I don't think the petition is a good idea at all we cannot make laws in knee jerk reactive way. Bad legislation is made that way like the DDA which has helped no one and caused untold suffering.
I think they highlight the poorly thought-out nature of the campaign.
A campaign like this is no more reasonable than a person who's had their child killed by a blue Volvo demanding that blue Volvo's are banned.
rubbish
1/ people need transport - nobody needs a dog other than blind dogs/working dogs
2/ Volvos don't start up on their own and mount pavements to kill kids
3/ people are responsible for controlling cars - what we need in CONTROL for dogs
I would say we need
a - dogs in public always on leads and muzzled
b - a licence for every dog and OWNER in control of the dog - like with a driving licence, some little kid cannot be in control of a big brute of a dog
c - a limit to how many dogs per property
d - a limit to size and breed of dog owned for residential purposes - if people want a dog as company or a pet, then the size should not matter
e - 'dangerous' dogs to be highly trained and only used by the police to control criminals
f - designated walking areas fenced in so that kids/joggers etc are not bothered by loose animals
e - all breeders to have a breeding licence and registered appropriate property - anyone else selling an animal to be banned from keeping them for life
rubbish
1/ people need transport - nobody needs a dog other than blind dogs/working dogs
2/ Volvos don't start up on their own and mount pavements to kill kids
3/ people are responsible for controlling cars - what we need in CONTROL for dogs
I would say we need
a - dogs in public always on leads and muzzled
b - a licence for every dog and OWNER in control of the dog - like with a driving licence, some little kid cannot be in control of a big brute of a dog
c - a limit to how many dogs per property
d - a limit to size and breed of dog owned for residential purposes - if people want a dog as company or a pet, then the size should not matter
e - 'dangerous' dogs to be highly trained and only used by the police to control criminals
f - designated walking areas fenced in so that kids/joggers etc are not bothered by loose animals
e - all breeders to have a breeding licence and registered appropriate property - anyone else selling an animal to be banned from keeping them for life
When you lose someone particularly perhaps in an unexpected way you often feel the need to do something , anything which may somehow make some sense of your losing your loved one. So I can understand why he's doing this, and I hope that it brings some solace.
I also instinctively feel that dog attacks on private property should be subject to prosecution, but then again as some have pointed out what would happen in the case of a family or even guard dog biting a burglar? So it's not as simple as it first seems.
There's a saying- which I'm paraphrasing because I can't be whatsnamed to google- 'hard cases make bad laws' and I think that this applies here. What happened to this child was horrific and this and other cases certainly shows that the laws and procedures surrounding keeping dogs needs to be looked at. However changing the law quickly because of one incident is probably not a good idea.
Isn't it a bit early to be starting petitions like this in the name of someone when the full facts aren't public yet.
For instance, did the owner even know that Jade was in the house? Perhaps the dogs are usually caged when people eat in the house, and this rule was broken unknowingly, and the owner might not be to blame for what happened. Obviously they are just examples, I have no idea what happened. Just as likely the dogs were out of control and not well trained and looked after. Its just that I think all cases have to be judged individually, and not in a knee jerk way.
I have a German Shepherd and if one of my children let a stranger in the house when I wasn't there, I can't say for sure that she would or wouldn't attack them. Its bred in them to guard.
Would that be my fault if I didn't know this was happening?
My kids know that they aren't to let people in the room with dog if she doesn't know them, or doesn't have a muzzle on - but I guess mistakes can be made.
rubbish
1/ people need transport - nobody needs a dog other than blind dogs/working dogs
2/ Volvos don't start up on their own and mount pavements to kill kids
3/ people are responsible for controlling cars - what we need in CONTROL for dogs
I would say we need
a - dogs in public always on leads and muzzled
b - a licence for every dog and OWNER in control of the dog - like with a driving licence, some little kid cannot be in control of a big brute of a dog
c - a limit to how many dogs per property
d - a limit to size and breed of dog owned for residential purposes - if people want a dog as company or a pet, then the size should not matter
e - 'dangerous' dogs to be highly trained and only used by the police to control criminals
f - designated walking areas fenced in so that kids/joggers etc are not bothered by loose animals
e - all breeders to have a breeding licence and registered appropriate property - anyone else selling an animal to be banned from keeping them for life
most of those rules already exist as well as chipping but not in England for some reason or other.
rubbish
1/ people need transport - nobody needs a dog other than blind dogs/working dogs THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE DENIED THE CHANCE TO HAVE A PET DOG IT THEY WANT ONE. WE DON'T NEED TVS, BUT WE ENJOY HAVING THEM.
2/ Volvos don't start up on their own and mount pavements to kill kids MORE PEOPLE ARE KILLED IN CAR ACCIDENTS THAN DOG ATTACKS EACH YEAR. MAYBE WE SHOULD BAN CARS
3/ people are responsible for controlling cars - what we need in CONTROL for dogs BUT PEOPLE DON'T CONTROL CARS, DO THEY? THEY DRIVE DRUNK, THEY SPEED, THEY USE MOBILE PHONES AT THE WHEEL. CARS ARE FAR MORE DANGEROUS THAN DOGS.
I would say we need
a - dogs in public always on leads and muzzled DON'T NEED TO BE ON LEADS IF MUZZLED.
b - a licence for every dog and OWNER in control of the dog - like with a driving licence, some little kid cannot be in control of a big brute of a dog PEOPLE DRIVE CARS WITHOUT HAVING A LICENCE. IT WILL ONLY BE RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS WHO MAKE THE EFFORT TO GET A LICENCE, THE IRRESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS WILL JUST CARRY ON AS THEY DO NOW.... ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS A COST INVOLVED.
c - a limit to how many dogs per property SO, IF YOU HAVE A MANSION YOU CAN HAVE A PACK OF 100 DOGS, COMPARED TO A ONE BEDROOMED HOUSE? SURELY THOSE 100 DOGS ARE GOING TO BE A PROBLEM?
d - a limit to size and breed of dog owned for residential purposes - if people want a dog as company or a pet, then the size should not matter SMALL DOGS ARE A LOT MORE LIKELY TO SNAP AND BITE, I WOULDN'T WANT A JACK RUSSELL FOR EXAMPLE WITH CHILDREN. A BIG DOG IS LESS LIKELY TO BITE, STATISTICALLY. I HAVE A GERMAN SHEPHERD, SHE'S NEVER BITTEN ANYONE - WHY SHOULDN'T I BE ALLOWED TO HAVE HER?
e - 'dangerous' dogs to be highly trained and only used by the police to control criminals YOU CAN'T DESCRIBE A BREED OF DOG AS DANGEROUS, ITS MOSTLY THE OWNER AND LACK OF TRAINING WHICH CAUSES A DOG TO BE DANGEROUS.
f - designated walking areas fenced in so that kids/joggers etc are not bothered by loose animals. A MUZZLED OR WELL-TRAINED DOG IS PERFECTLY SAFE IN ANY AREA.
e - all breeders to have a breeding licence and registered appropriate property - anyone else selling an animal to be banned from keeping them for life THIS I WOULD AGREE WITH
It might make people more carefully consider what breeds to have as pets. The number of dogs in that house didn't help either. Dogs act differently in a group, just as young blokes do.
Not ALL dogs. Neutered dogs who have regular lives which include one meal at the same time each day and one good off-lead walk with a vigilant owner and other dogs in an open space every day from puppyhood (not much to ask but it's extraordinary how many dogs don't get this basic requirement) don't behave badly.
I think it's true that, at present, there is no legislation in place to protect people in private property and this should probably be addressed. A legal requirement for every single puppy and dog to be micro-chipped in order to make the owner responsible for its actions (and well-being) is already in discussion but the time for discussing is long past and this should be introduced immediately in order to make enforcement of existing legislation easier to pursue.
This was a tragic case. However, there are already quite severe sanctions in place for those dogs that bite, or even threaten to bite a member of the public. The type of irresponsible owner who uses dogs in such a way as to make them more likely to attack, are not the ones likely to adhere to the law. I agree with microchipping, but not muzzling dogs or keeping them on a lead at all times - it is unfair to restrict a harmless animal who wants to do nothing more than play with its ball in the park. In my local area, most parks have children's playgrounds which are designated dog free areas which seems like a good idea. To be honest I'd be more wary about some of the people I see round and about than the local dogs.
Because people's much-loved pets, which have done nothing wrong, have been confiscated and kept in kennels for years simply because of how they look, while the courts decide if they are of the banned "type". Even vets can't agree what is and is not a "pit bull type" (although I've met vets who don't know a field spaniel or a lakeland terrier when they see one, so perhaps that's not saying much).
The conditions that confiscated dogs are kept in not always good and there have been incidents of dogs dying while in "custody" because vet treatment has not been sought early enough. Dogs are pack animals and keeping them locked up alone, and preventing them from having free running exercise, is widely regarded as inhumane, so numerous (possibly hundreds by now) dogs have suffered.
And then there are the families who have suffered the grief of being separated from their pets, often forever if it is deemed to be a banned "type" and euthanased.
Pretty sure that there is already legislation in place that covers exactly what the petitioning is trying to achieve!
Yes, thought so, found it!
9 New Measures Announced
Including...
Defra Minister, Owen Paterson, announced in Written Statement to the House of Commons on 6 February 2013, a series of measures to deal with strays and dangerous dogs:
The offence under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 of allowing a dog to cause injury, or fear of injury, will be extended to all places, including private property. However, the proposed amendment will not will not provide protection to trespassers who have entered a private property, if the householder believes they have unlawful intentions.
Not ALL dogs. Neutered dogs who have regular lives which include one meal at the same time each day and one good off-lead walk with a vigilant owner and other dogs in an open space every day from puppyhood (not much to ask but it's extraordinary how many dogs don't get this basic requirement) don't behave badly.
I think it's true that, at present, there is no legislation in place to protect people in private property and this should probably be addressed. A legal requirement for every single puppy and dog to be micro-chipped in order to make the owner responsible for its actions (and well-being) is already in discussion but the time for discussing is long past and this should be introduced immediately in order to make enforcement of existing legislation easier to pursue.
Chipping is going to be a legal requirement in England in 2016, hopefully the dog licence, compulsory licence tag and collar will also be introduced. Seems stupid having one set of rules in one part of the U.K and not the others.
Hello - please amend the quoted post as this is not my comment, it is yours and what you have done is deceptive - you may copy my comments, change what you want and put your name to them but the quote suggests these are my opinions when in fact they are yours
The issue of a dog biting on private property is a difficult one. As has already been pointed out, if a dog attacks a burglar or someone threatening to hurt their owner it should not be put down. Therefore, in my view, legislation should exclude intruders or anyone who has entered the property uninvited with criminal intentions.
The issue of a dog biting on private property is a difficult one. As has already been pointed out, if a dog attacks a burglar or someone threatening to hurt their owner it should not be put down. Therefore, in my view, legislation should exclude intruders or anyone who has entered the property uninvited with criminal intentions.
Hello - please amend the quoted post as this is not my comment, it is yours and what you have done is deceptive - you may copy my comments, change what you want and put your name to them but the quote suggests these are my opinions when in fact they are yours
Thanks
I'm sure that anyone with half a brain can tell the CAP comments are mine.
Anyway, my words make more sense than yours, so I've done you a favour
1/ people need transport - nobody needs a dog other than blind dogs/working dogs
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE DENIED THE CHANCE TO HAVE A PET DOG IT THEY WANT ONE. WE DON'T NEED TVS, BUT WE ENJOY HAVING THEM
Yes but your TV should remain for your entertainment and not be inflicted upon others such that it causes injury
2/ Volvos don't start up on their own and mount pavements to kill kids
MORE PEOPLE ARE KILLED IN CAR ACCIDENTS THAN DOG ATTACKS EACH YEAR. MAYBE WE SHOULD BAN CARS
Incorrect - cars do not kill independently of a driver -p dogs do
3/ people are responsible for controlling cars - what we need is CONTROL for dogs
BUT PEOPLE DON'T CONTROL CARS, DO THEY? THEY DRIVE DRUNK, THEY SPEED, THEY USE MOBILE PHONES AT THE WHEEL. CARS ARE FAR MORE DANGEROUS THAN DOGS
Erm, perhaps your most bizarre comparison as anyone driving drunk, etc is acting OUTSIDE the law, therefore liable to prosecution so the same would apply to anyone breaking dog control laws
I would say we need
a - dogs in public always on leads and muzzled
DON'T NEED TO BE ON LEADS IF MUZZLED
Yes, they do - they can still knock someone over, alarm, frighten kids, jump on people, get out of control on roads etc
b - a licence for every dog and OWNER in control of the dog - like with a driving licence, some little kid cannot be in control of a big brute of a dog
PEOPLE DRIVE CARS WITHOUT HAVING A LICENCE. IT WILL ONLY BE RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS WHO MAKE THE EFFORT TO GET A LICENCE, THE IRRESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS WILL JUST CARRY ON AS THEY DO NOW.... ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS A COST INVOLVED
I refer you again to the law breaking aspect detailed above
c - a limit to how many dogs per property
SO, IF YOU HAVE A MANSION YOU CAN HAVE A PACK OF 100 DOGS, COMPARED TO A ONE BEDROOMED HOUSE? SURELY THOSE 100 DOGS ARE GOING TO BE A PROBLEM?
I would not expect anyone to allow someone to have 100 dogs - weird point you make there
d - a limit to size and breed of dog owned for residential purposes - if people want a dog as company or a pet, then the size should not matter
SMALL DOGS ARE A LOT MORE LIKELY TO SNAP AND BITE, I WOULDN'T WANT A JACK RUSSELL FOR EXAMPLE WITH CHILDREN. A BIG DOG IS LESS LIKELY TO BITE, STATISTICALLY. I HAVE A GERMAN SHEPHERD, SHE'S NEVER BITTEN ANYONE - WHY SHOULDN'T I BE ALLOWED TO HAVE HER?
Larger dogs can do more damage and more likely to result in fatality - also german shepherds attack more than any other breed
e - 'dangerous' dogs to be highly trained and only used by the police to control criminals
YOU CAN'T DESCRIBE A BREED OF DOG AS DANGEROUS, ITS MOSTLY THE OWNER AND LACK OF TRAINING WHICH CAUSES A DOG TO BE DANGEROUS
I would expect the guidance to state a dangerous dog as being over a certain size and not controlled by the other laws
f - designated walking areas fenced in so that kids/joggers etc are not bothered by loose animals.
A MUZZLED OR WELL-TRAINED DOG IS PERFECTLY SAFE IN ANY AREA
So if your dog is well trained and a jogger runs past the dog simply ignores them :rolleyes: it is an animal still - the arrogance of 'owning'' another living creature does not change that fact
e - all breeders to have a breeding licence and registered appropriate property - anyone else selling an animal to be banned from keeping them for life
THIS I WOULD AGREE WITH
I think the thing that worries me the most about owners who get as angry as you have, is that it also removed my trust of dog owners as well as dogs
So many owners/dog lovers are aggressive and unrational that I don't feel that either end of the lead is safe most of the time
Comments
I agree. They get a bad enough press and do not deserve it
I think the spell checker has let them down this time.
I have to agree.
Does anyone know why the dogs attacked Jade. It is a shame we only hear half a story.
How exactly has it caused 'untold suffering?'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305257/Jade-Anderson-death-Heartbroken-mother-dog-attack-victim-tells-final-farewell-mortuary.html
rubbish
1/ people need transport - nobody needs a dog other than blind dogs/working dogs
2/ Volvos don't start up on their own and mount pavements to kill kids
3/ people are responsible for controlling cars - what we need in CONTROL for dogs
I would say we need
a - dogs in public always on leads and muzzled
b - a licence for every dog and OWNER in control of the dog - like with a driving licence, some little kid cannot be in control of a big brute of a dog
c - a limit to how many dogs per property
d - a limit to size and breed of dog owned for residential purposes - if people want a dog as company or a pet, then the size should not matter
e - 'dangerous' dogs to be highly trained and only used by the police to control criminals
f - designated walking areas fenced in so that kids/joggers etc are not bothered by loose animals
e - all breeders to have a breeding licence and registered appropriate property - anyone else selling an animal to be banned from keeping them for life
Yes I know a few pepple with Staffies, all of which have been neutered, and the dogs are harmless.
Surely if "A" was in place, you wouldn't need "F"
I also instinctively feel that dog attacks on private property should be subject to prosecution, but then again as some have pointed out what would happen in the case of a family or even guard dog biting a burglar? So it's not as simple as it first seems.
There's a saying- which I'm paraphrasing because I can't be whatsnamed to google- 'hard cases make bad laws' and I think that this applies here. What happened to this child was horrific and this and other cases certainly shows that the laws and procedures surrounding keeping dogs needs to be looked at. However changing the law quickly because of one incident is probably not a good idea.
For instance, did the owner even know that Jade was in the house? Perhaps the dogs are usually caged when people eat in the house, and this rule was broken unknowingly, and the owner might not be to blame for what happened. Obviously they are just examples, I have no idea what happened. Just as likely the dogs were out of control and not well trained and looked after. Its just that I think all cases have to be judged individually, and not in a knee jerk way.
I have a German Shepherd and if one of my children let a stranger in the house when I wasn't there, I can't say for sure that she would or wouldn't attack them. Its bred in them to guard.
Would that be my fault if I didn't know this was happening?
My kids know that they aren't to let people in the room with dog if she doesn't know them, or doesn't have a muzzle on - but I guess mistakes can be made.
most of those rules already exist as well as chipping but not in England for some reason or other.
MY RESPONSE IN CAPS!!
Not ALL dogs. Neutered dogs who have regular lives which include one meal at the same time each day and one good off-lead walk with a vigilant owner and other dogs in an open space every day from puppyhood (not much to ask but it's extraordinary how many dogs don't get this basic requirement) don't behave badly.
I think it's true that, at present, there is no legislation in place to protect people in private property and this should probably be addressed. A legal requirement for every single puppy and dog to be micro-chipped in order to make the owner responsible for its actions (and well-being) is already in discussion but the time for discussing is long past and this should be introduced immediately in order to make enforcement of existing legislation easier to pursue.
Because people's much-loved pets, which have done nothing wrong, have been confiscated and kept in kennels for years simply because of how they look, while the courts decide if they are of the banned "type". Even vets can't agree what is and is not a "pit bull type" (although I've met vets who don't know a field spaniel or a lakeland terrier when they see one, so perhaps that's not saying much).
The conditions that confiscated dogs are kept in not always good and there have been incidents of dogs dying while in "custody" because vet treatment has not been sought early enough. Dogs are pack animals and keeping them locked up alone, and preventing them from having free running exercise, is widely regarded as inhumane, so numerous (possibly hundreds by now) dogs have suffered.
And then there are the families who have suffered the grief of being separated from their pets, often forever if it is deemed to be a banned "type" and euthanased.
As long as it only protects people in private property with the owner's consent, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Yes, thought so, found it!
9 New Measures Announced
Including...
Defra Minister, Owen Paterson, announced in Written Statement to the House of Commons on 6 February 2013, a series of measures to deal with strays and dangerous dogs:
The offence under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 of allowing a dog to cause injury, or fear of injury, will be extended to all places, including private property. However, the proposed amendment will not will not provide protection to trespassers who have entered a private property, if the householder believes they have unlawful intentions.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=7&sqi=2&ved=0CGQQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fbriefing-papers%2Fsn04348.pdf&ei=yKVhUcrEFOWf0QWum4GgBg&usg=AFQjCNEFtUEEePkoVTid-_dgwWkL-61q_g&sig2=e9l7xE0I0HTnbATkdbjbJQ&bvm=bv.44770516,d.d2k
I should have been specific re public space not being a designated dog walking fenced in area
Chipping is going to be a legal requirement in England in 2016, hopefully the dog licence, compulsory licence tag and collar will also be introduced. Seems stupid having one set of rules in one part of the U.K and not the others.
Hello - please amend the quoted post as this is not my comment, it is yours and what you have done is deceptive - you may copy my comments, change what you want and put your name to them but the quote suggests these are my opinions when in fact they are yours
Thanks
See my post above!
I'm sure that anyone with half a brain can tell the CAP comments are mine.
Anyway, my words make more sense than yours, so I've done you a favour
1/ people need transport - nobody needs a dog other than blind dogs/working dogs
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE DENIED THE CHANCE TO HAVE A PET DOG IT THEY WANT ONE. WE DON'T NEED TVS, BUT WE ENJOY HAVING THEM
Yes but your TV should remain for your entertainment and not be inflicted upon others such that it causes injury
2/ Volvos don't start up on their own and mount pavements to kill kids
MORE PEOPLE ARE KILLED IN CAR ACCIDENTS THAN DOG ATTACKS EACH YEAR. MAYBE WE SHOULD BAN CARS
Incorrect - cars do not kill independently of a driver -p dogs do
3/ people are responsible for controlling cars - what we need is CONTROL for dogs
BUT PEOPLE DON'T CONTROL CARS, DO THEY? THEY DRIVE DRUNK, THEY SPEED, THEY USE MOBILE PHONES AT THE WHEEL. CARS ARE FAR MORE DANGEROUS THAN DOGS
Erm, perhaps your most bizarre comparison as anyone driving drunk, etc is acting OUTSIDE the law, therefore liable to prosecution so the same would apply to anyone breaking dog control laws
I would say we need
a - dogs in public always on leads and muzzled
DON'T NEED TO BE ON LEADS IF MUZZLED
Yes, they do - they can still knock someone over, alarm, frighten kids, jump on people, get out of control on roads etc
b - a licence for every dog and OWNER in control of the dog - like with a driving licence, some little kid cannot be in control of a big brute of a dog
PEOPLE DRIVE CARS WITHOUT HAVING A LICENCE. IT WILL ONLY BE RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS WHO MAKE THE EFFORT TO GET A LICENCE, THE IRRESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS WILL JUST CARRY ON AS THEY DO NOW.... ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS A COST INVOLVED
I refer you again to the law breaking aspect detailed above
c - a limit to how many dogs per property
SO, IF YOU HAVE A MANSION YOU CAN HAVE A PACK OF 100 DOGS, COMPARED TO A ONE BEDROOMED HOUSE? SURELY THOSE 100 DOGS ARE GOING TO BE A PROBLEM?
I would not expect anyone to allow someone to have 100 dogs - weird point you make there
d - a limit to size and breed of dog owned for residential purposes - if people want a dog as company or a pet, then the size should not matter
SMALL DOGS ARE A LOT MORE LIKELY TO SNAP AND BITE, I WOULDN'T WANT A JACK RUSSELL FOR EXAMPLE WITH CHILDREN. A BIG DOG IS LESS LIKELY TO BITE, STATISTICALLY. I HAVE A GERMAN SHEPHERD, SHE'S NEVER BITTEN ANYONE - WHY SHOULDN'T I BE ALLOWED TO HAVE HER?
Larger dogs can do more damage and more likely to result in fatality - also german shepherds attack more than any other breed
e - 'dangerous' dogs to be highly trained and only used by the police to control criminals
YOU CAN'T DESCRIBE A BREED OF DOG AS DANGEROUS, ITS MOSTLY THE OWNER AND LACK OF TRAINING WHICH CAUSES A DOG TO BE DANGEROUS
I would expect the guidance to state a dangerous dog as being over a certain size and not controlled by the other laws
f - designated walking areas fenced in so that kids/joggers etc are not bothered by loose animals.
A MUZZLED OR WELL-TRAINED DOG IS PERFECTLY SAFE IN ANY AREA
So if your dog is well trained and a jogger runs past the dog simply ignores them :rolleyes: it is an animal still - the arrogance of 'owning'' another living creature does not change that fact
e - all breeders to have a breeding licence and registered appropriate property - anyone else selling an animal to be banned from keeping them for life
THIS I WOULD AGREE WITH
I think the thing that worries me the most about owners who get as angry as you have, is that it also removed my trust of dog owners as well as dogs
So many owners/dog lovers are aggressive and unrational that I don't feel that either end of the lead is safe most of the time