Communication Breakdown Will Seriously Hinder Dangerous Dog Legislation
January 21, 2008 by Alison Green
What we have here is failure to communicate, writes Alison Green
I have tried, really tried, for the last two days to make sense of the proposal for a Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill by MPS Alex Neil. I have forced everyone I know to listen to me asking question after question after question. I have emailed people (sorry to those who have had the influx of emails!) scenarios and asked them to show me what I must be missing because I just do not get it.
I will try and communicate my issues about the proposal to you, the reader and probable dog owner. I am a mother too and want to see something in place that protects my children from irresponsible dog owners, I truly do. But I cannot see it in this proposal. Maybe you can explain what I must surely be missing. Lets take it slowly, step by step, probably more for my sake than yours. I’ve got a headache now so bare with me while I try and get this straight. If you need to make a coffee, do it now. I have a feeling this may need all your powers of concentration too. Ready? Lets take a look…..
First the easy bit for me…
The Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991 was introduced at a time where several high-profile dog attacks on humans had caused alarm amongst the public. This legislation was hurriedly produced and poorly drafted, and has failed to make the public any safer from dangerous dogs. The DDA outlaws specific breeds of dog, but takes no account of the behaviour of dog owners.
Excellent start. Well done. Totally agree. The very reason BSL does not work.
Furthermore, dog attacks are not criminal offences when they occur on private property.
(POINT ONE: Your need to come back to this later) True again, however the 1871 dogs Act means civil proceedings can be brought. While the owner gains no criminal record if found guilty, a dangerous dog can be ordered to be restricted or even destroyed. Being a civil case, you do not have to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” simply “on the balance of probabilities”. This actually makes it more likely to get a guilty verdict than using the DDA, which doesn’t cover private property where the dog has a right to be. Doesn’t that actually make that a better law than the DDA, which was meant to improve the 1871 act?
The police also report that, for various reasons, the DDA is difficult to enforce, and a huge drain on resources.
Difficult to enforce. Why is that? We don’t ban pit bulls, we ban any dog, regardless of parentage that has enough characteristics of a pit bull type. Fact is, police have the right to seize any dog they think is type. They don’t have to know its type, just think it. Heck the burden of proof is even reversed! They have to prove nothing; YOU have to prove your dog isn’t a type dog. They have everything on their side…how is that difficult to enforce? They just take the dog, go to court and see what happens.
Section 3 of dangerously out of control in a public place. Again, how is that hard to enforce. All someone has to do is make a complaint and the case can be taken if the dog was infact, dangerously out of control in a public place. If it is difficult to enforce this, why will it be easier to enforce exactly the same thing in a private place?
So there’s little me thinking hard on this. What on earth does he mean… I think I have the answer. Its actually rather simple when you think about it… this country has almost 7 million dogs. That’s a lot of dogs isn’t it? So what we are asking is for our overstretched police force to also spend time watching and checking 7 million dogs. Difficult to enforce… That would make sense wouldn’t it? As for the drain on resources, that’s bound to happen with a law that makes it an offence to have any dog that may resemble a certain type regardless of whether its actually dangerous! If only we had thought of a better DDA first time round eh? Lets hope this time round we think it through properly….
Excellent…lets move on….
With such shortcomings in mind, there is clearly a need for more practical, up-to-date legislation. I propose to introduce a Bill, which aims to give the public greater protection by addressing the shortcomings of the existing legislation, and placing more responsibility on the owner for the dog’s treatment and behaviour.
Sounds good to me…responsibility on the owner. Brilliant idea.
My Bill would include the following key changes:
The law will operate on a preventative basis.
Before a dog becomes dangerous. Fantastic idea. That will help desperately to stopping dog attacks!
Control Orders will be issued to owners of dogs that are dangerously out of control, to ensure they do not endanger public safety.
And this is where its starts to get a little cloudy in my mind. Preventative basis with control orders issued to owners of dogs that are dangerous out of control. If the dog is dangerously out of control, where’s the preventative bit? If a dog is out of control, isn’t it already endangering public safety? Answer on a postcard please…. NEXT!
This would include compulsory microchipping for such dogs, in order to keep track of them, and it would be an offence not to notify authorities if details such as address or owner are changed.
Ok…this one is full of problems. Depending on how much room this takes up I may or may not list all those I have thought of…I’m trying not to bore you I promise..
How hard will it be to enforce this when it’s already been stated they can’t enforce current laws. Make it an offence by all means. Lets chip all dogs, I don’t mind personally. But how on earth do you intend enforcing it. Actually, ill just stick with that one point…told you I’m trying not to bore you J
On we plod…
Make attacks an offence wherever they occur.
Ok but re-read POINT ONE. So this proposal will make it a criminal offence if your dog attacks someone. Fact: criminal, civil it’s still able to have the same outcome on the dog. A few other interesting points, If anyone deliberately sets their dog on another person, whether on private property or not, there’s already a criminal charge available under the Offences against a Persons act. If someone didn’t do it deliberately and your dog attacks someone at your home…surely you would know whom the dog attacked? Surely you would be horrified? Surely a criminal conviction couldn’t make you feel any worse or take it any more seriously? Surely you would have not let it happen if you could have? So I fail to see how a criminal conviction will help.
Also making it an offence for a dog to attack wherever they occur…again, someone show me how that is pre empting anything?
The proposal further on then states briefly the current legislation before explaining why he claims they have failed.
It fails to offer the same level of protection in private places in which the dog is permitted to be. If the attack occurs in the dog’s own home – as is very often the case - the owner cannot be prosecuted. For example, in 2005, a two-year-old girl required hours of surgery after being attacked by her neighbour’s Japanese Akita in Carmarthenshire, West Wales. As this happened in the neighbour’s home where the dog lived, there was no scope for prosecution under the DDA, and the dog still lives next door to the girl.
Go back to POINT ONE.
Attacks on other animals are not a criminal offence. The Scottish SPCA recently reported a case in which a swan was attacked by a Rottweiler. The swan had to be put down and her six cygnets were left abandoned. In another incident, a terrier crawled into a badger’s sett and killed the cub. The owners were clearly partly responsible in that they did not keep their dogs under control. However, they faced no criminal charges.
It Is already a criminal offence to kill injure or maim a swan. It is already a criminal offence to kill, injure or take a badger. It is illegal to cause a dog to enter or for you or dog to interfere with a badger sett. Why where charges not brought?
The proposal goes on to say that whoever is in charge of the dog at the time of the offence is to be taken as the owner. No problem with that, but again “at the time of the offence” is not preventing anything!
Onwards and upwards reader! We are on page 7 of 10! The end is in sight!
The next bit is somewhat long…go with it…I have reasons!
Keeping all dogs under control – introducing Control Orders
It has been demonstrated in the previous chapter that the dogs banned under section 1 of the DDA contribute only a small amount of the dog bites seen by A&E departments. What is needed is a method of acting against dogs of any breed that endanger public safety.
“against any breed that endanger public safety” Any breed or any dog? I assume he meant any dog, will give him credit for that.. If the dog is endangering public safety are we preventing anything? Currently you have to go to court to get a control order wouldn’t it be a bit late by then?
I therefore propose to make it an offence for anyone in charge of a dog to allow it to be dangerously out of control. This will apply to whoever is in charge of the dog at the time of the offence, whether they are the owner of the dog or not.
Fair enough. As a dog owner I don’t allow anyone I don’t trust to walk my dogs. In a public place this already exists. What is dangerously out of control in a private place exactly?
It will also be an offence if, under these same circumstances, the dog attacks another animal. At the moment allowing a dog to attack another animal is not covered under criminal law. However, I feel that it is important that people take steps to ensure that a dog under their control does not harm other animals. In addition this will provide protection for working dogs such as guide dogs, police dogs and other assistance dogs.
It would be a defence however if the dog attacked the other animal in self-defence, or if it was defending its owner who was being attacked by the other animal. I would also propose to include a defence for police dogs carrying out their duties.
If a dog which is out of control attacks and/or injures a person, then it will be an aggravated offence. Again it would be a defence if the dog was being attacked by the person and it was acting in self-defence, or if it was defending its owner who was being attacked by another person. I would again propose a defence for police dogs carrying out their duties.
We are still taking about when a dog attacks. Has anyone spotted the preventative measures as yet?
I also propose that the offences will apply anywhere.
Anywhere, including private property. Cat comes into my garden over my high fence and my dog attacks it. I’m in deep trouble. This is do not like. I cannot stop a cat coming into my garden. What about a rat? A bird? A mouse? Now things are not looking that good are they?
The exception to this would be if the dog were kept in a secure area to which there was no way that the member of the public would ordinarily be able to access, but that the person who was attacked had attempted to enter it. For example, if the dog were kept in a secure garden consisting of a high fence which had no gate, and someone climbed over the fence to gain entry and was attacked, then that would be a defence, as the owner had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the public from accessing the area. It would not be a defence, however, if someone visiting the owner was attacked, such as a postman or a tradesman.
High fence wont stop the cat! My window cleaner once used their ladder to climb very my 6 ft fence to gain access to clean my windows while I was out. He had already been told never to clean them If I wasn’t in (it upset the dogs and makes them bark) He ignored me. This is not looking good at all now…
If a person is convicted of any of these offences then the Court will be able to use their discretion and apply any or all of the following control measures:
• That the dog be subject to conditions such as being muzzled and kept on a lead at all times
Can already be done.
• That the owner attend a mandatory dog-training course
A court can order any means of control which could cover this too.
• That the owner be disqualified from owning a dog for a period as determined by the court
Already in place.
• That the dog be re-homed
This is new and fine with me although disqualifying an owner will have exactly the same effect!
• That the owner pay up to £5000 in compensation for personal injury, loss or damage arising from actually caused harm in a minor incident
Already liable for damages under the Animal act.
• In the most serious cases, a fine of up to £5000 and/or up to 6 months imprisonment, or an unlimited fine and/or up to 2 years imprisonment .
In the most serious cases on public property and private property where the dog had no right to be, this already stands. On private property if you set a dog on someone you can be charged under the Offences against a persons act which I believe carries similar sentences. If it wasn’t deliberate I cannot see how this will help. That person already carries a life sentence knowing what has happened. This certainly doesn’t prevent anything.
• Anyone convicted of an aggravated attack should be disqualified from owning animals.
Depending on the reason for the attack I agree however as mentioned previously, if the person didn’t do it on purpose wouldn’t it be better to explain how it happened so they know in future? This doesn’t prevent anything either.
• That the dog be destroyed (in extreme cases).
Already stands on private and public property.
Adding a range of control measures is more flexible, and takes into account that every dog represents a varying degree of danger to the public. Importantly, it is only when a dog is actually shown to have an aggressive nature that it becomes subject to any legal restraints.
No preventative measures here. How do you define aggressive nature?
For such Control Orders to work, it would also be necessary to keep track of the dogs. For this reason, I propose that all dogs for which a Control Order has been issued should be microchipped. This would mean that the owner of the dog would irrefutably be the person responsible for ensuring that the requirements of the Control Order would be carried out. This would be irrespective of whether or not they were in charge of the dog at the time of the offence.
I do not get this at all. I have no problems with chipping all dogs full stop but fail to see how chipping a dog will ensure a court order is followed. Example: court orders Fido to be muzzled at all times in public. Fido is chipped to ensure court order works. Fido’s owner walks fido without the muzzle. Now…are we asking every police officer to scan every dog they see walking without a muzzle to ensure that dog doesn’t have a control order on it?
Are we asking them to know and be able to recognize every dog and owner incase they see them on the street breaking the restrictions? If Fido’s owner breaks the restrictions and Fido does something he will either vanish so no one knows it was him (m icrochip will not help here) or stick around and hold his hands up. If he does the second them he could be traced anyway and the police will know if he has a court order in place. So I am just confused. Again, if you can see how this will work please let me know.
Details of the dog’s owner would be held on a database, as is currently the case with microchipped dogs, and would be accessible to organisations which required it. It would also be an offence not to notify the database’s administrators of a change of address, or if the dog was given to a different owner.
How on earth will we A) know if a dog has been moved on unless it attacks again? If it does attack again how is that preventing anything? B) Keep a check on everyone to ensure they haven’t moved or passed the dog on. What if they do pass the dog on but have no idea exactly who too? Then what?
When a person in charge of a dog has been convicted of an offence as outlined above, a control measure could be issued to the owner, even if the owner was not in charge of the dog at the time.
Fine depending on the definition of out of control in a private place however, again, not preventing anything.
This proposal would act pre-emptively, and give courts more flexible powers to use against the owner of any dog considered by the court to be acting dangerously.
No it would not act pre-emptively! Everything listed happens AFTER a dog is out of control and/or AFTER a dog attacks. That is not pre empting anything!
These proposals, if adopted, would help address the shortcomings of the existing dog legislation – allowing authorities to act on the owner of any dog which has an aggressive nature before it injures anyone, and therefore giving the public greater protection.
If a dog is out of control there’s a good chance if it is going to injure anyone, it will do so at that point. Therefore this is wrong claiming to act before a person is injured. What about the recent case of Archie? The dog is claimed to have mixed with the children and hadn’t attacked anyone before. How would this have helped him or his family? Unless the definition of dangerously out of control covers behaviour which is not out of control and not an actual attack in which case we will end up with a nation of muzzled dogs!
Overview : What we have here is failure to communicate and failure to protect the public yet again.
This proposal pre empts nothing.
This proposal does nothing more to protect the public than the laws we ALREADY have in place, in fact by making it a criminal offence on private property they are actually making it HARDER to get a conviction as it will become “beyond reasonable doubt” instead of “on the balance of probabilities”
This proposal points out the blinding errors in the 1991 DDA regarding Breed Specific Legislation and doesn’t absolutely nothing about it!
This proposal affects all dog owners. I think we have a right to know, a right to comment and a right to shout loudly from the rooftops if we disagree. Organisations may back this and hail it a “step in the right direction” but dog owners and the public have been misled before. Organisations do not speak for me, do you allow them to speak for you or your dogs? Do you trust them to decide for you when you don’t know the full facts? The proposal includes questions to be answered. All very valid questions that we do not have the answer too. Without those answers how on earth do we know what exactly, is being proposed? Maybe those organisations backing this have some information we don’t have which is why they back it? Well as a dog owner I would like to know what that is! Keeping secrets helps no one. My mother always told me to look before I leap. So looking I am.
If you have read this and think “Hang on…this bit doesn’t make sense” , simply do not understand a point of the proposal or want further clarification I urge you to contact Alex Neil and ask your questions. Ask the organisations that back it too…maybe they know something you don’t and can explain how this is good. You may think this doesn’t effect you but this has a real chance of coming to England if it goes through in Scotland. In 1991 we allowed a law to go through which has been condemned by many groups ever since. It has cost the lives of many dogs that have never shown any aggression and has not protected the public. I do not want to go through that again…do you? If not please write to Alex Neil at the following address:
. Responses must be submitted by Monday 14th April 2008, and should be sent to the following address:
Alex Neil MSP
Room M4.19
The Scottish Parliament
Edinburgh
EH99 1SP
Alternatively, please email responses to alex.neil.msp@scottish.parliame
In addition, feel free to pass this consultation document on to any other interested parties that you may be aware of.
N.B. To help inform debate on the matters covered by this paper and in the interests of openness, all the responses submitted on this consultation document will be made public. Names will also be made public unless you indicate otherwise. Personal data referring to third parties included in the response will not be accepted without explicit written consent from the third party. If you wish the contents of your response to be treated in confidence and not made public, then please indicate so.
All responses will be included in any summary or statistical analysis, which does not identify individual responses.
To read the proposal and questions for consideration in full please see here:
http://www.scottish.parliament
Alison is a long time dog owner and dangerous dog legislation observer who lives with her family and four Bull Breed dogs in Sussex. - See this author's webpage
Related posts:
- Dog Borstal Series 4 on BBC - Need Help With Your Dog? Apply Here
- South East England Home to UK’s Most Accident Prone Dogs
- Scottish Dog Owners Have Been Sold Out Over new Dangerous Dogs Proposal
- ‘Most Important Animal Welfare Legislation in a Century’
- The Dangerous Dogs Act: It’s Time For Breed Specific Legislation To Go & Go Now
Loading ...
Mr Neil MSP has obviously been advised by the usual suspects! Why is there such a reliance on the fact that if this bill were to be passed, that microchips would be the ‘be all end all’ solution to a myriad of dog issues? All this rubbish about it would be an offence to not amend the microchip details, hey I do not want to be a ‘told you so’ but there must be 25% of the cars on the road of the UK that are either not registered to the person driving it, the driver is unlicensed and uninsured and the car is untaxed, so how would people obey a law that said you had to amend the microchip details of your dog?
The whole thing sounds very much like a crackpot idea of several years ago that was bandied about that would make it an offence for a dog over three months old to not be registered or licensed and the local councils would enforce this as the licence fee would pay for Dog Warden Services! The scary thing about the ‘powers behind the thrones’ of government is that they endlessly lobby for the same things that they recycle every now and then and present as the best way forward for the future of dog control. Hidden behind all this is a cabal that is seeking compulsory microchipping and dog registration (but not to be enforced by their people). To expect hard pressed council dog wardens to go around ensuring that dogs are registered insults dog wardens and shows that these advisors obviously do not know what dog wardens actually do, which is spend most if not all their time sorting out the problems caused by irresponsible dog owners of all shapes and sizes, classes and education as well as being owners of all ‘pedigree’ and ‘mom-pedigree’ breeds of dogs. Who would benefit the most from compulsory microchipping apart from the microchip companies that manufacture them, just think about it and look at who profits from microchipping of dogs if there were to be compulsory microchipping?
Additionally how would a ‘dangerous’ dog being microchipped prevent it from attacking another person or other animal if it is owned by a totally irresponsible owner?
Sorry Mr Neil MSP, it is alleged that you are an anti-dog person of which you have every right to be one, unfortunately somebody is using your bill to further their own hidden agenda of joint compulsory microchipping and dog registration. Get it passed in Scotland then it will filter down to the rest of the UK as the way forward,when in fact it will be the way backwards.
Reply
I fail to understand how this proposal will protect the pubic. I am sorry but it also gives me more concerns as a responsible dog owner.
to apply court orders to dogs that may act “dangerously out of control” have an “aggressive nature” or “act aggressively” in a private place.
Who is to define these statements? Who will be responsible in making the decision that a dog was:
a, Dangerously out of control
b, Have an aggressive nature
c, Act aggressively
I list all three as seperate as I would define them seperately. As a behaviourist and someone that has worked with dogs day in and day out for 20 years I know some would define (lets say) an aggressive nature as a dog that barks or growls at them. Others would define a dog that barks or growls (but not lunge forward or bite) as a dog that was using self control and their only means of communication to ask the person to move away (often the case if the dog is cornered or on a lead where it cannot just move itself away from the situation)
Under this proposal what would stop my neighbour (that hates all dogs) making a complaint regarding my dogs?
Who would be qualified to judge the situation? Or would I be left spending time, money and heartache fighting to prove my dogs innocence whilst watching my dogs suffer having to be kept on lead and muzzled when they are used to off lead controlled exercise?
We all know that the DDA has not worked, that it has not prevented the recent attacks, but I fail to see this as an answer. No one wants more attacks, instead we want a law which will address all the issues and works.
Reply
I have a lurcher bitch that has been attacked by various breeds (mainly GSD) in various situations. My dog is now showing signs of fear aggression. My dog could be slapped with the label of “dangerous”, under these new legislations it is looking more likely. She will only fight back to defend her self or charge dogs at a distance that she does not know. Being a responsible dog owner I am actively working to prevent this from happening. What does annoy me is the owners of the dogs that have attacked her. I have no problems with any breed of dog, I respect all dogs and their natural instincts for instance all rotties are natural guard dogs but if the owner handles properly they are nice dogs and I know quite a few. These owners on every occasion have never made attempts to deal with the situation, I have always seperated the fight, nor do they ever check to see if the dog that their pooch has bitten is ok. They do not apologise and quickly grab their dog and run.
In the current anti dog movement all the known breeds to have bad names ie. staffies, rotties, doberman etc are singled out. It is not the breed but the owner after all the doberman breed was a herding dog originally. All these dog on dog attacks are forewarnings sometimes to behaviour issues, if they go unchecked then it can lead to dog on people attacks.
Why is it not the priority to see if we are suitable owners before we are let loose with animals regardless of the breed. We have to take a test to drive a car on the road, we are policed to ensure the safety of others whilst we drive, the rules are enforced. How is it possible to enforce dog legislation fairly, we are fighting anti dog legislation in our local councils that want dogs on leads in all public areas already. What next?
Reply
[...] in no small part to an article written by Alison Green right here on DogMagazine.net, the National Dog Warden Association has been approached by the [...]