Responsible Dog Ownership, Dog Licensing Public Space Protection Orders, Laws & what councils and central government should take into account
Abstract
…Dog’s must have the ability to safely run off lead with their own kind in open space each day. Dog’s who’s daily needs are not met due to being kept on leads, only exercised in pens, or just not getting enough exercise in general, are likely to develop behaviour problems such as aggression & compulsive behaviours….
…Daylight in winter is around 9am – 3pm…dogs must get out in daylight and not be left longer than 4hrs…
As societies progress, they must become more civilised. Dogs’ brains are thought to be on par with a 2-3 yr old child. Whilst they may not form words, they are incredibly efficient communicators and sensitive sentient beings. If we look back on the way animals and certain classes, races, groups of people were treated in the past are we not disgusted by our behaviour? So, let’s ensure we are looking after our animals and giving them the rights, they deserve so we do not look back in history being disgusted at how we treated them now. Let’s do this whilst at the same time protecting the public and making parks pleasurable for all…
…we thus suggest parks under 100 acres allow 4 dogs per person…parks over 100 acres: 6 dogs per person or 8 dogs between two people….
#Accurately restrict irresponsible individuals not individuals’ dogs and the industry as a whole.
Introduction
The aim of this report is:
· To raise the profile of the essential needs for dogs and advise council’s how they can help their residents ensure theses needs can be met.
· To promote responsible dog ownership and help advise councils how they can help whilst ensuring dogs needs are met.
· To promote harmony between dog owners and non-dog owners.
· To discuss if there thus should be dog licensing or further PSPO’s.
· If so what that licensing or what general provisions should be to support responsible dog ownership and welfare.
About the Author:
I am a certified professional dog trainer and behavior consultant. I am Resident of Hammersmith and Fulham and owner of a local business. This is also not my first time touching the surface of politics as I have also written stage plays which led me to be a recurring panelist on London Live as well as other media platforms and be part of the Sunday Times Festival of Education, discussing the future of young people in the workplace. That being said there is much I do not know and at any rate a balanced view point is vital so I would hugely value ongoing input:
Important Background:
According to Statista (2022) The population of dogs kept as pets in the United Kingdom was estimated at 13 million in 2020/21, which constitutes an increase of 5.4 million a decade earlier in 2010/11.
However, the amount of park land available for dog walking has not just stayed the same, it has been reduced due to PSPO’s and increasing amounts of events taking place in parks and other areas being designated as on lead only. For example, according to DR Andrew Smith and Dr Goran Vodicka’s (2020) report on Events in London parks Hampstead Heath now has ‘around 100 events a year’.
As a business owner it is also clear that the rate of skilled dog professionals has not increased with the rate of new dogs coming into the city and thus the demand for professional dog services. Moreover, supply has been significantly reduced with the enforcement of Public Space Protection Orders and dog licencing. Skilled here refers to someone who has the basic knowledge of what a dog’s daily needs truly are, and how to safely achieve them, rather than just ‘loving dogs’ and keeping them on the lead.
It has also been reported to me on numerous occasions that the introduction of ULEZ and parking restrictions and other increased costs for motorist’s that car ownership is becoming problematic and those with dogs are less able to travel further out to exercise their dogs.
As a result, there are more dogs in London’s Parks and councils across London Boroughs are introducing licences to those making money from dog walking. For example, royal parks charge £300 (ex VAT) per walker per year. Please note that a lot of dog walkers have clients in different areas for different walks of the day or days of the week. This means multiple licences and thus presents a significant barrier to entry to new dog professionals.
Increasing costs to dog walkers and restrictions on numbers will also force skilled dog professionals out and thus only attract lower skilled, lower paid walkers which will present a serious problem to the long term behaviour of dogs and to ensuring responsible dog ownership.
However, in this report we understand that if a large number of large groups of dogs congregated in one area this may be considered anti-social to some park users. It is also recognised that if one borough has lighter restrictions than a neighbouring one it may attract a greater number of dog walkers. It is also noted that some people do not understand dogs’ language and are thus fearful of them. We also recognise that as with any trade there are some irresponsible professionals out there but we hope that the lives of dogs and responsible professionals are not punished because of a few ‘bad eggs.’
We thus support the slogan:
#Accurately Restrict irresponsible Individuals not individuals’ dogs and the industry as a whole.
So What Should Be Done & Essential Considerations
A Dog’s Essential Needs!
FIRSTLY, PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THAT DOG’S MUST HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAFELY RUN OFF LEAD WITH THEIR OWN KIND IN OPEN SPACE EACH DAY. DOG’S WHO’S DAILY NEEDS ARE NOT MET DUE TO BEING KEPT ON LEADS, ONLY EXERCISED IN PENS, OR JUST NOT GETTING ENOUGH EXERCISE IN GENERAL, ARE LIKELY TO DEVELOP BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS SUCH AS AGGRESSION & COMPULSIVE BEHAVIOURS.
When dogs are restrained on a lead or confined to a small space like a pen**, aggression is more likely for many reasons including:
· Because the flight option is not accessible.
· Because the area may become a valued resource to the dog worth guarding.
· Because there is built up frustration with the dog not being able to exercise its instincts.
**Please note I am not discrediting the use of Pens. They play a valuable role in responsible dog ownership which we will come to later but they are not a long term solution.
Please also note most young dogs need to go out for a long walk in the morning in order to be calm and content and not destroy a home in the day when the owner is working.
Daylight in winter is around 9am – 3pm and thus most working owners are not home in daylight. In heat waves almost all the dogs tend to need to go out and be back from walks before midday when the sun is highest and hottest.
Therefore, now that the dogs have been born, adopted and their owners love them; whatever plan is made it must allow dogs to run off lead in open spaces each day, and there is only so much land and daylight hours per day that this can be done in.
Please note leading causes of dog issues such as aggression include lack of early adequate socialisation, lack of basic needs i.e., exercise being met, lack of understanding of dog’s language and needs by owners and non-dog owners.
The Dangerous Dogs Act (1991)
According to The Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) it is a criminal offence for ANY dog to be ‘dangerously out of control’ in public. A dog is considered to be dangerously out of control if it injures someone or causes someone to have a ‘reasonable’ fear they could be injured which is a very low threshold for someone who does not understand dogs.
We note this as a license or PSPO is not necessarily required to ensure safety as the law already covers that, the answer may just lie in enforcing any reports of actually dangerously out of control dogs.
The Animal Welfare Act (2006)
Under the Animal Welfare Act (2006) A person commits an offence if an act of a person or a failure of a person to act, causes an animal to suffer. Moreover, if they knew, or ought reasonably to have known that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so, and if any suffering the person causes is unnecessary.
The point here about if the persons act could likely have done harm is important as it means that in the opinion of this report if a council designs a licence its purpose is not to ensure Animal Welfare as the law already covers it. However, a council must ensure that any design of a licence does not affect an animal’s welfare i.e., by restricting them to a lead or areas which may be hazardous due to disease, spilled food or sharp objects.
Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPO’s)
If activities that have taken place in a certain area have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, or it is likely that activities will take place and that they will have a detrimental effect, local authorities have the right to implement orders to restrict such activities and councils have already used this to restrict the number of dogs walked at once in park.
Councils across London have already restricted number of dogs walked per person using this, so a licence does not need to be in place to restrict numbers. Though the question remains via licensing or PSPO’s what that number should be.
Furthermore, suggestions of creating PSPO’s to restrict dogs in say a picnic area seems a disproportionate response as for example, what harm is a sweet little separation anxiety dog doing on the lead with its family in that area? Dogs also tend not to foul where their owners are eating, playing with them etc. To make such restrictions will surely force dog owners out of safe child areas etc into the open park where bigger dogs need to have the ability to run off leash thus putting their picnics and children in more harm’s way, when they could be in a safe quiet penned in area where the dog cannot get to the food. If the dog is out of control in this picnic area it could be restricted under the dangerous dog’s act, but dogs should not be restricted from hanging out calmly with their families and force the families onto the ground where other dogs must play.
#Accurately Restrict irresponsible Individuals not individuals’ dogs and the industry as a whole.
Number of Dogs:
So as a reminder, the dogs must get out to ensure their basic needs and to prevent behaviour problems like aggression. Being on the lead or tiny areas makes this worse. There is only so much land and daylight and skilled walkers. No more skilled walkers will enter the profession if it is too restrictive or costly. Current walkers won’t invest in becoming more skilled if they cannot earn any more by the incentive of responsibly being able to handle more dogs. Residents want dog walkers so they can otherwise contribute to the economy by going to work. The dangerous dogs act will ensure no groups of dogs are dangerously out of control.
Larger groups (within reason) tend to contain the dogs, so they do not want to run off to other groups to seek out more stimulation.
Dogs are social creatures and they will do all they can to seek out and be with their people. (This means it does not work if Walker’s 1 & 2 try to split their existing group by walking different directions as the dogs untimely get distress and try to seek out the other walker and remains of their group.)
A higher sensible number of dogs permitted to be walked makes it affordable for two people to walk the dogs together which can be safer. A higher number allows more dogs to get their needs met with less vehicles on the road. A higher number attracts and maintains skilled workers. If the number is too high even with more people it is harder to maintain control and can be intimidating to non-dog lovers, so a sensible balance must be struck. Any problems with the higher number then: #Accurately Restrict irresponsible Individuals not individuals’ dogs and the industry as a whole.
Proposal
With the above considerations in mind this report recommends that in the long run any licensing, PSPO’s or restrictions are unanimous across all UK boroughs to prevent walkers making a preference for one brough or other.
However, in the interim we understand that one brough may need to take the lead and become the beacon for responsible dog ownership and legislation. Will it be you who are hailed for standing up for the rights of dogs?
Suggested Plan
With the following in mind, we suggest:
Number of Dogs:
· Parks under 100 acres: 4 dogs per person. Groups not to meet up.
· Parks over 100 acres: 6 dogs per person or 8 dogs between two people.
(We want to permit two people together for those who want as it adds a layer of safety but not make it unaffordable.)
· No licence required to walk own dogs or under 4 dogs per person.
(To prevent barrier to entry to new workers.)
Costs
Please bear in mind a dog walker may use multiple parks in different boroughs so the cost of licencing may be three or four times what one licence is. The licence may want to prevent dogs from being brought into the borough but not necessarily workers coming in which is what the current price structure is. Walkers will need to provide cover when Ill or on holiday so owners can still go to work. Other reputable licence holders will be full and may not know the dog’s individual needs. Therefore licences should be transferable within a company. Please also note most dog walkers are not VAT registered so will have that cost to include. Therefore perhaps:
· £60/ year for up to 4 dogs per person.
· £75 / year for up to six per person.
· £100 for an 8 dog licence whereby the holder must bring a second pair of hands who they are responsible for teaching.
Other Notes:
Dogs should be OFF lead but with appropriate recall wherever possible (This is generally safer and very important for the dogs.
Dog walkers should keep on the move. (This is safer and better for the dogs.)
We must encourage and make responsible dog ownership affordable, and trainers will often work in a multitude of boroughs over one day. Therefore, dog trainers should not require a licence for training activities.
The licence may be given to any nominated assistant or member of that business in order to cover an absent dog walker.
Enforcement
We request that anyone given power to enforce any legislation must be at least a level 4 trainer ideally level 5+ so they can make sensible reading of dogs and the situation.
PSPO’s
No further PSPO’s should be brought in but antisocial dogs / owners may be asked to leave a certain space. #Accurately Restrict irresponsible Individuals not individuals’ dogs and the industry as a whole.
Dog Fouling
In terms of dog fouling, we feel the act of allowing a dog to foul should be fined but dog owners should not be at risk of randomly being approached and asked by officers to empty their pockets. Please bear in mind if a dog owner innocently forgets a bag or runs out because their dog has a bad stomach that day, it can easily be remedied by asking another friendly dog walker to lend a bag. Furthermore, rather than punishment might the council help enable cleaner parks and streets with more bins with free poo bags attached. We are confident a dog business would be keen to sponsor such a venture and thus remove the cost from the council. #Accurately Restrict irresponsible Individuals not individuals’ dogs and the industry as a whole.
However, if we are to introduce fines for no bags, should this not be done for picnic goers who do not bring a rubbish bag too? This would help keep the parks clean and safe and show residents this is not a vendetta against dog owners but a true attempt to clean up our parks and streets?
Encouraging responsible dog Ownership & Harmony.
In this report we value the importance of responsible dog Ownership and Harmony between dog owners and non-dog owners and therefore request the help of the council and government in using any licensing fees or further funding to help achieve this. We feel the following would be some good suggestions:
Responsible Dog ownership:
Pens:
Create more dog pens so that owners have more chance of some 1-2-1 space to train their dog. Have one of these pens designated as a Puppy Socialisation priority space. This means puppy owners can find a place to safely socialise their dog. It does not restrict calm nice older dogs being in their as they teach younger dogs’ good manners. It does not restrict someone else using the one if it is empty, but it provides a safe space for puppies to meet other dogs. All dogs who enter should be fully vaccinated and clean up and fresh water and shade should be essential.
Education:
Adverts on the importance of socialisation, training and proper exercise should be created to promote responsible dog ownership. A poster of dog body language could be put up in this pen.
Safety:
We hope councils can put licence money back in into parks to ensure they are clean and safe for dogs and people to use. This means fencing along fast roads. Removing glass. A quick response to reports of poison.
Events:
We hope councils can recognise the desperate requirement for dogs needs to be met to ensure well behaved safe dogs and thus the council ensure’s any events still maintain enough space for dogs to be exercised. That events are properly fenced, and licensees are notified of the disruption to the business of getting dogs walked.
Dog Fouling
In terms of dog fouling, we feel the act of allowing a dog to foul should be fined but dog owners should not be at risk of randomly being approached and asked by officers to empty their pockets. Please bear in mind if a dog owner innocently forgets a bag or runs out because their dog has a bad stomach that day, it can easily be remedied by asking another friendly dog walker to lend a bag. Furthermore, rather than punishment might the council help enable cleaner parks and streets with more bins with free poo bags attached. We are confident a dog business would be keen to sponsor such a venture and thus remove the cost from the council. #Accurately Restrict irresponsible Individuals not individuals’ dogs and the industry as a whole.
However, if we are to introduce fines for no bags, should this not be done for picnic goers who do not bring a rubbish bag too? This would help keep the parks clean and safe and show residents this is not a vendetta against dog owners but a true attempt to clean up our parks and streets?
Picnics:
We hope councils can recognise that picnic’s pose a great hazard as you are competing with an abundance of food with one training treat. We therefore hope councils can recognise this and create fenced in areas for picnickers and promote safe picnic etiquette such as no food on the ground before midday and keep food in Tupperware if not in a designated picnic area.
Bear in mind on really hot days most dogs will need to be home by midday as its too warm, so give the dogs a chance to safely get out before the hazards.
Fear of Dogs
We recognise some people fear dogs and would rather dogs do not approach them. How about if such people have the option of wearing a certain coloured arm band when in parks so dog owners can easily identify them and be extra cautions to recall their dogs away from them?
Promote dog & non-dog people harmony:
Invest money in little online adverts and posters such as:
SCARED OF DOGS?
Stand like a post.
Stay Calm.
Politely ask owner to get their dog.
Warning shouting at owners may make the dog scared and bark.
Sniffing is normal and friendly.
WHERE SHALL I PICNIC OR PLAY GAMES?
Remember dogs must run off leash every day to be happy, well and free from behaviour problems. Please help them do so, by respecting their space so the UK has happy friendly dogs.
DO YOU LIKE STRANGERS TOUCHING you on the head WITHOUT ASKING?
Some dogs don’t either.
Please ask before you pet or let them come to you.
If permitted stroke under the chin.
WHAT IS A DOG SAYING TO YOU?
National Law
Whilst the initial focus is at local level the contributors also feel the following National legislation needs consideration:
Dog Licensing
It is advised the above licence arrangements are unanimous across boroughs so whilst walkers may travel for bigger parks which we feel rightly should allow more dogs, a change of scenery or other clients, walkers will not be encouraged to travel for more favourable terms.
Protection of Livestock Act
This allows a farmer to shoot a dog if it is worrying its livestock and is designed to ensure a farmer does not suffer financial loss due to a dog. However, dogs have a brain on par with a 3-4yr old child. They hold a place in their owners’ hearts equal to children in many cases. Therefore, to permit them to be shot seems barbaric and dated. Instead, can the owner of a dog be forced to pay damages and thus a farmer can only shoot if they can prove they had no reasonable way of knowing who the dog belonged too? Moreover, a farmer must fence the outer boundaries of their land with at least sheep grade size fencing to be permitted to shoot. Shooting a dog if a farmer has not met these terms is thus a criminal offence under the animal welfare act? To ensure a farmer will not be at financial loss, it can be a legal requirement for dog owners to have insurance that would pay for financial loss a farmer could suffer if they wish for their dogs to be off lead in the countryside?
Dangerous Dogs Act.
This report is opposed to breed specific legislation.
Should the word ‘Dangerous’ not be more specified? For example some may argue a dog barking is dangerous when the reality in one context may be that barking is not dangerous, in fact it is a necessary escalation of communication by the dog to say get back you are scaring me so they are not forced to escalate further to say a bite which would then be dangerous.
Furthermore, if we listened to the more subtle communications from dogs then they would not need to bark too often.
It is a criminal offence to attack a service dog, however should it be a requirement that all service dogs are clearly identifiable so owners can be sure to keep a wide berth.
Dog on Dog bites.
This report opposes the criminalising of a dog biting another dog on the head, ears, legs or tail. Though continues to support that the offending dog’s owners should pay any damages and the owner can also be forced to undergo training for them and their dog for repeated offences.
This report supports more severe repercussions for owners whose dog causes death, severe body wounds, to another dog or bites them and shakes them in their mouth. Suggestions include:
1st Offence: Forced to undergo training for them and their dog and pay damages.
2nd Offence: Fine. Forced to undergo training for them and their dog and pay damages. Dog may be forced to wear a muzzle in public. Though this report does not support dogs being forced to be on leads if it is detrimental to the future rehabilitation of the dog.
3rd Offence: Larger Fine. Community service? Forced to undergo training for them and their dog and pay damages. Dog will be forced to wear a muzzle in public. Potential Ban on owning dogs or large breeds and thus being forced to rehome. Court has power to enforce a custodial sentence in extreme cases?
Animal Welfare Act
As dog owners it is honestly every other week, we hear of a dog being poisoned. Whilst under the act it is already illegal to do harm to an animal, these tragedies seem to be never fully resolved. We feel more must be done to seek prosecution against those who leave poison or threaten to as it is also recognised that a certain amount of scare mongering goes on from those who do not like dogs.
Behaviour Contracts & The Courts Ultimate Decision
We are of course grateful that we seem to have moved on from simply putting dogs down. However now it seems to be more often than not a blanket life sentence to being on a short lead and muzzle. Hopefully from the above report you can see how seriously detrimental this is to a dog’s quality of life and thus behaviour. We hope a middle ground can be found where the court consults their own behaviourist in conjunction with the owners, and thus decide if the dog could be safe with one or other management tool and not both. Furthermore, that the dog has the ability to be reassessed and thus essentially paroled after a period of training to give the owner, rather than a life sentence.
Perhaps suspended sentences could be considered for dogs who were involved in an incident which was so unlikely to occur again rather than giving them a life sentence for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Conclusion
As societies progress, they must become more civilised. Dogs’ brains are thought to be on par with a 2-3 yr old child. Whilst they may not form words, they are incredibly efficient communicators and sensitive sentient beings. If we look back on the way animals and certain classes, races, groups of people were treated in the past are we not disgusted by our behaviour? So, let’s ensure we are looking after our animals and giving them the rights they deserve so we do not look back in history being disgusted at how we treated them now. Let’s do this whilst at the same time protecting the public and making parks pleasurable for all!
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” Gandhi.
References:
Smith (2020) Events in London parks .https://parkscommunity.org.uk/how_to_guide/events-in-londons-parks-the-friends-perspective/
Satista (2022) Number of pet dogs in the United Kingdom (UK) from 2010/11 to 2021/22 (in millions)* Staista.com