Thursday, 11 March 2010

Important - Explanation of option in Defra consultation

A  number of people have contacted DDAWatch regarding the meaning of part of the Defra consultation.

The query relates to questions in Option 3: Repeal of the 1997 Dangerous Dogs Act to prevent any more dogs being added to the Index

The specific confusion  is focused on what is meant by question 11 which states:

Do you think removing the the exemption introduced by the 1997 amendment would allow a more effective enforcement of the current dangerous dogs legislation?

If the exemption introduced in 1997 amendment was removed it would mean that all dogs deemed to be a banned type would not be allowed to be registered and instead, would only be allowed to be destroyed.

If you have misunderstood the question please contact defra and ask for advice on how to address the issue. Please do contact us via if you are unsure of any questions meaning and we will explain if we know the answer or find out for you.

1 comment:

  1. Sounds like ..that any canine of any type would or has the potential to be dangerous. in other words no canine is safe from the option 3 . It tantamounts that any canine can be the objet of powers of stop and search so to speak ..all canines are then potential suspects..and can be seized then in circumstnces were it is not warrented, the owneres too are affected ..inthat if the canine is a potetial dangerous canine ..then the owner is potentially handling a dangerous canine ..and this affects the owners privacy in a way to speak.. it is becoming far to much in the encroachment of our lives with our dogs...nine out of ten it is the owners at fault,,.yes, education of ownership of dogs ..but not put a label on dogs that is sooo ridiculous .. and a label on people how own a dog that then makes us owners on the boredrs of committing a crime by having a dog which is encommpessed in the dangouroos dogs act when there is no need for it ,,it is anothere restriction on our liberty and privacy of life ,,that is how i see it and many others too...over zelous seizing of dogs...and the poor cannot get legal aid for a cival wrong but only when then it becomes a crime...and then that makesus dog owners potentially on the borders for committinga crime...are owners regitered in a human dangtous human act ..and wehave children too..animals cannot speak for themselves only when their temperement is put to the test..we must not agree to this .because restricting our dog ownership is taking away our human ineritence which is living alongside our animals or with them.. we must protect our dog ownership ..or else this earth will lose eventually all animal species on this earth . we stop making bad bad law snowbals into another..then another ,despite sriving for amendments.. now our human rights ..allows us to live as a family .and our family are our dogs too.