Judith
Hot Topics Subscriber
The Chron examines Government plans to toughen up dangerous dog legislation
By Nicole Le Marie
Published on Friday 27 April 2012 10:00
FEW in Northampton who heard Alan Gibb’s story two years ago will have forgotten it.
The pensioner, then aged 74, was walking his Jack Russell, Murphy, near Market Street, Northampton in August 2010 when they were attacked by two Staffordshire bull terriers.
Mr Gibbs attempted to stop the attack by holding one of the dog’s jaws with his hand while protecting his face and trying to protect Murphy.
Sadly his attempts were in vain and the Jack Russell died from his injuries while in vet care.
Mr Gibbs suffered a total of 32 bites and received 17 stitches.
Although dogs can be “man’s best friend”, a dangerous dog can, like those that attacked Mr Gibbs, be anything but.
Approximately 210,000 people a year are attacked by dogs in England alone, including 4,000 postal workers trying to deliver mail.
For years campaigners have been fighting for stricter legislation for “dangerous” dogs.
And this week Defra Minister Jim Paice announced people who failed to control their animals would face “a new clampdown in order to protect the public.”
The Government said it was extending existing dangerous dogs laws to any private property, closing a loophole in the current criminal law which only covers public land and there will be a consultation on how to introduce more comprehensive micro-chipping of dogs.
Arguably one of the main people to be affected by the private property change will be postal workers.
In the East Midlands last year there were 199 cases of postal workers being attacked by dogs while going about their work, and 32 of these were in Northampton.
Royal Mail’s safety director Ricky McAulay said: “The majority of dog owners do take proper care and control of their pets but every day, postmen and women suffer from attacks by aggressive, uncontrolled and dangerous dogs that in too many cases lead to painful and serious injuries.
“Attacks can happen on private and public property and each year, some 4,000 postal workers are attacked as they deliver the mail. Extending the existing law to cover attacks on private property and micro-chipping dogs are important steps.”
However, the Communication Workers Union, which represents postal workers, has criticised the measures, accusing the minister of “tinkering around the edges” rather than “cracking down.”
Lee Barron, Midlands Regional Secretary of the CWU, who lives in Northampton, said: “Obviously the union has been campaigning for some time to get the law implemented to hold owners accountable.
“Most are animal loving people who treat their animals in a way in which they should.
“But we have had what amounts to 12 attacks a day in one year alone.
“Obviously in the work that postal workers do it is a real danger issue when they go about their jobs, sometimes even when they are delivering letters through letter boxes you can get a snap on the finger, and it’s important we do get legislation that makes people accountable.
“We are campaigning for a change in law.
“If a dog attacks someone when they are going about their work on someone’s property, there’s no re-course in any way, because there are no regulations that deal with that.
“But what has been announced is just further delays and we are calling on the Government to take action now and change the law.
“It’s a terrifying experience to be attacked by a dog and we have seen fatalities in the past.
“We have to make sure people are responsible.”
Dog trainer and behaviourist Graeme Hall has also called for tougher laws.
“Microchips are a good thing. They help enormously in getting lost dogs back to owners,” he said.
“The issue here is that they are absolutely not the answer to the growing problem of anti-social dog owners who allow – or even encourage – their dogs to be aggressive.
“It’s just not enough. To ‘read’ the microchip, a special scanner is required. It’s not something that members of the public carry around. There’s nothing to stop the owner of an aggressive dog simply walking off with an unidentified dog, just as they do now after an attack.
“It’s happened to me twice already this year; the dog I’ve been walking has been attacked by another dog that ran up and started a fight and both times the owners walked off.
“Naturally we’re assuming here that these anti-social dog owners actually comply with the new law to microchip their dogs and that we have enough resources to police it. That sounds unlikely too.
“In New Zealand all dogs are licensed and must wear a brightly coloured tag with a registration number. The police can see that every dog is carrying a tag as they drive by, and the public can take a nuisance dog’s number and report the owner to the police just as you would for a car registration number. Perhaps we should look at a similar system?”
“The Dangerous Dogs Act was not a well thought-out act. All of the experts agree on that. There are loopholes, such as the inability to prosecute an owner of a dangerous dog which attacks a person on private property such as the owner’s garden. Successive governments have failed to take any action until now and a move to close these loopholes is very welcome.”
Alan Gibbs, aged 76, who still get pains in his little finger, has continued to be a dog owner, and now looks after a cocker-spaniel named Millie, but he also doubts the changes in legislation will offer any more protection from dangerous dogs.
“Bringing in a law will just be pointless if they don’t enforce it.
“I think the micro-chip idea is an ok idea, but there are already laws on having dogs which people ignore and no one polices.
“The law doesn’t stop people if no one enforces it, these days people just do as they like.
“It is like with extension leads, people ignore the laws on how long these can be.
“You have these ridiculous statutes with no back-up. Mobile phones are illegal when driving, you still see people doing it all the time.
“If people won’t use the laws, what is the point of bringing them in?
“There are some terrible dogs around, but being a dog owner has changed. You used to be able to walk your dog across The Racecourse.
“But that just isn’t safe any more, we live in a different world now and it’s sad.”
I asked Alan, who was a former Army captain and policeman, if he had fully recovered from his ordeal. “I do worry about where I walk my dog and she does get shorter walks. I have recovered, I get a bit of trouble with one of my fingers that plays up. I have been shot at, I have been blown up, I have got over it.”
“But worse things have happened with these dangerous dogs and people should be protected.”
WHAT ARE THE GOVERNMENT’s PROPOSALS?
Extending dangerous dog laws to all private property – without penalising the owners of animals that defend them against trespassers;
Consulting on whether to micro-chip all dogs;
Giving the police more discretion to take decisions;
Providing £50,000 for local and community projects involving animal welfare organisations, the police, local authorities and community groups to promote more responsible dog ownership in estates, youth clubs and schools;
Providing £20,000 for the training of expert police dog legislation officers in each force;
Issuing new guidance to help the courts deal more effectively with seized dogs.
For details of the consultation visit: www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2012/04/23/dangerous-dogs-1204/
What does the Dangerous Dog Act cover?
The Dangerous Dogs Act allows owners of dogs that attack people to be prosecuted, with the maximum penalty a £5,000 fine or two years imprisonment.
The Government is extending this to cover attacks which happen on any private property.
Published on Friday 27 April 2012 10:00
FEW in Northampton who heard Alan Gibb’s story two years ago will have forgotten it.
The pensioner, then aged 74, was walking his Jack Russell, Murphy, near Market Street, Northampton in August 2010 when they were attacked by two Staffordshire bull terriers.
Mr Gibbs attempted to stop the attack by holding one of the dog’s jaws with his hand while protecting his face and trying to protect Murphy.
Sadly his attempts were in vain and the Jack Russell died from his injuries while in vet care.
Mr Gibbs suffered a total of 32 bites and received 17 stitches.
Approximately 210,000 people a year are attacked by dogs in England alone, including 4,000 postal workers trying to deliver mail.
For years campaigners have been fighting for stricter legislation for “dangerous” dogs.
And this week Defra Minister Jim Paice announced people who failed to control their animals would face “a new clampdown in order to protect the public.”
The Government said it was extending existing dangerous dogs laws to any private property, closing a loophole in the current criminal law which only covers public land and there will be a consultation on how to introduce more comprehensive micro-chipping of dogs.
Arguably one of the main people to be affected by the private property change will be postal workers.
In the East Midlands last year there were 199 cases of postal workers being attacked by dogs while going about their work, and 32 of these were in Northampton.
Royal Mail’s safety director Ricky McAulay said: “The majority of dog owners do take proper care and control of their pets but every day, postmen and women suffer from attacks by aggressive, uncontrolled and dangerous dogs that in too many cases lead to painful and serious injuries.
“Attacks can happen on private and public property and each year, some 4,000 postal workers are attacked as they deliver the mail. Extending the existing law to cover attacks on private property and micro-chipping dogs are important steps.”
However, the Communication Workers Union, which represents postal workers, has criticised the measures, accusing the minister of “tinkering around the edges” rather than “cracking down.”
Lee Barron, Midlands Regional Secretary of the CWU, who lives in Northampton, said: “Obviously the union has been campaigning for some time to get the law implemented to hold owners accountable.
“Most are animal loving people who treat their animals in a way in which they should.
“But we have had what amounts to 12 attacks a day in one year alone.
“Obviously in the work that postal workers do it is a real danger issue when they go about their jobs, sometimes even when they are delivering letters through letter boxes you can get a snap on the finger, and it’s important we do get legislation that makes people accountable.
“We are campaigning for a change in law.
“If a dog attacks someone when they are going about their work on someone’s property, there’s no re-course in any way, because there are no regulations that deal with that.
“But what has been announced is just further delays and we are calling on the Government to take action now and change the law.
“It’s a terrifying experience to be attacked by a dog and we have seen fatalities in the past.
“We have to make sure people are responsible.”
Dog trainer and behaviourist Graeme Hall has also called for tougher laws.
“Microchips are a good thing. They help enormously in getting lost dogs back to owners,” he said.
“The issue here is that they are absolutely not the answer to the growing problem of anti-social dog owners who allow – or even encourage – their dogs to be aggressive.
“It’s just not enough. To ‘read’ the microchip, a special scanner is required. It’s not something that members of the public carry around. There’s nothing to stop the owner of an aggressive dog simply walking off with an unidentified dog, just as they do now after an attack.
“It’s happened to me twice already this year; the dog I’ve been walking has been attacked by another dog that ran up and started a fight and both times the owners walked off.
“Naturally we’re assuming here that these anti-social dog owners actually comply with the new law to microchip their dogs and that we have enough resources to police it. That sounds unlikely too.
“In New Zealand all dogs are licensed and must wear a brightly coloured tag with a registration number. The police can see that every dog is carrying a tag as they drive by, and the public can take a nuisance dog’s number and report the owner to the police just as you would for a car registration number. Perhaps we should look at a similar system?”
“The Dangerous Dogs Act was not a well thought-out act. All of the experts agree on that. There are loopholes, such as the inability to prosecute an owner of a dangerous dog which attacks a person on private property such as the owner’s garden. Successive governments have failed to take any action until now and a move to close these loopholes is very welcome.”
Alan Gibbs, aged 76, who still get pains in his little finger, has continued to be a dog owner, and now looks after a cocker-spaniel named Millie, but he also doubts the changes in legislation will offer any more protection from dangerous dogs.
“Bringing in a law will just be pointless if they don’t enforce it.
“I think the micro-chip idea is an ok idea, but there are already laws on having dogs which people ignore and no one polices.
“The law doesn’t stop people if no one enforces it, these days people just do as they like.
“It is like with extension leads, people ignore the laws on how long these can be.
“You have these ridiculous statutes with no back-up. Mobile phones are illegal when driving, you still see people doing it all the time.
“If people won’t use the laws, what is the point of bringing them in?
“There are some terrible dogs around, but being a dog owner has changed. You used to be able to walk your dog across The Racecourse.
“But that just isn’t safe any more, we live in a different world now and it’s sad.”
I asked Alan, who was a former Army captain and policeman, if he had fully recovered from his ordeal. “I do worry about where I walk my dog and she does get shorter walks. I have recovered, I get a bit of trouble with one of my fingers that plays up. I have been shot at, I have been blown up, I have got over it.”
“But worse things have happened with these dangerous dogs and people should be protected.”
WHAT ARE THE GOVERNMENT’s PROPOSALS?
Extending dangerous dog laws to all private property – without penalising the owners of animals that defend them against trespassers;
Consulting on whether to micro-chip all dogs;
Giving the police more discretion to take decisions;
Providing £50,000 for local and community projects involving animal welfare organisations, the police, local authorities and community groups to promote more responsible dog ownership in estates, youth clubs and schools;
Providing £20,000 for the training of expert police dog legislation officers in each force;
Issuing new guidance to help the courts deal more effectively with seized dogs.
For details of the consultation visit: www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2012/04/23/dangerous-dogs-1204/
What does the Dangerous Dog Act cover?
The Dangerous Dogs Act allows owners of dogs that attack people to be prosecuted, with the maximum penalty a £5,000 fine or two years imprisonment.
The Government is extending this to cover attacks which happen on any private property.
