Comments on: Scottish Dog Owners Have Been Sold Out Over new Dangerous Dogs Proposal http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/ by K9 Magazine, the lifestyle magazine for dog lovers Mon, 12 May 2008 07:16:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: Julie Pett http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3572 Julie Pett Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:13:36 +0000 http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3572 I fail to understand how this proposal will protect the pubic. I am sorry but it also gives me more concerns as a responsible dog owner. to apply court orders to dogs that may act "dangerously out of control" have an "aggressive nature" or "act aggressively" in a private place. Who is to define these statements? Who will be responsible in making the decision that a dog was: a, Dangerously out of control b, Have an aggressive nature c, Act aggressively I list all three as seperate as I would define them seperately. As a behaviourist and someone that has worked with dogs day in and day out for 20 years I know some would define (lets say) an aggressive nature as a dog that barks or growls at them. Others would define a dog that barks or growls (but not lunge forward or bite) as a dog that was using self control and their only means of communication to ask the person to move away (often the case if the dog is cornered or on a lead where it cannot just move itself away from the situation) Under this proposal what would stop my neighbour (that hates all dogs) making a complaint regarding my dogs? Who would be qualified to judge the situation? Or would I be left spending time, money and heartache fighting to prove my dogs innocence whilst watching my dogs suffer having to be kept on lead and muzzled when they are used to off lead controlled exercise? We all know that the DDA has not worked, that it has not prevented the recent attacks, but I fail to see this as an answer. No one wants more attacks, instead we want a law which will address all the issues and works. I fail to understand how this proposal will protect the pubic. I am sorry but it also gives me more concerns as a responsible dog owner.

to apply court orders to dogs that may act “dangerously out of control” have an “aggressive nature” or “act aggressively” in a private place.

Who is to define these statements? Who will be responsible in making the decision that a dog was:

a, Dangerously out of control
b, Have an aggressive nature
c, Act aggressively

I list all three as seperate as I would define them seperately. As a behaviourist and someone that has worked with dogs day in and day out for 20 years I know some would define (lets say) an aggressive nature as a dog that barks or growls at them. Others would define a dog that barks or growls (but not lunge forward or bite) as a dog that was using self control and their only means of communication to ask the person to move away (often the case if the dog is cornered or on a lead where it cannot just move itself away from the situation)

Under this proposal what would stop my neighbour (that hates all dogs) making a complaint regarding my dogs?

Who would be qualified to judge the situation? Or would I be left spending time, money and heartache fighting to prove my dogs innocence whilst watching my dogs suffer having to be kept on lead and muzzled when they are used to off lead controlled exercise?

We all know that the DDA has not worked, that it has not prevented the recent attacks, but I fail to see this as an answer. No one wants more attacks, instead we want a law which will address all the issues and works.

]]> By: allie http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3496 allie Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:41:43 +0000 http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3496 Cuthbert, There is no doubt in my mind of the position of the NDWA. They have consistantly stated being opposed to BSL, prior to the Act coming into force and to date. I totally understand that with things as they are you wish to make that point heard loudly again. I have contacts with people in the dog world who ask mt opinion due to my interests and I want them to know my thoughts on the proposal just as you do. Totally understand that. I have, with one or two others, been looking at some ideas which may be worth discussing as to the pros and cons of involving them in any new legislation...not breed specific. I do think that some of the suggestions will be, dare i say, foolish, to leave out should legislation change (as imho it must). I have also contacted Alex Neil myself to ask a few questions. So long as people dont sit back and expect others to look after their interests and that of their dogs without question, we could have a shot. Otherwise, it will be a re run of years ago. CrazyCanine, I have previously been involved with working with dogwardens and pounds and do find there is often a gross misunderstanding of the job they do. Fact: We NEED Dogwardens because of the behaviour of irresponsible owners. It is also down to those owners that we have a PTS figure at all. I know through what I have done that there simply isnt enough room for all the dogs abandoned each year and have often had to pick and chose knowing who is left my die. That is a people problem, not a dog warden problem. I know of many dogwardens who have paid out of their own pockets to try and save as many dogs as they can but while the core problem (irresposnible owners) continue to go unchallanged, so will our stray problem continue to grow. I noticed in the NDWA that there are suggestions (iirc) to make an owner pay for costs whether they claim their dog back or not. Tbh I think thats a very good idea and may make them think twice. at present they are free to abandon the dog with no repercussions at all. That imho is not good enough. Cuthbert,

There is no doubt in my mind of the position of the NDWA. They have consistantly stated being opposed to BSL, prior to the Act coming into force and to date. I totally understand that with things as they are you wish to make that point heard loudly again. I have contacts with people in the dog world who ask mt opinion due to my interests and I want them to know my thoughts on the proposal just as you do. Totally understand that. I have, with one or two others, been looking at some ideas which may be worth discussing as to the pros and cons of involving them in any new legislation…not breed specific. I do think that some of the suggestions will be, dare i say, foolish, to leave out should legislation change (as imho it must). I have also contacted Alex Neil myself to ask a few questions. So long as people dont sit back and expect others to look after their interests and that of their dogs without question, we could have a shot. Otherwise, it will be a re run of years ago.

CrazyCanine,

I have previously been involved with working with dogwardens and pounds and do find there is often a gross misunderstanding of the job they do. Fact: We NEED Dogwardens because of the behaviour of irresponsible owners. It is also down to those owners that we have a PTS figure at all. I know through what I have done that there simply isnt enough room for all the dogs abandoned each year and have often had to pick and chose knowing who is left my die. That is a people problem, not a dog warden problem. I know of many dogwardens who have paid out of their own pockets to try and save as many dogs as they can but while the core problem (irresposnible owners) continue to go unchallanged, so will our stray problem continue to grow. I noticed in the NDWA that there are suggestions (iirc) to make an owner pay for costs whether they claim their dog back or not. Tbh I think thats a very good idea and may make them think twice. at present they are free to abandon the dog with no repercussions at all. That imho is not good enough.

]]> By: CrazyCanine http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3495 CrazyCanine Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:13:37 +0000 http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3495 Cuthbert, you are spot on about where are the pro-Kennel Club comments on this feature. Also why has the Scottish Kennel Club not defended this Bill against any critical comments posted here? Dont forget that whatever the Kennel Club and other 'worthies' come up with for the government to front, they themselves will not have to deal with the fall out, that is usually down to councils and the police, with the adjacent criticism that comes down from the 'experts' The reason that the government and its advisors ignore the NDWA is because they do not like the truth, they only want to hear what their advisors push on them! Regarding examples of blame everyone else, the Dogs Trust 'Stray Dog Survey' that duplicated the original NDWA Stray Dog Survey is an excellent example. The Dogs Trust contacts councils for their publicly available statistics on dog control, collates them then accuses councils of 'killing' hundreds of dogs every week. If the figures were used more rationally, it would show that in some areas out of 5-6,000 dogs seized if around 90 are destroyed (mostly because of the illness or injuries for which they may have been thrown out) per year then it does not have the same sound bite effect of '150 dogs killed in UK each week by councils' Allie, the sad thing is that despite the sterling efforts of people like Cuthbert, who are actually working at the 'coal face' of the problem, the government prefers to work with people from organisations that may indeed deal with dogs, but they do not deal with the issues that they feel so qualified to advise on. No wonder the state of the dangerous dog legislation in this country is such a shambles! Cuthbert, you are spot on about where are the pro-Kennel Club comments on this feature. Also why has the Scottish Kennel Club not defended this Bill against any critical comments posted here? Dont forget that whatever the Kennel Club and other ‘worthies’ come up with for the government to front, they themselves will not have to deal with the fall out, that is usually down to councils and the police, with the adjacent criticism that comes down from the ‘experts’ The reason that the government and its advisors ignore the NDWA is because they do not like the truth, they only want to hear what their advisors push on them! Regarding examples of blame everyone else, the Dogs Trust ‘Stray Dog Survey’ that duplicated the original NDWA Stray Dog Survey is an excellent example. The Dogs Trust contacts councils for their publicly available statistics on dog control, collates them then accuses councils of ‘killing’ hundreds of dogs every week. If the figures were used more rationally, it would show that in some areas out of 5-6,000 dogs seized if around 90 are destroyed (mostly because of the illness or injuries for which they may have been thrown out) per year then it does not have the same sound bite effect of ‘150 dogs killed in UK each week by councils’ Allie, the sad thing is that despite the sterling efforts of people like Cuthbert, who are actually working at the ‘coal face’ of the problem, the government prefers to work with people from organisations that may indeed deal with dogs, but they do not deal with the issues that they feel so qualified to advise on. No wonder the state of the dangerous dog legislation in this country is such a shambles!

]]> By: Cuthbert Jackson http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3487 Cuthbert Jackson Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:41:12 +0000 http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3487 Allie; please don't take my comments regarding emotion as a personal criticism of yourself, they were not intended as such. Many people are emotional about BSL, there are constant emotional tirades about it in what is generally thought of as the 'canine press' but it hasn't moved us further than the 1997 ammendment - it has however often served to polarise opinion and deminish the chance of a legislative review. Meawhile you have the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust, RSPCA being consulted by government in the background and, in my opinion advising them badly on legisaltive development, which they then disociate themselves from once enacted! I am not being critical of your legislative knowledge either (its actually quite good) when I say that I can give you chapter and verse on this type of 'consultation' over a great many years and a great deal of legislation - why? - because the NDWA provided the questions that needed to be answered but weren't, as you are doing now. This time I want it to be quite clear that the NDWA has both made the demolition of the exisiting, and some proposed, legislation and provided an alternative as a starting point for discussions on radical reform so that not only the things presented by government are criticised but it is made quite apparent that alternatives were tabled. Engaging in public debate as we are is something that those whose advice is most likely to be taken by government do not like - do you see any Kennel Club contribution to our 'comments' on their support for the Scottish proposals? What they will do AGAIN is distance themselves from whatever the government produce; they did it with the DDA 1991, they have recently done it with Dog Control Orders, it is a known technique I for one do not believe they should be allowed to get away with again. To all those in any doubt the Kennel Club support the proposals by this MSP which began this section of comments; read his proposals and tell me if the Kennel Club support of it does not continue their support of Breed Specific Legisaltion. He consulted with people associated with the Kennel Club and the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group before producing it! Allie; please don’t take my comments regarding emotion as a personal criticism of yourself, they were not intended as such. Many people are emotional about BSL, there are constant emotional tirades about it in what is generally thought of as the ‘canine press’ but it hasn’t moved us further than the 1997 ammendment - it has however often served to polarise opinion and deminish the chance of a legislative review.
Meawhile you have the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust, RSPCA being consulted by government in the background and, in my opinion advising them badly on legisaltive development, which they then disociate themselves from once enacted!
I am not being critical of your legislative knowledge either (its actually quite good) when I say that I can give you chapter and verse on this type of ‘consultation’ over a great many years and a great deal of legislation - why? - because the NDWA provided the questions that needed to be answered but weren’t, as you are doing now.
This time I want it to be quite clear that the NDWA has both made the demolition of the exisiting, and some proposed, legislation and provided an alternative as a starting point for discussions on radical reform so that not only the things presented by government are criticised but it is made quite apparent that alternatives were tabled.
Engaging in public debate as we are is something that those whose advice is most likely to be taken by government do not like - do you see any Kennel Club contribution to our ‘comments’ on their support for the Scottish proposals? What they will do AGAIN is distance themselves from whatever the government produce; they did it with the DDA 1991, they have recently done it with Dog Control Orders, it is a known technique I for one do not believe they should be allowed to get away with again.
To all those in any doubt the Kennel Club support the proposals by this MSP which began this section of comments; read his proposals and tell me if the Kennel Club support of it does not continue their support of Breed Specific Legisaltion. He consulted with people associated with the Kennel Club and the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group before producing it!

]]> By: allie http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3486 allie Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:04:15 +0000 http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3486 Most cetainly not. All suggestions/proposals MUST be looked at in great detail before any decision is made even if that decision is too keep looking for an alternative solution. Everyone in the country with a dog or thinking of owning a dog in the future should also look at all suggestions. Most cetainly not. All suggestions/proposals MUST be looked at in great detail before any decision is made even if that decision is too keep looking for an alternative solution. Everyone in the country with a dog or thinking of owning a dog in the future should also look at all suggestions.

]]> By: CrazyCanine http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3478 CrazyCanine Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:12:05 +0000 http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3478 It is great that there is a debate forming that 'ordinary' people can have access to. Cuthbert Jackson is totally correct that if there is another fatal incident then the government will take on board what the major canine organisations have all said via DLAG. It is also true that NDWA stood alone when all others were backing the Dangerous Dogs Act. With the advent of computers and emails as well as sites such as this one, the truth outs as in the case of the Kennel Club et al all supporting at the time breed specific legislation, which they are all now opposing and supporting BSL groups? The government cannot do wrong by at least looking at the NDWA's 'thoughts/proposals' can it? It is great that there is a debate forming that ‘ordinary’ people can have access to. Cuthbert Jackson is totally correct that if there is another fatal incident then the government will take on board what the major canine organisations have all said via DLAG. It is also true that NDWA stood alone when all others were backing the Dangerous Dogs Act. With the advent of computers and emails as well as sites such as this one, the truth outs as in the case of the Kennel Club et al all supporting at the time breed specific legislation, which they are all now opposing and supporting BSL groups? The government cannot do wrong by at least looking at the NDWA’s ‘thoughts/proposals’ can it?

]]> By: allie http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3464 allie Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:02:08 +0000 http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3464 It may well be an emotional response. I am a mother and a dog owner. We are taking about the lives of children and many family pets among other things. Both of these things mean alot to me. I do not claim to be an expert on all canine legislation however, that doesnt make my opinion any less valid. The core points raised in my response are all valid as you mention previously. I learnt what I do know because of that emotion and I know for a fact other good people learn from things I write. I presume it is because of how I write that they understand it. Some of those people had the new proposal and the NDWA suggestions both at hand however, they didnt see a problem with, and where prepared to back the proposal until they read my *emotional* response. Just because one proposal is not the right one, doesnt mean the second proposal should be grabbed with both hands. I have glanced at the NDWA proposal and as with every other one I have seen, there are things I believe are missing that could have a positive impact on reducing dog attacks. But thats just my opinion. :) Its often down to complacency and lack of understanding that any changes go unchallanged. If a little emotion means people understand a little more and become less complacent thats not a bad thing. Your comments about standing alone may or may not be true as an organisation however there are a huge number of parents and dog owners out there whose opinions are equally valid. I am thankful that places like K9 media allow us the chance to voice our thoughts. Its all too often our opinions seem to be "written off" . It may well be an emotional response. I am a mother and a dog owner. We are taking about the lives of children and many family pets among other things. Both of these things mean alot to me. I do not claim to be an expert on all canine legislation however, that doesnt make my opinion any less valid. The core points raised in my response are all valid as you mention previously.

I learnt what I do know because of that emotion and I know for a fact other good people learn from things I write. I presume it is because of how I write that they understand it. Some of those people had the new proposal and the NDWA suggestions both at hand however, they didnt see a problem with, and where prepared to back the proposal until they read my *emotional* response. Just because one proposal is not the right one, doesnt mean the second proposal should be grabbed with both hands. I have glanced at the NDWA proposal and as with every other one I have seen, there are things I believe are missing that could have a positive impact on reducing dog attacks. But thats just my opinion. :)

Its often down to complacency and lack of understanding that any changes go unchallanged. If a little emotion means people understand a little more and become less complacent thats not a bad thing.

Your comments about standing alone may or may not be true as an organisation however there are a huge number of parents and dog owners out there whose opinions are equally valid. I am thankful that places like K9 media allow us the chance to voice our thoughts. Its all too often our opinions seem to be “written off” .

]]> By: Cuthbert Jackson http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3451 Cuthbert Jackson Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:02:19 +0000 http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3451 For anyone trying to acces the NDWA documents at the moment you may have trouble as the website has just undergone a revamp and parts are no longer accessible today - hopefully will be fixed soon! I agree that what we don't want is a repeat of 1990/91, and I think that there is a critical sentence in htis respect at the start of Ryan's critique i.e.: The Kennel Club is calling it ‘A step in the right direction’. The Kennel Club, RSPCA, and representatives of some police and local authority services formed a group called the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG) as a sub-committee of the larger Dog Legislation Advisory Group (DLAG) they have presented their paper which in my opinion is critically deficient in its contents. But the reason I think it is critically deficient is based on what I know, not on an emotional response, nor can they say that there are no alternatives as I have already rpresented one on behalf of the NDWA. If there is a further incident (and I can barely believe that the child killed at Christmas didn't provoke this) I believe that the governement will allow the snowball to roll on this revision (i.e. something similar to the the Scottish version) quoting the support of all the major animal organisations (who sit on DLAG). In 1990 the NDWA stood alone in continuing to criticise breed specific legisaltion while all around pushed through the DDA for reasons best found in their various hidden agendas. The same will occur now. The difference this time will be that the criticism of the existing legisaltion and other possible arrangements made on behalf of the NDWA are in the public arena (and not just in a report to Hugh Marriage of the Home Office). For anyone trying to acces the NDWA documents at the moment you may have trouble as the website has just undergone a revamp and parts are no longer accessible today - hopefully will be fixed soon!
I agree that what we don’t want is a repeat of 1990/91, and I think that there is a critical sentence in htis respect at the start of Ryan’s critique i.e.:
The Kennel Club is calling it ‘A step in the right direction’.
The Kennel Club, RSPCA, and representatives of some police and local authority services formed a group called the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG) as a sub-committee of the larger Dog Legislation Advisory Group (DLAG) they have presented their paper which in my opinion is critically deficient in its contents. But the reason I think it is critically deficient is based on what I know, not on an emotional response, nor can they say that there are no alternatives as I have already rpresented one on behalf of the NDWA.
If there is a further incident (and I can barely believe that the child killed at Christmas didn’t provoke this) I believe that the governement will allow the snowball to roll on this revision (i.e. something similar to the the Scottish version) quoting the support of all the major animal organisations (who sit on DLAG).
In 1990 the NDWA stood alone in continuing to criticise breed specific legisaltion while all around pushed through the DDA for reasons best found in their various hidden agendas. The same will occur now. The difference this time will be that the criticism of the existing legisaltion and other possible arrangements made on behalf of the NDWA are in the public arena (and not just in a report to Hugh Marriage of the Home Office).

]]> By: allie http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3448 allie Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:13:42 +0000 http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3448 Thanks for the reply. I shall look into the NDWA in more detail later. I agree that opening the register for OLR is still not good enough and I agree that demolition to ill thought out proposals isnt the answer to our current problems. The reason behind the article was to show as clearly as possible why the Scottish proposal does not seem to do what it claims, in the hopes everyday dog owning public will question it for themselves and make themselves heard. The Scottish proposal is much more in the minds of those owners than the NDWA suggestions. Maybe if those suggestions where pushed further then they would recieve more backing if they appear to be an answer? What I dont think any of us want to see is a repeat of 1991 and maybe your suggestions hold some of the answers, I will certainly read it. I dont pretend to hold the answers but as a mere dog owner with a little knowledge I havent yet seen anything in detail that could work. Still, Im happy to keep looking provided we dont have something ridiculous (imho Scottish proposal) rushed through in the meantime. Thanks for the reply. I shall look into the NDWA in more detail later. I agree that opening the register for OLR is still not good enough and I agree that demolition to ill thought out proposals isnt the answer to our current problems. The reason behind the article was to show as clearly as possible why the Scottish proposal does not seem to do what it claims, in the hopes everyday dog owning public will question it for themselves and make themselves heard. The Scottish proposal is much more in the minds of those owners than the NDWA suggestions. Maybe if those suggestions where pushed further then they would recieve more backing if they appear to be an answer?

What I dont think any of us want to see is a repeat of 1991 and maybe your suggestions hold some of the answers, I will certainly read it. I dont pretend to hold the answers but as a mere dog owner with a little knowledge I havent yet seen anything in detail that could work. Still, Im happy to keep looking provided we dont have something ridiculous (imho Scottish proposal) rushed through in the meantime.

]]> By: Cuthbert Jackson http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3447 Cuthbert Jackson Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:38:51 +0000 http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304/scottish-dog-owners-have-been-sold-out-over-new-dangerous-dogs-proposal/#comment-3447 In belated reply to Allie. I've just lost a much longer reply by pressing the wrong button, but, briefly. I think that if we as dog owners are all prepared to live within much more demanding regulations which apply strict liability and require compulsory (third party) insurance. If we leave the Police and local government out of running this bureaucracy but allow them to enforce strictly against offenders under a new set of Control Notices and Court Control Orders. If we place these arrangements on the table for consideration (as the NDWA has done by putting them on its website) then we also place ourselves in a position to say that we would expect such a revision to repeal existing breed specific legislation. The current article from Alison shows why it is so very important to do this - if we don't legislators will assume that the only offers on the table which strengthen public protection are those like the Scottish ones (praised by the Kennel Club) which Alison so effectively demolishes in her latest contribution to these pages. Demolition is not enough at this point we need to present an effective alternative and I happen to belive that the NDWA document goes further in this than all other current suggestions. In belated reply to Allie.
I’ve just lost a much longer reply by pressing the wrong button, but, briefly. I think that if we as dog owners are all prepared to live within much more demanding regulations which apply strict liability and require compulsory (third party) insurance. If we leave the Police and local government out of running this bureaucracy but allow them to enforce strictly against offenders under a new set of Control Notices and Court Control Orders. If we place these arrangements on the table for consideration (as the NDWA has done by putting them on its website) then we also place ourselves in a position to say that we would expect such a revision to repeal existing breed specific legislation. The current article from Alison shows why it is so very important to do this - if we don’t legislators will assume that the only offers on the table which strengthen public protection are those like the Scottish ones (praised by the Kennel Club) which Alison so effectively demolishes in her latest contribution to these pages. Demolition is not enough at this point we need to present an effective alternative and I happen to belive that the NDWA document goes further in this than all other current suggestions.

]]>