All Headlines >>
The Government has announced that it is extending existing dangerous dogs laws to apply to private property, closing a loophole in the current law which only applies to public land.
Jim Paice, Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, said: "We've all heard the stories of snarling dogs not being properly kept under control or heard from health workers, postal workers or social workers who are at risk of serious injury from out of control dogs while just doing their job, attending to people in their homes.
"Today we are announcing a comprehensive package of measures that tackle the problem head on, which will better protect legitimate visitors to private property and will enable the police to take action before someone is hurt or killed."
The plans also put forward proposals to allow the police, when dealing with any dogs which are subject to proceedings under the Dangerous Dogs Act, to take a common sense decision as to whether the dog really needs to be kept away from their owners until the outcome of proceedings.
Mr Paice added: "Our plans must strike the right balance between protecting the public from dangerous dogs and ensuring that safe and properly looked after pets don't need to be wrenched from their home unnecessarily.
"We're giving the police more discretion to take common-sense decisions where dogs are clearly not a threat by ending the requirement that they be seized and kennelled, at great cost to the taxpayer and distress to the owner involved, while a decision is taken on whether to exempt the dog from being destroyed under the Dangerous Dogs Act."
Other measures announced today include:
However, the proposals do not go far enough for Dogs Trust, the dog welfare charity. Clarissa Baldwin, the charity's CEO said: "The Government has spent a great deal of time examining this legislation since it came to power and whilst we accept DEFRA has done their best to look at this issue, unfortunately, their best is no where near good enough. Not good enough to better protect the public or good enough to improve animal welfare.
"Government must tackle this problem head on with completely new legislation rather than just tinkering around the edges. We're extremely disillusioned that there is nothing in the consultation on measures that will actually help to prevent dog attacks, which is surely what the aim of these proposals should be. We seem to be waltzing along on this issue rather than the quick step we need to meaningful reform.
"We consider that the introduction of compulsory microchipping of all dogs, not just those born after a certain date, is the only way that we will see immediate welfare benefits and a reduction in the number of stray dogs in the UK.
"Microchipping will not prevent dog attacks but it will allow the owner of a dangerous dog or a dog that was dangerously out of control to be identified by enforcement agencies. The act of microchipping is also a key intervention, providing an opportunity to advise owners about responsible dog ownership and the law."
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vet nurses.
Microchipping would be a start but only if it is enforced. How many kennels, police and indeed dog wardens dont have chip readers?Its ok sticking a chip in a dog's neck but if nobody ever checks it or the details are not kept up to date its useless. We had a dog brought into us last Friday - recently re homed from a rescue kennels. It had a chip which we checked on the database and it gave a name and address still within our county but a good way off. We contacted the kennels and yes they knew about the chip (which was good but there are many who dont check because they have no reader) but not so good in that the original owner had decided they didnt want the dog for whatever reason so they had rehomed it with the original owners details still current and the new owner had not a clue that this dog was chipped at all until he brought it into us for a routine check.