Comments on: Communication Breakdown Will Seriously Hinder Dangerous Dog Legislation

By: Scottish Parliament Listens to K9 Magazine on Dangerous Dog Proposals

Scottish Parliament Listens to K9 Magazine on Dangerous Dog Proposals — Mon, 12 May 2008 07:13:21 +0000

[...] in no small part to an article written by Alison Green right here on DogMagazine.net, the National Dog Warden Association has been approached by the [...]

By: Jess Mitchell

Jess Mitchell — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:18:49 +0000

I have a lurcher bitch that has been attacked by various breeds (mainly GSD) in various situations. My dog is now showing signs of fear aggression. My dog could be slapped with the label of “dangerous”, under these new legislations it is looking more likely. She will only fight back to defend her self or charge dogs at a distance that she does not know. Being a responsible dog owner I am actively working to prevent this from happening. What does annoy me is the owners of the dogs that have attacked her. I have no problems with any breed of dog, I respect all dogs and their natural instincts for instance all rotties are natural guard dogs but if the owner handles properly they are nice dogs and I know quite a few. These owners on every occasion have never made attempts to deal with the situation, I have always seperated the fight, nor do they ever check to see if the dog that their pooch has bitten is ok. They do not apologise and quickly grab their dog and run.
In the current anti dog movement all the known breeds to have bad names ie. staffies, rotties, doberman etc are singled out. It is not the breed but the owner after all the doberman breed was a herding dog originally. All these dog on dog attacks are forewarnings sometimes to behaviour issues, if they go unchecked then it can lead to dog on people attacks.
Why is it not the priority to see if we are suitable owners before we are let loose with animals regardless of the breed. We have to take a test to drive a car on the road, we are policed to ensure the safety of others whilst we drive, the rules are enforced. How is it possible to enforce dog legislation fairly, we are fighting anti dog legislation in our local councils that want dogs on leads in all public areas already. What next?

By: Julie Pett

Julie Pett — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:16:56 +0000

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: CrazyCanine

CrazyCanine — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:46:31 +0000

Mr Neil MSP has obviously been advised by the usual suspects! Why is there such a reliance on the fact that if this bill were to be passed, that microchips would be the ‘be all end all’ solution to a myriad of dog issues? All this rubbish about it would be an offence to not amend the microchip details, hey I do not want to be a ‘told you so’ but there must be 25% of the cars on the road of the UK that are either not registered to the person driving it, the driver is unlicensed and uninsured and the car is untaxed, so how would people obey a law that said you had to amend the microchip details of your dog?

The whole thing sounds very much like a crackpot idea of several years ago that was bandied about that would make it an offence for a dog over three months old to not be registered or licensed and the local councils would enforce this as the licence fee would pay for Dog Warden Services! The scary thing about the ‘powers behind the thrones’ of government is that they endlessly lobby for the same things that they recycle every now and then and present as the best way forward for the future of dog control. Hidden behind all this is a cabal that is seeking compulsory microchipping and dog registration (but not to be enforced by their people). To expect hard pressed council dog wardens to go around ensuring that dogs are registered insults dog wardens and shows that these advisors obviously do not know what dog wardens actually do, which is spend most if not all their time sorting out the problems caused by irresponsible dog owners of all shapes and sizes, classes and education as well as being owners of all ‘pedigree’ and ‘mom-pedigree’ breeds of dogs. Who would benefit the most from compulsory microchipping apart from the microchip companies that manufacture them, just think about it and look at who profits from microchipping of dogs if there were to be compulsory microchipping?

Additionally how would a ‘dangerous’ dog being microchipped prevent it from attacking another person or other animal if it is owned by a totally irresponsible owner?

Sorry Mr Neil MSP, it is alleged that you are an anti-dog person of which you have every right to be one, unfortunately somebody is using your bill to further their own hidden agenda of joint compulsory microchipping and dog registration. Get it passed in Scotland then it will filter down to the rest of the UK as the way forward,when in fact it will be the way backwards.