New rules for Rover: will dangerous dog legislation make the Heath a safer place?

By LiseS | Thursday, March 11, 2010, 22:54

Hampstead Heath is something of a Mecca for North London's dog walkers. So how will the local canine community be affected by recent proposals to

Would a microchip in this dog make you feel safer?

extend existing dangerous dog laws? Measures such as compulsory

microchipping for all dogs and third-party insurance for owners have been suggested in order to reduce the number of dangerous incidents involving dogs,

including dog fights and attacks on people.

Environment secretary Hilary Benn explained, "There is a lot of public concern about dog attacks, including the

recent tragic deaths of young children, and about the rise in the

number of so-called 'status dogs' used to intimidate or threaten

people. This is a serious issue of public safety."

The BBC reports that over 100 people a week are now being admitted to hospital as a result of attacks by dogs, and illegal dogfights are reportedly on the increase, too.

Other proposals include extending the current law on controlling dogs to cover private residences as well as public places, in a move that could offer more protection to postal workers and tradespeople; and running annual compliance checks on dog owners to make sure they are abiding by the law. Councils will also be able to issue on-the-spot fines to owners whose dogs are out of control in public.

Critics have claimed that the proposed new rules would only penalise innocent pet-owners. Deputy London Mayor Kit Malthouse told BBC Radio: 'It will just create a huge bureaucracy. They will have to produce a kind of DVLA for dogs."

Andrew Rosindell MP voiced his concern that mandatory insurance bills of up to £500 a year could force some owners to abandon their dogs: 'The idea of a granny having to get her poodle

insured could possibly lead to a lot of dogs being turned into strays

because owners would not want to pay for the insurance.'

The Kennel Club has broadly supported the proposals, but added that some breeders and pet-owners feel that the measures will not affect irresponsible and illegal dog owners, who will simply ignore the new requirements.

Kennel Club secretary Caroline Kisko said: “We’ve been lobbying for

changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act for ten years so we welcome the

consultation. We don’t want to see responsible owners taking on huge

costs while others carry on as they are."

Will "Dogbo" measures increase public safety and canine welfare, or simply penalise legitimate dog owners? Is there a public safety issue in Highgate, or is it all just a media panic? Let us know what you think below.

Re-post Write a story

Ads by Google

Comments

Having thought about this with my thinking brain, I'm unsure where Rosindell's £500 figure comes from. My own Public Liability Insurance covering me in case of legal suits by broken dance students costs £120 a year and covers me up to £3million. I can't imagine why dog insurance would cost more per annum. If the argument is that it's more likely a dog would injure someone than that I would, surely insurance companies could tier their insurance rates (much as they do for car insurance) and keep granny and her poodle had an affordable premium, saving the higher costs for high-risk dogs?

I think overall insurance is a good idea, but I think the Kennel Clubalso make a good point - the kind of person who would consider a dog a weapon rather than a pet is exactly the kind of person who would not care about insuring the animal.

By LiseS at 14:21 on 13/03/10
Report
How can there be a cap on the charge? If people are entitled to sue dog owners if they get bitten, then dog owners will need insurance sufficient to meet those possible damages. The cost of that insurance will be a function of the damages the insurance companies expect to meet and the likelihood of that happening, plus whatever commercial premium the market wll bear. That could easily be £500 per dog. It could be £10,000. If you cap the cost of insurance ait at some arbitrary sum below the cost of providing it, no-one will offer it.

By vardebedian at 10:40 on 13/03/10
Report
If you're unfortunate to get bitten by a dog and then the NHS has to patch you up - or you need expensive private treatment - why shouldn't the owner responsible for the dog have to compensate you for your injuries? That seems fair to me. The question is how much it is reasonable to charge pet owners for taking out insurance to cover themselves against claims. If it was a mandatory scheme, then there should be a cap on the charge. A fee of £500 would be excessive.

By EricGen at 17:13 on 12/03/10
Report