This cant be right surely

[Martin]

Break into my house and thered be f**k all left for the dog to chew on, this has surely got to be wrong
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/pets/ ... plans.html

[Captain Reech]

Sadly mate, in the light of incidents that have occurred in the past couple of years, something had to be done to make the owners (and it is the owners that are at fault here!) of dangerous dogs responsible for their behaviour on private property (I'm sure we've all seen the instances where children and other innocent visitors have been the subject of attacks in private homes). As usual the law is something of a two edged sword and, until it's been tested in a few court cases, who it applies to and how it is applied will be down to the Judge. I know there's a lot of people who have a perfectly well behaved and controlled pet that will, due to it's nature, attempt to defend it's owners and their property should an intruder threaten them, we just have to hope there is some judgement and discretion applied when the first thieving toerag limps into a police station with the @rse ripped out of his trousers and makes a complaint.

[Brother Kevfael]

This really makes me incandescent with rage. So in reply, I will just quote from an interview from a man i consider to have been my mentor,the child protection activist, Andrew Vachss:

"An obsessive defender of dogs, he sees in them what he sees in children: "You get what you raise. People say, for instance, that Dobermans are vicious. They're just hard-wired not to take any sh*t. So, if you get some idiot who gets a puppy and decides to show it who is boss, he's going to stomp on the dog.

"Then, one day, when the dog is big enough, the guy tries it and the dog says enough is enough. Then what? The dog gets destroyed and the fool gets to tell people how his dog was just vicious. And it's the same with people."

The full article can be found here:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/colum ... 06436.html

And anticipating the possible response that some breeds are hard wired to be vicious, I include an account of his work using therapy dogs with abused children. Including Pit Bulls:
http://www.vachss.com/dogs/vachss_dog.html

We create our own monsters.

[lucy the tudor]

Evil Hound of Death has been informed, and says she will stick to dealing with the furry variety of rats, and leave us to deal with the human ones.
If she even wakes up and notices they are there, of course.

[steve stanley]

Ours DID chase a burgler out some years ago...Oh well,back to keeping sharp things handy...But yes,it's bloody stupid...With one hand they review "reasonable force" in defending your home,then cut away at the best method!

[guthrie]

That's all pretty loosely described. But the point seemed to be to allow a dog to be out of control. How do you control your dog when you are upstairs in bed or in the lounge watching telly when the dog is dozing in the kitchen or porch or suchlike? Answer - you can't.

[Captain Reech]

This really makes me incandescent with rage. So in reply, I will just quote from an interview from a man i consider to have been my mentor,the child protection activist, Andrew Vachss:

"An obsessive defender of dogs, he sees in them what he sees in children: "You get what you raise. People say, for instance, that Dobermans are vicious. They're just hard-wired not to take any sh*t. So, if you get some idiot who gets a puppy and decides to show it who is boss, he's going to stomp on the dog.

"Then, one day, when the dog is big enough, the guy tries it and the dog says enough is enough. Then what? The dog gets destroyed and the fool gets to tell people how his dog was just vicious. And it's the same with people."

The full article can be found here:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/colum ... 06436.html

And anticipating the possible response that some breeds are hard wired to be vicious, I include an account of his work using therapy dogs with abused children. Including Pit Bulls:
http://www.vachss.com/dogs/vachss_dog.html

We create our own monsters.

Whilst I agree whole heartedly with the sentiment above, isn't the thrust of the legislation above an effort to make the owner responsible? From now on the puppy gets chipped so there's no chance of someone dumping the dog and pretending it's nothing to do with them and, should it attack someone because the owner has abused it or failed to control it, they get a hefty fine. It's tough on the people who look after and train their animals (amongst my circle of friends I know of at least three Rottweilers who are more likely to drown you with affectionate drool than bite you!) but I think most genuine dog lovers would rather see some form of regulation imposed making owners responsible than the current situation where large dogs are often used as status symbols by owners who don't give a damn about the animals welfare and can abandon them or deny ownership at the drop of a hat.

[Phil the Grips]

It may also be a reaction to the small matter of the Police recently having difficulty against a dog, resulting in the need for a Firearms unit to deal with it.

Until fairly recently Pitbulls were considered the ideal babysitter for children in the US - the "dangerous dogs" thing is a fairly recent phenomenon.

My dog'd only be a threat to an intruder if they tripped over him, even then he'd still stay asleep.

[chrisanson]

This really makes me incandescent with rage. So in reply, I will just quote from an interview from a man i consider to have been my mentor,the child protection activist, Andrew Vachss:

"An obsessive defender of dogs, he sees in them what he sees in children: "You get what you raise. People say, for instance, that Dobermans are vicious. They're just hard-wired not to take any sh*t. So, if you get some idiot who gets a puppy and decides to show it who is boss, he's going to stomp on the dog.

"Then, one day, when the dog is big enough, the guy tries it and the dog says enough is enough. Then what? The dog gets destroyed and the fool gets to tell people how his dog was just vicious. And it's the same with people."

The full article can be found here:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/colum ... 06436.html

And anticipating the possible response that some breeds are hard wired to be vicious, I include an account of his work using therapy dogs with abused children. Including Pit Bulls:
http://www.vachss.com/dogs/vachss_dog.html

We create our own monsters.

Whilst I agree whole heartedly with the sentiment above, isn't the thrust of the legislation above an effort to make the owner responsible? From now on the puppy gets chipped so there's no chance of someone dumping the dog and pretending it's nothing to do with them and, should it attack someone because the owner has abused it or failed to control it, they get a hefty fine. It's tough on the people who look after and train their animals (amongst my circle of friends I know of at least three Rottweilers who are more likely to drown you with affectionate drool than bite you!) but I think most genuine dog lovers would rather see some form of regulation imposed making owners responsible than the current situation where large dogs are often used as status symbols by owners who don't give a damn about the animals welfare and can abandon them or deny ownership at the drop of a hat.

are you a dog owner? i feel this is the usual lest punish everyone for the misdoings of the few just as it was and is with guns. i have owned dogs (or they owned me) all my life and i except their natural ways, as with most other things in life its common sense that needs to be applied and not more laws. the law as it stands is enough if used correctly.

[Captain Reech]

But do you not feel that those who abuse the privilege should be held responsible? A £40 chip is less expensive than the old dog licensing system and surely the £5000 fine is for those whose dogs actually attack someone?

[Foxe]

Courts could jail dog owners for up to two years or impose a £5,000 fine if animals cause injuries while “dangerously out of control” in their homes.

Please m'lud, I move that my dog was not out of control, it was being kept in check behind a locked door. It only became out of control when Johnny Burglar climbed through the window.

(Owner of three idiots who will likely as not show a burglar the cupboard where the dogfood is)

[Humphrey of Heath]

I though the whole chipping thing had been put to bed some time ago. I am sure it was agreed then that it was unenforceable, that those that it was most aimed at would be the most likley to ignore it and it was dropped. Just like airport planning permission - each time it is defeated the whole thing gets restarted.

Oh, and I am going to train my dog to attack, dig a huge hole in the garden and bury the evidence.

[cloudy-cola-corp]

or you could train your dog as a gun dog my girlfriends dog isn't little but he's a gun dog so even if you stick your hand in his mouth he only holds it. through a shirt you don't even get the little white compression marks but if he jumped up and did it i wouldn't stand there and find out :p

[chrisanson]

But do you not feel that those who abuse the privilege should be held responsible? A £40 chip is less expensive than the old dog licensing system and surely the £5000 fine is for those whose dogs actually attack someone?

yes i do but £40 worth of chip wont do it, holding a fool responsible for their actions will.
just as an aside, my dog is chipped but thats so i get her back home where she belongs should she get lost for some reason. anyone breaking into my house, the dog is the least of their worry's. how many times have people been fined and banned from owning a dog only for it to happen again? its always the few not the majority. i see no merit in this what so ever. every one needs to take responsibility for their actions and if they do not they need to be punished suitably until they do.

[Foxe]

Perhaps it's just my own perspective on this, but the merit I see in compulsory chipping of puppies is that a: it will make puppy breeding more expensive and thus, to some, less attractive, reducing the number of puppies that are bred commercially, and b: it will make it easier to find the scumbags who abuse and then abandon their dogs.

[chrisanson]

Perhaps it's just my own perspective on this, but the merit I see in compulsory chipping of puppies is that a: it will make puppy breeding more expensive and thus, to some, less attractive, reducing the number of puppies that are bred commercially, and b: it will make it easier to find the scumbags who abuse and then abandon their dogs.

i can see your point mate and agree as far as it gos but my main argument is the taking of responsibility from the population in general and the taring of everyone with the same brush.
i am probably not putting this very well and i apologist for that but i think you know what i mean.

[sierrakitten]

What is dangerous and what is out of control?
Reminds me of a friend I had about 15 years ago. He and his family lived in a ground floor apartment where all the rooms were off a central hallway that ran front to back. His wife had bought a bunch of reduced sized reproduction tat swords and small axes to decorate the hallway. He was afraid of being burgled since there was a large problem in his area at the time. He said he wished at least one of the decorations were real so he could use it for self defence.
My response, "Close your eyes and stand still why I smack you upside the head with this repro axe. It will probably break, but I don't think it will do much to your thick skull."
All dogs are different. From my experience, the breed doesn't have much influence on the character of the dog. How the owner treats and trains it does. Saying that, we live on the edge of the Cotswolds and there tend to be alot houses that get done over around here. Probably due to the large amount of weekenders who own houses here. I go with good locks and insurance since "all" the "real" break-ins seem to happen when no one is at home.
Question, if you are not at home and the dog is, how do you have any control over it if someone breaks in? Who is to say the dog was not defending itself?
After having a break of a few years after the wife's dog passed, we are looking at getting two or three sometime this year. Am I bothered about having them chipped, no we have always done that anyway. Am I worried about getting done if a dog defends itself? Not really. "I'm sorry your honour, it's never went for anyone before. I guess he shouldn't have kicked it...."

[Alan E]

... isn't the thrust of the legislation above an effort to make the owner responsible? From now on the puppy gets chipped so there's no chance of someone dumping the dog and pretending it's nothing to do with them and, should it attack someone because the owner has abused it or failed to control it, they get a hefty fine..... most genuine dog lovers would rather see some form of regulation imposed making owners responsible than the current situation where large dogs are often used as status symbols by owners who don't give a damn about the animals welfare and can abandon them or deny ownership at the drop of a hat.

How will mandatory chipping achieve this?

Perhaps it's just my own perspective on this, but the merit I see in compulsory chipping of puppies is that a: it will make puppy breeding more expensive and thus, to some, less attractive, reducing the number of puppies that are bred commercially, and b: it will make it easier to find the scumbags who abuse and then abandon their dogs.

Or this?
Irresponsible breeders will continue to sell unchipped puppies to irresponsible owners because those who don't give a damn about how dangerous their dogs are, won't give a damn about the law saying they need to be chipped either.
IMO this will penalise only the responsible amongst dog owners, who are in any case, not the problem.

[Humphrey of Heath]

... Or this?
Irresponsible breeders will continue to sell unchipped puppies to irresponsible owners because those who don't give a damn about how dangerous their dogs are, won't give a damn about the law saying they need to be chipped either.
IMO this will penalise only the responsible amongst dog owners, who are in any case, not the problem.

Here, here! Couldn't agree more.

So it's pointless.

[Lady Jane Rochester]

My brother once got a new dog who bit him the first time he came home from the pub late at night. Oh how we laughed.