Useful Information:

As Spring approaches in the UK, and especially if your dogs, like some of ours, try to dig up bulbs and plants when they have first been put in (knowing the area of garden you were just working in and taking interest in what has been going on - Amanda Dunckey.

Please sign and share this important petition which is campaigning for changes - Justice for Oliver:

Sign and Check for Updates Here - https://www.change.org/p/justice-for-oliver-lets-change-these-rules-and-policies-can-you-help

This is Oliver's Petition please take a few minutes to read thank you.

Oliver was the most beautiful dog in the world who loved his walkies and playing in the park with his tennis balls.We will never get over finding our baby dead in our car, the way he died will haunt us forever he put his trust in us and we let him down, our, baby was priceless and we miss him so much. :(

Please if you can kindly sign my petition so hopefully the laws can be changed on animals travelling on ferries.#DogsOnFerries  Oliver died on a DFDS ferry. DFDS’s rules and regulations mean that on some routes dogs travelling have to be kept in cars. Our trip was just two hours long.

•  We followed all the procedures windows open lots of water as per DFDS rules, during the two-hour trip from Dover to Dunkirk we asked a member of staff if we could check on him and was told NO. Oliver died through overheating...  Oliver died alone in our car. 
• DID YOU KNOW... Cars can become as hot as an oven very quickly, even when it doesn’t feel that warm. When it is 22 degrees, in a car it can reach a temperature of 47 degrees within 60 minutes.
• These hot temperatures literally cook the brain and the delicate tissues of the body resulting in serious illness and frequent deaths.
• Oliver was subjected to this.

If you were to leave your dog in a car and the dog became ill or worse resulted in a death you can be charged with the offence of Animal Cruelty under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 if convicted of this crime you could face up to 6 months in custody and or a fine up to £20,000.

• So why aren't companies accountable too?
• Oliver was not allowed out of the car and subsequently died ALONE!!
• Please don't let Oliver's death be in vain. I am asking DFDS to stop forcing dog owners to keep their dogs in cars whilst travelling on ferries and to find alternative arrangements to keep dogs safe and happy.
• I want to make people aware if you are travelling with your pet on a ferry think before you decide to take your pet with you - the conditions aren't always safe.
•  SO PLEASE HELP US CHANGE THESE RULES BEFORE ANOTHER ANIMAL DIES!
• PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE THANK YOU SO MUCH.

Lennox Remembered

Today, 11th July 2013 marks one year since Lennox lost his life under breed specific legislation in Northern Ireland, where BSL has existed since 1991 and continues to this day.

Thousands of people, groups, organisations and even politicians stood up in defence of Lennox who was seized from his home and held whilst an extensive legal battle and worldwide campaign ensued to save him.

It's important to remember than Lennox never put a paw wrong - he was incarcerated and prosecuted through the court system under breed specific legislation - which condemns dogs based on their physical characteristics - what a dog looks like and yes this is 2013 but we may as well be in the dark ages with this law suffered by Lennox and thousands of other dogs.

Lennox brought the issue of outdated BSL to the attention of many as the campaign to save him intensified and gathered support from across the globe, he became a focus and example of all that is wrong with the draconian BSL we have been stuck with for so many years.

Lennox had his life taken from him, but his memory lives on and so will the struggle to end this law because after many blows and injustices heaped out over the years the heart is stronger, we want justice, fair dog laws which protect people and dogs alike and we stand together to say - Not In Our Name

Sleep Tight Lennox you are safe now at Rainbow Bridge where all the other innocents gather and look down, we will not forget any of you, that is our promise, we will have our day, we will never give up xx

No To Badger Cull

More MP Letters Urgently Needed:

Just type in your postcode - then click 'participate' and it will send a letter to your MP-you can edit the text it you want to, less than FIVE MINUTES is all it takes.

Please help stop the slaughter of our Badgers;
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/badgers-vote

Message from the 38 Degrees team:

It’s begun. The barbaric pilot cull of thousands of badgers started on Saturday. [1] But there’s a spark of hope.

Mary Creagh MP has called a vote in parliament on Wednesday. Although not legally binding, it could be our last chance. If we cause a big enough backlash by MPs across all political parties, it might be enough to halt the cull and make sure our badgers are safe. [2]

We’ve only got 24 hours to persuade our MPs to vote to stop the cull. MPs from the Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour have all vowed to vote to stop the cull. [3] Can you email your MP now to make sure they turn up and vote to stop the cull too?
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/badgers-vote

Every day, up to 70 badgers could die because the government says it’s necessary to stop the increase of TB in cattle. But scientists say that the policy will have “unimpressive results” in reducing TB, and the evidence in support of a cull is shaky. [4]

The last thing the government wants now is for us to ramp up the attention around this vote. If we’re going to stop the cull, thousands of us have to email our MP and persuade them to vote against the cull on Wednesday.

Getting enough of a backlash is a long-shot. But we know that people power works. In the last week alone we managed to force the government to pledge ”never” to introduce a limit on the number of times we’re allowed to visit our GP. [5]

Badgers have been part of the British countryside for generations,and we want to protect them for generations to come. If we’re going to stop the cull, numbers count. The more of us that email our MP, the more chance we have of persuading the government that they should change their minds.

We’ve got 24 hours. Email your MP now:
Thanks for being involved,

Alice, Becky, Fiona and the 38 Degrees team


NOTES:
[1] Badger Culling due to begin amid protests:http://news.sky.com/story/1098036/badger-culling-due-to-begin-amid-protests
[2] Badger cull is ‘crazy, untested and risky’, Labour warns:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/10091670/Badger-cull-is-crazy-untested-and-risky-Labour-warns.html
[3] Badger cull: MPs vote 147 to 28 for abandoning cull entirely:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/25/badger-cull-vote-government-defeat
[4] David Attenborough: Cull Could Worsen TB in Cattle:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/14/david-attenborough-badger-cull
Channel 4 news, More than 1,000 march in London against badger cull:http://www.channel4.com/news/thousands-to-march-in-london-in-protest-against-badger-cull
[5] Read more about last weeks victory here:http://blog.38degrees.org.uk/2013/05/30/nhs-victory/

Letter to my MP - DDA Amendments planned

A template letter from www.endangereddogs.com which i've sent to my Member of Parliament.

To find out who your MP is and message them -  click here

House of Commons 
London 
SW1A OAA

Dear

 

I am contacting you regarding the amendments planned for the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991 which have been included in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill 2013-14 currently in progress in parliament.

 

I am very concerned that these amendments will unfairly incriminate responsible dog owners and their pet dogs and I do not support what is currently planned and before parliament.

 

I do not think that section three of the DDA should be extended to ‘any’ place – which I understand is for example inside my home and would apply to both aggravated and non-aggravated situations. 

 

Under the legislation the legal definition of ‘dangerously out of control’ is: a dog is presumed to be such if on any occasion there are grounds for ‘reasonable apprehension’ of injury to any person - whether or not any injury has happened.

 

The planned extension of the DDA to private property I feel could leave responsible owners open to malicious complaints (e.g. neighbour and family disputes) and not suitably protected from trespassers and intruders – anyone present on my property without my consent. 

Where will I stand if a burglar/trespasser is in my garden and my dog runs out and barks at them – this could give cause for ‘reasonable apprehension’ under the extended DDA and I would be presumably on the wrong side of the law?

 

What if someone comes to read my electric/gas meter and then later complains my dog barked at them and they felt reasonable apprehension – my dog could be seized from my own home?

 

What about a dog running and baking in its own garden and a neighbour complains they felt reasonable apprehension’ and the dog is seized by a dog warden or the police whilst the complaint is investigated?

 

Offences where any injury has occurred are currently treated as one of strict liability; I feel that defences should be allowed for example if a dog is acting in self-defence.

 

Following a serious dog attack within a family unit it is often reported that the DDA is flawed as it doesn’t enable criminal prosecution and this is described as a ‘loophole’. But what would be the benefits of criminally prosecuting the parents of a child which has been bitten by their own family dog? This will not prevent dog injuries inside people’s homes – in my opinion; education is needed and is the way forward to prevent the majority of dog injuries inside the home environment and to encourage/promote responsible dog ownership.

Education is the key to responsible dog ownership, education prevents dog bites, it should be compulsory in schools forming part of the National Curriculum.

 

Additionally, I do not believe that barking or growling, with no actual contact, at an assistance dog should be allowed to lead to a criminal prosecution or civil proceedings as the amendments will permit if passed as law.

 

I also do not support the amending of the DDA so that when the court is deciding whether a dog would constitute a danger to public safety, the court MUST consider whether the owner is ‘fit and proper’ and may consider ‘any other relevant circumstances’. In my view the definition of what is ‘fit and proper’ is wide open to interpretation as are ‘any other circumstances’; for example, whether or not there is a garden, a dog owner's disability or having children is considered by the court and a pet dog is given a death sentence because of it.

There should not be a compulsory stipulation as to what the court  must take into account, this is removing discretion from the court and is in my opinion open to misuse and will result in the death of more innocent pet dogs who are not a danger to anyone in my opinion.

 

Furthermore I understand that the DDA is to be amended to allow civil proceedings to be performed under all sections but with no legal aid to cover civil proceedings, many dog owners will have no means to defend themselves and to defend their dog from a possible death sentence e.g. to instruct a solicitor. Surely legal aid should be extended also for these cases.

 

This Bill fails to address the need to put the emphasis on the education to encourage responsible dog ownership and help prevent dog bite incidents, the desperate need to remove the breed specific element of the legislation which is causing suffering and mayhem-the repeal of which has been widely supported in previous consultations but totally ignored by government.

 

I look forward to your reply.

No To DDA Amendments - Petition

Petition Against Dangerous Dogs Act  Amendments - please sign the petition against the planned changes in dog law; add your name to the HM Government site e-petition.

Petition text:

Responsible department: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

We the undersigned oppose the proposed amendments to the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA).

We oppose extending section 3 to any place leaving dogs & their owners potentially criminalised in their own homes. ‘Dangerously out of control’ is any occasion a person has ‘reasonable apprehension’ of injury whether or not the dog has actually injured a person.

Offences should not be of strict liability as is currently the case.

Barking/growling alone at an assistance dog should not result in proceedings.

We oppose any extension of powers to enter private property or seize a dog from private property without a warrant.

We object to amendments that a court MUST consider if the owner is ‘fit and proper’ & may consider ‘any other relevant circumstances’.

BSL does nothing to protect the public, or address the problems of irresponsible owners/breeders.

Defendants should be innocent until proved guilty.

Legal aid should be extended to cover civil proceedings under the DDA& also the Dogs Act 1871.

Sign Here

Draft Dangerous Dogs Amendment Bill 2013

The Queen's Speech on May the 8th is reported to include the draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill 2013.

On the 9th April the Government published the draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill which aims to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA), if passed this new legislation will affect dogs of all breeds/types.

Here is a detailed look through the Bill  from the Endangered Dogs Defence & Rescue.

To view the draft Bill in its entirety with government explanatory notes online (see below).

The main points of the Bill are:

 

1) Extension of section 3 of Dangerous Dogs Act:

Section three of the DDA, which applies to all breeds/types of dog, would be extended to apply to all places – to include private property e.g. within your home and garden. This extension would apply to England and Wales.

Section Three of the DDA currently creates a presumption that a dog is presumed to be dangerously out of control if there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person, whether or not it actually does so - with an aggravated offence being committed if the dog, whilst out of control, injures any person, regardless of the circumstances.

Offences where any injury has been caused are currently of strict liability; defences should be possible for dogs alleged to be ‘dangerously out of control’ e.g. when a dog is acting in self-defence - the planned changes do not address this at all.

The draft Bill would extend the law to make it a criminal offence for a dog to be “dangerously out of control” in any place. The definition of “dangerously out of control” remaining the same - when there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that the dog will injury any person whether or not a person is actually injured.

We do not support the extension of sec 3 to 'any' place.

The Bill also extends section three of the DDA with a new provision relating to assistance dogs, making it a criminal offence for a dog to be “dangerously out of control” when there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that the dog will injure any assistance dog, whether or not it actually does, if any injury is caused to an assistance dog whilst out of control an aggravated offence will have been committed.

An assistance dog is (defined by the Equality Act 2010 c173):

§  A dog which has been trained to guide a blind person

§  A dog which has been trained to assist a deaf person

§  A dog which has been trained by a prescribed charity to assist a disabled person who has a disability that consists of epilepsy or otherwise affects the person’s mobility, manual dexterity, physical co-ordination or ability to lift, carry or otherwise move everyday objects

§  A dog of a prescribed category which has been trained to assist a disabled person who has a disability of a prescribed kind (not listed above).

We do not believe that non-aggravated offences should be extended to assistance dogs - e.g. a dog barking at an assistance dog could result in criminal or civil proceedings under the Amendment.

1a) Householder cases:

An exemption has been created in relation to trespassers on private property inside a dwelling – if the householder defence is in operation then no offence under sec. 3 has been committed.

But its application is not clear from how this section is worded – it seems to be that the dog’s owner or carer must be themselves physically present, for example in your home, whilst a trespasser is actually entering the building – so if you have a burglar entering your house whilst you are in it and your dog injures them defending you, you might have a defence.

If you the dog’s owner is not at home whilst there is a break in on your home - there is no defence - you have to be present at the time of the incident!

Also your garden isn’t stated - so if your dog injures or causes apprehension to a trespasser i.e. an intruder on your private garden/private attached land/outbuildings you may have committed a criminal offence if you dog even barks at them.

In our opinion extending ‘dangerously out of control’ to private property will leave dogs and their responsible owners vulnerable to vexatious complaints, not properly protected from trespassers and intruders, with dog owners being subject to legal hearings and potentially criminalised when their dogs are just acting as dog do-not causing any harm or disturbing anyone - our dogs should be allowed to act as dogs do in our own homes.

2) Powers of entry and seizure:

Section1 (5) of the draft Bill extends the powers of entry and seizure – giving the right to enter private property and seize any dog which appears to be “dangerously out of control” without a warrant.

We do not support the extension of powers for the police or a local authority dog warden to enter private property or to seize a dog from private property e.g. our homes and enclosed gardens without a warrant, if the dog appears to be, or if it appears to have been 'dangerously out of control’.

3) Determination of ‘danger to public safety’:

When a dog is found guilty under sec 3 or sec 1 (prohibited types) the court can order a contingent destruction order as an alternative to a destruction order if satisfied that the dog would not constitute a ‘danger to public safety’. Once satisfied in the case of a prohibited type the court can order the dog is added to the Index of Exempted Dogs as an alternative to destruction.

The definition of what the court must consider has been given in the draft Bill as;

·         the character of the owner or keeper - whether this person is ‘fit and proper’

·         the temperament of the dog and its past behaviour

·         any other relevant circumstances

The definition of ‘any other relevant circumstances’ or a ‘fit and proper’ is not given and this will in our opinion be wide open to interpretation.

The same will also apply to section 4b applications before the court – where no legal aid is possible, hence as is currently the situation most cannot afford legal representation nor breed identification or behavioural assessment for the court to dispute 'type' and/or defend their dog if necessary.

This section of the amendment will apply to England, Scotland and Wales.

The notes to the draft Bill describe the Sandhu Judgement as ‘adverse’ – The Sandhu judgement was not in our opinion ‘adverse’. The High Court has examined and interpreted the DDA as it currently stands and confirmed that keeper is separate to owner – saving the lives of innocent dogs as the ruling has enabled exempted dogs to live with a nominated keeper if they are unable to stay with their registered owner.

In our opinion the draft Bill seeks now to destroy pet dogs by dictating to the court what they MUST consider when deciding whether to issue destruction order or CDO. Whether keepership will remain an option is unclear, but in our opinion this draft Bill is adverse and likely to lead to more deaths of innocent dogs that are no danger to anyone.

4) Civil Proceedings:

The draft Amendment will also amend the DDA to enable civil legal proceedings to be bought in respect of dogs under any enactment; this section is not clearly written and has not been given much coverage, nor did previous consultations ask for views on this, yet it would in our opinion have far reaching consequences unless legal aid were to be extended and given where destruction of a dog is at stake.

Legal aid is presently not available, therefore owners will not be able to properly defend themselves. It is unfair and unjust if a defence cannot be put to the courts as the owner cannot afford legal representation and expert assessment e.g. a behavioural report, for the courts – for example to demonstrate the temperament of their dog-just one requirement needed in order to avoid a death penalty for the dog.

If the current legislation is to be amended to allow for civil proceedings to be enacted under all sections then legal aid should be extended to cover civil proceedings.

Verdict:

We do not support the Amendments. Tragically, after so many years of failed abysmal legislation, these poorly drafted Amendments take what already does not work and make it staggeringly worse, the breed specific element is left to carry on causing mayhem, desperation and the countless deaths of innocent pet dogs, whilst nothing here will prevent dog bites or promote responsible dog ownership.

Further Information:

The draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill 2013 with explanatory notes.