Tail docking in dogs

The present law regarding the docking of dog's tail should be repealed. The process is a simple one when carried out on pups just a few days old, it is a sensible insurance against later tail damage which in an adult dog is a serious and painful injury, with amputation requiring general anaesthetic  and causing the dog real suffering. How many might suffer this injury? Does it matter?  We are talking about the prevention of suffering.

The people who want this law repealed are the ones who care most about dogs and who are the ones least likely to tolerate any ill treatment or suffering. Listen to them.

The people who were responsible for the introduction of the law in all probability are well intentioned but perhaps too easily influenced by the emotive language used by the anti docking brigade. I would also suggest that none of them have ever been present at a docking, nor have they seen an adult dog with a damaged undocked tail. 

Why is this idea important?

The present law regarding the docking of dog's tail should be repealed. The process is a simple one when carried out on pups just a few days old, it is a sensible insurance against later tail damage which in an adult dog is a serious and painful injury, with amputation requiring general anaesthetic  and causing the dog real suffering. How many might suffer this injury? Does it matter?  We are talking about the prevention of suffering.

The people who want this law repealed are the ones who care most about dogs and who are the ones least likely to tolerate any ill treatment or suffering. Listen to them.

The people who were responsible for the introduction of the law in all probability are well intentioned but perhaps too easily influenced by the emotive language used by the anti docking brigade. I would also suggest that none of them have ever been present at a docking, nor have they seen an adult dog with a damaged undocked tail. 

abolish dogs

Increase the dog licence to £500 per animal, and sanction corporal punishment for owners who allow their animals to foul the pavement. Any dog that does so should be put down.

Why is this idea important?

Increase the dog licence to £500 per animal, and sanction corporal punishment for owners who allow their animals to foul the pavement. Any dog that does so should be put down.

Allow Pets to Travel Internationally

Where did this crazy myth start up, that the Continent is riddled with rabies?

Fill in the missing letters: T*b*oids.

There might have been some rabies issue in the 80s, but within a few years of spraying animal habitats with antidote food-pellets, the number of infected aniimals had dimininshed to practically zero. This was achieved within a few years by the 1990s.

Yet it was NEVER reported on.

Well, it’s now 20 years on from 1990, and we’re still the nanny state we were then. (Even worse if you count everything else.)

A number of other rabies-free countries (like Finland and Cyprus) have already signed up for the Schengen freedom-of-movement agreement. And I’d hate to count the number of times I’ve been scratched and bitten by playful cats on the Continent.

Time we reviewed and reformed this uniquely British crazy law.

Why is this idea important?

Where did this crazy myth start up, that the Continent is riddled with rabies?

Fill in the missing letters: T*b*oids.

There might have been some rabies issue in the 80s, but within a few years of spraying animal habitats with antidote food-pellets, the number of infected aniimals had dimininshed to practically zero. This was achieved within a few years by the 1990s.

Yet it was NEVER reported on.

Well, it’s now 20 years on from 1990, and we’re still the nanny state we were then. (Even worse if you count everything else.)

A number of other rabies-free countries (like Finland and Cyprus) have already signed up for the Schengen freedom-of-movement agreement. And I’d hate to count the number of times I’ve been scratched and bitten by playful cats on the Continent.

Time we reviewed and reformed this uniquely British crazy law.

Support Tail Docking

Repeal the tail docking ban. The arguements for the ban were superficial and contradictory to other cosmetic practices allowed ( e.g. dew clawing,  sterilisation of young bitches etc) . Also docking by rubber band is COMPLETELY painless.

The only suffering I have ever witnessed during a docking was that performed by a vet — obviously trying to make a point.

The last people qualified to talk about docking are vets —- they know nothing about it having not been trained in it for decades now !!

As for a dog  needing a tail to express itself go and get a life !! Open your eyes and look at traditionally docked breeds and see the tail/body movement that shows real expression !!

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the tail docking ban. The arguements for the ban were superficial and contradictory to other cosmetic practices allowed ( e.g. dew clawing,  sterilisation of young bitches etc) . Also docking by rubber band is COMPLETELY painless.

The only suffering I have ever witnessed during a docking was that performed by a vet — obviously trying to make a point.

The last people qualified to talk about docking are vets —- they know nothing about it having not been trained in it for decades now !!

As for a dog  needing a tail to express itself go and get a life !! Open your eyes and look at traditionally docked breeds and see the tail/body movement that shows real expression !!

Reduce restrictions for dog walkers

It is increasingly hard for responsible dog owners to give their dogs the exercise they need. The previous government made it easier for local government to bring in new restrictions. This doesn't work. Local government often does not follow proper consultation, failing to consider the needs of dog owners. Dogs are simply banned from large areas with no thought for the impact. In effect, responsible dog owners are being punished because of an irresponsible minority. There would be outrage if cars were banned from any road on which more than say ten people broke the speed limit in a month !

This sort of approach just does not work. In 1980 or 1990 not all dog owners cleared up poo. Now virtually all do, yet there are more restrictions than ever before. The impact on more eldely dog owners (or those with older dogs), those without a car, or anyone who has rescued an ill-treated dog can be huge, yet there is no benefit to society. Otherwise unnecessary car journeys are hardly a good thing, either. 

The power of local government to ban dogs outright has been misused, and should be severely curtailed. Existing dog bans should be converted to 'dogs on leads' restictions – still a compromise – unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated.

If Britain really is to become a fair and open society, the attitude of a small minority should not be allowed to make a simply, everyday activity so hard for so many decent, responsible dog owners.

Why is this idea important?

It is increasingly hard for responsible dog owners to give their dogs the exercise they need. The previous government made it easier for local government to bring in new restrictions. This doesn't work. Local government often does not follow proper consultation, failing to consider the needs of dog owners. Dogs are simply banned from large areas with no thought for the impact. In effect, responsible dog owners are being punished because of an irresponsible minority. There would be outrage if cars were banned from any road on which more than say ten people broke the speed limit in a month !

This sort of approach just does not work. In 1980 or 1990 not all dog owners cleared up poo. Now virtually all do, yet there are more restrictions than ever before. The impact on more eldely dog owners (or those with older dogs), those without a car, or anyone who has rescued an ill-treated dog can be huge, yet there is no benefit to society. Otherwise unnecessary car journeys are hardly a good thing, either. 

The power of local government to ban dogs outright has been misused, and should be severely curtailed. Existing dog bans should be converted to 'dogs on leads' restictions – still a compromise – unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated.

If Britain really is to become a fair and open society, the attitude of a small minority should not be allowed to make a simply, everyday activity so hard for so many decent, responsible dog owners.

Docking

I think the law should be made more effective and the only way to do it is to ban it all together, that way there are no loopholes and everyone knows where they stand. Breeders who have litters can have them all docked by saying that  they are to be used as 'working' dogs without even knowing where they are going to be homed. I have seen puppies being docked and it turned my stomach. They did scream and were definately distressed. There are also debates over how established pain levels are for pups at the age they're done but judging by what I saw, they feel it and are distressed….so ban it altogether please!

Why is this idea important?

I think the law should be made more effective and the only way to do it is to ban it all together, that way there are no loopholes and everyone knows where they stand. Breeders who have litters can have them all docked by saying that  they are to be used as 'working' dogs without even knowing where they are going to be homed. I have seen puppies being docked and it turned my stomach. They did scream and were definately distressed. There are also debates over how established pain levels are for pups at the age they're done but judging by what I saw, they feel it and are distressed….so ban it altogether please!

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.

what value is put on tradition

My breed has been docked for hundreds of years, along come the do-gooders and I can no longer have a Bobtail , I have to have a long hairy tail that breaks every cup and ornament on the coffee table, mud and muck stick to the rear end and in this heat fly strike is a real and constant threat. We have lost the cobby shape and many breeders are giving up as the breed has not only lost its name its character has gone as well. That lovely corky shape is still seen in the USA, the land of the free, change this stupid law and give us our national breed back.

Why is this idea important?

My breed has been docked for hundreds of years, along come the do-gooders and I can no longer have a Bobtail , I have to have a long hairy tail that breaks every cup and ornament on the coffee table, mud and muck stick to the rear end and in this heat fly strike is a real and constant threat. We have lost the cobby shape and many breeders are giving up as the breed has not only lost its name its character has gone as well. That lovely corky shape is still seen in the USA, the land of the free, change this stupid law and give us our national breed back.

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

 

Hobby breeding more defined laws

Hobby breeders should have a more consistant law for breeding, not just the individual council bylaw.  It should be consistant across the UK and be more understanding to the hobby breeder. Who do not breed for profit, but for continuation of lines, and take time choosing a stud dog, health testing, and most of all with the puppies.  They should be recognised for what they are, not penalised because they do not see their dog as commercial gain.  Many councils are using the loop hole in the law to dictate that only one litter is breed per year without a licence.  An essence on quality not quantity.

After all a licenced breeder has no restriction on how many litters a year they can breed or if they are designer or pedigree breeds.  Most dont even health test.  As everything is purely for profit.

Why is this idea important?

Hobby breeders should have a more consistant law for breeding, not just the individual council bylaw.  It should be consistant across the UK and be more understanding to the hobby breeder. Who do not breed for profit, but for continuation of lines, and take time choosing a stud dog, health testing, and most of all with the puppies.  They should be recognised for what they are, not penalised because they do not see their dog as commercial gain.  Many councils are using the loop hole in the law to dictate that only one litter is breed per year without a licence.  An essence on quality not quantity.

After all a licenced breeder has no restriction on how many litters a year they can breed or if they are designer or pedigree breeds.  Most dont even health test.  As everything is purely for profit.

Repeal the Dog Control Order element of the Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act

Dog Control Orders have been implemented nationwide due to the above legislation introduced by the previous Government. DCOs have been implemented in an arbitrary fashion with extreme variations in areas so that some areas of the country have only one or two elements of the orders imposed yet other areas have whole gamuts of the orders (ie ban, on lead, on lead by request, restricted numbers to be walked etc.) throughout an area. This has resulted in some areas having an excessive number of restrictions being placed on dog owners as to where dogs can actually be exercised which is important for their health wellbeing, and more importantly to help socialise them and make them better integrated into society. It also puts undue pressure on those elderly or with mobility problems who local easily accessible areas for exercise withdrawn from them. The cost of implementing dog control orders is expensive, requiring in my area alone £40,000 to be spent on signage alone (ie taking an old sign which says Dogs on Lead down to put a new sign saying Dogs on Lead up) because new legislation has been passed. There is also additional manpower costs to be taken into account which has not been quantified. In view of public spending cuts this seems ridiculous. Existing bye-laws for dogs on lead by the highway and no fouling in public areas were ALREADY in place before the introduction of DCOs. Therefore it is an expensive and unnecessary piece of legislation which actually does nothing to promote responsible dog ownership but merely penalises the majority of ordinary dog owners and curtails their civil liberties.

I suggest reverting to the original bye-law system which worked perfectly well but asking Councils to encourage responsible dog owner groups in their areas and support them with access to training sessions to combat any dog issues in public areas. I would support a dog ownership test and license/registration if this were felt necessary if the money from this were ring fenced into tackling issues to pursue and prosecute  those who breed dogs for fighting or using dogs as weapons within a gang culture. I would prefer the dog wardens to concentrate on serious issues like this, and animal cruelty/abuse than have to spend their time persecuting ordinary dog owners who just want to exercise their dogs.

On the issue of civil liberties, parks and open spaces are supposed to be there for all, dog owners pay their taxes like everyone else and should not be banned or restricted from using them. They should be expected to adhere to acceptable control of their animals, as I would expect parents to adhere to acceptable levels of control of their children. Our parks here suffer more abuse from anti social behaviour by children than dogs, but I see no suggestion of child control orders.

Repeal this section of the act and look at it again, in conjunction with dog owners to find a more effective way to encourage owner responsibility without infringing civil liberties or using public funds in such a cavalier manner.

Why is this idea important?

Dog Control Orders have been implemented nationwide due to the above legislation introduced by the previous Government. DCOs have been implemented in an arbitrary fashion with extreme variations in areas so that some areas of the country have only one or two elements of the orders imposed yet other areas have whole gamuts of the orders (ie ban, on lead, on lead by request, restricted numbers to be walked etc.) throughout an area. This has resulted in some areas having an excessive number of restrictions being placed on dog owners as to where dogs can actually be exercised which is important for their health wellbeing, and more importantly to help socialise them and make them better integrated into society. It also puts undue pressure on those elderly or with mobility problems who local easily accessible areas for exercise withdrawn from them. The cost of implementing dog control orders is expensive, requiring in my area alone £40,000 to be spent on signage alone (ie taking an old sign which says Dogs on Lead down to put a new sign saying Dogs on Lead up) because new legislation has been passed. There is also additional manpower costs to be taken into account which has not been quantified. In view of public spending cuts this seems ridiculous. Existing bye-laws for dogs on lead by the highway and no fouling in public areas were ALREADY in place before the introduction of DCOs. Therefore it is an expensive and unnecessary piece of legislation which actually does nothing to promote responsible dog ownership but merely penalises the majority of ordinary dog owners and curtails their civil liberties.

I suggest reverting to the original bye-law system which worked perfectly well but asking Councils to encourage responsible dog owner groups in their areas and support them with access to training sessions to combat any dog issues in public areas. I would support a dog ownership test and license/registration if this were felt necessary if the money from this were ring fenced into tackling issues to pursue and prosecute  those who breed dogs for fighting or using dogs as weapons within a gang culture. I would prefer the dog wardens to concentrate on serious issues like this, and animal cruelty/abuse than have to spend their time persecuting ordinary dog owners who just want to exercise their dogs.

On the issue of civil liberties, parks and open spaces are supposed to be there for all, dog owners pay their taxes like everyone else and should not be banned or restricted from using them. They should be expected to adhere to acceptable control of their animals, as I would expect parents to adhere to acceptable levels of control of their children. Our parks here suffer more abuse from anti social behaviour by children than dogs, but I see no suggestion of child control orders.

Repeal this section of the act and look at it again, in conjunction with dog owners to find a more effective way to encourage owner responsibility without infringing civil liberties or using public funds in such a cavalier manner.

tail docking

We own six rotties and it was, before April 2007, Kennel Club breed standard that their tails were docked.  We now have two rottweilers with tails.  Their tails are quite long and their have been many times I have nearly trodden on their tails..  God forbid that I ever do and cause them an injury.  I am given to understand that once a tail sustains an injury, it usually has to be amputated.  What about the high possibility of a tail being caught in a door!!  Legalise tail docking. 

Why is this idea important?

We own six rotties and it was, before April 2007, Kennel Club breed standard that their tails were docked.  We now have two rottweilers with tails.  Their tails are quite long and their have been many times I have nearly trodden on their tails..  God forbid that I ever do and cause them an injury.  I am given to understand that once a tail sustains an injury, it usually has to be amputated.  What about the high possibility of a tail being caught in a door!!  Legalise tail docking. 

Showing legally docked dogs

Whilst I am prepared to accept the law regarding the docking of dogs, exception being working dogs, I cannot understand the attempt to prevent people showing their legally docked dogs in England and Wales.  The law states we may not show those dogs docked on or after…… in front of the paying public. 

Why is this idea important?

Whilst I am prepared to accept the law regarding the docking of dogs, exception being working dogs, I cannot understand the attempt to prevent people showing their legally docked dogs in England and Wales.  The law states we may not show those dogs docked on or after…… in front of the paying public. 

Cabbies asking if you have the plague

'It is illegal for cab drivers to carry rabid dogs or corpses and by law they must ask all passengers if they have small pox or the plague.'

This law needs scrapping.

Maybe I don't want to tell a taxi driver my medical history….

Why is this idea important?

'It is illegal for cab drivers to carry rabid dogs or corpses and by law they must ask all passengers if they have small pox or the plague.'

This law needs scrapping.

Maybe I don't want to tell a taxi driver my medical history….

the dangerous dogs act 19991 should be abolished

The above act outlaws 4 dog breeds  chosen arbitrarily. Breeds of dogs are not dangerous, individual dogs are aggressive of any breed dependent on their upbringing. Particularly pit bull types are persecuted for the way they look and often destroyed having done absolutely nothing wrong. Staffordshire Bull Terriers are also dragged into this ignorant and prejudicial law since they were used in the breeding of the pit bull. 

We have The Dogs Act 1887 which legislates against dogs who actually aggress – we do not need a knee jerk reactionary law that wastes huge amounts of public money and allows peoples' innocent pets to be taken from them and destroyed. The Dangerous Dog's Act is ill informed, hugely unfair and costly.

Why is this idea important?

The above act outlaws 4 dog breeds  chosen arbitrarily. Breeds of dogs are not dangerous, individual dogs are aggressive of any breed dependent on their upbringing. Particularly pit bull types are persecuted for the way they look and often destroyed having done absolutely nothing wrong. Staffordshire Bull Terriers are also dragged into this ignorant and prejudicial law since they were used in the breeding of the pit bull. 

We have The Dogs Act 1887 which legislates against dogs who actually aggress – we do not need a knee jerk reactionary law that wastes huge amounts of public money and allows peoples' innocent pets to be taken from them and destroyed. The Dangerous Dog's Act is ill informed, hugely unfair and costly.

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 Breed Specific Legislation (Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act)

Seizing and destroying a dog based on the way it looks rather than its temperament a) does nothing to protect the public and b) compromises animal welfare.

Why is this idea important?

Seizing and destroying a dog based on the way it looks rather than its temperament a) does nothing to protect the public and b) compromises animal welfare.

Repeal 2 metre dog lead length

I would like to see the authorities that have enforced a law on dog owners walking their dogs on a leads no longer than 2m repealed.  This law criminalises dog owners who want to walk their dogs using a flexi lead, or exercise their pets off lead.

The motivation for the law is that owners are more likely to clear up after their dogs if they are on a lead of less than 2 meters.  This is flawed logic.  The majority of dog owners are responsible and clear up after their pets regardless of the length of lead, however it is unlikely the length of the lead will make an irresponsible owner change their behaviour and start clearing up mess. 

Why not spend the money policing the length of dog leads on policing owners who do not clear up after their pets, thus not criminalising the majority?

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the authorities that have enforced a law on dog owners walking their dogs on a leads no longer than 2m repealed.  This law criminalises dog owners who want to walk their dogs using a flexi lead, or exercise their pets off lead.

The motivation for the law is that owners are more likely to clear up after their dogs if they are on a lead of less than 2 meters.  This is flawed logic.  The majority of dog owners are responsible and clear up after their pets regardless of the length of lead, however it is unlikely the length of the lead will make an irresponsible owner change their behaviour and start clearing up mess. 

Why not spend the money policing the length of dog leads on policing owners who do not clear up after their pets, thus not criminalising the majority?

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.

Responsability of dog owners

Every one who gets a dog should have to take a test after a certain time to show that they have trained the dog to a safe standard. That the dog responds to commands and is non agressive and a social animal.

If they fail they should be made to attend classes to improve their own training skills and prove they are worthy of dog ownership.

Why is this idea important?

Every one who gets a dog should have to take a test after a certain time to show that they have trained the dog to a safe standard. That the dog responds to commands and is non agressive and a social animal.

If they fail they should be made to attend classes to improve their own training skills and prove they are worthy of dog ownership.

Make breeders responsible for who they are selling their dogs to

Most rescue centres have a database telling them what dog goes to live where, and technically keeps ownership of the dog so they can trace it should they so wish throughout it's lifetime, the adopter just looks after it.  so should the person move house or sell the dog on the centre should be told of the dogs new location.  Breeders should be made to do the same thing.

If a breeder sells a dog they should be responsible for the home it goes to, make sure it is micro chipped and keep a log of the dogs location.  This will 1 – put people off of breeding dogs just for money as they will need to ensure their dog doesn't end up with irresponsible owners, 2 – if breeders are held partly responsible they will ensure their dogs go to good homes that will train them hopefully having a knock on effect of less dogs in rescue and on the streets.

Responsible breeders have a returns policy whereby should you need to rehome the dog at any point throughout it's lifetime it must be returned to the breeder, again meaning less dogs in rescue if the owners comply.

If all dogs have to have a record book with the breeder detailing their breed, markings and microchip number along with their new home details (new owners will need to provide proof of ID) and this is logged with say the kennel club (if they can be responsible enough) we can keep a much closer eye on what dogs are being bred and where they are being sold to without penalising those responsible owners.

Why is this idea important?

Most rescue centres have a database telling them what dog goes to live where, and technically keeps ownership of the dog so they can trace it should they so wish throughout it's lifetime, the adopter just looks after it.  so should the person move house or sell the dog on the centre should be told of the dogs new location.  Breeders should be made to do the same thing.

If a breeder sells a dog they should be responsible for the home it goes to, make sure it is micro chipped and keep a log of the dogs location.  This will 1 – put people off of breeding dogs just for money as they will need to ensure their dog doesn't end up with irresponsible owners, 2 – if breeders are held partly responsible they will ensure their dogs go to good homes that will train them hopefully having a knock on effect of less dogs in rescue and on the streets.

Responsible breeders have a returns policy whereby should you need to rehome the dog at any point throughout it's lifetime it must be returned to the breeder, again meaning less dogs in rescue if the owners comply.

If all dogs have to have a record book with the breeder detailing their breed, markings and microchip number along with their new home details (new owners will need to provide proof of ID) and this is logged with say the kennel club (if they can be responsible enough) we can keep a much closer eye on what dogs are being bred and where they are being sold to without penalising those responsible owners.