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

[Melp]

[kola]

"The dogs will be micro-chipped to track their future behaviour "

 

Really? I wonder if they know something about microchipping that I don't.

 

 

maybe it's a special kinda chip

 

amanda x

[blackmagic]

The current progress of the Control of Dogs Scotland Bill can be found here, along with details of the Bill, explanatory notes etc

 

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/29-dogControl/index.htm

[gremlin22]

a little off topic, but could someone with a better understanding clarify for me, if my dog, whilst on a lead, is approached by a dog she doesn't like and it pesters her and she goes for it, nipping but potentially breaking skin. Can i be prosecuted? my dog is tetchy with some other dogs, she's never drawn blood but she can make some horrid noises. is she at risk of an order? even if kept on lead?

[Rumpole]

not at the moment no she isnt at risk as currently section three only applies where an injury is caused to a person or the person has reasonable apprehension that they may be injured, dog on dog incidents are not covered by the dda although could now be covered under the animal welfare act under causing unnecessary suffering laws, though this is usually used in cases where dogs have been set deliberately on other dogs not for accidental squabbles.

 

Incidentally if the dog that approaches you is off lead and yours is on lead then there are grounds under the 1871 dogs act for you to bring an action that the other dog was acting dangerously, this act is civil and dangerously is a general term not just applicable towards people.

[gremlin22]

useful to know, thankyou. Put my mind a little at rest there. Was getting a bit panicky about my dog.

[Ian]

Had completely missed this until I came across this today - worrying about the costs of "dog asbos"

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8480994.stm

 

Having googled I think that the English version reads even more ominously than the Scottish. How close to getting these through are they?

[blackmagic]

I don't know about the English Bill, but the Scottish Bill has support.

 

The only queries were on costs to LA's.

 

The English Bill seems much more draconian as in the Scottish Bill PTS is only ordered by the court.

 

What is worrying is that

 

For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as having been in an attack

 

if it has bitten, mauled or injured a person or another animal.

 

How will that square with hunting vermin with dogs?

 

and what about the dogs who chase rabbits, squirrels etc.? That could come under

 

For the purposes of this Act, a dog is out of control if—

(a) it is not being kept under control effectively and consistently (by whatever means) by the proper person, and

(b) its behaviour (or, irrespective of its behaviour, its size and power) give rise to reasonable—

(i) alarm, or

(ii) apprehensiveness,

on the part of any individual.

 

The apprehensiveness mentioned in subsection (3)(b)(ii) may be as to (any or all)—

 

(a) the individual’s own safety,

(b) the safety of some other person,

© or the safety of an animal other than the dog in question.

 

It will be up to 'official' as to what is 'reasonable ' cause for apprehension.( explanatory notes for Scottish Bill)

[Ian]

The apprehensiveness mentioned in subsection (3)(b)(ii) may be as to (any or all)

 

(a) the individual's own safety,

(b) the safety of some other person,

© or the safety of an animal other than the dog in question.

 

It will be up to 'official' as to what is 'reasonable ' cause for apprehension.( explanatory notes for Scottish Bill)

 

That one to me is even more liable to abuse as anybody with any old grudge against you, a neighbour annoyed by barking dogs or just with a dislike of dogs generally for example could easily "decide" they'd felt apprehensive as you passed with your dog. If you haven't even got a court case to argue the defence it could to me make even the DDA seem "dog friendly" in comparison

Edited January 28, 2010 by Ian

[blackmagic]

That one to me is even more liable to abuse as anybody with any old grudge against you, a neighbour annoyed by barking dogs or just with a dislike of dogs generally for example could easily "decide" they'd felt apprehensive as you passed with your dog. If you haven't even got a court case to argue the defence it could to me make even the DDA seem "dog friendly" in comparison

 

 

 

or the dog that barks at the cat next door?

[lester]

That would be the " Dog dancers " charter around here; definitely written by the Antidog taliban.

[Ian]

It appears the Kennel Club may not be the only ones in favour, the RSPCA too?

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/animal-welfare/rspca-welcomes-dog-control-bill-in-the-house-of-lords-$1317986$366366.htm

 

 

Date for progressing in England tbc by the look of this http://news.parliament.uk/2009/04/dog-control-bill/

[kola]

Stage 1 report on the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill;

 

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/lgc/reports-10/lgr10-01.htm

 

(A long read!)

[celeste]

I've only read a fraction of the report, it really is very loooong, although I was heartened to see this section.

 

 

68. The Committee is also concerned about the inclusion of the term “size and power†in this section. It considers that the term should be removed on the basis that a dog’s breed is only one factor that might affect its behaviour. The Committee believes that the reference undermines a key principle of the Bill which seeks to focus on the deed and not the breed of a dog.

[PennyB]

This has now been passed it seems, full bill is here: Scottish Dog Control

 

 

1. The bill modernises the law on control of dogs. It enables local authorities to impose measures on the owner, or the person in charge, of a dog where that person has failed to keep the dog under control. It also extends the liability of a person where a dog is dangerously out of control under the dangerous dogs act 1991 to all places, not only public places.

 

2. The bill repeals the dogs act 1871 ("the 1871 act"). Section 2 of that act enables a court to make an order that a dog has to be kept under control by the owner or destroyed following a complaint that it is dangerous and not kept under proper control. The bill replaces requirements under the 1871 act with a new regime of dog control notices which can be issued by local authorities without application to the courts. The dangerous dogs act 1989, which extends and supplements the 1871 act, is also repealed.

 

3.Subsection (3) makes provision as to when a dog is out of control. This requires both that the proper person is not keeping the dog under control effectively and consistently, and that the behaviour of the dog, or the size and power of the dog, gives rise to alarm or apprehensiveness on the part of any person. The two parts of the test require to be met. A dog which is large and powerful and which might otherwise cause alarm or apprehensiveness but is kept under control by the proper person is not out of control. Whereas a dog which may not be large or powerful but behaves in a manner which causes alarm or apprehensiveness and the proper person fails to control it effectively is out of control. The alarm and apprehensiveness must also be reasonable. This means that the behaviour of the dog and any resulting alarm or apprehensiveness will be viewed from an objective standpoint.

Edited April 14, 2010 by PennyB