I have written on this blog before about my concerns about the use of public land by commercial dog walking services. I have said that as these are commercial activities and people make money from them, they should be properly licensed and regulated. A pack of large and unruly dogs being exercised by someone not in proper control of the pack poses a clear and present danger to other users of the public space. They don't clean up their mess, they have no regard for other users of the space and they make money from their operations. Any activity which poses a threat to other members of the public should be subject to licensing and control and this is no exception.My wife walks our dog on a daily basis across Arrendene open space. In recent weeks she's told me the activities of "the wolf". A large wolf like dog which has apparently attacked several other smaller dogs. This dog is walked by a professional walker and is not muzzled. I have been increasingly concerned. I am even more so today. The picture you see is of what this dog did to our well trained and friendly mutt. My wife was in no position to intervene. Another professional dog walker with a pack of dogs, in an act of solidarity with the Wolf walker said "He only growled" (to gauge the scale of the wound compare my wifes' fingernail to the cut) and explains "he only does that when there is a new dog in the pack".
The mentality of some the people who run these services is just one where they just don't care for anyone else or their pets. If Barnet Council do nothing then they are culpable and negligent. Councillor Joanna Tambourides is the Cabinet Member responsible for Community Safety. Councillor Lynne Hillan is the Leader of the Council. If they do nothing and something really bad happens, they've been warned. They have to act now or face the lawsuit later.
19 comments:
Let me start by saying that I don't really encounter this issue so I can't give first hand testimony. Also I'm not tremendously sympathetic to these dog walkers, one person taking out 10 dogs would really struggle to demonstrate that they were in compliance with the Dangerous Dogs Act by being in control of their dogs in a public place. To me that is legislation enough (and much of the rest of that act is trash too).
But, as a Liberal, I'm surprised to hear you calling for more NuLab style 'regulation' especially as this rotten government has just had to U-turn five days after it's latest 'eye catching initiative' wanting to make insurance compulsory etc.
So, I'm sympathetic to what sounds like a problem. But you don't spell out what 'regulation' you want that would specifically and ONLY target the people you talk of and not lead to nosey, bossy Council Jobsworths harassing regular law abiding dog walkers ?
Be aware that once Councils start down the 'anti dog' rules path you'll find them making more and more rules to stop well behaved people using parks to walk dogs in the way they have peacefully done for year.
Dan,
I've said elsewhere in the blog what regulation I'd like to see. Basically I'd like to see anyone who wants to walk more than 4 dogs at a time on public land to have to register as a dog walker, demonstrate that they can control the dogs, wear visible identification, and ensure that the dogs have tags identifying them as being walked by a service. I'd charge them for the license. This would pay for regulation.
Ordinary dog owners wouldn't be affected as the vast majority don't have a pack of dogs.
I think it's sensible that if people operate a business using public land, they should be regulated and charged for the privelidge. I doubt that most of these services pay business rates, are insured, are trained or are competent. As they live poo everywhere and pose a risk, regulation is order of the day in my opinion.
Poor doggie, hope she recovers soon and isn't scared too much by all this
Rog,
I'm a dog owner too and I'd be furious if this happened to my dog.
I just think there is no alternative to prosecution in cases like this. Just today on the news I heard of a case where they are using DNA to link a dog to an attack on another dog.
I am sure if this 'wolf' is not being controlled by the walker and there are witnesses of other attacks a prosecution could be mounted and this person banned by a court from owner or walking a dog ANYWHERE not just in Barnet.
Just please, please free us from the fricking Council getting bossy and meddling in this matter. They rarely make things any better and often much worse (just see how they turned parking control from a police matter to a cash cow).
Hope your mutt is well soon and not affected.
Surely all those people you speak of, with your good wife, can go to the police and get them to question this person?
Dan
I walk my rescue lurcher off lead in securish areas with packs of other off lead dogs. Provided there's nothing small and yappy around as he has a very high prey drive and small and yappy fits his bill quite nicely.
Whenever there's an incident between dogs, as sometimes happens as dogs are, well, dogs, the adult owners sort it out between themselves. Insurance details are exchanged and people go on their way.
Why would I need state intervention to address a situation like that? If people are not co-operative then you can, as Daniel Hope points out, go to the Police or even get a no-win, no-fee solicitor and recover you expenses and damages. It's not as if there aren't laws for this - from the dangerous dogs act to common law negligence.
But I guess it's easier to have a moan, put everyone under the cosh of the state and cry 'something must be done'.
Shaun,
I've no problem with other owners and snappy dogs. I have a big problem with dog walking services that have large packs of uncontrolled dogs on public land and no regard for other users of the space.
I guess you didn't read what I wrote too carefully.
Or you wilfully missed the point.
The Dangerous Dogs Act and the Common Law (both Civil and Criminal) apply equally to both professional dog walkers and people with dogs like you or I. In fact, because of the inherent dangers of walking a pack of dogs, I would argue that the Common Law of both negligence (criminal) and nuisance (civil) already impose a higher duty of care on those people because they are assembling something inherently riskier.
In any event, all of the dogs will, or should be, insured (since people who can afford a dog walker usually - although I do generalise - don't skimp on insurance either. Most of which carries 3rd party liability).
So again, what role does the state have in this? To slap people around the face until they realise their OWN rights to redress? Or to put functionaries, at cost, on the ground to enforce some arbitrary policy made up with the best of intentions by people quite remote to the situations in which it will be applied?
Shaun,
I'll try again. I am proposing that Barnet Council (the state as you like to call it) should require professional dog walking services to be licensed in the way pet shops are and meet minimum requirements for training, clean up the mess they leave and be easily identifyable.
If you disagree then that is up to you, but I suspect that if sensible measures aren't put into place, something bad will happen and then we will get a kneejerk reaction and bad law that affects all dog owners.
Is that clear enough?
Yes. You want to ignore the prefectly applicable and valid legal mechanisms available to you as both a private individual via the council in order to create yet more law that will be not be enforced by the people who, right now, are not applying either the common law or the Dangerous Dogs Act to the cases you are concerned about.
But I'm sure you, at least, will feel that you've done your bit. Less, admittedly, than had you gone to the police or a solicitor in respect of your dog attach, but your bit and I'm sure you'll sleep the sleep of the just because of it.
So you know what we have and haven't done about it then? Clever old you, given that I haven't said here.
I've no idea whether you actually live locally, are familair with the situation at Arrandene, or whether you are pronouncing as a "wise authority in an ivory tower". You may think a reactive approach is the best way - ie wait for something bad to happen and then get the other persons insurance to pay. Personally, I think it is better to proactively try and prevent such a situation from arising.
If you are local, you know Arrandene and you've spoken to other owners, you'd probably be aware that the vast majority of dog owners have concerns. If your not local as your profile seems to suggest, snipe away from your nice ivory tower. You are doing a fine job
Fair enough. Far be it from me to suggest that on your published account of the situation that you have failed to avail yourself of the criminal and civil remedies available to you under English law.
Well it is always a pleasure to receive advice from a renowned world expert. I'm sure that dog owners everywhere will be glad to know that there is someone standing up for their right for their dog to be savaged by packs of dogs, being walked on publicly owned land by unlicensed and unqualified operators.
My friend, English law is set by precedent. Sadly with this issue, the precedent will be driven by rather unfortunate events, which your pseudo libertarian arguments completely fail to encompass.
You are seeking to mis-apply the precautionary principle. You'd surely be as well off banning people from walking in the park in case they are eaten by a wild dog. Or, more likely, in case they show an undue interest in children (which is the normal bogeyman for wanting to ban anything from the internet to adults photographing their kids' school plays).
I have sought to tell you that there is ample law available to provide you with a remedy and resolve this sitation. I am well aware that the law is set by precedent and you find that Nuisance is particularly well documented in that mode. The Police should be enforcing the DDA and if they aren't, you have rememdies available to you there too.
But no. Rather than use the perfectly adequate law you, like new labour, just want to make up a new one. Who the people not enforcing the current laws will miraculously enforce because, shucks, this time you really mean it.
While you may attempt to attack me ad hominem, you fail to explain at all why you have not sought to address your problems via the existing law.
Shaun,
As your method of argueing your point is to continually say the same thing without reference to what I've said, it's pointless responding to the comment. You completely miss the point.
The reason I've not mentioned what I may or may not have done is because what I am discussing in this blog is my proposal that Barnet Council regulates commercial dog walking services. Any remedial action in regards to what happened to my dog is irrelevant. I just used the incident to illustrate why I believe regulation needs to be introduced.
Needless to say you'll respond by saying the same thing again, Yawn.
"The reason I've not mentioned what I may or may not have done is because what I am discussing in this blog is my proposal that Barnet Council regulates commercial dog walking services. Any remedial action in regards to what happened to my dog is irrelevant. I just used the incident to illustrate why I believe regulation needs to be introduced."
Surely that's a non sequitor, no?
I mean you have a problem with dog walkers and then use an incident your say is irrelevant to the point in order to validate it.
Ok, lets make this simple.
I believe there is a public saftey issue caused by commercial dog walkers with large packs of dogs they can't and don't control in the open spaces in Barnet.
I have been actively campaigning for these dog walking services to be regulated by Barnet Council and the proposal is well supported by local people (if opposed by people in Kent or wherever).
My dog was attacked by a dog in a manner which I believe supported my proposal, as I believe the person walking the dog had too many animals to adequately control the pack.
I used the incident to illustrate the fact that commercial dog walkers were making money from public open spaces, not behaving responsibly and posing a risk to other users of the open space.
What remedial action I have taken in relation to the specific incident is irrelevant to my campaign or to the arguments for regulation of these services.
The incident itself was not irrelevant to my argument for regulation, as it illustrates why regulation is needed. This is why I described it.
I trust that is clear enough for you.
hi
i am a horserider who has had severable heart-stopping incidents with out of control dogs in Arondene - people seem to forget it is actually a bridal path (ie horses have priority on the path) and 2 of the 4(5?) fields are allocated for our use and yet STILL people allow packs of crazy dogs to roam and cause serious accidents to horses and riders alike...
I am told you must contact the local patrol unit if you notice any badly behaed dogs or people with big packs - their number is 02071619335
Undoubtedly, dog walking is the ultimate exercise for every pet. This simple exercise can benefit both you and your dog to a great extent. So, if you are planning to take up this challenge professionally, you have got to follow some easy tips.
Dog Walking
Hello,
Nice blog. Your article is very much helpful for dog walkers. The thoughts are very good. Thanks to sharing the great information…
Adventure Dog Walkers
Post a Comment