Not sure how this is supposed to help though, in that small minority of cases?
I get what you mean, but the DDA has always seemed to be more of a hindrance than any sort of help for any of these problems.
You'll end up with a mauled child, locked up owner and dead dog. Nobody wins.
I think that the idea is to make people think twice about keeping dogs with children or at least being more cautious. Its future un-mauled children that are supposed to win.
I think this is one of the key changes as well (from your link).
I wonder how long it will be before we get the headline, "Owner faces jail, dog faces death after yobs enter pensioners garden to retrieve football"
This is not a big deal. It has always been an offence to be the keeper of a dog not kept under control on private premises. The Dangerous Dogs Act is coming into line with what has been in place since 1871.
This is what has been in use to deal with attacks on postmen, children or any other lawful visitors to peoples houses in the past.
This is not a big deal. It has always been an offence to be the keeper of a dog not kept under control on private premises. The Dangerous Dogs Act is coming into line with what has been in place since 1871.
This is what has been in use to deal with attacks on postmen, children or any other lawful visitors to peoples houses in the past.
But the act does not seem to see the differance between lawfull vistiors and people who have no right to be there . Ie someone climbing over a secure back garden or forcing their way in to secure back garden
But the act does not seem to see the differance between lawfull vistiors and people who have no right to be there . Ie someone climbing over a secure back garden or forcing their way in to secure back garden
Yeah, but a young boy getting his "ball back" is not meant to be there.
Yeah, but a young boy getting his "ball back" is not meant to be there.
If a lad does not know its wrong to go into other people property then he should not be out on his own, i have a 12 foot high secure fence all the way round my garden for my security and privicy and my dog cannot get out of the garden. A 12 foot fence to anyone should say not a public right of way. Also there is nothing stopping the lad walking round knocking on the door and asking for his ball back. Also my fencing was to keep my children safe in thier own garden and is no used by my grandchildren to keep them safe
I welcome it and the best bit for me is where it says if people feel threatened by a dog which is not under control then this will be covered in the Act.
Last year I met a man with a Rottweiller off the lead on a public footpath. It circled me around my legs several times having already come running up to me and was doing a low growl. I was frozen to the spot and dare not move but asked him to call the dog away. He refused and said it wouldn't hurt me but I was terrified. If I hadn't had a friend with me I honestly think I would have died of a heart attack.
I contacted the police when I got home and they went to see him and told him he should keep it under control in public places. People like him make me sick. All he had to do when he saw us approaching was slip it's lead on until we passed and this could all have been avoided.
The dangerous dogs act is stereotypical nonsense. It is not the breed of the dog that is the problem but the owner. What we need is restrictions placed on owners who have an out of control dog regardless of whether its a pitbull or a labrador.
If one of the 'yobs', as you say, gets seriously mauled by a dog, and it was something that was preventable by the owner, then yeah, that headline would come into play.
How would somebody coming onto your property be foreseen and preventable (unless you were expecting company or workman)? Should dogs be cooped up in the house and never let out into their own gardens in case somebody trespasses?
The law is an absolute disgrace. Kids are readily allowed to be out of control (often dangerously) in public and their own homes and nothing happens to them. >:(
Good. This will stop the loophole of dogs savaging children at home and their owners being exempt from prosecution.
It will not stop all attacks and that is a fact. Far too many people are still oblivious to how dogs and children should interact. I still see kids out walking dogs alone and people are still posting pictures and videos of their kids climbing and pulling on dogs. These idiotic legislations aren't going to stop those irresponsible parents.
I welcome it and the best bit for me is where it says if people feel threatened by a dog which is not under control then this will be covered in the Act.
Last year I met a man with a Rottweiller off the lead on a public footpath. It circled me around my legs several times having already come running up to me and was doing a low growl. I was frozen to the spot and dare not move but asked him to call the dog away. He refused and said it wouldn't hurt me but I was terrified. If I hadn't had a friend with me I honestly think I would have died of a heart attack.
I contacted the police when I got home and they went to see him and told him he should keep it under control in public places. People like him make me sick. All he had to do when he saw us approaching was slip it's lead on until we passed and this could all have been avoided.
That must have been awful I probably would have had a pretty severe panic attack if I was in that situation. I'm actually afraid of dogs and have been since I was 6. A rather nasty neighbour deliberately set his dog loose on top of me and it didn't attack me but it could have done. I never got over it and to this day I still panic when I hear dogs barking or see them running around off the lead. That guy with the Rottweiler should have had it on a lead and with a muzzle on. It does annoy me when dog owners let their dogs run loose in public places. They should keep them under control. Why don't they?
I welcome it and the best bit for me is where it says if people feel threatened by a dog which is not under control then this will be covered in the Act.
Last year I met a man with a Rottweiller off the lead on a public footpath. It circled me around my legs several times having already come running up to me and was doing a low growl. I was frozen to the spot and dare not move but asked him to call the dog away. He refused and said it wouldn't hurt me but I was terrified. If I hadn't had a friend with me I honestly think I would have died of a heart attack.
I contacted the police when I got home and they went to see him and told him he should keep it under control in public places. People like him make me sick. All he had to do when he saw us approaching was slip it's lead on until we passed and this could all have been avoided.
Here we go again. This is evidence that this ridiculous change in law is dangerous. It gives folk (who don't know about dogs) the power to report dogs that they think are dangerous. A growl does NOT automatically mean aggression! Lots of dogs will growl when they are happy, playing and excited. Did that dog try to bite you, lunge at you or try to pin you to the ground? Those things are more often associated with aggressive and dominant behaviour.
Educating the public about dogs is what is needed - not these archaic laws!
That must have been awful I probably would have had a pretty severe panic attack if I was in that situation. I'm actually afraid of dogs and have been since I was 6. A rather nasty neighbour deliberately set his dog loose on top of me and it didn't attack me but it could have done. I never got over it and to this day I still panic when I hear dogs barking or see them running around off the lead. That guy with the Rottweiler should have had it on a lead and with a muzzle on. It does annoy me when dog owners let their dogs run loose in public places. They should keep them under control. Why don't they?
People (like me) let their dogs off lead to give them proper exercise. A run off lead will drain a lot more energy than a walk on lead. Besides it's not much of a life for a dog always being in the house and always restrained while out in public. They need to burn off energy or else that pent up energy could be released through unwanted behaviours such as as destructiveness and biting. Not only that it's good for their physical health.
As for that Rottie. Why should it wear a muzzle. Doesn't sound like a dangerous dog to me.
Regarding panicking. You and everybody else who are afraid of dogs should get some help. Panicking around a dog can actually lead to a bite or an attack.
People (like me) let their dogs off lead to give them proper exercise. A run off lead will drain a lot more energy than a walk on lead. Besides it's not much of a life for a dog always being in the house and always restrained while out in public. They need to burn off energy or else that pent up energy could be released through unwanted behaviours such as as destructiveness and biting. Not only that it's good for their physical health.
As for that Rottie. Why should it wear a muzzle. Doesn't sound like a dangerous dog to me.
Regarding panicking. You and everybody else who are afraid of dogs should get some help. Panicking around a dog can actually lead to a bite or an attack.
Good grief. Please tell me I've just imagined the above post.
Why? It's the truth and your response just goes to show how little some people know about dogs.
We've been over this time and time again.
People should be able to go about their business in public without being harassed by other people's dirty, noisy, potentially dangerous animals. The obligation is not on the non-dog owner to have a degree in canine psychology in order to assess whether an animal is dangerous to them or not. The obligation is on the dog owner to keep their animal under control in a public place.
I'm not allowed to wander around in public carrying a shotgun. Why not eh? After all, I know I'm not a nutter out to kill individuals and anyone who knows about shooting knows that gun owners are law-abiding people. Why should other people's paranoia affect me?
People should be able to go about their business in public without being harassed by other people's dirty, noisy, potentially dangerous animals. The obligation is not on the non-dog owner to have a degree in canine psychology in order to assess whether an animal is dangerous to them or not. The obligation is on the dog owner to keep their animal under control in a public place.
I'm not allowed to wander around in public carrying a shotgun. Why not eh? After all, I know I'm not a nutter out to kill individuals and anyone who knows about shooting knows that gun owners are law-abiding people. Why should other people's paranoia affect me?
Dogs and guns are not even comparable! Saying that people shouldn't be educated about dogs is like saying they mustn't be made aware of things that would help keep them safe. I once heard a guy telling his daughter that a wagging tail means that a dog is friendly. That is not true and I told him that. He wasn't too happy, but I didn't care as he was giving his young daughter potentially dangerous advice. It is also quite arrogant to say that humans shouldn't be educated about dog behaviour
Oh and dogs aren't even half as dirty, noisy or dangerous as humans!
But the act does not seem to see the differance between lawfull vistiors and people who have no right to be there . Ie someone climbing over a secure back garden or forcing their way in to secure back garden
Each case is judged on merit, and has been since 1871. It protects people going into a persons garden, and a kid fetching a ball could be the same as a postman, or any other visitor. Dogs should not attack visitors in a garden. There are rules for guard dogs.
It will not stop all attacks and that is a fact. Far too many people are still oblivious to how dogs and children should interact. I still see kids out walking dogs alone and people are still posting pictures and videos of their kids climbing and pulling on dogs. These idiotic legislations aren't going to stop those irresponsible parents.
I still see plenty of people letting their dogs off leads in public, and the dogs running, and jumping up kids.
Each case is judged on merit, and has been since 1871. It protects people going into a persons garden, and a kid fetching a ball could be the same as a postman, or any other visitor. Dogs should not attack visitors in a garden. There are rules for guard dogs.
No it did not that is why the guard dog act was brought in , because of stupid people tresspasing on private property, and breaking in to secure places being guarded by guard dogs. No because a postman has a legal right to deliever mail to the letter box which in most cases in at the frontdoor. No one has the legal right to enter a sercure back garden by climbing over walls, fences, gates, or forcing a entry by any of these means without a court order. Also anyone has the right to let their own children or family out in their own private back garden without the fear of strangers having the right to enter there propery and not be committing a offence
I still see plenty of people letting their dogs off leads in public, and the dogs running, and jumping up kids.
My daughter got bitten by a rottweiler on her way home from school, of course this left her nervous around big dogs. We were on the beach a few weeks later when a massive rottweiler came bounding towards her, no surprise really that she panicked. Dogs weren't even supposed to be on the beach. The owner gave the usual standard response of he's harmless blah blah. I don't give a crap if you think your dog is harmIess, keep it under control so I don't have to worry about whether it's bloody harmless .
Gibson girl blathers on inanely about parents educating their kids about dogs and keeping them away. How about dog owners keep their big dogs on leads in public places where kids are likely to be about.
A dangerous dog should not be on the loose in a garden. Anyone can visit a house for all manner of reasons, and they should not be at risk of attack.
A front garden yes, but it's hard to think of a situation where it's reasonable for someone to enter a secure back-garden without the householder's consent and knowledge.
Comments
I think that the idea is to make people think twice about keeping dogs with children or at least being more cautious. Its future un-mauled children that are supposed to win.
This is not a big deal. It has always been an offence to be the keeper of a dog not kept under control on private premises. The Dangerous Dogs Act is coming into line with what has been in place since 1871.
This is what has been in use to deal with attacks on postmen, children or any other lawful visitors to peoples houses in the past.
But the act does not seem to see the differance between lawfull vistiors and people who have no right to be there . Ie someone climbing over a secure back garden or forcing their way in to secure back garden
Yeah, but a young boy getting his "ball back" is not meant to be there.
You try telling that to the boys in blue, the kids parents or the baying mob who want to put your windows through.
Last year I met a man with a Rottweiller off the lead on a public footpath. It circled me around my legs several times having already come running up to me and was doing a low growl. I was frozen to the spot and dare not move but asked him to call the dog away. He refused and said it wouldn't hurt me but I was terrified. If I hadn't had a friend with me I honestly think I would have died of a heart attack.
I contacted the police when I got home and they went to see him and told him he should keep it under control in public places. People like him make me sick. All he had to do when he saw us approaching was slip it's lead on until we passed and this could all have been avoided.
Scarily so!
How would somebody coming onto your property be foreseen and preventable (unless you were expecting company or workman)? Should dogs be cooped up in the house and never let out into their own gardens in case somebody trespasses?
The law is an absolute disgrace. Kids are readily allowed to be out of control (often dangerously) in public and their own homes and nothing happens to them. >:(
It will not stop all attacks and that is a fact. Far too many people are still oblivious to how dogs and children should interact. I still see kids out walking dogs alone and people are still posting pictures and videos of their kids climbing and pulling on dogs. These idiotic legislations aren't going to stop those irresponsible parents.
That must have been awful
Here we go again. This is evidence that this ridiculous change in law is dangerous. It gives folk (who don't know about dogs) the power to report dogs that they think are dangerous. A growl does NOT automatically mean aggression! Lots of dogs will growl when they are happy, playing and excited. Did that dog try to bite you, lunge at you or try to pin you to the ground? Those things are more often associated with aggressive and dominant behaviour.
Educating the public about dogs is what is needed - not these archaic laws!
People (like me) let their dogs off lead to give them proper exercise. A run off lead will drain a lot more energy than a walk on lead. Besides it's not much of a life for a dog always being in the house and always restrained while out in public. They need to burn off energy or else that pent up energy could be released through unwanted behaviours such as as destructiveness and biting. Not only that it's good for their physical health.
As for that Rottie. Why should it wear a muzzle. Doesn't sound like a dangerous dog to me.
Regarding panicking. You and everybody else who are afraid of dogs should get some help. Panicking around a dog can actually lead to a bite or an attack.
Why? It's the truth and your response just goes to show how little some people know about dogs.
We've been over this time and time again.
People should be able to go about their business in public without being harassed by other people's dirty, noisy, potentially dangerous animals. The obligation is not on the non-dog owner to have a degree in canine psychology in order to assess whether an animal is dangerous to them or not. The obligation is on the dog owner to keep their animal under control in a public place.
I'm not allowed to wander around in public carrying a shotgun. Why not eh? After all, I know I'm not a nutter out to kill individuals and anyone who knows about shooting knows that gun owners are law-abiding people. Why should other people's paranoia affect me?
Dogs and guns are not even comparable! Saying that people shouldn't be educated about dogs is like saying they mustn't be made aware of things that would help keep them safe. I once heard a guy telling his daughter that a wagging tail means that a dog is friendly. That is not true and I told him that. He wasn't too happy, but I didn't care as he was giving his young daughter potentially dangerous advice. It is also quite arrogant to say that humans shouldn't be educated about dog behaviour
Oh and dogs aren't even half as dirty, noisy or dangerous as humans!
Each case is judged on merit, and has been since 1871. It protects people going into a persons garden, and a kid fetching a ball could be the same as a postman, or any other visitor. Dogs should not attack visitors in a garden. There are rules for guard dogs.
I still see plenty of people letting their dogs off leads in public, and the dogs running, and jumping up kids.
A dangerous dog should not be on the loose in a garden. Anyone can visit a house for all manner of reasons, and they should not be at risk of attack.
No it did not that is why the guard dog act was brought in , because of stupid people tresspasing on private property, and breaking in to secure places being guarded by guard dogs. No because a postman has a legal right to deliever mail to the letter box which in most cases in at the frontdoor. No one has the legal right to enter a sercure back garden by climbing over walls, fences, gates, or forcing a entry by any of these means without a court order. Also anyone has the right to let their own children or family out in their own private back garden without the fear of strangers having the right to enter there propery and not be committing a offence
My daughter got bitten by a rottweiler on her way home from school, of course this left her nervous around big dogs. We were on the beach a few weeks later when a massive rottweiler came bounding towards her, no surprise really that she panicked. Dogs weren't even supposed to be on the beach. The owner gave the usual standard response of he's harmless blah blah. I don't give a crap if you think your dog is harmIess, keep it under control so I don't have to worry about whether it's bloody harmless .
Gibson girl blathers on inanely about parents educating their kids about dogs and keeping them away. How about dog owners keep their big dogs on leads in public places where kids are likely to be about.
A front garden yes, but it's hard to think of a situation where it's reasonable for someone to enter a secure back-garden without the householder's consent and knowledge.