Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Christine McLean
1. With reference to the change that will enable householders protection from prosecution of there dog defends them against intruders/trespassers in their home whilst they are present:
1.1You acknowledge that you have no statistical data on the number of dog attacks that take place on private property or where. Yet on the basis of this lack of evidence you are prepared to amend the law to allow for protection against prosecution only if the home owner is in residence and that the intruder/trespasser is within the house.
1.2This is an extremely illogical approach to take, the owner should have the same rights to protection against prosecution whether they are in the house or not. The simple fact is that the intruder/trespasser has no right to be there whether the owner is present or not. The homeowner’s property to include all the property ie to the boundaries, not just the house. There must be right to protection in gardens and outhouses also. If an intruder/trespasser jumps the fence or gate to gain access, the owner nor the dog should be liable if the trespasser/intruder is attacked.
1.3The onus should not be on the owner to display signs warning people not to enter private property. The onus must be on the trespasser/intruder not to enter said property in the first place.
2. With reference to proposed amendments to section 3 of the DDA you suggest that this “may act as enough of a deterrent and encourage more responsible dog ownership and more dog owners adequately training their dogs”.
2.2There is no definition of responsible dog ownership and therefore this is a broad term which is not measurable and open to manipulation and not enforceable.
2.3There is no acknowledgment of what “adequate training for dogs” entails.
I personally attend dog training from an ex police dog handler weekly with my two Staffordshire bull terriers. I know from first hand experience that by just attending courses does not ensure that the dog is adequately trained. I see many people who attend one six week course and are never seen again. Yet I know of many “responsible” dog owners like myself who have been attending for three years.
2.4These two factors of such broad terminology cannot help to reduce the number of dog attacks. This is simply jargon and a play on words.
The Way Forward
A.Immediately repeal the failed, flawed and not fit for purpose Section 1 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
B.To target the bull breeds as you have done since 1991 has not worked. Any dog can be dangerous, not just the supposedly dangerous current banned types. Ban breed specific legislation.
C.Control under a DDA must be based on Deed not Breed. You cannot go on murdering innocent dogs based on looks and measurements.
D.It clearly is not an Act that has worked in its present form. It does nothing to control dangerous dogs.
E.Emphasis must be on Deed not breed.
There must be a system that includes a compulsory dog ownership test to determine suitability for dog ownership.
There must be a proved and measurable effort to educate people about the realities and responsibilities of dog ownership.
April 2013
