Hi, everyone. Do you feel nervous and tense when you take your dog for a walk, worrying about whether you might be ambushed by an off-leash dog, the possible psychological effect on your dog as well as the physical injury, and yet another argument you will have to have with the off-leash dog's owner? (If this does not apply to you, please ignore this post.)
We have two dogs, and one of them is scared of other dogs and barks at them. Following the advice of our dog trainer, we have been trying to desensitise him; but it has proven difficult or even impossible. There seems to be a culture in this country, where a considerable number of dog owners think it is ok for off-leash dogs to approach any dog - regardless of whether it is on a lead or not (or even, wearing a yellow item or not) - if they "believe" that their dogs are “generally” friendly, and totally disregard the other dog's conditions or needs and the stress that its owner feels. Those "friendly" dogs often continue pestering the on-lead dog until its owner saves him/her somehow, the dogs may even turn aggressive when they are met with rejection from our dog, which leads to a dangerous situation to the on-lead dog and its owner. A sub-group of owners with off-leash dogs are not even aware of what's going on with their dog at all, because they are busy looking at their mobile phone. If we say anything to the off-leash dogs' owners, with an intention to educate them, they start giving us abusive and threatening language. They often accuse us of not having our dog socialised, without realising that it is they who create an impossible environment in which to do so. Off-leash dogs are everywhere, even on streets: we need to be vigilant at all times once we are out of our house. Dog walks are not enjoyable – it is like patrolling in a war zone.
In our view, if an owner decides to put her dog on a lead, at that point, she has opted out of play with other dogs, and other owners should respect her decision. If the dog and/or its owner wear(s) a yellow item, then the message is clear: Do not approach, please. (See www.yellowdoguk.co.uk) “Respect for Others” - is something that seems to be lacking from the present dog world, despite the fact that not letting your dog approach an on-lead dog is usually advised by trainers and books.
The lack of etiquette is a surprise, but what is more shocking is that there is no law that protects people like us from such dangers or anti-social self-centred behaviour. The legislation to do with anti-social behaviour seems to target an offender who persistently commits a crime to one (or more) individual. The persistency relates to the person carrying out the anti-social behaviour. Our situation tends to be different – it's us as victims that experience persistent anti-social behaviour from different unidentified individuals harassing the owner of an on-lead dog.
Some of you might know that the Sentencing Council has reviewed the Dangerous Dog Law recently and opened up a consultation to the public (Deadline 9 June 2015). https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/news/item/sentencing-council-publishes-new-proposals-for-sentencing-people-convicted-of-dangerous-dog-offences/
It was disappointing to find that the law does not reflect the Yellow Dog campaign, or ensure the safety of on-lead dogs at all. On the contrary, it undermines it.
According to the sentencing proposal, the severity of an offence is measured by the level of Culpability and Harm. A sentence can be increased or reduced depending on whether there is an aggravating or mitigating factor. The sections that deals with dog-to-dog incidences are Section 5 and 6. Section 5 is specifically to do with an assistance dog being injured or killed. Section 6 deals with the cases which make a person fear injury, and “may include circumstances where a dog injures another animal”.
For Section 5, there are three levels of culpability (High-Medium-Low) and three levels of harm (Category 1-2-3), as in the sections dealing with human cases. However, the whole Medium level of culpability is taken out of Section 6. The Medium level culpability includes things like “Failure to respond to warnings or concerns expressed by others about the dog's behaviour”, and “Failure to intervene in the incident”. This implies that us trying to warn an off-leash owner not to let their dog approach does not have any legal effect. In addition, “Incident could not have reasonably been foreseen by the offender” is listed under “Lower culpability” - we all know that the owners of off-leash dogs let their dogs charge at us, because they “believe” that nothing serious would happen, even when we shout at them to stop their dog.
The level of harm has also reduced to two categories in Section 6, and is somewhat odd. Section 5 -- the offences involving an assistance dog -- talks about fatality and serious injury, and impact of the offence on the assisted person being severe. The impact includes emotional distress or fear caused by the attack. In Section 6, it simply says “Injury to other animal” being regarded as “Greater harm”. Nothing about death or a degree of injury, or the impact on the owner, as if it's saying that if your animal does not physically help you and you are not physically disabled, you and your pet are not important enough to be counted. “Significant ongoing effect on the victim and/or others” is merely listed as an aggravating factor, not as the main criterion to measure the seriousness of an offence.
Another notable point is that “Sustained or repeated attack” and “More than one dog involved” are listed as aggravating factors for Section 3 to 5, but these have been taken out for Section 6. We feel that those should be included in Section 6 as well.
We feel that Section 5 which deals with assistant dog cases should be extended to on-lead dogs. By doing so, the law protects the safety of the dogs and respects the decision taken by their owners who have decided to opt out of an involvement with other dogs. If the structure of the proposal cannot be altered to that extent, then Section 6 should have three levels of culpability, i.e. including Medium level, and the degree of physical and psychological injury on an (on-lead) dog, and the psychological impact of its owner should be considered in terms of the level of Harm, rather than as an aggravating factor.
We also feel that the use of a lead should be obligatory if a dog walker has to use a device such as a mobile phone, or wishes to ride a bike, as both of these are bound to hinder them from controlling their dog properly. If an off-leash dog goes off and threatens a person and/or kills or injures another animal, then the offence should be counted as having Medium culpability at least.
I hope you will have time to have a look at the consultation document and have your say.
We have two dogs, and one of them is scared of other dogs and barks at them. Following the advice of our dog trainer, we have been trying to desensitise him; but it has proven difficult or even impossible. There seems to be a culture in this country, where a considerable number of dog owners think it is ok for off-leash dogs to approach any dog - regardless of whether it is on a lead or not (or even, wearing a yellow item or not) - if they "believe" that their dogs are “generally” friendly, and totally disregard the other dog's conditions or needs and the stress that its owner feels. Those "friendly" dogs often continue pestering the on-lead dog until its owner saves him/her somehow, the dogs may even turn aggressive when they are met with rejection from our dog, which leads to a dangerous situation to the on-lead dog and its owner. A sub-group of owners with off-leash dogs are not even aware of what's going on with their dog at all, because they are busy looking at their mobile phone. If we say anything to the off-leash dogs' owners, with an intention to educate them, they start giving us abusive and threatening language. They often accuse us of not having our dog socialised, without realising that it is they who create an impossible environment in which to do so. Off-leash dogs are everywhere, even on streets: we need to be vigilant at all times once we are out of our house. Dog walks are not enjoyable – it is like patrolling in a war zone.
In our view, if an owner decides to put her dog on a lead, at that point, she has opted out of play with other dogs, and other owners should respect her decision. If the dog and/or its owner wear(s) a yellow item, then the message is clear: Do not approach, please. (See www.yellowdoguk.co.uk) “Respect for Others” - is something that seems to be lacking from the present dog world, despite the fact that not letting your dog approach an on-lead dog is usually advised by trainers and books.
The lack of etiquette is a surprise, but what is more shocking is that there is no law that protects people like us from such dangers or anti-social self-centred behaviour. The legislation to do with anti-social behaviour seems to target an offender who persistently commits a crime to one (or more) individual. The persistency relates to the person carrying out the anti-social behaviour. Our situation tends to be different – it's us as victims that experience persistent anti-social behaviour from different unidentified individuals harassing the owner of an on-lead dog.
Some of you might know that the Sentencing Council has reviewed the Dangerous Dog Law recently and opened up a consultation to the public (Deadline 9 June 2015). https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/news/item/sentencing-council-publishes-new-proposals-for-sentencing-people-convicted-of-dangerous-dog-offences/
It was disappointing to find that the law does not reflect the Yellow Dog campaign, or ensure the safety of on-lead dogs at all. On the contrary, it undermines it.
According to the sentencing proposal, the severity of an offence is measured by the level of Culpability and Harm. A sentence can be increased or reduced depending on whether there is an aggravating or mitigating factor. The sections that deals with dog-to-dog incidences are Section 5 and 6. Section 5 is specifically to do with an assistance dog being injured or killed. Section 6 deals with the cases which make a person fear injury, and “may include circumstances where a dog injures another animal”.
For Section 5, there are three levels of culpability (High-Medium-Low) and three levels of harm (Category 1-2-3), as in the sections dealing with human cases. However, the whole Medium level of culpability is taken out of Section 6. The Medium level culpability includes things like “Failure to respond to warnings or concerns expressed by others about the dog's behaviour”, and “Failure to intervene in the incident”. This implies that us trying to warn an off-leash owner not to let their dog approach does not have any legal effect. In addition, “Incident could not have reasonably been foreseen by the offender” is listed under “Lower culpability” - we all know that the owners of off-leash dogs let their dogs charge at us, because they “believe” that nothing serious would happen, even when we shout at them to stop their dog.
The level of harm has also reduced to two categories in Section 6, and is somewhat odd. Section 5 -- the offences involving an assistance dog -- talks about fatality and serious injury, and impact of the offence on the assisted person being severe. The impact includes emotional distress or fear caused by the attack. In Section 6, it simply says “Injury to other animal” being regarded as “Greater harm”. Nothing about death or a degree of injury, or the impact on the owner, as if it's saying that if your animal does not physically help you and you are not physically disabled, you and your pet are not important enough to be counted. “Significant ongoing effect on the victim and/or others” is merely listed as an aggravating factor, not as the main criterion to measure the seriousness of an offence.
Another notable point is that “Sustained or repeated attack” and “More than one dog involved” are listed as aggravating factors for Section 3 to 5, but these have been taken out for Section 6. We feel that those should be included in Section 6 as well.
We feel that Section 5 which deals with assistant dog cases should be extended to on-lead dogs. By doing so, the law protects the safety of the dogs and respects the decision taken by their owners who have decided to opt out of an involvement with other dogs. If the structure of the proposal cannot be altered to that extent, then Section 6 should have three levels of culpability, i.e. including Medium level, and the degree of physical and psychological injury on an (on-lead) dog, and the psychological impact of its owner should be considered in terms of the level of Harm, rather than as an aggravating factor.
We also feel that the use of a lead should be obligatory if a dog walker has to use a device such as a mobile phone, or wishes to ride a bike, as both of these are bound to hinder them from controlling their dog properly. If an off-leash dog goes off and threatens a person and/or kills or injures another animal, then the offence should be counted as having Medium culpability at least.
I hope you will have time to have a look at the consultation document and have your say.
