Concerns that dangerous dogs are being used to intimidate or threaten people has led government ministers to put forward a proposal that owners insure their pets against attacks.
With more than 100 people being admitted to hospital each week after having been attacked by dogs police and local authorities could be given powers to force owners of dangerous dogs to muzzle them or even get them neutered.
There has also been a rise in levels of dog-fighting and illegal ownership by gang members who keep their pets as status symbols.
Under the current 1991 Dangerous Dogs act people living in the UK are not permitted to own the following breeds of dog:
- Pit bull terrier
- Japanese tosa,
- Dogo Argentino
- Fila Brasileiro
The Act also gave the police the authority to deal with any type of dog that got out of control in a public place. However, not covered in the Dangerous Dogs Act is when a dog, not on the banned list, causes an injury on private property. As it stands, in these situations the owner of the dog has to be persued under the Dogs Act of 1871, which is seen as more time-consuming and complicated.
The government wants to extend the 1991 legislation to private property. Ministers argue this will also protect postal workers, telecoms engineers and other people whose work takes them on to private land.
Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said: "There is a lot of public concern about dog attacks, including the recent tragic deaths of young children, and about the rise in the number of so-called status dogs used to intimidate or threaten people.
"This is a serious issue of public safety. The government wants to hear what people think about the law as it stands and what more we might do to protect people from dangerous dogs."
The CWU postal union welcomed the proposals as "long overdue", with general secretary Billy Hayes saying: "Thousands of our members are attacked at work every year. This reform cannot come soon enough."
The RSPCA said a serious debate on the issue was needed, concentrating on curbing irresponsible pet ownership.
Have you ever been intimdated or attacked by a dog? Should the owner of the dog be fined if their dog causes physical harm to another person? Feel free to share your opinios in the comment section below.
Source: BBC
I think all dogs should be micro-chipped and the owners made to compensate those attacked and the dog put down.
For years we had Dog Licences, then some government expert or other decided it cost more to run the scheme than the money it raised. Instead of doing the obvious, putting the price up as they do with vehicle licences all the time, they scrapped the system. Dogs and cats - indeed, any "pet" large enough to roam about outdoors - should be licenced at a cost of at least £100 per annum. This could be used to compensate victims of dog attacks and those whose gardens are destroyed by dear little pussy cats. The introduction of a licence would lead to a substantial reduction in pet numbers and this can only be a good thing. As soon as the dog licence was abolished owners started having whole herds of dogs rather than one. I am tired of dog mess, dogs barking day and night, dog owners with huge long leads who pretend their dog is not depositing filth as they studiously look away, dog owners who believe they and their dog should be able to take up all the space on the pavement, etc., and as for cats - evil, murderous creatures which destroy wildlife for fun. Pets should have to be licenced and insured, and owners made to realise that the pet is theirs, not everyone else's. My daughter, when little, was frightened by a dog running loose while the owner looked on and claimed the beast was "under control." My garden and the birds and other wildlife therein are destroyed by cats. It is long past time for these creatures to be controlled and owners forced to insure them so we can claim compensation for the harm they do. Owning a pet, like owning a car, is not compulsory. If you choose to do so, you should be responsible for the consequences; we motorists are hounded and taxed, time to share it out a bit.
I think that compulsory insurance will be very hard to inforce. It will punish older people and people on low incomes who are not the ones targeted and the people who are targeted will slip through the net. Car insurance is compulsory but does not stop people from driving without it. I think that compulsory dog chipping is a good idea as it would enable dogs to be easily identifed and owners details obtained but again, this may prove hard in practice. The chip is invisible and only vets can check the details. The dog could maybe be made to wear the id tag showing that it has been chipped. Some type of centrally held database showing all dog owners names and addresses might work. It could be free but compulsory to register and tie in with the chipping system.
There are laws in force that require dog owners to pick up their dogs' waste but again, in practice, this does not happen and is not sufficiently monitored. The problem is not with the laws themselves but how they are regulated and controlled. Maybe the laws on dog breeding also need to be reviewed. Largely though, proper enforcement of these laws needs to be looked at. Maybe a new government department specifically to control the owning of pets?