Good or Bad News - All Dog's To Be Chipped/Insured

[Accyexplorer]

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

The dangerous dog act is a worthless knee jerk piece of legislation brought about in response to public outcry! All dogs have the potential to be dangerous it's in their nature, but the influence of the owner can reduce or increase these responses.

The act itself covers; Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, Fila Braziliero & cross-breed derivatives, yet many bites & attacks are the result of the family pet which isn't one of those listed above. I know this from personal experience because in the last couple of years I've had the pleasure of being nipped by a Rotty in the calf (drawing blood), had my left hand punctured between thumb & forefinger by a terrier cross ( lots of blood & a trip to A&E) & the most recent, only this Tuesday just I had the hem of my right trouser leg savaged by some hairy Russel type rat! (Highly embarrassing but no blood). Like I said all of these incidents involved dogs not listed, but their actions could & should class them as dangerous.

Police & Military use Doberman Pinchers, German Shepherds, Rottweilers & Belgian shepherds, as various attack, guard or war dogs so surely these must be deemed more aggressive & as such dangerous but they aren't! Which reinforces my personal view that the governments hasty policy was more in response to outraged screaming than to an actual thought out preventative policy.

are you a postman by any chance?

[Less]

Originally Posted by Accyexplorer

Maybe the powers that be should penalise those irresponsible owners rather than everyone though (it's a bit like having a motor). They hit responsible owners but those that disregard the law carry on taking the pish while we're left to foot the bill.

I think the worse thing that happened was when they stopped dog licence being mandatory, all dogs should be licensed, it should include a tag that must be worn whenever the animal is in public and cost enough to pay for any associated checks that may be needed.
It's up to responsible owners to show that they are willing to assist in preventing the bad from even thinking of owning a dog.

Originally Posted by Accyexplorer

The way this country's going it's only a matter of time before humans are chipped (except immigrants and those how disregard the law) .

Don't talk silly immigration has nothing to do with this.

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by Accyexplorer

are you a postman by any chance?

Not quite! Delivery driver for drinks, animal feed & general horsey-farmyard supplies, so I gets about a bit & most places tend to have free roaming hounds.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Accyexplorer

Here is a link for those that like a read
CHIPPED PETS DEVELOP FAST-GROWING, LETHAL TUMORS

On top of that there's policing it.I think that's going to be difficult to say the least,our government does like to do things on the cheap after all
Is it not the 'law' that dogs are suppose to have collars with contact info on? How many folk listen to that 'law'?
Will there be a exemption in the 'law' for dogs unsuitable to be chipped?

Not sure I can trust a website that is against human chipping, they are a little bias. I will have a look around the web when I have more time.

Yes it is law that dogs in a public place have a collar with a tag stating the owners name and address. Putting your mobile number on is a good idea as well but not the law.

The problem with dog law is who is supposed to uphold it. Some bits are the Police and some bit the Local Authority. Last Police Officer I was talking to did not appear to understand the dangerous dogs act and the Police are quite poor at enforcing it.

[westendlass]

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

The dangerous dog act is a worthless knee jerk piece of legislation brought about in response to public outcry! All dogs have the potential to be dangerous it's in their nature, but the influence of the owner can reduce or increase these responses.

The act itself covers; Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, Fila Braziliero & cross-breed derivatives, yet many bites & attacks are the result of the family pet which isn't one of those listed above. I know this from personal experience because in the last couple of years I've had the pleasure of being nipped by a Rotty in the calf (drawing blood), had my left hand punctured between thumb & forefinger by a terrier cross ( lots of blood & a trip to A&E) & the most recent, only this Tuesday just I had the hem of my right trouser leg savaged by some hairy Russel type rat! (Highly embarrassing but no blood). Like I said all of these incidents involved dogs not listed, but their actions could & should class them as dangerous.
Police & Military use Doberman Pinchers, German Shepherds, Rottweilers & Belgian shepherds, as various attack, guard or war dogs so surely these must be deemed more aggressive & as such dangerous but they aren't! Which reinforces my personal view that the governments hasty policy was more in response to outraged screaming than to an actual thought out preventative policy.

I see you have a natural affinity with dogs Dave, they must really love you. Do you have the same effect on cats?

[Neil]

A couple of years ago I was looking for information on dog law and found it quite difficult so pieced together a document on dog law. Here are a couple of bits from it.

Under Section 2 of the Control of Dogs Order 2002, every dog on a highway or in a public place must wear a collar with the name and address of the owner inscribed on it or on a plate or badge attached to it.
Failure to do so is an offence against the Animal Health Act 1981 for which an owner can be prosecuted and fined.
Any dog without a collar on a highway or in a public place may be treated as a stray dog and seized by the Local Authority.
If your dog strays, you should contact your local dog warden (through the Environmental Health Department of your Local Authority) immediately and stay in regular contact. If your dog is found by the Local Authority, you must pay the Local Authority's reasonable expenses before it will be returned to you.
If after seven days, the owner of a stray dog does not come forward the Local Authority may transfer the dog to someone else, transfer it to an establishment for stray dogs or have it destroyed.

Firstly let us dispel the myth that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 applies only to so called "dangerous" or "fighting" dogs; it does not. It applies to any dog irrespective of its breed or size.
Under Section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 a criminal charge can be brought against the owner (or any person in charge of a dog) if the dog is "dangerously out of control in a public place".
Whilst "public place" is relatively self-explanatory, being any place "to which the public have or are permitted to have access", "dangerously out of control" makes it sound as though the dog was wildly rampaging around terrorising all and sundry. The reality is of course far less sensational.
In fact, a dog is "dangerously out of control" on "any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person, whether or not it actually does so". It follows therefore that a dog does not actually have to injure someone to be dangerously out of control; it is enough that someone is in fear that it might.
Owners and/or persons in charge of dogs found guilty under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 could see the destruction of the dog, be banned from keeping dogs or even face a prison sentence. Mercifully, such penalties are rarely imposed with consequences being largely financial by way of fines, compensation and costs.

At the time Hyndburn Borough Council had no useful information on there website and the dog warden at the time, we have a new one now, wasn't aware of some of the above.

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by westendlass

Do you have the same effect on cats?

Don't have a problem with Pussies! They usually just run off!

[westendlass]

About ten or eleven years ago a rottweiler went on the rampage around the Thwaites Rd area in West End, Ossy. It attacked several dogs including a friends scotty dog, which was terribly injured and had to be put to sleep. It also attacked a little jack Russell that was on a chain in someone's back garden, and finally bit someone who was walking her dogs. She escaped worse injury because one of her dogs set on it and it ran off. The dog was caught and eventually put down, I never found out who owned the dog although I think the owners were found. It was reported in the Observer at the time. But, chipped or not, it wouldn't have made any difference to the damage that dog caused because the animal was out on its own, obviously disturbed and dangerous. Why anyone would want to keep a dog like that in a domestic situation is beyond me. Personally though, as a dog owner, I think chipping is a good idea if only that you have a better chance of being reunited with it if it ever runs off.

[DtheP47]

The debate will rumble on about what is and what isn't a dangerous dog. The French seem to have the controls and regulations set about right though.
The owners of what they call a Category 2 dog must attend a compusory aptitude course and produce vetinary certs as to the dogs behaviour


Dangerous Dogs: Owning Attack and Guard Dogs | AngloINFO France

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Less

My point is a child's life must have priority over that of any pets.

I do understand how this could seem harsh we all consider our animals as part of the family.

I wholly agree, but the chipping of pets is most likely to be done by responsible owners and is unlikely to have any impact on the likes of the children who have recently been savaged by family pets.
Responsible owners would take the utmost care to ensure their dog was not left unsupervised with a small child or a baby.
Irresponsible owners will not have their pets chipped or insured.
who is going to police the enforcemnet of the legislation if it comes to pass?
It will be like the use of moble phones while driving......it is illegal but many people do it and get away with it.

[westendlass]

I think some parents need chip and insuring.

[Accyexplorer]

Originally Posted by westendlass

I think some parents need chip and insuring.

Carful what you wish for (it won't be far off)

[Less]

Originally Posted by Accyexplorer

Carful what you wish for (it won't be far off)

What is a Carful?
Could it be a 4x4 second hand of course, filled with a score of illegal immigrants passing through border control with no worries?

Or a typo?

Either way, who cares?

[Accyexplorer]

Originally Posted by Less

What is a Carful?
Could it be a 4x4 second hand of course, filled with a score of illegal immigrants passing through border control with no worries?

Or a typo?

Either way, who cares?

*I've really missed your input less*....



* may contain sarcasm

[cashman]

Originally Posted by westendlass

I think some parents need chip and insuring.

The only lesson some parents may take heed of, Is to stop the "Family Allowance"