Should ANYONE Be Allowed to be a Dog Owner?
We are saddened to learn of the death of toddler as a result of an attack by two Rottweiler dogs.
The death has reignited calls from some quarters to introduce breed legislation to combat further attacks.
K9 Magazine is fundamentally opposed to breed legislation as we firmly believe it would NOT solve the problem of dog attacks.
K9 Magazine is calling for the UK to consider the introduction of a dog ownership test which would require would-be dog owners to pass a test similar to that of the driving licence theory exam. We have contacted Patricia Hewitt, the MP for the area in Leicester where the fatal attack occured and we are keen to take our proposal to the highest level possible.
If you agree with us and believe the responsibility lies with dog owners and breed specific legislation is not the answer to this problem, PLEASE post your thoughts and opinions on this blog. It can and will make a difference in helping to show there is a will to avoid dog attacks but breed legislation is not the solution. Equally if you believe we’re wrong and breed legislation IS the answer, please feel encouraged to publish your views.
Currently, in law, it is a British person’s right to own a dog regardless of background, knowledge or motive. At K9 Magazine we hold the view that it should be a privellege to own a dog, a privellege that should be earned by demonstrating a genuine desire to learn about canine welfare requirements, to understand the law relating to dogs and to sign a pledge promising to do everything possible to be a responsible owner.
We ask our readers for their opinions on our proposals to introduce a dog ownership exam which we believe all prospective new dog owners should be required to pass prior to acquiring a dog. We are loosely referring to this scheme as a ‘Doggie Driving Licence’. Unlike the previous dog licence which simply acted as a record keeping system, our scheme is to establish a real line of education amongst all new dog owners. Not just to educate on the dangers of uncontrolled dogs but also covering the very basic levels of care all dogs need, how to spot potential problems before they grow, how to select the right breeder and generally develop a basic curriculum for all new dog owners to learn from.
We will unveil our proposals in full once we have met with Government. Until then, please add your voice. You CAN make a difference.
We note that certain dog organisations are asking for ‘ASBOS for Dogs’. We don’t share the view that this is the answer. This would be post event legislation and would not solve the real problem at its source. The wrong breeders supplying the wrong dogs to the wrong, uneducated owner. The key is prevention and via our scheme this is utterly achievable.
Thank you for posting your comments below.
Highly Recommended: What dog owner wouldn’t want a piece of THIS action? – Get FREE dog food!
Related posts:
Loading ...
Agree that there is not enough education in regard to promoting responsible dog ownership insofar as it may be promoting responsible dog ownership to tell a person that they are perhaps not ready or suitable to own a dog. it is an appalling tragedy that has occurred in Leicester but bringing in breed specific legislation against perhaps Rottweilers and similar types of dogs is not the way forward.
The government got it wrong the last time with the Pit Bull Terrier, look at all the court cases and dogs being destroyed by the authorities and others.
The Dangerous Dogs Act was a knee jerk reaction at the time to deal with a small number of irresponsibly owned dogs that attacked people. If the dogs had been handled and looked after by responsible dog owners at the time, perhaps there would have been no Dangerous Dogs Act?
The Central Government should allocate more funding for Local Authority Dog Warden Services to have the resources and time to carry out education programmes that ultimately will lead to increased knowledge of dogs and that outlines the responsibilties of actually owning and caring for one. Local Authorities should also consider not multi-tasking those people who have to deal with dogs as it is a full time job to provide a dog warden service, having to be a street-scene or community warden as well can result in unskilled people working with dogs. Education is an important aspect of promoting responsible dog ownership, it is equal to enforcement action.
Reply
This should be required for ALL dog owners. Yes, it is truly sad that two Rotties have attacked and killed a toddler. Legislation for “breeds” is not the answer. We had a Rottweiler, Sergeant, or as I more affectionately called him, Baby Sarge, who passed away [cancer] in March of 2003. Baby Sarge was a fabulous, wonderful companion for nine years and a friend to all of the neighborhood children who would come to the door on Saturday morning’s and ask if “Sarge could come out to play.” No, I did not, ever leave him outside with a couple of children – never unsupervised. Baby Sarge was just so gentle with them – all of them – and would let even toddler’s roll around on him on the floor. My thoughts on this are that it is all how a dog is raised. Any breed can be “vicious.” What is truly unfortunate and sad is that so many people get large breed dogs [Rotties, Akita's, etc.] and even the medium sized breeds [specifically Pit Bulls - Terriers, Chows, etc.] with absolutely NO CLUE that to be a responsible dog owner involves hours and hours of training, socialization, etc., and for the large breeds and those smaller breeds with “reputations” this is mandatory. Until people are forced to demonstrate that they are or that they can be responsible dog owners, the problems with these breeds will continue, doing nothing but fostering resent to those who are not of the canine-luving world by letting reputation alone speak for those breeds. This all just makes me sooooo angry! There are NO bad dogs; there are, however, far too many bad OWNERS!
Reply
A piece of paper is no more a key to responsible dog owning than a marriage certificate is for responsible behaviour. I am horrified that in this day and age such a tragedy can happen. No family deserves the media scrum outside the door and it was inevitable those dogs would be put down. But why did he have them there in the first place. I know that bit of Leicester and it is a place where having a guard dog is a neccessity but there isn’t a chance that council estate’s dog owners will buy a licence or the police will have time to enforce one.
Reply
It is very sad to hear what these two Rotties have done and wouldn’t like to hear about this kind of attack happening ever again. However these dogs where from what I gather trained gaurd dogs left unsecured.
I agree with the other comments, breeds legislation is not the answer and in my opinion the dangerous dogs act needs to be completely overhauled. I have been in contact with Defra regaurding “What is a Pit Bull” as is number one on the DD Act and they can’t answer me they just say it is a definition however the other three on the act are actual breeds.
At the end of the day dogs are animals and rely on the owner to train it properly. I have two Staffordshire Bull Terriers and they are fine around my 10 month old baby, however I would never leave them alone with her in case anything happened. Yes she pulls them about but if she did it and they where unsupervised something horrible could happen if she hurt them.
The idea of some sort of license and register for all dogs and owners I think is a great idea. I would be happy to have a license for my dogs and have them registered and tagged rather than having the breed banned.
It really upsets me when I walk my dogs around the local car boot as they where Halti head alters, people see the dogs and see the alters around the head and mouth and automatically presume they are dangerous and then when I try and explain that it’s a training aid and that the dog still has full capability of opening his mouth ect they don’t beleive me.
People need educating alot about dogs ect and more dog training schools should be put on for owners to get help or just for the socialization.
My dogs use to be the sweetest around everything however since they had pups they became more protective of each other and the family, they are now dog aggressive and need alot more training. However if I didn’t realise this or control and understand it something serious could have happened without warning. You need to expect everything all the time.
Lets get something done to protect our dogs and breeds and educate owners.
Reply
Liz – You do make an excellent point with regard to “a piece of paper.” However, if people were required to attend – say – a class of some sort – two Saturday mornings for three hours each class – or something to that effect – to get that “piece of paper” you know that those people would take the “piece of paper” a bit more seriously than those who were not required to take such a class. When we adopted our Great Dane from the Rescue League they would not have let us if we had not had prior experience with a large breed dog [we did - Baby Sarge - our Rottie], if we would not have had excellent references – they checked with neighbors and our vet – AND they sent someone to our home to check the conditions prior to letting us sign the papers to adopt the Great Dane. This is a start…
Kris – I tried using the halter on our Great Dane – he just hated it, hated it, hated it. When he was a puppy, about four months old – and weighed 40-something pounds – we were walking with the halter on – he laid down and that was it. He wasn’t getting up. I literally had to carry him home and it was no easy task! I use a harness on him now, walking him is a piece of cake…
Reply
Sabra – I’m not saying that head harnesses work for all dogs. The bitch I have doesn’t mind her’s, however the male isn’t keen on it, he’s like a completely different dog. If I put it on him and didn’t attatch a lead he would just stand there and wouldn’t move.
I have body harnesses for both dogs but they are quiet strong for the size of them and when they pull it really hurts arms and back after a while. All dogs are different and if they uncomfortable then it will make things more difficult, it’s the same as anything trial and error.
I’ve been thinking more about the license idea and agree that it could just be another waste of time. Who is going to enforce it and make sure an owner has a license and training and shown competence for training and controlling their animal. Would every pet owner need to have a license and do some kind of test, if not it would just alienate dog owners.
Reply
I would like to make a comment based on the latest unfortunate attacks on children by Rottweilers.
I myself own and am the director of K9 Security (UK) Ltd in Devon, we specialise in the use of Guard dogs for security work on sites and at festivals etc where we come up against every possible type of person including children.
The dogs we use are Rottweilers and all of them are highly trained in every aspect including criminal and bite work.
These dogs are fantastic working dogs and although a minority of people would like to label them as devil dogs they are also fantastic family pets.Three of my Rottys live at home with me and my family,i have a 6yr old boy and a 5yr old girl with me both of which dote on the dogs and vice versa.They are loyal and protective although there training is for them to be aggressive they know when its time to work and when its time to be a family pet.Not once have any of my dogs ever even raised an eyebrow at mine or anyone elses children and i could safely say i would put my life on it that they never would.
I totally agree that there should be some kind of legislation regarding dog owners of any kind.You here plenty of reports about the rottys,staffs,gsd’s and mastiffs but barely any about labradors,Retreivers,Terriers etc all of which are completely capable of biting and hurting people.A child in our area was seriously wounded by a Retriever a few weeks ago but no coverage was really made on that due to the breed.Im afraid to say most of the injuries that are caused are not down to the dogs themselves but the handlers and owners but it is the dogs who end up paying the highest price,DEATH! just because some people are irresponsible.
It sickens me every time you here that a child has been hurt or killed by a dog,if we had rules and legislation to stop jack the lads wanting to own dogs that have a reputation and abusing them or neglecting them or the general public who dont have the time or patience to properly care or train the dog then these tragedies would be drastically decreased.It is the same in the security industry,any cowboy can take a dog thats been trained to bite out to work around the public as long as they have done the basic S.I.A training which has nothing to do with dogs.myself and my staff all go through the British Institute for Professional Dog Trainers and continue to further our education with other bodies to enable us to get the best from our dogs and achieve a safe working environment.Until legislation is bought into place for owners to do some kind of test or training with an official body then these awful accidents will continue to go on and increase with only the dogs paying the price and the real culprits purchasing another dog!
Reply
i wanted to ask one question, i keep hearing that they want to change the law on dogs, becuase of these attacks, please could you tell me what they want to do.
u know the media are hyping all these up becuase of the breed and it is a crime wave that is happening, next week it will be something else. but they should not ban breeds becuase of irresponsible dog owners
Reply
I think that we need a law to stop people breeding dogs (Rotties) just for some quick cash. You should have to be registered and keep paper work of all the dogs you have breed as to keep track of the history. This dog is a great dog I have two and mine are no problem. I did not get this type of dog for guard dogs, and mine are just family pets that live in the house and are in contact with lots of people.
Reply
I completely 100% back this plan. I have felt for a long time that the laws regarding dog (and other pet) ownership should be changed. The recent attacks have only gone to show how overdue the change is.
I think there should be very much tougher laws governing the breeding of dogs. Anyone who owns a dog who is not a registered breeder should be forced to castrate. Irresponsible breeding is part of the problem we have today regarding vicious dogs.
A “doggie driving licence” is an excellent idea. People should be made to attend a course to learn about the handling and care of a dog and then attend 12 week training course with their pet to learn how to put the teaching into practice. Anyone considered too irresponsible to own a dog should be made to resit the course until deemed responsible.
In addition to this, the introduction of compulsory microchipping and an ownership licence should be made law, this would help to combat animal cruelty.
Reply
I have just read another report in the Yorkshire Post with regards to the recent Rottweiler attacks. It says “frankly I’d be happy to see every rottweiler in the country destroyed unless it could be guaranteed that it was being kept as a registered guard dog or as a police dog, under the strictest of supervison”. Comments like these are dangerous, naieve and cause scaremongering. The article continues at length about dangerous dogs generally and stupidly states”How many people have been savaged by poodles? Labradors?” The columist has obvioulsy forgotten about the victim in France that was mauled by her Labrador and needed a face transplant.
I own a female 3 year old Rotti. I attended traiining classes every week for the first two years. She is very well behaved and under control. She is in contact with other animals and children and is always supervised. We have taken our dog ownership very seriously as many individuals do; Its a shame that there are irresponsible individuals that ultimately I feel are going to ruin it for responsible owners and the pets. I would be more than happy to demonstrate how my dog is trained or indeed to attend compulsary dog training or licence tests. I am sure that this situation will calm down over the next couple of weeks and the focus will go elsewhere, until the next time a tradgedy occurs. My sympathies go out to both families concerned, however both situations have not been fully described or explained. The public is uninformed and making decisions based on speculation and a media frenzy.
Reply
I fully support the introduction of a license for dog ownership. In my opinion the U.K is ignoring the importance of introducing important regulations.
I have a British Bulldog and we recently moved to Germany. On arrival here with a dog you have to register your dog and pay a yearly fee of around 140 Euros each year for a license to have a dog. Your dog then wears a red disc on his collar with his number on it. Apparently there are wardens around who can random check in parks etc. You do not have to sit an ‘exam’ (which I think would be a good idea) but it is a step nearer responsible ownership. Some breed of dog can not be imported here as deemed dangerous and there are also rules on the length of lead that is allowed etc.
In Spain you needed a license if your dog was deemed dangerous either by breed or certain characteristics and you did need to take a test to own these type of dogs – but how much this was enforced I do not know, however our friends were stopped on numerous occasions by the police there and asked if they had a license.
I think the breeding business needs to be the first thing to be looked at. The amount of money the pedigree breeds are sold for is bound to attract the wrong people in to trying to make what they think is easy money. The mothers are kept in appaling conditions which is without a doubt animal cruelty. There should only be registered breeders who have passed stringent requirements and who are visited at least every 6 months (I am sure there would be volunteers willing to do this). This is the root of the problem as these breeders will sell to anyone who comes along.
Owners of dogs should have to attend training courses and sit an exam. It shouldnt be so easy to own a dog.
I dont think living on the roof of a pub was the ideal place for those two rottweillers, they need training, exercise and stimulation. A child should never be left unattended with any dog, especially when the dogs were not familiar with having a baby around them. It really was a catalogue of errors in that case. These dogs that ‘look the part’ for the so called ‘macho’ male I feel so sorry for. They want a dog to guard them and protect them and make them look good so they encourage their dog to be aggressive and a lot of this is through abuse and torment. If you tie any dog up day and night with no food and water or exercise or love or companionship that dog will turn nasty. Aggression breeds aggression. Ultimately it is the rescue homes that end up with the abuse cases and these dogs are so messed up in their minds that they cannot be rehomed.
A Dog license and compulsory training courses MUST be introduced in the U.K even before they are allowed to buy the dog of their choice.
Reply
NOT anyone should be allowed to have a dog. There are some really sick individuals out there who look for lage breed dogs that can be dangerous. They abuse the dogs ability to become dangerous, or in some cases they abuse the animal that during or after the abuse may become agressive and dangerous. I am definetely approving of any tests for owners – to- be. As much as they can be dangerous, Rottweilers can be loving, gentle giants, family pet, loyal and devouted to all family members and kids. They just need to be handled and trained properly.
Reply
Finally! Some good old fashioned common sense among the mass hysteria! We, for one, would back a licence that focused on ensuring owners are responsible enough to own their chosen dog whatever the breed. Without tackling the root of the problem we cannot ever expect to gain anything.
The Kennel club registered 55,371 Rotties in the last ten years. We certainly havent heard of even half that amount being aggressive so cannot say its a problem with the breed.
I wonder just how many of the newspapers screaming “devil dogs” are also accepting money for adverts for litters of these dogs and their crosses? A large number of pups advertised through the free ads end up with anyone with enough money to purchase them. Yet I havent seen any newspaper stop allowing these adverts in order to do what they can to ensure the dogs have the right homes. Alongside legislation for owners we need to help remove the vehicle irresponsible breeders have for selling their badly bred animals.
Reply
Great point about the advertising of puppies with little screening. This is easily as big a contributor to the problem of the wrong dogs getting into the hands of the wrong people.
Reply
Hi Just read all the opinions from the people on this website I am so relieved to hear that other people have the same feelings as me. As for the issue about people selling dogs of larger breeds in papers I have my own story about this and thankfully it has a happy ending. My husband and myself decided to look for a dog after several years without one but we have had years of experience dealing with dobermanns and rotties as well so we were well aware of what is necessary to own a large breed of dog. Basically T L C and alot of time and effort put in by yourself in training and socialising your dog. We ended up going to see an Akita advertised in a paper and upon arrival could tell dog had been purchased by present owners purely as a status symbol ( to make him look tough because he had one of those ‘dangerous dogs’ the papers are always going on about) I was appalled to see the state of this dog, he had been chained up outside not fed proper food,just whatever the guy decided to give him from all the junk food he ate himself. I was very warey about taking this dog as I thought he might just be lost to the world as he didn’t even look up at us he just stood staring into the distance. We decided to take him purely for the fact I believe any dog deserves a chance until a professional tells you otherwise. He spent several weeks going back and forward to the vets for various treatments some of which were painful and not once did he even growl at the vets. We have had to go from walking him with a muzzle on and everyone looking at him in horror and fear to just walking him on a horses training lead with no muzzle and all the people around know who he is they come and pet him and he looks back at them with his big eyes and wagging tail and looks just like a big cuddly polar bear. So I still go with the opinion there is no bad dogs just bad owners who don’t treat them right and you definitely get back what you give to a dog.If you give them love and proper care they will return your love and devotion and give you many years of fun and loyalty. I am all for the licencing of owners for dogs and they should be made to have their pets micro chipped and tagged at all times. We have our dog done and he has been neutered as well because I agree only registered breeders should be allowed to breed these larger dogs. Please don’t give in to the papers LOVE YOUR DOGS NO MATTER WHAT BREED AND THEY WILL LOVE YOU BACK!
Reply
Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
http://www.povn.com/rdows
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156
PARAGON
American Staffordshire Terriers
“Home of the swinging, flying show dogs”
509-447-2821
http://users.surf1.ws/paragon
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BSL56-UAOA
http://www.unitedAnimalownersalliance.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WARDOG
http://rdows.wordpress.com
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” —Marcus Aurelius
1. Dogs are Personal Property
(a) The (city) (county) (state) of _____________ recognizes that dogs are personal property.
(b) No city, county or state authority shall restrict, or prohibit the ownership of dogs by breed.
(c) No breed specific ordinances enacted in _________ shall stand.
(d) The (city) (county) (state) of _____________ recognizes the right of the people to own any breed of dog in a responsible manner.
2. Containment
(a) All dogs shall be securely contained to their owners premises. The dog owner shall protect the public from his/her dogs. The assumption of liability is upon the dog owner.
(b) All dogs shall be securely leashed when off of the owners premises, and under the of a supervision of a person who is physically capable of controlling the dog.
(c) Parents who allow their child to lead a dog in public access areas, assume all liability for any accident, harm, or injury caused.
(d) Dog owners who allow a child to lead their dog in public access areas, assume all liability for any accident, harm, or injury caused.
(e) Owners walking their dog(s) in public areas are required to pick up, and properly dispose of stool waste deposited from their dog(s).
(f) Owners of dogs found at large by animal control authorities must produce documentation, upon demand, of the dog’s immunizations as required by the state.
3. Standard of care
(a) It is the responsibility of each dog owner to provide for their dog(s);
1.) Ownership for the entirety of the dog(s) life.
2.) Nutrition on a regular daily basis, and clean potable water readily available.
3.) Containment to the owners premesis
4.) Training
5.) Immunizations as required by state law, and veterinary medical treatment as necessary for maintenance of health
(b) If the owner cannot provide for the dog, it is the owner’s responsibility to;
1.) Find the dog a new owner.
2.) Pay for euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian.
3.) Pay a local animal shelter to provide for the dog until a new owner can be found.
(c) Failure to meet any of the standards of care are violations, and shall be considered cruelty to animals.
1.) If found guilty the Court shall fine the owner, and/or order or jail time commensurate with the harm done to the animal.
2.) The Court may remove the animal from the custody of the owner.
3.) The Court shall cause the property of dog owners who have been found guilty, to be posted with warning signs that are clearly visible on all perimeters that state, “IRRESPONSIBLE ANIMAL OWNER”.
4.) The signs may be removed after five years with no violations.
4. Noise Nuisance
(a) It is the responsibility of the owner to prevent his/her dog from causing a noise nuisance by barking. Incessant barking indicates lack of care.
1.) Owners may be ticketed for noise nusiance, and fined.
2.) This section does not apply to dogs barking to alert their owners.
5. Dogs At Large
(a) Any owner who allows his/ her dog to run at large shall be fined one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first violation
(b) The second violation shall incur a fine of two hundred dollars ($200.00)
(c) The third violation shall incur a fine of four hundred dollars ($400.00)
(d) The fourth violation by the owner shall cause the dog to be confiscated by the Animal Control Authorities and, after evaluation of temperament by qualified personnel, either placed into a responsible home, or humanely euthanized.
(e) Nothing in this section shall pertain to owners hunting with dogs.
6. Owner Liability
(a) A dog owner will be charged with negligence for any property damage, or harm, or injury done by his/her dog when the dog was at large, off of the owners premises, and out of the owners immediate control. If the dog’s owner is found guilty in a Court of law, then he/she shall be held liable. This liability shall include remuneration, fines, and/or jail time, at the Court’s disgression, and depending upon the severity of the damage, harm, or injury done by the dog.
(b) A dog owner shall be charged with negligent homicide, whose dog kills a person when at large, off the owners premises, and out of the immediate control of the owner. The dog shall be confiscated by the authorities, and humanely euthanized, and tested for rabies at the cost to the owner.
(c) A dog owner shall be charged with reckless endangerment, whose dog injures a person, or causes an accident while at large, off the owners premises, or out of the immediate control of the owner. The dog shall be removed from the owners custody, and be evaluated on temperament by qualified personnel, and either be placed in a responsible home, or humanely euthanized.
(d) A dog owner shall be charged with aggravated nuisance, and animal cruelty if he/she is found facing off dogs in any public area with the purpose of simulating a dog fight, or promoting a dog fight, or planning a dog fight, and fined five hundred dollars ($500.00). The dog owner shall be placed on strict probation for the period of one (1) year during which time if any violations occur, the dog owner shall be fined one thousand ($1000.00), and he/she shall lose custody of the dog. The dog shall be evaluated by qualified personnel, and either be placed in a responsible home, or be humanely euthanized.
(e) A dog owner shall be charged with aggravated nuisance should his/her dog menace a person when at large. The owner shall be fined five hundred dollars ($500.00) and placed on probation for six months, during which time if any violations occur he/she shall lose custody of the dog. The dog shall be evaluated by qualified personnel, and either be placed in a responsible home, or humanely euthanized.
f) A dog owner shall pay remuneration, and fines, if found guilty of negligence in a Court of law, when his/her dog being at large, and out of the owner’s control, trespasses upon another’s property, and injures, or kills an animal, or animals belonging to that person(s) whose animal(s) were contained to their property. The dog owner shall be placed on strict probation for the period of one(1) year, during which time should any further violations occur, the dog shall be removed from the custody of the owner. The dog shall be evaluated by qualified personnel, and either placed into a responsible home, or humanely euthanized.
(g) Any dog owner, by whose violations has caused his/her dog to be removed from his/her custody, shall not be allowed by the Court to own another dog for a period of ten (10) years.
(h) No dog owner will be held liable if the dog bites, injures, or kills an intruder, a burglar, a trespasser, or anyone who threatens the owner, or his/her safety while on, or off of the owner’s premises while the dog is under control of the owner.
(i) Any person who is bitten as a result of teasing, or tormenting a dog that is contained to it’s owners premises, or who is bitten while teasing, or tormenting a dog that is contained to the owner’s premises shall have no legal recourse for damages.
(j) Any parent whose child is bitten, or mauled by a dog, due to the parent’s inattendance to his/her child shall be charged with reckless endangerment of a child.
(k) Any parent whose child dies as a result of a dog mauling, due to the parents inattendance, shall be charged with negligent homicide.
7. Dog Abandonment
(a) Any person who is found guilty of abandoning a dog, or dogs by dumping it/them alongside any thoroughfare, or by moving away and leaving the the dog, or dogs shall be subject to a one thousand dollar fine ($1,000.00)per dog, and three months jail time, or a one thousand dollar ($1,000.00) per dog fine, and community service not to exceed six months, per dog abandoned, at the discretion of the Court.
8. False Reporting
(a) Any person who makes a false, or malicious report to Animal Control shall be charged with a gross misdemeanor.
Reply
Some good old fashioned common sense at last. Better than reacting in the way most people react this day. which is the what the news papers say they should think what the papers think. we have all got our own views do not get me wrong but it seems that more people minds are made up just by reading a paper, half the time the paper do not hold all the facts.
common sense has alway and will always be the way forward not reacting against one breed. I own a rescued rottweiler who i have trained with my other dog a german shepherd cross. Iam always keeping a eye out at the they are reacting when around people, picking up there mess. they both love children but i would and my family would never leave children alone with then. The Dangerous Dogs Act was a knee jerk reaction and having studied law really could of been thought though a lot more and would only take a nose dive down along with making a lot of people madder at politicians.
so i say use common sense not reacting in anger when you are not thinking straight.
Reply
Agreed.
One week the hype is all about preventing animal cruelty – and the next they’re inciting hatred towards particular breeds. It’s ridiculous.
For the safety of people AND animals, licensing and training for pet owners should be legislated.
Reply
Some good points coming across in these posts. a sigh of relief almost. A few points id like to bring across please.
Firstly, the DD act of the 90`s was an absolutely sick and saddening piece of legislation. Whatever peoples opinions may be regarding the pitbull terrier and their history, these dogs were fantastic , intelligent, and the most loyal of dogs breeds alive today, making brilliant family pets (if your not a criminal) that is,.
This is the catch. There were thousands of families with respectible law abiding members who looked after these dogs with all their heart but for a few fools who let their pitbulls roam and injur other innocent parties. THIS is the reason why the pit was banned. Not becuase of their original purpose back in history , because if we concentrate on that aspect of the dogs history (fighting) then quite easily, the staffordshire bull terrier should have been first in line as this was the original founding dog for the pitbull.
Anyway, im all for dog driving licenses, but what you want to do is prevent the governmnet from using this “driving license` as another stealyth tax like they are doing now with speed cameras etc, and also to life all these stupid breed specific laws banning breeds of dogs.
Since the dda, when the 3-4 specific breeds were outlawed, almost ALL ATTACKS since then have been from non-pitbull , bull terrier, type dogs, the worst culprits being , labradors, jack russels etc,,the sun isnt quick to expose those facts and niether are the rspca,,. All im saying is that licenses are great, great for good owners, and great for breeds and responsible ownership. Just dont give the governemnt an opportunity to make a fool out of us all and start to profit from us because of fees and charges for dog ownership. Thank you.
Reply
Hi there
My partner & I own a rottweiler who has a lovely temperment, we took the time to train & socialise her & she is a really great dog, loves people and is fine around other dogs. We are not thugs, we didn’t get her to be hard, we got her as we love the breed. Its a shame how irresponsible owners give us decent ones a bad name. What annoys me is these people saying rotties should be banned, or muzzled everywhere or put on the DDA when these people know nothing about rotties, or even dogs in general and alot of them don’t even like dogs! They just base their views on the media and think they are fit to comment on something they know nothing about! They need to understand that dogs aren’t born dangerous they are made dangerous through a careless, uncaring or inexperience owner and any dog any breed will be agressive if it is not trained or cared for properly!
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, its when they think their opinion is the only way thats a problem.
Reply
Throughout all that I’ve read, I have not seen one comment that regards individuals that care for animals as guardians. Every comment states that people who have dogs are owners. Maybe, the key to effective legislation would be to change the terminology from owner (property) to guardian (caretaker) of a living, breathing, feeling, being that requires responsible care and nurturing.
All I can say at this point is that Breed Specific Legislation will not protect the citizens. BSL will appease those that insist it’s only several breeds that bite. But, ban those breeds such as Dobies, Rotties, and Pitts, then you’ll find bites come from poodles, cockers, and chichihuas. BSL is really NOT the answer. Responsible guardianship is the only answer.
BSL is about pure-breeds. What about crosses, mixes, and mutts, and mongrels? What happens to them?
Public education about dogs and their behavior is a solution. The idea of a canine education certificate is really interesting. How to make “class” mandatory is another matter. But the knowledge gained about canines in class would prove beneficial.
How to educate breeders to sell to responsible guardians…. how will that happen? What about “free to good home” ads? Will those ads disappear? Then there’s an issue with strays and births while the animal is a stray.
Also, Cherie Graves posted an example of legislation that is very interesting…. could be workable, too. I would like to see listed in the Standard of Care the mandatory spaying and neutering of dogs (and cats) AND micro-chips.
So much to think about, eh?
Reply
RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATES
http://www.povn.com/rdows e-mail rdows@povn.com
Cherie Graves, chairwoman 323922 N. Hwy 2 Newport, WA 99156 (509)447-2821
paragon@surf1.ws
Hermine Stover, secretary, press liaison 23280 Stephanie, Perris, CA 92570 (951)943-0990 hermine@endangeredspecies.com
California Director, Jan Dykema Colorado Director, Nick Van Duren
POSITION STATEMENT ON MANDATORY MICROCHIPPING
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States opposes any mandated microchipping of privately held domestic pet animals. The choice of whether to, or whether not to microchip should be based upon all available information; and left strictly up to the owner to make for his/her animals. Our research has discovered potential health risks that are posed to domestic pet animals from microchip emplacement. Due to space only two of several findings will be cited:
(1) http://www.vetpathology.org/cgi/content/abstract/43/4/545
Vet Pathol 43:545-548 (2006) © 2006 American College of Veterinary Pathologists
——————————————————————————–
Fibrosarcoma with Typical Features of Postinjection Sarcoma at Site of Microchip Implant in a Dog: Histologic and Immunohistochemical Study M. Vascellari, E. Melchiotti and F. Mutinelli
Abstract
A 9-year-old, male French Bulldog was examined for a subcutaneous mass located at the site of a microchip implant. Cytologic examination of the mass was suggestive of a malignant mesenchymal neoplasm. Histologically, the mass was confirmed as a high-grade infiltrative fibrosarcoma, with multifocal necrosis and peripheral lymphoid aggregates. By immunohistochemistry, the sample was investigated for vimentin, smooth-muscle actin (SMA), CD3, CD79, and CD18. All the neoplastic cells were positive for vimentin. Scattered cells at the periphery of the lesion were also positive for SMA, highlighting a myofibroblastic phenotype. The lymphoid cells were positive for CD18 and CD3. No aluminum deposits were detected by the aurintricarboxylic acid method. A diagnosis of fibrosarcoma morphologically similar to feline postinjection sarcomas was made. Fibrosarcomas at the site of injections have been reported in dogs and ferrets. Furthermore, neoplastic growth at the site of microchip implant in dog and laboratory rodents has been described.
——————————————————————————–
Key words: Dog; fibrosarcoma; immunohistochemistry; microchip.
Marta Vascellari, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Viale dell’Università 10, 35020 Legnaro (PD) (Italy). E-mail: mvascellari@izsvenezie.it
(2) http://cat.inist.fr/aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=891987
Tumors in long-term rat studies associated with microchip animal identification devices
Tumors surrounding implanted microchip animal identification devices were noted in two separate chronic toxicity/oncogenicity studies using F344 rats. The tumors occurred at a low incidence rate (approximately 1 percent), but did result in the early sacrifice of most affected animals, due to tumor size and occasional metastases. No sexrelated trends were noted. All tumors occurred during the second year of the studies, were located in the subcutaneous dorsal thoracic area (the site of microchip implantation) and contained embedded microchip devices. All were mesenchymal in origin and consisted of the following types, listed in order of frequency: malignant schwannoma, fibrosarcoma, anaplastic sarcoma, and histiocytic sarcoma. The following diagnostic techniques were employed: light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and immunohistochemistry. The mechanism of carcinogenicity appeared to be that of foreign-body induced tumorigenesis.
(21/09/2000) 2001, vol. 52, no 6, pp. 569-575 (24 ref.), pp. 483-491
Copyright 2006 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved
Reply
I oppose testing for dog owners. There is no way you could prevent an owner that will be irresponsible from being able to pass a test or a responsible owner from failing the test. This will not help at all! I do believe that people whose dogs are dangerous based on the individual dogs’ behavior (not breed) should be required to work with a behaviorist and/or trainer for a minimum of six classes. That might make a difference. And if things don’t change after that, bar that person from owning dogs.
Reply
yes you are right i have 2 rottweilers both go training with other breed dogs and the wost is the collie for bad behavior and being snappy to people.
there is to many people breeding rottweilers also ie wrong temprement dogs with wrong temperment dogs will produce dogs with wrong tempement,we need to sort that side of it out,all dogs should be veted have tests as in germany befor the can be breed
Reply
Cherie Graves post on a licence bill seems an apropriate idea to me. l read through the jargon and found it to be acceptable, but we also need to ensure that it isn’t just us responsible owners who follow the rules, we are not the reason this legislation is being considered!
l would happily conform to safe and fair legislation if it would help protect dogs and people from other idiot owners but the fact remains that the general culprits who own the dogs that are ruining it for everyone else will not be interested in having a licence type agreement or in taking an ownership test and l can foresee great dificulties in trying to enforce these new laws, as for breeders, anyone can breed a litter of puppies and those who are only interested in money are those who are supplying the dogs to the idiots in the first place. l have and still do breed occasionally and am very careful about who l let adopt my babies, in fact some would say they could have adopted a child easier, but this is how l think it should be!
Reply
As the formerly ignorant owner of a German Shepherd puppy, who has made several mistakes in puppy rearing even with the best of intents, I now understand that misinformation, or lack of information, is often to blame for unbalanced dog behaviour. I would therefore like to raise some points.
No, not everybody could be a responsible dog owner. In fact, the vast majority of pet owners I encounter in my everyday life seem to be doing more wrong than right. Unlike me, a lot of the people I meet are not willing to change their approach to dog ownership. There are some people, however, who can change, if they get their hands on the right sort of information, because often the worst damage comes from the best of intents. It is the owner that decides what their dog will grow up to be, and breed has nothing to do with it. That’s like saying that adopting a child a war-ridden country is a bad idea because of the child’s “breeding”. It seems rightfully absurd when applied on humans, so why use this line of reasoning on dogs?
So perhaps the answer is not a “responsible dog owner certificate”, rather it’s the provision of as much information as possible, to ensure that a potential dog owner knows what’s expected of them, what’s right, and what’s wrong.
Reply
It’s a nightmare. If you do a google search for ‘jack russell attacks child’ and keep changing the breed you will find that even a sausage dog has managed to do it. The only one that didn’t come up as having attacked a child was the poodle??? Not very scientific I admit. On the face of it I would rather be attacked by a small dog than a large one; however in my extensive experience with dogs [I am the son of a farmer] the most bites I have had have been from the smaller varieties. My belief is that it is madness to allow people to keep any animals without the onus being on them to have a clear understanding of the needs of the animal and their responsibility towards society as the owner / controller of the animal. Too many dog owners think that dogs are human and have no understanding of dog behaviour. Most dogs are well behaved if their real needs are met.
I do understand that there is a certain logic in banning what are seen as the dangerous breeds but of course that road would inevitably lead to the removal of the Labrador from our society. Education and licensing must be the way forward.
Reply
just a few ideas which might help if they were to be adopted by the right people
BREEDER
1 must notify local authority if they breed rottweillers.
2 must notify local authorities as to how many rotties they have for breeding purposes, and sex of same
3 all breeding dogs/bitches must be micro-chipped.
4 breeder responsible for micro-chipping of litters as soon as humanely possible after birth and before selling.
5 breeder responsible for notification to local authority of,
A number in litter.
B sexes in litter.
C sire/dam of litter.
D corresponding micro-chipnumber for the above.
6 must have SPECIFIC license to breed rottweillers
7 issue certificate of ownership to purchaser, with copy to the local authority containing full details of dog/bitch and micro-chip numbers as well as new owners details
8 follow up to make sure that spaying neutering has been carried out as soon as it is humanely possible to do so
LOCAL AUTHORITY.
1 issue license for breeding of rottweillers
2 issue micro chips to breeders.
3 issue license to to prspective owners after background check as to suitability of ownership
4 maintain database of owners and micro chip number of dog/bitch owned.
5 carry out check to ensure that purchaased animal is spayed/neutered as soon as humanely possible
6 impound any rottweiler found with anyone without license and certificate of ownership
7 impound any rottweiler found with unmatched license/permit and micro-chip number
8 impound any unneutered/spayed rottweiler not registered with the local authority for breeding purposes
9 AND THIS IS IMPORTANT use any existing laws,bye-laws or amendements of the same toenforce the full extent of the law.
OWNERS.
1 gain permit of ownership from local authority
2 verify on purchase that certificate of ownership and micro-chip numbers match.
3 register owners details and micro- chip number of rottweiler owned with local authority.
4 spay/neuter animal as soon as humanely possible, proof of same to be lodged with breeder and local authority.
5 notify local authority of any change of ownership, to include full details of new owner
6 pass micro-chip certificate to new owner
7 under no circumstances sell or otherwise dispose of a rottweile to anyone who can not produce a license/permit as to suitability of ownership.
if this system was to be adopted it would result in the stopping of indiscriminate breeding, would furnish every rottweiler with a known record from the cradle to the grave would provide a database of ever breeder and number of dogs bred and would hopefully prevent rottweilers falling into the wrong hands ANY COMMENTS ON ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE WOULD BE MOST WELCOME
Report this post
Top
Reply
brilliant, please do this, its great idea, however i am worried about discriminating aginst dyslexic people, like me, id like to see more done in this country with therapy dogs, i am a counsellor and whilst working for mind, we got a pat dog, fantastic…. lets see about restriting the amount of breeders, only licenced breeders get to do it, all other dogs owners are subject to fines or something, i am a supporter of mixed crossbread dogs, so we need to encorporate that, but a test for dog owners is a great idea. my hubbby so wants a rottie, and they are lovely dogs, but if we ever got oe it would have o be a pup so you can build up that discliplin and trust from go. powerfull dogs need level headed owners and to realise when their dog is getting stressed or scared, so many owners dont realise that.
Reply
I have a Great Pyrenees, named Snoopy who is in my opion a gentle giant. He loves children, people and other dogs. The breed of dog is nothing. Maybe what you should look at is the breed of the human being! Snoopy had a brother that was not disciplined because the owners wanted a gaurd dog… guess what, Teddy is no longer alive. He was put to sleep because he bit the owners! He paid the ultimate price for their ignorance and stupidity. Dogs are children and if not raised properly they react like children. SPOILED and ROTTEN!!! Pitt Bulls or Rotweillers are the new dog breeds this year, German Shephards and Dobermans where the breeds years ago. It is the dog that suffers not the owners… too bad! If it was the other way around there would be a lot less problems.
Jamie Armstrong
BY THE WAY WE DO NOT OWN ANOTHER LIFE! IN THIS LIFE OR ANY OTHER LIFE, (Dog or otherwise)! We are priveledged to have as friends, we call these… pets!
Reply
i agree strongly with your idea not every person is this world was meant to be a dog owner or maybe there are centain breeds centrain people should not be allowed to own depending on your exeperince with dogs and the breed in gerenal i think there is a lot that can be done to save the animals not the people that make them mean
Reply
We absolutely need something like this, time is of the essence as breeding is out of control, certainly for some breeds that are attractive to certain types of people who use dogs for image status.
I am pro any breed, it is not the dog or the breed that is at fault, it is the owner who is responsible for bringing up a dog correctly to ensure they don’t have a problem dog. The problem only exists because people do not have the knowledge and understanding of The Dog and it’s needs.
Also these incidents involving babies being killed by dogs happened because the dogs are trained as guard dogs in irresponsible domestic homes by irresponsible owners.
My concern is that the government will take the easy option of banning certain breeds of dogs!
Reply
Continued…
Now, in regard to attacks, especially the most vulnerable, children to nine years of age and the elderly and frail. Dogs do like to fit in in our communities. They do see certain types of people as easy targets to assert their position in our community. As such, dogs can and may attack an innocent person. Even if the person is tormenting a dog, the dog must be restrained to prevent an attack. Yes, people will be cruel to animals, but as a species, we make laws to protect our own as a priority. The best thing for any dog owner to do is two things. Training and physical restraint. It is unfortunate, but to prevent any animal that may attack from doing so in the long run can only protect this animal. Laws must be introduced to enable all pets to be restrained to the point they can not attack. Proper animal enclosures are an absolutely needed requirement. These enclosures MUST HAVE CHILD PROOF LOCKING DEVICES! A dog compound and kennel must prevent children from entering at all times. During meal times for the family, the dog must be put away. During bed time, the dog must be put away. You can enjoy the company of your pets while you are supervising the interaction of your pet and other people, but in times where you can not be 100% on your guard, you MUST put your dog away. In transport and whilst walking your dog also, one must do all one can to prevent your dog from attacking another person or pet. Muzzles and leads are essential to protect your pet from being accused of biting or attacking. You protect your dog by guarding it from its own impulses to attack. This may be very rare for some dogs, and may never ever happen, but a good insurance policy for you and your dog is to guard against dog attacks or bites through proper restraints. Having said this, the restraints must also be humane and comfortable for your pet. One other consideration for pet owners, put your pet away when workers or visitors come calling. Some guests will be familiar with your pet and in those circumstances, you may not need to put it away, but tradesmen and other professional visitors should have their health and safety aspects of their work respected, and the dog be put away until the visit is over.
If these kinds of considerations were had in law creation, then I am sure the issues of dog attacks would be minimized. Issues of animal noise need to be addressed also. The issue is not how much noise is allowable, but how responsive to the noise is the animal owner. How quickly does an animal owner respond to quiet their pet. If an animal is noisy for more than ten minutes, there is an issue of animal neglect. It may be an issue of training or confinement, or even animal injury. But a noisy animal is a sign of something being wrong, and it will have a negative effect on the community. How long does it take you to respond to your pets noise?
Reply
t is clear that animal and human abuses will continue when laws are not adequate or poorly enforced. Dog barking complaints are very high in number around the world. The level of obsessive dog attitude by some owners is seriously concerning where the health and safety of our communities are under threat. People are putting the "rights" of dog owners, if they exist or not far over the rights of people. Those refusing to control dog behaviors which are creating suffering in our communities are guilty of cruelty to people.
With all the problems associated with dogs being kept in our communities, we now need to thoroughly re-examine the issues of human behavior and the keeping of ALL pets to get a true understanding of what is going on in our communities in regards to human – pet interaction. There clearly are some abuses in many directions not being addressed by laws or law enforcement agencies. IT is now clear, after many decades or centuries of fatal dog attacks and animal cruelties that a new perspective on pets and and human behavior is adopted.
A totally unbiased view would highlight these issues. Humans may develop personality disorders when they enter the realm of pet ownership. The "rights" of their pet may be conflicting with the rights of others to live in peace and comfort in their own homes. The levels of tolerance expected by pet owners is extremely high and far from practical. The care and training of pets is far from encouraged. Animals are always defended by animal rights groups to the detriment of the health and safety of our communities. Human rights are ignored and those fighting for their human rights to be preserved are labelled as animal haters or anti-social.
The fact is, both animal and human rights need to be preserved, and licensing and laws for pets need to be introduced to address these concerns. We must consider the health and safety of both people and animals to be truly able to create laws that are logical and workable.
Licensing will educate ALL pet owners, be it dog, cat, gold fish or turtle, about the care, feeding, breeding and laws concerning their pet of choice. Courses of education for licensing will also help in aiding potential pet owners in making their decision to buy a pet, the type and breed of pet, and consider the home they may need to house such pets. More importantly, a test could be a screen that exposes those that may be unsuited to pet ownership. Overall, people must be responsible with pets, and one must seriously consider their own suitability to own pets. A course may be the way for these people to recognize their suitability to pet ownership, where their own failings will be exposed to themselves. A decision for another type of pet may follow though.
Reply
Cannot believe it !! But I have recently stumbled onto a Utube site where certain people are giving their dogs illicit drugs. Maby that is why we are seeing more and more savage dogs lately. These irresponsible people should be banned from ever owning dogs. While the poor victim is scarred for the rest of their lives life if they live at all to see the day and the dog gets shot after doing the damage the one really responsible who is the dog owner gets away with murder. What is society coming to?
Reply
I thinktheres alot of good ideas, but i think it wont work taking the dog away as there are too many dog owners and it aint fair on the dog to ut them in kennels, i think they should bring back the dog licence and make micro chipping compulsary plus make taking your dog to training classes to educate people and help them with there dogs you dont ger a bad dog just a bad owner.
Reply