Having had a DA dog, I would say he was no danger to other dogs unless that other dog belonged to an owner that allowed their out of control dog to go bounding right into his face.
He did not go after other dogs he just reacted rather quickly to bad mannered dogs.
A dog with issues is no big deal providing the owner keeps them under control. Its the ones who have dogs with issues and still let them run off lead in a populated area.

Then I would say that was their fault.

This a popular point of view and one I'd not disagree with. Only I can't accept that all dogs are equally dangerous or, as suggested, that small dogs represent the bigger danger.

Any risk assessment looks at TWO things- the chance of an accident happening and the effects that are likely if it does. A 10% risk of a slight bump on the head might be acceptable. A 1% risk of death? - probably not!

Little dogs may bite more often – lots more- but still cause less damage than a big dog biting just the once. That’s why this study is flawed. It looks at the rate of incidents without looking at the consequences of each incident.

It might sound a crass point to make but I'll make it...I'd back myself against an out of control Yorkie but my money's on the Dogo if that Dogo really wants to take a chunk out of me.

The issue has never been "can responsible people with appropriate training and experience handle dogs of any breed?" - of course we know that they can. The real issue is "what about the irresponsible?" Deed not breed is a great slogan but it not exactly pro-active is it? Does "deed not breed" mean waiting around until the dog commits the "deed"? What if the deed is taking a child's life?

I say it’s self evident that all dogs are not equally dangerous because all dogs are not equally equipped to cause damage.

If we are to replace the failed DDA with something better that something has to be about trying to assess owners in some way. Yes, you could devise all manner of bureaucratic systems of licensing and inspection but I believe compulsory third party insurance is the only system that really looks at dogs and owners, assesses risk and puts a price on it. It also has a chance to be self financing, no small thing these days.

If the posters are right about small dogs being the real danger then I'm sure insurance companies will set their premiums for little dogs higher than for big dogs. To do otherwise would be bad business.

I can't see how thrid party insurance will look at the owner because the companies will just slap a higher premium on some dogs regardless of the owner so is still looking at the wrong end of the lead.

Any change in law needs to make the inidvdual owner responsible, so perminant ID and legal owner has to be compulsary.

If owner moves the dog on they have to notify log or remain responsible for the dog.

You're right, I don't like "deed not breed", in fact I think it will be used as a great slogan by the anti-dog lobby the very first time a dog from an un-banned breed kills someone.

"Deed not Breed" does not address public fears over irresponsible dog owners. It will ultimately lead to more general restrictions on dog owners and general bans on dogs.

"Deed not Breed" is plain wholly thinking. Why? - because it implies all we can do is wait until a dog has bitten before we can take action. Acting against the deed not the breed is just not good enough. We need to be genuinely pro-active in stopping the irresponsible owning dogs. Let's not have the "deed" in the first place.

No proposal is a 100% cure all - I'm supporting an insurance based approach but am willing to listen to any argument.

How would an insurance based approach be enforced?

It is illegal to drive a car without tax, MOT if necessary, and compulsory third-party insurance, but how many untaxed, uninsured cars and those without a current MOT are there on the roads?

Someone on another forum said that her son had been quoted over £2000 p/a insurance on a taxed and MOT'd car because of his age. He promptly said he would do what all his friends did, ie drive without insurance "because the fine if you are caught is so little".

If insuring a car cannot be enforced, how can insuring a dog against third party claims be?

I would oppose any insuranced backed option as I don't trust the insurance companies not to rip people off.

Compulsary id of dog with breeder info and new owner info.
If a dog is rehomed or sold on the data base has to be notified of new owner details. If the old owner fails to do this they remain responsible for the dog and its actions.
Much like when you sell a car and the new owner get a speeding or parking ticket.

The fear of being responsible for the new owners mistakes woule ensure most people will update new owner details.

Most people id dogs already so the basic are already there just needs a few tweeks system and in the law.

To add insurance will not make people better owners, it does not make people better drivers