But Your Assumption Is Correct...

“My assumption had always been that this would have been covered under the Dangerous Dog Act as they are dangerous and have irresponsible owners however this isn’t the case it is not illegal.

“The owners and dogs have walked away from the attack scot-free – not even a fine! And are free to do it again and yet our poor little boy died because of their actions.

“This has to change. We all know once they’ve done it once they’ll do it again and god forbid it happens to a child!”

...the problem here is that the police are too lazy or incompetent to do their jobs properly with the new laws they whined and whinged about for ages.

The woman was covered in blood. The lazy cops will try to say that it was her dog's blood. 

But please tell me how a person wouldn't be 'worried that it might injure them' while she tries to rescue her pet? 

See this here? 'a court could prosecute if a person believes they would have been injured if they tried to stop a dog attacking their animal.'

They could, but unfortunately until the police do their job right and put it in front of a court, nothing will happen to the irresponsible owner. 

My fondest wish, though, is that the cops who failed to deal with this incident properly have to go serve a warrant on the owner of these dangerous beasts one day.