Ooh Russ…talk about sweeping statements.
Let me respond to your points first, cos I know you like debate.
You mention that ‘Bill, the tattoo’d thug’ will be unlikely to license his pit bull. I agree with you. ‘Bill’ is already in breach of the law by keeping an illegal (in the UK) breed. His dog should be immediately seized and destroyed. However, the problem starts because ‘Bill’ is able to argue that his dog is not a pit bull. He states that the dog is a cross-bred and that is enough to cause a delay in dealing with the dog properly. Unfortunately, ‘Bill’ knows the law as well as the people who are there to enforce it, and this means that the dog has to be kept, at great expense to our police force, until such time as it has been properly assessed as to its breeding and level of danger to the public. In many cases, the ‘Bills’ of this world will ultimately get their dogs back and will continue to breed from them and use them to intimidate other members of society. ‘Bill’ is then allowed to parade his dog in public, without a muzzle, and to hone its aggression to the point that, if the dog is ever loose without ‘Bill’, it may savage or kill a child.
Having been appalled by every case of children being mauled and savaged by dogs, I am not exhibiting a knee jerk reaction to this problem. I am actually trying to see a way toward protecting children (and adults) from the horrors of dangerous dogs, and forcing owners to realise their responsibilities to their dogs and to society. It’s blatantly obvious that the present laws and policing have no effect on the minds of those who continue to create the potential for humans to be severely damaged by dogs.
In terms of the ‘highly publicised events’ to which you apply the knee jerk reaction, would you rather these unfortunate victims of badly-bred, ill-managed, free-roaming predators were just allowed to suffer in isolation, without the support of those among us who see their plight as the affront it is?
To cite road traffic accidents as a case against licensing dogs is ludicrous.
Licensing of dogs (or of owners) would be the first move into being able to fund a body which would be able to collate data pertaining to dog-ownership. In order to get a dog license, and a dog, the applicant would need to meet certain criteria, such as where the dog would be kept, how it was to be managed, etc.. As you suggest, most dog-owners would easily meet the criteria as ‘the vast majority, on the whole DO look after their animals perfectly well.’ However, by requiring the whole to commit themselves to responsible ownership, the parts which do not are isolated and identifiable more readily.
On the subject of horses, since you mention it, I think there are many horse-owners who should not be allowed to keep horses. I could easily see the merit of a course designed to enable people to see the serious side of being a responsible owner/manager of horses before they buy one, although a Parelli course is, perhaps, not the best example of a criteria to meet in terms of sensible, basic horse-ownership.
I think you’ve gone a wee bit over the top with your likening of dog attacks on humans to domestic accidents from boiling kettles and cats. Dodgy parents are another matter and, where children are suffering as a result of neglect or abuse, they should be dealt with severely in my opinion. However, we all know the results of a lackadaisical child protection attitude in the UK, with children being systematically tortured to death by abusers who, because of the human rights issues and lack of proper legislation, are getting away with it.
I do realise, Russ, that you are very anti-government, but you must see that the government has to legislate to some degree in the case of dangerous dogs. Your associates who keep dangerous dogs would simply not be able to without being in breach of the law were there a decent law available to ensure that nobody, nobody, was allowed to keep such animals under any circumstances. We both know that the law is an ass in many cases, but I’m sure we agree that something has to be done to curtail the activities of those who fail to ensure their dogs are properly controlled and of minimal danger to others.
On the subject of tougher sentencing laws, I agree that this would not make a lot of difference to some people. Given that we are referring to those in society who use dogs to intimidate others and as a form of weaponry, I agree that tougher sentences would have little effect. The way to solve that particular problem is to be able, through DNA records and other forms of unique ID, to identify those dogs and the progeny thereof, and to seize and destroy them. This is why I would also call for certain breeds and types of dogs to require to be muzzled at all times when outside of their living quarters. That way, any dog found in public without a muzzle, whether attached to a thug or not, would be immediately seized and destroyed. Having said that, there are plenty of people with dangerous dogs who don't, yet, have a criminal record.
My argument for licensing is based on the need to raise money to pay for an effective body which would be entirely responsible for gathering data with which to counteract the ever-increasing number of dangerous breeds and part-breds produced illegally in the UK.
My argument for micro-chipping is that all dogs, in order to obtain a license, would have to be presented to a vet to be chipped. At that point, their DNA sample would be taken and logged on a central database. Considering the number of dogs this would involve, there would be ample funds available for the cost of this to be subsidised in cases of real hardship.
The database and chip would ultimately be the tools of choice to quickly identify any dogs which were unknown and, therefore, un-licensed. All un-licensed dogs would be assumed to be owned by irresponsible owners, and would be seized, and destroyed after seven days unless the owners made immediate efforts to meet the criteria.
All dogs would have to be muzzled in public places. Any dogs found running free without a muzzle, in a place where members of the public may come into contact with them, would be seized and held for seven days, after which, if the owner was found to be in breach of the law, the dog would be destroyed.
We already have a police force, the SPCAs, and dog wardens on the ground. If they had a coherent criteria to work to, and a commendable commission, it would not be long before a comprehensive knowledge of the UK dog population could be established.
I realise that this will cause a furore amongst adherents of some breeds. They can be relied upon to defend their breeds against all evidence to the contrary when faced with the prospect of a dog being destroyed for savaging a human. They will certainly argue that there exists no such thing as a dangerous dog…only irresponsible owners.
I happen to believe that there are such things as dangerous dogs. They are produced by irresponsible people, right enough, and they are the victims of a disingenuous and dishonourable society, but they are nonetheless dangerous for that.
You’ve told us what you wouldn’t do about it, Russ. What, if anything would you do about it?
