House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written Evidence

Memorandum submitted by The Kennel Club (DMB 17)

INTRODUCTION

The Kennel Club is the governing body of dog activity in the UK among whose objectives is to promote in every way the general improvement of dogs and encourage responsible dog ownership. The Kennel Club welcomes the introduction of the Marine Bill, Part 9 of which contains provisions on coastal access, as we are hopeful that dog owners will benefit from increased access to land to exercise their dogs, and their needs will be considered alongside those of other land users.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Why coastal access to land for dog owners is important

— Dog owners represent a large cross section of society—there are 7.3 million dogs in the UK and at least 15 million people are involved with caring for dogs.

— Dog owners not only enjoy walking their dogs, they have a legal responsibility under the Animal Welfare Act to provide their dogs with adequate exercise.

— Access to land for dog owners in their local areas reduces their carbon footprint.

— Walking a dog brings about benefits to the health of the dog and the health of the dog walker, which leads to social and economic advantages.

How the Marine Bill can improve dog owners access to land

— Learning from past mistakes—past legislation has proved overly restrictive and as a result has led to confusion and in some cases, non compliance.

— By imposing restrictions that are sensible, reasonable and proportionate.

— By providing clear, consistent and credible information to dog owners.

— By working with dog owners and dog owner groups to communicate messages.

WHY COASTAL ACCESS TO LAND FOR DOG OWNERS IS IMPORTANT

1. Dog walkers represent a large cross section of society

Government statistics from the Forestry Commission and Natural England show that between 33%-50% of all walkers have dogs with them. This reflects the importance of the nation's 7.3 million dogs to the estimated 15 million people who care for them, and the people who take a more active, fulfilling role in society thanks to 5,000 registered assistance dogs. Despite this, past efforts and resources to engage with dog owners have been disproportionately low, and walkers with dogs often appear to be considered solely as a "problem" group.

2. Dog owners have legal responsibilities

2.1 Animal Welfare Act—Under the Animal Welfare Act, dog owners have a duty of care for their dogs, not only to ensure their dogs are the correct weight, but also to allow them to exhibit natural behaviour patterns. This means that providing dogs with adequate exercise, off the lead is essential—it is not something responsible dog owners simply enjoy, but a legal responsibility.

2.2 Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act—This Act allows for local authorities to introduce dog control orders providing they are "reasonable and proportionate" (Defra guidelines). Unfortunately, recent dog control orders have in some areas curtailed the freedom of responsible dog owners to exercise their dogs properly in their locality since they have not been introduced according to Defra guidelines.

2.3 Countryside & Rights of Way Act (CROW)—Under CROW dogs must be kept on leads at certain times of the year in order to protect ground nesting birds for example. This means that the coast is a vital area for walkers with dogs, as it gives alternative areas for exercise at sensitive times for ground-nesting birds and lambing further inland.

3. Dog owners can reduce their carbon footprint

Key government targets are to reduce congestion and to improve the environment. Research funded by the Kennel Club and Hampshire County Council shows that the biggest factor influencing where dog walkers exercise their dogs, is whether they can exercise their dog off lead. If it is not possible to do this within their local area, then over 40% have said they would drive elsewhere. As well as reducing the number of car journeys taken by dog owners, increasing access to the coast for dog walkers is also likely to encourage them to walk elsewhere with their dogs (even if they have to be on lead) as a more pleasant alternative to driving.

4. Benefits of dog ownership

4.1 Health benefits—Studies prove: Pet owners were more likely to be alive one year after being discharged from a coronary care unit and have reduced blood pressure;[4] the presence of companion animals and interactions with pets can have significant short-term influences on physiological and psychological indicators of stress (ie blood pressure and feelings of anxiety) and can decrease loneliness and depression by providing companionship, a varied lifestyle and an impetus for nurturing; there may be particular health benefits from companion animals for different groups in society (eg children, older people). In addition the International Association of Human Animal Interaction Organisations[5] supports findings that children with pets are less likely to suffer from allergies, that people with pets have better cardiovascular health, a lower risk of heart attack and stroke, and the World Health Organisation states that "companion animals that are properly cared for bring immense benefits to their owners and to society and are a danger to no-one"."

4.2 Social Benefits—Studies prove: Pets provide social support that contributes to health and well-being such as companionship[6] and provide emotional comfort at times of stress;[7] companion animals also act as social catalysts, which are of particular benefit to people at risk of social isolation, including people with physical disabilities who lack opportunities for social interactions[8] and; children owning pets are more involved in activities such as sports, hobbies, clubs or chores[9] and score significantly higher on empathy and pro-social orientation scales than non-pet owning children.[10]

4.3 Economic benefits—Based on results obtained from national representative samples, savings in national health expenditures resulting from the improved health of pet owners can be made. It is estimated that in Australia, the presence of pets could save between $790 million and $1.5 billion dollars.[11] In nursing home facilities in New York, Missouri and Texas that have integrated animals as part of the environment, medication costs dropped from an average of $3.80 per patient per day to $1.18 per patient per day.[12] In 2001 in Germany, 37% of the population owned a pet and variations in doctor attendance between pet owners and non pet-owners suggested a 2.5% level in favour of pet owners, meaning they were likely to need medical care less than non pet-owners.[13] This 2.5% amounted to a saving of €5.59 billion!

HOW THE MARINE BILL CAN IMPROVE DOG OWNERS ACCESS TO LAND

5. Learning from past experiences

5.1 Past legislation has proved overly restrictive and as a result has led to confusion and in some cases, non compliance. In addition the voluntary, individual agreement-based approach has been an option for many decades and, as with access to open country, has been shown to not substantially deliver or protect the additional responsible access desired by Government. For these reasons we believe new legislation is the best means of providing increased access to the coast. Concerns have been expressed at what was perceived in the past to be a rather too generalised, narrow and purist approach to access on nature conservation sites. This led to the perception by the canine community that this was inherently anti-dog, rather than a balanced approach to managing and accommodating responsible behaviour.[14]

5.2 In practice, the CROW Act has led to far more restrictions on pre-existing access for dog owners, quite contrary to Government's stated intention that the Act should enhance access opportunities. This has been particularly prevalent on de facto access—namely areas of land that the public have traditionally used for recreation with the express or implicit acceptance of the landowner. Where such areas are on the edge of a grouse moor, dogs have now been banned in 95% of cases. Similarly, in de facto access areas of no specific wildlife designation, the blanket "on-lead" March to July rules have been nationally promoted and imposed, even though there was no previous motivation on the landmanager to do so, despite the fact that option did exist before. Finally, in many cases the CROW restrictions on dogs have been communicated and enforced in such a way as to make dog owners think they apply to the many thousands of miles of public right of way, which they do not. One of the Audit Commission's six key issues to learn from CROW Act implementation was that information to dog owners should be "clear, consistent and accurate."[15]

6. Impose restrictions that are sensible, balanced and reasonable

Balanced and proportionate restrictions can legitimately be imposed on walkers with dogs at sensitive times and places. For whatever classes of land are excepted from access rights, an integrated approach to restrictions, clearly identifying where restrictions start and finish, and providing information on alternative routes,[16] will help with compliance. We agree with the overall picture presented by Natural England, in particular, the observation that "some sections of coast are rich in, but others poor in, wildlife interest." This is helpful recognition that blanket, nationally-based "on-lead" or "no dogs" restrictions (as included in part 1 of the CROW Act) cannot legitimately be a part of legislation, regulations or guidance for access to the coast, for walkers with dogs. Thus, whilst we accept the need for restrictions on walkers with dogs (at certain times and places) to help ensure compliance and support, such restrictions need to be credible and proportionate. They should adopt the "least restrictive approach" and be determined on a local, case by case basis, from an impartial, balanced examination of the facts and the consideration of a variety of management options.

7. Provide clear information to dog owners

7.1 There is a significant lack of clear, consistent and credible information provided to walkers with dogs by access managers, about how to responsibly enjoy the coast and countryside. This needs to be addressed through a multi-agency approach, to help the vast majority of dog owners who seek to be responsible and avoid conflict, if the appropriate information, facilities and support are given.

7.2 Rather than have what is often a list of "do nots" couched in poorly-defined terms like "close control", new guidance should promote positive action by reference to specific behaviours such as "always keeping your dog in sight" and "not letting your dog approach or chase farm animals and wildlife". Owners can then use a lead to ensure compliance whenever needed; in turn this can encourage greater take up in dog training given the additional freedom a well-trained dog with a reliable recall can bring.

7.3 Collectively, we offer considerable opportunities to credibly communicate such messages to dog owners, for example through rehoming and education schemes, "Good Citizen" training clubs, veterinary surgeries, pet behaviour counselling sessions and promotional events.

7.4 Advice will also be helpful for land and access managers as well as other access users, to help them behave responsibly and respectfully towards walkers with dogs. For example, allowing a child to run up to an unknown dog, or feed it without permission, can be particularly unhelpful to a responsible dog owner, and indeed for the child itself. We already have materials developed that can help with this. We are very willing to work with all concerned to better deliver effective messages in this respect.

8. Working with dog owners

8.1 Concerns about dog fouling and the potential impact of dogs on wildlife, livestock and also other access users are understandable concerns. Whilst statistically robust data on actual impacts is greatly lacking, Natural England can do a great deal by working in partnership with us to get messages across to responsible dog owners.

8.2 As walkers with dogs are one of the most frequent, year-round users of all types of public access, it is vitally important that consultation takes place with them; it is not sufficient, relevant or appropriate to rely on comments from general walking or rambling groups about the needs of dog owners. Some walkers' groups are dog friendly—others ban dogs completely from their walks; they cannot be assumed to give informed local comment on the issue.

8.3 In recent times we have all worked proactively with many diverse partners, including local, regional and national government.

CONCLUSION

The Kennel Club welcomes the introduction of the Marine Bill, Part 9 of which contains provisions on coastal access. We believe that coastal access for dogs and their owners is important, especially given the large number of people who are legally obligated to walk dogs, the considerable health benefits that dog ownership brings about and the potential for dog walkers to reduce their carbon footprint. Voluntary approaches to improving access and past legislation have not often benefited dog owners, which is why we believe new legislation is required. We believe new legislation should impose only restrictions that are balanced, proportionate and evidence based, and that legislators should work in conjunction with organisations such as the Kennel Club who can represent, and assist in communicating messages to dog owners affected by the new legislation.

The Kennel Club

May 2008