Tougher laws to tackle 'weapon' dogs
The home secretary has set out plans to toughen laws on dangerous dogs, in response to fears that animals are being used to ‘intimidate communities’.
Alan Johnson has published a consultation document setting out the steps the government could take to help local authorities, police and housing organisations deal with the problem.
Proposed measures include extending dangerous dogs laws to cover private property, introducing compulsory micro chipping for all dogs, and giving police and councils more power to address the issue.
Mr Johnson said: ‘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.’
The consultation notes Wandsworth introduced compulsory micro chipping for dogs owned by council tenants in January 2009, and says it welcomes initiatives taken by some local authorities to deal with dangerous dogs.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (15)
stephen west | 10/03/2010 10:28 am
Any dog is more than capable of turning on its owner no matter how big or small the animal might be, and is more than likely to attack another adult or child, especially in a confined place like a communal area or a lift in a high-rise block. Dogs should only be allowed to be kept where the owner has a house and garden and not penned up in a high-rise block of flats. Its simply not good enough for a landlord to say that the courts will not evict a tenant for breaching their tenancy agreement by keeping a dog. The tenancy agreement will only state that residents are not permitted to keep dogs unless the resident is registered blind and has a guide dog it makes no assumption that the resident is liable to be evicted.
Landlords must approach the courts with a view to enforcing the tenancy agreements and apply for a court order to enforce having the dog taken from the premises. If I or anyone is bitten and attacked by a dog in a communal area or lift in a block of flats as I have witnessed on two occasions, then whom does the person attacked sue for compensation, the dog owner who might not be in work or the landlord who allowed the resident to keep the dog and did nothing other than condone it being kept? The law should be specific on this point !
Stephen West
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
karen | 10/03/2010 10:29 am
Most responsible owners chip their pets anyway, and a lot have insurance...
Will irresponsible owners get their pets chipped and insured? Somehow I doubt it. There is still a plethora of people driving without an MOT, Tax or insurance despite that being law.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter | 10/03/2010 10:51 am
Does micro -chipping makes the dogs less dangerous? I don't think so. Dogs only become dangerous and a nuisance because of their owners. So why don't the focus be on the 'dangerous' owners or potential owners of dogs!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Wruff | 10/03/2010 11:45 am
Has Mr West never owned a dog ?-anyone who has knows it's the owner not the dog who is responsible for it's aggressive behaviour (or lack of). It may be more practical to enact a law requiring all dogs to be microchipped and subsequently anyone failing to comply be subject to a heavy fine and the confiscation of their dog. why should tenure determine one's access to "mans best friend".?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 10/03/2010 12:20 pm
There is nothing wrong with being a dog. Like there is nothing wrong with being a human. The bad news for dogs is that they do not choose where they live, their owners do. The bad news for most social tenants is that some of them some of us not have a luxury to choose where we live too.
However social tenancies should not be discriminated against when it comes to dogs (and many other things going on).
If there is a law or rule against high rise residents having dogs it should be applied across the land, to private owners, private tenants and social tenants. The benefit of such a rule is that will bring about a much wider knowledge and culture that dogs should not reside in high rise buildings.
But it looks a tiny bit odd that a resident owner on a high rise flat (be it a millionnaire's penthouse or a one bedroom flat) can keep a dog and a social tenant cannot. So, let's stop discriminating against tenants and make a rule for all.
(But I can already hear the screams of anguish from our millionnaires and no dom tax evaders in penthouses up and down the country at the mere thought of having to face the choice of either disposing of their fourpawed darlings or ending up in jail if they refuse to give them up.)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 10/03/2010 5:21 pm
k(ass) has realised excelled herself this time with a truly superb nonsense rant kicking off with the classic "There is nothing wrong with being a dog" line. Awesome Stuff!
There is an altogether more intelligent discussion going on at Harry's Place. See "Dogs are the new knives" at
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2010/03/09/dogs-are-the-new-knives/
"So this is how it goes, really. The government bans guns so thugs take to knives. The government bans knives, so thugs breed attack dogs.
You can’t win. The problem is the thugs, not their current weapon of choice.
But since you can’t really ban dogs, ow there is a new plan. The BBC reports:
“All dog owners in England and Wales would have to insure against their pet attacking someone under Labour proposals to tackle dangerous breeds.”
So, all that happens now is that regular dog owners get punished with having to take out insurance and deal with stricter licensing, and dogs get abandoned in pounds because genuine owners can’t afford to keep them, or don’t want to hassle of adopting them.
The government’s plans to tackle the problem are wrong-headed and will result in damaging the welfare of dogs.
And the thugs?
Well, because they are criminals who thumb their noses at the law to begin with, they won’t bother with all that red tape anyway.
So effect on thugs: none.
Upset and inconvenience to law-abiders: double.
Effect on animal welfare: Potentially catastrophic.
Obviously, there are a small number of dog attacks every year, as there have always been, which are not related to dogs deliberately bred as attack-dogs. Any dog owner would be well advised to take out some liability insurance. But making it the law is taking it a step too far, particularly since – according to the BBC – this plan is a response to “concerns about the use of animals to intimidate or threaten people” and not about day-to-day personal liability issues facing the average citizen.
It seems very much to me as if the majority, once again, will be punished and inconvenienced because the political will to deal with the specific problem head-on is lacking."
-------------------------
Our useless hamstrung Police can't be arsed to enforce the existing dog laws on the feral scumbags with wolverines who cause all the problems so no expectation that they will enforce any new ones on same. Meanwhile, if the new proposals become law, they will go after the soft targets (ie everyone else) as it's altogether much easier. Plus ca change...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 10/03/2010 6:43 pm
"ILAG | Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:21 GMT...
...Our useless hamstrung Police can't be arsed to enforce the existing dog laws on the feral scumbags with wolverines who cause all the problems so no expectation that they will enforce any new ones on same. Meanwhile, if the new proposals become law, they will go after the soft targets (ie everyone else) as it's altogether much easier. Plus ca change... "
I agree with this aspect. I was talking highrise residents and about all dogs living in high rise (both dangerous and not) because I am very much concerned about the dogs themselves not being subject to live in 'unnatural' environments. And any law concerning having dogs in high rise should include all high rise residents, private or social, owners or not and not just be aimed at social tenants on the assumption that we are second class citizens and the lowest of the low.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 11/03/2010 0:13 am
Err...where in the consultation does it say dogs in high rises should be banned? Nowhere. Because it doesn't say that. This idea exists only in your imagination...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
stephen west | 11/03/2010 7:42 am
Well said kass my point entirely having lived in a social high-rise block of flats for 15 years the last five as a right to buy leaseholder, as much as I would love to keep a dog of my own, I see it as unfair on the animal and unfair on other responsible residents in the block, any dog can and is liable to attack and is not necessarily the owners fault if it does as anything can spook an animal in to attacking for the first time, such as the fear of being cornered in to a confined place like a lift and a lively child gets in with it. Its not about type of tenancy its about keeping a dog in a safe environment with room to move such as a house and garden. I can tell you this dogs are left alone by their owners who live in houses, the same is the case of dogs in high rise flats and when one starts to bark incessantly it usually sets off a dogs chorus that drives us all mad. As for animals not receiving proper exercise or let out regularly, you only have to see the resulting affects left deposited in our lifts and communal areas. Dogs are ok to keep but does anyone really believe it is right to keep them in high rise blocks whether social or private.
Stephen West
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
karen | 11/03/2010 12:29 pm
Stephen,
I think you are making a big assumption that any dog can attack when thats no more true than any human can attack. Okay - in theory they could, but they dont and thats why people aren't quarantined and dogs shouldnt be stereotyped.
The thing is - this isn't about high rise against other property type in my mind. Is a 2 storey flat an acceptable home for a dog any more than a 20 storey flat? Is a home which has a tiny courtyard or no garden acceptable? If the person in the 20 storey flat is out for 2 hours a day walking and exercising their dog are they giving the same exercise as someone who lives in a house. Well yes.
This is entirely a lack of responsibility from an owners issue. I don't think a specific type of property should be prohibitive of dogs if the owner can demonstrate responsibility to look after the pet appropriately.
I don't think a blanket ban on dogs is the answer any more than an overwhelming "welcome all pets" is fine.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment