Having a dangerously out of control dog is I am sure against the law isn't it part of the DDA Act

Proof is extremely difficult - he can claim it was a "simple" dog-fight. Having a dangerously out of control dog is mostly limited to a threat to humans and/or (I think off the top of my head) livestock, but not dog fights.

Please post if you understand it differently.

I had a very bad experience some years ago, it was ongoing for a few years, one particular person who lived in a house backing onto a park I took the girls on when they were puppies got a bee in his bonnet about them, next minute he was reporting me to the local CPO and the Dog Warden, he was following me, every time I went onto the field he came out with his dog, which barked non stop at mine and when challenged he said he was perfectly entitled to 'exercise' his dog whenever he chose. I had the police round constantly as he kept reporting me for having dogs dangerously out of control, I had letters from the Dog Warden as he reported me more than 3 times. It made me ill and I was frightened to go on the field in the end, which was obviously his aim, and I really didn't want to give in but I had to for my sanity and the safety of my girls. So if someone like that can cause such mayhem to a perfectly innocent dog owner then the law would surely apply to the person who is the alleged owner of this dog. But then again I was an easy target and they could tick the box couldn't they. He won't be so easy so they will find something else that is easy and doesn't require any particular effort on their part.
My girls are trained to KC Good Citizen Gold standard now, and I took particular delight in ensuring that this person was made aware of the fact, he passed away late last year, and I now walk the babies and their mother on that field every day and laugh when I pass where he lived, because he can do me no harm now.

How absolultely awful to be on the receiving end of this horrible bully.

The CPO would visit - and I suspect the CPO will visit the dog-owner in this case, when it comes to prosecution it has to get across the desk of the Crown Prosecution Service, who are extremely selective about the cases they will pass through as dog-on-dog attacks do not fall under the DDA legislation then they are not likely to prosecute - it can fall under another piece of legislation which is much much weaker - so ineffective in fact the police are hardly likely to use it.

Moreoever i think the fact that she has identified the "perpetrator" has put her in a difficult position legally and no doubt his picture has travelled the length and breadth of the social networking site (I got a copy early today) he will claim prejudices any fair trial.

There's is nothing as unjust as the justice sytem!

Hi I used to watch all the wild life programs now I dont,because they are more interested in getting the money shot,and how they can watch an animal killed.I for one dont want to watch the death of anything.
Crystalgirl

Yup, it's always the poor dog who suffers. It is not his fault that he is a pitbull who most likely has been trained to fight other dogs to the death, far rather than the dog be destroyed, I would like to see the despicable thug who owns the dog be pts. Controversial, but it's getting to the sharp pointy end of the problem - the problem is not the dogs, it's the owners.

Oh my oh my, what's going on there

but that's just how it is?

unfortunately

just gratefully, that I never came in such a situation

only once (where nothing was happens at all) I got really scared

I walked my dog at an quite unclearly <-? area
hilly fields with little forests between

suddenly I heard a man screaming badly for his dog, I presumed (couldn't imagine anything else), then I heard him using his dog pipe as well, so I was sure about
he didn't stop calling his dog back, screamt for him...

I couldn't see anything, just heard it

but I got kinda afraid, as maybe the dog did see us before?
my dog? was going mad for to attack her? hunting?
I had no clue, just only could hear the dog owner screaming and piping for his dog, who obviously didn't obey

I just found myself left helpless in case...
that I ever had could protect her...

nothing was happens as I said, but since I got a pepper spray and without I'm not walking my dog again

I'm well aware, if I ever need to use it, I have to use it carefully
but before I get my camera out, I already will have that pepper spray in my hand

so before the attacking dog will get at mine, I will been between, however, I have to protect her!

but as well, these pics are confusing me
the first one showed, is that dog without the leash on?
the other with?
she made both pics in the same situation?
so the second first and then the first when her dog got attackt? and that for 25 minutes?

not sure what I should be thinking about all of that story

Unless I am mistaken, I don't think it is actually against the law to have a dog that attacks other dogs ... only a dog that attacks human beings.

I may be wrong, but that's how I have always understood the DDA.

Yes - as far as I know that's true. She can take out a private prosecution but the police and judiciary do not have the power to act under the DDA.

As I said before she's made a mistake identifying him as well. The Daily Mail didn't show a facial shot but her FB pictures do.

I agree with Malkepi - carry pepper spray. I would rather someone sprayed pepper into my dog's face than he attack a defenceless dog - although naturally I'd feel bad that I'd let him down by allowing him into such a situation.