Legality of dogs without leads
Discussion
I sometimes think that smaller dogs have "egos" to uphold, so I'm not surprised Charlie dispatched the (unwelcome) visitor with ease!
Our staffy lived with the OH's mum for a while (sad times
); she's got some sort of (neutered) terrier cross - the top of his head is about 10 inches off the floor. Our staffy is un-neutered, as muscle-y as they come, and is more than head and shoulders above this little terrier-cross, height-wise.
But guess who was King of the Dogs in that house?!
Our staffy lived with the OH's mum for a while (sad times
); she's got some sort of (neutered) terrier cross - the top of his head is about 10 inches off the floor. Our staffy is un-neutered, as muscle-y as they come, and is more than head and shoulders above this little terrier-cross, height-wise.But guess who was King of the Dogs in that house?!
I had an interesting one the other day - was walking the dog round the fields behind our house, he was off the lead and coming towards us is a German Sheperd type on a lead. I call Brook over but as the other owner gets closer he said 'you better keep your dog away from my dog, or he'll go for it and it will be your fault'. My reply was along the lines of I don't allow my dog to approach dogs on a lead anyway, but if your dog is that vicious then it's your responsibility to keep it under control whether mine is on the lead or not! And if it is that bad, it should be muzzled in public to keep everybody safe and happy! Be interested to hear what other people think. Not so interested in the technical legalities as my first priority is keeping myself, my dog, and everyone else safe no matter who might be technically in the right!
Georgiegirl said:
I had an interesting one the other day - was walking the dog round the fields behind our house, he was off the lead and coming towards us is a German Sheperd type on a lead. I call Brook over but as the other owner gets closer he said 'you better keep your dog away from my dog, or he'll go for it and it will be your fault'. My reply was along the lines of I don't allow my dog to approach dogs on a lead anyway, but if your dog is that vicious then it's your responsibility to keep it under control whether mine is on the lead or not! And if it is that bad, it should be muzzled in public to keep everybody safe and happy! Be interested to hear what other people think. Not so interested in the technical legalities as my first priority is keeping myself, my dog, and everyone else safe no matter who might be technically in the right!
If a dog is on lead then that is the "international doggy type person" signal for - it might not be friendly so if your dog is off lead and goes over then yes I would say it is your dog who is at fault if it gets attacked. The other owner is keeping his dog under control by keeping it on lead where he can control it. So to keep your dog safe, do not let it go and see a dog which is on lead unless the owner has confirmed it is perfectly friendly (and even then it might not be!).
UncleRic said:
I would like to think, that if the owner of a small dog (size of a cat, a standard sized small cat, not one of these big cats which are the size of a goat, or even a Lion sized big cat) was walking with said dog on a lead, and a big dog (size of a small horse, which would be about the size of a calf, about 4 foot high? Not a small horse like a dwarf horse which would infact bethe size of very small horse) decided to attack and eat (do dogs do this?) my dog, that I would be allowed to protect my dog in anyway I saw fit. Feet, sticks, shouty wife etc.
What about the other way around - I 'know' of a full grown 4kg Pekinese that if left unrestrained will attack any other dog. It did in fact try to attack a restrained German Sheperd. The German Shepherd was kind enough to collect the Pekinese by it's tail (using it's strong jaws) and hold it there until the Pekinese was pried loose by it's owner, both unharmed. Said Pekinese is now only let out with a harness and leash!!! Jasandjules said:
Georgiegirl said:
I had an interesting one the other day - was walking the dog round the fields behind our house, he was off the lead and coming towards us is a German Sheperd type on a lead. I call Brook over but as the other owner gets closer he said 'you better keep your dog away from my dog, or he'll go for it and it will be your fault'. My reply was along the lines of I don't allow my dog to approach dogs on a lead anyway, but if your dog is that vicious then it's your responsibility to keep it under control whether mine is on the lead or not! And if it is that bad, it should be muzzled in public to keep everybody safe and happy! Be interested to hear what other people think. Not so interested in the technical legalities as my first priority is keeping myself, my dog, and everyone else safe no matter who might be technically in the right!
If a dog is on lead then that is the "international doggy type person" signal for - it might not be friendly so if your dog is off lead and goes over then yes I would say it is your dog who is at fault if it gets attacked. The other owner is keeping his dog under control by keeping it on lead where he can control it. So to keep your dog safe, do not let it go and see a dog which is on lead unless the owner has confirmed it is perfectly friendly (and even then it might not be!).
My Boxer was recently set upon by a stupid labradoodle (Hate the bl00dy things, they all seem to be mad around here!) whilst on the lead. The Lab came off worse, but the other owner took responsibility, although it was mostly noise as opposed to actual biting.
tenex said:
I realise the situation is completely different in a rural situation but if the dogs are trained at an early age there is no problem. I do it every day. Sometimes I have had up to 14 dogs in the back unsupervised.
However the legality is another matter.
Perhaps the only thing I can contribute to this thread is in my experience when a "loose" dog meets one on a lead it is usually the dog on the lead that reacts badly to the confrontation because it is frightened as it is restrained.It dosen't matter how mild mannered it is.
Take the lead off, if something is brewing, and 99% of the time the situation is defused. This is of course dealing with "normal" dogs but it is certainly worth trying in an appropriate situation.
If a chav rottweiler, or equivalent, was running loose here, I'd deck it and that certainly is legal.
This ^^. We've always found a restrained dog starts the fight.However the legality is another matter.
Perhaps the only thing I can contribute to this thread is in my experience when a "loose" dog meets one on a lead it is usually the dog on the lead that reacts badly to the confrontation because it is frightened as it is restrained.It dosen't matter how mild mannered it is.
Take the lead off, if something is brewing, and 99% of the time the situation is defused. This is of course dealing with "normal" dogs but it is certainly worth trying in an appropriate situation.
If a chav rottweiler, or equivalent, was running loose here, I'd deck it and that certainly is legal.
ZesPak said:
Smashed said:
From experience yes.
My little brother left my parents back gate open whilst carrying something into their house and their rotweiler decided to go for a stroll. (brother thought the dog was locked in the kitchen as it normally is) rotty spots dog that absolutely hates him and generally tries to eat him everytime they go for a walk at the same time and of course went for it. So my parents had the RSPCA or whoever they are come to see if he was indeed a dangerous dog like the other dog owner said and rightly so.
All was fine though and my brother got a good slap round the ear by me (it's my dog).
Funny how you make it sound like it's the other dog that was at fault...My little brother left my parents back gate open whilst carrying something into their house and their rotweiler decided to go for a stroll. (brother thought the dog was locked in the kitchen as it normally is) rotty spots dog that absolutely hates him and generally tries to eat him everytime they go for a walk at the same time and of course went for it. So my parents had the RSPCA or whoever they are come to see if he was indeed a dangerous dog like the other dog owner said and rightly so.
All was fine though and my brother got a good slap round the ear by me (it's my dog).
As with humans, there are 'starter' and 'finisher'; people with big gobs and those who do not start fights but are pretty handy nonetheless.
MorrisCRX said:
We've always found a restrained dog starts the fight.
I've got it buried somewhere in my mind that dogs on the lead are more aggressive in the presence of unrestrained dogs, as they feel more threatened due to being restrained......True?
It does make sense though; as you quite rightly point out, it does seem to be the restrained dog that starts with the wu-wu-grrrr in the presence of an unrestrained dog.
Karyn said:
MorrisCRX said:
We've always found a restrained dog starts the fight.
I've got it buried somewhere in my mind that dogs on the lead are more aggressive in the presence of unrestrained dogs, as they feel more threatened due to being restrained......True?
It does make sense though; as you quite rightly point out, it does seem to be the restrained dog that starts with the wu-wu-grrrr in the presence of an unrestrained dog.
Some interesting replies - to those who may have missed it I should clarify that I NEVER allow my dog to approach another dog if it is on the lead.
However my point was more if a dog is really as aggressive as the owner implied then it should be restrained more appropriately than just on a lead, which can be dropped or pulled out of hands if the dog decides to tank off.
Sometimes, just being on a lead does not mean that the dog is under control!
However my point was more if a dog is really as aggressive as the owner implied then it should be restrained more appropriately than just on a lead, which can be dropped or pulled out of hands if the dog decides to tank off.
Sometimes, just being on a lead does not mean that the dog is under control!
Georgiegirl said:
Some interesting replies - to those who may have missed it I should clarify that I NEVER allow my dog to approach another dog if it is on the lead.
However my point was more if a dog is really as aggressive as the owner implied then it should be restrained more appropriately than just on a lead, which can be dropped or pulled out of hands if the dog decides to tank off.
Sometimes, just being on a lead does not mean that the dog is under control!
Yes but then what if that owner has previously met an aggressive dog? Let's say that when his dog was a puppy it was on lead when some other dog came over and attacked it, and that is what made it dog aggressive in the first place. So now he won't want to muzzle his dog in case another aggressive dog comes over and his can't defend itself but he keeps it on lead to ensure that it doesn't go off attacking all and sundry.However my point was more if a dog is really as aggressive as the owner implied then it should be restrained more appropriately than just on a lead, which can be dropped or pulled out of hands if the dog decides to tank off.
Sometimes, just being on a lead does not mean that the dog is under control!
Oh and OP, in your shoes I would do whatever is necessary - to date I have kicked a dog in the ribs hard enough to lift it off the floor (and it let go of my Newfie!) and I cracked a wolfhound on the backside with the metal part of the dog lead when he was biting my Newfie. I would have had no hesitation in smacking it in the head either to protect my dog if that was necessary.
Also, if you were afraid of being bitten (i.e. it was showing teeth to you) then you can report it to plod... The DDA is poorly drafted legislation but it may serve you at this point.
The DDA does NOT cover dog on dog attacks. Dogs are classed as property.
My post from our forum on the DDA:
The full Act is here: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
Here are the most relevant bits:
- have the dog in a public place without a muzzle and kept on a lead.
- allow the dog to stray.
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 prohibits possession of certain named breeds of dog, except under strictly controlled conditions. The breeds in question are:
A dog is not allowed to have one bite (this is a myth) so the very first time that your dog acts dangerously could end up in a Court.
'Dangerously out of control' is defined as being 'on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person'. Generally, if a dog bites someone then it will be presumed to have been dangerously out of control, however someone only has to be frightened that they will be injured for it to be an offence under the Act.
'Public place' is defined as including any place 'to which the public have or are permitted to have access'. This can include driveways and communal entrances to a block of flats, for instance.
The Police have the discretionary power to seize a dog (although they may need a warrant) but there is no provision for 'bail' for the dog pending a conclusion at Court.
If injury is caused to a person, then there is a presumption in favour of destruction of the dog unless the owner can prove that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety. If the Court can be persuaded not to impose destruction, then the alternative is a Contingent Destruction Order ie. a requirement that unless the dog is kept under proper control then it shall be destroyed. The Court has the power to impose conditions to such an order.
For the owner and/or person in charge of the dog at the time of the incident the Court has the power to impose a prison sentence as well as a ban on keeping dogs. However, this is very rare and the more likely outcome is financial ie. a fine, compensation and costs.
There is a separate charge (in Section 3(3)) which can be brought against an owner (or person in charge) if the incident occurs in a non-public place, where the dog is not permitted to be.
My post from our forum on the DDA:
The full Act is here: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
Here are the most relevant bits:
- The Dangerous Dog Act applies to ALL dogs.
- If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place, the owner or person 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.
- This offence can result in a fine or a prison sentence not exceeding 6 months. The dog may also be destroyed and the owner disqualified from owning a dog for a specific period of time.
- A Police constable or an officer of the local authority may seize a dog if they consider it dangerously out of control.
- Specific regulations apply to fighting dogs. These are deemed as Pit Bull Terriers, Japanese Tosa or any dog considered by the Secretary of State to have been breed for fighting. The act looks likely to prohibit these dogs entirely in the future, but currently in such cases it is an offence if you:
- have the dog in a public place without a muzzle and kept on a lead.
- allow the dog to stray.
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 prohibits possession of certain named breeds of dog, except under strictly controlled conditions. The breeds in question are:
- Pit Bull Terriers
- Japanese Tosas
- Dogo Argentinos
- Fila Brazilieros
A dog is not allowed to have one bite (this is a myth) so the very first time that your dog acts dangerously could end up in a Court.
'Dangerously out of control' is defined as being 'on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person'. Generally, if a dog bites someone then it will be presumed to have been dangerously out of control, however someone only has to be frightened that they will be injured for it to be an offence under the Act.
'Public place' is defined as including any place 'to which the public have or are permitted to have access'. This can include driveways and communal entrances to a block of flats, for instance.
The Police have the discretionary power to seize a dog (although they may need a warrant) but there is no provision for 'bail' for the dog pending a conclusion at Court.
If injury is caused to a person, then there is a presumption in favour of destruction of the dog unless the owner can prove that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety. If the Court can be persuaded not to impose destruction, then the alternative is a Contingent Destruction Order ie. a requirement that unless the dog is kept under proper control then it shall be destroyed. The Court has the power to impose conditions to such an order.
For the owner and/or person in charge of the dog at the time of the incident the Court has the power to impose a prison sentence as well as a ban on keeping dogs. However, this is very rare and the more likely outcome is financial ie. a fine, compensation and costs.
There is a separate charge (in Section 3(3)) which can be brought against an owner (or person in charge) if the incident occurs in a non-public place, where the dog is not permitted to be.
Edited by Mrs Grumpy on Friday 8th October 19:42
There is also Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871
The full Act is here
This is a civil complaint, although as it is heard in a Magistrates' Court, it is often incorrectly said to be criminal. It occurs if a dog is not kept under proper control and is dangerous. Generally is dog is regarded as not being under proper control if it is not on a lead or muzzled.
Unlike the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991:
The full Act is here
This is a civil complaint, although as it is heard in a Magistrates' Court, it is often incorrectly said to be criminal. It occurs if a dog is not kept under proper control and is dangerous. Generally is dog is regarded as not being under proper control if it is not on a lead or muzzled.
Unlike the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991:
- it applies regardless of where the incident takes place
- proceedings can only be brought against the owner
- a dog can show itself to be dangerous in its general behaviour, not just its behaviour towards a person
- a single incident is generally insufficient to prove that a dog is dangerous, unless the Court believes that the single incident is exceptional
- there is no presumption in favour of destruction of the dog
- the Police have no power to seize a dog pending proceedings
- the Court has no power to fine or order compensation
- The Court has unfettered discretion on what to do to the dog. They may order destruction of the dog but such orders are very rare. The alternative is a Control Order (with or without conditions) and the owner will probably have to pay costs.
tenex said:
paprika said:
f
k that, legality of a dog in the back of an open back hilux without leads? Saw it this morning driving in a NSL 
I realise the situation is completely different in a rural situation but if the dogs are trained at an early age there is no problem. I do it every day. Sometimes I have had up to 14 dogs in the back unsupervised.k that, legality of a dog in the back of an open back hilux without leads? Saw it this morning driving in a NSL However the legality is another matter.
Perhaps the only thing I can contribute to this thread is in my experience when a "loose" dog meets one on a lead it is usually the dog on the lead that reacts badly to the confrontation because it is frightened as it is restrained.It dosen't matter how mild mannered it is.
Take the lead off, if something is brewing, and 99% of the time the situation is defused. This is of course dealing with "normal" dogs but it is certainly worth trying in an appropriate situation.
If a chav rottweiler, or equivalent, was running loose here, I'd deck it and that certainly is legal.
A quality PH response almost laughable!
Now a dog can be chav does it say on his pedigree?
Edited by Gary11 on Saturday 9th October 15:22
Edited by Gary11 on Saturday 9th October 15:23
Gassing Station | All Creatures Great & Small | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff