Dog on dog attacks, law, muzzles etc.

[Cotham Marble]

Originally Posted by APC

I need to safeguard the visitors to my park but the law doesn't seem to recognise early warnings, therefore I don't appreciate any backup if I insist on them muzzling inside the park gates.

Is this a private or public park ? If private then the owners are free to set whatever conditions of access they may choose. For a public open space it is up to the governing authority to set Bylaws - without meeting the relevant requirements for agreeing and publicising a Bylaw, a condition of access would very likely be unenforceable. There would additionally be issues of boundary definition, i.e if the area were not adequately enclosed a condition of access probably wouldn't achieve legal strength.

In terms of the situation you describe, there is a possibility of legal intervention -albeit after the fact, rather than as any preventiative solution. The attack - a function of one dog not being adequately restrained - resulted in a) distress for the owners of the attacked dog, b) injury to the attacked dog, thus a harm has resulted which may be liable to criminal and/or civil action. It's going to depend on the complainants pursuing such action as even where it is obvious there's a criminal action, the police may be unwilling to refer a case for prosection without a complaint being made. But if a formal complaint is lodged, then the police are duty bound to investigate (this is different from the police just turning up having been called out - it's point that is often overlooked). It's then up to the CPS to formulate what any charges may be laid. For a civil case the harm would have to be assessable - a vet's bill for example, or doctor's report on the effects of the distress caused to the attacked dogs owners. Although it may not be available in the case you describe, a dog owner that acts in such a way that their dog causes suffering to another animal, could be liable under cruelty to animals legislation and it's just possible that the RSPCA may be interested in taking on such a case.

Of course very often people just don't want the hassle of involving the law, and they respond merely by avoiding the problem in future, but if the owners of uncontrolled dogs knew that they were going to have pay in cash terms, then they would probably be more circumspect over their control of their dogs.

CM

[John_M]

All very well saying there should be a course or test before anyone is allowed to own a dog, but it would be extremely difficult to monitor and enforce such a law. We have a law which requires drivers of vehicles to pass a test before a license is granted, but this does not stop the minority who drive without a license, while disqualified, or whilst under the influence of drink, drugs or tiredness; and the police are actively interested in catching these people. They are unlikely to be so assiduous in determining whether a dog is 'legally' owned. This is not through any form of negligence on the part of our police, but because they have many more pressing matters to address.
I think it's unlikely that the irresponsible minority of dog owners would bother with a license, especially if they needed to learn how to control their animals, while responsible dog owners would attend these courses and gain very little from them, because they already know how to look after their animals.
If my dog was being attacked, I would have no hesitation whatsoever in removing the attacking animal, by whatever means necessary, and will worry about the law at a later date.

[Snidge]

In my opinion the difficulty with the law as it stands is proving 'dangerously out of control' - without injury or serious incident there is no evidence - only opinion. There is nothing preventative in the legislation therefore no power to do anything without evidence. Neither wonder then that the Police can't do much until after the event when a tragedy occurs (but that won't stop people blaming them anyway).
So - if it is safe to do so - why not provide evidence and record whatever is happening and then present the recording to the Police. The park may'be has CCTV already but if not even a 'mobile phone camera could be useful. I wouldn't do it if I thought personal safety was at risk but I'd have no qualms about dropping someone with an out of control dog right in it with a recording.
Also don't forget the Local Authority has powers usually invested in dog wardens; they can also help and do seize lots of dogs here.
ASBO legislation can be applied to failing to control a dog and a recording is a great place to start. (a google search shows it has been done for hare coursers dogs and dogs bred for fighting).

[wizzo]

Originally Posted by Billabong Karen

Almost as bad are dog owners who allow their dogs to race around unchecked, chasing and harrying wildlife. I've said it before and will do so again - there should be a mandatory 'dog owners licence', including a course and test, before anyone should be allowed to own a dog.

I couldn't agree more Karen. It's awful to watch your beloved pet being savaged by another dog. Just this week in Bristol there has been a story of a German Shepard being attacked and killed in a public place by three huge dogs, and then the horrified owner being bitten on the head and face by the dogs when she had tried to stop the attack. The court couldn't rule that the dogs had to be distroyed because they were identical and it wasn't possible to determine exactly which dog/s, had actually bitten the woman. The fact that her dog had been killed didn't seem to matter and the dogs are still alive to maybe kill a child or another pet in the future. Believe it or not, this is the second registered attack by these dogs on another animal!! This is definately a law that needs looking at/ammending. Wizzo

[Kayleigh]

My friend was bitten badly by a dog as she was on the persons property being invited onto the property may I add the dog then attacked her..
She reported the incident to the police and they said as it was on private land there is nothing they can do even though the dog has bitten before.

[Wild-Woman]

Perhaps the enforcement of muzzles for dogs should be considered in public spaces?

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by Kayleigh

My friend was bitten badly by a dog as she was on the persons property being invited onto the property may I add the dog then attacked her..
She reported the incident to the police and they said as it was on private land there is nothing they can do even though the dog has bitten before.

I'm very surprised - an assault is an assault, whether it's carried out on private land or not!

Jim

[Kayleigh]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

I'm very surprised - an assault is an assault, whether it's carried out on private land or not!

Jim

Yes, it surprised me too when nothing was done as it was classed as a guard dog.

[stevecurtis]

Maybe of interest,
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and Dogs Act 1871

In the case of Briscoe -v- Shattock QBD 12 October 1998 it was held that a dog could be considered "dangerous" and "not kept under proper control" within the meaning of Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, even if the only danger shown was to other dogs, and not to humans. Being dangerous reflected the dog's disposition not his acts.

This applies to any dog, of any breed. The quote from the Act above means that any dog which is a bit lively might commit an offence if not kept under control - this could be your dog too! For example, we understand a farmer was prosecuted and fined under this section of the Act when his aggressive dogs intimidated walkers on a public footpath, even though the dogs were on private land and behind a fence (sorry, no reference to this case).