Dr Carri Westgarth, from the University of Liverpool’s Institute of Infection and Global Health, responds to news about changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act:
“Parliament has proposed changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act in England so that it becomes a criminal offence for a dog to bite someone in a private place, as well as a public place as it currently stands.
“Scotland have already introduced this change, the reason being that most dog bites actually occur on private property, whether that be a dog biting a familiar person in the home or attacks on postmen or other workers visiting the home or garden.
“Currently the only criminal prosecutions that can be used in this situation relate to the ownership of a banned breed, or for example some form of neglecting to care for a child properly.
“I have been watching with interest the furious debating over this proposal that is occurring between dog experts and the general public, both on the internet and during the expert evidence consultation process brought before parliament.
“Many people are against it altogether; there is a fear that because a dog only has to appear ‘dangerously out of control’ and cause ‘reasonable apprehension’ that it might bite someone, owners could be open to prosecution in unreasonable circumstances when the dog did not actually bite or the person was just very fearful of a ‘friendly’ dog.
“Firstly, I feel this is unlikely as even actual dog bite victims that I have spoken to during my research were very reluctant to report the bite due to a wish that the dog was not to blame and they did not want it to come to any harm. Secondly, one would hope that reasonable judgements would be made when deciding to criminally prosecute ‘in the interest of the public’, although some court expert witnesses report that this has not been the case in past prosecutions for incidents in public places.
“Many also feel that dogs that protect property and farm dogs should be excluded from this law. For example one member of the parliamentary committee receiving evidence commented that it should not be a problem if a working collie nipped someone, ‘because that’s what collies do’. I am sure that any tourist bitten by a farm collie might disagree with that view!.
“It also begs the question; does a collie need to be aggressive to people in order to work sheep effectively? Further, do we really need (at least free roaming as opposed to working with a handler) guard dogs these days? Why can’t we use other security such as locking valuable things away, fences and security cameras? Is it even a good life for a dog?
Bill
“Due to external pressure the bill has also been amended to exclude bite victims that were there with criminal intent. Now I ask, how is a dog supposed to tell the difference between a burglar intending to steal a bike and a child fetching his ball? As far as the dog is concerned the threat of an unfamiliar person entering their home is likely to elicit the same emotions, primarily fear, and in both situations the dog’s reaction are likely to be the same.
“I do understand the reasons why people might feel that bites to burglars for example should be excluded under a caveat. However I think society needs to clearly decide whether it is socially acceptable for dogs to bite people or not. If any exclusions apply by law, owners will always interpret their own dog and context to suit their personal needs rather than to protect others. Thus, the likelihood of the law actually preventing bites will be low.
“There is much talk about the need to ‘promote responsible dog ownership’ but until owners see a clear need that applies to them, they will not change their behaviour. Owners need to know that any dog, especially one already showing aggressive signs, must be securely contained or supervised at all times, and all reasonable precautions taken. If this became the societal norm then it just might have the desired effect of preventing future dog bites.
“Now the question of whether laws that allow prosecution after the event will have the best effect on prevention of dog bites is another case entirely. Unfortunately the new bill still does not seem to incorporate easily applied ‘dog control orders’ that could be imposed when a dog is being managed in a worrisome way, or is displaying early signs of aggression. There will always be dogs that have aggression problems but currently only a few owners feel the incentive to try to effectively manage or treat this of their own volition.
“No wonder we have a rising public health problem of dog bites. What is the moral difference between a collie on a farm and a staffie in a back yard? Why should it be deemed acceptable for one to bite a child when ‘protecting its property’ but another not? I cannot help but think that this has become another convenient way to target and further ostracise societal groups already perceived as undesirable. This is so much bigger than just dogs.”
For more information on the news visit: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/new-laws-for-dangerous-dogs-do-not-go-far-enough-say-mps-8618166.html
Nice article Carri. The Dangerous dogs act was a monstrous beast that should have been put down many years ago. The current ideas seem better. However(!), there really is a world of difference between a dog that is likely to bark like mad or “nip” a visitor and a dog which will savage a child to death. Does the new law distinguish clearly? Is “dangerously out of control” easy to distinguish from being “rather over excited”?
For the record no mine have certainly never bitten anyone, but yes they bark like mad if someone approaches the house or if someone is aggressive to us when I am dog walking.
I read the draft quite paper sometime ago, and I just didn’t feel it really hit the spot.
Richard
Hi Richard. Thanks for your comment. As far as I am aware the proposed changes do not include the definition of ‘dangerously out of control’ and it does not seem to be an issue people are discussing much at this time. In terms of protecting people I imagine that the law was designed so that being in significant fear of being bitten was enough, as this is a negative experience for someone to go through (as would be being ‘nipped’ – however that may be defined). Even a scratch by a dog jumping up is technically an injury. I think a complicating factor here is that an owner’s interpretation of a dogs behaviour is not always entirely accurate either (not that I am implying that about you and your dogs). But for example we have all met owners who say ‘don’t worry he’s friendly’ when our own dogs clearly don’t agree with that assessment – in fact they interpret the dog to be rather rude! But I agree that it is a bit subjective and court expert witnesses have commented that area has been controversial in past cases. On the other hand it could possibly be quite useful in some cases where a dog has not bitten (yet) but has strong potential to and thus something may be done about it now rather than later? Best wishes, Carri