should it be the owners decision or a governing body who decides important issues with our dogs. I.E: tail docking, dew claw removal, muzzles, racing grey hounds, neutering dangerous dogs, etc!

Difficult one, this. I think that some issues - such as the control of dangerous dogs, for example, should be legislated against. However, the present law is nothing but a knee-jerk reaction to a horrific dog attack, and as such is unfair and unworkable. How can anyone who is in charge of legislation about animals support a law that punishes the breed and not the deed? So I can't vote for owners, but I certainly can't vote for DEFRA!

I was expecting to get slated for my opinion that it should be the owners choice.

There are pros and cons in every situation for instance I have been led to believe that neutering dogs to curtail aggression is not necessarily an effective solution.

Muzzling deprives a dog of defending itself. The owner should have the right to make choices.

However owners should be responsible and accountable for their dogs actions.

Sue

at the end of the day anyone can put as many laws as they want in place, but its the owners who do these bad/ and good things to their dogs.

I was fully agaisnt tail-docking as i thought it was only to make dogs look nice, then I read a thread on here months back expalining how important it is for working and hunting dogs.

Educate the owners, its the only way things will change as a lot of people don't care that much about breaking laws!

I have to agree with Spellweaver on this one - so I cannot vote either......

humm i voted the owner as its their dog and if they are a 'good' owner they won't put their dog through anything unnecisary. this is where dog licences would come in handy, to separate the people who would do the above and the ones who wouldn't

__________________

I think there should be a mix as whilst most of what DEFRA has done is right I think the dangerous dogs breed thing is, in far too many cases just harsh and unfair.
Breeds like staffies & rotties are being picked on because of what hype says the breed is like regardless of temperment, evidence suggesting how they are dangerous etc... Thus hype and the media are giving certain breeds bad names- it shouldn't be allowed to happen!
When DEFRA go about setting out their principles hey should have members of the public (dog owners obviously) present- almost like a jury- to put forward their views.

__________________

It is a very difficult one for me as well, as i believe that DEFRA are there to help put guidelines in place for people to follow. But then again i believe that any responsible owner would make the right decisions when it came to their own pets.

i have a rottweiler and i would hate people I.E DEFRA telling me how to care for her, muzzling and harnessing, etc!
As i am a responsible dog owner i researched the breed and the legislations covering powerful breeds (dangerous dogs act), for when she is older and very powerful.

Difficult One,
With regarding the DDA I think it should be scrapped and legislation passed to make owners accountable for there dogs actions, charges should be brought against those owners who allow there dogs to be dangerous.
The current legislation is unenforceable,unworkable and by putting breed restrictions in place you are stating that a whole breed is dangerous when infact that is not true.

I think DEFRA need to listen to responsible owners,personally I don't trust them,the government nor the police after what happened in merseyside!

what happened in merseyside???????