder innocent dogs.A dog in my view is only a reflection of its owner,all dogs can bite, I agree that if a pit bull type bites it causes more physical damage but figures show that you are more likely to be bitten by a dachshound than a pit bull type .The other thing the axt has done is to make these dogs more desirable to the wrong type of owner ,I am a dog rescue & the only dog i have been bitten by(requiring hospital treatment ) was by a Lhasa Apso which resulted in me having ten stiches in my face ,which didnt raise a eyebrow with the media etc ,but there again it wouldnt sell newspapers ,I agree that some sort of dog control is required ,my thoughts are along the lines of the system used to register cars ,Compulsery micro chipping would be a ideal way as in that every dog would be registerd to a owner , Any dog found without a microchip would go to the council pound & be available for re homing a be microchipped to the new owner , it would also be the last registerd owners duty to report a change of owner/adress ,and would be responsable for the dog until details are updated this would then open the doors for fines etc to be enforced,which would fund the scheme. i would like to recieve your response thankyou .

                                                     mr N Holmes a dog lover

repeal of dangerous dog laws

i am a responsible dog owner and this law does not work. lots of perfectly safe dogs are murdered becuase they "look dangerous" and hysterics amongst the pu blic makes the situation balloon. the poor dogs end up being demonised when 99 times out of a 100 they are loving dogs. its the way they are raised by kids using tough looking dogs as an accessory, rather like the "macho" version of a handbag! this law is achieving nothing!     anne walker

Why is this idea important?

i am a responsible dog owner and this law does not work. lots of perfectly safe dogs are murdered becuase they "look dangerous" and hysterics amongst the pu blic makes the situation balloon. the poor dogs end up being demonised when 99 times out of a 100 they are loving dogs. its the way they are raised by kids using tough looking dogs as an accessory, rather like the "macho" version of a handbag! this law is achieving nothing!     anne walker

Repeal of Dangerous Dogs Act

Attempts to define and enforce a 'ban' on certain species of dogs that have been deemed to be 'dangerous' has been entirely counter-productive and has done nothing to eliminate from the streets  dogs being used as 'weapons of choice'.

The Act needs repealing and further thoughts given to control, leaving the police to be able to impound dogs under the payment of a 'release fee' (similar to clamped cars)

There should be no restrictions on freedom to own any dog of your choice, but all dogs should be 'chipped' and licenced for an annual fee. The police shoudl be able to challenge anyone with a  dog (on lead or not) for the identification of the dog, whether behaving badly or not.

I belive however that all dogs should 'be allowed one bite' before more serious snactions are imposed, to give those in control of dogs a chance to improve control.

Why is this idea important?

Attempts to define and enforce a 'ban' on certain species of dogs that have been deemed to be 'dangerous' has been entirely counter-productive and has done nothing to eliminate from the streets  dogs being used as 'weapons of choice'.

The Act needs repealing and further thoughts given to control, leaving the police to be able to impound dogs under the payment of a 'release fee' (similar to clamped cars)

There should be no restrictions on freedom to own any dog of your choice, but all dogs should be 'chipped' and licenced for an annual fee. The police shoudl be able to challenge anyone with a  dog (on lead or not) for the identification of the dog, whether behaving badly or not.

I belive however that all dogs should 'be allowed one bite' before more serious snactions are imposed, to give those in control of dogs a chance to improve control.

Measures to tackle the problems associated with dogs

It really is time to bring back the dog licence in some form. I am a dog owner myself but am angry that so many, particularly children, are still getting attacked by dogs and that nothing is being done about it other than by wrongly targeting so called "pit bull types". Again it is not the dogs but the owners who have little idea of how to treat these dogs which incidentally pose no more threat than any other if treated correctly and with understanding.

As responsible owners we must treat our pets with the respect they deserve which means that we treat them as dogs, not humans, with needs which differ from our own. This entails giving them proper daily exercise as well as food and shelter, so that they do not feel frustrated and so more likely to bite if provoked or left unsupervised.

Courses could also be run for potential new owners and the council should be aware of where dogs are being kept. With the vast numbers of dogs in shelters, and those thousands euthanised every year in the UK,  it high time breeders were strictly regulated. It is all too easy to churn out their puppies to those who have little intention of keeping them past the puppy stage and turn a blind eye to those abandoned to almost certain death.

Only when we address all the issues, as well as that of protecting the public, can we start to tackle this serious and increasing  problem.

Why is this idea important?

It really is time to bring back the dog licence in some form. I am a dog owner myself but am angry that so many, particularly children, are still getting attacked by dogs and that nothing is being done about it other than by wrongly targeting so called "pit bull types". Again it is not the dogs but the owners who have little idea of how to treat these dogs which incidentally pose no more threat than any other if treated correctly and with understanding.

As responsible owners we must treat our pets with the respect they deserve which means that we treat them as dogs, not humans, with needs which differ from our own. This entails giving them proper daily exercise as well as food and shelter, so that they do not feel frustrated and so more likely to bite if provoked or left unsupervised.

Courses could also be run for potential new owners and the council should be aware of where dogs are being kept. With the vast numbers of dogs in shelters, and those thousands euthanised every year in the UK,  it high time breeders were strictly regulated. It is all too easy to churn out their puppies to those who have little intention of keeping them past the puppy stage and turn a blind eye to those abandoned to almost certain death.

Only when we address all the issues, as well as that of protecting the public, can we start to tackle this serious and increasing  problem.

Repeal Section 1 and Section 2 of The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

Section 1 and Section 2 of the dangerous dogs act are breed specific and haven't lead to a reduction in dog attacks. Four breeds are currently banned under section 1 and the metroploiten police have spent £10million in 3 years solely implementing it and want a further £10.6million for the next 4 years. it is ludicrous to be spending that much money on failed legislation in the middle of a recession! people shouldn't be criminalised due to the look of their dog.

setion 2 allows restrictions/bans to be placed on any breed at any time, currently there are no breeds effected by this, however as a responsible dog owner it makes me feel uncomfortable that the goverment has that the power to restrict or kill my dog for someone else's crime and i know that i am not the onely one to feel this way, not to mention that increased cost of enforcement if more breeds were subject to breed specific legislation.

Section 1 and Section 2 of the dangerous dogs act should be repealed so that the law focuses on actaul dangerous dogs. The money spend on enforcing breed specific legislation should be used to target irresponible/criminal owners and breeders.

Why is this idea important?

Section 1 and Section 2 of the dangerous dogs act are breed specific and haven't lead to a reduction in dog attacks. Four breeds are currently banned under section 1 and the metroploiten police have spent £10million in 3 years solely implementing it and want a further £10.6million for the next 4 years. it is ludicrous to be spending that much money on failed legislation in the middle of a recession! people shouldn't be criminalised due to the look of their dog.

setion 2 allows restrictions/bans to be placed on any breed at any time, currently there are no breeds effected by this, however as a responsible dog owner it makes me feel uncomfortable that the goverment has that the power to restrict or kill my dog for someone else's crime and i know that i am not the onely one to feel this way, not to mention that increased cost of enforcement if more breeds were subject to breed specific legislation.

Section 1 and Section 2 of the dangerous dogs act should be repealed so that the law focuses on actaul dangerous dogs. The money spend on enforcing breed specific legislation should be used to target irresponible/criminal owners and breeders.

Dangerous Animal (Dog) Licence

I would like to see a well thought through (with appropriate concessions) dog licence scheme re-introduced.

This would self fund wardens, poopscoop schemes, medical assistance (consequential worm and fouled soil related diseases advice, cure & prevention); the problems society has with ignorant members of the population not controlling their animals, not cleaning up after them, intimidating innocent passers-by has become a which problem councils don't adequately admit to or stand up to.

(This is admittedly part of a larger anti-social, self obscessed, selfish, characteristic of our society – add litter, chewing gum, vandalism, graffitti, bad manners, lack of respect, responsibilities for one's own actions to the mix and a poor picture is often the first vista – there are many wonderful aspects of our communities too it must be said) –

Let's start with cheap low cost aspects – Perhaps high profile personalities such as David Bekham, Ben Foggle, Lady Gaga,  who have socially accepted decent attitudes to such matters of course!, Virgin Boss, Rory Bremner …..etc etc …perhaps they could launch a culture of act decency – it IS cool to use a litter bin, help older people….

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see a well thought through (with appropriate concessions) dog licence scheme re-introduced.

This would self fund wardens, poopscoop schemes, medical assistance (consequential worm and fouled soil related diseases advice, cure & prevention); the problems society has with ignorant members of the population not controlling their animals, not cleaning up after them, intimidating innocent passers-by has become a which problem councils don't adequately admit to or stand up to.

(This is admittedly part of a larger anti-social, self obscessed, selfish, characteristic of our society – add litter, chewing gum, vandalism, graffitti, bad manners, lack of respect, responsibilities for one's own actions to the mix and a poor picture is often the first vista – there are many wonderful aspects of our communities too it must be said) –

Let's start with cheap low cost aspects – Perhaps high profile personalities such as David Bekham, Ben Foggle, Lady Gaga,  who have socially accepted decent attitudes to such matters of course!, Virgin Boss, Rory Bremner …..etc etc …perhaps they could launch a culture of act decency – it IS cool to use a litter bin, help older people….

Ms Reeve

To enforce the dangerous dog act rather than just voice it. Words have no matter without action. The police, Vouncils and government are to blame for every victim who has been under the jaws of these devil dogs. Staffordshire Bull Terriers and all the macho breeds like the Rockweller, Bull Mastiffs have no place in society off the lead. There needs to be special guidelines making it manditory that all these dangerous breeds be muzzled, micro chipped, neutured and on a strong lead at ALL times in public places. If the irresponsible owners break the guidelines. They should be prosecuted by being banned of owning dogs, community service and fined. The laws have not worked because the police have not done their job. Saving money will only cause more deaths from attacks and the problem to escalate even more. The dangerous dogs act needs to be breed specific or it will fall flat on its face!

Why is this idea important?

To enforce the dangerous dog act rather than just voice it. Words have no matter without action. The police, Vouncils and government are to blame for every victim who has been under the jaws of these devil dogs. Staffordshire Bull Terriers and all the macho breeds like the Rockweller, Bull Mastiffs have no place in society off the lead. There needs to be special guidelines making it manditory that all these dangerous breeds be muzzled, micro chipped, neutured and on a strong lead at ALL times in public places. If the irresponsible owners break the guidelines. They should be prosecuted by being banned of owning dogs, community service and fined. The laws have not worked because the police have not done their job. Saving money will only cause more deaths from attacks and the problem to escalate even more. The dangerous dogs act needs to be breed specific or it will fall flat on its face!

Dangerous Dogs Act

The Dangerous Dogs Act was passed in a panic after a few dogs mauled family members one summer.

Since then we have seen the rise of hybrid dogs, bred and used for antisocial behaviour by druggies and thugs.

Why not beef up the old cruelty to animals legislation and do away with this ineffectual Act. The police are paying fortunes of our money for secret kenneling of suspected 'dangerous breeds' while appeals drag on?. That would deal with neglect and cruelty.

Regarding yobs with dogs, why not add an additional penalty to any offence committed whilst in possession of a dog, such as robbery or drug possession/dealing and then ban such people for life from possessing a dog. Any dog found in the criminal's possession should be immediately destroyed

 

Why is this idea important?

The Dangerous Dogs Act was passed in a panic after a few dogs mauled family members one summer.

Since then we have seen the rise of hybrid dogs, bred and used for antisocial behaviour by druggies and thugs.

Why not beef up the old cruelty to animals legislation and do away with this ineffectual Act. The police are paying fortunes of our money for secret kenneling of suspected 'dangerous breeds' while appeals drag on?. That would deal with neglect and cruelty.

Regarding yobs with dogs, why not add an additional penalty to any offence committed whilst in possession of a dog, such as robbery or drug possession/dealing and then ban such people for life from possessing a dog. Any dog found in the criminal's possession should be immediately destroyed

 

DOG BREED DOES NOT INFLUENCE THE BEHAVIOUR, THE OWNER DOES.

It is not the breed should be known as danger to public, it's where & how the dog has been brought up. Every dog has its potentials and character but mainly their behaviour should be controled.  There are many reasons for a dog to bite a person in public, but the main ones are: the owner beating the dog, the dog is not trained to socialise in public enough or training was not acomplished, the dog is tied up in the house or even in dark alone for long hours, the person who walks the dog can't control it, and many more.

Why is this idea important?

It is not the breed should be known as danger to public, it's where & how the dog has been brought up. Every dog has its potentials and character but mainly their behaviour should be controled.  There are many reasons for a dog to bite a person in public, but the main ones are: the owner beating the dog, the dog is not trained to socialise in public enough or training was not acomplished, the dog is tied up in the house or even in dark alone for long hours, the person who walks the dog can't control it, and many more.

Dangerous dog act does not stop danderous dogs

The DDA, just uses the courts and RSPCA to examine an animal on breeds.  Why don't we scrap it and allow police to determine the nature of a dog and is it safe.  The DDA was a knee jerk reaction to the press.   Parliament is above that, scrap it

Why is this idea important?

The DDA, just uses the courts and RSPCA to examine an animal on breeds.  Why don't we scrap it and allow police to determine the nature of a dog and is it safe.  The DDA was a knee jerk reaction to the press.   Parliament is above that, scrap it

Unfair Dog Legislation

I do not understand why it all has to be so complicated and focussed around the dog.  

If one vauxhall cavalier kills someone, the owner is on trial, not the car. And they do not seize all vauxhalls from their owners  because of it!!!!!

Make it compulsory for all dogs to be chipped at birth.  Owners must show proof of ID when registering their pup, much like the vehicle registering system. They are then responsible for their dogs behaviour. It will be the owners responsibility to ensure, when they transfer ownership of the dog, that they send details of the new owner to the central body and the new owner must show proof of ID when confirming ownership. Fines for all dogs who do not do this. Vets, dog wardens, police, can scan dogs to determine who is the owner.  Owners should take reasonable steps to check potential new owners are suitable and knowledgeable about the breed/general petcare before passing over. When new owners register, any previous bad ownership will flag up on file. Failure to register previous dogs will also show, and alert the authorities to a potential problem.

Anyone buying a dog should check it has been chipped, and report the previous owner if not.

I do not believe owners should pay vast sums for licences to own a dog. Many poor people are wonderful owners and gain much pleasure from owning a pet. There are enough expenses to pet ownership which prove a problem without adding to the burden.

The potential is there for fines to those flouting the rules, and the income generated from this, and the drop in disastrous incidents costing the taxpayer thousands, should be sufficient to cover the cost.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I know this idea may need adjusting, it IS just an off the cuff idea. I also know dogs are different to cars; very much so, they are more like children….

 But, the law currently treats them more like cars… a dangerous car unfit for public roads  is seized and destroyed, or impounded, just as a dog is.

A child is not put down because it bites someone! A child is taken from an irresponsible/neglectful/abusive parent (well, SHOULD be!) and rehabilitated, nurtured, and so it should be with dogs.

My border collie, I was told, was a breed not really good with young children. She is wonderful with my grand daughter.  I couldn't ask for a more loving, patient, tolerant dog.  That poem, about, if a child lives with patience, etc etc applies to dogs also.

Not an infallible system, but it would be better than what is currently in place.

Why is this idea important?

I do not understand why it all has to be so complicated and focussed around the dog.  

If one vauxhall cavalier kills someone, the owner is on trial, not the car. And they do not seize all vauxhalls from their owners  because of it!!!!!

Make it compulsory for all dogs to be chipped at birth.  Owners must show proof of ID when registering their pup, much like the vehicle registering system. They are then responsible for their dogs behaviour. It will be the owners responsibility to ensure, when they transfer ownership of the dog, that they send details of the new owner to the central body and the new owner must show proof of ID when confirming ownership. Fines for all dogs who do not do this. Vets, dog wardens, police, can scan dogs to determine who is the owner.  Owners should take reasonable steps to check potential new owners are suitable and knowledgeable about the breed/general petcare before passing over. When new owners register, any previous bad ownership will flag up on file. Failure to register previous dogs will also show, and alert the authorities to a potential problem.

Anyone buying a dog should check it has been chipped, and report the previous owner if not.

I do not believe owners should pay vast sums for licences to own a dog. Many poor people are wonderful owners and gain much pleasure from owning a pet. There are enough expenses to pet ownership which prove a problem without adding to the burden.

The potential is there for fines to those flouting the rules, and the income generated from this, and the drop in disastrous incidents costing the taxpayer thousands, should be sufficient to cover the cost.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I know this idea may need adjusting, it IS just an off the cuff idea. I also know dogs are different to cars; very much so, they are more like children….

 But, the law currently treats them more like cars… a dangerous car unfit for public roads  is seized and destroyed, or impounded, just as a dog is.

A child is not put down because it bites someone! A child is taken from an irresponsible/neglectful/abusive parent (well, SHOULD be!) and rehabilitated, nurtured, and so it should be with dogs.

My border collie, I was told, was a breed not really good with young children. She is wonderful with my grand daughter.  I couldn't ask for a more loving, patient, tolerant dog.  That poem, about, if a child lives with patience, etc etc applies to dogs also.

Not an infallible system, but it would be better than what is currently in place.

Repeal Dangerous Dogs act

Repeal the Dangerous Dogs act and the "banned" status of some breeds.  All dogs can bite.  Repeal this useless legislation and introduce proper legislation to make the dog owners responsible for the actions of their dogs.  NB: the proposals for tagging/chipping of dogs won't work, as, in the main, law abiding people with dogs, who don't cause a problem, will get their dogs chipped, but those that cause a problem won't so it will not do any good whatsoever.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the Dangerous Dogs act and the "banned" status of some breeds.  All dogs can bite.  Repeal this useless legislation and introduce proper legislation to make the dog owners responsible for the actions of their dogs.  NB: the proposals for tagging/chipping of dogs won't work, as, in the main, law abiding people with dogs, who don't cause a problem, will get their dogs chipped, but those that cause a problem won't so it will not do any good whatsoever.

Dangerous Dogs

Repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act and replace it with one placing the responsibility  on the owners to train and socialise their dogs so that there is no need for specific breed legislation. 

Owners should face heavy fines, community service and possibly imprisonment in the case of any daamge by their dogs..

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act and replace it with one placing the responsibility  on the owners to train and socialise their dogs so that there is no need for specific breed legislation. 

Owners should face heavy fines, community service and possibly imprisonment in the case of any daamge by their dogs..

Repeal Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

Repeal of section one of the Dangerous Dogs Act – the part that bans certain breeds

 

Retain section three of the Dangerous Dogs Act – the part that deals with dogs behaving dangerously.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal of section one of the Dangerous Dogs Act – the part that bans certain breeds

 

Retain section three of the Dangerous Dogs Act – the part that deals with dogs behaving dangerously.

Repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act

This well-meaning but inoperable bit of legislation attempts to define types of mongrel which are allegedly dangerous and has been a Horlicks since it was introduced. There have been few successful prosecutions and – as could be predicted – some dogs are still dangerous.

Why is this idea important?

This well-meaning but inoperable bit of legislation attempts to define types of mongrel which are allegedly dangerous and has been a Horlicks since it was introduced. There have been few successful prosecutions and – as could be predicted – some dogs are still dangerous.

Repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act

The DDA should be replaced by more informed and effective legislation which recognises that ANY dog can be dangerous, does not discriminate against dogs with certain physical characteristics and recognises that the sole responsibility for a dog’s behaviour rests on the person in charge of that dog.

Why is this idea important?

The DDA should be replaced by more informed and effective legislation which recognises that ANY dog can be dangerous, does not discriminate against dogs with certain physical characteristics and recognises that the sole responsibility for a dog’s behaviour rests on the person in charge of that dog.

Repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act

Repeal the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, which doesn't work. Don't bother trying to amend it; that won't work either. Start again, after taking expert advice and studying the evidence on irresponsible dog ownbership.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, which doesn't work. Don't bother trying to amend it; that won't work either. Start again, after taking expert advice and studying the evidence on irresponsible dog ownbership.

Repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act

Repeal the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, which doesn't work. Don't bother trying to amend it; that won't work either. Start again, after taking expert advice and studying the evidence on irresponsible dog ownbership.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, which doesn't work. Don't bother trying to amend it; that won't work either. Start again, after taking expert advice and studying the evidence on irresponsible dog ownbership.