DDA Ammendments coming into effect soon...

Hmm, been reading up on it. A lot of people aren't happy with it, but the law is the law.

I think there may be an influx of large dogs into rescue centres.

We're lucky here. The Goverment has better things to do than worry about supposed dangerous dogs.

A very timely article Caryll, thank you, and it's written in a clear and concise way.

The bit most likely to affect me is:-

Section 3 of the Act applies to every single dog owner in England and Wales. Under this section, it is a criminal offence for the person in charge of the dog to allow it to be ‘dangerously out of control’ in a public place.

"A dog doesn't have to bite to be deemed dangerous in the eyes of the law

Generally if a dog bites a person, it will be presumed to have been ‘dangerously out of control’, however even if the dog does not bite, but gives the person grounds to feel that the dog may injure them, the law still applies."

Kuchar has been constrained to an inertia reel lead for well over a year now, because he is so excitable that he will chase after another person or dog and be totally, totally deaf to recall and will in fact become so excited at being "free" that he will run away from me or my son if he thinks we are trying to catch him (which we are, let's face it).

I feel so sad that he can't have a proper run and rough and tumble with his doggy friends, but as he's a Staffie people are scared of him and that will be enough to get me arrested, apparently.

My biggest worry is that when an off lead dog runs up to Buster and Gus they will attack it. Buster is not as bad as Gus as he only hates certain breeds, but Gus hates all dogs except Buster and when Gus attacks a dog that runs at him Buster helps him.

Whenever I see an off lead dog my first action is to go the opposite way. If the dog follows I shout NO! at the dog and hope like mad it has good recall when the owner calls it.

The very last time it happened a black Lab ran over from the opposite end of a large field (one of the breeds Buster hates). I kept shouting No! and the dog became a little worried and stayed about a couple of yards away from us but didn't leave. Buster was carrying a large stick at the time so I took it from him and started waving it around at the dog so that the dog would think I was going to hit him and run away. Believe it or not, while all of this was going on the owner stayed where he was on his side of the field with his hands on his hips scowling at me! What the hell was going on in his tiny little brain? He was obviously thinking 'she is going to hit my dog, she had better not'. Oh yeah? well you stupid man I was not trying to hurt your dog at all but being forced by your stupidity to keep your dog from harm because you were not!

Anyway, getting back to the topic - my biggest worry is a dog running at Buster and Gus (who are on lead) and being attacked by them. Would we be liable even when Buster and Gus were on lead or would they deemed to be dangerously out of control despite being on lead?

"my biggest worry is a dog running at Buster and Gus (who are on lead) and being attacked by them. Would we be liable even when Buster and Gus were on lead or would they deemed to be dangerously out of control despite being on lead?"

I wouldn't think so in all honesty Wendy - you have control of your dogs whereas you are scared of the off-lead dog so in this situation, under the law just coming into being, you would be the one who could instigate a prosecution (but gives the person grounds to feel that the dog may injure them)

Ain't it great to be in Nanny State?

LyndaW wrote:"my biggest worry is a dog running at Buster and Gus (who are on lead) and being attacked by them. Would we be liable even when Buster and Gus were on lead or would they deemed to be dangerously out of control despite being on lead?"

I wouldn't think so in all honesty Wendy - you have control of your dogs whereas you are scared of the off-lead dog so in this situation, under the law just coming into being, you would be the one who could instigate a prosecution (but gives the person grounds to feel that the dog may injure them)

Ain't it great to be in Nanny State?

I 'thanked' your post Lynda. Oh, don't get me started on the Nanny State. This country is a disgrace, it is embarrassing. I think the tide is starting to turn now though. Hopefully, we will one day get a Government that is not 'innit' for their own personal good, but holds the hopes and welfare of the nation as their prime objective. Doubt it will happen for many decades though.

It doesn't apply here yet but I think the part about a person believing a dog may hurt them is a bit worrying   

Caroline wrote:It doesn't apply here yet but I think the part about a person believing a dog may hurt them is a bit worrying   

Me too, I think that also.

Wendy wrote:

Caroline wrote:It doesn't apply here yet but I think the part about a person believing a dog may hurt them is a bit worrying   

Me too, I think that also.

This is the bit that worries me most, as people tell me they are terrified of Chance just to see him, a large dog, walking down the street with a muzzle on, and said stupid things like 'he looks like he wants to bite me', so in the eyes of the law that is believing a dog will hurt them

Caroline wrote:It doesn't apply here yet but I think the part about a person believing a dog may hurt them is a bit worrying   

That is the huge worry. How on earth can we control what other people's thought processes are. For instance, I have Kuchar on a tight lead when passing other people as I always do - and only to prevent him from greeting those people "I love you, I love you" - only to have some people of any sex walk past with primmed up lips, stiff body and a "drawing of their skirts aside", usually accompanied with disdainful/fearful looks out of the corners of their eyes.

I cannot be held responsible as to what the person I and my dog are passing are thinking or believing; all I can do is to prevent my dog from infringing on what, in the worst case, may be their comfort zone.

I remember, a couple of years ago that a child in my day nursery got his finger bitten by a dog on the way to nursery. The child had put his hand through somebody's garden gate to stroke a JRT who had consequently bitten him. At the time I remember thinking that it was all the mother of the child's fault. Which of course it was. Now though, we will not be able to have our dogs in our own gardens unless they are supervised. And by supervised I mean shouting at people who walk past to keep themselves and their kids away.

We all know where this new law has come from, but let's hope that this new law will be applied with common sense.   

The thing we have to remember is control. If your dog is snapping and snarling at someone, then they can honestly say that they were scared of being bitten. If your dog is under control & behaving itself, then no matter how frightened somebody is of dogs in general or your dog in particular, they can't say that your dog poses a threat.

The wording isn't great, but at least there's a clause that will try and stop those numpties that think it's ok for their dogs to scare the living daylights out of people just for the sheer hell of it.

Also, the law governing an out of control dog on private land is a must - how can you allow children to be mauled & then nobody prosecuted because it's in a private house? Ludicrous, but that's how the law stood.

I don't say that the amendments are perfect, but they're better than they were.

It's all about perception. Lexi grumbles and makes staffy noises, they all do. It's the same as a dog whining but sounds like snarling if you don't know Staffies. She could by this ridiculous law be deemed dangerous.

I'm against it. Innocent until proven guilty in my eyes! It's like giving someone a jail term because they look like someone who might rape me.

Not quite the same, Hayley.

For example, I've been having a discussion with someone on another forum. Her dogs (two large, young GSDs) who has a large front garden with a 5' wall around it. In the middle of the front wall is a metal gate which is about 6' in the middle, and curves down either side to about 5', with two stone blocks either side. GSDs, being GSDs could easily scale the stone blocks if they had a mind to, and people know that.

People legitimately walk past the gate every day (they have to) from a large caravan park (holiday homes, not travellers) down the road. The dogs run full pelt at the gate, barking every time, scaring the life of the people walking past. Is that fair, do you think? As the law stood before, nothing could be done but as the law now stands, people can make a complaint and she can be made to keep the dogs under control.

Also, as it stood before, if a dog attacked someone in the owner's home you couldn't do anything about it - now you can.

I know it isn't ideal, but something had to be done.

Geez, we have had to have a clear & safe path to our door here for years! I actually like that as it also reduces dog theft. You'd have to jump my fence to get to one of mine. I don't like dogs in the front yard. Too easy for too many things to happen.

Intimidating or agressive dogs can be deemed dangerous here. They don't need to actually bite. Though a dangerous dog here has normally bitten, owner warned, & it happened again or the 1st time was vicious, or unprovoked. Next offence... you're out. So is your wallet (if it isnt already) & the dog is PTS.

Lyndah, something that has always worked for me is not to chase a loose dog but rather call it repeatedly in a high pitched happy tone ( no matter how stressed you are)  soon as the dog looks.... run away from it calling in an excited manner.  They chase after you!

A few of the acts seem a little over the top to me but..... are they trying to stop your "chavs" from terrorising people?

tracyp wrote:
A few of the acts seem a little over the top to me but..... are they trying to stop your "chavs" from terrorising people?

Partly, yes. But they're also trying to tighten up on people who are no doubt well meaning, but have no control over their dogs. The dogs may not be dangerous but they scare other road/park users. All that could be done before was the police might call round to ask you to control your dog, but that was all.

But it isn't just the chavs - it's people like the GSD owner I mentioned earlier who think it's ok to let their dogs run barking at a gate/fence when people walk past, scaring the life out of them. It's also about being able to prosecute owners of dogs that attack on their own premises, something it was nigh on impossible to do before.

Here, anyone MUST have safe access to your front door but.... the back yard is quite a different matter.

"Lyndah, something that has always worked for me is not to chase a loose dog but rather call it repeatedly in a high pitched happy tone ( no matter how stressed you are) soon as the dog looks.... run away from it calling in an excited manner. They chase after you!"

If heaven forbid Kuchar gets loose again I'll try to remember to try this. It might just work if Kuchar has no other distractions in sight!

Ref the safe access to your front door - it makes sense. Wouldn't it be terrible if, for example, a paramedic couldn't get to someone having a heart attack because of the hysterical dog.

That's always a problem, Lynda, isn't it? BUT that could happen with the friendliest dog - the dog could get over protective because it knows their owner is vulnerable?

That is very true Caryll, the dog gets stressed because their owner is.

Hopefully, there would be someone else in the household to keep the dog under control and stop it bothering the medics. If not, hopefully one of the medics would be brave enough to get the dog into another room and shut it in there whilst what is necessary to be done is done.

It does work... but you have to be more exciting/distracting to Kuchar than whatever it is he is involved with. You running away invokes his need to follow his pack/family. If you do it right, you will look like an idiot to anyone around but if you're like me.... I don't care. I would rather my dog back than worry about looking the fool.

Didn't you guys have to provide safe access to your front door before these laws?

Unofficially, yes. But there wasn't actually a law that said you must!