Plan for danger dog orders met with scepticism in Leicestershire
Plans to force all owners to insure against their dogs attacking someone have met scepticism in Leicestershire.
Government proposals to overhaul the Dangerous Dogs Act include forcing owners to microchip dogs and new control orders for misbehaving animals. The orders would allow police and council officials to force irresponsible owners to muzzle, leash or neuter pets.
-
A pit bull terrier
The mother of a six-year-old girl from Melton, scarred for life after being attacked by an akita, said the proposals would not have helped her child.
The woman, who did not wish to be named, said: "The Government wants to muzzle dogs that have been reported as misbehaving, by then it is too late.
"Even well-behaved dogs can snap, so I'd prefer a list of at-risk dog breeds drawn up which must be muzzled regardless of individual history."
The akita owner was ordered to pay the girl £500 after admitting being in charge of a dog which was dangerously out of control in a public place.
The woman added: "It was a very small amount of money, considering my daughter has been severely scarred on her arm for life. Third party insurance would financially help those who've been attacked."
Sara Whittaker, who owns the WitsEnd dog training school, in Aylestone, Leicester, said: "Bad behaviour by dogs is down to owners. Restrictions are worthless if you have an irresponsible owner. Enforcing insurance and microchipping would be an enormous task."
Ministers are considering making it an offence for owners to allow their dog to be "dangerously out of control'' in a private place. It would extend the law to private residences, and could protect postal staff.
Mark Greenhill, chairman of Communications Workers' Union in Leicester, which represents postal workers across the county, backed the ideas. He said: "There's an incident about once a week of a postal worker being injured by a dog. Either they're attacked outside a property, or their fingers are bitten as they post letters. This could prevent some incidents."
Five-month-old Cadey-Lee Deacon died in September, 2006, after her family's rottweiler bit her head, chest and abdomen at The Rocket pub, in New Parks, Leicester.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson, who set out the ideas in a speech to Parliament, said: "Some people breed and keep dogs for the sole purpose of intimidating others."
The proposals have not been tabled in Parliament. However, reform is supported by Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, and new powers are expected within a year regardless of who wins the General Election.
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 makes it illegal to own controlled dogs, including pit bull terriers, without specific exemption from a court.
19 Comments
View all
by John, Leicester
Thursday, March 11 2010, 12:15PM
“Just another knee jerk reaction from this government. The firearms legislation was supposed to remove guns from the streets , the criminals still have them only the law abiding majority were hit.”
by Lord of the Teapot, Sunny side of Leicester
Wednesday, March 10 2010, 2:58PM
“PHEW!
Thank goodness we have a cat... Oh! Hang on it's named after a dog (Gnasher) would we have to pay?
No?
PHEW!
\(_)? Celebrates with a cup of tea \(_)?”
by Sue, Mountsorrel
Wednesday, March 10 2010, 2:43PM
“Like most of the other posters, every responsible dog owner I know has already got insurance. If there are still irresponsible people driving cars without tax and insurance, it will be even harder to pick out dog owners without insurance. A great idea, but not practical unless every vet, breeder and rescue centre has to check insurance before letting an owner take a dog away. Councils are already cutting dog warden services, so they won't have time to help enforce this. How about a register of dogs and reintroducing the licence, making neutering of pet dogs compulsory, as opposed to specialised breeding establishments, which should have to have extra licences, and having a campaign to make it as anti-social to have a badly behaved dog/owner as drink-driving has become.”
by Dodgite, Braunstone
Wednesday, March 10 2010, 2:38PM
“I believe all dogs, irrelevant of size or breed should be forced to wear muzzles. Also if anybody is caught breeding dogs for fighting then they, not the dog, should be put down. Simple as!”
by sammy, CV11 4RF
Wednesday, March 10 2010, 2:10PM
“i can understand about some dogs being dangerous & the government wishes NO wants to have dogs muzzled,that are out of control, BUT what do the GOVERNMENT do when their owners CAN NOT control them but your also looking over ONE other major FACTOR of other dog & owner problems is DOG POO that is left behind form dog owners who CAN NOT just scoop & bag & bin it.
I have 3 dogs upon I love them dearly, but I can not bend down to pick up their mess unless I feel safe to do so as I have arthrits which is painfully in the knees So when out with all 3 & my daughters they TOO pick up.
So if the GOVERNMENT want's to do something about un controlable DOGS then for heavens sake do something about mess that OWNERS leave behind form their DOGS”
by Sasha, leics
Wednesday, March 10 2010, 1:08PM
“Never mind if dogs are used as weapons or not. There has to be a record of them. They make a mess on pavements, they terrorise children etc. Today, if a dog injures anyone, only a few lucky ones will be compensated. Otherwise in most cases a dogowner is either skint, junkie, homeless etc. not even able to feed themselves let alone the offending dog when it comes to court. The law will only put the animal down, prevent the owner from keeping another one for a year and thats it. Like vehicles are treated as a lethal weapon if misused, dogs should certainly be treated as same. They must be insured or not kept.”
by Julie, Leicester
Wednesday, March 10 2010, 12:49PM
“If this law passes then the RSPCA and other rescue centres will be overflowing with dogs from owners who find they can suddenly no longer afford to keep them. I hope the Government will make financial provision to help these public funded charities in this case?”
by Pete, Wigston, Leicestershire
Wednesday, March 10 2010, 12:14PM
“It's a great idea. Of course some selfish people will flout the law as always, but do not allow that to prevent the law coming in.”
by Catherine, Humberstone
Wednesday, March 10 2010, 11:52AM
“To be honest I suspect more law enforcement will push the irresponsible owners further 'underground' and you therefore have no control over owners / dogs you do not know exist!
Any further cost or risk of red tape etc will mean more 'insurance dodgers' so that they can keep their anonymity and avoid being caught if their animal is dangerous / a nuisance.”
by Rachel, Essex
Wednesday, March 10 2010, 11:44AM
“I have a Bullmastiff she is fantasticwith children and other dogs (scared of dogs most times) I know my dog very well but that said my responsabilty as an owner means I would NEVER leave her unattended with a child as 'you can never be sure' our insurance for her is more per year than our car! I would always have my dogs insured more so toensure they would always get healthcare they needed at any time and cost. The price of insurance will never prevent a dog attack but will prevent people purchsing it. I think the governmemt would do better to make some sort of training compulsory for owners and their dogs to ensure discipline measures have been taught and met. Mostly everyone registers with a vet so this training could be monitored through vets clinics. As usual it will be the responsible people that are going to suffer.”