My first thought was that many dogs will now be dumped at shelters or abandoned - the irresponsible dog owners wont conform to the rules thats for sure......

i can't see this working at all, homeless people have dogs, how are they going to register chips let alone insurance.

pensioners, sometimes their only company is a dog, an excuse to go out, somebody to talk to etc. i know my mum would be lost without her dogs.

sorry i think it was another slow news day and they decided to dig this up.

Oh my god... those poor people and the wee boy Rhys must have been in absolute agony! Those Rotties and Staffies have such massively wide mouths and one day when my son was playing a football, a Staffie suddenly appeared, snatched the football and held it in his huge mouth until it punctured!

Do you have a problem with dog owners? Clearly I am guessing.

What about forcing owners of dogs with young children to take sensible measures NOT to allow them to be alone with the dog?

The majority of dogs do not attack unless they feel threatened in some way.

An example:
I belong to a dog forum, where a woman came on and said her 14 week old puppy had attacked her 5 year old son so badly he needed hospital treatment, the pup was returned to the breeder.

As luck would have it, a close friend of mine latterly became the new owner of this dog.

The facts
The child has been tormenting the life out of this puppy - the mother went upstairs, puppy in crate, child loose - the child CONTINUED to torment this puppy and then opened the crate - the puppy, by it's very nature nippy, jumped at the boy and caught it.

I am NOT undermining some of the terrible attacks that have happened on children and adults, there are some dogs who CLEARLY show a tendency towards aggression, and they should be dealt with.

A dog doesn't have the ability to think - oh, mum's left a baby on the table and gone to sleep, we are going to kill it.

They more likely thought, as my own dgs often do, that's not normally there, maybe it's a bone or something tasty to eat, because that's the way their minds work - if the owners don't have the intelligence to understand such basic things, they shouldn't own a dog.

I am all for an enforceable law against irresponsible owners who outwardly encourage aggressive behaviour - and actually enforcing the DDA laws that prevent the breeding or certain breeds.

Once again, it's a knee jerk reaction to a problem caused by a bad minority that will penalise the good majority while the idiots continue to get away with everything and will be completely unphased by new laws.

Worse dog attack on a child I ever witnessed - child sitting at table drawing a picture and it looked like the dog attacked with no warning. Dog was PTS and after it had died a pencil was found wedged in it's ear canal - later child admitted he had pushed the pencil into the dogs ear and it was not the first time he had tried it !

Most dogs when they attack do have a reason to do so - we encroach into our dogs space or the dog believes it is under threat. Or even the dog has been trained to attack. But at heart it is owners to blame not the dogs IMO.

But penalising the responsible owners is crazy unless this is just a money raising scheme ?

we had to stop giving our Staffie footballs to play with as she always punctured them she plays with a basketball occasionally much harder to puncture

Thanks sue - that is what I thought, already covered in health insurance, and even if bought separately likely to be very cheap.

If you can't afford to chip your dog or pay £20 for third party insurance, you probably shouldn't have a dog, you will never be able to afford the vet bills.

So I am not sure what the fuss is about - other than it seems pointless making it a legal requirement because it will be hard to police.

Some house insurance policies also give third party cover for dogs.
Mine used to when I insured with Halifax, when I changed my house insurance and the new policy didn't cover it I joined Dogs Trust to keep them covered as I don't insure for vets bills.
Mind you legally dogs must already wear a collar with an address tag.
Many don't.
If this existing law isn't enforced what is the point in bringing in a new law to be ignored?
You can bet the government will have an angle to make money and create non-jobs from this, if it comes in, even if the responsible owners have insurance and chips, e.g insisting on also registering with a government agency and paying for inspectors to chase up those who haven't paid or complied.

I think I read somewhere that most people who use the phrase 'I think I read somewhere that ...' have just made it up.

Anyway, I have no objection to having my dogs insured and microchipped because I do it anyway. But it's not the answer to vicious dogs owned by morons. I'd have thought the aim should be to stop people being attacked, not to trace the dogs owner and claim compensation after the event.

Banning certain breeds won't stop the problem - the idiots who think having an out of control attack dog makes them look hard and respected will find other breeds to mistreat until they go rogue.

I can't think of anything that would have a chance of working other than owner training classes and stiff fines for not attending and failure to control a dog properly.

I have just read the link you have provided and found it heavily biased, with no real information to say where all these horrific statistics are obtained, other than the tabloid press. The link at the bottom takes you to an American Copyright document, and no information about the so-called facts. And indeed at the bottom it says "...tell as many people as possible about this problem, pointing them to this page if you wish...." in the typical scaremongering 'promote this' style that is common these days. I am not saying the article is incorrect - I don't know - just that it is biased and scaremongering, especially with all the pictures of maimed people, and snarling pit bull types.

I do believe that attacks could be prevented by proper education of the owner, and the realisation that the family pet, does have a inner wild instinct, that can be triggered even if mostly surpressed. However, to the average person on the street, what they see is simply a 'cute' member of the family and nothing more. I have seen some dogs being clambered over and having tails pulled by young kids, or over enthusiastic, heavy patting on the head or sides, by older owners... and I'm thinking - why isn't anyone stopping it? Why don't people think heavy patting might not be as gratefully received as praise, as first thought...I'm not sure, but to my mind, animals rarely 'pat' each other, firmly, to indicate affection.

I have been attacked twice on 2 seperate occassions by dogs. One was by a friend's Boxer, who in my school years, I had leaned over it's back without warning it, and embraced him gently, on both sides of his shoulders, startling him and understandably and fully within his rights, it spun round and nipped me in the nose, and bolted away. The instant result was that my friend instantly panicked and screamed angrily at the dog and her parents wanted to have him put down immediately. As I staunched the blood flow, I begged them not to and desperately explained my mistake. It must have felt like a predetor attack to him. A genuinely stupid and ridiculous mistake on my part. The dog was cowering in the corner having been shouted at, and knew all was not well. Thank God the family listened to me. It was my fault and I never once blamed the dog. In fact I live with the guilt that I might have caused his destruction, because I took his knowing me as complacency to anything thrown at him.

The other time was when two abused American Pit Bull cross Mastiffs, were loose in the neighbourhood. The dogs had already previously attacked a child badly, and were being looked for by the police, when they attacked me on a New Years Day morning at 5am. They came from nowhere, as I was getting in my car, and all I remember of their sudden appearance, is a rush of dog claws. As I stepped one leg into the car, the other foot slipped on a wet leaf, and my arms flayed in the air. Next thing I knew was the claws on concrete and the two of them snapping at my clothes, and trying to pull me down. I didn't yell, or fight violently, I just made to move very slowly, and fight against being yanked down by letting my coat be pulled from my shoulders and arms, and trying not to let the twisting shaking become to violent. They let go...they were not in full attack and half of me wonders if I had startled them with my sudden jerking arms as I slipped. I slowly inched to my garden gate, and all I could hear was them following close and growling so low. I didn't look back, just walked slow, and tried to take short easy breaths...I was lucky it was all so mechanical to think conciously. The only mistake I made was to reach down and close my garden gate a little quickly, as I stepped through, and as I felt the gate slam from my hand I lunged for my porch got in and shut the door, hammering frantically on my front door to be let in. The police took my ripped clothes for evidence, and samples of the spit on the wooden porch, and the dogs were shot, later that afternoon, after attacking an older lady badly. I was lucky I only had a couple of superficial scratches and a coat and sweater and jodphurs to replace. The owner was banned from keeping dogs for life, and prosecuted for cruelty and neglect. Does this mean that those dogs, with proper control and guidance would have been the same...in my mind no. Training would have supressed the instinct to defend or attack to a degree. Would the insurance and chipping and tests, all have made the blindest bit of difference to the owner? Absolutely not.

This new policy, if allowed to go through, will cause more harm than good, and is ridiculously impossible to police. My friend with a 15year old Border Collie, said "no one is messing with my dog at his age". The dog barely leaves the house now for more than an hour for 3 walks, and simply waddles along slowly and contentedly, on the end of his leash. She herself is also on benefits, and is ill, and can never afford anything but essentials...where would she find the insurance money...simple answer is she won't. She will simply hope to never get caught.

While I agree with chipping as a whole means of reuniting owners and lost pets, and general info purposes, what happens if the pet is sold, and sold, and the chip details are not changed by the new owners? What use are they then? Also, rather like the microchipping and passporting of horses - it is for most, seen as a waste of time. My chipped and later stolen, elderly pony was never found, even though I will forever search for her and the people I know stole her 5 years ago, she is realistically no longer alive - she would be 36 now. At euthanasia, and of acceptance of her carcass to be disposed of, any person was meant to make a scan of her number, and record the chip number and pass it back to the passport people. The passport people (I check weekly since she was stolen) have no record of her destruction, burial or cremation, or removal for meat purposes. The chip was a complete waste. I wish they would have had tracker chips that could have been acivated once the carrier was missing or reported stolen.

Anyway - back on topic - with the amounts of attacks from dogs as a whole...the Government have to be seen to be doing something.

So tell me... how would you, REALISTICALLY tackle the issue, if you were told as a country representative, to come up with a feasible solution to appease the residents?

Just musing now - but I wonder if more checks on breeding would be a better idea, good breeders would not mind surely and the BYB and dog farms may be slowed or even stopped. Less dogs in rescue could also be a result ?

Checks on breeding for what exactly?

An increasing number of breeders are signing up for the KC's Accredited breeder scheme - this means we can be visited at any time - the number of advisors and breed specialists is increasing by the week.

The majority of good breeders will request that new owners contact them if rehoming is required - under the AB scheme we are obligated to - if still quite young, many breeders will take the dogs back and keep / rehome themselves, if older, they will help / often find the new home.

Unfortunately, we can't force new owners to do this if they decide not to - but from my knowledge of dogs ending up in rescue, it tends to be (not always I appreciate) those dogs from BYB and Puppy Farms that end up there

Well some sort of rules on who can breed and how those dogs are homed was my first thought. Having seen a neighbour get a staffie cross and because it was a lovely dog (her opinion) she bred her with another staffie and then couldn't find homes for half of them so they went straight to the RSPCA. Anything to stop things like that would have to be good. Also she advertised in local shop free to good home but never even got the name of one person ! Again things like that need to be stopped.

As I said good breeders would surely welcome anything to stop BYB and dog farmers ?

Did I say we didn't? As mentioned above, for many pedigree breeders the way forward will be the ABS in some shape or form.

Unfortunately, anything that gets talked about in relation to breeding usually involves large sums of money to cover registration etc. and will be a step too far for many responsible hobby breeders

In my own breed, you are already looking at forking out in the region of £1,500 before you have sight of a puppy (parents hipscored, elbow scored, annual eye certificates, DNA tests, stud fees, vets fees, food etc). After the pups are born you have higher bills for heating, washing etc, food, vets bills, worming, registration, microchipping etc etc

I wouldn't change it for anything though - BUT

If we end up having additional costs slapped on us, it will ultimately be that only the puppy farmers (who remember are already licensed and technically should be subject to visits from their local authorities on a regular basis) and commercial breeders and a handful of possibly financially better off hobby breeders who would be able to continue breeding.

The evidence shows the demand for puppies has continued to grow despite the recession - my own mailbox is testament to that and I am just a small fish in a very big pond - I've tried to direct a number of these prospective owners to rescue, some because I don't feel a puppy would suit their lifestyle, and others because there have simply not been the pups on the ground to meet requirements.

Part of the problem however is we do seem to live in a "I want it now" society - those approaching people like me for a pup often have to wait a year ++ with no guarantees - science doesn't allow us to dictate in terms of colour or gender.

If more costs are slapped on us, it is invariably going to be the very people we want to stop who will meet this gap in demand

How could you stop your neighbour breeding from the dog though molliepops? Who is going to police that?

The rescue society I worked for used to follow up every kitten at 5 months old to 'remind' the owner they had agreed to neuter the animal. But they had no way of forcing them to do so. Similarly if you buy a pedigree kitten as a pet it is on the non-active register and you agree not to breed from them. But how could you actually enforce it? You have to rely on goodwill and good sense, and unfortunately that is often in short supply.

You can't - we have the same with dogs - all my pups leave here with breeding endorsements which I will lift free of charge providing certain health tests are carried out with results inside pre-specified margins.

This does stop people being able to register their pups with the KC, but it certainly doesn't stop them producing unregistered pups

Yes exactly, you can't enforce it, you have to trust people and unfortunately if they abuse that trust there is very little that can be done about it, and I don't see any 'law' be able to improve matters.

So breeders cannot/will not do more, owners cannot/will not do more so where does that leave us

There isn't any easy answer. There will always be irresponsible people around, good breeders and rescue societies can only do their best to educate owners to do the best for their pets. If people won't listen, animals end up suffering.

What do you suggest breeders do?

Personally, I think there IS something (quite a few things actually) owners can do - for example,

Get educated about a breed before they buy any dog,

Ensure they buy responsibly NOT from BYB or puppy farmers

Ensure the parents of their pups have the recommended health tests for that breed, and are bred for temperament, health and type.

And ensure that they trust their breeder sufficiently to return to them in the event of difficulties without recrimination.

NOT think their bitch wants to be a mummy - when the bitch actually has NO concept of being a 'mummy' until the pups are here, and even then they can reject them (or die in labour) - these are facts so many owners simply do not understand.

also, understand that sometimes when a breeder tells them they don't think a pup will suit their lifestyle - to give consideration to getting an older rescue dog rather than simply try another breeder where they don't give the whole facts on their lifestyle.

==========================

This might not stop all dog attacks - bit it would REDUCE the number of puppy farmers - no quicker way to halt a business than not buying from them - this in turn will (longer term) reduce the number of dogs in rescue - and hopefully by only buying from responsible breeders, the risk of attacks would - by default - diminish.

Obviously it's something you are careful abobut Sue51, but not all breeders are as concerned as you about the suitablility of their breed for that prospective owner and lifestyle.

Some KC breeders can be more concered about what virtually amounts to "puppy farming" in terms of producing as many puppies as possible, albeit possibly with helth checks etc, to try to get that elusive champion, hence bitches and studs sold on "breeding terms".

KC breeders have also been known to sell the produce of accidental matings when their management regieme has failed.

Conversely some careful responsibly hobby breeders produce very good litters and are very careful who they go to.

I don't mean to attack the responsible breeders, I'm just saying it's not always as simple as just going with the KC, even the accredited breeder scheme.

It is all these variables that make effective control so difficult, trying to weed out the different varieties of wheat from the different varieties of chaff

It is also not impossible that thefts might increase if these thugs couldn't get their dogs otherwise and then they can bring the stolen dog up to behave in the same way as the dogs they now get
Last edited by Tass : 12-03-2010 at 14:02

And you are another stupid tabloid reader.

In fact i'd even say the tabloids produce more sophisticated levels of ignorant hysteria than that website.

A dog hater has simply stuck a load of their opinions down for the world to see. Why do you think that that has any credibility at all?

Possibly regulations about who can breed etc as at the moment even our rather damaged dogs (if they were not neutered) could produce pups and we could sell them with absolutely no checks at all.

But that's not an action that responsible breeders can take - because they already do the 'responsible thing'.

Who would police and enforce this law? we can't keep multiple murderers in prison for life, or keep track of released paedophiles, so where on earth will the resource come from to stop irresponsible breeding?

What about, as per my comments above, people stopped buying these puppies from broken parents - that would quickly stop people in their tracks left with a whole litter of 12 week old pups (or in the case of the puppy farmers - MANY litters of pups).

I don't understand why you can't see the logic in that?

Laws won't stop irresponsible breeding - because as we know, people flout laws - the people who will undoubtedly suffer are the small hobby breeders, those that already do things responsibly.

We live in a 24/7 materialistic society where many people decide what they want and want it NOW.

Puppies can't be produced to order, people may have to wait 12 months plus for one from me - a lot of people simply don't want to wait - and often end up buying 'bargain basement pups' - when there is no such thing as a bargain puppy - my friends has cost around £20K in vets bills to date

The puppy buying public have the ability to stop these people in their tracks by doing their homework and not buying the puppies.

Sorry if this has been stated before but all this will do is all the responsible owners will have their dogs chipped and all the ones with "dangerous" dogs won't. What will they do have police with the scanners roaming the streets - they barely have the man power now. And if they leave it to us are we honestly going to go up to a guy who looks like they would kick a nun and ask if they have had their dog chipped.

Its not going to work.