Why would the dog need to know? An owner knows what the implied right of access route in their property would be (usually a front garden up to the front door), so they would know not to let their dog in that area. They also know anyone in another area of their property where there isn’t that implied right of access shouldn’t be there, so shouldn’t have to face any risk of criminalisation if they allow their dog in such an area (where it’s separated from that route to the front door.)
It’s new legislation, so while we can hope that common sense prevails, there’s no provision for it as it’s written. I’m not sure how you can say it’s taken into account when there’s been no case to test that yet.
I'm comparing it to legislation that has been in place since 1871, and where people can be dealt with for having dangerous dogs not under control on their own property.
I'm guessing the new powers will be along similar lines in that respect.
Well feel free to wonder into a MOD bases and say the same when you get bitten, as that was my job for 10 years training people and their guard dogs. And people should be able live in thier own home and gardens without fear of anyone entering their secure grounds or home.
How about animals with knives, fists and guns, which all capable of killing.
Or those off their heads on alcohol or other drugs?
I think there are laws against those things if an attack takes place. It's the same with dogs. If they attack someone, the owner can be dealt with, depending on circumstances.
Yes it is because if the, if it is secure for animal not to be able to get out and the animal cannot get out, then that can only mean someone has forced there way into a secure area, were they have no lawfull right to be
Well feel free to wonder into a MOD bases and say the same when you get bitten, as that was my job for 10 years training people and their guard dogs. And people should be able live in thier own home and gardens without fear of anyone entering their secure grounds or home.
MOD is different to a residential environment.
People should be able to live in their home and garden, but not free to put dangerous animals on their property that could seriously injure someone even if that someone had no "right" to be there.
Yes it is because if the, if it is secure for animal not to be able to get out and the animal cannot get out, then that can only mean someone has forced there way into a secure area, were they have no lawfull right to be
I keep saying that a secure compound is not the same as a dog wandering around an area where visitors can lawfully access.
Yes it is because if the, if it is secure for animal not to be able to get out and the animal cannot get out, then that can only mean someone has forced there way into a secure area, were they have no lawfull right to be
The exact same argument came up in the 1970s after a series of children and adults were attacked and killed while "trespassing" on building sites.
Stricter laws were brought in
no one in thier right mind would go back to having dangerous dogs roaming free guarding commercial environments, and we are now belatedly extending the law to cover residential/
A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a person (“the handler”) who is capable of controlling the dog is present on the premises and the dog is under the control of the handler at all times while it is being so used except while it is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.
Several times you have refereed to the dog guarding your home,
I can see signs appearing on perimeter fences and gates, NOTE: NO ENTRY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE HOMEOWNER, VIOLATORS WILL BE CONSIDERED TRESPASSERS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE DANGEROUS DOGS ACT.
"Hello is that UPS, I was expecting a parcel to be delivered"
"We've been waitng for you to call. It's available for collection at our Tamworth depot"
"I didn't get a note to say you'd try to deliverit"
"You wouldn't Sir, the driver didn't have your permission to enter the grounds to leave a card to say why we couldn't deliver"
Under the GibsonGirl method of behaviour around dogs, you should have automatically assumed that the dog was perfectly harmless until it was actually tearing your throat out. At that point you might have a valid claim that it wasn't harmless. Thing is, it's a bit late by then...:(
:D:D:D:D
I just don't get why dog owners can't just show a bit of respect to other people by ensuring their dog is on a lead. I walk my dog every day and I go around a massive flat field where I can see if there are any pedestrians coming. He is now old and quite doddery and he's off the lead but if I see anybody in the distance I slip his lead on and hope that others will do the same to their dogs.
Curiously, that's never shown to be the cause, is it?
It's pointless discussing the issue with you as you have this idealised fantasy of the animal world that bears as much resemblance to real life as a Disney cartoon.
There is somebody who has posted on here saying that they knew of a dog who was killed after biting a kid. Turned out the kid had stuck a pencil down the dog's ear!
I do NOT live in a fantasy world thank you very much! I can at least see the failings of my own species and am ashamed of them!
I think there are laws against those things if an attack takes place. It's the same with dogs. If they attack someone, the owner can be dealt with, depending on circumstances.
Dogs only have their teeth. Humans have an array of weapons to choose from. Many of which can inflict multiple injuries to multiple people at once.
When those humans are below a certain age they cannot be dealt with and in may cases their parents get away with their child's actions as well.
However if a dog were to inflict a single bite then that dog could easily be killed. There are not many cases when nothing happens to the dog.
I just don't get why dog owners can't just show a bit of respect to other people by ensuring their dog is on a lead. I walk my dog every day and I go around a massive flat field where I can see if there are any pedestrians coming. He is now old and quite doddery and he's off the lead but if I see anybody in the distance I slip his lead on and hope that others will do the same to their dogs.
I agree. I have had some arguments with people that refuse to put dogs on a lead. my boy is good most of time but have the odd problem with boy dogs when mine is on his lead. Think he may need so lessons with the new DDA in place as it all takes its one staff hater to see him, and lets face it there are a few that will probably say a staff is aggressive when its not.
People (like me) let their dogs off lead to give them proper exercise. A run off lead will drain a lot more energy than a walk on lead. Besides it's not much of a life for a dog always being in the house and always restrained while out in public. They need to burn off energy or else that pent up energy could be released through unwanted behaviours such as as destructiveness and biting. Not only that it's good for their physical health.
As for that Rottie. Why should it wear a muzzle. Doesn't sound like a dangerous dog to me.
Regarding panicking. You and everybody else who are afraid of dogs should get some help. Panicking around a dog can actually lead to a bite or an attack.
Having been a dog owner myself I found your post to be so incredibly selfish and inconsiderate.
A dog should be let off the lead for a decent amount of exercise but surely in areas which are suitable, and a park or public area where children or other people are is not suitable in my view.
I used to only let my dog off the lead only around the farmland or forests near me, if we encountered anyone else then she would be recalled and put back on the lead immediately. Its called having consideration for others. You can't assume that everyone is fine with dogs and it is your responsibility to ensure your dog doesn't terrorise anyone else, even if they are just being friendly.
You are perfectly right in saying a panicked person is more likely to make a dog attack, and so it is the responsibility of the dog owner to ensure that can't happen by not putting the dog in that position in the first place.
Plenty of parks also have specific dog parks for the purpose of letting them off the lead. If people can't take their dogs to these designated or more appropriate areas then I would question their responsibleness.
My Grandson has had recent similar experiences. A large dog on the loose bowled him over, and he is now terrified of all dogs. The owner always says "He wont hurt you, he doesn't usually do that" etc. He wont if he's on a lead!
That's pretty much what happened to me. A neighbour deliberately set the dog loose and he jumped on top of me and he thought it was all a great big joke. He was laughing about it. I was only 6 at the time and the owner didn't like children. Sick if you ask me >:(
I was in a pub earlier and there was someone sitting at the bar with a white Staffie. I asked if dogs were allowed in the pub and I was told they were. Apparently the guy is a regular and I was told by a staff member that the Staffie was harmless and a bit of a pussycat, but I've been looking them up on the internet since and there have been several attacks on people by them and they have even killed children. There were several families with little kids in the place. I think it seems irresponsible of them to let a potentially dangerous dog into a pub which is also frequented by families. I might have to write a letter of complaint to the chain concerned. The other issue I have is that it's unhygenic in a place where they're serving food, but I'm more concerned about the irresponsibility of a restaurant allowing a potentially dangerous dog in. What would have happened if the dog had turned nasty and mauled someone or killed a child? Can you imagine the lawsuit? It's worrying
Having been a dog owner myself I found your post to be so incredibly selfish and inconsiderate.
A dog should be let off the lead for a decent amount of exercise but surely in areas which are suitable, and a park or public area where children or other people are is not suitable in my view.
I used to only let my dog off the lead only around the farmland or forests near me, if we encountered anyone else then she would be recalled and put back on the lead immediately. Its called having consideration for others. You can't assume that everyone is fine with dogs and it is your responsibility to ensure your dog doesn't terrorise anyone else, even if they are just being friendly.
You are perfectly right in saying a panicked person is more likely to make a dog attack, and so it is the responsibility of the dog owner to ensure that can't happen by not putting the dog in that position in the first place.
Plenty of parks also have specific dog parks for the purpose of letting them off the lead. If people can't take their dogs to these designated or more appropriate areas then I would question their responsibleness.
Such a reasonable attitude from a dog owner, a very good post which the majority of dog owners, in my experience, could learn from. Would that more dog owners showed similar regard for others.
That's pretty much what happened to me. A neighbour deliberately set the dog loose and he jumped on top of me and he thought it was all a great big joke. He was laughing about it. I was only 6 at the time and the owner didn't like children. Sick if you ask me >:(
I was in a pub earlier and there was someone sitting at the bar with a white Staffie. I asked if dogs were allowed in the pub and I was told they were. Apparently the guy is a regular and I was told by a staff member that the Staffie was harmless and a bit of a pussycat, but I've been looking them up on the internet since and there have been several attacks on people by them and they have even killed children. There were several families with little kids in the place. I think it seems irresponsible of them to let a potentially dangerous dog into a pub which is also frequented by families. I might have to write a letter of complaint to the chain concerned. The other issue I have is that it's unhygenic in a place where they're serving food, but I'm more concerned about the irresponsibility of a restaurant allowing a potentially dangerous dog in. What would have happened if the dog had turned nasty and mauled someone or killed a child? Can you imagine the lawsuit? It's worrying
well you obviously didn't look up staffies too well. Because years ago they used to be called nanny dogs because of their soft approach with children. its the owner not the breed. I've got a staffie and he loves my kids, loves my friends kids.
as for BIB it was just sat there so clearly a placid dog, if it was running up and down jumping about then I would worry. Staffies are not potentially dangerous when in the right hands. Have you spend time with one? don't judge until you have.
Having been a dog owner myself I found your post to be so incredibly selfish and inconsiderate.
A dog should be let off the lead for a decent amount of exercise but surely in areas which are suitable, and a park or public area where children or other people are is not suitable in my view.
I used to only let my dog off the lead only around the farmland or forests near me, if we encountered anyone else then she would be recalled and put back on the lead immediately. Its called having consideration for others. You can't assume that everyone is fine with dogs and it is your responsibility to ensure your dog doesn't terrorise anyone else, even if they are just being friendly.
You are perfectly right in saying a panicked person is more likely to make a dog attack, and so it is the responsibility of the dog owner to ensure that can't happen by not putting the dog in that position in the first place.
Plenty of parks also have specific dog parks for the purpose of letting them off the lead. If people can't take their dogs to these designated or more appropriate areas then I would question their responsibleness.
I don't think anyone could of put it better.
I only let him off if no one is around then he is back on again as soon as I see someone or a dog.
That's pretty much what happened to me. A neighbour deliberately set the dog loose and he jumped on top of me and he thought it was all a great big joke. He was laughing about it. I was only 6 at the time and the owner didn't like children. Sick if you ask me >:(
I was in a pub earlier and there was someone sitting at the bar with a white Staffie. I asked if dogs were allowed in the pub and I was told they were. Apparently the guy is a regular and I was told by a staff member that the Staffie was harmless and a bit of a pussycat, but I've been looking them up on the internet since and there have been several attacks on people by them and they have even killed children. There were several families with little kids in the place. I think it seems irresponsible of them to let a potentially dangerous dog into a pub which is also frequented by families. I might have to write a letter of complaint to the chain concerned. The other issue I have is that it's unhygenic in a place where they're serving food, but I'm more concerned about the irresponsibility of a restaurant allowing a potentially dangerous dog in. What would have happened if the dog had turned nasty and mauled someone or killed a child? Can you imagine the lawsuit? It's worrying
And how do you know that any of the people in that pub are not dangerous, anyone member of the public in that pub could have a violent past. What would happen if a person turned nasty, and ran a mock and killed people
Dont see why the dog or dog owner should get punished if someone decides to enter a secure back garden that the dog cannot get out of. And people have had to climb over or force some kind of entry. Can see this ending up with a few court cases, as this law seems to say people have the right to trespass and the law is on thier side.
And how do you know that any of the people in that pub are not dangerous, anyone member of the public in that pub could have a violent past. What would happen if a person turned nasty, and ran a mock and killed people
They would get arrested, prosecuted and put in prison for the rest of their lives I'd imagine.
In the US, in certain states- perhaps put to death.
People need to stop pretending dogs and humans are the same things.
It'm my back garden I worry about, I keep my dog on a long line in the garden and I'd hope that would count as being under control.
She's a staff so loves people, hasn't got a guarding bone in her body but some people are terrified of her just for existing.
This new law has scary potential to punish dogs for just behaving like dogs in their own home. They need somewhere to be able to relax ffs.
Comments
I'm comparing it to legislation that has been in place since 1871, and where people can be dealt with for having dangerous dogs not under control on their own property.
I'm guessing the new powers will be along similar lines in that respect.
Secure is the operative word.
How about animals with knives, fists and guns, which all capable of killing.
Or those off their heads on alcohol or other drugs?
I think there are laws against those things if an attack takes place. It's the same with dogs. If they attack someone, the owner can be dealt with, depending on circumstances.
Yes it is because if the, if it is secure for animal not to be able to get out and the animal cannot get out, then that can only mean someone has forced there way into a secure area, were they have no lawfull right to be
People should be able to live in their home and garden, but not free to put dangerous animals on their property that could seriously injure someone even if that someone had no "right" to be there.
I keep saying that a secure compound is not the same as a dog wandering around an area where visitors can lawfully access.
Stricter laws were brought in
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/50
no one in thier right mind would go back to having dangerous dogs roaming free guarding commercial environments, and we are now belatedly extending the law to cover residential/
Several times you have refereed to the dog guarding your home,
But a dog guarding its home/territory is not the same as a guard dog.
"Hello is that UPS, I was expecting a parcel to be delivered"
"We've been waitng for you to call. It's available for collection at our Tamworth depot"
"I didn't get a note to say you'd try to deliverit"
"You wouldn't Sir, the driver didn't have your permission to enter the grounds to leave a card to say why we couldn't deliver"
"Of course you had permission by me placing the order for the goods, now get your arse over here and bring me my parcel."
I just don't get why dog owners can't just show a bit of respect to other people by ensuring their dog is on a lead. I walk my dog every day and I go around a massive flat field where I can see if there are any pedestrians coming. He is now old and quite doddery and he's off the lead but if I see anybody in the distance I slip his lead on and hope that others will do the same to their dogs.
There is somebody who has posted on here saying that they knew of a dog who was killed after biting a kid. Turned out the kid had stuck a pencil down the dog's ear!
I do NOT live in a fantasy world thank you very much! I can at least see the failings of my own species and am ashamed of them!
Dogs only have their teeth. Humans have an array of weapons to choose from. Many of which can inflict multiple injuries to multiple people at once.
When those humans are below a certain age they cannot be dealt with and in may cases their parents get away with their child's actions as well.
However if a dog were to inflict a single bite then that dog could easily be killed. There are not many cases when nothing happens to the dog.
I agree. I have had some arguments with people that refuse to put dogs on a lead. my boy is good most of time but have the odd problem with boy dogs when mine is on his lead. Think he may need so lessons with the new DDA in place as it all takes its one staff hater to see him, and lets face it there are a few that will probably say a staff is aggressive when its not.
Having been a dog owner myself I found your post to be so incredibly selfish and inconsiderate.
A dog should be let off the lead for a decent amount of exercise but surely in areas which are suitable, and a park or public area where children or other people are is not suitable in my view.
I used to only let my dog off the lead only around the farmland or forests near me, if we encountered anyone else then she would be recalled and put back on the lead immediately. Its called having consideration for others. You can't assume that everyone is fine with dogs and it is your responsibility to ensure your dog doesn't terrorise anyone else, even if they are just being friendly.
You are perfectly right in saying a panicked person is more likely to make a dog attack, and so it is the responsibility of the dog owner to ensure that can't happen by not putting the dog in that position in the first place.
Plenty of parks also have specific dog parks for the purpose of letting them off the lead. If people can't take their dogs to these designated or more appropriate areas then I would question their responsibleness.
Well keep dogs under control. That's what the law says.
There are an array of laws covering people assaulting each other.
That's pretty much what happened to me. A neighbour deliberately set the dog loose and he jumped on top of me and he thought it was all a great big joke. He was laughing about it. I was only 6 at the time and the owner didn't like children. Sick if you ask me >:(
I was in a pub earlier and there was someone sitting at the bar with a white Staffie. I asked if dogs were allowed in the pub and I was told they were. Apparently the guy is a regular and I was told by a staff member that the Staffie was harmless and a bit of a pussycat, but I've been looking them up on the internet since and there have been several attacks on people by them and they have even killed children. There were several families with little kids in the place. I think it seems irresponsible of them to let a potentially dangerous dog into a pub which is also frequented by families. I might have to write a letter of complaint to the chain concerned. The other issue I have is that it's unhygenic in a place where they're serving food, but I'm more concerned about the irresponsibility of a restaurant allowing a potentially dangerous dog in. What would have happened if the dog had turned nasty and mauled someone or killed a child? Can you imagine the lawsuit? It's worrying
Such a reasonable attitude from a dog owner, a very good post which the majority of dog owners, in my experience, could learn from. Would that more dog owners showed similar regard for others.
well you obviously didn't look up staffies too well. Because years ago they used to be called nanny dogs because of their soft approach with children. its the owner not the breed. I've got a staffie and he loves my kids, loves my friends kids.
as for BIB it was just sat there so clearly a placid dog, if it was running up and down jumping about then I would worry. Staffies are not potentially dangerous when in the right hands. Have you spend time with one? don't judge until you have.
I don't think anyone could of put it better.
I only let him off if no one is around then he is back on again as soon as I see someone or a dog.
And how do you know that any of the people in that pub are not dangerous, anyone member of the public in that pub could have a violent past. What would happen if a person turned nasty, and ran a mock and killed people
I think your local postman would disagree
They would get arrested, prosecuted and put in prison for the rest of their lives I'd imagine.
In the US, in certain states- perhaps put to death.
People need to stop pretending dogs and humans are the same things.
Like most people my postie comes to front door.!
It'm my back garden I worry about, I keep my dog on a long line in the garden and I'd hope that would count as being under control.
She's a staff so loves people, hasn't got a guarding bone in her body but some people are terrified of her just for existing.
This new law has scary potential to punish dogs for just behaving like dogs in their own home. They need somewhere to be able to relax ffs.