DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**BCVB9SOc** · 08-04-2008, 05:59 PM

As far as im aware dogs have to be kept on a lead by law. so i should let one bite me up abit before face smashing it then sue the owner.

You're completely wrong there, only dangerous dogs have to be on a leash but all dogs must wear a collar with identity tag. Maybe dogs just dont like you?

When on any enclosed land with sheep all dogs must be on a lead or 'under close control'. If you allow your dog to worry livestock you can be prosecuted and fined, ordered to pay compensation and even have the dog destroyed. Now who's worried? Worrying livestock means attacking or chasing any farm animal or poultry - there does not have to be any contact. This is outlined in the Animals Act 1971 section 9, which also states that the farmer is not liable to compensate the dog’s owner in such circumstances.

Any dog which is not a working dog can be regarded as worrying livestock merely by being off lead or not under close control in a field or enclosure where there are sheep. A landowner could shoot such a dog, if it can be proved that the action was necessary to protect livestock and that it was reported to the police within 48 hours. The dog's owner can then be subject to all the above penalties too - except being shot.
On a right of way your dog does not have to be on a lead but it does have to be 'under close control'. This phrase is not defined but pretty much means that if you are in a field with animals or poultry and your dog will not always come, straight away, when called even when he's chasing things, and then stay there, he could be at risk of being seen to worry animals. So if there is any chance he might go off then the lead is the best option until you are out of the field with livestock in it.
Damage and Injury
If your dog or indeed any animal under your control injures a person or animal or damages property, the owner or person responsible may be liable for damages. This would be a civil claim and not necessarily a criminal offence.

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and Dogs Act 1871
Extracts are from the Dangerous Dogs Act unless otherwise indicated.

1. The following dogs, and also cross-bred pit-bulls, are dangerous dogs under the meaning of the Act:

Pit Bull Terrier
Japanese Tosa
Dogo Argentino
Fila Braziliero

It is illegal to possess such a dog without a certificate of exemption, which is granted once the dog is neutered, insured, and has a transponder implant. These dogs cannot be "in a public place without being muzzled and ... being securely kept on a lead by a person who is not less than 16 years old."
A public place even includes locked inside a car which is itself in a public place.

2. If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place, or a private place where it is not permitted to be, the owner; and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, is guilty of an offence."A dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person, whether or not it actually does so."In the case of Briscoe -v- Shattock QBD 12 October 1998 it was held that a dog could be considered "dangerous" and "not kept under proper control" within the meaning of Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, even if the only danger shown was to other dogs, and not to humans. Being dangerous reflected the dog's disposition not his acts.
This applies to any dog, of any breed. The quote from the Act above means that any dog which is a bit lively might commit an offence if not kept under control - this could be your dog too! For example, we understand a farmer was prosecuted and fined under this section of the Act when his aggressive dogs intimidated walkers on a public footpath, even though the dogs were on private land and behind a fence (sorry, no reference to this case).
Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997
Collars
The Control of Dogs Order 1930 (as amended) requires that every dog in a public place must wear a collar with the owner's name and address on it. The exemptions are when the dog is being used for sporting purposes, driving or tending livestock, destruction of 'vermin' or is one of a pack of hounds. edit:- I'd like to add, yes I do walk my dog off a lead but only in safe places. He is trained to walk to my side but occasionally he might bark at a passer by in which case I instantly put him back on his lead.

08-04-2008, 05:59 PM	#6
BCVB9SOc Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 457 Senior Member	As far as im aware dogs have to be kept on a lead by law. so i should let one bite me up abit before face smashing it then sue the owner. You're completely wrong there, only dangerous dogs have to be on a leash but all dogs must wear a collar with identity tag. Maybe dogs just dont like you? When on any enclosed land with sheep all dogs must be on a lead or 'under close control'. If you allow your dog to worry livestock you can be prosecuted and fined, ordered to pay compensation and even have the dog destroyed. Now who's worried? Worrying livestock means attacking or chasing any farm animal or poultry - there does not have to be any contact. This is outlined in the Animals Act 1971 section 9, which also states that the farmer is not liable to compensate the dog’s owner in such circumstances. Any dog which is not a working dog can be regarded as worrying livestock merely by being off lead or not under close control in a field or enclosure where there are sheep. A landowner could shoot such a dog, if it can be proved that the action was necessary to protect livestock and that it was reported to the police within 48 hours. The dog's owner can then be subject to all the above penalties too - except being shot. On a right of way your dog does not have to be on a lead but it does have to be 'under close control'. This phrase is not defined but pretty much means that if you are in a field with animals or poultry and your dog will not always come, straight away, when called even when he's chasing things, and then stay there, he could be at risk of being seen to worry animals. So if there is any chance he might go off then the lead is the best option until you are out of the field with livestock in it. Damage and Injury If your dog or indeed any animal under your control injures a person or animal or damages property, the owner or person responsible may be liable for damages. This would be a civil claim and not necessarily a criminal offence. Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and Dogs Act 1871 Extracts are from the Dangerous Dogs Act unless otherwise indicated. 1. The following dogs, and also cross-bred pit-bulls, are dangerous dogs under the meaning of the Act: Pit Bull Terrier Japanese Tosa Dogo Argentino Fila Braziliero It is illegal to possess such a dog without a certificate of exemption, which is granted once the dog is neutered, insured, and has a transponder implant. These dogs cannot be "in a public place without being muzzled and ... being securely kept on a lead by a person who is not less than 16 years old." A public place even includes locked inside a car which is itself in a public place. 2. If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place, or a private place where it is not permitted to be, the owner; and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, is guilty of an offence."A dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person, whether or not it actually does so."In the case of Briscoe -v- Shattock QBD 12 October 1998 it was held that a dog could be considered "dangerous" and "not kept under proper control" within the meaning of Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, even if the only danger shown was to other dogs, and not to humans. Being dangerous reflected the dog's disposition not his acts. This applies to any dog, of any breed. The quote from the Act above means that any dog which is a bit lively might commit an offence if not kept under control - this could be your dog too! For example, we understand a farmer was prosecuted and fined under this section of the Act when his aggressive dogs intimidated walkers on a public footpath, even though the dogs were on private land and behind a fence (sorry, no reference to this case). Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 Collars The Control of Dogs Order 1930 (as amended) requires that every dog in a public place must wear a collar with the owner's name and address on it. The exemptions are when the dog is being used for sporting purposes, driving or tending livestock, destruction of 'vermin' or is one of a pack of hounds. edit:- I'd like to add, yes I do walk my dog off a lead but only in safe places. He is trained to walk to my side but occasionally he might bark at a passer by in which case I instantly put him back on his lead.
	Quote