The proposed DOG CONTROL BILL 2008/09 session

Thoughts please :( 

Your sad face indicates not happy. :-)

OK, I've read it, am I missing an underlying threat, as I can't see it at present?

Section 2 reads scary at first especially point (e) the bill obviously is worked around thugs using dogs to intimidate etc, (which I know we are all in favour of laws being brought in to sort out) but obviously the innocent may get caught up in the powers of the bill. 

My first thoughts are the young adolescent dogs and older males putting them in place,  some people have dog aggressive, fear aggressive, abused rescue dogs all with behaviour probs which could get caught up in complaints from this bill section (e)

However, Section 3

IMO that would rectify the problem, it doesn't say it will seize anyones dog firstly they will be issuing an order of lead control, dog training, muzzles, (all which anyone with an aggressive dog would put into place anyway) worst case re-homing, neutering - Umm perhaps a problem there, but that could always be argued, it also says it will vindicate aggression caused by protection, tresspass, service dog, provocation.

We all want people with dogs to act responsibly.

Unless others can point out the flaws to the bill, I can't see anything I have a problem with, if anyone has a dog out of control, then the law needs to step in and take charge, I for one want that and welcome more powers.

There is always our freedom of speech and to take court action ourselves if we feel something is not followed through correctly, as long as we are all responsible owners, the bill should not affect any of us, infact I can't see how it would. :-)

I think at present it only covers England and Wales.  However I dread to see what the SNP would come up with if given half the chance.

Personally I would like to see Child Control Orders along a similar vein lol, but that's just a personal view.

Whatever version of the bill gets passed, it will only work depending on the people who police it.  Thankfully this is only supposed to be a draft so hopefully it will improve.

> My first thoughts are the young adolescent dogs and older males putting them in place,  some people have dog aggressive, fear aggressive, abused rescue dogs all with behaviour probs which could get caught up in complaints from this bill section

This is the part that worries me too, my dog frequently meets other dogs that run up to him snapping/growling, so far he shows no sings of bothering but one day he may feel the need to defend himself :(

It says,
2 (e) No person shall keep a dog that has attacked a person or another animal.

Then
7 (5) For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as having been in an attack if it has bitten, mauled or injured a person or another animal.

Your dog only has to have bitten or injured another dog (my dog could injure another simply by stepping on them :( any dog can give 1 bite in self defense), for it to be classed as being involved in an attack, then the bill says  you can not keep a dog that has attacked.

If a Jack Russle attacked my dog (can see that hapeining soon, one keeps running & growling at him), my dog took it as play & did a huge playbow during which he landed on the Jack Russle & broke it's leg (my dog has then injured another) - who would back me up to say that my dog was playing, he looks an awsome sight doing a play-bow with his teeth exposed as his lips are flapping in the wind. No one would believe that a Jack Russle is the attaker against a Mastiff would they? My dog would be in trouble for doing nothing wrong :(
My dog would be classed as being involved in an attack anyway, simply by accidently injuring another in play, as it doesn't differentiate between an attaking dog and a dog that is defending itself against an attack or a dog that accidently injurs another.

Section 3 states:
If an officer of a police force or local authority is of the opinion that a person is
failing to comply with section 2, but the dog in question has not yet been  
involved in an attack, the officer may serve on the person responsible for the
dog a control notice which-- ......

So the control orders in the new bill are relating to dogs that have not been involved in an attack - what happens to dogs that have injured another by accident or self-defence???

I am very worried now. I keep my dog on-lead as for a dog to be classed as dangerous it only has to make people frightened, it doesn't have to DO anything wrong (a 12 stone dog with slobber flying running full steam towards somebody to say hello, looks like the dog is going to eat you for beakfast).
I am very worried and think I will start to take a big stick wth me, I don't want my dog ever to have to defend himself, he gets pestered every now & then by other dogs and if he reacts he tries to play with them, I would rather I batted the other dog away then my dog did a play bow and landed on them :( :( :(

> Whatever version of the bill gets passed, it will only work depending on the people who police it.

The problem I see is that this will really be worrying anybody with large dogs. A lot of people see a large dog & think, simply because they are large, that they are nasty :( I can see there being an uproar if my dog defended himself, because he is so big. But smaller dogs that instigate attacks will not be bothered with - how many police officers would listen to me if I put in a complaint about the Jack Russle that keeps running at my Mastiff? They would take one look at the size of my dog & laugh at me :(

ETA, but if the owner of the Jack RUssle contacted the police and said " a Masiff just jumped on my Jack Russle for no reason, it was foaming at the mouth. My little dog didn't deserve to get it's leg broken" - even if the fact were that the JR ran up to the Mastiff, snapping/growling and the mastiff accidently landed a playbow on the JR, it would not be believed like that atall (the foaming at the mouth part - Buster slobbers something awful when he's on a walk - looks like he's rabid LOL).

Lucky for me the Police that I work for take no interest in dogs ;-)  I have "suggested" that there are a couple of pit bull type's in Aberdeen to no avail.

This harks back to PDE.  People say that the responsible owners/breeders have nothing to worry about.  But we know differently.  What happens if some areas have an over-zealous dog warden?  And how can you prove a dog attacks in self-defence?  I'm not going to stand back and film it on my mobile, I want to get in there and help my dog.  Many's the time I've faught a dog off of both of mine.  Luckily my dogs are small and fluffy and cute (like me) so we should find it easier than those with the big breeds. 

I do think, Mastifflover, that you guys are going to be unfairly targetted.  I think I would like more emphasis on the dog owner than the dog in this bill now that I think of it.

I can see that you are worried and I can see that others may well be, as to how everything would be pan out, if reported, however as far as I can see the vindications below should cover any scenario like this.

(a)  
the dog was provoked into an attack;
(b)  
the attack was in self-defence;

 
(c)  
the dog was a service dog; or

 
(d)  
the attack was on a trespasser




It does not say that the above is just dog to human, I think it also represents dog on dog, if it does the JR's behaviour could easily come under a,b, or even d, as far as your dog is concerned.  I think there is plenty of leeway for argument. There is also room for two parties to have completely different stories in which dog did what first in which case I can't see how anything could be done but a caution for both parties.

how many police officers would listen to me if I put in a complaint about the Jack Russle that keeps running at my Mastiff? They would take one look at the size of my dog & laugh at me


Under the new bill they would have to take you seriously.

But I do agree, it does bring into doubt whether they will account for dogs being dogs, I think that common sense will prevail, dogs, they're not human and don't understand why they can not act on instinct although we train them they are still dogs, which is why dog on dog has always been difficult to act on, I think it still will be, the bill looks frightening, but I really do feel it won't affect the 'normal' dog owner too much, just the menacing and uncaring owners, but I might be wrong, it may be a way to just have everyone from now on owning the fluffier dog friendly breeds, but I do truly believe the above a, b and d can be used for a dogs defence too.  **sat here with fingers crossed**

> What happens if some areas have an over-zealous dog warden?  And how can you prove a dog attacks in self-defence?  I'm not going to stand back and film it on my mobile, I want to get in there and help my dog.

Exactly, the bigger/more dangerous looking dog is more than likely going to get the brunt of the law, even if it doesn't deserve it :(
It's frustrating.
Something does need to be done to protect all the innocent people & dogs against the idiots who encourage thier dogs to fight and the idiots who just do not take the responsibility of dog ownership seriously. It just worries me that this bill doesn't appear to leave anyroom for dogs to be dogs. Dogs can have scuffles without being dangerous, it's dogs that attack seriously that need adressing (muzzling/training/re-homing to somebody who will comply with the control order etc..).

I can see this bill missing all of it's intended targets and responsible owners having to pay the price :(

> but I really do feel it won't affect the 'normal' dog owner too much, just the menacing and uncaring owners, but I might be wrong, it may be a way to just have everyone from now on owning the fluffier dog friendly breeds, but I do truly believe the above a, b and d can be used for a dogs defence too.  **sat here with fingers crossed**

That's what I was worrying about :( :(

>I can see that you are worried and I can see that others may well be, as to how everything would be pan out, if reported, however as far as I can see the vindications below should cover any scenario like this.

>(a)   the dog was provoked into an attack;
>(b)   the attack was in self-defence;
>(c)  the dog was a service dog; or
>(d)   the attack was on a trespasser

Thanks, I had overlooked that part in my blind panick!!! I do wonder how one would prove that thier big dog was acting defensively against a little dog, but then again, I would hope it would be possible to use a behaviourist to give a temperment assesment?

ETA: my dog is always on lead, so the only way he could even accidenlty injure another dog was for that dog to come up to us - that gives me a bit of a relief.

he problem I see is that this will really be worrying anybody with large dogs. A lot of people see a large dog & think, simply because they are large, that they are nasty  I can see there being an uproar if my dog defended himself, because he is so big.
yep. It is perfect amunition for people who don't like dogs or don't understand dogs. When people see my dogs playing they think they are being aggressive. If young dogs come andd jump on mine I am perfectly happy for my dogs to put the 'out of control 'dog in it's place - however could this be seen as attacking the younger dog who was 'only trying to play'. Then you get aggressive dogs who wag their tail while they attack so they are being friendly and so if your dog defends itself yours is attacking. What about a big dog who accidently knocks someone over? okay it shouldn't happen but it does and it is therfore out of control.

It's like bringing up children always looking over your shoulder never knowing if someone has decided that what you consider perfectly acceptable is an evil illegal activity. There is always someone around who knows best and they really can cause so much trouble.    Walking dogs isn't supposed to be stressful. I increasingly so much would like to own my own land where we cold relax with our dogs and just be ourselves and enjoy ourselves.  Then when we reach the day that all dogs in public must wear a muzze and be on lead all the time we can still be able to have bigger more energetic dogs.

My dogs are also on a lead because they LOVE other dogs.  Especially big dogs with drool for some reason.  I hate wiping the slobber off their hair lol!

>(4)  
>For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as having been in an attack if it has bitten, mauled or injured a person or another animal.

So, a dog which chases and injures or kills a rat, for example (currently legal), is guilty of an attack (vermin are animals). If this is extended to private places (as seems possible) then a dog which injures a cat in its own garden is no longer safe from the law, as is the case at present.

I think it is laying down clear rules on how dog owners have to control their dog.

When my dog attacked and killed another dog the powers that be all came to visit police/dog warden- even my housing association got involved from being contacted by the victims dog they did say they would visit but did not. The local TV news even did a bit on what my dog had done.Obviously the dogs owner wanted revenge for what my dog did.

Quite rightly  I was warned that if my dog caused anymore problems I would be prosecuted for keeping a dangerous dog. I sent letters from a dog behaviorist and a letter from my vet saying this attack was out of the blue and my animal was a good dog up til that day. I took full responsibility that it was my fault not my dogs that this happened.

I think this new bill is aimed at owners who allow their pets to run amok, lately I have seen reports of dogs attacking horses.  I on the other hand wanted my dog to be a good animal and wanted to learn from this grievous mistake- a lot of owners now like the fact they have a hard scary dog.

Dogs attacking other animals has been a grey area in the law. Even getting attacked by someone else's dog in their home as meant you could not prosecute that person for allowing this attack to happen. A child climbing into a garden and getting attacked by a dog and the child is at fault so I think it will be a good thing.

It will all depends on the owners not the dogs involved.

:-D I am laughing, but I shouldn't really should I as there is always a jobsworth who may well take the bill to the actual letter.

But with regards to the rat or cat JG, you can always quote (d) to Mr or Mrs Jobsworth. :-)

>(a)   the dog was provoked into an attack;

>(b)   the attack was in self-defence;
>(c)  the dog was a service dog; or
>(d)   the attack was on a trespasser

Or even (a) as it is an instinctive reaction so it was instinctively provoked. :-)

> I think it is laying down clear rules on how dog owners have to control their dog.
>

It's not though. My dog is on-lead when out, according to this bill, if another dog attacked him, he then bit the other dog he would be classed as being involved in an attack. The bill also says that one must not keep a dog that has been involved in attack. How do you prove that a 12 stone on-lead dog, that LOOKS nasty to people who don't like the look of Mastiffs and has bitten a small dog, is not a dangerous dog and that it's owner is responsible and the Mastiff was acting out of self defense ??

The very fact I keep him on-lead could be used against me, I keep him on-lead so he can't be seen as being out of control, but many people assume that he's on-lead because he's dangerous and rarely beleive me when I say he's friendly :(

Or as Jeangenie has pointed out - what happens if your dog injures a cat in your garden - plenty of the best-behaved dogs are capeable of this, it only proves the dog has a high prey drive/is defending it's garden from a cat or, in the case of my huge lump, he likes to try to play with cats (the size difference could obviously leave a cat with an injury).

The thing is you have control of your dog by having him on a lead
even if an attack took place as you've mentioned in the eyes of the law- you as an owner were acting responsibly even if the worst thing did happen.
I have had to keep Snoop on lead when out the dog warden /police said that keeping him on a lead is the safest thing to do for a dog as you are acting responsible.

If the owner's dog was off lead it wouldn't take the police much to realise what happened. The other owner would be very silly to contact police, if say- they had a little JR charging up to your dog- then that animal to be attacked by yours, it the end of the day the JR was out of control. If on the other hand your dog was off lead as well and this happened then things could get difficult.

On the question of your dog attacking a cat, I think quite right that some owners should be told off for allowing their dogs to be savage- some peoples attitudes are- it was in my garden so its a free for all.
Having a dog with a high prey drive is not an excuse for allowing them to kill at will. My 2  4 yr old's charge out into the yard growling going hell for leather at my neighbours cats and I have a go at them and tell them to leave. Only I find if you allow them to get away with being like that at any time, when out walking and seeing a strange cat they instantly think- 'Aah strange cat lets get it'! I mostly do think the mentioned cat would get away- but if a car came along and they get hit that would be my fault for allowing them to do as they please.

Its all about controlling there behavior, which for a lot of people owning dogs they don't bother to train them at all.

Hi Carrington,

for my own part it is particularly worrying as I have a breed which many people perceive as being a threat - not that they have any great size or weight behind them by any means (adult mature bitch around 19-21 kg, male 21-25 kg) but because they have the 'wolf' look or shepherd outline :(

My dogs are very much 'normal' dogs - they enjoy rough housing with one another and  behave similarly with other dogs they meet.  I ensure that they are on lead before meeting and greeting other dogs (if advance warning is possible!) in case they frighten smaller dogs or ones which may be elderly or convalescing and they are *never* allowed to approach dogs on lead regardless of size, although TBF they don't ever try to do this anyway (natural instinct of the breed it seems - all have been the same IME). 

However, off lead, is their recall 100% in 100% of circumstances? No.  It's exceptionally good with the eldest, very good with the middle one and anyone's guess with the pup!  Rightly, wrongly, whatever anyone else's opinion is, the fact is every now and then one or more of them will act on their instinctive 'prey drive' - as with many breeds they are hard wired to get an adrenalin rush from doing what their original function was all about.  No treat, happy go lucky voice, favourite toy or mum's hot-footing it in the opposite direction gives them quite the same buzz on EVERY occasion - especially if they see a rabbit, hare, deer or - in the case of the pup - it could be a feather blowing in the wind.

It matters not what sections can be quoted as being 'in defence' - IMO the average, good natured, happy go lucky and well trained family dog regardless of size or breed should not have it's owner worried about seeking out mitigating circumstances to defend their dog for behaving in a manner which is perfectly normal for the species.

I don't want to NEED to call on my 'freedom of speech' or 'ability to take court action' myself for no reason other than my dog(s) aren't robots :( nor do I want to confine them to lead only exercises as IMO that's a sure fire way of guaranteeing otherwise healthy, happy, normal, lively dogs will develop temperament issues. 

At the moment my two girls will tolerate almost any behaviour from other dogs and if really pushed give a swift put down to a marauding youngster without causing any physical harm - but I understand dogs, not just mine, but the nature of the beast in general.  To someone else they could be regarded as 'threatening' or 'out of control'.

As for the pup - like most pups he breaks every rule in the book at some point and only trial and error on my part let me know when my attempts at training or reshaping a behaviour are getting a degree of success.  He doesn't have a bad bone in his body but he's a typical hooligan puppy and in view of his size and lupine looks he could easily be seen as something very different :(

Heaven help anyone with anything bigger than a Cocker if this bill gets passed as is.  There's more to it I'm unhappy with but the basics of dogs being dogs has IMO already been so badly addressed that this sticks out most for now as being a danger of any of us being able to allow our dogs any freedom at all.

It has the potential to be an infrignement not only of our human rights, but importantly of our dogs rights - or rather NEEDS - to be dogs. 

I agree there need to be rules and that when in place they should be upheld but this is too wide ranging in its current format and has 'anti-dog' written all over it

I am with Carrington but as the owner of two fluffier breeds Im obviously biased. I would worry more with a larger dog but again if the dogs are kept under control not a major problem.
Rats are vermin not classified, as such, an animal, if you can poisen the things yourself legally I do not feel that its a problem If your dog ended up in someones bedroom killing their pet rat that may be another story.
Cat's if trespassing again not a problem. I think its aimed primarily at those owners who use dogs for intimidation, and are not to careful of where they roam. I dont know what else to think.

Hi GCG

> However I dread to see what the SNP would come up with if given half the chance

couldn't agree more :(  The Scottish Parliament seem to want to be seen to do everything BIGGER, BETTER, MORE OFF THE WALL than anyone else can hope to compete with

>I think its aimed primarily at those owners who use dogs for intimidation, and are not to careful of where they roam.

Then that needs to be expressed in legal language so that it cannot possibly be misunderstood by anyone. Anything 'vague' is a danger to any of us - even small fluffy dogs chase things, and my old Polly was once attacked by two chihuahuas! Okay, they were so small that they couldn't do her any harm, but their intentions were no different to those of a much bigger dog. Size is no excuse.

Hi GCG

> However I dread to see what the SNP would come up with if given half the chance

couldn't agree more   The Scottish Parliament seem to want to be seen to do everything BIGGER, BETTER, MORE OFF THE WALL than anyone else can hope to compete with 

I've never really had an interest in politics, but now I see that it has a finger in everything.  The SNP frighten me, truly.  I dread to think how the bill would be "SNP-ised" - Donald Trump is now building his golf courses on one of the top dog walking spots in the country.

> I think its aimed primarily at those owners who use dogs for intimidation, and are not to careful of where they roam.

It should be aimed at them - but, so far, it's definitely not worded that way.  However it is only a bill for now and so I believe we need to get as much support as possible for the wording to be looked at much more carefully.

With my three dogs I met a young woman on the beach a few months ago who had an off lead ESS pup of 8 months.  The same age as my pup and not a huge difference in size or weight.  She was screaming like a banshee because my pup chased hers into the sea (shallows only!)  Her pup was enjoying it but SHE was irate, distraught and wailing about how she'd been attacked as a child by 'one of those Alsatians' and so didn't trust any of them :( 

Her reaction in my opinion was way OTT however she didn't see it like that and had it not been for the fact that I pointed out to her that I had been able to immediately recall and put on lead my two adults she may well have taken things to a complaint.  When we eventually caught the two naughty youngsters they were dripping wet, panting and grinning from ear to ear - however she probably thought hers was totally worn out and stressed and that mine was totally rabid!

Perceptions, interpretations, open ended powers .......
misgivings ....

> Anything 'vague' is a danger to any of us

Absolutely JG.  The wording at present allows anyone with a fear or dislike of dogs in general to cause any responsible dog owner with a dog which has done absolutely nothing wrong to be in danger of having a control order over them simply because of ambiguity and potential prejudice by whoever may make or respond to a complaint :(

Um as I said I think thats what they are saying but its not very clear is it. Lets contact a few MP's and try to tighten it up with more direct language. I think we must cover a few MP's through where we live geographically.

hi Teri,

I remember my brothers GSD's as boisterous adolescents dying to be off lead and clumsily having fun and that good run, they were usually in more danger of other dogs attacking them than vice versa and people also just feared them due to their size, still do :-D To have the thought of a prosecution or worse if they attacked another dog in defence hanging over my head,  I would agree it would make me extremely nervous of dog walks and the implications and then having to justify what happened. I would expect most dog walkers would have panic attacks when it came to the dog walk.

I can understand the panic and worry of many on the board with larger, powerful dogs, there are also plenty of other breeds or just characters whose owners will worry.

It has the potential to be an infrignement not only of our human rights, but importantly of our dogs rights - or rather NEEDS - to be dogs. 



I agree if that is the purpose of it, I like to think that it isn't, as I wholeheartedly agree, dogs must be allowed to be dogs!

This is where I am hoping that the bill will still have common sense, and not be out to persecute the 'normal' dog walker, or dog! But your right, there are no safeguards written as it is, apart from the rights to object with said reasons.  Which is why many of you/us are worried. I agree we don't wish to be in that predicament in the first place. I'm relying on good sense and the fact I don't think they would be interested in per say my dog getting into a fracas and coming off best and the other owner reporting it, I'm not expecting that to happen,  (maybe I'm totally wrong not to worry about that?) Your probably right that everything should be covered, I just don't know how the bill can be changed to cover for that, how do you word it, but still be able to seize and prosecute out of control dogs from out of control owners?

We know why the bill is made, we all are actually in agreement that something needs to be done about the hazadous owners and hooligans using dogs for the wrong reasons and dogs being in the hands of the wrong owners who do not understand the breed.

The powers that be IMO have put together a good bill here, for the reasons I want it, it looks pretty good, apart from the fact that common sense MUST prevail.

I know many have written and hopefully will continue to write with their worries, I shall too, but I can't see how else it can be done, doing nothing won't rid us of the problems we are all facing with bad owners, and they are going up and up, we all meet them,  I just pray that they won't be coming after the rest of us and take away our dogs liberties and natural instincts.

But, saying that, I truly am glad I'm not writing this bill, I wouldn't know where to start, I honestly cannot think how to word it, to protect and also to serve. :-(

I don't pretend that writing this up or any amendments to it will be easy - clearly it is a complex problem and requires actions to be meaningful however I believe the ambiguity of the current wording in relation to a number of things is very much open to abuse for the simple fact that as soon as personal interpretation of a 'threat' or similar comes into play, we the good guys are then heavily reliant on dealing with a reasonable and non biased party.

We have all been discussing and venting frustrations about anti-dog feeling for a number of years.  This Bill, IMO, is opening up a great many cans of worms for all of us who enjoy companion animals.

No matter how difficult, time consuming or troublesome, IMO it has to be more clearly worded.  Thankfully it is not yet a law and hopefully it will be completely revised to safeguard 'dogs being dogs' before it gets close to being passed - again, hopefully a long way down the line as the country surely has more pressing issues!  But it only takes a couple of gung ho types to fan the flames and it appears to me that our 'animal welfare' agencies are stock piling the timber :(

and what about a dog never being left in a car?? Who on this board will have their dog safely alone in a car be it at a show or at a friends house??? They want to stopt this??!! :(  And waht about every dog having an individual place to eat??!! Mine eat in a group...quite happily!! This is a backdoor attempt at getting rid of the packs in my opinion!!!

> and what about a dog never being left in a car??

What number is the part about a car, I've read through and not found it?

I know Sam - it's just rules for the sake of it IMO

I leave mine in the car sometimes - only ever responsibly though, never in warm weather or anywhere that I am knowledgeable enough to realise compromises their comfort, health or safety :(

And mine don't have their own sleeping place/beds - they sleep with us!  They eat a couple of feet apart in whatever room I'm in for that feed time so sometimes in the kitchen or diningroom and their evening meal in the lounge while we watch the TV.  Oh, and occasionally out in the garden or deck with bones >sigh<

> This is a backdoor attempt at getting rid of the packs in my opinion!!!

I think it's a side door to getting rid of any multi dog households in a build up to even tighter restrictions which eventually leaves dog ownership with so many restrictions that most of us can't or wont be able to continue as we have before :(

I've only just seen this thread, but read it with interest.
A question...part of the bill says that the owner shall be the person considered 'responsible' for the actions / behavious of their dog.
But, what if the dog is in boarding kennels?
For example, I know that my Tess isn't good with other dogs.  I know this and I'm very careful and very responsible.
So, I tell the boarding kennels this information and stress strongly that they must be aware of this too.
What if they make a mistake and my dog or any dog for that matter happens to attack another?

It's all rather worrying.  I'm with Mastifflover on this.
I have two rather troublesome neighbouring dogs a min poodle and min schnauzer.  Sad to say they've had minimal training (if any) and yap at the slightest noise.. in fact they yap at no bloomin' noise too!  My two dogs have been taught from early ages not to respond to this sort of behaviour.  ie. they don't bark back and don't show too much interest.
However the poodle has taken to jumping full force at the fence.  (not much weight behind it of course, but it does make quite a noies).
This of course piques the interest of my two just a little bit.. more training for them then I guess...
I have addressed this with the neighbour previously, but sadly we no longer speak due to an episode of her anti social behaviour. 
I agree with most though, and DO wish that the government would consider aiming these sort of bills at the 'right' people... hmph...

> I think this new bill is aimed at owners who allow their pets to run amok, lately I have seen reports of dogs attacking horses.&nbsp; I on the other hand wanted my dog to be a good animal and wanted to learn from this grievous mistake- a lot of owners now like the fact they have a hard scary dog.
>

i think it is to, but perhaps misguidedly. i have to say i agree with some of mastifflovers concerns.

however, it does seem to be an improvement on the old legislation- btw it says it becoming active would repeal the dangerous dogs act 1991- does that include banned breeds?

>> Then that needs to be expressed in legal language so that it cannot possibly be misunderstood by anyone. Anything 'vague' is a danger to any of us - even small fluffy dogs chase things, and my old Polly was once attacked by two chihuahuas! Okay, they were so small that they couldn't do her any harm, but their intentions were no different to those of a much bigger dog. Size is no excuse.

quite. i think it needs input from 'dog people' and to be very clear what constitutes what.

It seems a bit sad that no-one is permitted to keep a dog that has been used for fighting.  On the plus side many rescues will empty significantly but many dogs that can be rehabilitated will now face death.  Wait until the trend for fighting papillions or pomeranians starts. ;)

Hi

I was thinking this. does repealed mean abolished?? Therefore Pits, Tosas, Dogos and Filas are no longer illegal? I wonder that if now its more deed not breed things might take a turn for the better.

Louise

Just had a look at definition and it would appear that repeal is abolish so no longer banned breeds but just dangerous dogs on the list for being what they are when they have commited an offence and been dangerous. I think in reference to big dogs, it will have to be individually assessed and not just aww big bad dog etc.

repealed means basically overthrown in favour of the new legislation so i think it would, but not sure. think my law student friends working tonight so will ask :)

It seems as though the Kennel Club are in favour of this proposed bill.

indeed it appears to remove the illegality of certain breeds.

the thing is it will be totally different when it goes anywhere near the statute books

Sorry old thread but need a few answers please. Last night about 9 i heard shouting outside, next thing i low a huge bang on my window. 4 men had chased a young lad about 13-14 and he had jumped into my garden to get away, the men were absolutely beating the life out of him. I went out to stop it, app they seemed to think he had robbed them a few weeks back. Now not supporting robbery but violence of that kind i was not going to tolerate, so i intervened, they then turned on me and said they would beat 

Sorry hit send. They turned on me said they would beat me up aswel. I was about to let my dogs out to protect me but something stopped the lads for some reason and they got in their car and got off. Now my question is as i would have been protecting me and this child be they were in my garden if my dogs had have attacked them would my dogs have been put down for it? 

Hi mahonc,

The way that I read the dog laws on personal protection are that if you had let your dogs out as a deterrant to bark and perhaps growl at the intruders to frighten them off then they would be safe. But if you had let your dogs out and given a command to attack then they could actually prosecute you even in your own garden, but if you had gone out and your dogs had just followed without command seeing you being attacked in your own garden and had intervened with perhaps a growl and bite to save you if you were set upon then they would be safe enough as long as they did not have a frenzied assault. Dogs are allowed to protect their owners with reasonable force but can not be used as weapons. :-)

Thanks for your reply, my dogs take a good minute for the command sit to reach the brain then bum so they have no idea on an attack command. So if i had let them out and they attacked and injured them they could be pts? The were so wound up and agitated by what had gone on i doubt to be honest they would have listened to me telling them to stop and i was unsure if the boy Who was screaming on the floor would have been safe. Had i have been able to get him in the back i may have let them out though.

Mastifflover, The problem I see is that this will really be worrying anybody with large dogs. A lot of people see a large dog & think, simply because they are large, that they are nasty  I can see there being an uproar if my dog defended himself, because he is so big. But smaller dogs that instigate attacks will not be bothered with - how many police officers would listen to me if I put in a complaint about the Jack Russle that keeps running at my Mastiff? They would take one look at the size of my dog & laugh at me .

im totally with you here i have a rottie very big boy but a gentle giant all he wants to do is play , buts been attacked a few times by little dogs,
only when he relizes he's being attacked (it takes a while for the penny to drop) usally when the little mites have bite him and hurt him , he has then rolled them over on their backs and sits on them shows his teeth then jumps up and runs away lol,
with the yappy mite hot on his heals , i can call him back quiet easy he will not go for another dog even if he is being attacked, unlesss they really hurt him but even then i can get him away quite easy, he's a lover not a fighter,
but i can see myself having problems with this as thugs with dogs are rife in my area i know thier needs to be a clamp down on this but fear it wont be the hoodies on the estate that will be bothered if their dogs get taken off them they'd just go rob another one,

sorry but its looking very much like if you have a large breed dog then you can never  let it off a lead again, just in case a little dog who does not look threatening decides to bit your big dog while he's off a lead then you can show that you were responsable for keeping your big dog who is not a troublesom dog on a lead and letting him get attacked by the little runt thats running free and attacking poor big dogs who have been put on leads just to show owner is being responsable, sorry about spelling,
as for the cats in the garden my dogs share their beds and their food with our 2 cats but my boy would still chase them in my garden just for fun tho my Tibby will scarper up onto the shed when my big boy goes out their running for her then she thows herself off the shed into my rotties back while he lays in the sun its quite a funny site lol and scares the life out of my rottie all the time but i think they are just playing as he sits and waits for her to do it, then she purrs rubbing her butt in his face lol

sorry i know i go on but this to ,
I was thinking this. does repealed mean abolished?? Therefore Pits, Tosas, Dogos and Filas are no longer illegal?

thats what it looks like maybe im wrong,

I find this Bill quite frightening !!

I have taken my dogs to the beach and have had people tell me they should be on a lead even though they never went near them , they just rushed past to get in to the dunes to chase rabits.They also have become involved in games of chase with other dogs . My own dog tends to go full pelt then slows down and runs back to me then when she thinks its safe she will have a play about.
Some owners are quite happy with that and do not worry about their dog meeeting other in this way. Others do as you have said Teri and screamed as if the dogs are going to start fighting,and try as you might to tell them everything is ok just let the dogs be they are just wanting to play, they will not listen , dont understand or to be fair perhaps the other owners may be a bit worried and  scared with behavior like this. This only shows lack of canine behavior IMO.
The dogs love a good old romp and chase it is the owners who need to be educated in dog management where as they are taught not only to have an obedient dog but learn about dogs in general i.e. instincts ,behavior as in how dogs meet and greet other dogs, signs of aggression and just plain dog to dog hello how are you ,do you want to play or get away leave me alone.

Some dog owners treat their dogs as if they are humans and think they should allways be polite and when they meet other dogs they should be the same.

Therefor people like this could cause a great deal of trouble for our dogs because of their lack of knowledge and make complaints that due to this bill,many innocent dogs could end up being taken away from their competent owners or worse being PTS . When it comes down to it all dogs have had, at some point dissagrements with other dogs . It may be an adult dog telling of a youngster or just a plain I dont like you tiff.

The Bill as you have stated needs to be worded better and also I feel that there should be a bit on it about humans having to be educated on dog management and ownership.

This I know would be difficult to put in to practice but something needs to be done to teach people that a dog that growls or snaps at another dog, does not allways mean it is being agressive. Sure dogs who are agressive and who have hurt other dogs or people should be dealt with accordingly. But how do you explain the difference between an agressive dog and basic instincts when a complaint is made by somone who does not understand about dog behavior ???

As an owner of a larger breed dog It is worrying to as mentioned allready, can be over enthusiastic causing other problems such as accidentally hurting a smaller dog during play or telling off a smaller dog . Where as a smaller dog doing the same thing to a bigger dog or one of the same size does not . So big dogs get reputations of being agressive quicker than smaller ones they are just "nippy".

Yes it does look like our dogs right to freedom is being put at risk !!!!!

> it is the owners who need to be educated in dog management where as they are taught not only to have an obedient dog but learn about dogs in general i.e. instincts ,behavior as in how dogs meet and greet other dogs, signs of aggression and just plain dog to dog hello how are you ,do you want to play or get away leave me alone.
>

Completely agree. I don't know loads about canine behaviour and I certainly don't have the experience that some do on these boards, but I've taken the time to find out the basics. I am amazed at the amount of people that are horified by Busters' play-bows, I'd have thought it's an unmistakable doggy posture, despite Busters size, yet people recoil in horror and pull thier dogs away at the sight of it :( 

I've actually started to warn people now, it normally goes like this -
"no, he's friendly" (in response to them telling thier dog that Buster will eat them ),
then I say"he's young, exitable and wants to play, any moment he will jump about in a play bow", and with that there is usually a BOING and Busters butt is in the air, tail wagging with his front legs patting around on the floor.
It does seem to relax people though if I remember to give them this little warning speach before Buster boings around (he's always on lead/long-line).

It's simple things like this could cause problems, people don't know what behaviour they are seeing or they interpret the dogs behaviour based on it's looks/breed, not it's actions (ie. a Golden Retriever doing a play bow like Buster does would make most people smile, not drag thier dogs away so quickly they nearly strangle them :( ).

Have only just read it. :(

Section 2.... what if a dog injures someone who comes and clobbers it with something and the dog defends itself? And injuring any animal - what about catching rabbits say? Or another dog - if that starts the fight but your dog obviously fights back? It's worse than the DDA.... they just haven't considered the wording at all. Why don't they just ban dogs and have done with it. :(

Yes - responsible owners don't want dangerous out of control dogs that will maul people out there, and it needs to cover attacks on private property (there was an incident in Sheffield where an Am Bulldog bit a little girl on the face which needed quite a lot of stitches - and the owner wouldn't have it put to sleep and as it was on private property nothing could be done :( ) - but that is Draconian - dogs and owners are going to have to apply for permission to breathe soon.

I wish I hadn't seen that. I haven't got time to contact my MP at the moment - but I am also going to need to. I wonder if he has an email contact.... another thing for my already horrendously long list.

Surely the option for assessment and training from a reputable behaviourist dependent on the severity of the attack should also be included to determine whether the dog is a danger or if it is retrainable and had bitten, with bite inhibition, due to pain or fear etc?

>When it comes down to it all dogs have had, at some point disagreements with other dogs It may be an adult dog telling of a youngster or just a plain I don't like you tiff.

Agree, of course there will always be some who take the bill to the letter but I would hope that common sense will prevail.  Like all Bills, Acts etc, it is how it is applied and I do think that a owner/dog being sentenced because his dog snapped at another is downright ludicrous, making a laughing stock of the law and a waste of tax payers money.  

>Some dog owners treat their dogs as if they are humans and think they should always be polite and when they meet other dogs they should be the same.

I treat my dogs as dogs but I do expect them to have plain old doggy manners.  What I do see a lot off these days is dogs coming full pelt head-on with unbroken eye contact up to another dog/human with no regards for either.  What happened to those dogs that used to take time to approach and circle wide as they did so; you could see the communication going on from the other end of the field.  It's very hard to read a strange dog coming straight up at full pelt and if another dog/ person doesn't have time to read their intent, no matter how good someone may be at reading dog language, their automatic response is flight or fight.  So, in addition to folk becoming more knowledgeable about dog behaviour, it would also help if dog owners have their dogs under control in a public place to prevent them being a public nuisance.  This Bill could be a good thing if it encourages ALL dog owners to act responsibly.

But the people that are the problem will be likely to take no notice of the bill anyway - and will be the people that probably won't care about the consequences either. It would be more useful if it required education of owners on understanding canine communication and showing respect for other owners / dogs. (In fact, there seems to be a distinct shortage of respect and tolerance for other people in this country generally, which a lot of problems, not just in relation to dog ownership, stem from, IMO.)