Dogs off a leash in parks

[Demon]

Again, does not matter what long-winded specific legal advice for your specific dog and its specific circumstances has been given - Yours is on a lead, the one approaching you is not and the owner is not recalling it. The latter is the one with less control being applied.

We are definitely talking about completely different things, HB has already linked to the 'controlling your dog in public' information: https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public

The definition of 'out of control' is quite clear (to me, to all the professional advice I've had, which incidentally 100% applies to not just my personal situation, but also this situation)

Out of control
Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:

• injures someone
• makes someone worried that it might injure them

A court could also decide that your dog is dangerously out of control if either of the following apply:

• it attacks someone’s animal
• the owner of an animal thinks they could be injured if they tried to stop your dog attacking their animal

Now you are hung up that the only possible way that any dog could approach HB is out of the owners malice, so lets go with that and take my soppy spaniel as the use case.. So lets say I uncharacteristically ignore his warning, ignore the dog's jacket on purpose and my soppy spaniel approaches him and in this particular scenario my dog is not being aggressive but simply approaching for a 'sniff'.. now HB's dog out of distress (presumably) reacts badly and immediately goes/attacks for my dog.. and/or HB carries out his threat and starts hitting/attacking my dog to get it away..

So in this one 'made' up (but btw very realistic IME) situation (which is all I've ever postulated), HB's dog would 100% be deemed to have been the one out of control.. My dog hasn't attacked or attempted to attack, rather HB and/or his dog have.. It's all about the attacker, there are no justifications for this, under what definition are you going to argue it's my dogs fault? you are going to be using reasoning outside of the clear definition which then makes that just opinion.

What is starting to become annoying is that this isn't really about the dog, but you insist on misreading my posts and assuming I'm an unsympathetic to HB's dog owner who doesn't care, this is not true.. I simply have the opinion that no matter what (ignorantly or not) a normal dog that is just being social does not deserve being attacked by another dog (with or without issues) or it's owner (with or without issues) under any circumstances. The definitions from the government concerning controlling your dog clearly indicates the attacking dog is the one considered out of control and my own valid experiences of a badly guarding dog that absolutely are relevant here because I was informed (and even checked through legal advice) that my dog would the one considered dangerously out of control if it bit/attacked anyone/thing and so had to muzzle it for a period of time.. I felt a bit aggrieved and probably why I'm sticking to my guns here, it's not nice to think that through no real fault of my own, other than owning a dog with issues, if anything happened (no matter if I felt it wasn't my fault or not), I could be prosecuted and/or my dog put down..

But I'm OK accepting your opinion, if you feel HB's justified that's fine, I don't that should also be fine..

 

[Chris Wilson]

I can see collar cameras coming soon.... (Probably not as ridiculous as it sounds given what's in this thread).

 

[ttaskmaster]

Dogs without reliable immediate recall amongst livestock need a shock collar

No, they don't.
"As well as being misused to inflict unnecessary harm and suffering, there’s also evidence shock collars can re-direct aggression or generate anxiety-based behaviour in pets – making underlying behavioural and health problems worse".
That's why they are outright banned in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia, Germany and Wales, and why the government is now seeking to ban them across the whole of the UK.

We are definitely talking about completely different things

Yes, you are hung up on 'dangerously out of control', which is a criminal matter, and ignoring the various civil issues that can result from your dog 'not being under proper control'... which may then lead to criminal proceedings, if your negligence is severe enough to constitute such an offence.

Now you are hung up that the only possible way that any dog could approach HB is out of the owners malice

Motivation is not a factor - Malice, ignorance, or whatever. You either did something you should not have done, or you failed to do something you should have done.

so lets go with that and take my soppy spaniel as the use case.. So lets say I uncharacteristically ignore his warning, ignore the dog's jacket on purpose and my soppy spaniel approaches him and in this particular scenario my dog is not being aggressive but simply approaching for a 'sniff'.

So you have ignored verbal and written safety warnings and negligently allowed your dog, to whom you have a duty of care, to both be off lead and to enter into a dangerous situation.
Please, go on...

So in this one 'made' up (but btw very realistic IME) situation (which is all I've ever postulated), HB's dog would 100% be deemed to have been the one out of control.. My dog hasn't attacked or attempted to attack, rather HB and/or his dog have..

So you have a dog with five layers of control - Lead, muzzle, distance, verbal and physical warnings. Far more than the typical dog owner will employ, so very unlikely to cause injury with all that going on. By allowing your dog to approach the stranger, you took three of those controls away from its owner.

Even if he had been taking his dog away from (effectively fleeing) the situation, yours coming up would have still had the same effect.

It's all about the attacker, there are no justifications for this, under what definition are you going to argue it's my dogs fault?

I'm not - It's YOUR fault. YOU are supposed to be in control of your dog and YOU are responsible for what happens to it. As for the definition...

Animal Welfare Act 2007, Section 4.

(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,
(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,

(2)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he is responsible for an animal,
(b)an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer,
(c)he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and
(d)the suffering is unnecessary.

So:
1
(a) You failed to recall your dog and it got hurt.
(b) You are being shouted a warning and the other dog is wearing a clear warning. You also know that not every dog likes to be approached, and you know why.

2
(a) Your dog, your responsibility.
(b) Not sure what the other owner failed to do, but yes that was the eventual cause of suffering (assuming the attack does anything more than scare your dog off)
(c) Again, you failed to either keep your distance or recall your dog, which is all that was being asked and would have prevented the incident entirely.
(d) IMO suffering is never necessary.

I simply have the opinion that no matter what (ignorantly or not) a normal dog that is just being social does not deserve being attacked by another dog (with or without issues) or it's owner (with or without issues) under any circumstances.

That may be your opinion, but it's not necessarily supported by law.
More importantly, your dog does not have the legal (or even moral) right to be social with whomever it so chooses.

The definitions from the government concerning controlling your dog clearly indicates the attacking dog is the one considered out of control

By legal definition, your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:

• injures someone
• makes someone worried that it might injure them

Outside of that, it is simply a matter of Dogs not kept under proper control (Section 2 Dogs Act 1871).
By not controlling your dog and keeping it away from a clearly highlighted danger, you are liable.
This danger might not even be a dog that needs space, it could be a horse, or a worksite or whatever. The key fact is that your dog was off lead and allowed to instigate the incident.

and my own valid experiences of a badly guarding dog that absolutely are relevant here because I was informed (and even checked through legal advice) that my dog would the one considered dangerously out of control if it bit/attacked anyone/thing and so had to muzzle it for a period of time.

Depends on the breed and the circumstances.
In some cases, yes that could be the case... but in others, no.
Even where an aggravated offence (specifically, one resulting in injury or death of a human, or injury to an assistance dog) is committed, the court would often order the dog to be destroyed... unless it is satisfied that you are a suitable owner and that the dog does not pose a risk to the public. One such circumstance would be where you had closely followed the advice of a legally recognised and suitably qualified animal behaviourist, such as muzzling, in your case. That would be considered you taking all reasonable action, which is why Honey is in such a good legal standpoint.

I felt a bit aggrieved and probably why I'm sticking to my guns here, it's not nice to think that through no real fault of my own, other than owning a dog with issues, if anything happened (no matter if I felt it wasn't my fault or not), I could be prosecuted and/or my dog put down.

Nature of the beast, mate.
If someone else really has it in for your dog, there are plenty of ******* ******** ways they can leverage the law to do so. A reasonable court will see sense and throw it back in their faces, but if you get unlucky then you and your dog are ******.... And this, oddly enough, is precisely why so many owners will aggressively protect their dogs from other people!!

But I'm OK accepting your opinion, if you feel HB's justified that's fine, I don't that should also be fine..

It's not about any of our opinions, though. It's about what the law will likely do and what the opinions of the Police/court/magistrate/jury will be.

 

[Voltar]

Wonder how many Dogs cases some of our learned posters have in fact been instructed in and prosecuted/defended in court.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Wonder how many Dogs cases some of our learned posters have in fact been instructed in and prosecuted/defended in court.

What does that matter, when each case is based on different circumstances?

 

[Voltar]

What does that matter, when each case is based on different circumstances?

Something to do with giving/receiving legal advice from people who aren’t qualified to give it.

Edit- on topic, I agree that dogs should be kept under control in public places.

 

[Demon]

Yes, you are hung up on 'dangerously out of control', which is a criminal matter, and ignoring the various civil issues that can result from your dog 'not being under proper control'... which may then lead to criminal proceedings, if your negligence is severe enough to constitute such an offence.

Come on, HB used the dangerous dog act, referencing articles that use that definition in #243, long before I even contributed, this is precisely why I'm fixated on it, because I'm discussing HB and his situation and HIS beliefs and why I don't agree with them.

Animal Welfare Act 2007, Section 4.

(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,
(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,

(2)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he is responsible for an animal,
(b)an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer,
(c)he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and
(d)the suffering is unnecessary.

So:
1
(a) You failed to recall your dog and it got hurt.
(b) You are being shouted a warning and the other dog is wearing a clear warning. You also know that not every dog likes to be approached, and you know why.

2
(a) Your dog, your responsibility.
(b) Not sure what the other owner failed to do, but yes that was the eventual cause of suffering (assuming the attack does anything more than scare your dog off)
(c) Again, you failed to either keep your distance or recall your dog, which is all that was being asked and would have prevented the incident entirely.
(d) IMO suffering is never necessary.

Had you presented a case based on the mental suffering imparted on HB's dog I would actually have paused for thought (although it seems a very gross misapplication of the Animal Welfare Act), but your theorised application of the Animal Welfare Act in this situation is certainly different but not one I agree with.


So we are back at square one.. I still don't believe the notion that the only conceivable situation that a dog can approach HB's dog is through malevolent action and so don't agree that ANY dog approaching HB / HB's dog warrants an attack from HB/HB's dog.. Does that make HB the most terrible individual to me? NO.. Do I feel unsympathetic about his dog and would knowingly want to put it under duress? NO... Do I think that an aggressive dog running at his Dog to attack it shouldn't allow HB to deal with it as any of us would? NO...

 

[ttaskmaster]

Something to do with giving/receiving legal advice from people who aren’t qualified to give it.

Lucky I'm not giving legal advice, then, eh!

Edit- on topic, I agree that dogs should be kept under control in public places.

And that's exactly what we're discussing - What constitutes 'under control' as written in the law.

Come on, HB used the dangerous dog act, referencing articles that use that definition in #243, long before I even contributed, this is precisely why I'm fixated on it, because I'm discussing HB and his situation and HIS beliefs and why I don't agree with them.

He did, and in order to comply with the DDA and control his dog, he has taken considerable measures to achieve this... so even if his dog bites yours (somehow, despite having a muzzle on), it is not 'dangerously out of control'.
In the case of yours coming up to him, he is perfectly entitled to intervene. It may not be considered a safe thing to do, as he may get bitten in the process (which is then bad news for your dog), but at the end of the day, his is heavily restricted and under proper control in accordance with various laws and professional specifications. Part of maintaining that control is keeping yours away... whereas yours is loose.

Had you presented a case based on the mental suffering imparted on HB's dog I would actually have paused for thought (although it seems a very gross misapplication of the Animal Welfare Act), but your theorised application of the Animal Welfare Act in this situation is certainly different but not one I agree with.

Well without any structured challenge or explanation, I simply disagree with your disagreement.
But again, you seem to be ignoring the point that this is not about his dog or your dog, but about you and your legal responsibilities to keep your dog controlled and not allow it to present a danger to other people.

So we are back at square one.. I still don't believe the notion that the only conceivable situation that a dog can approach HB's dog is through malevolent action

I never asserted such a notion in the first place, so you're bordering on a strawman argument, there.

so don't agree that ANY dog approaching HB / HB's dog warrants an attack from HB/HB's dog.

Dogs have the right to natural behaviour, which in this case includes barking and snapping at any dog it doesn't want coming near.
I am not aware of any law that prevents HB himself from booting away any dog that he believes presents a threat or other problem, in this case interfering with the control he is exerting over his dog.

 

[Demon]

And that's exactly what we're discussing - What constitutes 'under control' as written in the law.

No, I'm discussing HB's particular case and his comments, that's all I've ever been discussing, I only brought in the dangerous dogs part because HB had used that saying it justified his actions, you are changing what we are discussing, I would suggest that is moving the goalposts somewhat, something I'm not interested in, because I sense you just want to be adversarial, and honestly, I do not..

[He did, and in order to comply with the DDA and control his dog, he has taken considerable measures to achieve this... so even if his dog bites yours (somehow, despite having a muzzle on), it is not 'dangerously out of control'.
In the case of yours coming up to him, he is perfectly entitled to intervene. It may not be considered a safe thing to do, as he may get bitten in the process (which is then bad news for your dog), but at the end of the day, his is heavily restricted and under proper control in accordance with various laws and professional specifications. Part of maintaining that control is keeping yours away... whereas yours is loose.

Well, the black and white text as presented in the dangerous dogs act indicates it is only the attacker that is deemed dangerously out of control, so no, if my dog is not attacking or showing serious signs of attacking, he is most certainly not entitled IMO.

Well without any structured challenge or explanation, I simply disagree with your disagreement.
But again, you seem to be ignoring the point that this is not about his dog or your dog, but about you and your legal responsibilities to keep your dog controlled and not allow it to present a danger to other people.

The reason I am not challenging it is simply that I can present a 'case' where HB is in contravention of that act on his dog or my dog, and the other reason for not going overboard challenging it is simply that the animal welfare act does not supersede the dangerous dogs act, that would still apply and since that part of my grounds for disagreeing with HB (his reliance on the DDA supporting him when I think it doesn't) even if I was also prosecuted or not under a different act.. I can happily present the case I would make for HB contravening that act, but I'd rather stick to the DDA for now.

I never asserted such a notion in the first place, so you're bordering on a strawman argument, there.

It is my notion, the notion that lead to my statement that I don't believe HB's actions as stated are reasonable, the only point and the only situation I'm talking about that is all (and trying to stick to btw). It's not a strawman because I'm just trying to keep 100% on track, I keep saying you are having a different conversation precisely because you are trying to make my argument something entirely different, so I'm re-iterating it as many times as I can until we actually can talk about it rather than switch direction and start moving the goal posts.

Dogs have the right to natural behaviour, which in this case includes barking and snapping at any dog it doesn't want coming near.
I am not aware of any law that prevents HB himself from booting away any dog that he believes presents a threat or other problem, in this case interfering with the control he is exerting over his dog.

The nuance is that in my case of accidentally (or not if you prefer, it makes no odds), a non aggressive dog approaching HB/HB's dog, it does not present a direct threat, HB is worried his dog will attack it due to the stressful reaction his dog has and so is attacking that non aggressive dog himself, either way the non aggressive dog gets hurt.. I don't like the fact his dog may be stressed, that is not nice, however, a stressed dog vs an severely injured dog is not a good situation and there are no rights in this, which is why I am happy that there are two valid opinions on this, you can side with the stressed dog or side with the non aggressive dog that was otherwise just bumbling along just being normally social..


So, again, My point is I don't find HB's proposed actions reasonable based on the fact I can think of (and experienced myself) circumstances where a non aggressive dog can approach his dog (when out in public) through no malevolent act of another owner and in this case it does not warrant violence from HB or his dog..
My rationale for not finding it reasonable is that having walked my dogs off the lead for many years, a small handful of times we've inadvertently bumped in to owners of rescue dogs , mainly in the park, where there are a lot of bushes/shrubs/trees with lots of windy paths that present blind corners.. Odd how we all reacted reasonably, I got my dog back on it's lead, they suddenly dragged their dogs away, however it didn't stop their dogs almost biting mine.. And incidentally in that situation it wouldn't have mattered if my dog was on a lead, we've literally bumped in to them on the street corner once as well, both on leads, only our quick reactions pulled both parties away quickly...

I don't personally see the big deal disagreeing with HB, I don't know how many more times I can say despite disagreeing that his actions are ALWAYS reasonable (not unwarranted in some situations, but not ALL), I am sympathetic to him and his dog and have all the time in the world for rescue dogs or any dog with behavioural issues.

 

[ttaskmaster]

No, I'm discussing HB's particular case and his comments, that's all I've ever been discussing, I only brought in the dangerous dogs part because HB had used that saying it justified his actions, you are changing what we are discussing, I would suggest that is moving the goalposts somewhat, something I'm not interested in, because I sense you just want to be adversarial, and honestly, I do not.

He began with: "Just use common sense, assume nothing and keep all your animals under control at all times"
In the same post, he then explained how he keeps his animals under control.

When challenged, he responded with the assertion that "In a court I think I could successfully argue that I’ve taken all reasonable steps necessary to mitigate the risk".
He then goes on to demonstrate this legal compliance, citing the law (in that instance, the DDA), because that is what this comes down to - Legal responsibilities and liabilities.

So we are now in the realms of the legalities, but you hadn't even chimed in at this point.
When you did pipe up, it was to challenge commonly employed methods that people (such as HB) use to prevent these things from happening, and instead offering that control was quantified by your degree of trust in the dog...

Well, the black and white text as presented in the dangerous dogs act indicates it is only the attacker that is deemed dangerously out of control, so no, if my dog is not attacking or showing serious signs of attacking, he is most certainly not entitled IMO

No, the DDA specifically states a dog that causes injury to a 'person' or 'assistance dog', or reasonable fear that said dog will cause such. That is all.
Even if his dog rips yours' face off, that is still not actually covered by the DDA.

However, if someone so much as trips over your dog and is injured, that does actually qualify yours as dangerously out of control, and yes there are cases involving just such an incident, which is far more pertinent that you might imagine...

A common situation in such cases would be your dog going up (however innocently) to mine. Mine gets agitated by the presence of yours and starts barking at it. In turn, yours panics and runs around behind me to get away, tripping me up as I step to avoid the kerfuffle, breaking my collarbone as I hit the ground.
Your dog has caused injury to me and thus you have commited a crime under the DDA.

And yes, that is an actual case which resulted in the destruction of the 'innocent' dog.

The reason I am not challenging it is simply that I can present a 'case' where HB is in contravention of that act on his dog or my dog, and the other reason for not going overboard challenging it is simply that the animal welfare act does not supersede the dangerous dogs act, that would still apply and since that part of my grounds for disagreeing with HB (his reliance on the DDA supporting him when I think it doesn't) even if I was also prosecuted or not under a different act.. I can happily present the case I would make for HB contravening that act, but I'd rather stick to the DDA for now.

As above - HB would not be in contravention of the DDA as writ... but by your actions (or rather inactions) that put your dog in a situation where, despite all the measures taken, HB might certainly be pushing the boundaries of the DDA, you yourself are in breach of the Animal Welfare Act, as previously outlined.
So feel free to present your case...

It is my notion, the notion that lead to my statement that I don't believe HB's actions as stated are reasonable, the only point and the only situation I'm talking about that is all (and trying to stick to btw). It's not a strawman because I'm just trying to keep 100% on track, I keep saying you are having a different conversation precisely because you are trying to make my argument something entirely different, so I'm re-iterating it as many times as I can until we actually can talk about it rather than switch direction and start moving the goal posts.

It is a notion you yourself first raised, and then challenged in opposition to our existing arguments, without correctly representing our arguments, which makes it a strawman.
It is also based on flawed assumptions, as I illustrated earlier.

The nuance is that in my case of accidentally (or not if you prefer, it makes no odds), a non aggressive dog approaching HB/HB's dog, it does not present a direct threat

Flawed assumption No 1 - While you may know your dog is not a threat to them, they won't know that... and you know nothing about HB or his dog, or what constitutes a threat to either of them.
This much is further evidenced by your assertions regarding why his dog is wearing a yellow jacket and seeming unawareness of the many different reasons why such things are in common use, most of which do signify that other dogs represent some kind of threat to them and their particular health or behavioural situations.

Flawed assumption No 2 - Your dog may have been an absolute dream all its life, with never an incident before... but there is always a first time for every such incident, and you already know that even the friendliest of situations can suddenly turn bad.

HB is worried his dog will attack it due to the stressful reaction his dog has

Where did he say this?
He did say he'd be concerned about them fighting, but really any unwanted interaction could lead to unruly behaviour, in which both animals and people could get hurt.
In short, he's looking to avoid all kinds of incidents.

and so is attacking that non aggressive dog himself, either way the non aggressive dog gets hurt.

Re-read Post 288.
Also, find me where he actually said he'd attack the other dog... The intimation was certainly there and he did say he'd take necessary precautions, defend himself and his dog, etc... but never actually attack.

I don't like the fact his dog may be stressed, that is not nice, however, a stressed dog vs an severely injured dog is not a good situation and there are no rights in this, which is why I am happy that there are two valid opinions on this, you can side with the stressed dog or side with the non aggressive dog that was otherwise just bumbling along just being normally social.

A non-aggressive dog can be quickly and easily recalled.
A stressed dog has a higher risk of panicking and doing something undesirable, whether that is running off, tripping its owner, attacking the other dog, or any number of other things.

Part of socialising your dog includes knowing when not to force your socialisation on others.

So, again, My point is I don't find HB's proposed actions reasonable based on the fact I can think of (and experienced myself) circumstances where a non aggressive dog can approach his dog (when out in public) through no malevolent act of another owner and in this case it does not warrant violence from HB or his dog.

And again, that's very nice, but still not the point we have been highlighting throughout the thread, as well as being based on several flawed assumptions as detailed above and in previous posts.

Odd how we all reacted reasonably, I got my dog back on it's lead, they suddenly dragged their dogs away, however it didn't stop their dogs almost biting mine.

Hang on... So their dog does attack yours and you find that perfectly reasonable, presumably only because it missed, yet you think HB is unreasonable by stepping in to prevent the same thing??!!

I don't personally see the big deal disagreeing with HB, I don't know how many more times I can say despite disagreeing that his actions are ALWAYS reasonable (not unwarranted in some situations, but not ALL), I am sympathetic to him and his dog and have all the time in the world for rescue dogs or any dog with behavioural issues.

All the time in the world for them, yet you won't given them any space...

The issue in your disagreement is your deliberate unwillingness to understand the needs of his dog, and your failure to appreciate how your assumptions of innocence on your side could actually put both him and you in several very bad situations.