View Single Post
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 26-02-2008, 05:52 PM
sskmick's Avatar
sskmick sskmick is offline
Pet Forums VIP Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: W. Yorks, England
Posts: 2,838
sskmick is a jewel in the roughsskmick is a jewel in the roughsskmick is a jewel in the roughsskmick is a jewel in the roughsskmick is a jewel in the rough
Re: Proposal Of Dangerous Dog Legislation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackiew View Post
The situation is worse then people imagine.Several years ago a destruction order was obtained under the 1871 Dog Act against two dogs that had bitten a young boy who had trespassed into a private garden.This effectively means that any dog can be destroyed as a dangerous dog no matter where it is .Even if as in the case in Kent the dogs were in the owners own back garden and that the boy had to climb a 5 foot wall in order to get into it.
I can't ignore this one but I don't know how I stand on it. Firstly the boy shouldn't have climbed the fence, unfortunately lads do whether its for a ball, a duff etc. Second problem is how aggressive do people need a dog to be? a bark would alert an owner to an intruder. I would say the dogs were doing their job.

In writing this post I have come to the conclusion that the owner let the dogs down.

I don't agree with euthanasia except to end suffering. With the knowledge and expertise available most behavioral problems can be overcome or managed.

I could be wrong but I believe temperament is bred, behaviour is taught whether its intentional or unintentional.

Sue

Last edited by sskmick; 26-02-2008 at 07:19 PM.. Reason: mis-spelling breed to bred
Reply With Quote