thinking its now time to get super tough on dog ownership?

[adam7485]

after what has happened in wales to that poor little boy i can't help thinking its time to not jus bring back dog licences but before you buy a dog you should have to take an exam to prove that you can look after it properly. not only that but if your dog attacks someone not only should it be taken away from you but from that moment on your banned from ever owning dogs. anyone agree with me?

Yes dogs can bite as a reaction, which is part of what makes them dangerous. A dog bite is not an accident in any sense. It may be defensive, but that is also a problem, isn't it?

@rrhuth

There needs to be better education on how to read dog body language, and to teach children not to pull ears, climb on dogs etc.

When women get raped it is their fault, when children get killed by dogs it is their fault...

Always blame the victims. This is why I lose respect for a lot of dog people, even when dogs kill they blame the children.

I can't even.... Do you honestly, really think that if a child pulls a dogs tail, sits on it, pulls its ears, and the dog reacts by snapping, that the child is not in any way to blame?

And no I'm not talking about this poor boy, nobody knows what happened and its entirely possible the dog turned without warning. But if you're sitting there with the child and the dog and right in front of your eyes the child is mistreating the dog... Well no actually maybe you're right - it's your fault if the child gets hurt because you should be preventing it and that's why you dont ever leave children and dogs alone together.

Really?

I don't see anything much in anything proposed on this thread or elsewhere that would have prevented the recent death or similar events.

People die in cars in every day because they refuse to drive properly - quite a lot of accidents seem to be caused by people with no licence - and that's in an area which we theoretically regulate quite tightly.

Like all populist knee-jerk reactions it's founded on a misapprehension of the actual problem. The main issue as with almost everything in the UK is that there is plenty of legislation already in force that covers these things, but very little day-to-day enforcement. This leads to calls for draconian bans on things as if that will suddenly change behaviour. In fact, the law abiding and responsible will do as they told as they always do, and everyone else who doesn't give a fuck will carry on as they were, with no-one to stop them.

What does the blame serve? the owner or the victim of an attack? The dog has not committed a crime, but the owner has in failing to control their animal.

I don't see why this distinction matters. Dogs can be dangerous. To acknowledge that is not wrong, and its fair to regulate them if owners will not. It seems a problem. Blaming children for being immature and provoking dogs is suggesting that they are on a par.

I think it would help if they extended the ban on certain breeds (eg US pit bulls) to include ALL bull breeds and bull crosses, so people can’t pass banned breeds off as staffie crosses. Or accidentally buy/adopt a banned breed thinking it’s a staffie or staff cross.

Also a rule stating all dogs on leads in public parks and places, public footpaths, and fines for having them off lead. More dog parks and secure dog fields people can cheaply go to for off lead time. That would put many people off owning a dog.

Dog licence and mandatory training .
Too many dogs out of control where I live, off lead, no recall and ineffectual owners.

I honestly cannot see the point of re-introducing dog licences.

When licences existed, lots of people didn't bother getting one, the cost of a licence was set too low to cover the cost of administering the system and in the end it was decided that it was pointless.

Bringing licences back is rather like the microchip law that was introduced a few years ago. It sounds like a good idea but a lot of people ignore it and there is absolutely no one enforcing it; so what's the point.

Unless, the licence cost a lost of money, which would mean only the better off could afford one, and the licences could be randomly checked by enforcement officers at any time you were out with your dog, which is never going to happen, the whole thing would be pointless.

Thankfully, instances like the ghastly death of that poor child in Wales
are rare but the sort of dog owner who keeps a dog that is so completely out of control are not the type of person to go out and buy a dog licence.

In the same way that only responsible dog owners get their dogs chipped, only responsible owners would buy dog licences.

@FateHasRedesignedMost

I think it would help if they extended the ban on certain breeds (eg US pit bulls) to include ALL bull breeds and bull crosses, so people can’t pass banned breeds off as staffie crosses. Or accidentally buy/adopt a banned breed thinking it’s a staffie or staff cross.

Also a rule stating all dogs on leads in public parks and places, public footpaths, and fines for having them off lead. More dog parks and secure dog fields people can cheaply go to for off lead time. That would put many people off owning a dog.

That would put many people off owning a dog.

I'm sure that is true - but only people who are interested in abiding by any laws/rules.

So will not address the problem of gits who don't care.

at the idiots attempting to derail by comparing dogs attacking and killing children with cats in gardens.

@pigsDOfly
I totally agree about the re-introduction of dog licences being pointless. Unless it’s monitored initially and then periodically it serves no purpose. As I said in pp, my mum bought a dog licence at the Post Office, no one ever looked at our dog and had no idea what sort of dog we had.

I think dog breeders need to be more pro active in vetting potential dog owners and similarly dog breeders need to be vetted by a professional body.

Perhaps dog owners should be required by law to attend dog training classes and if people are true dog lovers then they would be only too happy to attend.

Looks like in this case they had only had the dog two weeks abs it was known to be aggressive.

I am all for dogs being on a short lead at all times in public. If you want a dog get a garden. I can’t see why we should all put up with the consequences of your choices.

Far more children are hurt by their parents every single day than those hurt by dogs. Do you suggest we bring in exams and licenses before people are allowed to become parents?

Utter piffle (although there have been calls for natural parenthood - for want of a better phrase - to have the same checks as adoption)

Licences, microchipping and 3rd party insurance should be the minimum requirement with a small reduction on the licence fee for having pet health insurance and / or attending dog ownership and training courses. These could be offered by the kennel club, breed specific associations and the RSPCA.

Policing of this? The licence fee could fund something like the old dog patrols, higher fines for not picking up after your dog would also add funding to dog wardens (who could check microchips & insurance the eay the police can check insurance & mot on cars)

And yes, as with guns and so on, the criminals would ignore it, but the vast majority of owners would comply. Societal pressure in not accepting rowdy dogs etc would also play a part. If it's going to go on your record more people would comply.

Then tackle unlicensed puppy farms etc. Rehoming a fog should come with transfer paperwork as with selling a house or car. It's not impossible.

Added powers for the RSPCA not to just tackle the low-hanging fruit would help.

Responsible dog owners shouldn't find any of this too onerous, surely?

[quote Nannewnannew]@pigsDOfly
I totally agree about the re-introduction of dog licences being pointless. Unless it’s monitored initially and then periodically it serves no purpose. As I said in pp, my mum bought a dog licence at the Post Office, no one ever looked at our dog and had no idea what sort of dog we had.

I think dog breeders need to be more pro active in vetting potential dog owners and similarly dog breeders need to be vetted by a professional body.

Perhaps dog owners should be required by law to attend dog training classes and if people are true dog lovers then they would be only too happy to attend.[/quote]
Perhaps dog owners should be required by law to attend dog training classes and if people are true dog lovers then they would be only too happy to attend.

indeed - and irresponsible owners wouldn't bother - so nothing would change.

Also a rule stating all dogs on leads in public parks and places, public footpaths, and fines for having them off lead. More dog parks and secure dog fields people can cheaply go to for off lead time. That would put many people off owning a dog.

As previously mentioned you would only deter law abiding people. I'm all for action which encourages/forces dog owners to be more responsible but you seem to want to deter people from owning dogs at all. None of your suggestions would prevent fatal dog attacks.

Perhaps dog owners should be required by law to attend dog training classes and if people are true dog lovers then they would be only too happy to attend.

Responsible dog lovers will do it without being legally required to but I agree dog owners should be required to undergo some sort of training.

The problem as ever is enforcement. You could ban dogs altogether and people would still find out of the way places to breed them and sell them for fighting.

@Wexone while it may be true that a terrier is capable of killing a baby, a large (bull breed) dog is responsible for almost all dog attacks.

hi. i posted this in the early hours so only now just come back to mn to check notifications. here is how it would or should work. you apply for the licence. you attend dog awareness training courses. if licence then is approved after you undertake the exam you are issued with paperwork which is proof that you are a legit dog owner. regular spotchecks at which point you have to show your documents for the dog and would be a legal requirement to do so or face prosecution. at the end of the day you don't let just anyone get behind the wheel of a car without proving they have taken tests and proving your a safe driver not that that seems to count for much these days(so why dog ownership shouldn't be any different is beyond me). selling on gumtree absolutely shouldn't happen and they should take a leaf from facebook who i believe have banned such advertising.

@adam7485 but who is going to police this?

As previously mentioned you would only deter law abiding people. I'm all for action which encourages/forces dog owners to be more responsible but you seem to want to deter people from owning dogs at all. None of your suggestions would prevent fatal dog attacks.

It would put people off getting a dog on a whim, if they had to have a licence and keep it on a lead in all public places, pay for entry to dog parks and fields. So would heavy fines, potential of a criminal record and seizure of dogs not on leads (or dogs resembling banned breeds). Responsible people would abide by the laws. Less responsible people would think twice about getting a dog, all the extra hassle and expense, not being able to let it off for a run while you wait for the school gate to open.

Our primary school recently banned dogs coming into the playground at drop off and pick up. Uproar on the school FB group! Yet school had warned several times dogs must be on short leads on school premises, parents with dogs must wait behind a line rather than let the dog go sniffing and jumping at the kids or tripping people up. Many parents ignored the rules so the school got tougher and banned them altogether.

I’d like to see a similar tightening of rules and consequences. It can work. Few people fail to pick up after their dogs now because they don’t want to pay the fine. Everyone has camera phones. People abiding by an on-lead rule would be quick to report those not abiding by it. Maybe we need the equivalent of traffic wardens!

I agree with dog licences and to a degree some compulsory dog training and socialisation, an exam is too much. I also think certain dangerous and controversial dog breeds should be phased out and banned altogether. I know there will be many people with staffies or pit bulls that will claim they are the softest and most loving pooches but let’s be realistic other dogs may bite but a poodle has never mauled a child to death!

I'm a very responsible dog owner and I'd be all for licenses.

I thought that generally if your dog attacked someone and caused serious harm you tend to be banned from owning animals as a result already.

The real problem is that it would be impossible to police so there would always remain backstreet breeders selling to unlicensed buyers.

@Boood

at the idiots attempting to derail by comparing dogs attacking and killing children with cats in gardens.

Good job no one is doing that.

The thread has gone into talking about dogs being off lead, bothering other people being in public near children.

Infact no suggestion here is likely to stop a dog killing. Since most of these incidents occur on private property and/or many of the owners are already breaking the laws in place, such as having a banned breed.

If people want dogs, kept on leads at a times, never sharing the same space as children or anyone, not allowed in parks and being a general nuisance, then the same should apply to cats. It's not really difficult to see how both pets can be a nuisance to people, without being dangerous. Most dogs people on here are complaining about are being allowed to be annoying, by their owners. Not dangerous.

So no one is comparing dogs killing a child to a cat in the garden. It's comparing annoying behaviour from pets. Even though cat shit is quite dangerous.

@FateHasRedesignedMost

As previously mentioned you would only deter law abiding people. I'm all for action which encourages/forces dog owners to be more responsible but you seem to want to deter people from owning dogs at all. None of your suggestions would prevent fatal dog attacks.

It would put people off getting a dog on a whim, if they had to have a licence and keep it on a lead in all public places, pay for entry to dog parks and fields. So would heavy fines, potential of a criminal record and seizure of dogs not on leads (or dogs resembling banned breeds). Responsible people would abide by the laws. Less responsible people would think twice about getting a dog, all the extra hassle and expense, not being able to let it off for a run while you wait for the school gate to open.

Our primary school recently banned dogs coming into the playground at drop off and pick up. Uproar on the school FB group! Yet school had warned several times dogs must be on short leads on school premises, parents with dogs must wait behind a line rather than let the dog go sniffing and jumping at the kids or tripping people up. Many parents ignored the rules so the school got tougher and banned them altogether.

I’d like to see a similar tightening of rules and consequences. It can work. Few people fail to pick up after their dogs now because they don’t want to pay the fine. Everyone has camera phones. People abiding by an on-lead rule would be quick to report those not abiding by it. Maybe we need the equivalent of traffic wardens!

Few people fail to pick up after their dogs now because they don't want to pay the fine. Everyone has camera phones. People abiding by the on-lead rule would be quick to report those not abiding by it.

Really?

Where on earth do you live that there is evidence that 'few people fail to pick up after their dogs'?

Everywhere you walk there is firm evidence to the contrary.

All the time I'm walking my dog I'm watching out that neither of us is treading in the leavings of other dogs. It's everywhere.

I pick up my dog's poo because it's disgusting to leave it on the ground for other to tread in or take home on the wheels of their prams or mobility scooters, not because the law tells me to.

I suspect the number of fines being imposed for fouling are miniscule
compared to the number of people who don't pick up after their dogs.

And as for taking photos and reporting, no one is going to stand around allowing someone on take a photo on their phone that is good enough to identify them as someone whose dog has fouled or is off lead.

Judging by the reaction I've had from several people in the past when I've politely asked them to call their dog, or dogs, off when they were leaping all over me or my dog, I suspect people attempting to take photos of such people could find themselves in one or two nasty situations; a smashed phone at the very least.

This has made me so upset and angry.

I’m a massive dog lover, as is my son who is the same age as the poor boy who was killed.

The thought of his friend having to watch helplessly as his dog killed his friend is just devastating.

So many lives ruined over some fuckwit’s idea to take on a powerful dog who’s already been through at least one other home in its short life and allow it to be unsupervised with children