worrying new dangerous dog act!!!

this link give the full details
http://www.publications.parliament.u....i-i.html#j001

(1) This Act may be cited as the Dog Control Act 2008.

(2) In this Act—

“local authority” has the same meaning as in section 149 of the
Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43).

“public place” means any street, road or other place (whether or not
enclosed) to which the public have or are permitted to have access
whether for payment or otherwise and includes the common parts of a
building containing two or more separate dwellings.

(3) For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as 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,
but references to a dog injuring a person or there being grounds for reasonable
apprehension that it will do so do not include references to any case in which
the dog is being used for a lawful purpose by a constable or a person in the
service of the Crown.

(4) For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as having been in an attack
if it has bitten, mauled or injured a person or another animal.(5) This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by
order appoint.

(6) This Act extends to England and Wales only.

this act to me is scary- how many owners of dogs have had the odd scrap with a dog they took a dislike to? my two are good natured but will tell a dog off for too much bum sniffing...does that mean they are dangerously out of control and breaking the law?
what do other people make of it?

This is the first draft - it is full of contradictions. On a positive note, it does replace the BSL legislation I beleive, and it also gives courts the option of ordering owners to neuter or attend training classes.

i think its aimed mostly at the thugs with their 'HARD' dogs. its because of them this is being drafted.

When they say injured a person, can that mean jumped up at or ran into? I'm sure I read something about a dog not actually having to bite anyone or even threaten to bite to be deemed dangerously out of control.

That can only be a good thing. There are too many idiots around me with unneutered dogs.

As the act stands now, a person only needs to THINK a dog is going to attact them or cause them injury for it to be classed as dangerously out of control in a public place. It doesn't actually have to bite or even touch the person.

That's crap. Lots of people act like they think dogs will attack them, and they are just being stupid. I was talking to a lady the other day with a lovely male Rottie and she said that people have screamed at her in the street to keep that thing away from them / their kids, when he is just ambling along on his lead minding his own biz.

Given that most non doggy people and a great deal of doggy people can't read canine body language, that's BAD news! I've had enough people cross the road to avoid Loki, and even last week a woman practically jumped into a hedge to avoid him and let out a little scream, and he hadn't even noticed her.

Yup it's crap, but that's the law for you

But will the police and local authorities have the bottle to enforce it?
The DDA was never enforced around here and the drug dealers carried on parading their pitbulls as if the act didn't exist (Not that I am in favour of BSL). Laws are only as effective as their enforcement.

how will this proposed legislation affect Shutzhund work - will this now be banned ?

i dont think it will affect this as this is work in a controlled environment- the same as security dog handlers using their dogs.

I do think that this could/will be a very complex law.
I too am constantly reassuring people that my dogs are not dangerous but they will warn people away when i am out with my son( they never attempt to go towards people-whenever they see someone they return straight to the pram)- will this now be seen as against the law? as they are threatening to a certain extent?