Blog

News of Labour's plans to tackle ‘dangerous' dogs are causing a bit of a storm. And it's my current bone of contention.

Yes, animals can be dangerous - especially in the wrong hands. And let's face it, there are good and bad dog owners, but it seems the government's latest proposals will only punish the law-abiding citizens of England and Wales. Feel familiar?

A consultation, just weeks before the general election, is looking into amending the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act.

Micro-chipping all dogs and compulsory third-party insurance for all owners - in case their dog attacks someone - are among the proposals.

It is said that more than 100 people are admitted to hospital every week due to dog attacks. Clearly that is a problem and needs to be addressed.

But aren't the politicians barking up the wrong tree? They seem to think the solution is to criminalise all dog owners with an unfair tax.

Forgive me if I'm stereotyping, but surely the problem lies with the thugs using dogs as status symbols as they prowl the streets in hooded gangs, knives in hand? And the root of the problem must surely be our inner city societies where law and order is failing and violent crime is on the increase. Are these people really going to take heed and insure their dogs?

And is it me, but how exactly is an insurance policy or a microchip going to stop a dog attack? Its only use will be to trace the owner, if they've followed the law, and that may be of little consolation to the parents of yet another child killed in the jaws of a dangerous dog.

So what exactly is a ‘dangerous dog'? Any dog, of any breed, has the potential to attack, bite and fight. But cats can bite too, and hamsters (I had hamsters when I was a kid that would regularly draw blood, and I'm pretty sure they enjoyed doing it) - should all pets have third-party insurance?

In the majority of cases, the dogs are not the problem, it's the owners who don't have a clue.

Even on recent walks with my new sheepdog puppy Mist, I've been amazed at some of the owners we've crossed paths with. A number of people have had no control over their dogs, there are others who don't seem capable of teaching their dogs how to walk on the lead properly and others who allow their un-neutered, over-sexed dogs to wander the streets. There was one nasty little jack russell (not my favourite breed) that ran over to attack Mist while she was on the lead, for no reason - would I therefore be able to claim compensation from the owner who told me: "Well, she's very soft with people"?

Fortunately, these have been the minority, and we've met lots of well behaved, friendly dogs, some of which go to agility, obedience and ringcraft classes. Mist's favourite dogs so far have been a very slobbery golden retriever and a brindle boxer.

For some time, I've wondered if there should be some sort of test or education for potential new dog owners. It seems absurd for those of us who have kept dogs all our lives, but some people literally don't know what they're dealing with. Then again, I think there should be an IQ test and parental skills assessment before some people should be allowed to have babies, but that's a whole other subject...

I agree that something needs to be done to tackle dog attacks. I don't necessarily agree with stealth charges for all and assuming everyone is guilty before they are proven innocent. Let's hope the 12-week ‘consultation' gets its teeth into the subject and comes up with some common sense plans. And let's hope sensible dog owners get their views heard by the politicians.

Personally I don't have a problem with micro-chipping. Corrie is micro-chipped and I'll be getting Mist micro-chipped in the next few weeks.

Some people have suggested bringing back the dog licence, but that was never enforced and many people didn't bother. Another suggestion has been a national database of all dogs' DNA, which could also be a hugely valuable research tool into canine health.

As for insurance, I have learnt my lesson and will always insure my dogs now following Corrie's extremely expensive chemotherapy costs. As far as I'm aware a number of pet insurance policies include third-party liability.

What would be really interesting, would be to see more in-depth statistics, such as where and when these dangerous dog attacks happen, who the people are who own these dogs, how the attack happened, how the dogs are kept, have they been to socialisation or obedience classses and so on.

I doubt the results would come back showing it was little Fido being taken for his walk in the park after collecting the kids from school, before his weekly obedience class.

Some interesting links on the subject: