“But some campaigners, including the RSPCA, warn that all dogs are potential killers, and the danger lies in "deed not breed.”
THE REASONS FOR ESTABLISHING THIS SITE:
After not being able to find a site dealing in any way with attacks by what some people call pets, not guard or working dogs, it was decided to open one.
The policy of this site will be to present a balanced argument for legislation
giving stronger control over the ownership and handling of all dogs, but those who
have statistically proved aggressive towards humans in particular. This policy is
NOT anti-
The intention for the moment is to gather statistics from the authorities and the stories of victims and to campaign for changes in the law. Personal details of victims will not be published, only the story and the location. If you are not a victim but have an opinion that will also be considered for publication, but the site reserves the right to refuse or edit any contribution.
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is a very weak law that is open to interpretation ( e.g. “under control” merely means on a lead; the lead could be several feet long and held by a five stone teenage girl that has no chance of holding a large dog back, Rottweilers can be double that weight).
The Animals Act 1971 has more general powers, but some claim that it only has application where animals get onto a public road and cause an accident.
THE AIMS:
1. That ALL dog owners have to obtain third party insurance against damage or injury by their dogs and that evidence of this be carried at all times. Failure to obtain such cover to result in a criminal prosecution.
2. That a second category of Potentially Dangerous Dog be established. This should include those dogs that, statistically, have been the major cause of injury to humans or animals. The muzzling of these types of dogs in public should be compulsory.
The funding for this site is, at the moment, solely drawn from the savings of the site owner. Obtaining official information via the Freedom of Information Act can be expensive for an individual. Adverts or sponsorship would be very welcome.
Sponsors and other financial supporters will be given credit on the site unless they do not wish to be mentioned.
Charity status may be sought if the site proves popular and there are enough active supporters to form a committee.
The Kennel Club and the originator of this site have agreed on a form of words that expresses our relative and mutual positions:
"Though the victims of irresponsible dog owners and the Kennel Club may disagree on the means of protecting the public there are areas of accord. We have discussed the matter and we are in agreement that the
Dangerous Dogs Act is flawed and needs amending, a matter that they are currently working on. We are both agreed that irresponsible ownership is the area of main concern."
The Kennel Club have also agreed to keep this site updated with news of any proposed changes in the law.
It would seem impossible to make any credible decision on the future of the control of dogs without statistics on the situation. Just how much of a problem is it and how much is it costing?
Since there are no statistics for dog attacks in the UK (that I can find) we have to rely on analysis of attacks in other countries. Click here for an abstract of an article in the British Medical Journal that has to rely on Australian figures. I can’t reproduce any of it here but it calls for control of the ownership of dogs, neutering, breed control and the collecting of statistics amongst other measures.
Even official web sites admit that statistics are not available One that talked about deaths being in single figures annually, disfigurements, disabilities and life long trauma caused by dog attacks probably have a great financial cost (since that is often the official way of looking at such problems.) But the site is now closed.
It should be added that there is a lot of research into animal welfare and plenty of statistics are available on that.
PROTECT THE PUBLIC
There is a plea from the responsible dog breeders and owners:
“Punish the deed not the breed!”
This can be answered with:
“Protect the public not the pooch!”
and
“Put the onus on the owner”
If there is any possibility that a dog may attack an innocent person (fools that tease dogs or intrude into private property where a “BEWARE GUARD DOG”, or similar, sign is displayed have only themselves to blame) then that dog should be kept at a level of control where this is not possible.
Muzzles, adequate collars and short leashes would all aid the control of the animal.
People handling or walking such animals should be able to demonstrate their ability to hold the dog back against a sudden lunge. Any owner who allows a person who is incapable of demonstrating such control to handle the dog should be considered the guilty party.
A difficult definition, in the wrong circumstances any dog is dangerous, even a small terrier can do enough damage to a human ankle to cause permanent lameness.
Rottweilers, Dobermans and Staffordshire terriers, for example, are often described as “wonderful family dogs” and there is no doubt that the vast majority of these dogs fall into this description. However, the fact that they are loving and protective in the family may make them, without suitable training, overly protective of family members outside of the home. There is also evidence from media articles to show these dogs may also attack members of their family. No dog should be fully trusted and all dogs should be trained to act properly in public.
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 names four breeds of dogs that may not be imported, bred or sold in this country, but also has aspects, especially regarding control, that count for all dogs. The problem is the Act was weakened by the dog owner’s lobby and is now badly defined and not really of much use in most cases. There is no definition of “control” and a dog on a 5 metre lead could still possibly considered to be “under control”.
The Dogs Act 1871 has much broader powers, including making it an offence to allow one’s dog to get into a situation where a member of the public merely has the apprehension that he or she might be attacked by it.
There is also the Animals Act 1971 which, basically, says that the owner of an animal is responsible for the actions of that animal no matter that the owner may not be present. There seems to be some debate in legal circles as to when this law can be applied, once again it is open to interpretation. One defining case took ten years of legal argument before being decided in the House of Lords.
See here for an interesting BBC article.
It seems that there is an alarming development where dogs are deliberately set
on members of the public. An article in the London Evening Standard adds that there
has been a 16% increase in prosecutions and a 12% increase in dog attacks in London
, to 757, last year -
The BBC has an article about dogs being the “yobs’ weapon of choice”
click here to see.
Similar points are made in an Independent article,
click here to see.
If this use of dogs continues or, worse, increases or spreads, then legislation may become necessary to strictly control the ownership and breeding of dogs. Even a small dog is dangerous if it has been trained to attack.
But, as ever, such legislation would not work unless the penalties were such that only the most hardened criminal would hesitate to risk them. With the hard core criminal fraternity no penalty would be sufficient.
In these cases all the advice about not looking at strange dogs, keeping your hands still, giving the animal a wide berth etc are not going to help. Warnings from dog wardens have no weight in law and can be ignored. Any police officer trying to intervene would also be putting him or her self at serious risk.
* It is rather ironic that the site carrying this article also had Google Ads relating to animal
It may prove difficult to obtain legal help in the case of dog attacks. The Dangerous
Dogs Act is so flawed that a lot of solicitors do not want to get involved -
If the owner of the dog has third party insurance to cover any damage or injury done by his or her dog there is a chance, but you may be asked to provide proof of this.
However, it may be possible to take out an action in the Small Claims Court though the amounts that can be claimed are limited to £1000 for any single part of a claim that includes personal injury, I.e. £1000 for injury plus £1000 for damage to property etc. (MORE ON THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT)
If your case is to come up in court via a Crown Prosecution Service prosecution
you may be awarded damages there -
The full letter is reproduced in full here, these are just extracts with comments.
The emphasis is mine.
ATTACKS BY DOGS
“Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended 1997) gives protection to the public from a dog of any type or breed which is dangerously out of control in a public place. “ This can only be interpreted as not being on a lead in my reading of the act.
“This includes any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure a person, whether or not it actually does so.” I would hate to have to argue the presence of this in a court.
“Where a dog does not cause injury but an offence is committed, the maximum
penalty is imprisonment for up to 6-
“Any person who fails to comply with an order under the 1871 Act to keep a dog under proper control or deliver it up for destruction under the 1989 Act is liable for a fine not exceeding £1,000 and the court may also disqualify that person from having custody of a dog. The strength of the Dogs Act 1871 is that, as the civil standard of proof applies, an order may be made by the court on the balance of probabilities that a dog is dangerous.” Proper control does not seem to be defined, is a dog on a five meter “reel” type lead “under proper control”?
“In 2004, the latest year for which figures are available, 177 people were found
guilty in England of failure to keep a dog under proper control under the 1871 Dogs
Act as amended. Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 a further 30 people were found
guilty of offences stemming from incidents occurring on private property where there
dog had no right to be.“ “An article in the London Evening Standard adds that there
has been a 16% increase in prosecutions and a 12% increase in dog attacks in London
, to 757, last year -
“If you wish to find more statistics on dog attacks, I would suggest that you contact the Home Office as they are the Government department responsible for collecting these figures.” That’s strange, the Home Office told me that DEFRA kept the statistics.
What is the history of dogs like Dobermans and Rottweilers? Where did they come from?
The first was the “invention” of a German postman and dog warden, Herr Doberman, in the nineteenth century. Needing an alert dog that could be aggressive when needed he crossbred many kinds of dogs to produce his ideal..
The Rottweiler is named after the German town of Rottweil, but it is said that the breed goes back to Roman times when they were used to guard and herd cattle. The breed almost died out in the nineteenth century but was gradually brought back.
As said elsewhere, these dogs may be loving family members, but no dog should
be trusted 100% and their protective nature may make them dangerous to non-
ARE YOU A VICTIM? PLEASE TELL US OF YOUR EXPERIENCE
Give no personal details except your gender and age. Where did it happen? What happened? What were your injuries?
How well did the local authorities, police and courts handle it if they were involved?
Click HERE to email, confidence guaranteed.