UK: Government’s proposed DDA revisions met with disappointment

DEFRA, the UK government arm that is in charge of the Dangerous Dogs Act, announced a number of proposed changes to the Act on Monday.

Disappointingly, but not unexpectedly, the government does not plan to repeal the breed-specific portions of the DDA. There is only slight relief for owners of “banned types” in the proposals: non-dangerous “banned type” dogs might be allowed to remain at home, rather than seized and kennelled, while the courts decide the dog’s fate. (Yes, you read that right. The government knows not all “banned type” dogs are dangerous. We have to wonder: why is the government determined to keep a ban on non-dangerous dogs?) And on the flip side, DEFRA wants it to cost more for owners to put their non-dangerous dogs on the exemption register.

Read the DEFRA press release about the proposed changes: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2012/04/23/clampdown-on-dangerous-dogs/

DEFRA also opened a new public consultation on the suggested changes to the law. The consulatation is an online survey and it is open to the public.

Go fill it out! The survey features a number of open-response boxes. We recommend repeatedly requesting that DEFRA remove the breed-specific portion of the DDA.

Answer the public survey on DEFRA’s proposals here: http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2012/04/23/dangerous-dogs-1204/

News articles and more news articles about DEFRA’s proposal:

Dangerous dogs measures dismissed as ‘tinkering’ (The Independent)

Chance to tighten law on danger dog attacks missed say charities (Yorkshire Post)

Attack victims: Danger dog changes don’t go far enough (Telegraph and Argus)

Government ‘dragging feet’ over dangerous dogs (ITN)

Battersea Dogs Home disappointed at government over new dog legislation (Battersea People)

Dog owners could be prosecuted if their pets savage burglars under Defra plan (Telegraph)

About these ads

2 responses to “UK: Government’s proposed DDA revisions met with disappointment

  1. You government people should be totally and utterly ashamed of yourselves.You cannot ban a breed and expect the problem to be solved.When will you get that?ALL dogs bite,most dog bites are not from banned breeds infact quite the reverse,just sadly the only ever bites ,maulings or killings reported about are from what you ignorantly call ‘banned breeds’ or ‘staffys’.This is an outrage,YOU need to sort your fellow man out.It is he who chooses to use such muscular dogs for fighting etc in the first place but,you seem not to want to take control of those situiations,probably for fear of what will happen to you.Fighting dogs,DONOT fight people,they have only been trained to fight dogs..DONT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!!Shame on you!It is irrisponsable owners,namely young thuggish people who take these dogs,are cruel to them and do not train them,they are who you should target but,oh no,you have to take the easy option as you seem to always do and ,BAN A BREED ,just ridiculous.Do you know how many dogs have been taken from loving family homes,for no reason other than the fact they might be what you call a dangerous ‘breed’.then you kill them,in my eyes that is murder..they are innocent dogs who come from loving homes.one such example of this is the case of LENNOX in BELFAST been held in disgusting conditions for almost 2 years now,for no reason other than your stupid law!!! Go check out his website ,hope you’re happy with yourselves,an utter disgrace.He is a therapy dog,NOT OF TYPE,he is a labrador/american bulldog and the family have done everything legal and above board,now you tell the whole country whay,he is being held in seclusion,locked up 24/7,drugged,isolated,on a bed of sawdust etc….I’m sure you are aware of this case and you could as a government step in and have him released…MASSIVE MASSIVE floors in this BSL law and one that is killing innocent family dogs..THINK on that, very sad state this country is in……

  2. stephanie speltz

    again, i must say blame the owner not the breed! this is ridiculous! there r no bad dogs, dont blame them 4 the owners faults.