Kc And Ndwa Proposals For New Dog Legislation.

[Melp]

Don't shoot the messenger

Objective for Future 'Dangerous Dogs' Legislation

By the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group

[1]

Introduction

 

 

The issue of dangerous dogs and protecting the public has been one that has posed a problem for legislators for many years. Legislation concerning this dates back to 1871 with the Dogs Act. This provides for any person to make a complaint to a Magistrate's court that a dog is dangerous or report the matter to the police. If the court is satisfied that the dog is dangerous and is not being kept under proper control then it may make an order for it to be kept by the owner under proper control or destroyed.

 

 

More recently the implementation of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as amended has had a significant effect on the welfare of some dogs, which have either been kept in kennels for many years or euthanased simply because of their breed or type. Additionally, it has not prevented a large number of dog attacks or reduced the number of Pit Bull Terrier type dogs in the UK. Statistics on dog attacks have not reduced since that Act was introduced and in fact, the number of hospitalisations is reported as having doubled.

 

 

For these reasons the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG), a wide-ranging group representing animal welfare, local authorities, police and veterinary professional organisations, has been considering the issue and believes future legislation needs to better protect the public against dogs dangerously out of control without compromising any individual dog's welfare. The Group considers the following proposals to be balanced, and (if implemented as intended) believes they should help to prevent future attacks on people and animals occurring in the future – therefore protecting both the safety of the public and the welfare of dogs.

 

 

Objective

 

 

To better protect the public without compromising dogs' welfare by the introduction of a 'Control of Dogs Act' to incorporate the better aspects of the Dogs Act 1871 and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as amended but ultimately repeal them, as they are widely criticised for their deficiencies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Justification

 

 

New legislation is required to better protect the public.

 

 

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as amended has failed because:

 

 

· Section 3 only applies after an incident has taken place, rather than operating on a preventative basis;

 

· Section 3 only applies when the dog is in a public place, or a private place where it is not permitted to be (so that persons entering a private place where the dog is permitted to be have no protection);

 

· Section 3 only applies to dogs that have acted dangerously towards people;

 

· The Act has cost the Police much of their vital resources – it has cost millions of pounds in kennelling associated costs since it came into force;

 

· There is no provision for an owner to apply to a Court for a seized dog to be returned;

 

· Section 1 predicts a dog's behaviour based on its physical conformation when this is not possible. This is why Section 1 dogs placed on the Index of Exempted Dogs have never been proven dangerous, and why dogs of breeds or types other than those prohibited have been involved in dog attacks.

 

 

The Dogs Act 1871 has failed because:

 

 

· There is no power of seizure;

 

· If an owner transfers the dog to someone else prior to a Court hearing, they may be able to avoid the proceedings;

 

· The Court has no power to require the owner to pay compensation.

 

 

Proposal

 

 

· Low level incidents should be dealt with by a staged approach of Control Orders, where necessary through the Courts. This should be used where the dog has, for instance, shown aggression, caused an injury to another animal, caused harm, or caused a person to reasonably believe it will cause harm; Any person could make a complaint to the Court (to reduce costs to the public purse).

 

· Retain the offence to deal with serious aggression e.g. a dog that causes a serious injury, or a dog that is encouraged by its owner to be aggressive; and limit enforcement to the police and local authorities.

 

· Retain the offence to possess or advertise a restricted type of dog (e.g. currently the pit bull terrier type dog) unless the dog in question is registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs, and re-open the Index to owner led applications provided it can be shown on the balance of probability the dog is not a danger to public safety.

 

 

 

 

 

Detailed Proposal

 

 

· Base legislation on the legal duty of care of the person in whose charge the dog is, and the owner of the dog that put the person in charge of it, that the dog is not dangerously out of control.

 

· Apply the legislation to incidents that take place in public as well as private.

 

· Provide that, where the legislation allows the Police a power of seizure (under a warrant if not in a public place), proceedings must begin within one month of seizure for a minor complaint and six months of seizure for a more serious offence.

 

· Provide a graduated system, through the Courts if appropriate, to introduce Control Orders requiring but not limited to, one or more of the following: the dog to be destroyed; the dog to be kept under proper control; the dog to be kept subject to conditions including being kept on a lead and/or muzzled; the dog to be re-homed; the owner to be disqualified from having charge/being in possession of a dog for such a period as the court considers appropriate; and the owner to be required to pay up to £5,000 in compensation for personal injury, loss or damage arising from the incident where the dog has actually caused harm in a minor incident, and up to a £5,000 fine and/or 6 months imprisonment or an unlimited fine and/or up to 2 years imprisonment, in a more serious case.

 

· Include defences for anyone accused to prove that the dog was provoked into being aggressive or the attack was in self-defence, or at the time the dog was dangerous the dog was not under the owner's control but under the control of someone he believed to be responsible, or the dog was on private land where it was permitted to be and the person or animal was a trespasser (i.e. present on the land without express or implied permission).

 

· Include an appeals procedure in the legislation for an owner to appeal against the Court's first control order straight away and for the conditions of the control order to be varied/discharged after at least a year.

 

· Include an exemption for dogs used on official duties as service dogs, when at work.

 

 

 

DDASG includes representation from: Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Blue Cross, BVA, Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club, the Metropolitan Police, RCVS, RSPCA, Wandsworth Borough Council and Wood Green Animal Shelter.

 

 

NDWA proposals. [can't C&P them sorry]

 

http://www.ndwa.co.uk/news.asp?ID=24

 

[Pingu]

so...

 

a form of doggie asbo to begin with leading up to seizure for actual danger with intial punishments for the owners.

 

 

 

i may be reading that wrong but it looks resaonably balanced apart from keeping those types\breeds already controlled under sect 1 as proscribed.

 

at least it isnt proposing the addition of more breeds

 

havnt read the full ndwa stuff yet but its dated july 07?

 

its attached below

 

dangerous_dog_legislationv2.pdf

 

eta

 

the insurance bit makes interesting reading

[Melp]

The NDWA proposal is [in my opinion] better than the KC one, it's certainly more detailed as well.

[Diesel]

dog to be rehomed??

 

 

I wonder who is going to oversee that rule?

[KathyM]

Same person who is going to enforce the onlead and muzzled rules, as ever - Mr Nobody! They can't even enforce the laws already there, this reads as a solution and in reality won't change a thing.

[blackmagic]

In the case of the dog who chased the postman, and ordered to be rehomed , the dog was rehomed by Dog's Trust or SSPCA.

[Melp]

Sorry am a bit lost-who's proposals are we talking about, KC or NDWA?

[blackmagic]

as above

".... Provide a graduated system, through the Courts if appropriate, to introduce Control Orders requiring but not limited to, one or more of the following: the dog to be destroyed; the dog to be kept under proper control; the dog to be kept subject to conditions including being kept on a lead and/or muzzled; the dog to be re-homed;..."

[Melp]

Right ok got you. What about it?

[i'm having a bad day sorry ]

[Rumpole]

the ndwa proposal is similar to the current 1871 dogs act except that it gives more options than just control order or destruction ie rehoming, that being if it is thought that either the owner would not comply with an order or that the dog would not be a danger if it were to be rehomed elsewhere that rehoming be used in preference to a destruction order. the 1871 act is a civil one and is already used by councils for prosecutions as the council can bring the prosecution itself without police involvement. wheras the police as a rule favour section 3 under which the presumption is if guilty is on destruction if there is injury caused, and where the owner in criminalised sometimes unfairly, and where the owner has to convince the court their dog is not a danger rather than the police proving that it is.

 

thats my take on it anyway at a glance

[PennyB]

· Low level incidents should be dealt with by a staged approach of Control Orders, where necessary through the Courts. This should be used where the dog has, for instance, shown aggression, caused an injury to another animal

 

How many owners out there suggest a dog is aggressive towards theirs when they aren't but they're just nervous owners --- to some a dog that just tells another off in a reasonable fashion is aggressive (mine hate 'rude' dogs and a dog bounding up to them face them head on whether they're freindly or not upsets them but they're not aggressive toward that dog but inexperienced owners think because they're dog is friendly that dog shouldn't be told off by another dog)!

 

Or an owner who has their dog on lead and then a bouncy lab comes up and the dog on lead becomes aggressive towards them does the dog owner who has their dog under control then lose their dog becuase some idiot can't control their overfriendly lab that is rudely bounding up to all and sundry

 

ASBOs for humans have failed in that some individuals are being inappropiately made vicitms by over-zealous authorities

Edited January 10, 2008 by Rumpole
sorry i am a crap mod and my extra powers allowed me to start to edit your post instead of mine

[Rumpole]

it has already been established in law that on lead is under control so the off lead dog would usually be deemed to be the dog that approached the on lead dog unless there was witness evidence to the contrary if a fight then ensued it would be the off lead dog who was out of control in a public place so the owner of the dog on lead would not even be prosecuted let alone risk losing their dog the numpty who allowed off lead dog to bug yours though would be open to prosecution.

 

the above is only in response to the scenario you posted as the parameters as to what level of aggression and in what circumstances would be liable to what level of punishment is not set in stone, both proposals posted by melp are still up for discussion and are also not set in stone.

it is discussion and debate and suggestions and all of those being listened to and considered that makes a good law instead of a knee jerk reaction

[Ramsey]

I dont think its too bad, better than some proposals/opinions ive heard.

 

Havent re read it again properly but read the NDWA when I was an animal welfare officer and thought it was very good.. unfortunately I was told by my 'collagues' (who arent members) to put it in the bin when I suggested they read it

Lets just say they thought going to court and seizing 'pit bulls' made their day more interesting