UKC

So, new fines come in for dangerous dog owners whos dogs attack people now face fines of up to £20K

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29653486

I'm not sure how this is going to really help...

Most of the people who own "Dangerous dogs" tend not to be in a position to pay a £20K fine in the first place (lets face it, most of the population doesn't have that sort of cash around)

Why not make it that the owner is responsible for the injuries inflicted e.g. if your dangerous dog attacks a postie, then you will be prosecuted for assault, if ti kills a baby - manslaughter etc... seems like a much bigger deterent to me

Maybe keep the fine for simply owning a dangerous dog (i.e. the specified breeds)

In reply to balmybaldwin:


I thought that already was the case - the owner of animals being responsible for any damage they cause.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I tend to agree with your view on the fine - it's hard to give a fine real impact if the person can't even pay it in the first place.

Personally I feel that there is far too much of a lax attitude among pet owners as a whole - far to over-confident that "nothing could possibly go wrong, my dog would never hurt anyone..."

Not sure what the solution is though.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

They might be financially, but not in the way that they get prosecuted for crimes committed by the dog e.g. assualt etc. Or if a law does exist, then it certainly doesn't seem to be used much.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I was a postie and was bitten by one of a pair of 2 large dogs.The owner usually had the gate shut on them,but this time it was open.Grateful the other one didn't have a go also.The owner arrived and shifted them. If potentially dangerous dogs are on leads,that cuts most of the risk out.It is not down to any one breed.Dogs are very territorial.Bit like boulderers...

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Simplistically, it's a criminal offence to have your dog attack somebody unless there's a good reason for it to have done so or the circumstances were beyond your control.

Unfortunately, the CPS tends to be passive in such cases unless the media are involved, as it seems to think it's OK for people to have to pursue civil cases for damages instead. What this means in practice is that the headline, toddler-mauling cases are prosecuted, and the cases which involve clear financial loss are successfully pursued through the civil courts. But the majority of attacks in the middle, involving relatively minor injuries (no matter the frequency) just don't meet with any action at all. And this is where most issues are centred. Contrast this with physical assault / battery which occasions less damage.

Martin