Dangerous owners - Telegraph The 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act is a classic example of knee-jerk governing, of legislating first and then repenting at leisure. Some parts over-reached, others were toothless. Oddly, the Act was limited to attacks on public or private land where the animals were prohibited. Some recent terrible cases - including the death of 14-year-old Jade Anderson, who was savaged by four dogs in a friend's living room - have led to calls for even tougher laws. And the Communication Workers Union complains that some 23,000 postmen and women have been the victim of canine attacks in the past five years, yet only one person has ever gone to prison for this offence. The "something must be done" tendency is often best avoided, but there is nothing wrong with trying to improve old legislation. New proposals announced as part of a consultation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would see the maximum jail sentence of two years for owning a vicious dog jump to a possible life imprisonment - and this change would likely be inserted into the latest anti-social behaviour, crime and policing Bill, which outlaws keeping a dangerous dog in private, in addition to public spaces. Of course, there has to be nuance shown in judging the difference between a thug who breeds a dog as a weapon and an innocent owner whose animal turns wild. But what is appropriate about the Government's approach is its avoidance of placing onerous burdens on law-abiding owners, such as microchipping, while getting tougher on people who raise dogs poorly. Many dog attacks are the product of abuse or bad breeding, and the fault for this lies squarely with the owner rather than their unfortunate "pet." The recklessness of such people should be penalised.