How? why would it be more effective than the current law.

Trouble makes a good point. Pit bulls are already illegal yet i know of at least half a dozen around here (and yes sadly, all but one owned by complete idots who use them for aggression). The current laws we have in place aren't even being enforced - or wrongly enforced with dogs that blatantly don't have a drop of pit in them being taken away from their owners for months before they confirm they are innocent. I don't trust anything else they put in place and worry that it will only encourage petty behaviour from the officials enforcing it and i would hazard that the normal responsible owner will have things made much more difficult for them but do nothing to deter or restrict the main offenders.

Gosh, T. I'm having trouble keeping up with you

We can demand a certain level of demonstrable knowledge. We do it for driving and for a whole slew of professions so it's not new.

I'm with you on the government interference. You may struggle to believe me but it's true. I hate legislative burdens and feel we are over-regulated, over-restricted and certainly over-taxed. But I also feel that we are failing our dogs. Big Time. It is clear that we, as a nation, are not going to change of our own volition.

I couldn't tell you what a normal temperature is either (me bad! ) which is great! It means that even you and I will learn something from this test and so become better owners. If it will do that for us 'educated' types what will it do for everyone else?

It's true there will always be lawbreakers but that's is not a reason not to have laws (not that you suggested it was). However how successful a law is and how easily enforced it is depend largely on the crafting of the legislation. This is another area where the DOT proposal could yet come a cropper. It is complex and will need skilled legislators to be effective.

However, at the moment we have Section One, DDA which is about as bad as a bad law gets so...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55CW4LkG0QA

As I've already observed the current laws make themselves unenforceable.

The reason those idiots you mention are able to get away with it is because no one can be absolutely sure that their dog is a pitbull type until it has been so deemed by the courts. Identifying a pitbull is not an easy matter. Even experts with many years in the field disagree over this or that dog.

In fact, I beleive it has been demonstrated that the experts can only achieve a 75% accuracy rate. Which means, for every twelve dogs, three will be wrongly identified by the experts. Small wonder then that the average bobby doesn't want to know.

By comparison, under the DOT, all the police/warden will have to do is check a database to see if the owner has taken the test.

Quick, easy and cheap.

If you don't agree with our current laws surely the only course is to change them?

Make a DOT question about the legalities of tail docking. Then no-one can say they didn't know.

I agree with you regarding the DDA it's a complete nonsense.
I actually don't think it's that bad to not know what a normal tempreture is for a dog, I can look it up. I really don't need to know it and anyway I aint sticking a thermometer up their bum, I don't own a thermometer. So what use is that piece of information to me?
I do agree that certain individuals are failing their dogs big time but please don't lump me in with them. Certain individuals fail their children big time too. Act on those who fail to act for themselves. No more legislation, we have way too much already that's what's so confusing. Make the current legislation work and have an education program to ensure vital information reaches the masses.
Docking is a classic example, twice recently it has cropped up. The Dobermann in the park and recently in the vets some woman commented that Syd would look better with a tail. I told her I disagreed but it was irrelevant as it was now illegal to dock dogs and she didn't know either. She was pleased but still wasn't aware of the law.

but i don't think the present laws are unenforceable - just that they aren't. Although i agree the being able to confirm if a pit is actually a pit is part of that. I do think a database of dogs is a good idea - forces people to be responsible but how on earth they could take on legislating it i don't know. You are still going to hit the brick wall problem of bybs. We need to look at adjusting and enforcing the current laws rather than just sticking extra additions on the end of them.

The DOT proposal isn't an add-on or addition/modification.

It is intended as a complete replacement for section one of the DDA.

So how do you reconcile these two views?


The current legislation is poo. Making it work is just not feasable.

Trouble - I'm not trying to lump you in with irresponsible owners. Merely demonstrating that a test may impart useful information to all dog owners good and bad.

Which current legislation? there is just tooooo much of it. If you mean the BSL part of the DDA just get shot of it, cos it's crap and not workable or worth retaining.

I know you're not but I meant generally. The only thing ALL dog owners have in common is that they all have dogs. The only thing ALL parents have in common is that they all have offspring. So therefore we shouldn't all be lumped in together and treated in the same manner. Yes we should all abide by the same rules and regulations. However some will do so willingly because they believe it's the right thing to do, others will do so grudgingly if at all.
Basically you can't make people care, either they do or they don't, you can only punish those that refuse to do so and those laws are already in place and can be enforced, but they're not.
Someone once suggested a government campaign on tv similar to the clung click and the anti smoking stuff. Rather than tucking information away on the news mount a big advertising campaign and reach the masses while they veg out on the sofa.