Do you agree with 'Dogbo' proposals
Dog owners could be required to insure themselves against the risk of their pet attacking someone, it was announced today.
Government proposals suggest forcing every dog owner to take out third party insurance and to have their dog microchipped.
-
The Metropolitan Dog Unit tackle a dangerous dog
Ministers are also considering introducing New Dog Control Notices for misbehaving animals.
The “Dogbo” orders would allow police officers and council officials to force miscreant owners to muzzle, leash or even neuter their pets.
In extreme cases the dogs could even be confiscated and given to new owners.
The measures, part of proposed changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act, are aimed at tackling the growing problem of vicious animals being bred for use as weapons.
Ministers are also considering making it a criminal offence for a dog owner to allow their animal to be “dangerously out of control”.
Currently they are only breaking the law if the dog is out of control in a public place.
The change would extend the law to private residences, and could provide extra protection for postmen. There is also concern about the widespread use of dogs as weapons on inner city estates.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson said: “Britain is a nation of animal lovers, but people have a fundamental right to feel safe on the streets and in their homes.
“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.”
Figures uncovered by the Tories suggested 100 people every week are treated in hospital after being bitten by a dog.
The number of cases has gone up to 3,079 in 1997-8 to 5,221 last year.
Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: “All we’ve really had for the past decade under this Government is a series of speeches and headline grabbing announcements about the things there were going to do to tackle problems like dangerous dog offences.
“But in the end nothing has ever happened. If Labour are re-elected in May all we’ll get is the same tired-out old approach and none of the changes the country really needs.”
But Billy Hayes, general secretary of the CWU, said: “This is a long-overdue, but extremely welcome step.
“We’ve been calling for changes to the law for several years now following some terrible dog attacks on postal workers.
“Many of our suggestions – including extending protection to private land and issuing control notices or ’dog Asbos’ – are now fully reflected in this consultation.”
42 Comments
View all
by emell, dymock
Wednesday, March 10 2010, 6:47PM
“Lunatic Jones, well done I agree with you all the way, If a loose dog comes near yours tough, you are in control of your's. The others owner should call it back and ask you if yours is ok to say "hi" and "sniff my butt" as most dog's do”
by Lunatic Jones, Lydney
Wednesday, March 10 2010, 6:16PM
“I have two German Shepherds, and am fed up of people looking at me like they are evil dogs. They are both well trained, chipped and insured. When walked together, they are both wearing head collars to allow me control over them. The male does NOT go off the lead, as I know he doesn't like other dogs. If an owner lets their dog off the lead and said dog approaches mine, is it my fault if they get bitten? After all, MY dogs are completely under control. We have a basket to prevent a risk to the postman, and they are not allowed out when the milkman is due. But what if someone breaks into our house? If my dogs bite, do I get in trouble, even though I have warnings about guard dogs clearly visible? Judging by what is being said, the answer is yes, my dogs will be classed as dangerous if they bite an intruder. This is wrong. I pay my insurance premiums like i'm sure all responsible dog owners do, so I should not be expected to pay out more because of the minority who allow their dogs to run riot. It is them who should be punished, not us.
Oh and one more thing. I always clean up after my dogs wherever it may be. If I didn't, I'd be fined. So what about cat owners? Are they expected to clean up after their cats? No. The grass verges in our area are covered in cat faeces, but no one bats an eyelid. One rule for one as they say......”
by red, glos
Tuesday, March 09 2010, 11:36PM
“i av a rotty and never bit anyone,and also my dog has a microchipand insurance,been neuter,always on a leash,yes i do av a muzzle for my dog,but it dont mean my dog bad in anyway.......”
by G, the suburbs
Tuesday, March 09 2010, 11:27PM
“It seems like yet another imaginary problem. Just a year or two we heard about getting our trees inspected. Not long before that, wasn't it a national crisis that gravestones were unstable and could potentially crush someone?
I confidently predict that next year's national crisis will be that a rapidly increasing number of people fall down stairs at night. Night lights will be mandated
I see that I sound like a grunpy old man. But really, if I lived anywhere else, it would be hugely amusing.”
by spin-spotter, cheltenham
Tuesday, March 09 2010, 9:06PM
“Pet Lover, Glos: "...people say 95% of dog owners are responsible, so are 95% or car drivers but the law says they have to have insurance, I dont see any difference."
There's a world of difference. Those percentages are a red herring. There are many many more deaths and serious injuries caused by driving than by dogs.
Third party insurance for all dog owners would be bureaucratic overkill for all concerned, while being totally irrelevant to most dog owners, and undeservedly lucrative for insurance companies.
The proposal sounds like another political U-turn waiting to happen.”