Stop Dog Attacks

The Liverpool Echo is running a campaign to coincide with the controversial dog amnesty to encourage people to contact the authorities if they suspect a neighbour to be keeping an illegal dog.

The campaign, which has been slammed by nearly all animal welfare groups as being a catch all, knee jerk reaction which lets dogs take the punishment for the actions of criminals who import banned breeds, has been put in place as a reaction to dog bite incidents in the Merseyside area, compounded by the death of Ellie Lawrenson on New Year’s day in St. Helens.

A 31 year old woman rang K9 Magazine earlier today to ask for our help, as she believed her neighbours were starting a whispering campaign about her and her Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

The woman, from Maghull on Merseyside, asked not to be named in order to not draw attention to herself, told us.

“I bought the dog from a breeder, it is registered with the Intercontinental Kennel Club, has all the vaccinations and is only 11 weeks old. I’ve only just started taking her out for walks, but now I daren’t as I worry that she may be taken from me and destroyed.

I am an experienced dog owner, I have a Golden Retriever as well as my Staffy and have them both well trained. I don’t know what to do, whether to muzzle her to send out a message of being responsible, but I am worried that this will draw attention to her. I’m going to get her microchipped tomorrow, but am worried about being out in public with her.

I bought this dog specifically for my son, who loves the breed. She is gentle, very submissive to my other dog and my family, but because her father was quite a big example of his breed, I’m scared that she will be too and could mistakenly come under the Pit Bull Terrier type umbrella”.

Many fear that the dog amnesty may bring death to more family pets than illegal dogs, whilst dog professionals in the area are concerned that rumours of the amnesty applying to any large or ‘fierce’ looking dog during the week it is in force, may be true.

A distraught dog owner has explained why she took the heart breaking decision to have her dog put down. It was reported on a website that reunites missing dogs with their owners, a site that had reunited this particular dog with it’s owner in the past, that a seizure was scheduled for the dog and the owner took the pre-emptive decision to have the dog put down by their vet.

The story has caused outrage amongst dog owners, especially those using the site where the news was broken. It is understood that the owner of dog, which was called Cassie, had been advised that a seizure was scheduled to removed the dog and have it put down as part of the current dog amnesty which is happening in Merseyside.

Rather than have the dog removed, kennelled and then put down after a stressful ordeal, the owner of the dog opted to take the dog herself and have their vet perform the procedure.

The news has caused widespread concern for the safety of all dogs that could be interpreted as being of “pit bull type”. A dog that is of no direct relation to a Pit Bull Terrier could still be judged as being of “pit bull type”, as the method used to make the decision is purely subjective. There is no way to prove or disprove whether a dog is of “pit bull type”

The Liverpool ‘dangerous’ dogs amnesty and other similar schemes are a disgrace. An excuse to terminate the lives of dogs guilty of nothing more than looking a certain way in a horribly vulgar, misguided attempt to manipulate the appearance of being proactive on dangerous dogs.

K9 Magazine believes viable alternatives to this scheme have been offered and ignored and would therefore urge anyone considering handing their dog over to the authorities to seriously reconsider.

We urge owners who believe their dog’s physical characteristics to be similar to that of the Pit Bull Terrier to first ensure they understand and are fully compliant with the Dangerous Dogs Act (see link below) and secondly to focus on the key issue of whether they believe their dog is a genuine threat to people’s safety and if professional behavioural advice should be sought prior to a possible death sentence. We wish to be very clear, we urge no dog owner to participate in this ugly, politically motivated dangerous dogs amnesty.

It appears this modern dont` care throw away society has again stooped to a new low. The increase in the abandonment of animals reported in the media is unacceptable and could have been preventable if measures had been taken in the consultation for the new Animal Welfare bill had seen the RSPCA support a call for the introduction of compulsory licences and compulsory registered micro chipping.

The Government turned down the proposal by saying

Accountability and traceable ownership of certain domestic pets, namely cats and dogs would without question reduce the number of abandoned animals each year.

But perhaps an even greater concern is the rise in attacks on people by dogs and namely the recent attack on a young girl that sadly caused her death.

Is it not time that legislation not only brought in compulsory licensing but also introduced strict guidelines on Dog rehoming Organisations / centres that are apparently not under any control or guidelines in regard to the animals they keep and rehome. In many cases no home checks are undertaken and certain centres have a non euthansia policy which could see potentrialy dangerous animals rehomed or kept in cages for the duration of their lives. Not all dogs in rehoming centres are abandoned. A certain percentage are most certainly unpredictable, being compulsive runners or those with an unpredictable behaviour pattern ( biters )
Is it not time that with the new Animal Welfare a new code is introduced seeing only qualified rehoming centres that have both an  animal and human welfare agenda made compulsory.

Andrew Meads
Safewings Wildlife Conservation Projects

Nick Mays is the chief report for Our Dogs newspaper. He tackled the issue of whether the dangerous dogs act was in need of revision in his blog column at the K9 Magazine blog  

FORMER HOME Secretary Kenneth Baker – now Lord Baker of Dorking – the architect of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and thus originator of all Bred Specific Legislation worldwide based upon the DDA has spoken out in the media furore surrounding the tragedy involving 5 year-old Ellie Lawrenson who was mauled to death by her uncle’ pit bull ‘type’ dog on New Year’s Day.

Far from being in any way repentant at introducing a piece of legislation that is cited by other politicians, lawyers and commentators as being one of the worst, most ill-thought out and badly drafted pieces of legislation in modern history, Lord Baker claims in a recent newspaper article the DDA is a good Act and needs strengthening, not weakening.

Writing in the Guardian newspaper last week, Lord Baker says: ‘The Dangerous Dogs Act which I introduced in 1991 had two purposes. The first was to remove from the UK the pit bull and pit bull-type dogs and to prevent the import of three other dogs which had been bred to fight. Secondly, to oblige all dog owners not to let their dogs get dangerously out of control in a public place.

‘Pit bull terriers were bred to fight - there were many illegal dog fights then as there are now. Some of them changed hands for thousands of pounds, being advertised in magazines as “heroic” or “very heroic”. They were trained to be vicious and when their jaws clamped on an arm or leg it was impossible to prise them open until the dog was dead. There had been many attacks by pit bulls, not only on humans but on other dogs, and I had support for my proposals from the Kennel Club, the RSPCA and a body of vets.’

Lord Baker is correct in what he says, but the RSPCA soon disowned any responsibility for the Act and refused to allow its Inspectors to appear in DDA prosecution cases, whilst the Kennel Club under the control of the then Chairman John McDougal who derided “the class of person that keeps these dogs” simply felt no responsibility for saving Pit Bulls, which were not a KC-recognised breed. Since the late 1990s, the Kennel Club has opposed the DDA. The fact that there are many illegal dog fights now surely points to the failure of Baker’s wonderful Act – it didn’t wipe out Pit Bulls bred for fighting and simply pushed the barbaric ‘sport’ of dog fighting further underground. Quite simply, if people want to break the law (and remember, dog fighting has been illegal since 1835), then they’ll break the law – it doesn’t matter what legislation is passed to outlaw an activity.

Baker continues: ‘The Act required an owner of a pit bull to register it, to plant a microchip under its skin, and to have it neutered which meant that in a number of years the breed would simply die out. There is no doubt that the Act has been a success in that the number of attacks by pit bulls declined dramatically - there was only one last year and it was not fatal - and so Britain has been a safer place as a result of the Dangerous Dogs Act.’

Baker is clearly referring to the two attacks which prompted the last Conservative Government, headed by John Major and of which he was Home Secretary, to panic and ‘be seen to be doing something’. The dogs that attacked 6 year-old Rukshana Khan and bakery worker Frank Tempest in the Spring of 1991 were never caught nor formally identified – no charges were ever brought against any owners.

They were simply referred to as ‘Pit Bulls’ by the media. Baker chose to target ‘pit bull ‘type’ dogs as a catch-all; three other breeds were listed under the DDA, namely the Japanese Tosa of which there was only one specimen in the UK at the time (now long since deceased) and the Fila Brassiliero and Dogo Argentino – neither of which were present in the UK.

By classifying the dogs as Pit Bull ‘types’, Section One of the Act saw thousands of crossbreeds and a large number of pedigree Staffordshire Bull Terriers - none of them vicious or in any way dangerous - seized simply for the way they looked. Many of these were destroyed, as the DDA reversed the burden of proof – the dogs were guilty until proven innocent; their owners had to prove they were not pit bull ‘type’ dogs. In one infamous court case in which a pedigree Staffordshire Bull Terrier was on trial, a police officer ‘expert’ gleefully told the court that ‘a Kennel Club pedigree isn’t worth the paper it’s written on’. The court ruled that although the dog was a pedigree Staffie it was also a Pit Bull ‘type’ dog!

Baker adds: ‘Unfortunately the Act was watered-down in 1997 when the argument was put that it was the owners and not the dogs that were at fault - so dogs were given a second chance. This was a mistake. Also many people tried to evade the Act by crossing breeding pit bulls to produce pit bull-types.

This encouraged certain determined owners, some with ulterior motives, to prolong the decision about the dogs for far too long. I think the Act needs strengthening and not weakening. I would now give to a committee of three, say two dog wardens and a vet, the decision as to the determination of whether a dog is a pit bull-type and their decision would be final.’

It’s hard to begin to disseminate the gross idiocy of these remarks. First off, in early 1997 the Government was still that of which Baker was a serving member! Although by 1997 he was no longer Home Secretary, he was aware of the plans to amend the DDA and voiced no objection at the time.

His comment that ‘certain determined owners, some with ulterior motives’ try to evade the Act by ‘crossing Pit Bulls to produce put bull ‘types’’ simply beggars belief and shows a distinct lack of understanding not only of his own legislation, but also the situation. Dog fighters just carried on breeding their fighting dogs further underground, whilst if ‘owners with ulterior motives’ tried to delay court decisions about their dogs, it was simply to save innocent dogs’ lives!
As to Baker’s choice of an ‘expert committee’, there are plenty of dog owners who would dispute the ‘expert knowledge’ of just two dogs wardens and a vet.

With all due respect to dog wardens and vets, why not include dog judges, people who have had years of experience in identifying breeds? Perhaps it should be remembered that a small number of vets made a very lucrative sideline by appearing as ‘expert witnesses’ for the prosecution in DDA cases. One vet even claimed to have examined around 10,000 pit bulls at their surgery!
The good Lord writes on: ‘The recent tragic death of a five year old girl has shown yet again that there is no place in the dog-loving community of our country for pit bulls or pit bull-type dogs. Not all the pit bulls are worth the death of one little child.

‘I also think the Act could also be strengthened as regards certain other breeds. I believe the owners of Rottweilers - two Rottweilers killed a baby last year - and all types of bull terriers - Bill Sykes’ dog in Oliver Twist - and German Shepherds should be registered so there is a record of who owns them and where they are based. Orders could then be made to ensure that when these breeds are in a public place, such as a park, they are muzzled. Children have a right to play in safety in our public spaces.’

Although one must agree that no child’s life is worth that of a dog, these comments come as no surprise. In his autobiography ‘The Turbulent Years’, Baker infamously writes of discussions about the scope of the DDA at the time it was being drafted, saying: ‘There was a danger of over-reaction, with demands to have all dogs muzzled and to put Rottweilers, Dobermans and Alsatians [sic] in the same category as pit bulls. This would have infuriated the ‘green welly’ brigade. However, the ‘pit bull lobby’ came to my aid by appearing in front of TV cameras with owners usually sporting tattoos and earrings while extolling the gentle nature of the dogs, whose names were invariably Tyson, Gripper, Killer or Sykes’
 
Even in dealing with so serious a subject, it seems that the Home Secretary and his advisors still found time to joke about pit bulls and their owners; ‘The issues we debated included whether to identify dogs by implanting microchips under the skin or by tattooing them. This led to humorous exchanges about exactly who would volunteer to tattoo a pit bull’s inside leg and whether the tattoo should match that of the owner. Would pit bulls have ‘love’ and ‘hate’ inscribed on each knuckle’?
 
Lord Baker, architect of the DDA and Breed Specific legislation concludes his article: ‘Legislation on dogs is never easy because the relationship between a dog and its owner is very close and affectionate. In over 95% of cases there is no evidence of a dog being anything other than gentle.

But one cannot escape the fact that over 4,000 people were admitted to hospital last year with dog bites, so there must be a much greater responsibility shown by dog owners to ensure the safety of the public.’
No argument there – but why should the good 95% be made to suffer for the actions of the irresponsible 5%? Once again, the former

Home Secretary has a skewed view of dogs and dog owners – and also how a law should be implemented for the good of all citizens. By all means have tougher laws to punish irresponsible dog owners, but don’t produce a law that punishes and penalises all dogs and all dog owners for the actions of the irresponsible few. No law should do this. No good law, that is.

The Dangerous Dogs Act was a badly drafted piece of legislation which presumed guilt, punished the innocent and caused far more problems than it ever solved.  It does not need strengthening; it needs repealing and a better, more well considered law put in its place. And Kenneth Baker’s input is not needed. His views should be consigned to history… along with the DDA.

In light of the recent media coverage of another dog attack , this time a wee girl lost her life , Rest easy baby 

More public outcry and more proposals for BSL , its a sad day for all responsible dog owners and where will it end? The DDA of 1991 and the amendments of 1997 are obviously not working so whats next ? More Dogs added , more dogs killed just because they are the wrong breed  

I was so sickened at the thought i wrote a poem and thought i would post it here , and for anyone that thinks the new legislation only applies to bull breeds please think again if they get away with these proposals our chosen breeds could well be next.
Breed specific legislation targets the wrong end of the lead It really is time to punish
the owners and the deed not the breed  A honda kills a child , a drunk behind the wheel 
Would they ban all hondas? Would that really be the deal?

The driver should be punished for human error and breaking the law
So why cannot people see , the same applies to dogs and maybe even more?
A well socialized and happy dog well trained shown kindness and love
Will be mans best friend companion and gentle as a dove

Attacks of all kinds happen , a teenager high on drugs takes a life
He was 5ft 10 black hair around 17 , stocky and carried a large knife
Would we round up all teens matching that description give them all strife
Place restraining orders on them all , tag them or lock them up for life?

There would be public outcry , we would not stand for that would we ?
Lumping them all together would be so very wrong so sadly why cant you see
Just because one dog attacks does not mean the whole breed is bad
We need to look further rationally not hysterically thats just mad

A few irresponsible owners that cannot train or control their dog
Gives a select group of people the power to play god ?
Murders stabbing accidents happen every single day
Through misuse of weapons and who is asked to pay ?

A gun that shot someone on trial , a car that killed a passer by
You maybe think that irrational but then ask your self why
Dogs owners are by law supposed to be in control of their pet
But when accident happen and someone is hurt , who is taken to the vet?

WE do not need mass hysteria , surrounding ANY specific breed
It is time to take a good hard look and just punish the deed
The owners must be made to pay for the mistakes that they make
A whole breed should not have to pay that price for goodness sake

Theres far too much talk of vicious killer dogs of a certain type
One is labelled bad so the whole breed is prone to media hype ?
What about all the lovely happy dogs that live among us all
Not a bad bone in their body , but perhaps they are too tall?

————————————————————————

Japanese Tosa ,Dogo Argentino, Fila Braziliero , Pit Bull terrier Banned
Under the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act

————————————————————————-

So far only 4 types of dogs are banned in the UK
But how can you be sure your chosen breed will be ok?
If they ban Rotties German Shepherds or any other larger breed
Will that be the next sensational story that the papers need ?

Your cute wee Yorkie bites the postie another outcry
Will all yorkies then be the next breed condemed to die?
If action is not taken all our dogs will disappear
And why should all of us be living in fear ?

We train our dogs and we keep them under our strict controls
Why should we suffer for a few irresponsible souls?
The young men who want a type of dog to make them look hard?
They wont worry with what brush that breed is tarred

Education is the key , training and socializing every single day
Can help to keep our beloved dogs safe it has to be the way
To prove not all dogs are bad its the owner that are in the wrong
We have to build a case iron clad and very very strong

How many so called devil dogs visit hospitals around the land
Reaching out to ill people and giving them a helping hand ?
Thousands of dogs helping the blind and the sick doing a great job
But the dog that makes the papers is the one ruined by a yob ?

We can make a difference by being in full control
Never letting our dogs accidentally frighten a single soul
Not everyone loves dogs some people really live in fear
It’s our responsibility to show why we hold them so dear

Training can be hard work one step forward three steps back
But it is so important if this prejadice we are to crack
Each and every one of us has a responsibility to care
And to help none doggy people become increasingly aware

That owners are responsible for the actions of their dog
So no more people get the chance to play god
A few years down the line how many breeds wiped out?
Because of ignorance ? It has to be time to shout

We have to act we cant ignore the hysteria and hype
We need to write letters by hand or even type
We have to be the voice our dogs do not own
The time has gone just to sit at home and moan

We must be polite and positive , but really make it known
All breeds can be well trained and such a joy to own
Punish the deed not the breed with that we all agree
But remember at the end of the day the onus lies with me

As an owner we will take the plunge and be the best we can
So none of our dogs ever get the chance to frighten even one woman
We train them and we show them in the best possible light
We owe it to them to show they do not instill fright

Fiona xx

With dangerous dogs and the question of ‘what to do with them?’ in the news at the start of 2007, K9 Magazine would like to pay great thanks to BBC News, Sky News and in particular GMTV for giving the subject the reverance it deserves without feeling the need to jump on the ‘devil dogs’ bandwagon or in fact to paint a misleading picture to the public of just how at risk the general public is to being attacked or killed by a dog. Our sincere grattitude is extended to any media organisation who have been prepared to look at the facts rather than contribute to the hype surrounding this very emotive issue.

Sadly, some newspaper coverage of the New Year’s Day tragedy which saw a young girl mauled to death by a Pitbull type dog may lead certain people to believe that Britain is overrun by man eating dogs. It won’t come as a shock then when perfectly responsible, innocent owners of particular breeds begin to suffer abuse in the streets or ‘revenge’ attacks are even carried out against their pets.

There is a way to improve things but simply drawing a line through a particular group of dog breeds is not it.

by Neil Burton of NDWA 

The terrible incident in St Helens that resulted in the death of Ellie Lawrenson highlights yet again the risk of a dog (any dog) being owned by an irresponible dog owner.

There are several allegations regarding irresponsible behaviour on the part of the dogs owner and of at least two warning letters being sent by the Local Authority.  The allegation that the dog was allowed to stray in the local area is a classic example of irresponsible dog ownership.  Whilst the dog is out and about on its own it could quite easily end up causing injury to itself or to a person or other animal or damage to property.

Although it appears that irresponsible dog owners are from within a certain socio-economic grouping, the sobering fact is that irresponsible dog owners come in all shapes and sizes and from all classes of society. 

An example being a person who is totally law abiding and respectful but lets their dog go off for ‘a walk’ on its own, lets it chase livestock or even attack other dogs and does nothing to restrain it then takes no notice of police or local authority requests to stop it straying.  On the other hand there are those people who may have landed an old Cortina on the front lawn and left it to fall apart and might be a bit noisy now and again but would not dream of letting their dog wander around on its own.

A recent Newsnight feature showed an interview with a young man who when asked why he had a dog answered ‘I don’t do knives or guns, I have the dog to protect me’ he then went on to mention how he would use the dog as a weapon to protect him.  This is totally irresponsible and should this young man use his dog as a weapon, I hope that his police force would bring charges under the Malicious Wounding Act 1861 as the dog is being used as a weapon.

Irresponsible dog owners are now prejudicing other breeds of dogs that may be added to existing or even new legislation.  

Perhaps there is a need for some kind of licensing scheme, but not a scheme that raises income for the Government, rather one that licenses and therefore shows a person to be competent to handle and care for a dog?    

When they get it right on animals (and they often do) we’re the first inline to pat them on the back and pay credit to Britain’s largest selling daily newspaper. But just lately they’ve got it so wrong something needs to be said.

The Sun’s campaign to highlight animal cruelty was noble. They dedicated entire front pages to the issue of animal neglect and campaigned to stamp out cruelty. They are a largely influential newspaper.

In the wake of the two tragic Rottweiler attacks over the past week The Sun have been slavishly sticking to the good old tabloid principle of using language such as ‘devil dogs’, ‘raging beasts’ and so on. Today especially, The Sun have got it totally and utterly wrong. Their stance will achieve nothing for the victims of dog attacks and certainly nothing for dogs.

Today The Sun tells us their position on ‘devil dogs’. “Muzzle Them”, they bellow. Reading further it seems the “them” in this case are Rottweilers.

© Sun Newspaper, Sept 28 2006

“BRITAIN is a nation of dog lovers.

But even those who love their pets more than their fellow humans must accept there is a limit to the risk society can tolerate.

The shocking death of tragic tot Cadey-Lee Deacon, mauled to death by two raging rottweilers, makes the blood run cold.

Such deaths are mercifully rare. Attacks are not.

In the last few weeks alone rottweilers have savaged a two-year-old toddler and a girl aged 12.

These powerful guard dogs have jaws like a steel trap. They are highly-intelligent, territorial — and domineering when inadequately trained.
 
Like a car in the hands of an inexperienced or incompetent owner, they can be lethal.

To make matters worse, some unscrupulous breeders deliberately produce aggressive “devil dogs”, favoured by saddos to project a macho image.

Rottweilers are exempt from the list of breeds banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act. This loophole-riddled law also fails to cover dog attacks on private property.

For Cadey-Lee, any action is too late. But the government cannot sit back and allow another child — or adult — to be torn apart by these eight-stone beasts.

It must follow the example of countries like Germany — and order them to be muzzled”

So, given that both of these attacks happened on their owner’s private property are we to assume The Sun wants all Rottweilers muzzled all of the time rather than just in public?

What is The Sun’s view on Rottweiler crosses? How do they want to legislate against dogs who are ‘a bit’ Rottweilerish?

What about the dogs of a similar size, all of whom are equally capable of causing serious damage to people, the Doberman, the Anatolian Shepherd, the Leonberger, the GSD, the Belgian Shepherd, the Japanese Akita and what about the nation’s favourite dog, the Labrador - you know - the one responsible for a fully grown, adult woman who had to receive the world’s first face transplant this year? What about them? Should ALL dogs simply be muzzled at all times, surely that’s the logic at play here?

No, this is the EXACT type of kneejerk response that would solve absolutely NOTHING.

Pit Bulls were banned - whether you believe rightly or wrongly - so surely we should be safer from dog attack, yes? Well no actually, Home Office statistics reveal dog attacks on the up and the reason dangerous dogs are on the agenda again is because a child has died.

So let’s muzzle the Rottweiler. What happens then?

Well, apart from subjecting the many thousands of Rottweilers who haven’t done a damn thing to a single person and have been found guilty by association , condemned to a life of misery, walking around with their muzzles on 24/7, they would inevitably become a less popular breed. Owners who want a large, sturdy, reliable dog to share their home with and yes, offer a degree of home security, would find themselves opting for a dog who they didn’t have to witness living in misery thanks to a muzzling order and who wouldn’t be the cause of abuse from misguided non dog owners, convinced that Rottweiler ownership is only one notch worse than paedophillia. Other breeds will take their place in the popularity stakes.

Let’s take ourselves forward 20 years. No more Rottweilers, no more Pit Bulls. We’re all completely safe from dog attacks now surely? Of course we’re not and it’s ridiculous, incompetent and downright opportunistic to think otherwise. Where the Rottweiler once sat will be the Mastiff, the American Bulldog, the Ridgeback or other dog of similar size and stature. Take your pick, which is the one who’ll be responsible for the next title of ‘devil dog’?

We need education not legislation. We need to ensure that this vicious cycle of the wrong dogs getting into the hands of the wrong owners stops. We need to ensure people not only fully understand their obligations as a dog owner (of ANY type) we need to ensure people ARE DUTY BOUND to comply with their responsibilities. We need a dog ownership screening test.

We can legislate to high heaven. We can get down to a situation where we’re only allowed to keep dogs of a certain size. We can all just decide that the risk of keeping dogs is to high. Afterall one death, as absolutely tragic, appaling and stomach churning as it is, is an isolated incident.

If dogs were killing people week in week out, we’d be in a different position. The fact is, they’re not. Electricity is though, cars are, smoking is, drinking is - should we ban it all or should we take the view that, by and large, these things co-exist with us in normal society and in many cases they enance people’s lives. Yes, there are dangers. Yes, lack of care can cause accidents to happen. But simply banning or imposing ill though out restrictions won’t cure the problem and we’ll have learned nothing. Let’s get this one right. There is an opportunity to make something positive happen from a truly tragic week. Dog ownership tests WILL have a positive effect. Banning orders, muzzling and breed legislation wont. We’ve already proved that haven’t we?

Should ANYONE Be Allowed to be a Dog Owner?

A tragic start to 2007 saw a young girl’s life taken as a result of a dog attack.  

Earlier in 2006 we were saddened to learn of the death of toddler as a result of an attack by two Rottweiler dogs.

The death had reignited calls from some quarters to introduce breed legislation to combat further attacks.

K9 Magazine is fundamentally opposed to breed legislation as we firmly believe it would NOT solve the problem of dog attacks.

K9 Magazine is calling for the UK to consider the introduction of a dog ownership test which would require would-be dog owners to pass a test similar to that of the driving licence theory exam. We have contacted Patricia Hewitt, the MP for the area in Leicester where the fatal attack occured and we are keen to take our proposal to the highest level possible.

If you agree with us and believe the responsibility lies with dog owners and breed specific legislation is not the answer to this problem, PLEASE post your thoughts and opinions on this blog. It can and will make a difference in helping to show there is a will to avoid dog attacks but breed legislation is not the solution. Equally if you believe we’re wrong and breed legislation IS the answer, please feel encouraged to publish your views.

Currently, in law, it is a British person’s right to own a dog regardless of background, knowledge or motive. At K9 Magazine we hold the view that it should be a privellege to own a dog, a privellege that should be earned by demonstrating a genuine desire to learn about canine welfare requirements, to understand the law relating to dogs and to sign a pledge promising to do everything possible to be a responsible owner.
 
We ask our readers for their opinions on our proposals to introduce a dog ownership exam which we believe all prospective new dog owners should be required to pass prior to acquiring a dog.

Unlike the previous dog licence which simply acted as a record keeping system, our scheme is to establish a real line of education amongst all new dog owners. Not just to educate on the dangers of uncontrolled dogs but also covering the very basic levels of care all dogs need, how to spot potential problems before they grow, how to select the right breeder and generally develop a basic curriculum for all new dog owners to learn from.

We note that certain dog organisations are asking for ‘ASBOS for Dogs’. We don’t share the view that this is the answer. This would be post event legislation and would not solve the real problem at its source. The wrong breeders supplying the wrong dogs to the wrong, uneducated owner. The key is prevention and via our scheme this is utterly achievable.

LINKS:

Calll For New Dog Ownership Law - Daily Mirror