Dog owners could be required to insure themselves against the risk of their pet attacking someone, it has been announced. Government proposals suggest forcing every dog owner to take out third party insurance and to have their dog microchipped. Ministers are also considering introducing New Dog Control Notices for misbehaving animals.
Dog owners could be required to insure themselves against the risk of their pet attacking someone, it has been announced.
Government proposals suggest forcing every dog owner to take out third party insurance and to have their dog microchipped.
Ministers are also considering introducing New Dog Control Notices for misbehaving animals.
The “Dogbo” orders would allow police officers and council officials to force miscreant owners to muzzle, leash or even neuter their pets.
In extreme cases the dogs could even be confiscated and given to new owners.
The measures, part of proposed changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act, are aimed at tackling the growing problem of vicious animals being bred for use as weapons.
Ministers are also considering making it a criminal offence for a dog owner to allow their animal to be “dangerously out of control”. Currently they are only breaking the law if the dog is out of control in a public place.
The change would extend the law to private residences, and could provide extra protection for postmen. There is also concern about the widespread use of dogs as weapons on inner city estates.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson said: “Britain is a nation of animal lovers, but people have a fundamental right to feel safe on the streets and in their homes.
“The vast majority of dog owners are responsible, but there is no doubt that some people breed and keep dogs for the sole purpose of intimidating others, in a sense using dogs as a weapon. It is this sort of behaviour that we will not tolerate; it is this sort of behaviour that we are determined to stop.”
I fail to see how adding insurance and micro-chipping these dogs is going to affect the individuals that use these dogs as tools for intimidation, protection, drug dealing, fighting and bravado.
These same people do not even insure their cars, why do we imagine that they would insure their dogs? These people are effectively outside the law and will ignore any new legislation.
The politicians that have drafted these new proposals have made no mention of training, no mention of early socialisation, and no mention of true responsible pet ownership. What about the breeders do they not have a responsibility?
This is just a big stick with yet more monetary penalties that will be shouldered by law abiding owners who truly care for their dogs. They will be the ones that will foot the bill and bear the cost of yet more legislative tinkering with the Dangerous Dogs Act which is cited as one of the worst pieces of legislation ever to be put on the statute books.
The DDA an already flawed bill will just be extended, rather than being scrapped altogether and a new workable legislation aimed at the root cause of the problems brought in its place.
I would certainly agree with the suggestion of muzzling, castration, microchipping, and being kept on a permanant short leash. Not the dogs but the thugs and idiots who think it is clever to make these animals aggressive and vicious in the first place.
Dogs do not create aggressive dogs, people do. It is time legislation was aimed at the end of the lead where the real problem occurs.