Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Stewart Saxton
I write with reference to the above subject. EFRA has stated it would welcome views on the above subject. I therefore submit mine, based on my views as a voting, tax paying, responsible dog owner.
EFRA asked-
Do Defra’s draft clauses translate the Government’s intentions on dog control into clear, proportionate, and effective legislation?
No they do not. I am only too aware of current ineffective dog legislation, namely the hastily rushed in and much maligned Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended 1997) and all these particular clauses imply is yet more poorly thought out restrictions that will ultimately NOT reduce dog attacks nor tackle irresponsible ownership.Where are the measures to stop dog fighting, back yard breeding for example? There is nothing in current or proposed legislation that tackles and roots out these problems. Instead, all it does is target people who are already responsible owners and destroy family pets simply based on their looks.
Do the proposed measures provide a sufficient legislative base to tackle irresponsible dog ownership?
Not in the slightest. To coin a phrase,”Locking the stable door after the horse has bolted”is an apt description of current and proposed legislation. There is nothing, either in current or proposed legislation that discourages irresponsible ownership. It is all “after the event” eventualities. Does not DEFRA understand that prevention is better than punishment after? There was, and still is, a real chance to make good the last 21 and a half years of the failed DDA 1991, but these proposals are simply not it. If anything, these proposals will probably make more people dump their dogs for fear of prosecution because their dog may bark at an intruder and be perceived as dangerous. These proposals could in fact, bring about more dog cruelty than there is at the moment. Plus a whole host of “compensation” cases by people intent on making a few pounds by simply saying “I feel threatened by their dog barking at me”.
If not, which additional measures should be brought into law?
Immediate repeal of the failed, flawed and not fit for purpose Section 1 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Any dog can be dangerous, not just the supposedly dangerous current banned types.
Dog Control Orders based on a “Deed not Breed” scheme.
Real effort to educate people about the realities and responsibilities of dog ownership.
A dog ownership test to determine suitability for dog ownership.
Are any of the proposed measures unnecessary or counterproductive?
Yes. The Section 3 extension to private property is worded badly and is very vague and wide open to abuse. It implies that an intruder can quite freely roam around a persons garden, safe in the knowledge he is immune from a dog even so much as barking at him, as all he has to do is say he “felt threatened”, despite the fact he should not be there, and the dog and its owner are liable to prosecution.
However, if he should place one foot over the threshold of the property, he is the one at fault and the dog can bark and growl to its hearts content...unless the owners of the residence and dog are not present. Said intruder once again gets away with it. Seeing as most intrusions/burglaries take place when people are out and a dog may be present on the residence on its own this law appears to stack the odds in favour of the criminal element. An intruder intent on harm or theft should have NO protection within the law.
April 2013