register for free
View our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Sal
Dogsey Veteran
Sal is offline  
Location: gloucestershire
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,432
Female 
 
05-10-2007, 05:25 PM
You might find this interesting Suze,
THE KENNEL CLUB HOSTS DANGEROUS DOG PARLIAMENTARY SEMINAR

'To protect both the safety of the public and the welfare of dogs'

On the 22nd May 2007 a 'Dangerous Dog' seminar and reception took place at the House of Commons, sponsored by Marsha Singh MP and arranged by the Kennel Club. The issue of dangerous dogs and protecting the public has been one that has posed a problem for legislators for many years and the event was well attended by politicians from all political persuasions and Defra civil servants, proving what an important initiative all consider the matter to be.

The primary purpose of the seminar was to persuade politicians - and Government - that it is high time to ensure better protection for the public without compromising dogs' welfare. The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG), a wide-ranging group representing animal welfare, local authorities, police and veterinary professional organisations, have been considering the issue in depth for a while and believe that the introduction of their proposed 'Control of Dogs Act', which incorporates the better aspects of the Dogs Act 1871 and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as amended but ultimately repeals them - will do much to redress the balance.

Key speakers on the day were the Metropolitan Police Service, Kennel Club, Dogs Trust, Wandsworth Borough Council and an Association of Pet Dog Trainers behaviourist. The speakers' primary focus was of course to discuss and explore how to prevent dog biting incidents and, also to lay to rest the many myths surrounding dogs and why they bite.

Said Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary, "The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group, with backup from the Kennel Club, has been involved with this matter for a considerable number of years. We would like the current draconian, flawed, 'dangerous dog' legislation scrapped and replaced by the Group's drafted 'Control of Dogs Act', which will do far more to protect the public, responsible owners and their dogs."

Said Superintendent Simon Ovens, of the Metropolitan Police Service, "The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as amended has been widely criticised as it has had a significant effect on the welfare of some dogs, which have either been kept in kennels for many years or euthanased simply because of their breed or type. Additionally, it has not prevented dog attacks in the UK and we are still dealing with cases of Pit Bull 'type' dogs. Statistics on dog attacks have not reduced since the Act was introduced and in fact, the number of hospitalisations is reported as having doubled. I would therefore welcome the suggested strengthening of Section Three of the current legislation, which would help target irresponsible owners."

The Group considers its proposals to be balanced, and (if implemented as intended) believes they will help to prevent future attacks on people and animals - thereby ensuring both the safety of the public and the welfare of dogs.

The next stage of the process will be for the Group to lobby Defra to ensure that necessary changes are made to existing legislation, in conjunction with the politicians, civil servants and organisations present at the meeting. If you require further information please do not hesitate to contact Kennel Club External Affairs on 020 7518 1020, email: phil.buckley@thekennelclub.org.uk.

The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group includes representation from: the Kennel Club, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Blue Cross, British Veterinary Association, Dogs Trust, the Metropolitan Police, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, RSPCA, Wandsworth Borough Council and Wood Green Animal Shelter.



Reproduced with permission from the Kennel Club
Sal
Dogsey Veteran
Sal is offline  
Location: gloucestershire
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,432
Female 
 
05-10-2007, 05:39 PM
You may also find this interesting too,

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib...8/rp98-006.pdf

In an open letter to Lord Baker Susan Bell takes issue with claims from him that the Dangerous Dogs Act is not being implemented properly by the wardens, and that they are in some way responsible for recent tragedies involving dangerous dogs.

- Letter from the National Dog Warden Association to Lord Baker -

"The ability of some individuals and organisations to re-write history still absolutely amazes me!

I do not need to re-write history to know that from the outset in 1989/90, through documents I myself wrote, that the National Dog Warden Association presented to government the concept of punishing the deed not the breed. It would have also allowed for the introduction of pre-emptive measures (control orders) where there was evidence that a dogs owner by act or omission was failing to provide appropriate control.

At the time however, the RSPCA, Dr Roger Mugford, Home Secretary Kenneth Baker (now Lord Baker) et al provided us with the Dangerous Dogs Act, and now they are publicly blaming dog wardens for failing to implement that legislation fully and properly?

They appear to have forgotten, I have not, that the incidents in 1989 which led to that Act began with the death of a child (Kelly Lynch) attributable to two Rottweillers. Conveniently that was overlooked in the legislation and instead two non-fatal incidents (Rucksana Khan and Frank Tempest) enabled the transfer of attention to an American breed, the Pit Bull Terrier, a ‘breed’ predominantly present in this country through a very few imports and otherwise through a lot of look alike cross-breeding.

Of the other three ‘breeds’ they named in section one only one at that time had a limited number of specimens in the UK (the Japanese Tosa) the other two were merely known by continental reputation and canine mythology.

A lot came down to opinion rather than fact and eventually many of those originally involved in its creation backed away from the Act and openly criticised it (e.g. the RSPCA) leaving local authorities and the police to implement highly flawed legislation. In this period some of those who brought the Act into being began to appear regularly as defence witnesses (e.g. Dr Roger Mugford) and others arrived on the scene to be hailed as defender of the dog (e.g. Trevor Cooper).

For the working Dog Warden the object in use of any legislation remained the same: the reduction of danger on the streets and the promotion of responsible ownership and control.

During the summer of 2006 a child died after being ‘attacked’ by – two Rottweilers. Although there was some comment at the time the world seemed to have moved on and realised the flaws of the Dangerous Dogs Act, opinion appeared balanced and review of the law was placed on the agenda again.

As in 1989 a few months later another child is killed and this time the incident is laid at the door of a Pit Bull Terrier type. We are told on television that the dog is one of a banned breed it is even suggested that post-mortem this is proven by ‘tests’ (implying DNA tests) despite the fact that no such test has previously been available to decide court cases?

As if to ward off any challenge to these ‘tests’ we are told (by no less than Trevor Cooper) that even its ‘type’ could have ensured its seizure and destruction and we are told, by no less than Lord Baker himself, that had Dog Wardens (not the police or local authorities but, by name, Dog Wardens) implemented the law properly the tragedy would not have happened.

Lord Baker made little reference in his comments to the legal opinion which has so roundly criticised his Act in the intervening fifteen years to the point at which it is thoroughly discredited. Instead he made vague reference to including Rottweillers and Alsatians - not the way the German Shepherd Dog breed is now actually referred to by Lord Baker! - in section one saying they should be muzzled but failing to mention that he chose not to include Rottweillers in section one at the time he introduced the Act despite the death of Kelly Lynch or to mention that section one also requires compulsory neutering, micro chipping and tattooing and an undertaking from the owner to register the dog and not to sell or give away the dog for its lifetime i.e. guarantees the extinction of the breed in the UK within two decades.

What Lord Baker did say yesterday was that the rights of people to own ‘these dogs’ was not worth the life of even one child. So what happened in 1990 Lord Baker? The child that died then was killed by Rottweillers. The ‘breeds’ you did have the political nerve to put into section one were not responsible for any UK fatalities at that time. By your own standards you allowed a child’s death earlier this year by failing to include Rottweillers in section one!

In office Lord Baker understood political expediency, now he can freely make statements to boost his ego and reappraise what has already been determined to be a legal disaster – The Dangerous Dogs Act 1990.

Its failure has nothing to do with Dog Wardens (or even the police) failing to implement it fully or properly. It was bad law. It attempted to transfer responsibility for human failings onto animals by demonising them into killing machines worthy only of total obliteration. It was an important attempt at transferring legal responsibility not only onto an animal involved in an incident but any animal by virtue of its breed alone. It was found out and it failed.

We can continue to blame breeds if we want. If so the Rottweillers should have been named in 1990 and it was criminal negligence by Lord Baker not to do so. Or we can decide to provide legislation which works without using it as an emotional crutch for our own failings.

Children are precious, but hundreds die every year in preventable road accidents with cars and motorcycles (we do not blame the car or the motorcycle or attempt to ban them). Children are precious, but dozens die in accidents in the home with electricity, at play near water and at the hands of human beings who have been put in charge of them either as parent or carer. Why is it that we look differently at the law when the cause of the terrible loss of a precious child is a dog?

Understanding is not increased by eliminating animals from life, after all, the most dangerous animal to a child is the human animal (look to your figures for child murder last year and compare them with the children killed by dogs).

Over the past couple of days I have seen so much ill-considered or ill-conceived comment in the media my head is bursting. I saw figures quoted suggesting 30,000 dog bites treated at hospitals in the last year, but the last time I checked these figures hospitals listed all types of bite as ‘bites’ and did not differentiate between dog and humans bites even though emergency departments confirmed that most of the bites they were treating were of human origin.

It sometimes appears that the only thing we have learned to do better in the last decade and a half is re-write history, but still continue to make all the same mistakes.

So it is with complete despair that I commit these words to the page but also with the complete knowledge that there is no blood on my hands nor on the hands of my many friends who operate Dog Warden Services throughout the UK."

Now you know why that man is a complete Twit!!!
boobah
Dogsey Veteran
boobah is offline  
Location: central scotland
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,918
Female 
 
05-10-2007, 05:45 PM
I cannot believe someone wanting to ban SBT's just because they look similar to Pitts.You must be joking I know loads of SBT's,most of them are awesome with kids and other dogs.Then there are the bad ones,funny the bad ones I know of all have bad breeding and very bad owners.
I would never ever comment on any other breed in such a negative way unless I knew exactly what I was talking about inside out.I am always opinionated about who should and shouldn't own a dog though.These yobs who own SBT's for the wrong reasons not only give a terrific breed a bad name but also plant these horrible ideas in your skull and if you are daft enough to believe it god help us.
Katie23
Dogsey Veteran
Katie23 is offline  
Location: Cheshire
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,387
Female 
 
05-10-2007, 05:50 PM
its probably doubled because people want a baned dog - which is why people should be fined more - they are banned for a reason and should stay banned

imo - the next dog that will be banned will probably be staffys and a breed LIKE rotties - because they are big - pathetic but thats what the gov are like
Sal
Dogsey Veteran
Sal is offline  
Location: gloucestershire
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,432
Female 
 
05-10-2007, 05:54 PM
Originally Posted by suze View Post
its probably doubled because people want a baned dog - which is why people should be fined more - they are banned for a reason and should stay banned

imo - the next dog that will be banned will probably be staffys and a breed LIKE rotties - because they are big - pathetic but thats what the gov are like
Suze,Do you read properly or what,
Bites have doubled,no breeds mentioned,it's not all down to banned breeds.

Even Politicans are against the DDA/BSL so I for one can't see Rotts or the SBT been added to it!

I can't see the 5th most popular breed in the uk that has written into the breed standard has been good with people especially children banned!
Honestly!
Katie23
Dogsey Veteran
Katie23 is offline  
Location: Cheshire
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,387
Female 
 
05-10-2007, 06:01 PM
Originally Posted by Sal View Post
I'm leaving this thread now.
what happened to leaving?



oh, yes i can read - just couldnt be bothered reading it all
Sal
Dogsey Veteran
Sal is offline  
Location: gloucestershire
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,432
Female 
 
05-10-2007, 06:05 PM
Originally Posted by suze View Post
what happened to leaving?



oh, yes i can read - just couldnt be bothered reading it all
It's called trying to educate someone!!!
boobah
Dogsey Veteran
boobah is offline  
Location: central scotland
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,918
Female 
 
05-10-2007, 06:05 PM
Originally Posted by suze View Post
what happened to leaving?



oh, yes i can read - just couldnt be bothered reading it all
You want a breed banned and YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED,my god whats this world coming to.
Heather and Zak
Dogsey Veteran
Heather and Zak is offline  
Location: South Wales
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,408
Female 
 
05-10-2007, 06:07 PM
Originally Posted by boobah View Post
You want a breed banned and YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED,my god whats this world coming to.
You got there before me I was thinking the same thing.
boobah
Dogsey Veteran
boobah is offline  
Location: central scotland
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,918
Female 
 
05-10-2007, 06:14 PM
Sal looks like you are talking to a brick wall.Suze when someone is trying to help you understand something you could at least be courteous and thank them for the info and read it maybe then you will understand more.Your can't be bothered attitude when someone is trying to help is terrible.
Closed Thread
Page 6 of 16 « First < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > Last »


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 


© Copyright 2016, Dogsey   Contact Us - Dogsey - Top Contact us | Archive | Privacy | Terms of use | Top