|
|
Location: Scotland
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 7
|
19-01-2007, 02:31 PM
Only section 1 of the Guard Dogs Act 1975 has ever entered into force. This means that all the other sections relating to a licensing scheme are not in force and neither are there any plans to do so. Section 1, which is in force, relates to the control of guard dogs.
Section 1 states:
(1) A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a person ('the handler') who is capable of controlling the dog is present on the premises and the dog is under the control of the handler at all times while it is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.
(2) The handler of a guard dog shall keep the dog under his control at all times while it is being used as a guard dog at any premises except:
(a) while another handler has control over the dog; or
(b) while the dog is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.
(3) A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a notice containing a warning that a guard dog is present is clearly exhibited at each entrance to the premises.
The owner of a guard dog may be liable for any injury to a person under s 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971, unless they come within one of the exceptions in s 5.
Defra site.
|
Location: South East UK
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 27,437
|
19-01-2007, 04:23 PM
Unless it's tied up???? Even then, doesn't it mean there should be a handler around on the premises??? I remember listening to a phone in on the radio one morning when there had been a recent dog attack, and Jan Ferrell was in the radio station and I specifically remember her saying about guard dogs not being allowed to be left unattended?????
|
|
Location: Scotland
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 7
|
19-01-2007, 04:59 PM
On the gate where the dog is being kept, there is a sign that says dog bites. I am sure that if you put signs up like that you are warning that it is a guard dog. I wouldn't even put a Beware of the Dog sign on my property as it implies 'guard dog'
|
Location: South Wales, UK
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 18,574
|
19-01-2007, 08:59 PM
Whilst I appreciate many of you are concerned about the dog, in fairness to the SSPCA they are bound by what they can legally do, and have a set of guidelines that they must follow and adhere to. Also, don't forget that what you have read on another site is their 'campaign' - so it is written from their perspective.
With regards to an organisations such as the SSPCA they simply can't forcibly remove a dog if their recommendations have been followed and a vet has okayed the situation. Sometimes it's a fine line and some owners get away with it, just. Obviously if the dog was malnourished or obvious signs of cruelty were evident they could - but from the pictures I have seen this is not the case. Yes the living area is not as nice as what you would find in a home environment, but so long as it has been cleaned up, and is 'safe' and a vet is happy the dog is not in any danger - what can the SSPCA legally do?
I can't help but feel that there are some people who I suspect belong to another rescue organisation posting to stoke things up. So I am locking this thread until Monday.
I will email the SSPCA and ask them if they would like to release a statement regarding the concerns raised and clarify the legal standpoint.
Mainly:
- Is it (legally) acceptable that a dog can be left alone on premises by itself without a human guardian for long periods of time? What are the guidelines or policy they have to follow regarding this?
- Does the SSPCA have a 'no-destruction' policy?
Here's the statement I have been forwarded.
Originally Posted by The Scottish SPCA
The Scottish SPCA has been made aware of a website and two web forums that contain seriously inaccurate and potentially damaging allegations concerning a German Shepherd dog. The Society has issued the following statement in response to these allegations:
It has been alleged that the Scottish SPCA had done “absolutely nothing” following a complaint
On December 8 2006, the Scottish SPCA received a complaint about a German Shepherd dog and an Inspector responded within 24 hours by visiting the property in question and the dog’s owner. A second Inspector was then tasked with taking up the matter of the dog’s accommodation and welfare with its owner and visited him immediately at the property.
The dog’s owner was informed by the Inspector that the dog, named Kyle, was not being kept in an acceptable manner and the owner agreed to work with the Society to improve the situation. The owner was advised that if he did not work with the Society in this manner, statutory measures would be taken.
The Inspector’s immediate concern was that every item that could possibly cause the dog harm should be removed. The Inspector returned the next day and Kyle’s owner had removed all the items discussed.
Scottish SPCA Inspectors have made six visits to Kyle over the last six weeks and have witnessed further improvements at each visit. Most recently, Inspectors visited Kyle with an independent veterinary surgeon, who was satisfied with Kyle’s physical and mental well-being.
At the time of the first visit Kyle had an outside kennel which provided shelter and was water-tight. That kennel has since been removed and Kyle now has permanent access to a room indoors which has two mattresses and a duvet.
Under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 a Scottish SPCA Inspector may take possession of an animal providing a veterinary surgeon certifies that it is suffering or likely to suffer if its circumstances do not change. In Kyle’s case, the independent veterinary surgeon did not feel that Kyle was suffering or likely to suffer and was satisfied with the improvements that Kyle’s owner had made.
It has been alleged that the dog’s owner visited Kyle every few days and fed him by throwing him takeaways
The Inspector found that the owner visits Kyle every day, often twice a day and for lengthy periods. He also provides fresh food and water. This latter finding was backed up by an independent veterinary surgeon who concluded that Kyle is in good physical health and is clearly being fed a good quality diet.
It has been questioned why Kyle lives at this property
Kyle is no longer a guard dog, although he was for the first five years of his life. He has lived at this property for the last five years. Both the Scottish SPCA Inspector and veterinary surgeon concluded that, given his age and the fact that Kyle is familiar with this set up, his welfare would be best served by staying where he is. Indeed the veterinary surgeon expressed that they would have grave concerns over his welfare should he be relocated to a home environment. The Scottish SPCA Inspector stated, “There is every chance this dog would bite or attack someone if it was rehomed. It simply could not adapt to a new, indoor situation.”
The Scottish SPCA Inspector also found that the dog’s owner does take him to his home when he requires a bath or grooming, which has happened twice in the time since the Society received the complaint.
The Society is satisfied that the owner has done everything required of him and will continue to visit him to ensure this remains the case.
Photographs have been published which purport to represent Kyle’s current situation
These photographs are vastly out-of-date and depict a situation that no longer exists due to Scottish SPCA action. Together with the above allegations, they only serve to misrepresent the situation entirely and do the Scottish SPCA and its dedicated Inspectorate and staff a huge injustice.
In 2005, the Scottish SPCA cared for, rehomed and released almost 13,000 injured, sick, abused and abandoned pets, farm animals and wildlife. The Society’s Inspectors attended 30,033 incidents and lodged 115 cases with the Procurators Fiscal. This led to a total of £6,670 in fines for animal cruelty and 13 orders banning individuals from owning an animal.
 |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|