Ministers face call to give dog law more teeth

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at- ... _1_3984132" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NEARLY 700 people were treated in hospital after being attacked or bitten by dogs in Yorkshire in just 10 months amid concern legislation has “completely failed” to protect the public.

The total was the second highest in England, and charities say that nationally there has been an increase of nearly 50 per cent in bite incidents over the past five years.

New statistics reveal that between June 2010 and March this year 689 people were treated in hospital.

The actual number of dog attacks is likely to be much higher because some victims will not have sought medical attention.

Ministers met animal charities, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Communication Workers’ Union this week amid concern the Dangerous Dogs Act, which was drawn up after the horrific injuries suffered by six-year-old Bradford girl Rukhsana Khan in an attack by a pit bull terrier in 1991, is failing.

The law bans four types of dog and saw 1,705 people prosecuted in 2010, but the Government is being urged to make owners responsible for their pets’ behaviour instead of banning breeds.

An online petition has been launched putting pressure on Ministers to act.

A spokesman for the Blue Cross said: “The current law has failed to eradicate the pit bull terrier in the UK and has, in fact, created a status symbol out of dogs of these types and their lookalikes.

“All dogs have the potential to be dangerous or wonderful, well-behaved pets and it is people, not the dogs themselves, that make dogs dangerous.”

Nationally 5,000 people were treated in hospital after being attacked or bitten by dogs in those 12 months, with only the North West recording more incidents than Yorkshire.

The RSPCA claims attacks are costing the health service £3.3m a year, while attacks on livestock are calculated to cost farmers £2.8m a year.

In August the Yorkshire Post reported how community volunteer Linda Woodhall, 61, from Ravenscliffe, Bradford, was left in a high dependency unit in hospital with surgeons battling to save her arms after being savagely attacked by a neighbour’s bull terrier.

Shadow Environment Minister Huw Irranca-Davies called on the Government to bring forward plans before Christmas.

“There is a real need for action now, backed up by the families affected, dog charities and frontline workers, like postmen and women,” he said.

The GMB union has also been urging people to sign the online petition, which calls for a Bill to be brought forward in the Queen’s Speech next year to update dog control legislation.

A particular demand of the new legislation is that it should cover both public and private places, to give protection to workers such as postmen and meter readers who are attacked on private property.

John McClean, GMB health and safety officer, said: “GMB members are attacked by dogs while they are doing their jobs. Just think how many people come to our homes to deliver goods and services to us.

“GMB members empty our bins, read our gas and electricity meters, dash to our homes when we need an ambulance or a district nurse, to deliver meals on wheels and help our elderly and vulnerable people, pick them up to go the day centre or the hospital and increasingly to deliver goods we have bought have and the all run the risk of being victims of the irresponsibility of dog owners who do not control their animals.”

A Defra spokesman said: “We are working hard to reduce the problems of irresponsible dog ownership which will make our homes, streets and public spaces safer.

“There’s no easy solution.

“After listening to the public and discussing the options with experts – including hosting a roundtable with animal welfare groups, the Home Office and the police this week – we will be announcing new measures early in the new year that will better protect the public, allow the police and councils to better enforce the law and ensure dog owners take responsibility for their animals.”

[TeeferTiger]

I agree that more onus should be placed on the owners rather than just blaming the animals. I also think people should be make to have licences for dogs, the cost of which includes training sessions (which you are required to attend so you can better understand the animal rather than expect the animal to conform to you), and neutering. That would reduce the number of abandoned animals, stop people just ending up with an animal without giving it much thought and also stop unwanted litters of pups.

Obviously breeders would be exempt, but would have strict controls too.

[DGP1]

I agree that more onus should be placed on the owners rather than just blaming the animals. I also think people should be make to have licences for dogs, the cost of which includes training sessions (which you are required to attend so you can better understand the animal rather than expect the animal to conform to you), and neutering. That would reduce the number of abandoned animals, stop people just ending up with an animal without giving it much thought and also stop unwanted litters of pups.

Obviously breeders would be exempt, but would have strict controls too.

We still have to licence our dogs over here but do you really think that the tattooed f**kwits who get dogs because little Johnny fancies one or that they want to use them as status symbols are going to be bothered with licencing or training.

[TeeferTiger]

I agree that more onus should be placed on the owners rather than just blaming the animals. I also think people should be make to have licences for dogs, the cost of which includes training sessions (which you are required to attend so you can better understand the animal rather than expect the animal to conform to you), and neutering. That would reduce the number of abandoned animals, stop people just ending up with an animal without giving it much thought and also stop unwanted litters of pups.

Obviously breeders would be exempt, but would have strict controls too.

We still have to licence our dogs over here but do you really think that the tattooed f**kwits who get dogs because little Johnny fancies one or that they want to use them as status symbols are going to be bothered with licencing or training.

They don't give a fugg now, but they might give more of a fugg if they're going to get asked to show paperwork for their status symbol whenever they're out with it...

[arnold cheshire]

I agree that more onus should be placed on the owners rather than just blaming the animals. I also think people should be make to have licences for dogs, the cost of which includes training sessions (which you are required to attend so you can better understand the animal rather than expect the animal to conform to you), and neutering. That would reduce the number of abandoned animals, stop people just ending up with an animal without giving it much thought and also stop unwanted litters of pups.

Obviously breeders would be exempt, but would have strict controls too.

the onus is placed on the owner your dog attacks a person you get a criminal record trust me not the dog

[TeeferTiger]

I agree that more onus should be placed on the owners rather than just blaming the animals. I also think people should be make to have licences for dogs, the cost of which includes training sessions (which you are required to attend so you can better understand the animal rather than expect the animal to conform to you), and neutering. That would reduce the number of abandoned animals, stop people just ending up with an animal without giving it much thought and also stop unwanted litters of pups.

Obviously breeders would be exempt, but would have strict controls too.

the onus is placed on the owner your dog attacks a person you get a criminal record trust me not the dog

My point was they seem out to demonise breeds of dog, when it's not the dogs but the owners that are the problem. Putting the animal to sleep doesn't stop that person then going and getting another dog not long after, putting it into the same environment which could ultimately end up with the same personality traits becoming apparent.

[RTP]

I agree that more onus should be placed on the owners rather than just blaming the animals. I also think people should be make to have licences for dogs, the cost of which includes training sessions (which you are required to attend so you can better understand the animal rather than expect the animal to conform to you), and neutering. That would reduce the number of abandoned animals, stop people just ending up with an animal without giving it much thought and also stop unwanted litters of pups.

Obviously breeders would be exempt, but would have strict controls too.

I suggest you do a bit of research on neutering, because castration of dogs can often do them more harm than good.

[Sharkeyes]

I have recently had correspondence from the Scottish Government regarding the
'CONTROL OF DOGS ACT (SCOTLAND)' 2010, given Royal assent in Feb 2011.
The main point for us as posties changes the legislative part of the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act which says ,
'In a PUBLIC PLACE',
To a more simplified one that covers us completely by changing this to the offence being committed in,
'ANY PLACE!' This meaning Public and PRIVATE PROPERTY, (Including open plan gardens, driveways, pathways, in fact anywhere at all, it is now an offence in Scotland to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in) 'ANY' PLACE.
Each local authority in Scotland now has to have a dedicated Dog Control Officer, with extended powers, who can and will act on our behalf where we encounter 'Dog problems/ issues'. He can then issue a
'DOG CONTROL NOTICE', which can force the owner to comply with his recommendations, such as muzzling, physical restraints or whatever he / she deems reasonable or necessary. Should there be any breach of these DCN conditions it could ultimately lead to an animals removal and if need be, destruction.
The existence of our 'hazard cards' & entries into our accident books will be proof enough to start the ball rolling and does not necessarily mean that any attack has to have already taken place for it to be reported, just the mere threat or likelyhood of it.
The act puts the emphasis on the owner or person in charge rather than the breed. This will cover the likes of people who go to a house to walk another persons dog, and let it out on the postman, before saying
"Oh sorry, it has never done that before!" OR "Can't you come round around at a later time?"
At least one part of the UK has firmly turned the tables on irresponsible owners and for once, has legislation with some 'teeth' rather than us being on the receiving end of the dogs teeth.
What we in England, Wales & Northern Ireland have to do now is to lobby our own MP's for them to just 'ADOPT' the CONTROL OF DOGS ACT (SCOTLAND) into our own legislation without having to go into debate or any other costly or time wasting process.
Scotland has done it for them and already shown the way, there is now no reason why we in the rest of the UK can't have the same ACT to protect the rest of us.

[brothermagrew]

Brother Sharkeyes for clarity and convenience sake let me correct you on a few points.

Royal Assent for the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 the Bill as it then was through it's progression in the Scottish Parliament received Royal Assent on the 26th May 2010 and not as you have published in Feb 2011.

What did happen on 26th February 2011 was that the full provision of the Act as passed took effect in it's entirety some 9 months after Royal Assent was given.

Section 10 of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 amends the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

10 Amendment of Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
In section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (c.65) (keeping dogs under proper
control), for the words “a public place” there is substituted “any place (whether or not a
public place)”.

For your info Northern Ireland already has legislation in force with regards to Dogs. Sadly for the time being England and Wales are dragging behind but strong representations have and are being continued to be made for the necessary changes to be made.

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... gs#p428197" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Control of Dogs Scotland Bill was introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 22 June 2009. Stage 1 commenced on 1 September 2009 with evidence being taken by the Finance Committee. The lead Committee was the Local Government and Communities Committee which held two oral evidence sessions on the Bill on 18 and 25 November 2009. The Bill was also considered by the Subordinate Legislation Committee. The Stage 1 (general principles) debate took place on 10 February 2010. Stage 2 consideration of the Bill was completed at a meeting of the Local Government and Communities Committee on 24 March 2010. The Bill was passed, following the Stage 3 Parliamentary debate, on 22 April 2010. The Act received Royal Assent on 26 May 2010.

The timescale for implementation of the Bill was extended from 6 months to 9 months from the date of Royal Assent in
order that local authorities would have sufficient time to implement the Bill. Thereby 26th February 2011 full provisions of the Act take effect.

You should note that up until the 4th November 2011 only 67 Dog Control Notices have been served throughout the 32 local authorities in Scotland whilst 693 complaints have been investigated.

[TeeferTiger]

I agree that more onus should be placed on the owners rather than just blaming the animals. I also think people should be make to have licences for dogs, the cost of which includes training sessions (which you are required to attend so you can better understand the animal rather than expect the animal to conform to you), and neutering. That would reduce the number of abandoned animals, stop people just ending up with an animal without giving it much thought and also stop unwanted litters of pups.

Obviously breeders would be exempt, but would have strict controls too.

I suggest you do a bit of research on neutering, because castration of dogs can often do them more harm than good.

As can having shelters full of unwanted animals because someone couldn't be bothered or couldn't afford to have it done and then the animals end up being euthanised... Not all animal shelters are no kill.

Unfortunately, most people are not responsible dog owners, so how can they be trusted to look after an unneutered dog and us not end up with an out of control dog population?

[Sharkeyes]

Thanks for that.