How many more people must die until dog licensing is brought in?

2 fatalities this week from dogs not on the banned breed list. Need to start means testing ownership. it must mean an annual license fee.

 

can't see that working though tbh as in all these things the law abiding would do it and the ones who keep that type of dog probably wouldn't SOMETHING does need to be done though, even one more child would be too many

 

And having a license will stop dogs attacking children/people? I don't think so.

Educating owners would be a start but unfortunately some people are beyond educating.

 

I'm in agreement re licences. I'll happily pay £100 per year or whatever, if it promotes responsible ownership. This should be revoked after the animal turns a certain age in good health and trouble free.
There is also the question of how many dogs and wild animals have to die because of arseholes who have dogs for all the wrong reasons.

 

Chavs on council estates trying to look hard with their staffies and mastiffs are the main problem.

 

The vast majority of dangerous dogs are with owners who have no respect of legislation so I don't see how it will work.

 

Manslaughter charge for any owner whose dog kills, should be mandetory.

 

They stopped issuing dog licences because few people bothered buying one and it was difficult to police. Back in those days there were more public officials employed. It will be even harder to police in the current climate. There's already compulsory microchipping of dogs, I suspect the same people who aren't having their dogs chipped wouldn't pay a licence. I've never been stopped by anyone with a scanner in an official capacity asking to scan my dog who, before anyone asks, is chipped so I'm not sure how enforceable compulsory licencing of dogs would be.

 

I would go with that - in fact I would suggest that the law could interpret any injury caused by a dog to a person as if the owner had caused it, and prosecute the owner accordingly. Why just have a manslaughter charge when a dog kills. What about when they cause serious injury? - GBH charge.

 

liecences mean zip its all down to the owners who need some education on how to train and be responceable owners

 

you just can't educate some people though, so the only way is the threat route - when they buy a dangerous dog to look hard they need to be worried that any indiscretion from it will result in a prison sentence for the w*nker that owns it.

 

totally agree, just look at what's on the end of the lead, barely housetrained, wild eyes, snarling at folk all the time, but at least the dogs aren't as bad most of the time

 

Totally agree. We've gone too soft on feral anti-social scroats who cause problems and put public services under strain every day. Long prison sentences for them is the only answer.

 

The Dangerous Dogs Act isn't fit for purpose. It needs tightening up.
Any Dog which bites or attempts to bite anyone is a dangerous Dog and should be put down. Where a Dog kills anyone the owner should be sent to prison for a minimum of 10 years.

 

depends on the circumstance why the dog has reacted in the first place before it is deemed dangerous or not,if it has attacked for no reason then fair enough,but if it has been provoked then,no,some people also have to be accountable for their actions never mind the dogs.

 

Your comment is like saying a man who murdered a child was provoked by it's crying.

 

I think to err on the side of caution as a nation, we should have every single dog put down.

 

what a load of ******.

 

You have to have lesson to pass a test to drive a car . Why not have to have dog handling training and tests to prove competency and fitness to have a dog before you get a licence to buy/adopt one? Large fines for breeders who supply to someone without a license as well as large fines for owners without a licence and dogs chipped including owners licence details. If you can afford a large dog (and many are pedigree and expensive to buy/ feed vets fees etc. and, just like a car expensive to run, you can afford the costs of the training course certification and licences. Any dog allowed to run loose in public with the owner not present should be removed from the owner (unless it hasz been reported as missing by the owner in the event that it has inadvertently 'escaped' (although a properly trained dog would not do that anyway) . To a small child a large/medium sized untrained uncontrolled dog can, and sadly does too often, prove as lethal as a handgun.

 

The problem I have with that comes from an actual example. When I was 4, our 'next door but one' neighbour had a German Shepherd. It was trained to the whistle a one-man-dog with a clear leader -his master. He was gentle, playful and safe around anyone and I was allowed to play with him and he was allowed into our garden (always waiting till his 'master' gave him permission' The neighbour died suddenly and within a few weeks the dog changed and became highly unpredictable. The widow could not control him and one day only a month or so lafter the funeral he jumped two fences ended up in our garden but was growling, bared teeth and agressive. My dad and another neighbour managed to capture him and although I was never told at the time being 4 or 5 I believe he was taken away and put down. If what you propose was made law, the widow could have found herself facing a prison sentence for a single action of a dog that had clearly had a 'breakdown'. Certain breeds are family dogs others need a clear Alpha male and this one lost his and could not cope.