Sorry isn't that 'Deed not Breed' or am I confuddled?

My dogs don't need to be made safer, they are under control, and how do they cost the non-dog owners anything. They certainly don't cost as much as other peoples children cost me, but I don't object.

I believe the DDA is already enforced. I`m sure I`ve signed quite a few petitions about family dogs seized as pit bull `types` lately.
The legislation I would like to see enforced is
1. the new Animal Welfare Act - why is dog-fighting still common? why are some travellers camps and certain estates safe havens for dog thieves?
2. Threatening Behaviour / harassment / offences against the person.
I see no need for further laws when the ones we have are paper tigers.

I have many issues with this tbh, the objectives sound fine but once you start to plough through the 10 point plan it really starts to wind me up and most of these were covered in the thread I directed you to previously.

The Dog Owner Suitability Test, hereto referred to as D.O.T is a proposal
designed to achieve the following objectives:
To place a far greater emphasis on the prevention of dog attacks, dog neglect
and environmental nuisance
To improve the general level of canine awareness amongst all UK dog owners
To bring about radical change in the standards of those involved in the supply
of dogs to the public
To ensure greater comprehension amongst all UK dog owners of the various laws
affecting domestic dogs
To provide a workable alternative to the failed aspects of the 1991 Dangerous
Dogs Act
To place full legal accountability upon dog owners for the actions and welfare
of their dogs
To repeal breed specific legislation which has failed to save human lives and
is practically impossible to implement fairly
10 Point Plan for Achieving Stated Goals:

1) Lobby government to create and fund an executive agency of DEFRA which would
deal with administrating the dog owner suitability test. For the purposes of
this proposal we shall give this agency the working title of ‘Dog Owner
Licencing Agency’. The responsibility of this agency would be as follows:

Dog and owner licensing database.
Issuing certification and processing applications to the Dog Ownership
Suitability Test which would be run and administered in a style similar to the
driving licence theory exam of the British Citizenship Test
Provide access to the central dog and owner licensing database to enable those
involved in the supply of or control of dogs to verify if an individual has a
valid dog ownership licence
Set the national fee for sitting the D.O.T

I have to say I really think step 1 is a load of old tosh, having a certificate is no proof of anything, and what happens to anyone who can't afford the fee for licensing or testing? do they just get rid of their dogs or are they then guilty of an offence and should be fined/imprisoned?
Oh multiple choice questions so you could just guess and still pass.
Yet another level of taxation is all I can see and completely unenforcable. Why can't we just use the many laws already in existence to punish anyone committing an offence whatever the weapon used. Intimidation and threatening behaviour are already against the law. Enforce those laws.

Uh-huh. KC reg or not. Pedigree or not.

It doesn't matter if your dog is full pitbull or can be proved not to have a drop of pit. All that matters are its physical characteristics. There is no reason why a KC reg Staff who grows overly large would be exempted from being deemed 'of type' just because you have his papers.




Hmmm....there was a time that I felt the same but I have reconsidered.

The root of the problem is the owners.

Consider...we wave our magic wand and suddenly we have rid ourselves of all the poor standard breeders. We would still be left with the demand. Hundreds of thousands of buyers with cash in hand wanting a pup. Can you see the problem? New bad breeders would quickly spring up or dogs would be imported. Everyone with an intact dog would be constantly pestered to mate it. As with our efforts against drug dealers - all the while a market exists it will prove impossible to eradicate. Even if we had a mammouth enforcement drive and fantastic police and won the day we would simply have to do the same again tomorrow because the demand (and hence the opprtunity for big profits) remains.

However turn the issue around - wave our magic wand at the poor owners and suddenly we have hundreds of breeders with no-one to sell the wares to. No customers = no market = no breeders.

I am convinced that the problems of both irresponsible ownership and oversupply can only be tackled from the owner's side, the demand side, of the equation.


Full accountability and tracability through a national ID scheme is essential but I would not agree with punishing the breeder whilst absolving the owner of his responsibility.

I can see where you're coming from..you are trying to ensure that breeders are more careful whom they allow to take a puppy but the DOT does this. It places a legal duty on all breeders/suppliers to ensure they only place dogs into homes that have sat and passed the DOT. To do more, to make the breeder liable for the actions of the owner is to go too far. Some bad owners are very careful to present well. How can we then punish the breeder/supplier? Is there a rescue anywhere that has not made misjudgements? If we employed a three strikes and you're out type rule then I'm guessing most rescues who have a bounce rate of say 10% will be struck out within the year. We might even see the disturbing scene of owners holding breeders' reputations hostage.

It is the irresponsible owner who we must target. While there are many genuine reasons to surrender a dog it cannot be disputed that the vast majority of rescue intake is untrained, often unsocialised adolescent dogs from ill-prepared or uncommited owners. It was irresponsible ownership that lead directly to the deaths of Archie-Lee and Caddy-Lee and indirectly to the death of Ellie Lawrenson. It is the irresponsible owners who want a dog now, now, now and so perpetuate the puppymills and it is the irresponsible owner who is walking away scott free under our present system.

I agree with those 2 parts of your post but nothing else. Why aim legislation at the responsible when current legislation already covers the irresponsible.

Lol.

No. T'was me that was confuddlement struck.

tis ok I thought there was something I'd missed

Section one? Sporadic clampdowns - nothing more.

But lets say you're right. Lets say that the authorities are sincere and motivated in their enforcement of the Act.

The number of people treated for dog bites at hospitals in England has risen sharply
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7264620.stm

It's not working, is it?

*Note: article carries picture of Chloe Grayson was not bitten, but there you go.

so if DOT came into force... what happens when someone who has passed the test's dog then goes on to bite?..

could the person thats been hurt then go on to make a claim against the dog owner and the organisation for passing an owner..whos dog goes on to bite... the whole {liability} thing could be a problem??

I have in the past thought tests were the way forward.. but now im not so sure.. is a multi choice questionaire enough??

should you need to pass a test with your dog? if so how often would you need to re-do that test... once a year like an MOT..

I see no easy answer to this....