Is it time for dog owners to have official training?

12:00pm Thursday 14th June 2012 in Local News By Laura Smith

Training call – dog handler Keith Dukeson Training call – dog handler Keith Dukeson

A FORMER military dog handler has called for intense training courses for owners after a spate of dog attacks.

Keith Dukeson, who served with the RAF for more than 20 years, spoke out after the Echo’s coverage of a series of alarming dog attacks on other dogs in recent weeks.

He said: “I think they should bring in a compulsory responsible dog owners’ course before people get a dog. Owners would then get a licence after it is completed.

“I also think all dogs should be microchipped. It all sounds a bit nanny state, but it’s ths sort of thing that might prevent kiddies being bitten.”

Mr Dukeson also feels there needs to be better enforcement of dog control orders introduced by Southend Council.

These say dogs must be kept on a lead in pedestrian areas, roads, formal gardens, cemeteries, churchyards, bowling greens and car parks. Anyone who contravenes such an order should be given an £80 fine.

There are also issues with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as it means police often do not record dog attacks on other dogs as a crime.

It requires a dog to be “dangerously out of control”, making a human fear for their safety, to be classed as an offence.

Mr Dukeson, 53, a professional dog trainer in Southend, said: “There needs to be a meeting between the police and the local authority, so the bobbies out on the beat have got a format they can work to.”

Insp Matt Bennett, of Southend police, explained there were restraints in the law with dog attacks on other dogs.

He said: “If the person is in fear of attack, then the offence is complete. That fear has to be reasonable.”

The only other option for the police is to arrest the dog owner for criminal damage – but they must prove they either intended the attack to happen or were reckless.

Police have also launched a DogWatch scheme to help encourage responsible dog ownership, as a preventative measure.

However, Val Howells, Southend Council’s animal warden, stressed that dog attacks were a matter for the police.

She insisted: “Any incident involving a dog which is dangerously out of control in a public place is covered by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and is a matter for the police.”

Comments (11)

12:13pm Thu 14 Jun 12

The Cater Wood Creeper says...

it's time for the by-laws regarding dogs to be applied more vigourously, there's a need for the reintroduction of a dog licence, there's a need to regulate the breeding of dogs.
it's time for the by-laws regarding dogs to be applied more vigourously, there's a need for the reintroduction of a dog licence, there's a need to regulate the breeding of dogs. The Cater Wood Creeper

12:33pm Thu 14 Jun 12

JuliaM says...

“I also think all dogs should be microchipped. It all sounds a bit nanny state, but it’s ths sort of thing that might prevent kiddies being bitten.”

How? Do they have some sort of special microchip in the military, implanted into the dog's brain, that can stop it in its tracks before it attacks someone?
“I also think all dogs should be microchipped. It all sounds a bit nanny state, but it’s ths sort of thing that might prevent kiddies being bitten.” How? Do they have some sort of special microchip in the military, implanted into the dog's brain, that can stop it in its tracks before it attacks someone? JuliaM

12:37pm Thu 14 Jun 12

Ian P says...

Does anyone really believe that the sort of owners who would have a vicious dog would volunteer for an owner's handling course? Yet another suggestion to penalise the majority for the actions of a minority. Clearly action is required to eliminate vicious dog attacks but I do not believe this is the answer.
Does anyone really believe that the sort of owners who would have a vicious dog would volunteer for an owner's handling course? Yet another suggestion to penalise the majority for the actions of a minority. Clearly action is required to eliminate vicious dog attacks but I do not believe this is the answer. Ian P

1:01pm Thu 14 Jun 12

JuliaM says...

Ian P wrote:
Does anyone really believe that the sort of owners who would have a vicious dog would volunteer for an owner's handling course? Yet another suggestion to penalise the majority for the actions of a minority. Clearly action is required to eliminate vicious dog attacks but I do not believe this is the answer.
Spot on!

Yet again we see a call for more regulation, more legislation, more expense for all, when what is needed is proper enforcement of the existing legislation and a will to do so.

Not Mr Dukeson's ludicrous nanny state 'For the chilldreeeeen!' suggestions.
[quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: Does anyone really believe that the sort of owners who would have a vicious dog would volunteer for an owner's handling course? Yet another suggestion to penalise the majority for the actions of a minority. Clearly action is required to eliminate vicious dog attacks but I do not believe this is the answer.[/p][/quote]Spot on! Yet again we see a call for more regulation, more legislation, more expense for all, when what is needed is proper enforcement of the existing legislation and a will to do so. Not Mr Dukeson's ludicrous nanny state 'For the chilldreeeeen!' suggestions. JuliaM

2:11pm Thu 14 Jun 12

Meanwhatisay says...

Only good dog owners will microchip and licence their dogs. The rest just won't bother, surely this is obvious. Muzzling the only answer. What's wrong with everyone.
Only good dog owners will microchip and licence their dogs. The rest just won't bother, surely this is obvious. Muzzling the only answer. What's wrong with everyone. Meanwhatisay

2:29pm Thu 14 Jun 12

koicarp says...

Yet again minority brake the law and the majority have to pay for it. Its time the government started dealing with the minority and leave the law abiding majority alone.
Yet again minority brake the law and the majority have to pay for it. Its time the government started dealing with the minority and leave the law abiding majority alone. koicarp

5:06pm Thu 14 Jun 12

emcee says...

Quote: "There are also issues with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as it means police often do not record dog attacks on other dogs as a crime.
It requires a dog to be “dangerously out of control”, making a human fear for their safety, to be classed as an offence."
-
So, if an owner is taking his/her dog for a walk and it is attacked by another dog (especially a large dog like a rottweiler) it is totally reasonable for this dogwalker to be in "fear for their safety". Therefore, the recent attack by a rottweiler killing a dog out for a walk is a criminal offence, not a civil matter as indicated by police. So, Essex Police, do your job.
-
Quote: "The only other option for the police is to arrest the dog owner for criminal damage but they must prove they either intended the attack to happen or were reckless."
-
If it is off the lead where it should be on a lead, as per Southend Council dog control orders, and it attacks a dog or person, this can surely be classified as reckless. So Essex Police, do your job.
Seems there is no excuse not to enforce the law in the many cases we have recently read about. Essex Police and Southend Council, do your jobs.
Quote: "There are also issues with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as it means police often do not record dog attacks on other dogs as a crime. It requires a dog to be “dangerously out of control”, making a human fear for their safety, to be classed as an offence." - So, if an owner is taking his/her dog for a walk and it is attacked by another dog (especially a large dog like a rottweiler) it is totally reasonable for this dogwalker to be in "fear for their safety". Therefore, the recent attack by a rottweiler killing a dog out for a walk is a criminal offence, not a civil matter as indicated by police. So, Essex Police, do your job. - Quote: "The only other option for the police is to arrest the dog owner for criminal damage but they must prove they either intended the attack to happen or were reckless." - If it is off the lead where it should be on a lead, as per Southend Council dog control orders, and it attacks a dog or person, this can surely be classified as reckless. So Essex Police, do your job. Seems there is no excuse not to enforce the law in the many cases we have recently read about. Essex Police and Southend Council, do your jobs. emcee

8:32pm Thu 14 Jun 12

Bosniavet says...

emcee wrote:
Quote: "There are also issues with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as it means police often do not record dog attacks on other dogs as a crime. It requires a dog to be “dangerously out of control”, making a human fear for their safety, to be classed as an offence." - So, if an owner is taking his/her dog for a walk and it is attacked by another dog (especially a large dog like a rottweiler) it is totally reasonable for this dogwalker to be in "fear for their safety". Therefore, the recent attack by a rottweiler killing a dog out for a walk is a criminal offence, not a civil matter as indicated by police. So, Essex Police, do your job. - Quote: "The only other option for the police is to arrest the dog owner for criminal damage but they must prove they either intended the attack to happen or were reckless." - If it is off the lead where it should be on a lead, as per Southend Council dog control orders, and it attacks a dog or person, this can surely be classified as reckless. So Essex Police, do your job. Seems there is no excuse not to enforce the law in the many cases we have recently read about. Essex Police and Southend Council, do your jobs.
Well, are you surprised that Essex Police are claiming it is a civil matter in order to avoid dealing with this, whilst SBC's employee responsible for these "civil matters" does their best to claim it's not? This abdicating of responsibility seems all too prevailent these days.
Whilst I support Mr Dukeson's suggestion that dog owners should have training to ensure they can control & look after their pets, I can't help but wonder if he would suggest this, were he not "a professional dog trainer in Southend".
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: Quote: "There are also issues with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as it means police often do not record dog attacks on other dogs as a crime. It requires a dog to be “dangerously out of control”, making a human fear for their safety, to be classed as an offence." - So, if an owner is taking his/her dog for a walk and it is attacked by another dog (especially a large dog like a rottweiler) it is totally reasonable for this dogwalker to be in "fear for their safety". Therefore, the recent attack by a rottweiler killing a dog out for a walk is a criminal offence, not a civil matter as indicated by police. So, Essex Police, do your job. - Quote: "The only other option for the police is to arrest the dog owner for criminal damage but they must prove they either intended the attack to happen or were reckless." - If it is off the lead where it should be on a lead, as per Southend Council dog control orders, and it attacks a dog or person, this can surely be classified as reckless. So Essex Police, do your job. Seems there is no excuse not to enforce the law in the many cases we have recently read about. Essex Police and Southend Council, do your jobs.[/p][/quote]Well, are you surprised that Essex Police are claiming it is a civil matter in order to avoid dealing with this, whilst SBC's employee responsible for these "civil matters" does their best to claim it's not? This abdicating of responsibility seems all too prevailent these days. Whilst I support Mr Dukeson's suggestion that dog owners should have training to ensure they can control & look after their pets, I can't help but wonder if he would suggest this, were he not "a professional dog trainer in Southend". Bosniavet

1:19am Fri 15 Jun 12

Dumbnut says...

Bosniavet wrote:
emcee wrote: Quote: "There are also issues with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as it means police often do not record dog attacks on other dogs as a crime. It requires a dog to be “dangerously out of control”, making a human fear for their safety, to be classed as an offence." - So, if an owner is taking his/her dog for a walk and it is attacked by another dog (especially a large dog like a rottweiler) it is totally reasonable for this dogwalker to be in "fear for their safety". Therefore, the recent attack by a rottweiler killing a dog out for a walk is a criminal offence, not a civil matter as indicated by police. So, Essex Police, do your job. - Quote: "The only other option for the police is to arrest the dog owner for criminal damage but they must prove they either intended the attack to happen or were reckless." - If it is off the lead where it should be on a lead, as per Southend Council dog control orders, and it attacks a dog or person, this can surely be classified as reckless. So Essex Police, do your job. Seems there is no excuse not to enforce the law in the many cases we have recently read about. Essex Police and Southend Council, do your jobs.
Well, are you surprised that Essex Police are claiming it is a civil matter in order to avoid dealing with this, whilst SBC's employee responsible for these "civil matters" does their best to claim it's not? This abdicating of responsibility seems all too prevailent these days. Whilst I support Mr Dukeson's suggestion that dog owners should have training to ensure they can control & look after their pets, I can't help but wonder if he would suggest this, were he not "a professional dog trainer in Southend".
Spot on.
[quote][p][bold]Bosniavet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: Quote: "There are also issues with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as it means police often do not record dog attacks on other dogs as a crime. It requires a dog to be “dangerously out of control”, making a human fear for their safety, to be classed as an offence." - So, if an owner is taking his/her dog for a walk and it is attacked by another dog (especially a large dog like a rottweiler) it is totally reasonable for this dogwalker to be in "fear for their safety". Therefore, the recent attack by a rottweiler killing a dog out for a walk is a criminal offence, not a civil matter as indicated by police. So, Essex Police, do your job. - Quote: "The only other option for the police is to arrest the dog owner for criminal damage but they must prove they either intended the attack to happen or were reckless." - If it is off the lead where it should be on a lead, as per Southend Council dog control orders, and it attacks a dog or person, this can surely be classified as reckless. So Essex Police, do your job. Seems there is no excuse not to enforce the law in the many cases we have recently read about. Essex Police and Southend Council, do your jobs.[/p][/quote]Well, are you surprised that Essex Police are claiming it is a civil matter in order to avoid dealing with this, whilst SBC's employee responsible for these "civil matters" does their best to claim it's not? This abdicating of responsibility seems all too prevailent these days. Whilst I support Mr Dukeson's suggestion that dog owners should have training to ensure they can control & look after their pets, I can't help but wonder if he would suggest this, were he not "a professional dog trainer in Southend".[/p][/quote]Spot on. Dumbnut

7:10pm Fri 15 Jun 12

Ivanna Goodhump says...

Many of the dog breeds that are seen as "trophy" dogs are owned by a certain type of people who tend to inhabit social or rented housing.
~
I suspect that the vast majority of these have a lifestyle funded by housing benefit.
~
Councils/housing associations should ban all tenants from owning dogs in these houses. Private landlords often do so why cant the Council.
Many of the dog breeds that are seen as "trophy" dogs are owned by a certain type of people who tend to inhabit social or rented housing. ~ I suspect that the vast majority of these have a lifestyle funded by housing benefit. ~ Councils/housing associations should ban all tenants from owning dogs in these houses. Private landlords often do so why cant the Council. Ivanna Goodhump

9:32pm Fri 15 Jun 12

Brunning999 says...

That guy looks like his dog!!!
That guy looks like his dog!!! Brunning999

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree