Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Lisa Winnie

I think the changes are positive. It was about time irresponsible owners were targeted and attacks on assistance dogs were seen as assaults by the owners of the dogs who attacked.

But I think the part where the dogs can’t protect the property from intentional trespassers if you aren’t in the property is just ridiculous.

Burglars and dogs thieves will now target properties as they know they can then take the owner of the dog in the property they illegally trespassed to court for compensation. This part really protects burglars.

Any dog would defend their owner and their property. How can you blame a dog for that? The dog is in their own house, someone breaks in, and the dog can’t protect? How is that fair on responsible owners or on anyone for that matter.

Trespassing is illegal, how can you protect an illegal activity? Cause that’s what you’re doing saying that an owner won’t be exempted from prosecution if someone breaks into the property when the owner isn’t there.

No one should have to worry about defending or having their dog defending their own property from trespassers.

Don’t people have the right to feel safe in their own house?

Trespassers should not be allowed to take owners to court if the dog defends the property and/or owner from a trespasser. Now responsible owners of properly trained dogs have to worry if someone breaks in in case the dogs will defend the property. If I am allowed to defend my property shouldn’t my dog be as well?

April 2013