Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Tracey Saxton
I write with reference to the above subject.EFRA has stated it would welcome views on the above subject.I therefore submit mine.
EFRA asked:
Do Defra’s draft clauses translate the government’s clear intentions on dog control into clear proportionate and effective legislation?
I do not think they do, I am aware of the current ineffective dog legislation (dangerous dogs act 1991) amended 1997, As it already stands the dangerous dogs act 1991 was hastily rushed in, and hasn’t tackled the REAL problems or irresponisble owners, back yard breeders, dog fighters/bait and is just another go at the responsible owners and destroys many family pets, solely on how they look.
Do the proposed measures provide a sufficient legislative base to tackle irresponsible ownership?
Not at all,there is nothing in the current or proposed legislation that discourages irresponsible ownership, It’s all “after the event” prevention is better than punishment after, there was an still is a real chance to make good the last 21 years and a half of the failed DDA 1991, I feel these proposal are simply not the answer, If anything these proposals may make owners dump their beloved pets in fear of prosecution in case their dog barked at a person who shouldn’t be on their property and perceived as dangerous, Also how many false claims will be made by just saying their dog barked at me and I felt threatened.
If not, which additional measures should be brought into law?
A repeal of the failed,/flawed section 1 of the dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Any dog can be dangeous, not just the supposedly deangerous current banned types.
Dog Control Orders based on a “Deed not Breed.
An education programme to educucate people of dog ownership, responsibility and dog laws.
A test to determine whether you would be suitable or not for dog ownership.
Are any of the proposed measures unnecessary or counterproductive?
Yes, Section 3 extention to private property is badly worded, It also implies that an intruder or any other person could quite freely roam around a persons garden, knowing he/she would be immune from a dog/s even so as barked at him/her all thet would have to say is “they felt threatened”, despite that he/she shouldn’t be there and the propery owner and dog would be liable for prosecution.
However if he/she should place one foot over the threshold and your dog bark/growl you wouldnt be liable for prosecution, but if you weren’t in the property and you dog was,and if an intruder gained entry you could be liable.
April 2013