Reply to: That'll be MUCH safer then!!

[original PM]

Ho Hum,

It will tax the law abiding citizens and the chavs with the chavvy dogs will not pay

it will become a pita for the police to police

just another tax

oh and it will probably mean a lot more strays as dogs which are tolerated are kicked out onto the streets.

[DaveB]

Taken from existing Dangerous Dogs legislation

(c) any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose..

Looks to me like the scenario where an unruly dog is being aggressive in a public place is already covered. What is lacking is the will to follow through with existing powers. IMHO that is where these new proposals will also falter. But not before financially penalising a great many people who do not have "dangerous dogs".

That paragraph doesn't mean what you think it means. It is the means by which additional breeds may be added to the list of banned breeds through the issuing of an order by the Secretary of State.

Only the Pitbull Terrier and the Japanese Tosa were included in the original legislation. Since then the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Braziliero have been added to the list using the powers given to the Secretary of State in section 1(1)(c) of the act by making specific orders with regard to those breeds.

It is not a catch all term to mean any dog that may or may not have been bred to be aggressive or for fighting.

As far as the cost is concerned I am somewhat less than sympathetic. Owning a dog is a responsability and insuring your dog is part of that. If you cannot afford to properly keep and care for a dog then you shouldnt have one to begin with.

[AtW]

grey squirrels have all but wiped out the poor old reds

Clearly superior species - an inspiration to other immigrants shirly?

[shaunbhoy]

And dogs have colour vision that stops them from attacking innocent red squirrels?

Fat chance. Those dastardly grey squirrels have all but wiped out the poor old reds due to their gargantuan north american gluttony!!!

[AtW]

And so they should be for it is a widely known fact that (grey) squirrels are nothing but pests!!

And dogs have colour vision that stops them from attacking innocent red squirrels?

[shaunbhoy]

All dogs are dangerous to my squirrels

And so they should be for it is a widely known fact that (grey) squirrels are nothing but pests!!

[DaveB]

What will be interesteing to see is how the insurance companies measure the risk and hence the cost of the policies.

Contrary to what many think it is not the breeds that are percieved to be "aggresive" - Rottweilers, Dobermans, Bull Terriers etc - that are the source of most dog bites, it's actually the smaller breeds like Jack Russels, Yorkshire Terriers and even Chiuahua's that are most likely to bite.

Given that insurers base their premiums on risk it will be interesting to see how people react when it costs more to insure a Chiuahua than a Rottweiler

[AtW]

But not before financially penalising a great many people who do not have "dangerous dogs".

All dogs are dangerous to my squirrels

Apart from Miss Hilton's...

[shaunbhoy]

Taken from existing Dangerous Dogs legislation

1 Dogs bred for fighting
(1) This section applies to—
(a) any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier;
(b) any dog of the type known as the Japanese tosa; and
(c) any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose.

5 Seizure, entry of premises and evidence
(1) A constable or an officer of a local authority authorised by it to exercise the powers conferred by this subsection may seize—
(a) any dog which appears to him to be a dog to which section 1 above applies and which is in a public place

Looks to me like the scenario where an unruly dog is being aggressive in a public place is already covered. What is lacking is the will to follow through with existing powers. IMHO that is where these new proposals will also falter. But not before financially penalising a great many people who do not have "dangerous dogs".

[DaveB]

Well, that will be the end of Churchill then...

Nah, CM keeps him firmly on the leash these days

[AtW]

there would be a new offence of possesion of an unregistered dog

Well, that will be the end of Churchill then...

[sasguru]

It's not aimed at dealing with the dogs once they have been aggresive to someone, it's about being able to be pro-active about dogs that are suspected of being used in the way described. The dog can be checked on suspision, no tag means the dog is taken away before it ever becomes a problem.

Example : Many of these dogs are used in the drugs trade. Dogs found in the course of a police raid cannot automatically be taken away unless they are one of the four banned breeds, and that has to be comfirmed by a police vet before it can happen.

Dogs that behave aggressively on private property are not covered by the Dangerous Dogs act, but by an older act from 1871 which is harder to administer and prosecute. Even so, no prosecution or action can be taken unless the owner can be identified.

Any dog found in these circumstances that was not tagged could immediately be taken away regardless of breed or ownership and ff I read the proposal correctly there would be a new offence of possesion of an unregistered dog that does not require proof of ownership, simply proof of possesion at the time of the offence, much easier to prove and prosecute.

Rattle! Splat! That was the sound as SB's peabrain went into a spin and hit the base of his skull as it wrestled with more than one idea joined together in a chain of reasoning.

[DaveB]

There should be no need to establish ownership. The public complain about very aggressive dogs and the Police need to react. Even the average plod can spot an overly aggressive pooch. The problem is that they don't want to leave their office. Insuring dogs will not begin to address this issue for the reasons you cite yourself. The "owners" will simply refuse to pay/tag and deny that it is their dog. More pointless bureaucracy. Might as well ask that they be registered at the Post Office!!! Not surprised this passed over the heads of AtW and the other bookend sg mind you.

It's not aimed at dealing with the dogs once they have been aggresive to someone, it's about being able to be pro-active about dogs that are suspected of being used in the way described. The dog can be checked on suspision, no tag means the dog is taken away before it ever becomes a problem.

Example : Many of these dogs are used in the drugs trade. Dogs found in the course of a police raid cannot automatically be taken away unless they are one of the four banned breeds, and that has to be comfirmed by a police vet before it can happen.

Dogs that behave aggressively on private property are not covered by the Dangerous Dogs act, but by an older act from 1871 which is harder to administer and prosecute. Even so, no prosecution or action can be taken unless the owner can be identified.

Any dog found in these circumstances that was not tagged could immediately be taken away regardless of breed or ownership and ff I read the proposal correctly there would be a new offence of possesion of an unregistered dog that does not require proof of ownership, simply proof of possesion at the time of the offence, much easier to prove and prosecute.

[shaunbhoy]

in the latter case action can be taken very easily without getting into hard proof of what is "too aggressive is".

That can be done already mutton-skull. KUATB!!

[AtW]

Insuring dogs will not begin to address this issue for the reasons you cite yourself.

It will address the issue because for certain high risk groups insurance will be too much so they will either have to stop having such dogs or have illegal dogs, in the latter case action can be taken very easily without getting into hard proof of what is "too aggressive is".