Asbo's for dogs !

[joe_bloggs*]

Owners of aggressive dogs to face fines and ‘dogbos’
Allowing pets to snarl at strangers, threaten postal staff or terrify cats all punishable under laws coming into force on Monday

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/oct/18/owners-aggressive-dogs-face-fines-dogbos

[Anonymous]

I always thought that a guard dog at a company was suppose to snarl and threaten. It's not much use if he is nice to burglars is it.

So I wonder if they need to make some different rules there maybe.

[saasher2012]

Perhaps it's the owners that ought to be ASBO 'd as they are the ones who are supposed to be in control of their dogs.
Guard dogs are another matter but they should not be allowed to run riot & escape into the public either!.

[Anonymous]

I totally agree actually. It's the owners that are at fault.

I had a very big dog (a bouvier de flandre)  many years ago and we needed him to stay at the company for a week or so at night where my husband worked until they had all the alarms in place. His bark and size were more than enough to scare burglars away. You don't need an aggressive dog to have that effect.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I always thought that a guard dog at a company was suppose to snarl and threaten. It's not much use if he is nice to burglars is it.

So I wonder if they need to make some different rules there maybe.

---

The 'behaviour of guard dogs is already controlled by the Guard Dogs Act 1975.

The Guard Dogs Act 1975 prohibits a person from using or permitting the use of a guard dog at any premises unless there is a person capable of controlling the dog (“the handler”) present on the premises and the dog is under the control of the handler at all times except where it is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.  

The Act requires the handler of a guard dog to keep the dog under his control at all times while it is being used as a guard dog except where another handler has control over the dog or while the dog us secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.

The Act prohibits a person from using or permitting the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a notice containing a warning that a guard dog is present is clearly exhibited at each entrance to the premises. 

Where a person contravenes any of these requirements they commit a criminal offence which is punishable by way of a fine.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/animal-law/guard-dogs-and-the-law.htm

[joe_bloggs*]

What about Asbo's for cats ? Especially the big black one who lives down the road and every year without fail digs up my flower containers and always leaves a deposit,it was sitting on the fence one night I let the dog out to scare it away,the dog ran up to it,it didn't move,looked down at the dog and made a strange growling noise,the dog turned round and came back in! I mean what chance do you stand?

[saasher2012]

Cats as far as I know are by the very fact of their nature not governed by any law , however & I'm not sure about if it comes onto your property but I'm sure someone will tell you, if your dog attacks & maims or kills in the street , then you can be prosecuted at the least for causing suffering to the animal, it's always been against the law to allow an out of control dog to attack others, it's also against the law to allow a dog to roam the streets , but like everything else implementing it is another matter, in my opinion all dogs should be microchipped!.

[millielilac]

Our previous dalmatian was a "smiler " . She always greeted people with a huge (but to some a terrifying ) smile .

Her ears would flap back and she would show all her teeth but she was the most subservient and non aggressive dog ever ...her tail would be wagging like mad and she would lower her body too. She was very happy to welcome strangers into the garden or even the house ....she loved everybody ...even a burglar would have been welcomed...

She did this from being a puppy . People who were familiar with dogs of course would immediately recognise that she was non threatening but a non doggy person who had never encountered such a dog before could well be terrified.

[saasher2012]

You have done your job well as your dog shows all signs of subservience to higher authority those who show aggression are not & usually are confused as to their role in the human pack, a very dangerous animal indeed.
& before anyone says anything a confused dog who doesn't know its place is not a happy dog!!
One that does know it's place & that doesn't mean being severe , is a happy well contented animal .

[astrologica]

Saasher...I don't think it is against the law to allow an out of control dog to attack other dogs. Three years ago my husband was walking my sister's little Jack Russell dog Stanley, and he was attacked by a large cross breed dog. My husband had to wrestle this dog to the ground to get Stanley out of it's jaws. To cut a long story short, the large dog bit Stanley and his bowel was pierced and he died later of loss of blood after undergoing an emergency operation. My sister went to the police, the RSPCA, local dog wardens...you name them, she went to them, but not one of them wanted to know. Because the dog did not bite my husband they could not prosecute, even though it killed Stanley. The owner of the dog got off scot free, and her dog still lives and could do the same thing again. My sister was heartbroken over the loss of Stanley (and the £1000 it cost in vets fees) and my husband was on sleeping tablets for months because he kept reliving how he had to wrestle the dog to get Stanly off him. So it seems it is not against the law if a dog hurts another animal, only if it hurts a human.

[saasher2012]

I was talking about a dog attacking a cat Astro, tell me the dog that killed your pet was it running loose or on a lead& was your pet on a lead or running loose, there always has been a grey area in law about this subject. I have to say though the owner of the attack dog if he was any sort of a decent human being would have sorted this with you , obviously not in this case & I'm sorry that you all had to experience this awful outcome!.

[cee-dee]

Something wrong there.

Sounds to me like people just couldn't be bothered to try to get something done about that dog owner.

One of my dogs was attacked by a huge dog the teeth of which pierced his stomach wall but fortunately didn't damage anything "inside". The hole was big enough for the vet to get his finger inside to feel for damage. The Cops made the owner pay my vets bill.

[saasher2012]

Going of the topic with pets a dog that attacks livestock even if it's teeth don't actually connect with its victim is a prosecution case even if the farmer shoots the dog, he can still sue for damage caused, if the dog is not shot he can press for its destruction & still be compensated. & as I said the moment the dog enters the field & starts to chase livestock that is classed as worrying& I believe poultry come under this law as well !.

[astrologica]

Saasher. My husband was just at the gate of my sister's house and had taken Stanley off his lead to go in. The other dog was in a 4x4 with it's woman owner, and she opened the rear door and let the dog out, It just saw Stanley and went for him. My sister heard Stanley screaming and came out and wrapped him in a towel after my husband got him off the dog. What happened next was unbelievable. The owner, a woman, accused my husband of being at fault and said that Stanley had bitten her dog. She then put her dog back in the car and blocked the road, preventing my sister and my husband from driving Stanley to the vet. My sister eventually drove around her and there followed a car chase around the town until she blocked my sister at traffic lights. My husband got out with Stanley and ran to a friends home who took them to the vet. The police were called to the scene at the traffic lights but they just cautioned her and let her go. She should have been prosecuted for blocking the highway. After Stanley died my sister called the police to her house, but they said that because the dog did not bite my husband they could not prosecute her. She was cautioned about keeping the dog under control. My husband says he wishes to this day that the dog had bitten him...it would have been worth the pain just to get justice for Stanley. The police told my husband that he did not bite her or her dog. My sister tried to bring a civil case against her, but had to drop it because if she lost the case it would have cost her thousands of pounds. She is a senior citizen on a low income and couldn't risk losing the case. From that day I have never given a penny to the RSPCA because they refused to help her.

[joe_bloggs*]

I didn't realise they already have a similar law in Scotland since 2011

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/fife/dog-asbo-served-on-46-owners-in-fife-1.72823

[saasher2012]

Hmmmm I have to agree with CD on this , it's wrong , your husband was on his own property & the other dog was running loose on basically a highway not under control & entered your property to attack. mind you after reading your account of the woman's actions after the event I can see now why you didn't get any help & it clearly demonstrates what I said before about any decent person!

[astrologica]

There was something very strange about her and her behaviour. She seemed to be 'on' something. Personally, I think that she had connections with the police. If it had been my dog I would have pursued her to the ends of the earth to get justice, but my sister didn't want to pursue it. I wanted to go to the Press and have her splashed all over the local papers, but my sister and my OH didn't want that. They were just heartbroken over the little dog. In the end, her neighbours, who all got to know what she did, hounded her out of her home because of her nasty dogs. So there was a little bit of justice for Stanley, but not with the legal system, which stinks.

[joe_bloggs*]

I just hope the new law puts a stop to this type of despicable behaviour

[saasher2012]

It's very wrong that a person with a history of keeping nasty out of control dogs was allowed to get away with it, if that was the case I think the police were in the wrong& should have taken it further!.

[lambsy_uk]

---

@astrologica wrote:
My sister was heartbroken over the loss of Stanley (and the £1000 it cost in vets fees) and my husband was on sleeping tablets for months because he kept reliving how he had to wrestle the dog to get Stanly off him. So it seems it is not against the law if a dog hurts another animal, only if it hurts a human.

---

Should have gone to Judge Judy, she'd have sorted it out!