Comments on: Dangerous Dogs in the Media – Questions Need to be Answered

By: Dave the Dog

Dave the Dog — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:27:46 +0000

I didn’t see Casualty but I did watch the Virgin programme and confess that I spent half of it groaning and getting quite worked up. What was a good chance to put across the confusion that surrounds dogs and the law, in my mind simply created even more confusion for the public and dog owners.Statements such as a livestock worrying case and a dog on dog attack were dealt with under the DDA plus, as Cuthbert points out, the use of legal SBT’s to portray ‘Type’ dogs is just going to create more confusion and misinformation. Oh well, carry on battering heads against a brick wall.

By: Ryan O'Meara

Ryan O'Meara — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:45:31 +0000

All questions many people who are involved in trying to educate the public on the whole ‘dangerous’ dogs issue, would have asked themselves. It seems we take one step forward and then twenty steps back when it comes to trying to put over a responsible, acurate image of what is and what isn’t dangerous dog ownership. The BBC and Casualty on this occassion have some questions to answer.

By: Ordinary Dog Owner

Ordinary Dog Owner — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:45:51 +0000

Cuthbert

Typical, the old, do as I say, not as I do mentality from whoever worked and advised on these programmes. I heard that some of the offences such as livestock worrying in the ‘Death Row Dogs’ or whatever it was called were dealt with under the DDA? I thought that livestock worrying was dealt with under the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. If this legisltion was used by the police, then it would be a cheaper and faster use of existing legislation to deal with out of control dogs attacking livestock. Who advises these programme makers about legal matters and what dog owner would let their dog be ‘portrayed’ as a PBT type ‘top fighting dog’, oh, yes, thats right there was money to be made, that explains everything!