Dog bites man
Woof! I am vicious, fear me and insure me!
Once again our glorious government has (dare I say it?) screwed the pooch with some new, knee-jerk legislative proposals:
Every dog owner in the UK would have to take out insurance against their pet attacking someone under government proposals to tackle dangerous breeds.
Police and local councils could also get new powers to force the owners of dangerous dogs to muzzle them or even get them neutered.
Why oh why oh why is it so consarned difficult for the government to get the slightest thing right?
Let’s start with the basic premise here: any dog, even a Peke or a Pomeranian is a descendent of a wolf. Even that lolling, happy Golden Retriever. So it’s true that deep down, any dog has the potential to be dangerous. However, most breeds have had the danger bred out of them and most people don’t want a dangerous dog, so they don’t buy “dangerous” dogs. So why are all dog owners being told that they have to have this insurance? Why aren’t specific dangerous breeds being targeted? And in fact, why aren’t just individual dangerous dogs being targeted?
I’ve known Rottweilers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers that were as docile as lambs because they were trained to perfection. But their owners still wouldn’t leave children with them unattended. Their owners would always make sure that the dogs were properly locked up when (invited) strangers were roaming the property to avoid risk as far as possible. The dogs were always leashed in public and brought to heel if other dogs were around. If it sounds like the owners were remarkably considerate and intelligent, then that’s because they were.
Which brings us to the real issue here: while any dog can be dangerous, conversely (almost) any “dangerous” dog can be made safe by a combination of training and consideration. The issue here is that the people who are buying dangerous dogs and want dangerous dogs shouldn’t be allowed to take their dangerous dogs out in public. There should be a very clear policy of one warning and then the dog is put down. If they want a dangerous dog, they can keep in their own property and deal with the “issues arising” themselves.
But anyway, why are we even discussing this, apart from the fact that there’s an election impending and the postman is posturing to look tough to try and win votes?
Each week, more than 100 people are admitted to hospital after dog attacks.
There are approximately twenty-five million households in the UK. Approximately one in five has a dog (it’s slightly more, but it’s going to be easier to work with round-ish numbers here) so we have roughly five million dog-owning homes and roughly five thousand dog attacks per annum. Let’s be generous and say “more than 100 means 200″, even though it’s more likely to be 101. This means that 0.00002% of dog owners own dogs that have attacked someone enough that they go to a doctor about it, every year. And really, some of those attacks will have been someone being wilfully stupid, as well. Do all dog owners really need the cost and hassle of this because of the behaviour of, at worst, 0.00002% of dog owners? (And I have no axe to grind, I’ve never owned a dog and it’s extremely unlikely that I ever will!)
The government wants to amend the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, under which four types of dogs – the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa, the dogo Argentinos and the fila brasileiros – are banned.
It wants to tweak the law so that the breeds are banned from people’s homes – rather than simply from public property, as is currently the case.
It is argued that this will also protect postal workers, telecoms engineers and other people whose work often takes them onto private land.
Oh dear. There is a much simpler way of doing this, isn’t there? Put the post box outside the property and lock the dog away if a stranger has to have access. Writing a general law on the basis of a handful of rather poor specific cases is a terrible thing to do.
Anyway, here’s the tough talk from the postman:
Home Secretary Alan Johnson said: “Britain is a nation of animal lovers, but people have a fundamental right to feel safe on the streets and in their homes.
“The vast majority of dog owners are responsible, but there is no doubt that some people breed and keep dogs for the soul purpose of intimidating others, in a sense using dogs as a weapon.
“It is this sort of behaviour that we will not tolerate; it is this sort of behaviour that we are determined to stop.”
Really, Mr Johnson? Determined to stop the behaviour of the tiniest of minorities with pointless and expensive bureaucracy that only the people who are keeping “safe” dogs will pay the blindest bit of attention to anyway?
Some other postmen are up in arms as well:
Postal unions welcomed the move as “long overdue”.
“Thousands of our members are attacked at work every year,” said Billy Hayes, general secretary of the CWU.
Thousands of your members are attacked every year? The very thought brings tears to my eyes.
But I would say that a postman has the right to safety, and if he doesn’t trust the dog, he really should just leave the post in the gate or fence. The owners of dangerous dogs shouldn’t escape all consequences for their decisions.
And it’s also rather curious that the people owning “dangerous” dogs are not actually being punished, even if they do actually bother to take out the insurance: quite unlike “victims” of second-hand smoke, where the owner of the premises can wind up in jail like Nick Hogan did, there is no direct punishment meted out to even insured transgressors – the real cost burden is borne by all insured dog owners. And the more attacks there are, the higher their premiums will be, even if their own dogs are sweet as pie! If they followed the line of argument that held sway in smoking debate, we might have seen the delicious prospect of Glasgow Council Leader Steven Purcell jailed for being the technical owner of premises known to house the tattooed, drug-addled, foul mouthed, Stella swigging owner of a savage attack dog.
Let’s face it, those dogs are rarely owned by Conservative voting, moustachioed, retired admirals in Surrey.
But curiously, in this particular case, society is to blame and must bear the costs.
It is left to the increasingly useless RSPCA to point out that the proposed legislation is utterly worthless:
The RSPCA said a serious debate on the issue was needed, concentrating on curbing irresponsible pet ownership.
“There is a real need for updated legislation that enables enforcers to tackle the problem effectively and prevent serious incidents from occurring rather than waiting till after a tragedy or penalising certain dogs just because of their breed or type.”
Which is exactly what this regulation will not help: it will not prevent tragedies and it will penalise the owners of all dogs for the behaviour of an insignificant minority. It will ignore all efforts by responsible owners to prevent any tragedy. In fact, I suspect it will lead to even more attacks, as people care less and less about the consequences of their lack of training for all dogs, not just dangerous ones.
There is already sufficient bad legislation to take care of such situations, we do not need any more. I can only assume that this is an example of the nonsensical pandering to unions that the Labour government will be offering us in the run-up to the general election in order to keep the brothers on side and donating generously.
-
1
March 9, 2010 at 09:17 -
A lot of owners have their dogs insured for more than third party anyway to cover the prospect of ever increasing vet bills. In addition the “Rescue” charities are often micro-chipping them as a matter of course when they rehome a dog.
If this were really about the H&S of postment and the like then it could probably be argued that when they came to a house they are at work so the current rules apply
Overall another stealth tax and the keeping of ever more people unproductively employed in administering all the paperwork -
2
March 9, 2010 at 09:28 -
With all due respect, I think you are underestimating the danger posed by a scorned poodle. Nasty little buggers.
-
3
March 9, 2010 at 09:33 -
Whilst I completely agree with what you’re saying in this post, I think your maths is a little faulty.
200 attacks per week means 10,000 per year.
With 5 million dog-owning homes that means 0.2%, not 0.00002%, of dog-owners have a dog that puts someone in hospital each year (assuming of course that each dog only attacks somebody once).
-
4
March 9, 2010 at 09:56 -
Fido for PM
Bring on the election, we’ve had Bush’s Poodle and look at the aftermath…!!!
-
5
March 9, 2010 at 10:09 -
“It is left to the increasingly useless RSPCA to point out that the proposed legislation is utterly worthless:
By calling for more authority for their ‘enforcers’.
Again and again legislation is not aimed at troublemakers but at the law abiding majority. Why? Don’t they want to deal with trouble? Too difficult to prosecute people for assault/GBH/whatever else? If someone uses a dog as a weapon microchips and insurance will make no difference.(Unless the victim manages to detain the dog.)
Will the opposition point this out?
-
6
March 9, 2010 at 10:52 -
This is just pure posturing. Considering the time left for this parliament the law won’t come into force any time soon. If (BIG if) Labour come into power, then they will push down the priority list. If the Tories come into power, they will have a lot more on their plate than silly things like this. In a hung parliament there will be too much disagreement to make it happen.
-
7
March 9, 2010 at 10:59 -
I don’t think many retired Admirals have moustaches!
Generals, maybe, but members of The Royal Navy may not grow facial hair solely on the upper lip – only a “full set” is allowed and that WITH permission.
So – Admirals are more likely to have a full set, whether they be serving or retired! -
8
March 9, 2010 at 11:07 -
I think the theory goes ‘Something must be done. This is something. Therefore it must be done’
The fact that all concerned are now ripping it to shreds ought to give them pause. But it won’t.
-
9
March 9, 2010 at 12:12 -
I think that lateral thinking points to a solution. Why not get that lovely Jamie Oliver to launch a new tele program – perhaps “Pukka Puppies” would do, to advise on the best ways to prepare and present different breeds. As the recession deepens, I feel that we would see a steepening decline in the dog population.
-
10
March 9, 2010 at 12:20 -
Julia
surely, you mean ‘paws’ not pause….?
-
11
March 9, 2010 at 12:33
-
-
12
March 9, 2010 at 12:27 -
That’s why I’m a cat person – they may be aloof and self-absorbed, but I’ve always preferred independence to obedience.
-
13
March 9, 2010 at 12:35
-
-
14
March 9, 2010 at 12:43 -
Re. the “massage” – you could always tell him that it had a happy ending!
-
15
March 9, 2010 at 13:10 -
man bites dog
hi ho, i have been following this story since postman pat opened his gob on it.I have two large dogs a ridgeback and a husky(rescued dog), in the area i live in most people have small dogs such as terriers or spaniels or worse they have snotty children, recently the council applied a law that no dog was allowed off the lead or path thru the access area to a free common… guess what do people with prams even give you the slightest bit of space to walk thru… no. do they tell their sprogs to go pat the dog… yes.
My dogs sensibly do not like children but would never bite them they just don’t like them (must have got that from me).
People with smaller dogs seem to think it is ok to walk them off leash and then get upset when my girls get excited even though i walk mine on the leash(unfortunately for them).
I have unfortunately seen the real idiots including one well suntanned young chap with a 12-20week old staffie cross who held the pup by the leash until it was choking shouting at my girls ” kill kill kill” what a complete fuckwit and so sad for the puppy. this is the world that we live in though and the innocent always seem to be the victims.
oddly enough all my girls chase is squirrels, they even leave the two cats i have alone, although i wouldn’t want to try and burgle my place
)))) -
16
March 9, 2010 at 13:41 -
-
17
March 9, 2010 at 13:54 -
Ah, Bygro bach, that’s between me and my referendum paper, but I’m not holding my breath.
-
18
March 9, 2010 at 15:52 -
We leave a Staffy with kids. Staffies are amazing with children, it is only the dogs cross bred with them that are trouble. In fact the unbelievable strength and toughness of the Staf is one of the reasons it is great for kids. No matter how they pull its ears or karate chop it, they only get love back in return. Impossible to hurt the little blighter.
The other dogs are all massive and knock anyone under 6 down without even noticing.
BTW, did anyone here the MENSA candidates
Comments are closed.
{ 21 comments }