UA-12921627-3 Jump to content

Kennel Club Hails Changes To Dangerous Dogs Legislation In Scotland ‘a Step In The Right Direction’


Recommended Posts

Your thoughts?

 

Kennel Club Hails Changes To Dangerous Dogs Legislation In Scotland ‘A Step In The Right Direction’

15-Jan-08

 

The Kennel Club has today broadly welcomed a consultation issued by Alex Neil MSP seeking to introduce a ‘Control of Dogs Bill’, which would strengthen the Dangerous Dogs Act in Scotland.

 

The Kennel Club has been advising Mr Neil MSP in drafting his Control of Dogs Bill, which is to be introduced as a Members Bill. If passed the Bill would introduce 3 changes to current legislation relating to dangerous dogs:.

 

Instead of applying only to attacks that take place in public, the Bill would also make attacks on private property a criminal offence;

The introduction of ‘control orders’ would apply to all types of dog that have acted dangerously without provocation;

The microchipping of dogs that had transgressed, whose owners had been issued with a control order, would be compulsory.

Providing the appropriate defences are put into place, the Kennel Club believes that introducing streamlined ‘control orders’, for example to order irresponsible dog owners to keep their dogs subject to conditions including being kept on a lead and/or muzzled or in severe cases, disqualify irresponsible dog owners from owning animals, will better protect the public and thus the welfare of dogs.

 

However, the Kennel Club wanted the Bill to go further and fully reflect its position of ‘deed not breed’ by making significant changes to Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act which would have ultimately repealed it.

 

Although the Kennel Club understands that it would not be practical in the current political climate to remove the list of banned breeds from Section 1 of the current Act, we do believe that the amnesty in Liverpool following the tragic death of Ellie Lawrenson last year proved even further the need to re-open the Index of Exempted Dogs (IED) to owner led applications. This would allow responsible owners of illegal dogs to register their dogs (providing their dogs were deemed safe, and met the registration requirements), and for the police to focus their activities on non registered pit bull terrier type dogs e.g. those that are likely to be owned by irresponsible dog owners.

 

Said Caroline Kisko: “We very much welcome Alex Neil’s Members Bill as a step in the right direction to making dangerous dogs legislation more effective. However, it is a shame that the proposals contained in the Bill have not gone so far as to change the highly flawed Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act and recognise that certain types of dogs are not inherently dangerous or that the actions of dog owners and a dog’s training have more of an impact on dogs’ behaviour than breedâ€.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Instead of applying only to attacks that take place in public, the Bill would also make attacks on private property a criminal offence;

 

Do any one know how this would affect guard dogs? My best friend has had 2 quad bikes solen at £5500 a time in addition to tens of gallons of red diesel, £1000s of tools, having his house broke in to and sentimental value items taken too. He now has 1 gsd and 2 border collies running loose in which have done a good job in keeping the theifs away for several months. Some thing our police have failed to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do any one know how this would affect guard dogs? My best friend has had 2 quad bikes solen at £5500 a time in addition to tens of gallons of red diesel, £1000s of tools, having his house broke in to and sentimental value items taken too. He now has 1 gsd and 2 border collies running loose in which have done a good job in keeping the theifs away for several months. Some thing our police have failed to do.

 

I don't think it's legal to have "guard dogs" running loose anyway is it (assuming they are actually being kept as guard dogs)? So I would imagine if an incident occured, even if someone had broken into his property, he might well find himself in trouble? :unsure:

 

(but wait for an expert to come along before quoting me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do any one know how this would affect guard dogs? My best friend has had 2 quad bikes solen at £5500 a time in addition to tens of gallons of red diesel, £1000s of tools, having his house broke in to and sentimental value items taken too. He now has 1 gsd and 2 border collies running loose in which have done a good job in keeping the theifs away for several months. Some thing our police have failed to do.

 

from the proposed bill

 

It would be a defence however if the dog attacked the other animal in self-

defence, or if it was defending its owner who was being attacked by the other

animal. I would also propose to include a defence for police dogs carrying out

their duties.

 

If a dog which is out of control attacks and/or injures a person, then it will be

an aggravated offence.

 

Areas for consideration

Again it would be a defence if the dog was being attacked by the person and it

was acting in self-defence, or if it was defending its owner who was being

attacked by another person. I would again propose a defence for police dogs

carrying out their duties.

 

I also propose that the offences will apply anywhere. The exception to this

would be if the dog were kept in a secure area to which there was no way that

the member of the public would ordinarily be able to access, but that the

person who was attacked had attempted to enter it. For example, if the dog

were kept in a secure garden consisting of a high fence which had no gate,

and someone climbed over the fence to gain entry and was attacked, then

that would be a defence, as the owner had taken all reasonable steps to

prevent the public from accessing the area. It would not be a defence,

however, if someone visiting the owner was attacked, such as a postman or a

tradesman.

 

 

the law relating to guard dogs

 

Guard Dogs

 

Only section 1 of the Guard Dogs Act 1975 has ever entered into force. This means that all the other sections relating to a licensing scheme are not in force and neither are there any plans to do so. Section 1, which is in force, relates to the control of guard dogs.

 

Section 1 states:

 

(1) A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a person ('the handler') who is capable of controlling the dog is present on the premises and the dog is under the control of the handler at all times while it is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.

 

(2) The handler of a guard dog shall keep the dog under his control at all times while it is being used as a guard dog at any premises except:

(a) while another handler has control over the dog; or

(b) while the dog is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.

 

(3) A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a notice containing a warning that a guard dog is present is clearly exhibited at each entrance to the premises.

 

 

The owner of a guard dog may be liable for any injury to a person under s 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971, unless they come within one of the exceptions in s 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do any one know how this would affect guard dogs? My best friend has had 2 quad bikes solen at £5500 a time in addition to tens of gallons of red diesel, £1000s of tools, having his house broke in to and sentimental value items taken too. He now has 1 gsd and 2 border collies running loose in which have done a good job in keeping the theifs away for several months. Some thing our police have failed to do.

 

edited cos black magic beat me to it :laugh:

 

your friend if he accepts his dogs are guard dogs is breaking the law.

if however he owns pets that naturally guard his premises whilst outside or in he is not.

that is one of the reasons why it is unwise to put up warning guard dog signs in ordinary homes much better to have a caution dog running free one instead as well as insinuating your dog is a guard dog and thereby must adhere to the act, it could also be offered in court that you knew your dog may be dangerous

 

as for proposals still digesting but not madly happy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well personally, I think it's a step forward, not to sure about the private property bit, although the exclusions mentioned seem sensible, I particularly like the fact he is targeting irrisponsible owners rather than one section, I also think the propasal to ban persistant offenders from owning dogs is a sensible step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem with charging people who deliberatly allow their dogs to be a problem. But do you think it will stop any dog attack? I looked at the proposal alot yesterday. It says it will act pre empting any issue but then says it will charge those whose dogs attack or are out of control...thats after not before so it isnt stopping anything from what i can see.

 

All it seems to do is allow people like archies parents, to then be dragged through a court...as if they havent suffered enough. there are imho other ways of doing it and doing it better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, good point, but wouldn't it have stopped Ellie being killed ? Ruben had been a problem, hadn't he ? :unsure: , perhaps something would have been done about his owner having a dog.

 

I don't suppose any law will stop attacks, dogs are dogs, and people are people, and when ever they come into contact there is the possibility of injury, just the same as there's a chance of injury every time you do some DIY or get in a car, so unless some t*t is going to suggest banning all dogs from Britain there's never going to be a foolproof solution IMO :flowers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re Ellie I dont think so. There was a complaint in the past yes afaik but say it had gone to court what would have happened. Based on one complaint where iirc no one was actually hurt? Its unlikely the dog would have been pts. Probably muzzle and lead in public. You cant muzzle a dog 24-7 which would have possibly been the only way to have stopped what happened.

 

We still do not know exactly what happened that day. Why he attacked. Without knowing why things happen we cant say what the answer is.

 

what annoys me with the proposal is there is absolutley NOTHING in it that will protect the majority of the public. Something was very wrong in every single dog attack recently and you can bet your life not one of the dog owners wanted what happened. Instead of punishing them how about we show them how things can happen so they ensure it doesnt happen in the first place? Surley that makes more sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of punishing them how about we show them how things can happen so they ensure it doesnt happen in the first place? Surley that makes more sense?

 

I agree whole heartedly but how do you get through to that faction who just won't listen ?think that it won't happen to them or that just don't care, we all hear about the 17 yr old kids with their dogs that have them as a status symbol, I just don't think they would be interested :( .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree whole heartedly but how do you get through to that faction who just won't listen ?think that it won't happen to them or that just don't care, we all hear about the 17 yr old kids with their dogs that have them as a status symbol, I just don't think they would be interested :( .

 

 

Make it law instead of making this proposal law :) Its illegal to drive a car without showing you know how, sitting a test. Maybe we should do the same with dogs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, good point, but wouldn't it have stopped Ellie being killed ? Ruben had been a problem, hadn't he ? :unsure: , perhaps something would have been done about his owner having a dog.

 

The dog that killed Ellie was an illegal breed, and should not have been there in the first place. The law did not prevent the dog being kept.

 

I agree the proposals only step in once a problem has arisen.

 

Who is going to prevent someone banned from owning a dog from getting one?

 

If the person moves to a new area, who will know he is banned from keeping a dog?

 

In fact how are the proposals going to be policed? The police cannot cope as it is?

 

My worry is that it will still come down to 'someone's ' opinion. What is a 'out of control' and what is 'dangerously out of control'?

 

If my dog is being a pestered by another, who 'only wants to play' when mine doesn't, and my dog tells it off( quite rightly in my opinion), what if the other owner then says my dog attacked their dog?

 

 

Are we going to end up with people frightened to allow their dog to socialise with others down the park in case there is trouble?

 

Hmmm......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dog that killed Ellie was an illegal breed, and should not have been there in the first place. The law did not prevent the dog being kept.

 

I agree the proposals only step in once a problem has arisen.

 

Who is going to prevent someone banned from owning a dog from getting one?

 

If the person moves to a new area, who will know he is banned from keeping a dog?

 

In fact how are the proposals going to be policed? The police cannot cope as it is?

 

My worry is that it will still come down to 'someone's ' opinion. What is a 'out of control' and what is 'dangerously out of control'?

 

If my dog is being a pestered by another, who 'only wants to play' when mine doesn't, and my dog tells it off( quite rightly in my opinion), what if the other owner then says my dog attacked their dog?

 

 

Are we going to end up with people frightened to allow their dog to socialise with others down the park in case there is trouble?

 

Hmmm......

 

Many good points. If the index was reopened it would save a huge amount of hassle for all too. Many would reg their dogs muzzle them ect but the law doesnt allow for this at the moment.

 

as you point out, even dog on dog theres problems with how this will work.

 

Much better to tackle the cause before a problem occurs then deal with the aftermath else we will just find ourselves back here when they realise this proposal doesnt work.

Edited by Allie No Dots
Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...