It was only after the attack that they discovered the dog had a violent history with his previous owner, and now the couple say they want better regulation for rehomed animals.
"When a dog has viciously attacked a human being, that has to be information given to anybody that's going to rehome that dog," Mrs Maidment said.
...but I can't see any reason not to support this.
And I can't see why it's not already law. I mean, we already have legislation preventing charity shops 'rehoming' furniture that lack current fire regulation approval, don't we?
Beverley Cuddy, the editor of Dogs Today magazine, said animal rescue currently lacks legislation. "It's pretty unregulated" she said.
"Maybe there is a need for some sort of licensing or oversight.
"At the moment it can be anything from a registered charity to someone who's just got a laptop and thought 'I'm going to rescue some dogs'."
Yes, 'buyer' beware, and all that. But if we can impose legislation to prevent dangerous fires, why can't we impose it to prevent dangerous dogs?
2 comments:
There's another solution, of course, which would eliminate the problem completely.
The problem of dogs? Or fakecharities?
Post a Comment