This bit applies to all dogs, not specific types, which constitute any potential danger, eg running off lead near a kid a JR might accidentaly knock the kid over, or a stroke victim or anykind of danger >Under the tougher guidelines, anyone in charge of a dangerously out of control dog would face up to 18 months in jail, with the sentence rising to the legal maximum of two years in exceptional cases<.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/court-crackdown-owners-dangerous-dogs-010518295.html

well sounds like their moving in the right direction at least,

ahaha Boris says he will continue to ask  that people whos dogs attack receive the same sentence as those carrying knifes,,, ((( You going to let them all Off then Boris)) :-O

Update from 1:30 Thames news.

It gave a revamp of above but added that a recomendation of a minimum of 6 months jail for anyone with a dangerous dog attacking other dogs so those reports from pet owners might well get attended to fast, there was video footage & the only dogs shown were bull breed types.

What I find falling short on these journalist generated news reports is that there is no where near enough relevant emphasis & info on what can constitute dangerous in a criminal court, it is literaly anything, if a little CKC starts to bark & at the same time looks at someone with  heart problem, that is dangerous, I think its an 1897 act that covers these things & the DDA 1991 states than if anyone feels threatened by a dog then the owner can end up being charged under the DDA.

Anyway, auto jail sentances are going to be the norm & clearly the judiciary seem to be sending a message to the police & crown prosecution to step up or crack down on anything.

it is literaly anything, if a little CKC starts to bark & at the same time looks at someone with  heart problem, that is dangerous,

Yes, I agree, there are obvious pitfalls and ways to bend the law for and against 'normal' dog owners as in most of our laws.

However, I think most of us do agree there is a problem in this country of dogs being used as weapons and dog on dog aggression is on the rise all the time, we are forever hearing of someone having a problem with this. There are people all over the country afraid to walk themselves and their dogs in some areas, it needs stopping.

We have to hope that these changes will put a stop to this and not think of all the ways it could harm decent dog owners, lets just see if common sense will prevail in a court of law first, if not and many innocent dog owners get caught up in the cross fire I'm sure we will all make our voices heard and we must make sure we are heard, but let's just give it a chance and see if it works to target those many of us are afraid of, which is why changes are being made, many in the legal system have dogs themselves and we do have the back up of many authorities who will also fight for the dog just being a dog.

Trevor Cooper clear your diary :-D

But, let's hope it is not going to be needed. We all know changes are needed.

However, I think most of us do agree there is a problem in this country of dogs being used as weapons and dog on dog aggression is on the rise all the time, we are forever hearing of someone having a problem with this. There are people all over the country afraid to walk themselves and their dogs in some areas, it needs stopping.

Some very unusual dog news this morning.
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9640783.Attacks_on_guide_dogs_may_bring_law_change/

Thank you Hethspaw,

This is now the 3rd guide dog attack that I have read about, I dare say there are others too, which have not made it into the papers, there was that terrible one caught on CCTV in the train station last year as well, it is a growing problem and it has needed recognising for a long time now.

Too many innocent people with hurt and dead dogs via irresponsible dog ownership and sometimes instigated dog attacks.

We need these updates desperately.

Yep, I should have titled this post 'Dogs! The General Publics Favourite Animal'

Ur behind the times bye the way...lol
http://www.thisissussex.co.uk/Vicious-dog-attack-near-Brighton-Pier-Man-bailed/story-16128306-detail/story.html
.

Living in Scotland where similar legislation was introduced a year or so ago I am now seeing lots of cases in the local papers where people have been charged with having dangerously out of control dogs.  Most of the ones I have seen are women in their 50's going through the courts and I think the wrong people are being targetted by the legislation as it isn't hitting those who use dogs as weapons etc.  I know of one case recently where an older woman took on a family members greyhounds when he died and they got out her house and killed a cat.  Now potentially she will face a jail sentence and as much as it is wrong for a cat to have lost its life, I feel it is also wrong to put old ladies in jail for not wanting to have a relatives dogs destroyed when that relative passed away.

The people using dogs as weapons are generally the ones that people are too scared to grass on and I feel that the easy option is being taken by chasing the wrong people through the court system.  I also believe that as people see the legislation being implemented it will have a significant impact on rescues and people will be less willing to take on a rescue dog that needs rehabilitation.  If they take on a dog aggressive dog they risk being jailed while trying to resolve the dogs issues and give it a better life.

I can forsee a time when no dog will be allowed to be off lead except on owners enclosed property, as is generally the case in some countries already.

Oh I do hope not, I will choose not to own more dogs if that happens.

> Most of the ones I have seen are women in their 50's going through the courts

That is quite scary! and clearly not the type this legislation is intended for. Is it being misapplied, or in your view were they/their dogs obviously culpable? What were the breeds involved? [Not being breedist, but it's interesting.] Could female owners over 50 be in a subset that also needs educating and sending to training classes?

I'm not being funny but I am genuinely interested, there could be many reasons why these cases involve a certain age and group, "easy targets" at the least*, if not a generation who may have grown up thinking Babs Woodhouse knew best (I was of that vintage myself); or maybe caring for sons'/daughters' dogs that are too much for them?

* As in, "OMG officer, next door's Jack Russell barked at me and showed its teeth, it will bite a child next!"

>  Most of the ones I have seen are women in their 50's going through the courts and I think the wrong people are being targetted by the legislation as it isn't hitting those who use dogs as weapons etc.

:(
The worrying & puzzling thing is, the case Hethspaw linked to said the police were looking after the 2 dogs that put a man in hospitol with serious injuries & bit a police man. What I can't figure out is why the dogs were captured and not shot? They had allready seriously injured a man and the man with the dogs turned out to have class A drugs on him & a weapon.

In my county, a few weeks ago, a dog had got loose, was took back to it's home by a girl (12 yrs old I think) as she stepped into the  house, the dog bit her and left a SCRATCH on her leg, police were called, they repeatedly tazered the dog, the dog legged it and bit a man that tried to catch it (initial reports from the police were the dog took a chunk out of the mans leg, later reports state the dog ripped a hole in the mans shorts and grazed his leg), the police ran after the dog and shot it dead. The owners of this dog were not at home when it had got loose, they were devastated to find thier dog had been shot, it was 9 years old and would sleep in bed with thier disabled son.

I do think more needs to be done about dangerous dogs, but I have been worried about the wrong people having the law brought down on them. The 2 cases above - both happening under the same law, show 2 completely different outcomes. I find it strange how the family with a family pet end up with a dead dog after a couple of people get graze, but another person - a drugged up, armed criminal, can allow his dogs to put a man in hospital - whilst in a public place, and his dogs are being 'looked after'. :( :(

I don't know when this will become law but the cops need to put notices up around local parks just before it does. Very few dog owners will know anything about this, only a couple of mins on TV last week.

I think theres going to be such a heavy clampdown when it does just to show dog owners things have changed for them & their dogs & show the public they are doing something about nuisance dogs, which are allways a danger to themselves & the public regardless of breed & deed.

> Oh I do hope not, I will choose not to own more dogs if that happens.

I have virtually resorted/chosen to do this over the last five years, as it really is not worth the potential hassle (more than one loose dog can cause apprehension) as a multi dog owner/walker.

>I'm not being funny but I am genuinely interested, there could be many reasons why these cases involve a certain age and group, "easy targets" at the least*, if not a generation who may have grown up thinking Babs Woodhouse knew best (I was of that vintage myself); or maybe caring for sons'/daughters' dogs that are too much for them?

The breeds I am aware of that have been through the courts are someone with jack russells, the greyhounds one is in process and hasn't been to court yet and I think there was an akita too.

I used to go to a training class with my rott that was full of crazy dogs from german shepherd rescue.  IME sheperds tend to be barky, very vocal and tend to run up to people barking.  Most of the ones that came through the class were with responsible people who had taken on a rescue wih a view to sorting the nervy dog out through training and socialisation etc.  Socialising a dog like that in a park or anywhere where the dog behaves in a 'threatening' way to someone is enough in Scotland to have the dog muzzled, neutered, put down, a ban on keeping animals or a jail term if someone complains vociferously enough.

I don't think the general public should have to put up with out of control dogs or living in fear of idiots with dogs or should have to understand canine behaviour.  People with dogs have a duty to ensure that their dogs are not a nuisance to the rest of the world but like most legislation it is created by people who don't know much about the subject to win votes and not to make the world a better place.

today

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environment-food-and-rural-affairs-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/dog-control-and-welfare/