Our dogs were playing in the sea swimming for balls that we threw. Further down the shoreline we could see three other people walking towards us. They had a dog and a child aged about 7yrs. Apart from us and them, the beach was deserted.
They didn't alter their path to avoid us and when they were quite near One of our Collies, coming out of the sea thought they were too close and barked at them. She was closest to the child and one of the adults exclaimed:
'Oh my God it went for the boy!'
The dog wasn't being aggressive she merely barked. We of course immediately apologised if the child had been frightened and the dog came away immediately it was called.
Here's the thing that made us think.
Under the new Dangerous Dogs Act all that is required for a dog to be deemed 'Dangerously out of control' is for someone to be in fear that they MAY be harmed.
In this case was the woman who exclaimed that our dog had 'gone for' the child thinking they may have been bitten?
What would the police have said about the dog if that was the case?
Nowhere in the legislation is there any suggestion that people should understand a dog's behaviour in the context of it being a dog. Nor is there any suggestion that the court will consider any contributory actions on the part of a victim of an incident in judging a case.
So where does this leave dog owners?
Always presumed to be in the wrong?
It certainly made us consider whether we should constantly be trying to avoid other people and situations on the off-chance that our dog may bark at someone.
How has the new act made you think about your behaviour as a dog owner?
No comments:
Post a Comment