Dog control let the owners decide how many they can handle

 

The control of dogs needs a big overhaul to be fairer to all owners/lovers and the general public.

I've done a quick search and read all dog related ideas todate Micro chipping, good idea, better enforcement on those who do not clean up after their dogs, good idea, and other bits need better clarification etc.

But no one has mentioned removing the local by-laws on how many dogs you can take for a walk at the same time, some councils have no such law others have set limits, i.e it's recommended 6 should be the limit, our council says 4 is the limit other councils have different limits. 

It should be removed or at least made the same throughout the country. The responsible owners should know how many they can control at once and under what conditions etc.

i.e  a quick out to relieve themselves or a walk in a crowded city centre to a walk over the Moors are they small dogs or large dogs? are they docile or playful or aggressive dogs are they in season etc etc etc  one law should not cover all variables which is why it should be the owners choice and they should be held fully accountable for their dogs actions.

So please remove or make it the same so that if you move from one council area to another the dogs do not suffer.  i.e they don't go on as many walks or get as much exercise as they did as the trips have to be doubled or trebled hence walks are shorter due to the time it takes or they have to be kept in all day as they can't all be taken out together.

Why is this idea important?

 

The control of dogs needs a big overhaul to be fairer to all owners/lovers and the general public.

I've done a quick search and read all dog related ideas todate Micro chipping, good idea, better enforcement on those who do not clean up after their dogs, good idea, and other bits need better clarification etc.

But no one has mentioned removing the local by-laws on how many dogs you can take for a walk at the same time, some councils have no such law others have set limits, i.e it's recommended 6 should be the limit, our council says 4 is the limit other councils have different limits. 

It should be removed or at least made the same throughout the country. The responsible owners should know how many they can control at once and under what conditions etc.

i.e  a quick out to relieve themselves or a walk in a crowded city centre to a walk over the Moors are they small dogs or large dogs? are they docile or playful or aggressive dogs are they in season etc etc etc  one law should not cover all variables which is why it should be the owners choice and they should be held fully accountable for their dogs actions.

So please remove or make it the same so that if you move from one council area to another the dogs do not suffer.  i.e they don't go on as many walks or get as much exercise as they did as the trips have to be doubled or trebled hence walks are shorter due to the time it takes or they have to be kept in all day as they can't all be taken out together.

Repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act and reintroduce dog licences.

Repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act. Reintroduce Dog Licences to be granted only to dog owners who can demonstrate that they can care for and control their dogs. The licence should be renewable annually at a cost high enough to cover the cost s of testing, administration and supervision. Training could be available at a cost to the dog owner from the RSPCA and all dogs should be microchipped. Exemptions to the cost for guide dogs etc. and costs to owners of working dogs may be tax deductible.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act. Reintroduce Dog Licences to be granted only to dog owners who can demonstrate that they can care for and control their dogs. The licence should be renewable annually at a cost high enough to cover the cost s of testing, administration and supervision. Training could be available at a cost to the dog owner from the RSPCA and all dogs should be microchipped. Exemptions to the cost for guide dogs etc. and costs to owners of working dogs may be tax deductible.

Stricter Regime for Dog Owners

 

I make the following recommendations: (i). All dogs when in public spaces – woods, parks, highways, golf courses and so on – must be on a lead at all times. Dog owners who flout this law are to be fined. The burden for ensuring that their dogs do not harm or harass other users of public spaces falls firmly on the dog owner(s); (ii). All dog owners are to have full insurance for all the dogs they own. Failure to have insurance shall incur heavy fines in the first instance; (iii). All dog owners must possess a license. A part of the fee levied can be used to fund dog wardens on local councils. I see no reason why those members of the public who do not have dogs should have to bear the costs – funding dog wardens – incurred by sentimental and selfish dog owners; Penalties for dog owners who go to work and leave their dogs to bark all day must also be tightened up.

Why is this idea important?

 

I make the following recommendations: (i). All dogs when in public spaces – woods, parks, highways, golf courses and so on – must be on a lead at all times. Dog owners who flout this law are to be fined. The burden for ensuring that their dogs do not harm or harass other users of public spaces falls firmly on the dog owner(s); (ii). All dog owners are to have full insurance for all the dogs they own. Failure to have insurance shall incur heavy fines in the first instance; (iii). All dog owners must possess a license. A part of the fee levied can be used to fund dog wardens on local councils. I see no reason why those members of the public who do not have dogs should have to bear the costs – funding dog wardens – incurred by sentimental and selfish dog owners; Penalties for dog owners who go to work and leave their dogs to bark all day must also be tightened up.

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.