Vets call for 'dog Asbos' to control dangerous dogs

'Dog Abos' should be introduced across Britain in order to keep aggressive pets under control, according to the British Veterinary Association.

Under the plan, specific dangerous dogs and their owners would be targeted with anti-social behaviour orders in the same way as individuals are.
Councils would be able to issue restrictions on dog owners who did not control their pets, forcing them to control the dog using a muzzle, a leash or by having them neutered.

Those that failed to do so could face a hefty fine.
Association president Professor Bill Reilly said current controls banning certain breeds, such as put bull terriers, were failing to protect people from dangerous animals.
'It's all about giving local authorities the power to control these dogs,' he told the association's annual dinner.
He called on the Government to introduce laws so councils could control dangerous dogs 'by deed not breed.'
'With concern about weapon dogs rising and a new Parliament on the horizon looking for fresh ideas, the time is surely right ofr it to be at the top of the political agenda,' he said.

Attacks by dogs have doubled over the past ten years to 600 a year.
Scottish Parliament is currently considering introducing 'dog control notice' laws.
The Control of Dogs Bill would allow councils to impose restrictions on irresponsible owners and fines of up to £1,000, even if the dog misbehaves at home.
MSPs have backed the idea in principle, allowing it to progress to the next stage of scrutiny at Holyrood.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0fqMDwl6Q

Sounds like a step forward to me, target ones displaying problem behaviors.

Hi,

I agree in principle but how would it be enforced?

Also, my dogs sometimes play up at home. They're not aggressive at all (except that Zane doesn't like the vet) but does that mean if they misbehave whilst I am with them, in my home, without anyone else there, someone else can have the authority to say they have to be PTS?

Inside someone's home isn't out in public. I agree people still have to comply with the law but what goes on in one's home, is private and nobody else's business.

If they are talking about instances such as the young children killed by dogs in their grandparents' home, then I agree. Those dogs were aggressive and those people should NEVER be allowed to keep any pets. But with the law, there is never anything to distinguish between these types of people/animals and those dogs such as my lot who can get over excited when playing, b tthat's as far as it goes.

I think it will take a lot more thinking about in principle, a lot of enoforcement and zero tolerance, and a lot of education.

Laura xx

I think that by calling them "Dog Asbos" it sort of implies that it is the dog's fault.

If your dog is out of control, causes injury to someone, or even causes someone to think they are in danger, then the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 applies. The owner or person in charge of the dog can be imprisoned, fined or both. The Act also allows for orders to be made to ensure the dog is fitted with a secure muzzle and/or kept under control on a lead by someone over 16, or the dog can be banned from certain places. I'm not sure what Asbos can add to that.

I suppose the difference would be that the local council has the power to impose these restrictions on owners of dogs that have caused trouble, rather than having to through the legal process via the courts, & prosecute someone under the 1991 Act, and I'm not sure that this is a good idea.

I have concerns as to how, by whom & on what evidence, an Asbo could be imposed. Very often any trouble would be between 2 dogs & without independent eye witnesses you could end up in the situation where you only have the word of the 2 dog owners. I would also be concerned that people would try reporting dog owners because of personal vendettas between neighbours that are nothing to do with dogs, or that non-dog owners could misinterpret dog behaviour & report an owner. And why can't the owner have the Asbo, rather than the dog?

The intended legislation is ill-thought out, is likely to be almost impossible to impose & still implies that the dogs are somehow to blame! And perhaps some thugs that actively encourage aggressive behaviour in dogs would actually be quite proud of the fact that their dog has an Asbo

There is already enough legislation to control people with out of control dogs. The real problem is that it isn`t applied.
I wouldn`t give my money-mad, dog-hating Council power to issue free ice cream, let alone asbos.

I agree, unfair to the dog when it's the owner at fault.

Also, how are they going to enforce a dog asbo, when they don't enforce the people's asbos?

There are so many teens around on asbos, but they wear them as a badge of honour, and still do whatever they like, because nobody's there to stop them..

my only fault is that the people with 'status dogs' would actually find a dog asbo cool... in a 'my dog is dangerous and could hurt you... see??' kind of way...

I think that possibly it would work if you had to take the dog to a 10 week training course and have a check up (at a random time so people are caught unawares) and if the dog hasnt been taken to classes and hasnt improved it is taken to a no-kill rescue and the owner imprisoned for 3-6 months or something.

Oh, and get rid of any breed specific legislation, i hate the DDA atm

i think in theory it sounds like a good idea, but i just wonder how it will be enforced and under what criteria a dog will be given the 'asbo'... i also dont agree with it applying to things that happen within the dogs own home.

Another tabloid factoid which cannot be verified.

If enforced properly a step in the right direction. I not useless.

Current law needs changing and enforcing