thats my problem with such tests.. I would hate to see the council in charge... they take a good idea... then turn it into something else.

Very good point.

I've got three answers.

Firstly - I don't think there's a choice . Like the adage goes - if nothing changes then everything will stay the same. I am very much a fan of small government and to ask for significantly greater intervention goes against the grain. However the situation is dire. Tens of thousands of dogs dying each year, rescue in meltdown, irresponsible ownership, breeding and supply is endemic, the hideous injustices of our current dog laws and the continuing dog related tragedies -something needs to change. Self-regulation has not worked.

You will hear me argue elsewhere that the KC has failed in its duties and should be radically reformed or marginalised. It would be hypocritical of me not to concede that dog owning society has also failed in its duties. If we cannot put our own house in order (and it is evident that we cannot) then we must ask for others to do it for us. I do not think it is appropriate for government to get involved in all aspects of our lives but when welfare is suffering then it is very appropriate justification for government to act.

The DDA has failed. It hasn't prevented a rise in dog bites but it has condemned many family pets to death. It is a piece of knee-jerk legislation so poorly crafted that it literally makes itself un-enforceable in an effective manner.

It's time for a change and, with the stakes so very, very high, I am willing to bear an increased regulatory burden - for the sake of the dogs, all the dogs.

Secondly, I think government intervention is inescapable anyway. IMO, society is becoming increasingly anti-dog. Negative dog stories in our media outweigh positive stories by about twenty to one. Local authorities are enacting dog control orders up and down the country. We are increasingly restricted on where we can exercise our dogs and how many dogs we can exercise and every sensationalised attack brings ever more strident demands for more breeds to be added to the DDA's banned list. There is much mileage to be made from being anti-dog for our sensationalist journalists, our populist politicians and for our local governments too who are ever keen to save money on wardens, bins and dog-associated costs.

Legislation is coming. Sure as eggs is eggs. It is merely a question of whether we sit back and let non-dog owners write the laws or whether we take a pro-active role, get involved and, hopefully, have a chance of guiding the lawmakers into choices that will work and be just.

Lastly I think we have to be practical. There are only a few realistic options before us. Maybe we could hold the status quo - but the status quo stinks. We could extend the DDA by adding more banned breeds but that wont stop irresponsible owners - that's like blaming the BMW and letting the bad driver walk off to buy a Ferrari. When he crashes that we can ban Ferraris and watch the same bad driver buy a Porche. Or we could go with Mr. Neil's proposal before the Scottish parliament which, like the DDA, does nothing to prevent attacks but reacts after the event. Or the DOT proposal which is the only proposal that incorporates a preventative aspect by improving ownership standards before the attacks occur.

Of the options before us that have any chance the DOT is, I feel, the best and the one most worthy of the support of responsible dog lovers. It's not perfect (no law is) and all of us can probably find something to fault but it's the best on offer. If we wait for something perfect to come along we will simply fail and leave the court open to others to decide our dog's fate. It is time for dog lovers to unite behind something, to make our voices coherent enough to be heard and have influence. There's six million of us! Nearly 10% of the UK population. We could exert great pressure if we ever did unite behind something.

I`m afraid I`m more cynical than you. I don`t think you can legislate people into behaving well, and I don`t think laws are drafted and passed from altruistic motives.
Too many of the movers and shakers come from - or aspire to - the Country Life set, and too much money is made by breeding dogs to have any legislation that would limit dog ownership here in any meaningful way - that is, in any way that would be of any welfare benefit to the dogs.
What I would prefer to see is exisiting legislation - especially the Animal Welfare Act - enforced properly.

I would prefer to see the the multitude of laws we already have being enforced. There is no point having laws in the first place if they're not actually enforced. You can intoduce as many new laws as you like but it's the enforcement of them that has an effect not the law itself.

Enforcing current laws would be dandy except we have the DDA.

So my question to Claire and T is this:

Would you like to see section one, DDA being persued more vigourously (bear in mind when answering this that we will never achieve the aims of the legislation of being a country free from Pitbull types because further dogs of type will be continually produced. We cannot stop the occasional staff becoming too tall or the occasional mastiff being too short. We will always have dogs which are of 'type', most of them loved pets, all of them at terrible risk under our current laws)?

It is the inherent injustice in our current laws that make the courts reluctant to enforce and, in turn, the police reluctant to persue. Imagine, for a moment, that you are Mayor of Dogseyville and have decided to clamp down on illegal dogs. What will you do? Perhaps you could announce an amnesty and encourage owners of 'type' dogs to surrender them. Perhaps you could scour the media looking for the adverts that boast pitbulls for sale. You could ask your police and dog wardens to keep a keen eye for 'type' dogs as they go about their business.

Persue this for a couple of months and you will certainly seize some dogs. You won't have caught any of the real dog fighters, of course, whose dogs are exercised on treadmills in cellars or private land. You wont catch their breeders whose deals are done in darkened corners in the backrooms of pubs. You will have caught a whole lot of pet dogs who were never a risk, torn apart families and made yourself as popular as a rat sandwich with large sections of your population.

And when you get to court after many months of spending taxpayers money on expensive assesments and kenneling you will find that 95% of these dogs to be utterly harmless and returned to their owners (although, of course, they will must be muzzled and never again to run free because otherwise what's it all been for?).

Having gone through this whole exercise I would not be surprised if you did not rush to repeat the experience. Breed specific legislation is wrong. Is this really the law that you would like to see pushed?

Personally I think we should forget about dog legislation and concentrate on those really responsible, who should most definately be held accountable, People.
People are the source of all dog related problems and not enough action is taken against those proven to have committed offences.
A dangerous dog for me is not defined by breed. I think too much is made of what breed a dog is rather than the behaviour of the dog. Any legislation should be based on all dogs.
We've had this discussion on here many times and we just seem to go around in circles.

I bet!

I agree with you, T.

The problems we face are of our own creation. It is the irresponsible owners and breeders and suppliers that should be the target of our laws, not some arbitrary breeds.

That is why I see the DOT as the way forward. It is the only proposal that offers to improve standards through filtering out the least commited and educating the rest. It's not a cure-all but it could make a huge difference.

Just one of many previous threads
http://www.dogsey.com/showthread.php?t=52792

they would be safe if they were KC reg... as staffie.. or mastiff..

so the flaw here would be.. or bonus depending on how you see it.. dogs being produced by people who dont reg would be at risk...

personaly I think start with the root of the problem... BREEDERS.. I would love to see a breeders micro chip for dogs.. or for rottweilers anyway..
that way any dog that is found and taken to rescue.. can be traced back... the breeder should then either take the dog back...or pay for its care untill it can be re-homed
any dog that attacks..or is out of control.. can be traced back to the breeder..
eg... if a breeder has three dogs who have been out of control.. attack... they clearly are not finding the right home for there dogs....so they have a ban on breeding...

there are obvious flaws in this too.. but it could be a start..

Thanks.

The 'Breed not Deed' campaign embodies a flaw that means it can only ever hope to enjoy limited support.

The DOT should, if correctly promoted, be able to muster far more popularity among the wider non-dog owning public because it offers to make them safer while costing them less.