Owners of dogs that attack and kill someone could face life...

[-Mongrel-]

The owners of dogs that attack and kill someone could face life in prison under new proposals for England and Wales. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23578561

 

So, it has been proposed that the above should become law. If your dog attacks and kills a human being, you as the owner could be sentenced to life imprisonment.

 

Harsh beyond belief, or about time someone dealt with the owner as well as the dog?

 

Discuss.

Edited August 6, 2013 by -Mongrel-

[Kes]

It seems to be the full opposite swing of the pendulum. I have a dog which doesnt like anything much and hes a great dane mastiff cross. I have a 'Danger guard dog' sign on my gate which is bolted and 100yds from the house. If someone came in would I be liable for their stupidity ? Naturally with invited guests I could guarantee the dogs would be in and guests would be safe.

I dont see it as my liability if someone enters and is savaged despite the warnings. What about burglars ? Who decides ?

Someone needs to rethink this so that dogs left unattended with a non owner in a confined space should be responsible for their dogs behaviour but more than that it seems a little ill-though-through.

[-Mongrel-]

Couldn't agree more to be honest. I have a Ridgeback X Mastiff. He's a teddy bear. Typical big dog, soft as they come, even tempered, chilled out etc etc.

 

However, at 55 kg and solid, IF he went it would cause most people a problem. Now, he is not a problem dog or dangerous breed, but, if for example he had an undiagnosed brain tumour or something that altered his behaviour and out of the blue he raced across a field and savaged someone, resulting in their death...should I go down for life, or maybe twenty years, ten, five even? In the preceding circumstances doesn't that seem excessive? I've not encouraged viciousness or mistreated the animal etc etc, so, how do you draw the lines?

[neillfrbs]

that's like saying put mark bridgers parents in jail as well .

I think it is a bit harsh ,but two years out in 7 months on tag is a **** take.

[Greymaster]

Time to bring back the dog licence, and even a "fit to own" test for owning a dog. The dog should require 3rd party liability insurance and any owner without a licence and without insurance should be prosecuted and punished. The "fit to own test" should assess whether the owner had a basic knowledge of canine behaviour, their level of trained competence and the degree of control over the dog. The dog's aptitude could be appraised around other dogs and around people.

 

Anybody with any dog that fails theirs and their dog's tests, which then went on to injure (and fatally) a person, then that person should be jailed.

 

However, drunken driving should always carry a heavier penalty and you don't see many DD's jailed for life.

[old rooster]

The owners of dogs that attack and kill someone could face life in prison under new proposals for England and Wales. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23578561

 

So, it has been proposed that the above should become law. If your dog attacks and kills a human being, you as the owner could be sentenced to life imprisonment.

 

Harsh beyond belief, or about time someone dealt with the owner as well as the dog?

 

Discuss.

 

About time too! People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions and that includes the animals they own IMHO!!

[KPV4]

Its all about the owner being in control of the dog, which is far from what happens. Legislation already dictates that dogs must be under the owners control at all times when in a public place and I believe the changes being proposed extended this to private property.

 

As a dog owner and someone who has recently been seriously bitten by another persons dog while I was jogging in a public place, because it wasn't under the owners control. I feel there needs to be a fundamental change in the way a lot of dog owners perceive their dogs while they are out in public. They may be the cutest, happiest most gentle animal while at home, but out in public there are many factors that can change their temperament, which is out of the control of the dogs owner. The majority of dogs I see in public places (all breeds, shapes and sizes) are un-leashed, walking a distance from their owners who have seem to have no care for the other users of the facility and the possible impending attack their dog could make until it is too late! Even a dog close to its owner would be hard to stop if it bolted and wasn't leashed. In my instance, the dog was already under a court order to be muzzled in public for biting a child and wasn't muzzled, another example of a good responsible owner. At present this incident is with the police, with possible prosecution of the owner and possible destruction of the dog, before it causes anyone else injury. I didn't think this would ever happen to me but it has and this incident has left me very wary of any dog that is not leashed. Any dog that shows any interest in me now while out running causes me great concern, even though their interest may be totally harmless.

 

When walking my dogs they are always leashed at all times when in public places, to ensure I have total control at all times. In my opinion it is high time that all owners were made to leash their dogs whilst in public places.

[sitsinhedges]

One of the things that stop me having another dog is the amount of people going about with uncontrolled 'image' dogs.

 

It's about time they did something to make anyone take full responsibility for the actions of the animals they are supposed to be in control of so it's a big thumbs up from me

[-Mongrel-]

When walking my dogs they are always leashed at all times when in public places, to ensure I have total control at all times. In my opinion it is high time that all owners were made to leash their dogs whilst in public places.

 

I'm interested as to how you exercise your dogs adequately if you never unleash them in a public place which of course, covers all public parks, woods etc?

[westmids1987]

Its a bit of a balancing act really,true if a dog attacks someone or a guide dog because they

Havn't been trained well then fair do's the owner should be prosecuted,however many of the recent attacks have been on private property so my dog attacks a burgular protecting my property and child an he says he was 'lost or drunk' and i get prosecuted?hardly fair,there needs to be strict rules that are enforced,had some thinking and not totally against the idea if pre ownership tests/liscense but how wuld it be implemented?

Edited August 6, 2013 by westmids1987

[kdubya]

just shows how dog owners like to twist, when a dog attacks some one they shout its not the dog its the owner, yet when they want to make the owner responsible they say its not us its the dog.two faced or what

 

KW

[KPV4]

 

I'm interested as to how you exercise your dogs adequately if you never unleash them in a public place which of course, covers all public parks, woods etc?

 

Simple, keep walking and this give me the exercise as well as the dogs, the more miles covered the more cals burnt. Also the two dogs I have don't need to run like fools or walk a marathon to get enough exercise, a few miles a couple of times a day and they are cream crackered. So those who have dogs that require a lot of exercise should be prepared to walk the distance required not just stand in one place throw a stick and expect the dog to exercise itself!

 

Sorry if my answer is a bit blunt, but too many owners want animals they are not prepared to adequately exercise in an appropriate way. If people want to un-leash their dogs to run in the open with little control they should ensure they have somewhere to do this that isn't in a public place. These places are for the enjoyment of all, not just dog owners and they can be enjoyed by all (including dogs and owners) if a few rules are adhered to, but more often than not this isn't the case.

 

We have a high school close to me with a public footpath on one side of the school playing field. Dog walking is allowed, but signage states at either end of the path, that all dogs must be leashed at all times and must not leave the footpath. But every day loads of dog owners un-leash their dogs and allow them to play and exercise on the actual playing field. Dogs continually foul on the playing field making it hazardous for the children to use and play sports, and then someone at the tax payers expense has to clear it up. You don't have to go far in any town to see how responsible a lot of dog owners are, their lack of cleaning up can be clearly seen on many pavements up and down the country.

Edited August 6, 2013 by KPV4

[-Mongrel-]

 

...too many owners want animals they are not prepared to adequately exercise in an appropriate way. If people want to un-leash their dogs to run in the open with little control they should ensure they have somewhere to do this that isn't in a public place. These places are for the enjoyment of all, not just dog owners and they can be enjoyed by all (including dogs and owners) if a few rules are adhered to, but more often than not this isn't the case.

That works both ways buddy, change the wording to 'These places are for the enjoyment of all INCLUDING dog owners'?. Millions of dogs are freely walked on a daily basis without incident, so why should the majority be penalised by the actions of a very small percentage? You may be able to walk yours for a couple miles and that's enough for them, mine would be just getting warmed up. I understand it's my choice but I don't accept that owning a labrador means I should have to take special steps to exercise her. My dogs get 40 minutes of exercise of a morning and an hour at night, both free running and that's their norm and adequate, they are quite capable of doing 3 times that so maybe I could lead walk them for 10 hours a day?

Edited August 6, 2013 by -Mongrel-

[KPV4]

That works both ways buddy, change the wording to 'These places are for the enjoyment of all INCLUDING dog owners'?. Millions of dogs are freely walked on a daily basis without incident, so why should the majority be penalised by the actions of a very small percentage? You may be able to walk yours for a couple miles and that's enough for them, mine would be just getting warmed up. I understand it's my choice but I don't accept that owning a labrador means I should have to take special steps to exercise her. My dogs get 40 minutes of exercise of a morning and an hour at night, both free running and that's their norm and adequate, they are quite capable of doing 3 times that so maybe I could lead walk them for 10 hours a day?

 

Doesn't matter which way its worded, there is room for all at these places, what you have to remember it isn't the people biting the dogs and you don't see many walkers beating dogs indiscriminately with sticks, but dogs do bite people for no reason in certain instances and when not appropriately under control.

 

I do agree that incidents of dog bites are very few per day compared with the amount of dog walks that take place. You might not like being penalized for the actions of a small percentage, but sadly this is life and this has already happened if you are a gun owner. Unfortunately this is what happens when some don't care about the consequences when it all goes wrong!

[-Mongrel-]

Ok, well maybe we should also make sure that all people under the age of 18 can never be more than 30 feet from their parent/guardian as they may occasionally climb trees which causes damage to our environment?

 

 

Yes, ludicrous I know, but no more daft than thinking you're going to get millions of dog owners to start walking their dogs on leads everywhere. I don't think you should have to, but it's immaterial, it's not going to happen. Too many dog owning voters for the govt to even consider it!

[KPV4]

Ok, well maybe we should also make sure that all people under the age of 18 can never be more than 30 feet from their parent/guardian as they may occasionally climb trees which causes damage to our environment?

 

 

Yes, ludicrous I know, but no more daft than thinking you're going to get millions of dog owners to start walking their dogs on leads everywhere. I don't think you should have to, but it's immaterial, it's not going to happen. Too many dog owning voters for the govt to even consider it!

 

Yes I agree, your first comment is ludicrous and irrelevant I'm afraid. As far as voters go, I bet the same was said when seat belts were made compulsory, "how will we make millions of people do something they don't want to, and they are voters!" but despite this, it was made a legal requirement. I know you will say many still don't wear them, this is true, but it is clear when they don't they are breaking the law and they suffer the consequences when caught!

 

Obviously we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. I just hope for your sake that during one of your exercise sessions with your dog, it doesn't decide breakfast or dinner is walking past and bite someone. You may find that if this happens you then have little control over the future of your best friend and you may have a criminal record to go with it.

 

Just out of interest, should a gun owner find the self in this predicament and if they were to earn a criminal conviction for having a dangerous dog would this effect their gun license? After all both the dog and the gun can be dangerous in the wrong hands!

[overandunder2012]

life should really be for murder thats premeditated (you need the mens rea element anything less at best is manslaughter i would say unless you can prove the owner had the mind set to get his dog to kill someone. agreed stiff sentences should be handed down in the event of a death but life maybe a bit ambitious

[ack-ack]

What if your dog rapes somebody?

 

I'm not doing time for my chuffing dog!

[glb8686]

Agree. But should apply to children who are still under 'control' of the parent (living at home) too.

[Kes]

Does the new law apply if the dog says he was attacked first ?

Simple answer is to teach pets to speak so they can act as witnesses in your defence ! No M'lord I was just trying to send him off and he died of fright !

We have some seriously aggressive chickens and low flying cockatiels too, will they put me in the pokey!

 

So apparently I can get life for my dog protecting me, if somewhat overzealously, but I cant protect my chickens by killing the badgers that are eating them, funny old world, when badgers have more rights than dog owners ?

 

I apparently have to erect an electric fence at my cost all round my large garden according to Natural England - might have to put the dog in there so I can protect the burglars who appear to have become a protected species overnight.

 

Nice thought for the right motives but lacking specificity perhaps?

[goodo123]

Just a question, may be really stupid, but if say a dog did attack you, you defended yourself and the dog ended up dead would the other person have grounds to sue?

[Reece]

While this is in general a good idea, I'm a little concerned about the thing about being prosecuted for an attack on private land. If a burglar breaks into someone else's house and the household dog attacks him, why should the dog owner be prosecuted? I hope that this new rule about prosecutions for attacks on private land takes criminal activity into account.

[KPV4]

Mongrel, just looking at your post in the bull thread, regarding bulls in fields accessed by walkers on rights of way, (copy below). It appears contradictory to your thoughts on dogs in public places and dogs can be just as dangerous!

 

 

"Which is perhaps why it's necessary to ensure potentially dangerous animal aren't able to come in contact with the clueless?"

[keg]

just shows how dog owners like to twist, when a dog attacks some one they shout its not the dog its the owner, yet when they want to make the owner responsible they say its not us its the dog.two faced or what

 

KW

Capital T at the start of a new sentence please KW :lol:

[al4x]

While this is in general a good idea, I'm a little concerned about the thing about being prosecuted for an attack on private land. If a burglar breaks into someone else's house and the household dog attacks him, why should the dog owner be prosecuted? I hope that this new rule about prosecutions for attacks on private land takes criminal activity into account.

 

This is the slight concern, my hound is spot on with people but when at home is a bit protective and I wouldn't trust her if someone broke in. In a way I like that, much the same as having a ***** on a quad with two dawgs coming up to us while we were shooting last night she started growling from the back seat. Nothing wrong with that in my eyes and very useful were it to not have been a reasonable chat.