"Dogbo" measures to reduce canine danger

Several national newspapers reported yesterday on proposals to extend existing dangerous dog laws. Measures such as compulsory microchipping for all dogs and third-party insurance for owners are aimed at reducing 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."

Is the government right to be concerned? I personally have noticed an increase in the past few years of pit-bull type dogs on the streets of N4, many of them off the leash as their owners take them for walkies. As a cat person myself, I find this unnerving, even when the dog seems to be contentedly minding its own business and isn't obviously chewing on a toddler. Are these animals bred and kept for "status" and "intimidation", or are they just a fashionable choice at the moment?

What about the other problems that inevitably come with dog ownership? I commented a while back on the state of the streets around Finsbury Park station, and if the response of Islington Council in introducing the Poover, or of these angry parents, is anything to go by then I'm far from alone in decrying the mess that mutts (and their owners) leave behind.

Are dogs in the firing line merely because they're the most publically visible of all pets? Is it time to crack down on irresponsible owners rather than the breeds they own? Should we all switch to rearing gerbils instead? (I had a pair once, they were very low-maintenance). What do you think? Let us know below.