Dog Control Bill receives its Second Reading

30 Apr 2009 08:01

THE DOG Control Bill has received its Second Reading in the House of Lords and must now wait for a committee hearing.
This Private Member’s Bill, which could replace the Dangerous
Dogs Act 1991 (DDA), was tabled in the Lords by Liberal Democrat peer
Lord Redesdale.
The Bill, which has been ‘broadly welcomed’ by the Kennel
Club, if passed would introduce major changes which would mean that the
law will no longer be breed specific; there would be more emphasis
on the owner in that the dog’s behaviour and its treatment by its
owner would be considered to determine if it is a risk to public safety
and, more worrying, attacks by dogs on private property would also
become criminal offences. For some time the KC, which runs the
secretariat for the DDA Study Group, has been asking the Government to
repeal the current legislation.
“We very much welcome the debate on this issue,” said spokesman Caroline Kisko.

[b]‘Severely flawed’[/b]



“The current legislation is draconian and severely flawed, and
does little to protect the public. We believe that it is the
breed-specific nature of the DDA which has caused it to fail. Focusing
on individual breeds has not prevented a large number of dog
attacks.
“We are particularly pleased that the proposed bill will place
more emphasis on penalising irresponsible dog owners rather than
focusing on particular breeds. We have long been saying that any dog
can be dangerous in the wrong hands and we hope that this Bill will go
some way to combat the growing culture of using dogs as weapons.”
However, the KC believes that the Bill has room for improvement.
“For example, it would make it an offence to keep a dog that has
injured another dog or animal but this could theoretically lead to the
seizure of any dog which attacked a rat or rabbit for example,”
Mrs Kisko said. “We will, therefore, be pushing for the Bill to
be amended as it progresses but we believe that it is a vast
improvement on the current legislation.”


http://www.dogworld.co.uk/News/18-dog-control-bill

I welcome an update but this bit worries me....


For example, it would make it an offence to keep a dog that has
injured another dog or animal but this could theoretically lead to the
seizure of any dog which attacked a rat or rabbit for example,”


So if 2 dogs have a fight in a park then the owners can't keep them?

This needs to be written better and allow for individual circumstances ie, Fred was on a lead yesterday, a dogs off lead were approaching him, if they attacked Fred but not injured him, and he defending himself injured them, he would be the one in trouble? :thinking: it's only Ok if used with caution.

No one wants a nasty dog roaming off lead, but we can't have controlled dogs targeted!

:thinking: it's a worry sandra isnt it ???

its very worrying when you put it like that sange a few too many flaws for my liking...
:thinking:

The flaws are worrying, but worse still are the local authorities that will each interpret them individually.

exactly hun, and we all know that the laws will vary according to dog breeds and situations

the only way attacks can be stopped is bt having ALL dogs leashed, i know its not a nice thing to do, but at least then it makes it easier and no breed is singled out, and no matter what breed is off lead it will automatially be them and the owner thats penalised if you kwim lol...

They have introduced a similar law in Scotland I think, or are going to. People are saying it has the same flaws etc and arent happy.

Sometimes these things seem to be changed "just to look like something has been done" but not actually beneficial when you look deeper into it. I hope this isnt one of them or were all buggered :nhy: