Who will pay the price?
Detail:
I was talking to a London-living dog-owning friend the other day, and she was telling me how her neighbourhood seemed to be awash with nothing but pitbulls and pitbull crosses, invariably owned by youths of a certain age. And it is a fact that some youths are training their animals to fighting machines, weaponry against other dogs and humans.
As a dog lover, she was terrified – not for her safety, but the ramifications for dog lovers as a whole.
Not surprisingly, the government has stepped in and dangerous dogs have hit the headlines big time in proposals to review the Dangerous Dogs Act. Oh, and let’s not forget the imminent general election.
The government, as reported nationwide, has proposed compulsory microchipping and third-party insurance for all dogs.
Yesterday's consultation document asks for “views on whether current legislation relating to dangerous dogs adequately protects the public and encourages responsible dog ownership”.
And there we have it. An admission of sorts that the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 has not solved the problem, and is flawed.
At its heart is the assertion that four breeds are dangerous, and therefore banned. But that has not stopped pit bull crosses, or even pitbulls masquerading as Staffordshire bull terriers. It also appears there is also an underground breeding network of these banned breeds. The Act was flawed because it targeted breeds, not problem dogs.
Will these latest proposals work? I suspect that many responsible dog owners will already have their dogs microchipped. Even if it’s made compulsory, I do not see these youths taking any notice and queuing up to get their dog microchipped.
As for insurance… well, just look at car insurance. Even though driving without car insurance carries a maximum fine of £5,000 and up to eight penalty points, it is estimated at least one million motorists are without. Again, I suspect the target group will once again choose to ignore this stipulation.
So what will it mean? Broadly, responsible dog owners will end up paying more to own their pets, and those on small incomes along with pensioners could find it a real hardship to comply with the regulations.
Yes, I know it is very easy to criticize, far harder to come up with something constructive. But targeting these dogs is like confiscating a bottle of cheap wine from the street drunk. He will simply look for another bottle somewhere else. The only way this problem can be cured is to go to the root and stamp it at source. Anything else is like using a plaster to fix a leaking dam.
As a dog lover, she was terrified – not for her safety, but the ramifications for dog lovers as a whole.
Not surprisingly, the government has stepped in and dangerous dogs have hit the headlines big time in proposals to review the Dangerous Dogs Act. Oh, and let’s not forget the imminent general election.
The government, as reported nationwide, has proposed compulsory microchipping and third-party insurance for all dogs.
Yesterday's consultation document asks for “views on whether current legislation relating to dangerous dogs adequately protects the public and encourages responsible dog ownership”.
And there we have it. An admission of sorts that the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 has not solved the problem, and is flawed.
At its heart is the assertion that four breeds are dangerous, and therefore banned. But that has not stopped pit bull crosses, or even pitbulls masquerading as Staffordshire bull terriers. It also appears there is also an underground breeding network of these banned breeds. The Act was flawed because it targeted breeds, not problem dogs.
Will these latest proposals work? I suspect that many responsible dog owners will already have their dogs microchipped. Even if it’s made compulsory, I do not see these youths taking any notice and queuing up to get their dog microchipped.
As for insurance… well, just look at car insurance. Even though driving without car insurance carries a maximum fine of £5,000 and up to eight penalty points, it is estimated at least one million motorists are without. Again, I suspect the target group will once again choose to ignore this stipulation.
So what will it mean? Broadly, responsible dog owners will end up paying more to own their pets, and those on small incomes along with pensioners could find it a real hardship to comply with the regulations.
Yes, I know it is very easy to criticize, far harder to come up with something constructive. But targeting these dogs is like confiscating a bottle of cheap wine from the street drunk. He will simply look for another bottle somewhere else. The only way this problem can be cured is to go to the root and stamp it at source. Anything else is like using a plaster to fix a leaking dam.
By:
Sandra
Date/time :
10/03/2010
Replies to this topic...
