Changes to dangerous dog act.

Dale_tem said:
I am concerned about any dog I can't throw like an American football when they are near my children. Everyone has rights and I think a number of dog owners who are around dogs all the time simply do not understand how a dog running towards you or your child makes you feel. You have a right to walk your dog, but everyone has a right not to be scared.

They make me feel that I must be next to my daughter at a park and not let her explore on her own.

You will all come back and say they are as soft as pillows etc. etc. etc. etc. but when one of my daughters get spooked and gets upset when a "harmless dog" comes up to her, how is it harmless if it has given her that reaction? That is like saying there is no harm in emotional bullying as there is no physical contact and no anger. What about when on 1 or 2 occasions when I have been a little further from my daughter and she has been so spooked that she has run to me causing the dog to chase and jump up etc.

Whenever I see someone ask a dog owner to keep their dog under control, they are always met with abuse. This is not just the stereotypical vest, can of lager and bulldog brigade but middle aged women in those green waxy country jackets, families with dogs etc. There have been quite a few incidents in our local park that we have a dog warden who patrols the park.

I went down to Sandbanks, Poole and we were sitting on the beach having a picnic in the no dog zone and 3 dogs came up to try and take our lunch resulting in owners having to run across the beach. There were also some large huskies running around off the lead and when someone reminded the owner the dogs should be on a lead, they were met with a mouthful of abuse from both the mum and dad of the family.

On the flipside my girls have stroked some lovely dogs, but these are generally yorkshire terrier size.

My daughters know to ask us and the owner before going towards a dog and always do. They also know to stand still when a dog is near them and we have to work hard to ensure they remember. Yet they still get spooked by larger dogs (any breed).

Why does someone else having a dog have such an effect on my family?
Click to expand...
i doubt you'll find any (sensible) dog owner disputing any of that. if a dog cannot be recalled then keep it on a lead. at the same time children also need to be taught not to bound up to a dog without knowing how it will react.

sandbanks is full of tourists most of the time, chances are you'll always get a few morons there.
 
neil_g said:
at the same time children also need to be taught not to bound up to a dog without knowing how it will react.
Click to expand...
Agreed, its a two way street.
 
Dale_tem said:
Why does someone else having a dog have such an effect on my family?
Click to expand...

Now please don't jump on me, as I am only putting across my opinion.

I could equally say " why does someone else having children have such an effect on my life"?

We have neighbours around the corner whose garden backs onto the side of ours.
Their boys (around 9 and 7) are constantly kicking footballs against the fence....climbing on the garage roof (theirs, but overlooks my garden).
They tear-arse around the cul-de-sac on anything with wheels, yelling and screaming, and their language would put a docker to shame.
Say anything to them in earshot of the parents and you'll get nothing but abuse and complete rot about "letting them be children"
And are they to be feared? Well yes, by some of the more elderly residence of our small street, they are.
So perhaps a little control of these beasts is in order too :lol:
 
viv1969 said:
Now please don't jump on me, as I am only putting across my opinion.

I could equally say " why does someone else having children have such an effect on my life"?

We have neighbours around the corner whose garden backs onto the side of ours.
Their boys (around 9 and 7) are constantly kicking footballs against the fence....climbing on the garage roof (theirs, but overlooks my garden).
They tear-arse around the cul-de-sac on anything with wheels, yelling and screaming, and their language would put a docker to shame.
Say anything to them in earshot of the parents and you'll get nothing but abuse and complete rot about "letting them be children"
And are they to be feared? Well yes, by some of the more elderly residence of our small street, they are.
So perhaps a little control of these beasts is in order too :LOL:
Click to expand...

Ah the "It's what kids do" defence. This often also applies to stealing cars, shoplifting and many other yob related enterprises.
 
I agree completely. The children and the owners of those children should be put down.
 
Dale_tem said:
Why does someone else having a dog have such an effect on my family?
Click to expand...


and I could equally say why should someone elses children have an effect on my dog owning.
As with Ruth I had the neighbors from hell where I lived, some would call the dogs over to the fence and poke sticks into them
luckily the dogs were fairly intelligent and learnt to ignore him, at which stage all sorts of things came flying
over the hedge, after a polite request to stop him was ignored, everything was put out for collection on bin day
if they failed to reclaim it tough.
Also when out the amount of children that do just come running up to dogs, once again not a problem but#if something
had happened we all know who would have been at fault especially as one was a very large GSD, who incidently happened
to be the favourite with said kids
 
fabs said:
Ah the "It's what kids do" defence. This often also applies to stealing cars, shoplifting and many other yob related enterprises.
Click to expand...

(What I'd really like to do is bang their heads together, but I suspect this would be frowned upon) :lol:
 
A lot of good points here, at least the thread hasn't been closed yet:D
 
CaveDweller said:
at least the thread hasn't been closed yet:D
Click to expand...
That depends on whether I win or lose the argument TBH :p
(What were we talking about again? )
 
Cobra said:
That depends on whether I win or lose the argument TBH :p
(What were we talking about again? )
Click to expand...

Section 16b of the dangerous snakes act
 
PortLympne_zps6fb466a4.jpg
 
srichards said:
Did the stats show a greater number of bites per say 1000 Labradors or just greater number of bites by that breed generally? Only the first is meaningful.
Click to expand...

It was basically a record of staff bitten showed what breeds had committed the offence, it would be countrywide.
In all areas we have various different breeds on all the rounds TBH I have found the so called dangerous breeds to be the friendliest
 
As a courier in a previous life I had many dealings with dogs when delivering and best ones were the Rottweiler/Dobermann/GSD and the worst were Jack Russells and Yorkies! :rolleyes:
 
Just watch it don't sneeze though Heather, he'll claim it's manflu ;)

ps2.gif
 
It will be interesting when the first case brought by a trespasser/burglar into an secure private area comes to court [which is undoubtedly will] to see how the law is interpreted by the legal system.
Click to expand...

No it wont. The act is clear that it is intended to protect people who need to come into your home, so Health workers, gas meter readers (if it's inside, but obviously also applies to your garden). etc.

What it does not do, is to protect a trespasser, which is what a burglar is. The only thing he can claim, is that he was compliant and no threat, and you set the dog on him. That would make the dog owner responsible for in the same way as if you did a Tony Martin and shot him in the back. No need for force, you can't use and that includes setting the dog on him. Would that then constitute an offence under the DDA? I doubt it, the dog would then be considered to be under your control.
 
When out with my 2 dogs we are always aware when approaching smaller dogs as they always get aggressive with our dogs- its the small dog syndrome I think. Big dogs want to play with our dogs. Does the dangerous dog act now cover drowning by slobber and if so I'm off to jail for a few years as my 2 are murder for covering everything and everyone in slobber. We had a dog owner go away in a mood because his dog decided to have a play with my big dog and it was covered from head to toe in slobber- maybe next time he won't allow it to run free. Lol
 
Last edited:
The BBC News has just reported how postal workers' unions and other groups have welcomed the change to the law and they've reported that animal charities have given it a cautious welcome but apparently the RSPCA have said they don't think the change in the law will reduce the number of dog bites!

I don't think so either ... just one reason being that dogs don't actually pay much attention to the BBC News! :banghead: :rolleyes:
 
Most problems occur when the owners IQ is less than that of their dogs.

There are of course those that aren't total neds but don't know anything about dogs either. Neither type should be allowed dogs but what can you do. The law may help those that should know better to think more but it will do nothing against the neds. Only draconian measures would fix that and most would balk at those.

As for dogs intimidating people- some people are intimidated by other people just because of the way they look- should we ban those with skinheads, tattoos, mohawks, piercings etc from public areas in case they scare others?

Personally I'd like to see the government abolish their stupid list of banned dogs and tackle the real issues.
 
Bernie174 said:
No it wont. The act is clear that it is intended to protect people who need to come into your home, so Health workers, gas meter readers (if it's inside, but obviously also applies to your garden). etc.

What it does not do, is to protect a trespasser, which is what a burglar is. The only thing he can claim, is that he was compliant and no threat, and you set the dog on him. That would make the dog owner responsible for in the same way as if you did a Tony Martin and shot him in the back. No need for force, you can't use and that includes setting the dog on him. Would that then constitute an offence under the DDA? I doubt it, the dog would then be considered to be under your control.
Click to expand...
the BBC radio news did just say clearly that there would be "no charges if the person on your land is a trespasser".
 
It's partly about the dogs but mainly about the owners.

Many years ago, a friend who was an exceptionally skilled problem dog trainer, was very nearly killed by a Pyrenean mountain dog, very large but not a breed known for its aggression.

My youngest son has a working sheepdog (basically a Border Wally). She is a rescue, and in the early days she would seriously attack anyone who approached her who smelt of alcohol, obviously linking them to her previous owner. We got her out of that but, simply because she works sheep (including tups) and also cattle, she's as sharp as a knife and not the soft, cuddly little thing that she seems to be.

There's a Staffie that I often see when walking my own GSD over the park, she's absolutely lovely, but many of the Staffie's I come across are a menace with other dogs.

The one type of dog that can almost always be guaranteed to be a real problem are the ones owned by chavs. They are typically pit bull types, but whatever they happen to be, they are always as nasty as their owners.
 
Garry Edwards said:
The one type of dog that can almost always be guaranteed to be a real problem are the ones owned by chavs. They are typically pit bull types, but whatever they happen to be, they are always as nasty as their owners.
Click to expand...


They aren't the only type.
The small village I used to live in was commuter belt, we had a lot of city people buying property, next came the 4WD, hunter wellies and of course completely
inappropriate working type gundogs.
These were always got as pups in the spring, usually a 1st time dog, no training classes, owner not a clue and pups not socialised properly.
Of course they were given all the exercise they didn't need until the colder/wet weather set in, you never saw sight of them.
Come spring these unfit untrained dogs reappear and cause havoc, attacking other dogs, running off, sadly they never seemed to last the entire
summer before disappearing
 
You can never stereotype too much, can you? :rolleyes:

A couple of summers ago we were walking our two excitable Jack Russells into Hadley Woods when out of the woods in front of us came two hoodied chav teens - the two guys were even different ethnicities to add to the stereotype - with a Rottweiler and a German Shepherd running free! Status dogs obviously and bound to be big trouble for our little pair! ... Until the two hoodied chavs called their status dogs to heel and showed perfect control and smiled and said hello as we all passed!

At least two of Bratney's male friends have huge Mastiffs of one sort or another, both of whom lavish huge care and attention on their brilliantly well-behaved softy dogs rather than on their chavvy, scruffy old cars!

In fact the only friend I know with recent real dog trouble is the glamourous wife of a £200K + per annum corporate solicitor who horribly had to have their greyhound put down after it attacked one of her sons' playmates from their Prep School.

You can never stereotype too much, can you :rolleyes:
 
Yves Geza said:
You can never stereotype too much, can you? :rolleyes:

A couple of summers ago we were walking our two excitable Jack Russells into Hadley Woods when out of the woods in front of us came two hoodied chav teens - the two guys were even different ethnicities to add to the stereotype - with a Rottweiler and a German Shepherd running free! Status dogs obviously and bound to be big trouble for our little pair! ... Until the two hoodied chavs called their status dogs to heel and showed perfect control and smiled and said hello as we all passed!

At least two of Bratney's male friends have huge Mastiffs of one sort or another, both of whom lavish huge care and attention on their brilliantly well-behaved softy dogs rather than on their chavvy, scruffy old cars!

In fact the only friend I know with recent real dog trouble is the glamourous wife of a £200K + per annum corporate solicitor who horribly had to have their greyhound put down after it attacked one of her sons' playmates from their Prep School.

You can never stereotype too much, can you :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Don't get me started on corporate solicitors with greyhounds... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top