Hi all, We went to a local fayre this morning and took Harv along with us to continue his socialisation - lots of people of all ages, other dogs, noisy brass band, etc etc. Just as we were leaving a young child, sporting a tiger face thanks to the face-painting tent, leapt in front of Harvey (about 2 feet away), raised his hands in the air and shouted the best tiger's roar that he could manage! Fortunately Harv just stood still and looked a little confused but it got me thinking ... what would the position be, legally speaking, if this child's actions had frightened Harv into reacting? What if Harv had barked, or lunged towards the child, or performed any other reaction that would, in my view, have been quite understandable given what the child did? What if, in those circumstances, the situation was compounded by the parents of said tiger child alleging that they felt Harvey might injure their child? As I read the (revised in 2014) Dangerous Dogs Act just having this 'feeling' is sufficient grounds to bring a complaint, no actual injury needs to have been incurred. It seems terribly one-sided to me and open to abuse. I should add that this is just a hypothetical query. The parents in question actually told the child off for his actions but I can just imagine how some parents would react (I'm sure you all know the sort).
Re: Dangerous Dogs Act - hypothetical query There have actually been no changes to this part of the Act - it is as it has always been (this despite much alarmist publicity by those opposed to other changes). It is subject to a reasonable test - it is not that someone felt threatened, but that they reasonably felt threatened. I wouldn't worry if my friendly Labrador was on a lead and unable to reach a child. I do not think it is reasonable for anyone (including children) to feel threatened by a friendly dog that was unable to reach them. That said, I also don't think it depends on the actions of the child. Unfortunately, there is no test set out for when parents are required to have kids on leads. So if your dog is around kids they do need to be pretty much bombproof (as Harv is, of course).
Re: Dangerous Dogs Act - hypothetical query Thanks for that Julie. Harv is pretty good but there will always be those things that you haven't included in your socialisation (like face-painted children!) or a combination of unforeseen events that could result in an unexpected reaction. What if, still on his lead, he had barked or growled at the child out of shock or fear? Who then decides whether the child may reasonably have felt threatened? What concerns me is the potential for, how shall I put it?, "mischief" claims.
Re: Dangerous Dogs Act - hypothetical query [quote author=UncleBob link=topic=10819.msg161335#msg161335 date=1430862898] What if, still on his lead, he had barked or growled at the child out of shock or fear? Who then decides whether the child may reasonably have felt threatened? [/quote] A court would decide. You would have to be prosecuted for having a dangerous dog, and if you were found guilty there could be a civil case for follow on damages. The guidance to enforcers of section 3 (the section you are concerned about) is that: "This section should only be used in the most serious incidents investigated by enforcers, and generally it would be the police that would instigate proceedings under this section, however local authorities are able to act under this legislation also. " This is about a criminal offence - and the burden of proof is the criminal standard. At least, that's how I understand it. A normally perfectly friendly labrador, on lead, barking at a child acting in a stupid way is not "the most serious incident" that the police would be called on to deal with. That's my bet, anyway.
Re: Dangerous Dogs Act - hypothetical query Thanks Julie. I feel a little better (but I wish I could un-read what I've read about this Act! :)
Re: Dangerous Dogs Act - hypothetical query [quote author=UncleBob link=topic=10819.msg161338#msg161338 date=1430863805] I wish I could un-read what I've read about this Act! : [/quote] Yes. My take on it is that I think a lot of lobby groups wanted a lot of things from that Act, and didn't get it. In the process of lobbying, a great deal of alarmist nonsense was written about the Bill, including how dreadful the proposals would be for ordinary dog owners. As far as I can tell, just about nothing changed for ordinary dog owners.... But that's just my take on it, of course.
Re: Dangerous Dogs Act - hypothetical query When these things go to court they ask professional dog trainers to assess the dogs too. I went on a course with one such chap. He seemed to be looking at the general temperament of the dog and the extent to which it'd been trained - in particular how good it's recall was, how attentive to it's name it was, those kind of things. From that he gave an overall view of it's level of dangerousness which I guess contributed to whether or not it was "reasonable" to be scared.
Re: Dangerous Dogs Act - hypothetical query Of course, it's always the good, ordinary, reliable, caring dog owners who worry. And those who should, don't. :'( :'( :'( I visited a Guide Dog owner yesterday whose dog (Lewis, the most gorgeous, waggy dog I've ever met) was attacked by a dog on an extending lead. He had to have six stitches on his leg :'( Lewis has got over it - but his owner hasn't. Of course he can't see other dogs and so take steps to avoid them. Now they are thinking of letting pet dogs on Manchester trams, so he wouldn't even feel safe there I think all extending leads should be banned - owner + mobile phone + extending lead = disaster for GDOs. At least the new act means that the owner would face prosecution.
Re: Dangerous Dogs Act - hypothetical query I don't think there's anything wrong with extending leads except where they're used as a substitute for training or paying attention to your dog and the environment. I do think there should be more legal protection for dogs attacked and in particular guide dogs or assistance dogs
Re: Dangerous Dogs Act - hypothetical query [quote author=bbrown link=topic=10819.msg161374#msg161374 date=1430914292] I don't think there's anything wrong with extending leads except where they're used as a substitute for training or paying attention to your dog and the environment. [/quote] Yes - the problem is that so many people do just that - they have untrained dogs they pay no attention to on extending leads
Re: Dangerous Dogs Act - hypothetical query Taking extendable leads away will sadly not cure their idiocy. I'm afraid we (and their poor dogs) are stuck with it!
Re: Dangerous Dogs Act - hypothetical query Well from what I've read here I'm stuffed !!! My only defence is when my dogs bark at people they move backwards trying to move away from them not towards them. I asked my sisters friend, whose in the police, what the law was with dog on dog attacks after our couple of incidents with the Tibetan terrier. Apparently if reported the owner could be given a ticket for having an out of control dog and fined £75. However if my dogs had fought back defending themselves and injured the Tibetan terrier it's owner could have reported us and my dogs would be classed as dangerous dogs even though the other dog had attacked first !!! I sometimes think it gets forgotten that dogs are dogs. Even the most placid dog can react badly under stressful circumstances no matter how bombproof it might be.
Re: Dangerous Dogs Act - hypothetical query This is the process that an enforcer should follow in the event that a dog "Is considered aggressive, dangerous or is there any concern for public safety or animal welfare?" It involves a prosecution - you would have to be prosecuted and go through a court hearing (at which you could defend yourself) before anyone could classify your dog as dangerous. I honestly do not think that most careful Labrador owners have much to be concerned about. DDA by julieandcharlie, on Flickr
