|
K9
|
 |
« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2010, 09:15:55 AM » |
|
This article was written in k9 mag
Submitted by Ryan O'Meara on March 10, 2010 –
Click to launch the full edition in a new window
Yesterday, Home Secretary Alan Johnson announced the Government is prepared to listen to the public’s views on what we should do regarding dangerous dog legislation in the United Kingdom. This is your chance, and it might just be your one and ONLY chance, to make a difference to the way we tackle the problem of dangerous dog owners. Please, do NOT allow your Government to sell dogs out AGAIN. They need your help and they need it right now.
Listen to Audio: Public Consultation on Dangerous Dogs
Some key points about things that were discussed yesterday:
1: Nobody has actually come forward and stated, explicitly that a full repeal of breed specific legislation is on the table. Do not be confused, a Government, animal charities, slick spokespeople who talk about a need for us to be ‘deed not breed’ but who actually fail to be straight forward in calling for a full repeal of breed specific legislation are mealy mouthed, snakes in the grass. If someone tells you they support legislation that focuses on owners and not dogs, be prepared to ask them, directly, whether they support an immediate end to their being any banned dog breed (types) in the United Kingdom. Unless their answer is ‘Yes’, then they are lying. They are NOT supporting an end to BSL if they can’t be honest enough to admit that they do not actually want to call for an end to breed bans. Don’t support or listen to liars, they are, after all, the reason we got in to this mess in the first place.
I actually have far more time for the likes of Kit Malthouse, London’s deputy mayor for policing, who is at the very least totally honest about his support for breed specific legislation (in fact, he wants more of it) – than those individuals and organisations who present themselves as being all about ‘deed not breed’ and who say things like ‘legislation should focus on dogs, not owners’ whilst not having the guts to actually call for an end to BSL. They are frauds. They are sell outs and they should be told that’s what they are. If you present yourself as being ‘deed not breed’ but don’t support an immediate end to breed bans, then you’re lying. You don’t count. Nothing you ever say counts. Liars should be exposed as such. Put up, or shut up.
2: The Dogs Trust.
The Dogs Trust has got a real problem.
Their positions are incompatible. They argue that compulsory microchipping is a good thing. In fact, they are very, very keen on it. Yet in the exact same breath they argue that something such as compulsory dog owner training could never work. In fact, their chief executive described the notion as ‘ludicrous’. Well, here’s some questions for the Dogs Trust
q) How is compulsory microchipping ANY different to any other compulsory scheme? If you argue on one hand that compulsory dog owner training is not possible, how do you stand up the notion that forcing EVERYONE to chip their pet is any different? Seriously, how does that work? It seems pretty ridiculous to believe that ALL dog owners would be happy, ready and willing to go and chip their dogs because the law suddenly said they had to whereas it’d be ‘ludicrous’ to believe that owners would be willing to undergo compulsory training before being allowed to own a dog. Sorry, your position is incompatible, doesn’t add up and is highly dubious.
q) How does a dog having a microchip suddenly make it less dangerous or the owner suddenly more responsible? Seems to me that if a dog is not trained, whether it has a chip or not makes absolutely zero difference to the dog. Does a dog’s bite hurt any less because it’s chipped? Would ANY of the five children killed by dogs in the UK over the last four years have been saved had the dog been chipped? Were those owners hard to trace? I mean, these are the most serious cases of irresponsible dog ownership, the ones that cost lives, a chip would have done absolutely nothing, nothing at all to have prevented those tragedies – education, training and awareness might have.
q) Simple question: Would the UK be better off if ALL dog owners were compelled to learn more about dogs, dog laws, dog care and responsible dog ownership or if all dogs happened to have a little electronic implant under their skin? Serious question – if we ignore the idea that one compulsory scheme is ‘ludicrous’ but another compulsory scheme isn’t, let’s look at the outcomes of each: 1) compels dog owners to learn, to understand more, to absorb information, to prove themselves – at the very least – capable of understand the minimum requirements to be a responsible owner 2) compels dog owners to go to the vets (or the Dogs Trust), hand over some cash and have a little implant placed in to their dog. Which scheme results in better British dog owners?
Please, don’t misunderstand me – a form of permanent identification is a GOOD thing. Whether it happens to be microchip or tattoo should be left up to the owner. In fact, nobody has yet proposed the more obvious solution which would be for the UK to set up a DNA database for all dogs, which would have the dual advantage of being able to act as identification and a fantastic platform for us to learn far more about canine health – but that’s a by the by. The question is, if we are going to have compulsory schemes, how can the Dogs Trust be so contradictory as to believe that owners would be happy to have their dog chipped and that the exact same weaknesses they seek to attribute to a compulsory owner training scheme would not be equally present in their own proposal.
Let us not ignore the fact that the Dogs Trust offers microchipping as one of its own services. I mean that. Let us not ignore it. Because it seems highly unusual for the organisation to be so supporting of a compulsory scheme from which they would stand to benefit whilst being totally opposed to another scheme which, I doubt anyone could argue, would – if properly implemented – actually lead to a rise in dog ownership standards, awareness and education, all of which can have a positive impact PRE-EVENT, rather than POST-EVENT.
Surely, if we want to reduce dog attacks and irresponsible dog ownership, then proposing measures which only have an effect AFTER an attack has happened won’t, in and of themselves, made a jot of difference to those who’ve been injured or, worse, killed.
It’s like saying, we should have car insurance and car registration plates but don’t worry about learning to drive or passing a test. Imagine that for a second, because that’s exactly what we’ve got with dogs.
If we are going to propose compulsory schemes on ANY level, at least make them effective. At least make them have an effect of improving people’s knowledge and awareness of canine health, how to acquire a dog, how to care for a dog and to understand their legal and ethical obligations to both the law, as it relates to dogs, and to society at large.
Half measures, half-baked ideas are what got us in to this mess.
When the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act was passed, many of the same organisations who now vehemently oppose and deride it, actually supported it. Now they’re keen to line up and support another set of ideas which are equally short-sighted and will NOT have a single, solitary effect on solving the real problem of irresponsible, dangerous dog owners.
It’s up to us, the public, to not let this opportunity pass.
We allowed the Government to get away with introducing a law which has seen millions and millions of tax payer’s money wasted on a concept which has killed thousands of innocent dogs, wrecked lives and caused misery all over. It has NOT fixed the problem.
Until we get a Government that is prepared to really listen to what the public wants rather than be taken in by the views of a self-interested few, we will dog laws which do nothing, cost a fortune and will no doubt be criticised by the same organisations who were happy to support them at the time.
|
