To: Conference Aston, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, B4 7ET
The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association (Guide Dogs)
Response to the Public Consultation on Dangerous Dogs
Guide Dogs are the largest breeders of dogs in the UK. We breed more than 1,100 guide dogs each year establishing 750 new partnerships and have more than 4,500 working partnerships in total across all parts of the UK.
The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association (Guide Dogs) welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation on dangerous dogs. This is an issue which is of great concern to the organisation and to guide dog owners. The number of guide dog owners who are reporting dog attacks on their guide dog appears to be increasing. The impact of such attacks is not only physical injury to the guide dog and, in some cases the owner, but also psychological impact to both the guide dog and/or the owner. In severe cases, guide dogs have had to be retired prematurely because they are unable to continue working. This has obvious implications for the owner both in terms of their mobility but also in the loss of a companion.
While the consultation paper focuses on dog attacks that involve attacks on people, we would like to see the same sanctions applying where the attack is on a guide, or other assistance dog, in harness or on a lead. In other words, for an attack on the dog to be considered as an attack on an individual ie for the law to view the dog as an extension of the person, where the person believes that if they were to intervene they could be injured. A dog on dog attack is still evidence of a dog behaving dangerously. This is the basis of the law that has been passed in Scotland and which we believe, will help to address the issues that guide dog owners are reporting to us.
While dog on dog attacks are usually covered under the Dogs Act 1871 it would be preferable to have them covered under the Dangerous Dogs Act, and therefore subject to criminal sanctions.
Guide Dogs would be concerned also if control of dogs in public places lead to parks and open spaces being designated only for “dogs on leads”. Such a restriction would affect all dog owners but guide dog owners in particular need to have a good choice of open space to be able to free run their dogs, as well being able to use accessible spaces.
Response to the questions raised in the consultation
Q1 We would support the extension of the Act to make it a criminal offence for an owner to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control on private property where the dog is permitted to be and where the victim has been invited on to the property or where their work requires them to access the property, for example, postal staff. It should be reasonable to assume that their dog will be kept under control.
While the Dogs Act 1871 applies to private property, it does not provide for criminal sanctions. Consolidation of the provisions into one Act would be beneficial.
Q2. We do not have the knowledge or evidence to comment on the financial implications.
Q3. We do not have the knowledge or evidence to comment on the financial implications.
Q4.While there are issues, as highlighted in the consultation paper, with regard to breed specific (“types known as”)legislation it does provide a framework for enforcement. However, it could also be useful to combine the breed specific elements, with a provision that relates to the behaviour of any dog. As the consultation paper acknowledges there is research to support the case that other factors affect behaviour.
Q5. See comment above with regard to a further provision linked to behaviour but the legislation should also allow for further breeds to be added via secondary legislation. This would enable the legislation to be more responsive in the light of emerging evidence. The gathering and analysis of that legislation would be key.
Q6. We are not well-placed to respond to this question. Clearly if all dogs were registered, or micro-chipped then it would be possible to monitor incidence of attacks in certain breeds. The important thing is that breeds are added only on the basis of sound evidence.
Q7. See answer to Q4. Repealing the legislation would remove a critical enforcement tool.
Q8. We do not have the knowledge or evidence to comment on the financial implications.
Q9. We do not have the knowledge or evidence to comment on the financial implications.
Q10.The evidence we have gathered about attacks on our guide dog stock suggests that bull terrier breeds are most likely to be the aggressor but we have no evidence about whether any of those dogs are “legally kept dogs of a prohibited kind”.
If there is evidence to suggest that the conditions which the owner must comply with are failing to be met and/or evidence to show that such dogs are still involved in attacks, then there may be a case for removing the exemption, but stepping up enforcement activities may be a better approach. We know from attacks on guide dogs, for example, that many pit bull type dogs are not being muzzled in public places. Enforcing the legislation in relation to illegal breeding would also seem to be necessary.
Q11. See answer to Q10 but if it is kept then it should additionally include a condition on the number of such dogs that can be kept by the same owner or at the same address. A similar condition should also be introduced if the exemption was removed and an alternative monitoring control was put in place.
Q12. Any new system or index would have to be sufficiently robust, but flexible enough to allow breed types to be added or deleted in response to future trends or research findings. See answers 10 and 11.
Q13. See answer to Q10 and 11.
Q14. We do not have the knowledge or evidence to comment on the financial implications.
Q15. We do not have the knowledge or evidence to comment on the financial implications.
Q16. Guide Dogs supported the introduction of control notices as part of the Dog Control Act in the Scottish Parliament and would fully support their introduction in England and Wales. There would, of course, have to be suitable appeals process alongside. The consultation acknowledges that standards of enforcement agencies may vary and if notices are introduced it will be important that there is comprehensive guidance issued to enforcement authorities, including advice on training staff.
Guide Dogs research shows that attacks to guide dogs occur mainly in public areas (97% of reported incidents). Locations of attacks were most commonly town centres and shopping areas (26%) or public parks and exercise areas (23%). The majority of attacks (43%) occurred between 1200 and 1500 hours, with 29% and 17% between 0900 and 1200 hours and 1500 and 1800 hours, respectively.
It was also reported that in 61% of cases that the aggressor was off the lead: a control notice to ensure that offending dogs were on the lead in these areas could reduce/prevent attacks.
Q17. We believe that incidents to be included should include aggressive behaviour to people in public places, for example, chasing (bikes, runners, children etc..) and uncontrolled dogs running on to the road, and aggressive behaviour in private gardens which must be accessed by visitors, including postal staff.
In addition, we believe that incidents involving dog on guide or other assistance dog attacks should also be covered. The impact on the assistance dog and/or its owner can be immense and in some cases can result in the early retirement of the dog with consequent impact on the mobility and independence of the assistance dog owner.
Q18. See answer to Q16.
Q19. Guide Dogs would support the extension to private property. Postal staff and delivery services have to make calls to such properties, as well as invited friends. However, the conditions should also allow for measures other than muzzling, such as compulsory training or seeing a registered dog behaviourist. Requiring the wearing of a muzzle may prevent biting attacks, but it would not tackle dangerous behaviour.
Q20.Yes. See answer to Q16.
Q21. This should be a matter for the policy and local authorities working to guidance issued by Defra and ideally with staff who are trained to understand dog behaviour.
Q22. Looking at the evidence we have on attacks on guide dog owners and their guide dogs, we believe that it would be sensible to provide for powers to ban dogs from certain areas, or even at certain times, on public safety grounds.
Q23. As acknowledged in the consultation it will remove the burdens on the courts. Beyond that we do not have the knowledge or evidence to comment on the financial implications.
Q24. Insurance could not be effectively introduced in the absence of an effective and enforceable licensing/microchipping regime for dogs. A decision on whether it was then introduced would have to consider whether it was a proportionate response to the issue given the potential impact on non-offending dog owners and organisations working with assistance dogs, working dogs, etc…
Q25. See answer to Q24 re the link with licensing.
Q26. It is already compulsory for those with dogs on the Index of Exempted Dogs. Perhaps it could additionally be considered for dogs that have been subject to sanctions under the 1991 Act, or to the issue of a dog control notice.
Q27. See answer to Q24. But that would not preclude the issue of advice to dog owners on the benefits of insurance and then leaving it to individual choice.
Q28. See answer to Q24. Those organisations working with assistance dogs, including Guide Dogs, train their dogs to very high standards.
Q29. We would agree with this proposal. All guide dogs are microchipped. It would also help with the introduction of third party insurance if that was considered to be a proportionate requirement for all, or some dogs.
There would also have to be a requirement on owners though to keep the information updated.
Q30.Yes, but ideally it should be done by the breeder before the dog goes to the buyer. Guide Dogs microchips all of its dogs at six weeks.
Q31. Spot checks could be carried out by enforcement authorities and in all cases of a reported incident.
Q32. It would be better to make this a requirement for all dogs rather than by breed type.
Q33. This is a small cost compared to the total cost of dog ownership. For puppies it would simply be passed on in the selling price if it was made the duty of the breeder.
Q34. Guide Dogs already microchips all of our dogs: including those that go on to other careers with other organisations or who rehomed because they don’t make it as guide dogs. RSPCA recover charges for microchipping dogs then they are placed. We believe most rescue organizations also already microchip dogs routinely.
Microchipping also has other benefits: enabling dogs to be reunited with their owners when they are lost and identifying irresponsible owners could help rescue organisations to cover the kennel costs.
Q35 These databases already exist.
Comments on paras 101-104 of the consultation paper:
Allowing for costs orders against defendants to cover kennelling of seized dogs seems a sensible proposal.
As noted in answer to Q16, guidance for enforcement bodies is important and that would extend also to the courts as proposed at para 103 of the consultation paper.
Guide Dogs welcomes the initiative taken by some local authorities/housing associations to deal with tenants of who have dangerous or unruly dogs. It would be useful if a mechanism could be found to extend this to owner-occupiers.
Q36. Consolidation will ease enforcement and make it easier for the courts.
Q37. Yes, while there are clearly gaps in it, it is also clear that it still not adequately enforced.
Q38. Better training, including training in dog behaviour could only help to improve the current situation.
Q39. Yes.
Q40. There is unlikely to be one route that will address the communication needs but using vets, organisations that work with dogs, courts, enforcement bodies, and even notices in parks used by dog owners, could all be used.
Useful references for Defra
Collier, S. (2006): Breed-specific legislation and the pit bull terrier: Are the laws justified? < Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 1, 1, pp. 17-22
Cornelissen, J., Hopster, H. Dog bites in The Netherlands: A study of victims, injuries, circumstances and aggressors to support evaluation of breed specific legislation. The Veterinary Journal < , Article in Press
De Keuster, T., Butcher, R. (2008): Preventing dog bites: Risk factors in different cultural settings < , The Veterinary Journal, 177, 2, pp. 155-156
Duffy, D.L., Hsu, Y., Serpell, J.A. (2008): Breed differences in canine aggression. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 114, pp.441- 460
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase < this article.
Miller, R., Howell, G.V.J. (2008): Regulating consumption with bite: Building a contemporary framework for urban dog management < . Journal of Business Research, 61, 5, pp.525-531
Ott,S., Schalke,E., von Gaertner, A., Hackbarth,H. (2008): Is there a difference? Comparison of golden retrievers and dogs affected by breed-specific legislation regarding aggressive behavior < . Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 3, 3, pp.134-140
Rosado, B., García-Belenguer,S., León, M., Palacio,J. (2007): Spanish dangerous animals act: Effect on the epidemiology of dog bites < . Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 2, 5, pp.166-174
Submitted on behalf of Guide Dogs by: David Cowdrey, Campaigns Manager. Email Tel 01189 838304
1