They are considering introducing muzzling, you can voice your opinion up till end of March. Worth doing I would have thought, especially since many non-doggy people are keen on it and those in the Uk would like it to happen here.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/12/6115

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25526490

They are considering introducing muzzling

There is nothing on the Scots gov web site that mentions muzzling, any particular reason you did not notice that?
.

If you read the BBC report, there is mention that the issue of muzzling will be explored, it won't hurt for anyone concerned ,to voice their opinion on the matter.

Question 21 asks whether muzzling should be introduced, perhaps you should have read the whole thing before you commented Heathspaw.

Surely muzzling every dog in Scotland would go against the anuimal welfare act - where the animal must be able to and express natural behaviour, which a muzzle would definitely hinder and prevent?

Scotland are increasingly becoming the place of choice to develop and test the full-on Nanny state :(

Celli
If you read the BBC report,
Question 21 asks whether muzzling should be introduced,

I did not read the BBC report because the only people who have any say as to what is going to be discussed is the Scots goverment & the Scots government has not mentioned muzzles on its stated plans for a consultation on mandatory micro chipping, who cares what the media says, they have no say in any governments policies, best ignored when Frances Lockheads statement is the be all & end all of whats being discussed.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/12/6115
.

Dill
Surely muzzling every dog in Scotland would go against the anuimal welfare act

The Scots are a different country with its own government, if they adopted any of the DEFRA animal welfare bill it non of it then it would be purely a decision of that countries government.

Why, here in England in 2013, do some people still see Scotland a cow tow subserviant nation to England????
.

Heathspaw, are you being deliberately obtuse ? I will state again.
Question 21 of the consultation asks whether muzzling should be introduced, read the whole thing before you comment.

Heathspaw, are you being deliberately obtuse ? I will state again.
Question 21 of the consultation

No, the link you gave is below, there are no Q&A

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/12/6115
.

Here's the direct link to the questionnaire....

http://response.questback.com/scottishgovernment/0qh1p5rpqm/

and this document explains the consultation, muzzling is discussed on page 23

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0044/00441549.pdf

"Another measure that has been suggested to improve public safety from dangerous
and out of control dogs is a requirement for all dogs to be muzzled while they are in
a public place. "

I filled in the consultation online last night and I would urge every dog owner in Scotland to do so.

Ok for the unfortunate obtuse of the forum...the link I gave has on the right of the page a part called 'contents' that means for those who do not understand .........a list of ummmm contents ? if one clicks on that it lists the proposed items for discussion.....one being muzzling of dogs....any particular reason you did not notice that?

It really does pay to read something before jumping in and making a prat of oneself,,,,,,have a nice day :)

Hethspaw, here is the direct link to save you doing another click:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/12/6115/4

Ahh yes, got it now, thanks all.
.

Luna... I think I love you! ;-)

Muzzling would (I imagine) lead to the possibility that we start to deny dogs their ability to read and gauge body language that would  then have repercussions in the home.... One 'solution' to create a greater problem?
   I can't imagine this being anything but political flim flammery. I do fear veterinary behaviouralism logic won't be listened to. I expect the cost of enforcing this will actually be it's sticking point however!
   I agree with Chaumsong though, time to stand up and be counted.

The Scots are a different country with its own government, if they adopted any of the DEFRA animal welfare bill it non of it then it would be purely a decision of that countries government.

Why, here in England in 2013, do some people still see Scotland a cow tow subserviant nation to England????

Wow, that's quite a leap.   Where did that come from?    Perhaps you should read what I wrote again, you appear to have misunderstood it.

It's likely that if muzzling were made mandatory in Scotland, then it would eventually be rolled out in England too.

It's called setting a precedent ;-)

And that would have repercussions for all of us.

Dill
Where did that come from?

HP
Because the majority of posters on here are numerically predominantly living in England & the DEFRA consultations on the DEFRA 2007 animal welfare bill & act took place between 2002 until, I think, spring 2006.

This and other forums had numerous, frequent posts about the forthcoming DEFRA animal welfare bill through those years & refs to "The Animal Welfare Act" on this & other forums were predominantly about the DEFRA consultations & the England & Wales act which followed. The Scots government consultations on the Scots 'Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006' took place in 2006 & was not a part of the DEFRA consultations at all & I dont remember the Scots consultations being mentioned on the forums at all.

So, I read your ref to "the anuimal welfare act" as meaning the DEFRA act of 2007 because when we, in England, refer to ANY law we mean English laws unless otherwise stated, if you had stated "the Scots Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006" then fine but you did not, you stated "the anuimal welfare act", I live in London, others live all over UK but predominantly in England, DEFRA has made no mention at all about muzzling all dogs, it did make changes to penalties last Oct.

Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006
The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 31st May 2006 and received Royal Assent on 11th July 2006

http://bit.ly/JozkF2
.

1. The thread is called the Scottish dog law consultation

2. Both Welfare acts cite that animals must be able to behave in a natural manner/exhibit natural behaviour etc, therefore Dill is right to query whether muzzling would go against the act.... whichever act you choose to follow

HP, what are your views re muzzling of dogs in public places, have you any?

Dill is right to query whether muzzling would go against the act

Yes but that is not what I was pointing out!
.

HP, what are your views re muzzling of dogs in public places, have you any?

Not as a blanket law certainly not, but, on the odd rare occasion an individual dog may need to be muzzled in public places, whether that would reduce the quality of the individual dogs life to the point it would be better off dead is a case by case thing with a whole range of variables involved, relative to some dogs & not to others.
.

Well you were querying what act Dill was referring to, having assumed Dill meant the English one..was you not ?

And as I have pointed out both acts refer to natural behaviour so it matters not, and your assumption that she must mean the English one because most forum members are in England was negated by my pointing out that the thread title and subject matter was about Scotland.

However maybe I have that wrong.....what was it therefore that you were pointing out?

I was referring to whatever current Animal Welfare Act applies in Scotland -  After all the post is about Scotland.    Why Hethspaw would automatically assume that I was referrring to the AWA of England and Wales is beyond me.

The AWA of Scotland refers also to unnecessary suffering, both Physical and Mental.

However, there is a clause in Part 19 which should be read carefully

>(4)The considerations to which regard is to be had in determining, for the purposes of subsections (1) to (3), whether suffering is unnecessary >include--

>(a)whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced,

>(b)whether the conduct concerned was in compliance with any relevant enactment or any relevant provisions of a licence or code of practice >issued under an enactment,

>(c)whether the conduct concerned was for a legitimate purpose, for example--

>(i)the purpose of benefiting the animal, or

>(ii)the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal,

>(d)whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned,

>(e)whether the conduct concerned was in the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person.

My Bolds

So it looks as if they have covered themselves as far as they are concerned.

When answering the consultation, it may be worth querying whether the proposal is in accordance with (d)whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned, under circumstances where NO risk has been found or proved with each and every single dog.  Since in the wrong hands a muzzle could well cause unnecessary suffering and prove contrary to what is intended to be achieved.

This is a disproportionate measure.

also (e)whether the conduct concerned was in the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person.   it could be argued that many people would be unable to ensure that the muzzle did not cause unnecessary suffering on a daily basis on account of being lay people and not experts in muzzling and handling muzzled dogs.

Research has found that where e-collars are used, even in expert hands, there is no guarantee that unnecessary suffering won't occur.   It would be reasonable to assume that the same would hold for muzzles.  Some people might be able to use one in a considerate manner, but the vast majority of ordinary dog owners may not.

Lets face it, this is another example of NANNY State and control, being aimed at everyone when there is only a minority who are a problem.   Something Scotland are getting really good at.

Something Scotland are getting really good at.

I agree, you just have to look at the Dog Control legislation which was brought in a few years ago to see it, unfortunatly it looks like the rest of GB will be following.

Dog legislation is the least of worries, their plans for surveillance of every family under the guise of wellbeing read like Hitler's w**dream   Parts of it are being rolled out already before it's been legalised.

there's a petition to stop it

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/members-of-the-scottish-parliament-reject-girfec-surveillance-and-named-person-for-every-child-in-scotland

I wonder why all that has not been subject to 'significant' media exposure here in England!
.

There are many wondering the same thing.

Perhaps it's because once it's in place in Scotland, they'll roll it out south of the border, and it wouldn't do to let the people have any advance warning.

The information is out there though, you only have to look for it ;)

Perhaps it's because once it's in place in Scotland, they'll roll it out south of the border, and it wouldn't do to let the people have any advance warning.

Ive never trusted any governments but what surprises me is the apparent sheer absence of any mention of the Scots policies by the media here in London. I would have expected TV debates at least, I heard nothing till now, I do listen to news most days.
.

Here's a candle, use the link for United Kingdom - it's a short but interesting read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership#United_Kingdom