DOGS - WHAT'S THE ANSWER?

Only four breeds of dog – the pit bull terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro – are banned from being kept under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but the provisions of the Act relating to dogs dangerously out of control are enforceable against all dogs. However, out of at least 27 deaths from dog attacks from 2006, only two are said to have been from these illegal breeds, highlighting the ineffectiveness of the legislation. There were 6,302 hospital admissions in 2012/13 from attacks by dogs, according to the Health and Social Care Information Centre.

On 13 May 2014 new changes to the dogs legislation came into force, under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act. These are designed to deal with the inadequacies of the previous laws.

Even the older legislation says that a dog doesn't have to bite a person in order to be regarded as dangerously out of control. If a person feels that the dog may injure them, the law still applies.

But the new changes now extend to incidents involving dogs on private property, which wasn't covered in the old Act. Anyone who feels threatened by your dog when they come onto your premises or to your door could potentially put you at risk of prosecution under the new Act. No doubt people like postmen and others delivering letters or parcels, even electioneering leaflets to houses, will welcome the new laws.

If the person attacked is a burglar or trespasser your dog may not be considered dangerously out of control if it is in a building that is your private dwelling at the time of the attack. However, this does not cover incidents in your back or front garden.

The new legislation now provides that dog owners could receive up to a maximum of fourteen years imprisonment if a person dies as a result of dog inflicted injuries and five years if a person is injured. There are also penalties imposed for attacks by other dogs on assistance dogs (for the blind, deaf etc).

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has set out plans to make it compulsory for all dogs in England to be microchipped from April 2016. The Welsh Government has undertaken consultations on microchipping and intends to bring forward legislation that microchipping will be compulsory from April 2015.

But there are doubts that the new legislation and measures will have the required impact.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has branded the plans to protect the public  as "woefully inadequate".

The Committee and animal experts have called for stronger measures that are focused on prevention – urging Defra to do more to improve dog welfare linked to dog breeding, instead of relying on voluntary action.

Both MPs and dog charities have called on the Government to introduce powerful new Dog Control Notices, which already exist in Scotland, that could force potentially dangerous dogs to be neutered, muzzled, kept on a lead and could also require out-of-control dogs and their owners to undergo training until their animal is brought back under control.

So what's the answer?

Well in my opinion having better legislation that brings the dog owners to book after the event isn't. However it was appropriate to strengthen the existing laws where if a person was injured by a dog on private land it seemed that the law offered little or no redress, and to increase the penalties that might apply if a dangerous dog has injured or killed someone. Only this week two negligent owners of an extremely powerful dog received jail sentences of a just a year each, despite their dog chewing an elderly man's arm off and leaving the other hanging by a thread. Needless to say, the man died of his injuries. If they'd been prosecuted under the new laws they would undoubtedly have been imprisoned for longer.

It's an old cliche but you'll always hear it said that there are no bad dogs, only bad owners. Only partly right, I'm afraid. There are dogs, pure-bred and cross breed that have been engineered by selective breeding by man to be aggressive, or to be over-protective of what they see as their territory or pack. Such dogs need extra special management in my opinion, as they are essentially bred for the purposes of protection or fighting - so could be construed as "bad dogs" in the wrong hands. They are frequently large or extremely powerful dogs - we think traditionally of German Shepherds (Alsatians), Rottweilers, Dobermans etc.  Then there are the bull type breeds - Bulldogs, Pitbulls (banned), Mastiffs, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, English Bull terriers etc. These have been bred  as aggressive, fighting dogs in the past. The latter two pure-breed dogs in particular have a reputation of being OK with humans, but have the power to easily kill dogs of other breeds and severely injure or kill a human being. And they do so - regularly. Just do an internet search and find out how often such breeds have featured in stories of vicious dog attacks.

What would I do?

Firstly I'd seriously consider bringing back a licensing system for ALL dogs including assistance dogs and working dogs such as are found on farms. We had licensing until 1987 though the alleged compliance with licensing was only about 50%. I don't see why with modern technology and proper checks this figure couldn't be greatly increased. Why all dogs? Well if we are to have a register it's far easier for every dog to have to be on it. Once we start making exceptions it becomes more complicated, and more arguments about a dog not being on it for some reason. So license them all. And I'd consider making the standard licence £50 a year for each dog you have. Too much? I think not when you consider a TV licence is nearly three times that amount. But assistance dogs and working dogs would be offered a nominal rate, as would pensioners who kept dogs.

Would it bring in enough money? Well there are roughly 62 million people in the UK and an estimated 8 million dogs. So let's say one dog for every 8 people. There are about 139,000 people in NPT, so you'd expect a pretty incredible 17,375 dogs. At say £50 each that is £869K per annum in just licensing fees. Even allowing discounted fees for assistance and working dogs etc and the costs associated with collecting the licence it's still a substantial sum.

I'd use this revenue to run the dog licence/dog control body, possibly set up on Local Authority areas. Authorities would be able to offer combined services if they wished. It would have the power to issue said licences, it would have kennelling facilities, and it would link in to the Police in terms of issues that contravene the law as it applies to dog ownership and control. There are dog warden services already, of course, but the costs of these are met from the contributions of all ratepayers. Why should the non-dog owning majority have to subsidise those who keep dogs, just to deal with the problems created by dog ownership itself?

I would certainly make dog insurance compulsory. Not the type of insurance where you get your vets fees paid if your dog needs treatment (take that out if you want) but definitely third party (public) liability, so if your dog injures somebody, there is a comeback on you. Again, you could have the licensing authority running a check that when they issue the annual licence the dog has a valid insurance certificate. Third party cover only for dogs is actually relatively inexpensive.

I'd consider making all breeders of any dogs, either casual breeders, working dogs, owners that show dogs, or commercial breeders, have to register they have a breeding bitch and microchip or tattoo all offspring, and that all pups sold or given away have the details of new owners recorded. Pedigree dog owners normally already have their bitches registered with individual breed clubs or the Kennel Club and often microchip puppies and record who they are sold to but I'd make this apply to all dogs. That way, in time a comprehensive database of all dogs and their owners would be built up. I'd also consider making the deaths of dogs on the database registrable. As stated elsewhere microchipping will likely be introduced in the near future anyway.

I would also introduce the Dog Control Notices which could require an owner to take certain steps to ensure their dog (and owner) behaved responsibly and was safe to be in a public place. I think this is one of the key measures missing from the new laws. It's of little recompense to someone who has been badly injured by a dangerous dog that is already of dubious reputation to know its owner faces a prison sentence. That's shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Quite frankly there are way too many people keeping dogs who should not be. Some work all day and leave their animals to fend for themselves, starved of contact with either humans or other dogs. Little wonder that such dogs can evolve socialisation and aggression issues. Others have dogs for the wrong purpose - as a social symbol or to build up their "street cred". Others just have the wrong breed of dog for their lifestyle. If you can only walk a few hundred yards you'd be daft to have a dog that should get vigorous exercise for a couple of hours a day.

As an incentive to properly socialising a dog, I'd offer large discounts on licence fees for dogs according to what tests they pass. For example, the Kennel Club run Good Citizen Dog Awards at four different levels. Dogs passing these tests show different levels of obedience and control. Tests are frequently undertaken in the presence of other dogs, which does suggest an element of socialisation of the animals, though this does not form part of the current tests. All owners should be encouraged to take their dogs along to dog classes run by the many voluntary clubs throughout the UK, not just when they are puppies but throughout their lives. Too many dogs do not receive proper instruction in socialisation with other dogs and humans. You could feasibly tie in regular attendance at socialisation classes with some sort of discount on dog licensing fees.

All dogs in a public place such as a street, a public park should be kept under close control i.e. on a lead. This won't be popular with many dog owners but a minority of poor owners have spoiled things for the majority. I would give the licensing authority and the police the powers to issue official warnings to owners who do not comply with these rules, leading to heavy fines, even confiscation of your dog(s) if you continue to ignore these rules. I'd encourage the establishment of no-go areas for dogs in parts of public parks etc just like we have on beaches at the moment.

I would hazard a guess that very few if any of the dogs responsible for the deaths of people listed at the start of this article were properly socialised. If I was proved to be wrong then I'd have to rethink what I now believe. I am not sticking up for all dogs regardless. I do not like certain breeds, particularly the bull type breeds whose power and aggression is frightening. Any dog is capable of inflicting serious injury, even worse, but I've rarely heard of certain breeds savagely attacking another breed of dog, or even worse, a human. I'd maintain the ban on the four breeds that I've already referred to, but give serious consideration to it being extended to other breeds of aggressive, fighting dogs as well.

Dogs properly cared for, trained and socialised, are the most wonderful animals. But in the wrong hands they can be an absolute nightmare.

I do not like the state imposing laws that restrict how we conduct our affairs. However, on an overcrowded island I think the evidence is already there that something has to be done to protect the wider public from the problems of aggressive dogs. The really unfortunate thing is that often the majority of decent people (think good dog owners) might have to suffer because of the fact that a minority couldn't give a toss. But isn't this always the way? Some won't tax and insure their cars, some won't pay TV Licence, some will shoplift, some will dump their rubbish rather than take it to the tip. The sad fact is that there will always be a small element that will spoil things for the rest. In a liberal democracy I guess that's something we have to put up with. I don't like it but I think (only marginally as I get older) I'd prefer it to an authoritarian regime.

Before I'm inundated with complaints from dog owners, let me say I've kept dogs most of my adult life and still have a faithful furry friend. I've become a better owner of a dog over the years. It's like everything - the more practice you get, the better you become. And what I've learned is the key is socialisation of your dog with other dogs and humans in as wide a variety of situations as possible. Have respect for non-dog owners: not everyone likes dogs, lots are even afraid. So have the courtesy to closely control your dog in public places. Don't let it or them run onto a human being or another animal without checking it's OK first. Simple really isn't it? All it takes is a sense of responsibility and an awareness of other people's feelings. Just like most things in life.

.........................................................................