New Dog Control Bill

[Helen 2]

The new Dog Control bill has apparently had its first reading and is due for its second reading next month.

Has anybody read it? I had a quick look and wonder how other people think it will affect Hunting, Schutzhund and Working Trials. This act will replace the present Dangerous Dogs act

 

(1) No person shall—

(a) allow a dog for which they are responsible to be aggressive or

dangerously out of control, in either a public or private place;

( encourage a dog to be aggressive or to intimidate people or other

animals;

© keep a dog that has attacked a person or another protected animal

without reasonable cause.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, protected animal has the same meaning as in

section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

[samstorm 34]

whats it say on the likes of keeping pitts??

[Helen 2]

It doesn't mention specific breeds this time. I receive the Working Trials Monthly and a woman on there is calling for some sort of action as she is worried it may also affect working dogs involved in man work. It seems very harsh on hunting dogs. Have a read of the bill it's on the net. It's annoying as the average age of people in WT is apparently 60 hardly your irresponsible teenager with a nasty dog.

[Kay 3,709]

It doesn't mention specific breeds this time. I receive the Working Trials Monthly and a woman on there is calling for some sort of action as she is worried it may also affect working dogs involved in man work. It seems very harsh on hunting dogs. Have a read of the bill it's on the net. It's annoying as the average age of people in WT is apparently 60 hardly your irresponsible teenager with a nasty dog.

 

I am curious about the bit regarding what a dog does in a private place .. that must include your own back garden .. so god help anyone who's dog tackles a cat that enters the garden & gets killed .. i think its what cat owners have been waiting for

 

This is the proposed bill

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldbills/009/09009.i-i.html#j002

[TOPPER 1,809]

so in effect we re fcked

 

if a dog is of the lead -- it will be classed as out of control

 

if your dog catches anything ie a rabbit then you have broken this act this ends all working lurchers and terriers , cat owners will love this

 

distuction orders will be flying about like confety if the dog is deemed to be a working dog

 

any policeman or council twat will have the power to confiscate your dog , very worrying without a warrent

 

dogs siezed can be PTS before any trail , so your guilty anyway

 

THERES TO MANY FLOORS IN THIS AND ITS VERY ANTI DOG , THE OVER ZEALOUS TWATS LED BY THE RSPCA IDIOTS WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY DOGS WILL BE AN ENDANGERED SPEICES BEFORE VERY LONG SO IF YOU TAKE TYKE OUT MAKE SURE ITS ON A LEAD , MUZZLED AND YOU DONT LET IT GET WITHIN 50 YARDS OF ANYBODY OR ANY ANIMAL OR YOUR BE IN COURT EVEN IF YOU HAVE 2 DOGS ON COUPLES AND THEY FIGHT YOUR STILL FCK ED

[Kay 3,709]

so in effect we re fcked

 

if a dog is of the lead -- it will be classed as out of control

 

if your dog catches anything ie a rabbit then you have broken this act this ends all working lurchers and terriers , cat owners will love this

 

distuction orders will be flying about like confety if the dog is deemed to be a working dog

 

any policeman or council twat will have the power to confiscate your dog , very worrying without a warrent

 

dogs siezed can be PTS before any trail , so your guilty anyway

 

THERES TO MANY FLOORS IN THIS AND ITS VERY ANTI DOG , THE OVER ZEALOUS TWATS LED BY THE RSPCA IDIOTS WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY DOGS WILL BE AN ENDANGERED SPEICES BEFORE VERY LONG SO IF YOU TAKE TYKE OUT MAKE SURE ITS ON A LEAD , MUZZLED AND YOU DONT LET IT GET WITHIN 50 YARDS OF ANYBODY OR ANY ANIMAL OR YOUR BE IN COURT EVEN IF YOU HAVE 2 DOGS ON COUPLES AND THEY FIGHT YOUR STILL FCK ED

 

Well i posted a link to this proposed bill a month ago on the pinned rspca thread on here & no one seemed overly bothered ... maybe when its broken down & put across in plain English like you have done folks might sit up & think

 

A bit late now i think as already pointed out its had the first reading & due the second one.. if its passed then yes i think were all f****d

[riohog 5,939]

not easyto interprit this proposed bill,, the way i see it is the dog must have done these things in a place that the public have access in that case not on your own property .. access can be denied as you are the property owner access by invitation . land with public footpaths ,,acces is allowed but only on the footpath and only 20mins before dawn and 20 mins after sunset.not ..anytime before or after these times . otherwise by invitation only.. or it becomes tresspass .. not a public place!!!

[mushroom 14,216]

2

 

Control of dogs

No person shall—

 

 

(a) allow a dog for which they are responsible to be aggressive or

dangerously out of control, in either a public or a private place;

 

 

b. encourage a dog to be aggressive or to intimidate people or other

animals;

 

c) breed dogs for fighting;

 

(d) keep a dog that has been used for fighting;

 

(e) keep a dog that has attacked a person or another animal.

 

 

 

Oh dear I believe that's sheep dogs fooked also What about private firms (doormen and security) man dogs????????? For exceptions It says and I quote

 

"the dog is being used for a lawful purpose by a constable or a person in the service of the Crown."

 

 

Yet a gain another pile of ill-thought out shiite legislation :laugh: It would be hilarious if it wasn't so disastrous

[TOPPER 1,809]

READ IT PROPERLEY private or public place they have classed them the same the way it read s you can get done if you have a kennel fight breakout

 

there is an exemption clause for military and police but not for private companies

 

1

 

Responsibility for dogs

 

(1)

 

In this Act, references to a person being responsible for a dog are to a person

 

responsible for a dog whether on a permanent or temporary basis.

 

(2)

 

In this Act, references to being responsible for a dog include being in charge of

 

it.

 

5

 

(3)

 

For the purposes of this Act, a person who owns a dog shall always be

 

regarded as being a person who is responsible for it.

 

(4)

 

For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be treated as responsible for any

 

dog for which a person under the age of 16 years in their care and control is

 

responsible.

 

section 2 if your dog even smiles at someone or something ie barks at a cat you fc ked

 

section 3 very worrying this the officer or council twat JUST HAS TO BE OF THE OPINON to seize the dog

 

3/2 another very worring bit

 

 

5/1 any officer ot council muppet can seize any dog in his opinion - which in a public place fails to comply with section 2 --- SO IF THE DOGS OF THE LEAD AND HE THINKS FIT HE CAN SEIZE IT NO QUESTIONS ASKED your guilty end of ABSOLUTE OFFENCE just on his say so , what a load of shite

[riohog 5,939]

2

 

Control of dogs

No person shall—

 

 

(a) allow a dog for which they are responsible to be aggressive or

dangerously out of control, in either a public or a private place;

 

 

b. encourage a dog to be aggressive or to intimidate people or other

animals;

 

c) breed dogs for fighting;

 

(d) keep a dog that has been used for fighting;

 

(e) keep a dog that has attacked a person or another animal.

 

 

 

Oh dear I believe that's sheep dogs fooked also What about private firms (doormen and security) man dogs????????? For exceptions It says and I quote

 

"the dog is being used for a lawful purpose by a constable or a person in the service of the Crown."

 

 

Yet a gain another pile of ill-thought out shiite legislation :laugh: It would be hilarious if it wasn't so disastrous

oops thats feked it then .........public /or private place,, who the f..k thinks up these proposed laws ? perhaps there time would be better spent on real issues ..like imigration restrictions!!!

[samstorm 34]

whats it say on the likes of keeping pitts??

Something along the line of idiot

it was a question ya f****n prick, if you dont like it dont read it,

[mushroom 14,216]

whats it say on the likes of keeping pitts??

Something along the line of idiot

it was a question ya f****n prick, if you dont like it dont read it,

 

It actually says that the following acts would be repealed

 

 

 

Repeals

 

 

The following Acts are repealed—

 

 

the Dogs Act 1871 (c. 56);

 

the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (c. 65);

 

the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 (c. 53).

 

I do believe pit bulls, toza inu, dogo argentio and fila brazilaro are all covered in the 91 and 97 acts so who knows maybe they will be

[TOPPER 1,809]

thats the plus side of it; but under the act theyed soon be round and seize your pit ,dogo etc remember under that stupid legistlation they only need to be of the OPINION the dog is dangerous to seize it so in reality its not going to help , i think it will be a lot worse than the DDA at least you had readdress to the DDA under this act there is no readdres THEY SEIZE IT PTS THEN YOU GO TO COURT ALREADY DEEMED GUILTY EVEN IF YOU GOT OFF YOUR DOGS STILL DEAD!!! so your no better off , lurchers are fcked if there caught chasing a rabbit , there deemed out of control and there dangerous as there chasing a little fluffy animal so they ll seize it and PTS  this act is to open ended we have no rights under it and they have it all there own way you only need some little twat of a dog warden and this self appointed little hitler could decimate the local dog population and you could gtd the working dogs would be top off there list prompted by the rspca bunnie huggers get on to your MP BASC , CA ETC this needs stopping its a joke sneaking its way into law then WE RE ALL DOOOOMED the cat owners will love this so dont upset them they only have to complain and it could be goodbye old freind and your dogs gone atb top

Edited July 5, 2010 by TOPPER

[Guest jt750]

I suppose if your a c*nt they'll use the letter of the law to the very end but on the other hand if you're law abiding and respectable then its likely to less severe IMO

[TOPPER 1,809]

don t; you believe it this is just another big nail in the coffin;for WORKING DOGS there frightened of a repeal so go at it from another angle and make it illigal for a dog to do what comes naturally as i said THERE IS NO READDRESS TO THIS ACT and they;ONLY NEED TO BE OF THE OPINION TO SEIZE THE DOG they don tneed any ;PROOF just a bit of hear say and the over zealous twats have all the power they could wish for .;

Edited July 5, 2010 by TOPPER