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.

Beware of the dog sign laws

Change in BEWARE of the dog sign.  Ive looked into this and the law is completely wrong.

The law takes a peculiar stance when it comes to the use of ‘beware of the dog’ signs.

If such a sign is on display when the dog attacks a trespasser, then its owner is liable for prosecution, because it could be argued that by displaying the sign they knew the dog was dangerous. However, if the dog attacks an intruder when no sign is visible then the court would decree that the owner was unaware of the threat of the animal, and is therefore not liable for court action.

So for those considering a sign, according to the law if you have a harmless pet dog then by all means display a ‘beware of the dog’ sign as a deterrent, but if you have a dog that would be liable to attack an intruder then don’t, as you might get into trouble.

So basically its saying that if you have a small, medium, large, non vicious, vicious dog and DO NOT have a sign up and an intruder breaks in and gets biten then NOTHING will be done and the owner will NOT be prosecuted.

However, if you put up a BEWARE sign and an intruder gets attacked by the dog defending its property/master your liable for any damage caused to the intruder because by putting up a BEWARE sign its classed as a threat and foreknowledge of your dog/s aggressive or possible aggressive nature.

I have currrent signs up saying BEWARE and own 2 rottweilers who are both very placid and are now known to be a placid breed and NOT Dangerous and one is even a qualified PAT dog enabling him to go into hospitals, schools, homes etc but should an intruder break in and for some reason he decideds to protect that day we will be prosecuted purely because our sign is up and states BEWARE.

We also travelled to several pet shops today asking if they knew of the BEWARE sign law as they all sold BEWARE of the dog signs and NOT one was aware.  You only seem to learn this ridiculous law when its too late and surely BEWARE is a WARNING not a THREAT.

Why is this idea important?

Change in BEWARE of the dog sign.  Ive looked into this and the law is completely wrong.

The law takes a peculiar stance when it comes to the use of ‘beware of the dog’ signs.

If such a sign is on display when the dog attacks a trespasser, then its owner is liable for prosecution, because it could be argued that by displaying the sign they knew the dog was dangerous. However, if the dog attacks an intruder when no sign is visible then the court would decree that the owner was unaware of the threat of the animal, and is therefore not liable for court action.

So for those considering a sign, according to the law if you have a harmless pet dog then by all means display a ‘beware of the dog’ sign as a deterrent, but if you have a dog that would be liable to attack an intruder then don’t, as you might get into trouble.

So basically its saying that if you have a small, medium, large, non vicious, vicious dog and DO NOT have a sign up and an intruder breaks in and gets biten then NOTHING will be done and the owner will NOT be prosecuted.

However, if you put up a BEWARE sign and an intruder gets attacked by the dog defending its property/master your liable for any damage caused to the intruder because by putting up a BEWARE sign its classed as a threat and foreknowledge of your dog/s aggressive or possible aggressive nature.

I have currrent signs up saying BEWARE and own 2 rottweilers who are both very placid and are now known to be a placid breed and NOT Dangerous and one is even a qualified PAT dog enabling him to go into hospitals, schools, homes etc but should an intruder break in and for some reason he decideds to protect that day we will be prosecuted purely because our sign is up and states BEWARE.

We also travelled to several pet shops today asking if they knew of the BEWARE sign law as they all sold BEWARE of the dog signs and NOT one was aware.  You only seem to learn this ridiculous law when its too late and surely BEWARE is a WARNING not a THREAT.

Rewright Dangerous Dogs Act

THe DDA is unworkable, numbers of attacks haven't decreased, 3 of the 4 dogs listed aren't resident in the UK.  The other breed isn't a registered breed but a type.

Work with major charities and organisations on rewrighting to not exclude breeds but to restrict dogs that have caused an offence.  Ensure that if the dog is prevoked into defense that is it not penalised.  If a dog has caused an offence that dog should be microchipped and the owner should have to insure against 3rd party injury at least and the dog should wear a basket muzzle in public.

Responsible dog owners should not be penalised by blanket banning or by other blanket measures.

Encourage all dog owners to attend formal training that uses up to date methods.

Why is this idea important?

THe DDA is unworkable, numbers of attacks haven't decreased, 3 of the 4 dogs listed aren't resident in the UK.  The other breed isn't a registered breed but a type.

Work with major charities and organisations on rewrighting to not exclude breeds but to restrict dogs that have caused an offence.  Ensure that if the dog is prevoked into defense that is it not penalised.  If a dog has caused an offence that dog should be microchipped and the owner should have to insure against 3rd party injury at least and the dog should wear a basket muzzle in public.

Responsible dog owners should not be penalised by blanket banning or by other blanket measures.

Encourage all dog owners to attend formal training that uses up to date methods.

Repeal Section One of the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991

This law says that certain dogs are subject to additional restrictions,  based on their appearance (not breeding or temperament).  As a result of the 1997 amendment to this act, owners may keep their dogs if they are of an illegal 'type' if they go through an emotionally distressing and expensive legal process.  Dogs of this type cannot be rehomed. 

Why I think this law should be removed

  •  It has failed to do what it was supposed to do (restrict ownership of dangerous dogs), 
  • It is unscientific and badly expressed, so it is difficult for people to know if they are breaking it. 
  • it has wasted a great deal of police time and money,  
  • it has caused hardship to animals and owners
  • it creates a confusion in the public mind between a dog that is dangerous, and a dog that is an illegal shape
  • It puts owners who are unable to keep a dog as a result of genuine financial hardship or illness into an impossible situation, and also forces rescue workers and volunteers into a position where they can easily end up on the wrong side of the law. 

Dogs that are an illegal shape

  • may have responsible owners and be highly trained
  • may not have been deliberately purchased: it's impossible to tell if a puppy will be illegal when he grows up
  • may be crosses between legal breeds such as labrador, Boxer, staffordshire bull terrier
  • can only be confirmed as illegal by an expensive legal process involving expert witnesses. 

This law is unfair, because it targets a shape of dog that is probably more likely to be owned by people who are already relatively poor and marginalised.  Government by consent is seriously damaged when the police seize well trained and well behaved family pets.

Why is this idea important?

This law says that certain dogs are subject to additional restrictions,  based on their appearance (not breeding or temperament).  As a result of the 1997 amendment to this act, owners may keep their dogs if they are of an illegal 'type' if they go through an emotionally distressing and expensive legal process.  Dogs of this type cannot be rehomed. 

Why I think this law should be removed

  •  It has failed to do what it was supposed to do (restrict ownership of dangerous dogs), 
  • It is unscientific and badly expressed, so it is difficult for people to know if they are breaking it. 
  • it has wasted a great deal of police time and money,  
  • it has caused hardship to animals and owners
  • it creates a confusion in the public mind between a dog that is dangerous, and a dog that is an illegal shape
  • It puts owners who are unable to keep a dog as a result of genuine financial hardship or illness into an impossible situation, and also forces rescue workers and volunteers into a position where they can easily end up on the wrong side of the law. 

Dogs that are an illegal shape

  • may have responsible owners and be highly trained
  • may not have been deliberately purchased: it's impossible to tell if a puppy will be illegal when he grows up
  • may be crosses between legal breeds such as labrador, Boxer, staffordshire bull terrier
  • can only be confirmed as illegal by an expensive legal process involving expert witnesses. 

This law is unfair, because it targets a shape of dog that is probably more likely to be owned by people who are already relatively poor and marginalised.  Government by consent is seriously damaged when the police seize well trained and well behaved family pets.

Rethink the dangerous dogs act

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?

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?

End Dangerous Dogs Act/Licenses instead

Dog licences should never have been dropped. They would be a means for enforcing standards and controlling breed populations, thereby also reducing the number of dangerous dogs (currently an underground trade) since the police would be able to demand a licence on the spot from any owner. Dangerous breeds would not quality for a licence. The income from licences and fines would allow abandoned dogs to be treated humanely and re-homed. The Kennel Club could be paid to administer the scheme, with their agreement, and it would also allow them to improve their breed statistics, registration, breed improvement, and training programs as well. The licence fee would act as a deterrent to reckless ownership and reduce abandoned dog numbers (after an initial surge no doubt). It should be modest but sufficient to deter, and be annually renewable, say £50. Kennel Club accredited breeders would not pay the fee. The fee would apply to any non-accredited owner they sold a dog to.

Why is this idea important?

Dog licences should never have been dropped. They would be a means for enforcing standards and controlling breed populations, thereby also reducing the number of dangerous dogs (currently an underground trade) since the police would be able to demand a licence on the spot from any owner. Dangerous breeds would not quality for a licence. The income from licences and fines would allow abandoned dogs to be treated humanely and re-homed. The Kennel Club could be paid to administer the scheme, with their agreement, and it would also allow them to improve their breed statistics, registration, breed improvement, and training programs as well. The licence fee would act as a deterrent to reckless ownership and reduce abandoned dog numbers (after an initial surge no doubt). It should be modest but sufficient to deter, and be annually renewable, say £50. Kennel Club accredited breeders would not pay the fee. The fee would apply to any non-accredited owner they sold a dog to.