7th October 2006

Dangerous Dogs – What Dog Owners Need To Know

Read more: Behaviour Dogs | Comments (2)

The tragic attack on five-year-old Ellie Lawrenson by her uncle's pit-bull type dog, has re-opened the debate on dangerous dogs and how the law can protect our children.

Back in October, a baby was killed at home by two Rottweilers. At that time The Observer published a story about proposed changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which was amended in 1997 but still comes woefully short of protecting the public, owners and their pets. The newspaper claimed that lawyers "have drafted proposals that would force owners to pay up to £5,000 compensation to victims and spend up to six months in jail if they defy court orders to keep their dogs muzzled or on a lead."

It went on to claim that "recommendations from the Dog Legislation Advisory Group, backed by the Met, with the personal support of Commissioner Ian Blair, also give provision to officers to raid homes where they suspect dangerous dogs are being kept."

According to the leaked documents, "a much broader, definition of "dangerous" has also been drawn up. This makes owners liable if someone is afraid that a dog might become dangerous. Action will be taken if a member of the public can "reasonably believe that any person or animal is likely to be caused harm". This means, says The Observer, that for the first time, Britain's 5 million dog owners may be liable for prison or heavy fines if their pet is considered to have behaved dangerously in their own home or garden.

The far-reaching proposals were formulated this summer and until now have remained a secret.

Superintendent Simon Ovens, a Scotland Yard expert on dangerous dogs, told The Observer that the Met had decided to act following an increasing number of incidents involving aggressive dogs. He confirmed work had started to persuade the government to "amend the existing Dogs Act".

Phil Buckley of the Kennel Club told the paper that the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act was recently described to him by a number of politicians as being "one of the worst pieces of legislation ever agreed. It's about time that we get away from targeting specific breeds."

Campaigners claim that the act, which makes it illegal to own four specified breeds without specific exemption from a court, is futile. Last week the government faced calls for Rottweilers to be added to the list, following the death of five-month old baby Cadey-Lee Deacon, but charities say simply adding more breed names to the Act will not achieve what is needed.

Dogs Trust explains the current legislation as follows:

"In 1990 and 1991 there was a sudden increase in the number of UK newspaper reports of dog attacks although there was no apparent rise in the number of dog bites. Initially, reports concentrated on the Rottweiler breed.

"During 1991 the emphasis seemed to shift to the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT). In 1991, in a knee-jerk reaction to public outrage, the Government introduced a hastily-produced and poorly thought out piece of legislation, the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991.

"The DDA 1991 contained two main sections:

"Section 1 of the Act stipulated that owners of the "type of dog known as a pit bull terrier" and three other breeds (Japanese tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Braziliero) had to fulfil certain strict requirements. These included keeping the dog muzzled and on a lead at all times in a public place, having the dog insured and neutered with the aim of the breeds becoming extinct in the UK. Owners of these dogs were not permitted to give away or sell their dogs and any dog of a prescribed breed or type had to fulfil all of the requirements of the DDA 1991 by November 1991 or would become illegal. Owners were also given the option of accepting a token compensation from the government for having their dogs voluntarily destroyed. Individuals of these breeds were and still are banned from being imported into Britain.

"The second part of the DDA 1991, Section 3, affects all dogs regardless of breed. It makes it a criminal offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place. This includes any instance during which an injury of any sort occurs or there is a fear that an injury might occur.

"Under the DDA 1991, owners convicted of having either an "illegal dog" or a dog which has injured a person for any reason, no matter how minor the injury, could have received a criminal record, up to £5000 fine and up to six months in prison. The dog would have been destroyed."

Unfortunately the legislation was difficult to enforce as the APBT is not recognised by the Government or the UK Kennel Club as a pure breed, so prosecutions tended to get tied up in proving the dog’s genetic background, rather than whether or not the individual dog or owner had posed a threat to anyone.

From 1992 to 1997, at least 770 destruction orders were made against dogs under this Act. There were thirteen dogs that had exhausted all legal process while awaiting destruction and seven dogs in limbo, as there were no legal proceedings against them but the police refused to return them to their owners. Dogs held in limbo may be kept by the police indefinitely, at a cost to the British taxpayer of £23,000 per year.

When a dog is suspected to be illegal, the police seize it and take it to a secret location. It is almost impossible for the owner to visit the dog and welfare reports on the dogs in police care are rarely forthcoming. In 1997, the average length of incarceration for a dog in these cases was two years and four months. The longest period for any dog being held was over seven years.

Dogs Trust worked to change this legislation and also cared for registered "pit bull terriers" at its Rehoming Centres for the rest of their lives, since they cannot be legally rehomed.

Dogs Trust (then known as the NCDL), as Secretariat to the DDA Reform Group, put constant pressure on the Government to amend the injustices of the Act. In March 1997 the DDA Amendment Bill was successfully passed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords and received Royal Assent. This resulted in the following changes to the 1991 Act, which came into effect in June 1997:

"If a dog owner is charged under Section 1, the court may allow the owner to register their dog, providing it is satisfied that the dog does not constitute a general danger and, if the dog was born before November 1991, that the owner had a good reason for not having registered it before this date. In cases where a destruction order was placed on a dog before the amendments were introduced the destruction order will no longer have effect. The case should be returned to court for the magistrate to consider whether or not to exercise discretion. However, the emphasis remains on destruction.

"If a dog owner is charged under Section 3, the court may exercise discretion as long as it is satisfied that the dog does not constitute a general danger to the public. In cases where a destruction order was placed on a dog before the amendments were introduced, the destruction order will not be carried out. The case should be returned to court, where the magistrate may exercise discretion. As in Section 1 cases, there will be a presumption in favour of destruction. However, although Dogs Trust says it considers these developments to be positive, it does not support or condone breed-specific legislation.

In 2000, the DDA Reform Group's activities came to an end, mainly due to the fact that most of the dogs incarcerated under Section 1 of the Act have died in custody and the eradication of the banned breeds is sadly almost complete.

The DDA Reform Group was disbanded, and the Dog Legislation Advisory Group was formed, with the Kennel Club acting as Secretariat. Following Germany’s introduction of punitive breed specific legislation and the UK’s part in the European Union, it became apparent that this type of anti-dog legislation must be monitored and combated, both at European level and worldwide. The DLAG was formed primarily to encompass and monitor such breed specific legislation globally, as well as reviewing other issues such as political party manifestos and dog fighting legislation.

The RSPCA agrees with Dogs Trust that the current breed-specific legislation is unhelpful.

"Fundamentally, what is needed is responsible pet ownership," says RSPCA chief veterinary officer, Steve Cheetham. "Under the new Animal Welfare Act, due to become law next spring, pet owners will have a duty of care to their animals. Hopefully this increase in responsibility will lead to more dogs being owned by people who can look after them properly, leading to less problems of aggression."

The RSPCA says that the Dangerous Dogs Act goes against the its belief that that the focus should be on the deed, not the breed. All dogs have the potential to be dangerous if trained to attack, but it is the training that should be questioned, not the type of dog.

Dog owners should train their pets to be sociable and by doing this potentially dangerous situations can be avoided. Factors that can lead to aggression in dogs include:

• keeping a dog cooped up or chained in one place for long periods of time
• hot weather
• noise
• a change of home and owner
• pack instinct if two dogs or more are together
• lack of socialising early in life

If dogs and children are sharing the same environment, everyone needs to be aware of the potential risk, says the RSPCA. Some dogs are wonderful with children, others might react if they are provoked.

The RSPCA recommends neutering for pets and this can also reduce aggression in male dogs.

As more newspapers report on attacks by dangerous dogs, we at PetHealthCare wait to see if the Government will confirm the leaked reports of new legislation, and speed up their introduction. We'll keep you posted.

Laws Directly Affecting Dog Owners

Your legal responsibility as a dog owner – kindly supplied by Dogs Trust

As a responsible dog owner, it is important for you to meet with the requirements of the law.

There are a number of Acts and Orders which all dog owners should be aware of.

Control of Dogs Order 1992

This requires that every dog, while in a public place, wears a collar with the name and address of his owner inscribed on it or on a disc attached to it. If a collar is not worn when out in a public place, the dog may be seized by the police and treated as a stray. Also the owner, and any person in charge of the dog permitting him to be in a public place without a collar, will each be guilty of an offence and may be prosecuted and fined.

If your dog does stray, you should immediately contact your local dog warden (through the Environmental Health Department at your local council) and the local police station. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 allows for your dog to be seized and sold or destroyed if unclaimed after a seven day period.

Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (outside London) and Metropolitan Police Act 1839 (London)

These Acts make it an offence to allow an unmuzzled, ferocious dog to be left at large, or for a person to set on or to urge any dog attack, worry or put in fear any person or animal in the street.

Dogs Act 1871

Under this Act, a court may, upon complaint that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control, order the owner to keep him under proper control or to be destroyed.

Animals Act 1971

Under this Act a dog may be shot, without warning, by a farmer for worrying his livestock and the owner could face criminal prosecution for the same offence under the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953.

Road Traffic Act 1988

This makes it an offence to have a dog on a designated road without the dog being held on a lead.

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005

This Act allows local authorities to designate areas of land where dogs must be kept on leads, or where dogs are excluded and also place limits on the number of dogs walked by a single person.

Guard Dogs Act 1975

It is an offence to use or permit the use of a guard dog on any premises unless the handler, who is capable of controlling him, is present on the premises and the dog is under control. The dog must be secured so that he is not at liberty to go about the premises. A warning that a guard dog is present must be clearly exhibited at each entrance to the premises.

Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991

There are two main sections to this Act. Section 1 applies to four specific breeds of dog including ‘the type of dog known as the pit bull terrier’. Owners of these breeds had to comply with certain legal requirements, including having their dog registered, neutered, microchipped and tattooed. One of the main problems with this law is that the pit bull terrier is not a recognised breed in the UK. As a result, many owners of cross breeds which resemble a pit bull terrier ‘type’ have been charged under the Act.

Section 3 applies to all dogs, making it a criminal offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place. This includes instances where there is fear that an injury might occur.

Owners found guilty under either section of the Act could have their dog destroyed, face the possibility of six months in prison and/or a fine not exceeding level 5 (at present up to £5,000).

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005

Local authorities have the power to introduce and enforce dog fouling byelaws under which a person in charge of a dog can be heavily fined for allowing dogs to foul in a public place. This designated land may include roads, parks and other public areas within the local authority’s boundaries; in fact any land which is open to the air and to which the public are permitted to have access. An offence is committed if a person in charge of a dog fails to clean up its faeces. It is no defence to claim ignorance of the dog's actions, the law, or not to have a device available to remove the faeces. This could result in a prosecution and fine.