So the government want to introduce new laws (something they do well, even if it's something we wish they were less proficiant at) due to the number of dog attacks.
I have a dog, a big fluffy Rough Collie that tends to have kids going "ahhh" and wanting to hug him. Would he bite a child? I have to say that unless the child physically hurts him or produces a grooming brush (don't ask) then it's more likely they'll need a fresh change of clothes due to being covered in slobber! Even so, you can never be certain so we do warn them to be careful.
When it comes to insurance and tagging, he has both and and ear tattoo and a small scrap yard's worth of id tags round his neck. So am i personally affected by the proposed new legislation? No, because we already meet the requirements, but then our dog hardly meets the definition of dangerous either.
So why am I blogging about it you may ask? Well firstly I object to creating new laws when existing laws are fit for purpose but are not being upheld. Second, Mr. Knuckle-dragger with an untrained and therefore potentially dangerous dog won't comply. Thirdly lots of old folks with dogs that never leave the house won't be able to afford to comply, so being law abiding people they are will drop their companion off at the local animal centre, more than likely resulting in a healthy animal being put down when no home is found for it.
Clarkson has also covered this
No comments:
Post a Comment