Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Dogs Today

I am responding to the call for views on Defra’s proposed amendment to the Dangerous Dogs Act on behalf of Dogs Today magazine and include some of the worries expressed by our readers.

We absolutely want to see effective legislation that protects people from out of control dogs but we worry that some parts of the proposed amendment go too far, parts not far enough, parts are unnecessary, and others will not make the public any safer.

Extending the Dangerous Dogs Act to private property:

The wording covering a householder case does not make clear whether or not a home/dog owner would be not guilty of an offence if a dog was dangerously out of control in the garden of a property. We do not think it fair to prosecute an owner if a dog attacks a trespasser in the garden.

It appears in the householder case that the owner of the dog can be prosecuted if a dog attacks a trespasser when the dog/home owner is not on his property. We worry this means owners who are burgled while they do their weekly shop or are at work, or have left their dog at home for any other reason, may be prosecuted if the dog attacks a burglar.

There is some query over who is a trespasser. Defra told us there is a distinction between an intentional trespasser, ie a burglar, and an unintentional trespasser, for example a child under the age of criminal responsibility. Up and down the UK, children’s toys have landed in next-door’s garden quite without malice for decades, and we’re sure this will continue. We worry in a situation such as a child coming into a garden where a dog is present to collect a ball without the home/dog owner’s knowledge; an owner may be liable for prosecution. For example, a dog might cause a child fear of injury simply by exhibiting normal canine behaviour, for example barking, or even running over to the child in quite a harmless way. Or, an inquisitive dog might jump up at a child. If the correlation between the size of child and size of dog is such that jumping up causes the child to fall and bang his head, for instance, it seems disproportionate to prosecute the owner.

We have also been asked by a reader if she would be liable for prosecution in the situation as follows. Our reader has three dogs who spend time in her garden. Her next-door-neighbour’s children frequently climb on their Wendy house, bend over the six-foot high fence and into her garden, and make woofing noises at her dogs. Our reader has repeatedly asked the children’s parents to stop this as it winds her dogs up. Clearly the children mean no harm, but considering our reader’s efforts to make her adult neighbours aware of the problem, if her dogs nipped the children’s fingers, we feel it would be disproportionate to prosecute.

Some readers who work in dog rescue and re-homing have expressed worry that they may no longer be able to take on dogs who require training and rehabilitation before they are re-homed if they are likely to be prosecuted for a dog undergoing training to cause fear of injury.

Whether a dog is a danger to public safety:

We are worried that if an owner is taken into account when assessing whether or not a dog will be a danger to public safety, more dogs who pass behavioural assessments with flying colours and could be re-homed away from bad owners will simply be euthanised when a good home could have been found for them.

Further options:

We are disappointed that no preventative measures, or efforts to encourage education and training have been made. We are seriously unimpressed that Defra thinks its Chip My Dog Facebook page and Twitter hashtag are evidence of appropriate education of Britain’s estimated eight to 10 million dog owners, depending on which study you read. The Chip My Dog Facebook page has 374 “likes” at the time of writing. This clearly fails to reach the vast majority of the dog owning population.

The £50,000 funding for animal welfare organisations and the police to promote responsible ownership across the whole of the country seems sadly indicative of Defra’s commitment to tackle a real and serious problem.

The support for Dog Control Notices is pretty much across the board, from police to postal unions, and animal welfare organisations. This is an opportunity to provide some level of intervention before things get out of hand in a lot of cases. The Dangerous Dogs Act is badly enforced across the country and further funding should be given to police and local authorities so irresponsible owners can be prevented from allowing their dogs to leave children needing plastic surgery and counselling.

We are also disappointed to see breed-specific legislation retained, but are pleased to see no further breeds will be added at present. Enforcement of the DDA currently focuses on seizing family pets who have never shown signs of aggression just because they look a certain way. We would like Defra to consider how much safer the country would be if the millions spent on kennelling these dogs, taking them through a court process, and killing lots of them was spent on productive, preventative measures.

We seriously think the ease at which people can breed and sell dogs in this country is part of the problem and needs consideration. At least three of the nine children killed by dogs since the DDA was enacted were killed by the dogs of owners who were breeding them. Why are we letting people who clearly have no understanding of canine behaviour and responsible ownership produce dogs and sell them for profit to the public without any restrictions?

April 2013