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.

Review all DEFRA regulations hastily put in place during Foot & Mouth outbreak

In my opinion DEFRA should be split up and the Ministry of Agriculture should be brought back, the industry needs to be led by policymakers who understand the trade and how different it is from other commercial operations.

Filling out forms is not a farmer’s forte; more time is now spent doing on a desk than a tractor.

Farmers should not be required to get separate driving licences that say they can transport certain types on animals in their trailer. Farmers know how to look after their animals and don't need people who've never stepped foot on a farm telling them how to.

Also, stop adding more regulations or amendments to EU rules that affect the industry, believe it or not this puts us at a disadvantage!!

Why is this idea important?

In my opinion DEFRA should be split up and the Ministry of Agriculture should be brought back, the industry needs to be led by policymakers who understand the trade and how different it is from other commercial operations.

Filling out forms is not a farmer’s forte; more time is now spent doing on a desk than a tractor.

Farmers should not be required to get separate driving licences that say they can transport certain types on animals in their trailer. Farmers know how to look after their animals and don't need people who've never stepped foot on a farm telling them how to.

Also, stop adding more regulations or amendments to EU rules that affect the industry, believe it or not this puts us at a disadvantage!!

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?

Repeal ban on showing legally docked dogs….

Current legislation (Animal Welfare Act 2006) states that you are not permitted to show legally docked dogs when members of the public pay to enter such shows.

Legally docked dogs may be shown when members of the public do not pay to enter such shows.

My idea is to repeal this legislation and allow legally docked dogs to be exhibited at all dog shows regardless of whether the public pay to enter.  The fact that they are legally docked means that dogs are not docked merely for cosmetic reasons but to enable them to work without risk of injury.  

Current legislation infringes upon the civil liberty of citizens to enjoy owning and showing working dogs in a number of breeds.

Why is this idea important?

Current legislation (Animal Welfare Act 2006) states that you are not permitted to show legally docked dogs when members of the public pay to enter such shows.

Legally docked dogs may be shown when members of the public do not pay to enter such shows.

My idea is to repeal this legislation and allow legally docked dogs to be exhibited at all dog shows regardless of whether the public pay to enter.  The fact that they are legally docked means that dogs are not docked merely for cosmetic reasons but to enable them to work without risk of injury.  

Current legislation infringes upon the civil liberty of citizens to enjoy owning and showing working dogs in a number of breeds.

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.

Transfer of Private Drains and Sewers set for November 2011.

STOP this transfer and leave things how they are.

In order to:

keep the small drainage industry alive and people in jobs!

Stop the dramatic increase in Sewage rates!

continue the slow economic recovery of England and Wales and keep money within the countrys.

Why is this idea important?

STOP this transfer and leave things how they are.

In order to:

keep the small drainage industry alive and people in jobs!

Stop the dramatic increase in Sewage rates!

continue the slow economic recovery of England and Wales and keep money within the countrys.

Amend Private Water Supply Regulations 2009

These Regulations were introduced to give force to EU Directive 98/83/EC which altered the regime for testing of private water supplies. However, the original Directive includes a provision to exempt any supply of less than 10 cubic metres, (2,200 gallons), per day. The last Governement chose to disregard the exemption and has therefore imposed an unwelcome and unnecessary burden of a small number of households in rural areas who already pay for abstraction, filtration and purification.

Why is this idea important?

These Regulations were introduced to give force to EU Directive 98/83/EC which altered the regime for testing of private water supplies. However, the original Directive includes a provision to exempt any supply of less than 10 cubic metres, (2,200 gallons), per day. The last Governement chose to disregard the exemption and has therefore imposed an unwelcome and unnecessary burden of a small number of households in rural areas who already pay for abstraction, filtration and purification.

Livestock farming: old measure that never get switched off!

1) During the BSE crisis of the 1990's a cattle movement system was established to control the movement of cows and beef cattle. This labourious system with its red tape and policemen still exists though the issues have mostly gone away. In our office we hold a cabinet full of paper passports for each animal. These things have to be stickered and signed, counter signed and a change of address for a cow or calf (or beef animal) has to be reported to the civil servants within 7 days otherwise laws are being broken. The person moving on an animal also has to sticker sign, post off within days otherwise he/she is breaking the law. If BSE has gone away, I don't like being termed as a law breaker for not complying with a system that someone has forgotten to switch off! Dump it!!!

2) Sheep electronic ID tags. Labour decided to go it alone in europe and actually implement an electronic tagging system for every sheep in the UK. The process is so expensive that it represents to the producer some 5% or so of the value of the sheep to implement, representing a pay cut to the producer. Ditch the law, sheep graze on the fells and hills and end up at some point at the abatoir. They are not dangerous or devious this law and measure is not really needed, dump it.

Why is this idea important?

1) During the BSE crisis of the 1990's a cattle movement system was established to control the movement of cows and beef cattle. This labourious system with its red tape and policemen still exists though the issues have mostly gone away. In our office we hold a cabinet full of paper passports for each animal. These things have to be stickered and signed, counter signed and a change of address for a cow or calf (or beef animal) has to be reported to the civil servants within 7 days otherwise laws are being broken. The person moving on an animal also has to sticker sign, post off within days otherwise he/she is breaking the law. If BSE has gone away, I don't like being termed as a law breaker for not complying with a system that someone has forgotten to switch off! Dump it!!!

2) Sheep electronic ID tags. Labour decided to go it alone in europe and actually implement an electronic tagging system for every sheep in the UK. The process is so expensive that it represents to the producer some 5% or so of the value of the sheep to implement, representing a pay cut to the producer. Ditch the law, sheep graze on the fells and hills and end up at some point at the abatoir. They are not dangerous or devious this law and measure is not really needed, dump it.

Remove requirement to shoot animals from the Hunting Act

The Hunting Act defines a form of hunting called 'flushing out of cover'.  It states that this is exempt from the law if five conditions are met.  The last of these conditions is:

"reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person"

The previous Government have states that this condition is needed because otherwise the exemption would be used as an excuse to chase and kill animals that had been flushed out.  This makes no sense.  If someone wanted to claim that they had accidentally chased and killed a fox or a deer then they would also claim that they had accidentally flushed out the animal.

The use of dogs to disperse and deter wild deer is an effective conservation method and is an alternative to culling them.  It is also recommended by the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers.

There is no reason that deer should have to be shot in the circumstances outlined by the Hunting Act and this condition should be removed from the law.

It has recently been suggested by the RSPCA that actually animals can be flushed out of cover without being shot – if true the condition becomes meaningless anyway.  We should not have laws we don;t have to obey.

 

Out on a trip to flush deer with more than three dogs without shooting them.

It should be legal to deliberately flush deer without shooting them.

Why is this idea important?

The Hunting Act defines a form of hunting called 'flushing out of cover'.  It states that this is exempt from the law if five conditions are met.  The last of these conditions is:

"reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person"

The previous Government have states that this condition is needed because otherwise the exemption would be used as an excuse to chase and kill animals that had been flushed out.  This makes no sense.  If someone wanted to claim that they had accidentally chased and killed a fox or a deer then they would also claim that they had accidentally flushed out the animal.

The use of dogs to disperse and deter wild deer is an effective conservation method and is an alternative to culling them.  It is also recommended by the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers.

There is no reason that deer should have to be shot in the circumstances outlined by the Hunting Act and this condition should be removed from the law.

It has recently been suggested by the RSPCA that actually animals can be flushed out of cover without being shot – if true the condition becomes meaningless anyway.  We should not have laws we don;t have to obey.

 

Out on a trip to flush deer with more than three dogs without shooting them.

It should be legal to deliberately flush deer without shooting them.

Countryside & Right of Way Act 2000 Amendment re: RUPPs

The Countryside & Right of Way Act 2000 was amended such that RUPPs (Roads Used as Public Paths) were prohibited to vehicular traffic.

This closed access to the countryside to a range of previously legal activities.

Restore this access.

Why is this idea important?

The Countryside & Right of Way Act 2000 was amended such that RUPPs (Roads Used as Public Paths) were prohibited to vehicular traffic.

This closed access to the countryside to a range of previously legal activities.

Restore this access.

Simplify “Gold-plated Rules” for plant import/export.

DEFRA (?) runs the scheme under the CITES convention to meet an EU directive.

Under the UK version the fee is £59 for each plant/species to import and £47 to export.So to import one of each of a hundred plants having a value of say £500 when imported and £1000 when exported, the fees will total £10,600.  There is no trade taking place. Naturally !

In Germany , for example, the total fees would be under 100 Euros. German traders flourish, and in fact come to UK to sell their plants, whilst UK traders suffer, decline, and go out of business..

DEFRA say that users have to pay for the scheme. Why does it have to be such an impossibly expensive one ? Anyone in the trade could devise a simple scheme which would be cheap to run , just as the Germans, Belgians etc etc have done.

Why is this idea important?

DEFRA (?) runs the scheme under the CITES convention to meet an EU directive.

Under the UK version the fee is £59 for each plant/species to import and £47 to export.So to import one of each of a hundred plants having a value of say £500 when imported and £1000 when exported, the fees will total £10,600.  There is no trade taking place. Naturally !

In Germany , for example, the total fees would be under 100 Euros. German traders flourish, and in fact come to UK to sell their plants, whilst UK traders suffer, decline, and go out of business..

DEFRA say that users have to pay for the scheme. Why does it have to be such an impossibly expensive one ? Anyone in the trade could devise a simple scheme which would be cheap to run , just as the Germans, Belgians etc etc have done.

change packaging regulations

remove packaging regulations as they are too complicated to work… just add tax to goods, to recover in area where goods are sold and used by local authorities for street cleaning etc and to pay specialist contractors such as BIFFA for disposal of other than domestic waste.

The councils keep enough statistics to satisfy the EU regs and litter collection is part of the environmental regulations anyway.(i'll bet there was contingency in product prices when this was brought out)  This would tackle the real nuisance litter such as sweet wrappers McDonalds bags that seem to litter our roads.

Bringing in more community service for penalties with the community service offenders doing litter picking would also help the litter problem

Why is this idea important?

remove packaging regulations as they are too complicated to work… just add tax to goods, to recover in area where goods are sold and used by local authorities for street cleaning etc and to pay specialist contractors such as BIFFA for disposal of other than domestic waste.

The councils keep enough statistics to satisfy the EU regs and litter collection is part of the environmental regulations anyway.(i'll bet there was contingency in product prices when this was brought out)  This would tackle the real nuisance litter such as sweet wrappers McDonalds bags that seem to litter our roads.

Bringing in more community service for penalties with the community service offenders doing litter picking would also help the litter problem

Scrap the fishing rod licence

Everyone who goes fishing, be it on a public stretch of river or on a private lake, needs to buy a rod licence before they start fishing.  Fishery bailiffs patrol the country's waterways to make sure that the licence rules are obeyed.

A one day licence costs £3.75.  Of this the issuer can claim commision of £0.75.  The issuer has to complete the three part licence, take the angler's money, make a monthly return on a strict timetable and send the Environment Agency the balance owed.  The Environment Agency receives the licences, checks that the returns are accurate, updates the database of licensed anglers and employs staff to do all this as well as the fishery bailiffs.  Any surplus is, I understand, used to manage the waterways.

Is there anything left from the £3.75 after collection and enforcement costs?  If not, why not scrap the licence system completely?

Why is this idea important?

Everyone who goes fishing, be it on a public stretch of river or on a private lake, needs to buy a rod licence before they start fishing.  Fishery bailiffs patrol the country's waterways to make sure that the licence rules are obeyed.

A one day licence costs £3.75.  Of this the issuer can claim commision of £0.75.  The issuer has to complete the three part licence, take the angler's money, make a monthly return on a strict timetable and send the Environment Agency the balance owed.  The Environment Agency receives the licences, checks that the returns are accurate, updates the database of licensed anglers and employs staff to do all this as well as the fishery bailiffs.  Any surplus is, I understand, used to manage the waterways.

Is there anything left from the £3.75 after collection and enforcement costs?  If not, why not scrap the licence system completely?

NERC legislation

 

Section 67 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 should be repealed on the grounds that it is a clumsy statute that has caused very unfair and unreasonable impacts to a significant part of the community, often creating absurd situations, rather than solving problems.  There has to be a better and fairer way of addressing the recording and sustainable use of our ancient highways.

Why is this idea important?

 

Section 67 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 should be repealed on the grounds that it is a clumsy statute that has caused very unfair and unreasonable impacts to a significant part of the community, often creating absurd situations, rather than solving problems.  There has to be a better and fairer way of addressing the recording and sustainable use of our ancient highways.

Replace Dangerous Dog Act With Dog Ownership Test

Replace the flawed and outdated 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act with a national, compulsory dog ownership scheme, designed to raise standards of dog ownership and animal welfare, reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries as a result of dog attack and to rid the tax payer of the heavy burden of having to pay for irresponsible dog ownership.

Why is this idea important?

Replace the flawed and outdated 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act with a national, compulsory dog ownership scheme, designed to raise standards of dog ownership and animal welfare, reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries as a result of dog attack and to rid the tax payer of the heavy burden of having to pay for irresponsible dog ownership.

Pastuerised milk regulations

A well-known family-run ice-cream maker that has been in existence for well over 100 years used to buy its milk in bulk from local farmers. Regulations were imposed some years back requiring all milk, and we are talking an enornous quantity, to be sold through a wholesaler and pasteurised. However, ice-cream makers have their own pasteurising facilities and they have to re-heat the milk supplied already treated, so adding cost and tainting the milk. Dairy-related businesses should be able to purchase untreated milk locally and then treat it themselves..

Why is this idea important?

A well-known family-run ice-cream maker that has been in existence for well over 100 years used to buy its milk in bulk from local farmers. Regulations were imposed some years back requiring all milk, and we are talking an enornous quantity, to be sold through a wholesaler and pasteurised. However, ice-cream makers have their own pasteurising facilities and they have to re-heat the milk supplied already treated, so adding cost and tainting the milk. Dairy-related businesses should be able to purchase untreated milk locally and then treat it themselves..

End to Breed Specific Legislation

To bring an end to dogs being banned and euthanised because of their breed or the way they look.

To deal with the issues surrounding crimes with dogs, look at the owner and punish those who train dogs to be dangerous or out of control. Remove their entitlement to own an animal indefinately.

Why is this idea important?

To bring an end to dogs being banned and euthanised because of their breed or the way they look.

To deal with the issues surrounding crimes with dogs, look at the owner and punish those who train dogs to be dangerous or out of control. Remove their entitlement to own an animal indefinately.

Farmers Red Tape/ Subsidys

Farmers have to endure the constant bullying of Trading Standards who come sit in your own house and proceed to nit pick at paperwork that in most cases like mine are complete fiction as it is impossible to to write every single thing down whilst working ,. Why waste money on these people who enjoy a small amout of power they are given to make us dread there arrival . Farmers have the highest suicide rate know wonder .

 Although i used to enjoy the subsidy arriving , i did harbour a certain amount of guilt , to be honest we did need it but fellow farmers are being paid thousands and thousands , it is not fair i do begrudge paying tax if it goes to them . A system to maybe pay farmers benefits if they are struggleing but not a system that pays the rich landlords 100k plus.

Why is this idea important?

Farmers have to endure the constant bullying of Trading Standards who come sit in your own house and proceed to nit pick at paperwork that in most cases like mine are complete fiction as it is impossible to to write every single thing down whilst working ,. Why waste money on these people who enjoy a small amout of power they are given to make us dread there arrival . Farmers have the highest suicide rate know wonder .

 Although i used to enjoy the subsidy arriving , i did harbour a certain amount of guilt , to be honest we did need it but fellow farmers are being paid thousands and thousands , it is not fair i do begrudge paying tax if it goes to them . A system to maybe pay farmers benefits if they are struggleing but not a system that pays the rich landlords 100k plus.

Trespassers (inc thieves) unable to sue in case of injury

Trespassers, especially those trespassing with the intent to break the law such as thieves, vandals, etc, should not be able to sue those who own the property in the event that the trespasser hurts themselves.

Why is this idea important?

Trespassers, especially those trespassing with the intent to break the law such as thieves, vandals, etc, should not be able to sue those who own the property in the event that the trespasser hurts themselves.

Protect my land

Allow forced eviction of long-term (more than a few minutes, for example, so not your casual trespassor who is briefly crossing your land) trespass on land I own. If immigrants or travellers take up residence in my field/shed/garden/tree (as seen in press in recent months) then they should be forcibly evicted without question as it is my land, not theirs.

Why is this idea important?

Allow forced eviction of long-term (more than a few minutes, for example, so not your casual trespassor who is briefly crossing your land) trespass on land I own. If immigrants or travellers take up residence in my field/shed/garden/tree (as seen in press in recent months) then they should be forcibly evicted without question as it is my land, not theirs.