Dangerous Dog Bill - A Step Too Far?

[WTF]

I think all dogs should be muzzled in public, and kept on a lead. Having been attacked several times by roaming dogs, I am in favour of any legislation brought in that will help in their control and the protection of people.

 

I am an adult, and can protect myself against such animals. What chance does a small child have?

 

 

 

BTW I understand it's already illegal not to have a dog on a lead in Douglas (and maybe according to the bye-laws of other towns on IOM), but I can't recall ever seeing anyone being prosecuted for the offence.

 

 

 

 

you understand incorrectly, so maybe you don't understand?? in the dogs act, dogs must be 'under effective control', no mention of dogs having to be on leads at all anywhere. that said, if a pooch is wandering in and out of traffic or 1/4 mile down the beach harrassing someone it could be argued that the control? is not 'effective' and therefore a breach of the law.

 

No, I think it's you who doesn't understand. The Douglas Bye-Laws (nothing to do with a Dogs Act) prohibit dogs not on a lead on pavements, I understand - never seen the signs around the place?

 

 

the douglas so called byelaws as they stand, the ones that lead to the signs a few years ago around the parks about dogs on leads or a max fine of £500 or £1000 etc are i believe unenforceable.you may have read in the paper in recent months about new byelaws coming into effect in certain areas. these local authorities have come up with new byelaws that have had to be set within a framework layed out by the powers that be. that framework does not, i believe, allow for compulsory dogs on leads anywhere. any authority asking for such would i think have that part ammended to under effective control as in the act. i don't think under current or ancient unenforceble legislation will you ever see a person convicted for not having a dog on a lead. you may see convictions for dogs not under effective control or at large as a result of the owner not having it on on a lead in the first place, but just not on a lead as an offence on its own i don't think exists. i could be wrong, but like you, i'm sure i'm not. i would like to be directed to the actual legislation or byelaw documentation that you have seen in reference to this issue so as the validity of the document ( if it ever got tynwald approval at all?? ) could be established so as to set the record straight. having recently being informed to my surprise that dogs under six months old DO need a licence ( i read the dogs act myself in the end) despite certain vets and civil servants saying not, i don't have much faith in 'what someone says' on the issue of dog legislation at the moment. to clarify the 6 months issue for any readers who think they know the law on this or would like to know. in PLAIN ENGLISH. if YOU own the mother of the pup in question?, YOU don't have to licence the pup until its 6 months old. but if you obtain a pup ,you need a licence straight away.

[The Bastard]

Are you sure they are Pit Bulls and not Staffordshire Terriers

 

Yes, here's a Pit Bull in the IOM. Are you sure that's your elbow and not your arse ?

 

[flyfisher]

After reading the majority of the above comments it is clear to me that their are many anti dog people on the island. I would like to know what qualifies the above people to comment on this subject as their seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about current laws and people knowing the difference between staffies and pitbulls (by the way i have never seen a pit bull on the island). This proposed bill seems to be more of an anti dog witch hunt than a useful piece of legislation.

I am a responsible dog owner and i am also a trainer at one of the islands dog clubs so I have a fair bit of experience with dogs and in my opinion most dog owners and their dogs are responsible and cause no problem for the community, it is a small minority of dog owners that are causing problems.

I know three bull mastiffs (according to the proposed bill to be outlawed) and i am very glad to say they have always been very friendly toward me and my dog and have been well behaved in public and to my knowledge have caused no problems to anyone. I cannot comment on the other two breeds mentioned as i never met one on the island or anywhere else.

I think the powers proposed in this bill for an official to come in and remove your dog if somebody complains about it are frightening. It terrifies me to think that my dog could be removed from her home just because someone has taken a dislike to her or me and decided to complain just to cause trouble.

I think it is a good idea to have your dog insured as most dog health insurences include public liability, and all responsible owners will have their dogs insured for their healths sake anyway. I think MHK's need to consult with people who actually know what they are talkig about when it comes to dogs before they go any further with this legislation.

I suggest that instead of a dangerous dogs act we have a dangerous owners act.

I would just like to add that i am disgusted by some of the comments posted in this forum, especially after the terrible act of cruelty at sulby that recently shocked the island.

[Gladys]

Agree with every word, especially the bit about dangerous owners.

 

And The Bastard, I do know my elbow from my arse, but the earlier post referred to pitbulls on the beach. That Youtube clip was previously identified as in a house in Willaston. So not only do I know my elbow from my arse, I know a back garden from a beach!

[feelslikeitshould]

Are you really surprised though? Like anything, it's the minority that ruin things for the majority. We're always more likely to hear of the bad things, whether it's dogs mauling toddlers, extremists trying to blow things up or hood wearing teenagers terrorising old ladies. And so, these groups get tarred with the same brush, no hoods allowed in shopping centres for example. My Dad has an Akita, it's a big dog but soft as anything and I trust him around my kids. The gas man went round to do a reading at his house, saw the dog and asked it be put in another room or he wasn't coming in, when challenged, he said that his gas man mate had been bitten by a husky while doing a reading. To which my Dad replied, it's an Akita, not a husky and he doesn't even bark let alone bite. The gas man still wasn't happy. And it's human nature, everyone suffers from the actions of a few.

[Albert Tatlock]

Isn't this the usual Nushite press reaction to an event - and the 'copy and paste' legislation that seems so eager to follow it on the island?

 

That said, some dogs are dangerous - but there is already legislation that e.g. covers dogs such as those that killed Ellie Lawrenson (8 years old). All they need to do is increase the sentence people like the 'previously-warned' uncle owner got - from 8 weeks to 80 years.

 

Jeez - people get more for not paying their TV licence.

[ourtess]

I used to think dogs were a waste of space until I had to keep the one on the left after her owner became ill.

Now I think they are great.

 

Funny old world.

[John Wright]

The Dangeroud Dogs Bill only reflects what there has been in UK for several yeras. Dure the recent evenyts in England and the death of a young girl may have prompted it but also so have the statistics coming out of dog licenses which showed a number of tese species considered dangerouds were nopw on the Island. I am all for control of dangerous dogs. It is the Dogs which are inherently dangerousm and they seem to be owned by owners who encourage that propensity and who do not care about safety.

 

As for licences all dogs have to be licensed except working dogs, guide dogs, search and rescue dogs, dogs under 6 months old as long as still owned by the person who bred them

 

Finally as for bye laws, the Dogs amendment Act 2006 allows such bye laws to be made, and ratifies any old ones made without authority so thye are valid throughout 2007, by which time new ones can be in place. So there are bye laws, they were invalid before Jukly 2006 but now they are valid. They become invalid again unless replaced

[John Wright]

The Dangeroud Dogs Bill only reflects what there has been in UK for several yeras. Dure the recent evenyts in England and the death of a young girl may have prompted it but also so have the statistics coming out of dog licenses which showed a number of tese species considered dangerouds were nopw on the Island. I am all for control of dangerous dogs. It is the Dogs which are inherently dangerousm and they seem to be owned by owners who encourage that propensity and who do not care about safety.

 

As for licences all dogs have to be licensed except working dogs, guide dogs, search and rescue dogs, dogs under 6 months old as long as still owned by the person who bred them

 

Finally as for bye laws, the Dogs amendment Act 2006 allows such bye laws to be made, and ratifies any old ones made without authority so thye are valid throughout 2007, by which time new ones can be in place. So there are bye laws, they were invalid before Jukly 2006 but now they are valid. They become invalid again unless replaced

[Bill Posters]

I am all for control of dangerous dogs and even more - dangerous owners. Sadly, readig this thread has just confirmed what an anti-dog place the UK has become.

 

A nation of pet lovers that nearly all seem to be anti dogs.

 

I appreciate that sometimes it is necessary to legislate for the 'lowest common denominator' but the efffect of over the top legislation is to put decent people off having dogs. The scrotes won't care either way.

[WTF]

Finally as for bye laws, the Dogs amendment Act 2006 allows such bye laws to be made, and ratifies any old ones made without authority so thye are valid throughout 2007, by which time new ones can be in place. So there are bye laws, they were invalid before Jukly 2006 but now they are valid. They become invalid again unless replaced

 

 

i still don't think the ammendment act allows for 'dogs on leads' legislation to be put into bye laws though??

[John Wright]

Finally as for bye laws, the Dogs amendment Act 2006 allows such bye laws to be made, and ratifies any old ones made without authority so thye are valid throughout 2007, by which time new ones can be in place. So there are bye laws, they were invalid before Jukly 2006 but now they are valid. They become invalid again unless replaced

 

 

i still don't think the ammendment act allows for 'dogs on leads' legislation to be put into bye laws though??

 

Its how you read it. s23 Dogs act 1990 requires dogs to be under control on the highway. That means on a lead. That is Island wide

 

2. s24 Dogs Act 1990 inserted by Dogs Amendment Act 2006 gives local authotities power to make bye laws for open spaces and beaches to ensure dogs are under control. What does under control mean, it means on a lead! So the bye law need not say, indeed preferrably should not say dogs on a lead only. It should say dogs in public places to be kept under control, penalty £xyz. Also signs must be put up.

 

But it means keep your dog on a lead

[flyfisher]

if it means keep your dog on a lead surely it would say dogs must be kept on a lead. Under control means making sure your dog is not bothering anyone else and is not causing any damage or harm. i do agree dogs should always be on a lead near a road or any form of traffic and in crowded places like strand street.

I would just like to again say that before MHK's take this any further they need a balanced view, this means talking to people who actually know something about dogs as at the moment they appear to have only spoken to anti dog people about it. The side for dogs seem to have acknowleged that some breeds do have a tendency for aggression (such as pit bulls not bull mastiffs ) but the anti dog people in this forum refuse to say anything about the vast majority of dogs on the island that are friendly well balanced and all round wonderful animals. all the people posting anti dog comments in this forum obviously have never owned dogs, have had little contact with dogs and are perhaps not the best people to be commenting on the subject of dogs.

By the way thanks to gladys for agreeing with my previous comments

[whateverfloatsyourboat]

In reply to John Wright’s post:

 

According to the Government website S.23 of the Dogs Act 1990 as amended by Dogs (Amendment) Bill 2005 draft 2005-06-15 states:

“If a dog -

(a ) is on a highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway and

(b ) is not under effective control

the keeper of the dog shall be guilty of an offence …”

 

The original draft amendment read:

“If a dog -

(a ) is on a highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway and

(b ) is not on a lead

the keeper of the dog shall be guilty of an offence … “

 

So presumably there is a distinction between “under effective control” and “on a lead”.

 

S.24 allows for local authorities to make bye-laws concerning dogs found to be “at large” in or permitted access to specified areas. “At large” is defined as not on a lead or under the effective control of a person aged 10 years or over.

 

My interpretation is therefore that there is no legal requirement to have your dog on a lead although I agree with Flyfisher that dogs should be kept on leads in certain places, particularly near traffic. It makes sense for the dogs’ safety as much as anyone else’s.

 

I would also like to applaud Enbee’s original post for attempting to bring this very important issue to the public’s attention.

[John Wright]

In reply to John Wright’s post:

 

According to the Government website S.23 of the Dogs Act 1990 as amended by Dogs (Amendment) Bill 2005 draft 2005-06-15 states:

“If a dog -

(a ) is on a highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway and

(b ) is not under effective control

the keeper of the dog shall be guilty of an offence …”

 

The original draft amendment read:

“If a dog -

(a ) is on a highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway and

(b ) is not on a lead

the keeper of the dog shall be guilty of an offence … “

 

So presumably there is a distinction between “under effective control” and “on a lead”.

 

S.24 allows for local authorities to make bye-laws concerning dogs found to be “at large” in or permitted access to specified areas. “At large” is defined as not on a lead or under the effective control of a person aged 10 years or over.

 

My interpretation is therefore that there is no legal requirement to have your dog on a lead although I agree with Flyfisher that dogs should be kept on leads in certain places, particularly near traffic. It makes sense for the dogs’ safety as much as anyone else’s.

 

I would also like to applaud Enbee’s original post for attempting to bring this very important issue to the public’s attention.