That law proves that passing some laws does nothing to alleviate the problem. 'Pit Bulls' might be banned according to that law, but people will still breed them and call them something else, a 'Staffordshire cross', or 'Bull Terrier' cross. Classification is a real problem when attempting to employ this law. Recent incidents involving dogs attacking children in Leicester and Cambridge involved Rottweilers and a Bulldog respectively, and those breeds aren't speicified. That law does make the owner legally culpable for the actions of their dog, and in that much it's a step in the right direction. However, I was unable to find any national statistics on prosecutions brought through this act. I did find this however; http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060515/text/60515w0112.htm Note the rather low numbers, and these are just cases that were taken to court, not necessarily resulting in convictions. Therefore I would suggest that while there are undeniable tragedies with dogs attacking people, these events are very rare, and do not warrant the amount of attention, or legislation they recieve. Further legislation will achieve little more than the current laws. Generally though, dog bites could be reduced quite easily. Re-introduce dog licenses, and only issue them to people with clean criminal records (I was unable to find the stats, but apparently dogs owned by criminals are significantly more likely to bite than others) and also, teach children how to approach dogs. It's amazing how many kids come running towards by dogs waving their arms about screaming 'doggie!'. A very few ask if my dogs are ok with being petted first. According to US stats, 42% of dog bites happen to children 14 years old or less, and the majorty of these incidents happen in the home, or at a family members house. A great deal could easily be prevented using common sense therefore.
The previous experience proved that licences are not viable as a practical proposition. If criminals were barred they'd simply licence the dogs in somebody else's name. Dogs of any sort are routinely barred in areas of high density social housing, flats and houses with no gardens, and guess what...
That's entirely correct. Hey Valich, cars, alcohol, cigarettes, swimming pools and FALLING kill more people every year than pitbulls: should we ban them too? You'd be interested to know that doctors are responsible for over one hundred thousand deaths in the USA alone each year. Suck it, you're not banning anything.
Oh really? Well I go through safety courses, licensing, registration, waiting periods and authorization to transport permits for my right to own and use firearms for sporting purposes: so, because all of this is regulated and licensed, guns should be impervious to any kind of banning attempts? Good to know, as those bleeding hearts and their emotional rhetoric is getting on my nerves.
AAAH HA! I was wondering when this would pop up. Very good point. I have to go to school, a licensing phase, and be swore in just to carry a gun on duty. And i have to be re-qualified each year to keep it. Why should guns be banned? This would be a good thread to start.
And a different thread at that. A pit bull is not a gun that you control to shoot or not, a drink taken by alcoholics that kill thousands every year, a cigarette that you yourself choose to get cancer, or a swimming poll that negligent parents leave unguarded for a child to fall in and drown. There is a major difference here. A pit bull is a loaded uncontrollable weapon. One person does not have the power, time or foresight to keep watch over this lethal weapon 24 hours/day, to monitor where it always is, or to prevent a young infant from innocently walking into their yard and being mauled. But one person does have the ability to control a gun, their drinking, their smoking, and to put access barriers around a swimming pool. And if they fail to do so, then they are held accountable in court: murder, DUI, DWI, and their own death from cancer should they fail to heed the warnings. The same should be the case for people that attempt to have pit bulls as pets. Most of whom unforesee the inherent danger. Why do we not have similar laws against pit bull owners, like we have for owning a gun or driving while under the influence?
A condition of the license could be that it a tag must be attached to the dog's collar, and the Police have the power to inspect the collar and ask for the handler's ID. Some clause will be needed to allow others to walk the dog, and this exception not be abused, but I'm sure it could be arranged. Perhaps like insurance, and people have to be named specifically, again, non-criminals. Not if you own the property, at least not in the UK, and the neither Police nor RSPCA have the powers to sieze an animal unless it is being abused. Just being kept in a small flat or not being walked is not grounds for removal. In this respect, we need tougher laws. Some people have two dogs in small flat at the other end of my street, and I wish ther ewas something I could do, as they never get walked.
I don't know how much of your tax money goes to police salaries in your country. In mine the taxpayers will start to become restless if they find they are paying the cops to check dog licenses. Especially when the cities with the most pit bulls are the ones with the highest murder rates. This thread has gotten too long and is rehashing earlier postings. It has already been pointed out that the private sector has ridden to the rescue. Insurance companies take care of the problem when there is no landlord. It is becoming increasingly difficult in the USA for owners of pit bulls and several other breeds to secure homeowners insurance. If your insurance lapses your bank will foreclose on your mortgage, or go out and buy some for $600 a month and add the premium to your bill. Again, insurance takes care of this because landlords also must have insurance. I won't allow a pit bull on my property because in today's legal climate, if it bites someone and I'm not insured against the million-dollar judgment, the courts will confiscate my building.
Well, I'm not suggesting they stop every dog owner and ask for their papers, but rather use discretion and perform random checks. It needn't be too much of an overhead. We don't have such in the UK. I was postulating about domestic matters in my post.
Yeah, in a public place, but if there's a crazy dog locked up in a flat, the Police are powerless unless it appears to be mistreated. The Police try to not to get involved with dog issues. My gf's sister worked for the RSPCA and they got calls for stray dogs that are the responsibility of the Police, but the Police would urge people to call the RSPCA. I think you'd have to get bitten before they would get involved, a dog being 'out of control' would probably not warrant investigation, unless it was running up and down a motorway or causing a direct nuisance.
The fact that this guy was served with an ASBO, and not punished under the 'Dangerous Dogs Act' directly shows what a mess this whole thing is. ASBOs are bullshit. If people break the law, fine them or throw them in jail. Serving them with an ASBO to try and make them behave is pointless. We have pretty much all of the laws we need, we just need to enforce them.
The best way to engender responsibility, phlogistician, is to show some. It is polite to acquaint oneself with the facts before pretending to know them, please, and when you get it wrong, own up.
Indeed. And the owners were not irresponsible ones either. They were careful with their dogs. It appears the friend was attacked when he went to visit them and after opening the gate to enter the property, noticed the dogs had managed to escape their enclosure and was attacked by them before he even managed to close the gate. The dog's owner was attacked when she came to his aid, as was the neighbour how suffered from part of his ear being torn off. These are not safe dogs and are a danger to others, including their owners, and even in cases where they are reared as family pets, they can still turn. Will banning them outright rectify the situation? Possibly. Possibly not. Some may just find other ways to have them in secret and some who breed them specifically for aggression will just turn their attention to breeding and rearing other aggressive dogs. This woman and her partner had taken every precaution and the dogs, both family pets, still attacked not only the neighbour and a friend, but also turned on her as well. Something to think about I guess..
So, Bells, are you saying that ye're in favor of punishing the entire specie of dog for the actions of only a few of them? Is that also the same approach or philosophy you take with humans? If one of them murderers another human, we should ban all humans? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
Pit Bulls aren't any threat at all. Even the ones that are trained to fight are taught specifically not to bite humans. If an owner goes to pull his dog out of the fight and the other dog bite the owner, that dog loses the fight. Pit Bulls follow me home all the time. I've been jumped more than I've been bit by any dog and I've only been bit by a Pit once.
No Baron. I believe that dog owners need to be responsible for their dogs. Just like I believe people need to be held accountable and responsible for their actions, no matter much of a jackarse they may or may not be. These people were responsible dog owners and the dogs still attacked not only others, but the owner as well. Banning them won't get rid of the breed. There are thousands of pit bulls who will not display similar behaviour, just as there are dozens of pit bulls and other breeds that will. The way I see it is that if a dog, any dog regardless of breed, attacks a person or another pet and is that aggressive, then it needs to be put down and if the owners refuse, fine them and take the animal from them by force. This woman willingly gave her dogs up to the council to be destroyed because she knows they are now dangerous animals and can no longer be considered loving family pets.
Bells, the dog owners have ALWAYS been responsible for their pets! I don't know where you get that they aren't. I know of no city or state in the nation that does not hold their owners responsible for their pets actions, do you? And if nothing else, there's always civil court. So in effect, what you're saying is that nothing else needs to be done about pit bulls or any other breed of dog, right? And if that's true, then you and I are in agreement for the first time in history! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
