Quote:
Originally Posted by Nina Cole
Alan, as I have said so many times before, I am talking about PUBLIC places where children, old people and families frequent.
Perhaps people that do not have transport or have access to fields etc, should not have dogs in the first place. We are living in extremely difficult times, where the press and media will jump on the slightest nip, or child being knocked over by an exuberant dog. Is it really fair to put both their lives and other people at risk? If this law prevents just one child, or elderly person being hurt, surely it cannot be wrong!
Like I said previously, there should be dog parks such as the ones in the States, where dogs can run and interact with other and their owners. At least then innocent dogs and people will not get hurt.
|
I understand that you only mean public places. Which I still think is lunacy but I'm not going to repeat all my previous points.
What I am saying is not everyone can access areas to let their dog off leash other than these public places.
So if and when this ban comes in how is a dog that is used to running around off the lead, burning off loads of energy going to react when he's stuck on the lead, getting a fraction of the exercise he/she is used to?
Also it's not really fair on people who have dogs already and will be stuck for alternatives to exercise their dogs. Just because someone doesn't have access to a field or doesn't have a car shouldn't mean they can't have a dog. If we went by that rule there would be millions of extra dogs stuck in rescue centres.
I agree with you on the dog park thing, it would be a good way of going about the problem. But to ban dogs being off leash without providing these areas is going to cause more problems.
Likelyhood is you'll actually see a increase in attacks as more and more dogs get frustrated.
Things have been blown well out of proportion on this whole topic, you're more likely to be struck by lightening than fataly attacked by a dog.