To wonder when the UK government plan to revisit the dangerous dogs act?

[EbbyEbs]

Woman killed by American Bulldogs.

This is just another victim to add to the list of dog fatalities in recent years - yet another American Bulldog.

Britain must have one of the most pathetic dog regulations in the world - only 3 breeds in the list and two of those breeds most people have never heard of.

When will the government do something?? How many more people need to die?

And it’s not just about banning breeds - they need to tighten up the laws in owning dogs in the first place.

Many states in America have tight regulations around many breeds common in the UK including Shar Pei, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Dobermann and even German shepherds.

AIBU to think Britain needs to wake up to the dangers of irresponsible dog ownership?

They need to review dog ownership and regulations altogether. There must be stronger regulations about dogs being on leads, stronger fines and enforcement for dog owners allowing dogs to soil public places. We need greater enforcement about dogs left to bark for hours in homes and gardens. There needs to be compulsory licensing of dogs and the money collected used to employ dog wardens.

This. My neighbours small dog is terribly territorial and is left in the garden a lot, where it barks continually every time anyone walks past the fences (all the time since they border the footpath). We have basically no recourse to make them do anything.

There are noise nuisance laws in place for just this purpose.

Its not banning, its saying that Dog ownership should be regulated, there are 1000s of people hospitalised by dog bites, several are killed each year, licencing and training will reduce this, why are you for dogs biting people?

Once persons "joy or fun" is another persons nightmare.

Why should your rights (or mine, i ve a GSP) over ride everyone else's?

There are noise nuisance laws in place for just this purpose

Ha ha! Councils do nothing, they've not the resources & get in a dispute with a neighbour and should you move, it has to be disclosed, affecting sales.

Dog ownership is already regulated. There is legislation in place to manage dangerous dogs. It's not perfect, but then neither is our road safety enforcement. The number of deaths caused by dogs each year is ridiculously small when considered on a population level. The intervention that you are suggesting is highly intrusive and would require a great deal of time and money to implement.

If a child in my family had scratch marks like this and the parents were not protecting them, I would ring SS.

I've found them effective enough when I've needed to make a complaint.

It shouldn't be a matter of banning dogs, all dogs should be banned unless specifically approved, dog license should be required and you should have to pass a test to get one. And an additional test to own more than one dog. Every dog should be registered to an owner and any injuries or killings committed by the dog should be treated as if they were committed by the owner

Totally agree - with the same applying to dog walkers as well (who should not be allowed to walk as many as four dogs at a time). And keep them (the dogs, not the owners) out of shops (except pet shops, obviously)!

However, I don't think it would be particularly enforceable. That said, it might reduce dog ownership in the lazy careless owner category where they don't see the need to keep their dogs under control. But the criminals who keep dangerous dogs and don't care if they kill or injure someone will carry on. But it would probably reduce the lower level incidents, which must place their own strain on the NHS.

The number of deaths caused by dogs each year is ridiculously small when considered on a population level. The intervention that you are suggesting is highly intrusive and would require a great deal of time and money to implement

I agree and I also agree that road safety enforcement leaves a lot to be desired. But as a pp said, we need roads and vehicles. Nobody needs a dog except those who rely on a guide dog or working dog like on a farm. So the regime needs to be much stricter. It's also not about deaths, there are lots of injuries, both direct (biting) and indirect (knocked off bike) too.

That's wrong. Ours were always out, as were 90% of dogs around, and they never just continuosly barked. I think it's a lot about lack of stimulation and comes back to my post earlier that people get dogs into unsuitable conditions.

What do you think SS will do?

A lot of people don't need as many cars as they have, or don't need to do as much driving as they do.

Dogs are an important (sometimes only) source of companionship for many people, and this is a basic human need. They also force/encourage many people to exercise daily which has huge benefits for the NHS.

Doubtless, though back issues might also improve if many dog owners bent over and picked up their poo.

..and exceptions can be made, i certainly wouldn't want the blind to have to pay for a Dog licence.

Car drivers pay insurance and have to have a licence, insurance is based on risk & cost, both to yourself and others, drive a C1 = cheap, drive a bmw M3 and pay a lot.

I agree with this so much. I'm at a point now where I just won't go to our local country park with just me and DS. I only go with another adult - which is daft really, because if one of the countless badly behaved off-lead bull breeds that frequents the park goes for DS then an extra person isn't going to be able to do much either.

I really wouldn't mind betting that several of the huge bull breeds I see there would be classed as a pitbull type/banned breed if reported.

I don't see how dog licences would change anything. It's the law to have dogs microchipped but my local Facebook page is full of found dogs taken to vets that aren't chipped.

It would penalise good dog owners who are probably already responsible and others would just ignore it.

Look how many people are driving without a valid licence?

I honestly do see how a licence will make any difference either.
I do think owners should be held criminally responsible for any damage or injuries their dog causes.

If people know they are likely to end up in prison because their dog has hurt someone. It will make them pay attention to the dogs behaviour and decide if the dog should be kept or not.

Previous owners and breaders should be held for a year after the dog is sold. Which then stops people just moving the problem dog on. And discourage breakers from breading from aggressive dogs.

It's not that long ago someone was killed by a dog they'd only had a week. The previous owner must have known it was aggressive and moved the problem on without truly open about behaviour.

To answer the question, if migrants crossing the Channel brought dangerous dogs with them, the law would be revisited very quickly.

Otherwise I don't see it happening.

if migrants crossing the Channel brought dangerous dogs with them, the law would be revisited very quickly

I doubt it, balalake; it would probably be claimed tthey were assistance dogs for emotional support

@MaybeIWillFuckOffThen Your constant comparison of dogs and guns is absolutely ridiculous. Dogs are not weapons and are not bred to kill, injure, or maim. They are not warfare. Dogs are companions, which guns are not. They do jobs like helping the disabled and keeping flocks of sheep together, which guns do not. They are living creatures, which guns are not.

My 6-month-old Sheltie puppy is not a weapon. He is trained and has excellent recall. He is great with children, having been brought up in a house with a toddler. He is far more likely to be injured by a human than he is to injure a human. This is the case for the vast majority of dogs.

You may not like dogs (which is obvious), but they are born into this world and as a human, you need to get used to it and get over it.

...a true killing machine!

There are four breeds on the dangerous dog act not three. Your argument may have had some value if you’d got your facts right first

Pit Bull Terrier
Japanese Tosa
Dogo Argentino
Fila Brasileiro

Awwww he's beautiful. Shelties were on our 'list'. Probably top of DH's list but we couldn't find a local breeder.

😂😂 people on here are hilarious! So much anger!

I made a mistake everyone, there are 4 breeds on the list, not 3. This information does not change the point of my post whatsoever but @SurpriseSurprise wants to make it clear that I got my facts wrong. Take me outside and shoot me immediately 🤣

(no such breed as a pit bull terrier but hey ho!)

But it isn't really personal preference. It's about dogs that can do a lot of damage. A pug may have a crap temperment, but is pretty unlikely to be physically able to kill a person. With an American Bulldog the risk is much higher.

To the OP, this type of legislation is reactive so doesn't always work very well. I do agree that it needs some updating though, as some pp have suggested perhaps with licencing of certain breeds rather than an outsight ban.

We've managed to make microchipping compulsory, so I'm sure that vets can easily charge owners for taking a saliva sample to add to the database when doing routine check-ups.

The cost of enforcement can be met by the fines.