The dangerous dog's act is very controversial. The RSPCA have argued that this act is not fit for purpose and have been asked for the act to be revised. ITV (2016) explains ‘In the past two years the RSPCA said it had been "forced" to put down 366 dogs under section one of the Act, which covers breed-specific offences’. The act states that if the dog is ‘dangerously out of control’ (GOV), no matter what the location, or if the dog is it injure someone or an assistance dog, the owner or whoever is in charge of the dog at the time will be committing an offence (this applies to England and Wales). The act prohibits certain dogs off their breeds and physical characteristics. If a person dies due to the injuries, a 14-year sentence can be issued. …show more content…
The act claims that it is the owner’s responsibility to keep dangerous dogs out of trouble, whether this is keeping it away from certain areas, using a muzzle or by keeping it on a lead as much as possible. If an owner has a number of offences with dogs, they can be banned from owning dogs in the future. The 1997 amendment states that if the court decides a dog would be less dangerous once neutered, it must be neutered. It also states that after conviction, if the dog is not controlled properly it will be destroyed. The pit bull terrier, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro and the Japanese Tosa are the dog breeds banned under this act. They will be destroyed if found in England and Wales however the RSPCA spokesman argues that the behaviour is down to the owner and not the …show more content…
The act prohibits importing and exporting the controlled drugs. They can only be transported if a license is issued by the secretary of state. It also refuses any production of these drugs. If someone is found with the controlled drug, they must prove their innocence by proving either they took it from another to prevent them from committing an offence, with the plan of handing the drug in or destroying the drug soon after having it in his/her possession or that it was found, and it would be handed in to the police. The legislation states ‘A person who supplies or offers to supply any article which may be used to prepare a controlled drug for administration by any person to himself or another believing that the article is to be so used in circumstances where the administration is unlawful is guilty of an offence’, (GOV). If a constable has good reason to believe that an individual has drugs in their possession they have the right to search them, search vehicles, seize any drugs and detain. Possession of a class A drug such as amphetamines can lead to up to seven years sentence a fine or both. A class B, including pholcodine and cannabis, five years and/or a fine and class C up to two years and/or a fine. Distribution of class As can lead to life imprisonment as well as fines, class B and C up to 14 years with or without fines. The 2001
The poem above speaks volumes about the nature of man’s best friend. Dogs are not inherently created bad, but are rather “a product of its environment”. The same principle applies to the world’s most misunderstood breed of dog. When you hear the phrase “pit bull”, what do you think of? A savage beast, murdering out of cold blood? A menace to society, lurking the streets, just waiting for its next victim? This couldn’t be further from the truth for most pit bulls. These fantasised versions plague the breed, outlawing them in many cities, states, and even some countries entirely. These bans are called Breed Specific Legislation (BSL), and in over 700 American cities these laws are in effect. They are in place to decrease the number of attacks
I think that this source is reliable because it is issued by the home office and it relates to the laws about drugs and the have to have a solid rule that if you are in possession of a Class A drug, you will receive such and such a sentence, they cannot change it, the law isn?t flexible.
The dogs listed are not identified as a type rather than a breed. The dogs listed in the Act under section 1 are the pit-bull terrier, the Japanese tosa, the Dogo Argentrino and the Fila Braziliero. Other dogs can be added to the banned breed list. Owners of controlled dogs cannot breed them, sell them or trade them for another dog or give them away. The owner of the dog has to keep it on a lead and muzzled at all times and the person who is in control of the dog should be older than 16 years old. The muzzle has to be of a standard so the dog cannot bite a person. When a person owns a controlled dog they cannot let them wander the streets or vacate them, if they do so this is an offence and criminal sanctions would be put in place. This can be a fine, prison sentence and a ban on keeping animals.
certain groups of people who are trying to bring light to matters in which they see
Breed specific laws cause numerous loving dogs to be put down each year (BSL, n.d.). Some laws and rules that are enforced are logical under circumstances, but others are questionable. Many people believe it is only Pit Bulls and Rottweilers that are targeted by BSL laws, but there are various breeds of dogs targeted by Breed Specific Legislation. In fact, there are 75 dog breeds in the United States that have been banned or restricted under BSL laws (75 dog breeds., 2012). This list includes numerous shapes and sizes of dogs, from all different backgrounds.
The term “breed-specific legislation” is not one that comes up often in day-to-day discussion for most people. Breed-specific legislation refers to all laws that seek to restrict or eliminate ownership of certain animal breeds, most often dog breeds. It was first conceived as a method of controlling and reducing animal cruelty, as well as mitigating the occurrence of dog-related human injuries and the illegal activities of dog-fighting and related crimes. Breed-specific legislation is distinct from animal control laws that restrict ownership of wild or demonstrably dangerous (those with a past history of unacceptable, aggressive behavior) animals, because breed-specific legislation makes a blanket restriction on all animals of a certain breed regardless of individual history. This means that breed-specific legislation is often promulgated on the basis of breed reputation. In recent years it is the pit bull which has come under the scrutiny of legislative bodies, as their reputation becomes more and more sullied by street crime.
Breed-specific legislation is a broad term that includes laws that ban or restrict the type of dog a person can own. Bree- specific legislation, or BSL for short, is often described as something that protects people or makes the world a safer place. In reality, there are many issues with this type of legislation. The whole premise of BSL is based off of misconceptions, it punishes innocent people and animals, and it does not ultimately lower the amount of people bitten each year where it is implemented. These laws are discriminatory, unjust, and unproductive.
It does little to address the main problem: irresponsible owners. As animals, dog’s do not have the same moral compass as humans. It is an owner’s job to train, socialize, vaccinate, neuter, license, and provide all necessary living essentials for their pet. Establishing and enforcing leash laws is also important in ensuring the safety of others. Citizens should be educated in knowing dog body language, behaviors that are safe around a dog, and what to when a dog shows hostility. Children not old enough to understand these guidelines should require adult supervision. Taking these steps will help prevent more victims from experiencing the physical and emotional pain related to a
Enacting and enforcing strong leash laws is another very effective way to help reduce dog attacks and its easy to tell whether or not a dog has a leash on, unlike the difficulty of trying to determine the breed of some dogs. If a dog is on a leash the owner has control of it, even if said dog does lunge at someone. But leash laws can't just say you must have your dog on a leash. They also need to address dogs being tied out and left outside alone. Do...
Dogs have impacted the lives of 44% of American families and homes. People use dogs for much more than just a family friend. Dogs are used for special needs, assisting police, and hunting and tracking. Dogs should be appreciated and never taught to fight or be neglected. Dog fighting is unethical because man’s best friend shouldn’t have to fight for their lives.
Animal welfare is a term that came into use after the federal Animal Welfare Act passed in 1966. The term is used by research compliance inspectors employed by the government, by those who work in shelters, and by veterinarians and scientists employed by companies, hospitals, and universities that perform animal research, all of whom are charged with ensuring that detailed regulations are followed when using animals in research. People who promote animal welfare believe in the controlled use of animals in research under the strict guidelines of the Animal Welfare Act and its numerous amendments. Proactive animal welfare advocates also adopt the same high standards for the use of rats, mice, and birds in research, which are not presently included in the Animal Welfare Act as currently amended.
Exotic pets threaten the safety of the community for they pose potential risks of injury and fatality. Natural animal instincts and lack of proper care can trigger destructive behaviours of animals, injuring their owners or other community members. There has been a total of 543 human injuries and 75 deaths as a result of exotic pets, including 52 year old woman killed by a Bengali tiger (http://channel.nat......). These numbers illustrate the risk that exotic animals pose to owners and community members. Keith Gisser, an exotic reptile owner claims he's “not the kind of animal owner neighbours need to worry about”, yet Brian Johnson Gisser's neighbour says on of the reptile owner's snakes escaped into his backyard (www.wkyc.com....). Injury and fatalities are a risk, endangering the community when exotic animals are kept as pets which is yet another reason why owning them should be illegal.
In 18 August, 2011, the source of this event is from Herald Sun. A four-year-old lovely child named Ayen Chol was mauled and killed by a pit bull cross while she was playing in her home. The vicious pit bull escaped from a neighbour’s yard and mauled Ayen in a sudden attack. The dog rushed inside the house and set upon Ayen and some other children who were watching television. Ayen’s mom tried to beat the dog away from the children with a table, but she failed. Then the dog turned on Ayen and the vicious injuries caused Ayen’s death. Dr Cam Day, who is the RSPCA’s Queensland pit bull expert, has claimed that American pit bull terriers are ‘head, shoulder, feet and everything else above other breeds’ in terms of their capacity to injure and maim. If the government doesn’t ban pit bulls, these tragedies would continue to happen and children’s lives would be threatened all the
“Mom! Mom! The dogs got Cody. The dogs got Cody” (Vancouver Sun, 2007). Just a few days after Christmas in 2004, these are the cries that awoke Sheri Fontaine. Fontaine raced from her bed into the living room to find her three-year old son, Cody Fontaine, savaged by the dogs that were staying temporarily in her house. Tragically, young Cody did not survive the attack. A young life taken, a mother’s life ruined. Sadly, this story is not as uncommon as one of violence against people, they exhibit highly stubborn characteristics that make them difficult to control, and such bans have proven to be extremely effective.
...ed by owner or animal that is not covered by another, non-breed specific portion of the Animal Control Code (i.e., vicious animal, nuisance animal, leash laws).”