Dangerous Dogs Act has never worked

[Deleted]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37141437

The Dangerous Dogs Act has "never really worked" because it only deals with certain breeds, a Tory MP has said as he called for a review of the law.

Andrew Rosindell, a Staffordshire bull terrier owner, said resources should be used to deal with any dangerous dogs, not just the four banned breeds.

His call follows the death on Thursday of three-year-old Dexter Neal, who was mauled by an American bulldog in Essex.

His uncle Ashley Coe wrote on Facebook of the "absolutely devastating loss".

Describing Dexter as his "darling nephew", he wrote in his post: "I can't even begin to describe the state we are all in."'

Mr Rosindell, MP for Romford, said the dog which attacked Dexter was not one of the breeds banned under the 1991 act, adding "You do need a complete review of this legislation. It's simply not effective."

Breeds banned by the act are pit bull terriers, the Japanese tosa, dogo Argentino and fila Brasileiro, types than have traditionally been bred for fighting.

The act also makes it an offence for an owner to allow any dog "to be dangerously out of control".

Mr Rosindell told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he had long argued that the problem is not with the dogs but their owners.

"There are lots of breeds of dogs that can be just as dangerous as the ones listed in the Dangerous Dogs Act so to get rid of this legislation to replace it with a more flexible form of regulation means that the police and local authorities could then focus on where there is a known dangerous dog or an irresponsible owner," he told BBC Radio Four's Today programme.

"It is impossible for authorities to check every single dog [and owner]... but certainly if there's one incident then that dog and that owner would then have to be checked and warned, and if there's a second incident, then the authorities may want to take action.

More in link...

I actually agree with him that the Dangerous Dogs Act is fundamentally flawed though I imagine others disagree

[Medusa Cascade]

Need dog licenses again

[Pann]

Need dog licenses again

Dog licences were incredibly easy to get hold off and if I remember cost less than 40p so I am not sure this is the solution.

I think the article in the OP makes some good and valid points but I would say that the Dangerous dogs Act has been, partly, successful in taking the more potentially dangerous breeds away from the type owner that will create a dangerous dog. Unfortunately that sort of owner has now turned to Staffs.

[Vanyali]

the DDA (and similar laws) don't work because the problem isn't with the dogs it's with the people.

The scary dangerous dog changes every decade or so as they're banned. You want to stop the "scary [x]"? Work on educating people on how to train their dog properly, and work on laws that require proper care and training for certain types of dogs (ie, guardian dogs should have required extensive socializing... herding dogs required classes on what happens to understimulated dogs.. and so on for various types).

It won't happen because it's apparently a sovereign right to do whatever you want with your dog, though.

[Zantos]

I don't see how they could identify what breeds should and shouldn't be on that list. Some breeds are used more for fighting and all that, however, there are a lot of news stories and such of dogs who are otherwise good just snapping and killing someone.

[apepi]

I hate people who don't know train their dogs, that is the reason why people just get the small ones because they think they are smaller thus requires less training.

Cats hardly kill anyone.

[BentPencils]

Cats hardly kill anyone.

Or they're better at covering their tracks...

[Stacyrect]

Make as many laws and restrictions against animals as you want, in the end shit happens because of bad owners. Doggies gonna dog.

[Tackhisis]

No owner can make anything good from a murderous animal that was breed for fighting and killing.
The law should just ban any breed past certain weight or dimensions.

[Sunseeker]

the DDA (and similar laws) don't work because the problem isn't with the dogs it's with the people.

THIS. 1000% THIS. I've met incredibly friendly "dangerous dogs" and incredibly aggressive and violent "non" dangerous dogs, all because their owners are either good dog owners who train and care for their pet properly or because they're complete and total asshats. If those people aren't going to be fined, jailed, or otherwise punished in a way that makes a real example for others to not fuck up, people are gonna keep being dumbshits with animals.

- - - Updated - - -

No owner can make anything good from a murderous animal that was breed for fighting and killing.
The law should just ban any breed past certain weight or dimensions.

Considering that some of the largest dogs were not bred for either, your suggested law is stupid.

[Techno-Druid]

Even if certain breeds are more prone to being aggressive, wouldn't it make more sense to set up programs to breed the more genetically passive dogs and promote their adoption?

I'm pretty sure something like that was done with Tibetan mastiffs.

[TirielWoW]

Breed specific legislation is just dumb. But it's an easy way to get votes, so...

[Deleted]

No owner can make anything good from a murderous animal that was breed for fighting and killing.
The law should just ban any breed past certain weight or dimensions.

Then why are so many 'bannd breeds' well adjusted pets?

- - - Updated - - -

Even if certain breeds are more prone to being aggressive, wouldn't it make more sense to set up programs to breed the more genetically passive dogs and promote their adoption?

I'm pretty sure something like that was done with Tibetan mastiffs.

Not really because even breeds with incredibly passive traits can be dangerous if trained / treated wrong

[Shadowferal]

Or they're better at covering their tracks...

They do hide the bodies very well...

I'm reminded of a poem:
The Duel

Spoiler: 

The gingham dog and the calico cat
Side by side on the table sat;
‘T was half-past twelve, and (what do you think!)
Nor one nor t’ other had slept a wink!
The old Dutch clock and the Chinese plate
Appeared to know as sure as fate
There was going to be a terrible spat.
(I was n’t there; I simply state
What was told to me by the Chinese plate!)

The gingham dog went “Bow-wow-wow!”
And the calico cat replied “Mee-ow!”
The air was littered, an hour or so,
With bits of gingham and calico,
While the old Dutch clock in the chimney-place
Up with its hands before its face,
For it always dreaded a family row!
(Now mind: I’m only telling you
What the old Dutch clock declares is true!)

The Chinese plate looked very blue,
And wailed, “Oh, dear! what shall we do!”
But the gingham dog and the calico cat
Wallowed this way and tumbled that,
Employing every tooth and claw
In the awfullest way you ever saw—
And, oh! how the gingham and calico flew!
(Don’t fancy I exaggerate—
I got my news from the Chinese plate!)

Next morning, where the two had sat
They found no trace of dog or cat;
And some folks think unto this day
That burglars stole that pair away!
But the truth about the cat and pup
Is this: they ate each other up!
Now what do you really think of that!
(The old Dutch clock it told me so,
And that is how I came to know.)

[Super Kami Dende]

My father worked in Animal control. He was very much always for the banning of certain breeds after having to deal with them often in attacks and as stray and always said that particular breeds were naturally ALWAYS more aggressive on average than others.

He said idiots with the stupid mindset of "well my "y" Breed is a loving caring dog and wouldn't hurt a fly so all should be legal" always failed to look at the big picture, sure their dog may be fine, but on average dogs of the same Breed he often had to capture and put down due to them tearing someone elses' pets and/or Children up much more often than any other breeds.

Whilst people often fall back on the "It's the owner not the dogs fault" that is only ever a portion of it. A dog like all animals will always naturally have its own temperament and training will always just teach the dogs to do things, never actually mold its natural self.

[Deleted]

Whilst people often fall back on the "It's the owner not the dogs fault" that is only ever a portion of it. A dog like all animals will always naturally have its own temperament and training will always just teach the dogs to do things, never actually mold its natural self.

Violent dogs always seem to have excessively stupid and/or aggressive owners though. The combination of learned antisocial behaviour plus a poor understanding of canine psychology eg poorly set territorial boundaries cause real issues.

There are countries where packs of wild dogs run freely. The wild dogs never seem to cause problems.

[Deleted]

My father worked in Animal control. He was very much always for the banning of certain breeds after having to deal with them often in attacks and as stray and always said that particular breeds were naturally ALWAYS more aggressive on average than others.

He said idiots with the stupid mindset of "well my "y" Breed is a loving caring dog and wouldn't hurt a fly so all should be legal" always failed to look at the big picture, sure their dog may be fine, but on average dogs of the same Breed he often had to capture and put down due to them tearing someone elses' pets and/or Children up much more often than any other breeds.

Whilst people often fall back on the "It's the owner not the dogs fault" that is only ever a portion of it. A dog like all animals will always naturally have its own temperament and training will always just teach the dogs to do things, never actually mold its natural self.

That's all well if the banned breeds list wasn't changing. The list is based on % of attacks, once that % drops they're no longer considered dangerous. If hypothetically labradors became the number 1 dog for terrible owners you're guaranteed they would be banned. I don't really buy the aggressive breeds argument because many a more aggressive breeds aren't banned than those that are

[Deleted]

you can't control these aggressive breeds that have it in their genes. they might be "the sweetest thing ever who wouldn't hurt a fly" but once they snap they usually don't stop. this is why like 70% of all fatal dog attacks are done by those breeds. data doesn't lie. while it's true that you mostly see those breeds owned by human trash there are tons of normal people owning them too.

almost every dog will snap if you push it, but the difference between a non fighting breed is that he will probably only bite or nip and then stop, while for example pit bull will try to inflict maximum damage and keep going because that's just how he's programmed. you can't reverse that no matter how much you train him. no matter how harmless or sweet your dog is, it's pretty much proven that if he's one of those aggressive breeds he's a disaster waiting to happen.

those breeds should be purged and people fined or even jailed for breeding/owning them.

[Deleted]

I would like to see the statistics of well trained dogs snapping without reason

[ParanoiD84]

Well it's people who breed them that way so once again people are at fault, Also yes there is millions of pitbulls out there not harming anyone.