http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4271594/Owners-face-jail-if-dog-attacks-at-home-Law-loophole-shut-on-dangerous-dog-owners.html

They do say this:

"A get-out clause will exclude attacks on burglars or intruders",

So it seems fine by me. My dog is strictly under control when I have visitors that he doesn't know very well and burglars can just take their chances!
Common sense should allready be protecting innocent people from being bitten by dogs, sadly that is lacking so laws have to be put in place. But, I can't see how this law will make the ignorant any more dog-savvy, especially when it comes to dogs & kids :(
Hopefully it will help to protect workers (posties etc..) that face out-of-control dogs through their job.

We have 6ft heavy gates with two signs, one says 'beware of the dogs', and the other says 'do not enter - dogs loose' yet a parcel delivery man still came in and got nipped by the terrier. He refused to  deliver again until I sent photos of the gate to his boss. The boss agreed he was wrong to enter, apologised to me and now we have a different more intelligent parcel man.
Where would we stand with this now, would we be prosecuted?

Will this not bring it more in line with Scottish law?  Theres part of me that thinks this goes too far as it is often not the ones who need policing that get pulled up by the law.

This seems to be just the same as the law up here now.
In scotland it also covers other animals, so if a wandering cat get's mauled the owner could still get in trouble.

I had a worry with it last year as my ( now ex ) neighbour was allowing her young Lab to come through the hole that the burn runs through and into our garden. I had to get quite stroppy with them and threaten to report their dog for worrying my hen's ( which she was ) before they would do anything. I don't know if my dogs would have gone for her or not, but I wasn't taking the chance.

> My dog is strictly under control when I have visitors that he doesn't know very well and burglars can just take their chances!

:-)  :-)  :-)   Too right!

We have 6ft heavy gates with two signs, one says 'beware of the dogs', and the other says 'do not enter - dogs loose' yet a parcel delivery man still came in and got nipped by the terrier.

You need to remove at least the one saying "Beware of the dogs" because legally it indicates you KNOW your dogs are dangerous, and therefore you could be in trouble even when it is on your property. You should always stick to signs that don't say anything other than that there are dogs there, such as "Dogs running loose", "I live here" and similar.

I hear what you're saying Goldmali, but the signs are to prevent people coming in uninvited.  The dogs are not dangerous, but how are the dogs to know the difference between a parcel delivery man and an intruder. The terrier was protecting his property, surely they are allowed to do this and if anyone is silly enough to enter despite the signs, then the dogs have a right to protect their home IMO. Or does this new rule mean that our dogs have to let anyone in to roam round our property at any time without daring to even muster a growl.

BTW the gate where the signs are has a very loud buzzer and a speaker, if someone buzzes, we speak to them and go out to get the mail, or if it is someone we know, we invite them in, the dogs are fine with visitors it is just complete strangers walking in unannounced  that causes them to protect.

There have been several articles in dog papers, I think it was even in one of the annuals once, about the dangers of allowing signs that allure to owning a dangerous dog, and the advice was very strongly to NOT have them. If the signs didn't say anything about beware, just told the person that there are dogs, then they enter at their own risk, and should they get nipped/bitten it would be their own fault. If you however have admitted you know the dogs might bite, it would be seen as your fault.

I'm going to a dog law seminar for Trevor Cooper in just over a month's time, I shall try to remember to ask this question in the Q&A session.

> You need to remove at least the one saying "Beware of the dogs" because legally it indicates you KNOW your dogs are dangerous, and therefore you could be in trouble even when it is on your property.

I will be interested to read the new legislation and the exemption clause, because the above has always seemed a bit ludicrous to me. I am not sure it was ever tested in court, either!

The new law will cover people going about their lawful business such as postmen etc. and I would hope anyone who has a dog that might intimidate a postman will now be required to control it on private property (this was the bit that was previously missing).

So logically, advertising to burglars and/or unallowed visitors that your dogs will protect your property, should be permissible given that intruders and burglars are not given any protection by the law if bitten. I sincerely hope so, as it's always seemed peculiar that you can't use a sign to say your dog is a deterrent even if you know it would only burst a burglar's eardrums from the barking.

Oh I forgot one thing. I had a dog called Rambo once, he bit somebody and we went to a veterinary behaviourist to find out why -turned out the poor dog was in a lot of pain (accepted touches from us even though it hurt, but not from strangers). The vet/behaviourist (one of very few that is both, and is referrals only) said straight away that Rambo's NAME would go against him if the bite was reported to the police and it went to court! I.e. the name would make it seem like we expected him to be dangerous. So there's various times when it's best to play safe as the law is so much in favour of the victims when it comes to dog bites, no matter what...

So logically, advertising to burglars and/or unallowed visitors that your dogs will protect your property, should be permissible given that intruders and burglars are not given any protection by the law if bitten.

I don't know, surely it's easy enough to just put "Dog on premises" or have a sign saying "I live here" with a picture of the breed -assuming it isn't a breed SEEN as a soft one. :)  Don't forget private individuals are not allowed to have guard dogs, you'd need a special license for that, so I'd assume that would be a huge grey area if you indicated your dog may be guarding your premises. It's not like people in general don't know dogs usually guard their own property.

There's often so many funny signs with Malinois on Ebay that I'd love to have (just as a joke!), indicating their are blood thirsty monsters, but I have stuck to instead having a sign INSIDE my front door with a picture of a smiling cartoon Papillon saying "Killer Papillon on duty". Hopefully nobody will take THAT seriously. :)

> ...I'd assume that would be a huge grey area if you indicated your dog may be guarding your premises.

But if there is an exemption in the new law [yup that's why I said I'd need to read it! :)] then for the first time the law is acknowledging the fact that even the most sedentary and benign household pet may have the ability to bite a burglar, and won't be punished for it. That's been the greyest area for far too long because 99% of dog owners really have no idea how their dogs would react in those circumstances til it came to the crunch. I have a very strong idea how mine would handle it - my BSD cross.... not my Malinois oddly enough! - but I would really like to have a way of warning opportunists that they WILL get more than they bargained for, if they pick on my household.

As long as you take all good measures to prevent your dogs injuring, biting (or even frightening, under DDA Sec.3) legitimate visitors to your property, then this exemption clause gives no redress to unauthorised intruders. There have been some silly cases in the past where burglars have been bitten and then demanded recourse under the DDA, or claimed for damages... how stoopid is that!

Easiest way round the "beware of the dogs" sign is change the "beware" to Be Aware....Worked for me lol...I now have signs on all our gates saying "Be aware of the dogs" and "caution dogs running free"....keeps all unwanted out :) (or is that the sight of 2 giant mops and a Rottie at the gate lol)

I'm going to a dog law seminar for Trevor Cooper in just over a month's time, I shall try to remember to ask this question in the Q&A session.

I would be very interested as I am sure so will be many others to the answers to this one and to know exactly where we stand in law if someone enters your property uninvited, whether the postman, the gas man or a burglar. I am not speaking about the front gate leading to the front door and letterbox (postman territory), but as in my case, the gate leading to the back of the house and garden where the dogs are loose.
My back gate is usually locked but is unlocked between 3.30 and 4pm so the children can come in that way from school, and this is the time the parcel man happened to walk through.
Please keep us updated Goldmali

Just added. I live in a reasonably isolated rural setting and need my dogs to let me know if anyone is around by barking. I don't think a terrier can be called a guard dog, but he certainly can make a lot of noise, walk the walk, but this was the first time he felt the need to nip the chaps ankle. I didn't see the bite so am not sure if it really did happen or not.

Agree with Goldmali as to be careful on what your signs on the gate say.  We actually went to the police to double check what was 'allowed' as such without incriminating ourselves.  They said do not put 'Beware' on any signs as you are stating your dogs are dangerous.  They told us to put signs up saying 'Dogs running free/loose' etc.  I keep meaning to get a new sign for our gate, it is padlocked though.

I had someone jump into my garden from the other side back last summer whilst my Akita was stood in there...luckily she is extremely friendly and she just stood looking at them....I cannot believe the stupidity of some people!

> The vet/behaviourist (one of very few that is both, and is referrals only) said straight away that Rambo's NAME would go against him if the bite was reported to the police and it went to court! I.e. the name would make it seem like we expected him to be dangerous.

My rott is named after a fairy but he is still a miserable git!

Proposed consultation and links

http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2012/04/23/dangerous-dogs-1204/

Where would we stand with this now, would we be prosecuted?

Well no, this man was intruding, there is a sign saying do not enter and he did.

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">the signs are to prevent people coming in uninvited.

This is why (and for the dog security) I padlock my back gate, as there is no reason for anyone to enter it without my permisson/attendance.  Prior to thsi the Gas meter reader would just wander in and not shut the gate. As we were getting a puppy a higher gate and padlock were installed.

aw,ali-t,whats his name?that made me laugh!

Oberon.  He was the king of the fairies from a Midsummer Nights Dream.  I hoped it would take the edge off any attitude for him but it didn't work.  He might have been more of a wuss if I had gone for Lennox/Tyson/Rambo or any other butch names.

I have 'Beware of the dog and shut the gate after you' on mine. I'm hoping that makes it obvious enough that beware is 'be aware' but I'll have to change it now that it has been mentioned.

Tongue in cheek then - if dogs are to be exempted for defending the home against intruders, then signs like those which say "The Remains Of Any Burglars Will Be Prosecuted" will be perfectly legal!

More seriously though, if there was no exemption and an owner was prosecuted for a dog attacking a burglar, then how would any Control Order work? You cannot feasibly keep a dog muzzled or caged in its own home 24/7. Plus, if there was a successful prosecution and the dog was ordered to be, say, confined to one room or kept in an outdoor kennel, wouldn't that be carte blanche for any would-be burglars who read about it in the local paper, to have a go? What if the dog was ordered to be PTS or rehomed, and the owner got another dog which also went on to defend the property, would that reflect badly against the owner, instead of the criminally-minded opportunists?

I think most of us have a vague idea what our dogs would do to an intruder with criminal intent... however there are many more people who have no inkling, until it happens. If aggressive barking that frightens someone is enough to deem a dog out of control under the current Sec.3, then it probably wouldn't even need to bite a burglar...!

>Tongue in cheek then - if dogs are to be exempted for defending the home against intruders, then signs like those which say "The Remains Of Any Burglars Will Be Prosecuted" will be perfectly legal!

I have one which says - If the dogs don't get you - I WILL!

I can honestly say I have no idea how my dog would react. I'd like to think he'd scare away intruders on looks/bark alone, but he is one incredibly quick dog and he has a strong, strong jaw. He is showing his protective streak recently whilst we're getting building work on the house, however that is behind a glass door. As soon as I let him out to see what the builders are doing he is a big baby and/or stealing their biscuits/tea!

well,thats a lovely name,and sounds great for a rottie,I love it!

More stuff in the Telegraph today
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/pets/9222226/Owners-could-face-jail-if-dogs-attack-burglars-under-new-plans.html
I have to say I agree with Caroline Kisko's comment.

For the life of me I can't find the relevant section or explanation that was issued when the Scottish bill came out.

It suggested that a dog that caused alarm or bit ( although not mauled/savaged ) a person in defence of it's home or owner, wouldn't receive a DCN.

> a dog that caused alarm or bit ( although not mauled/savaged )

As Caroline Kisko points out..........

I would be very interested as I am sure so will be many others to the answers to this one and to know exactly where we stand in law if someone enters your property uninvited, whether the postman, the gas man or a burglar.

Update here as I have been to the dog law seminar with Trevor Cooper today and I asked about signs warning about dogs.  He said that if you are prosecuted under the DDA (and it looks like that will very soon include places NOT public as well) then having had a "Beware of the dog" sign isn't likely to make much difference one way or another as that only looks at the incident in question. However if you are prosecuted under the 1871 Dogs Act, where owners are not punished (i.e. there are no fines, no prison sentences), only dogs (either by control orders being imposed on them or them having to be put to sleep), and where dogs' history are looked at, not just the one incident, then you are going to find it very hard to argue your case that your dog is NOT dangerous if you have a sign on your gate saying "Beware of the dog". His suggestion is to always only say "Dogs live here", nothing else. PLUS always have third party insurance!

I thought the 1871 Dog Law did offer redress to people who were bitten/injured by a dog on private property if they had a right to be there eg Postal workers etc but under that Law a prison sentence or destruction of the dog were not options.

No the dog can be PTS under the 1871 act but the owner cannot be punished. In fact it is the dog that is subject to whatever order, not the owner, so the owner can sell the dog after the event and the new owner will be taken to court instead! Trevor Cooper said he'd had that happen just once, an owner asking if he could get out of it by selling the dog, the answer was yes but then you need a new solicitor as I will only defend people who want to KEEP their dogs! He also quoted a famous case where a dog that had bitten was sold and the new owner had to go to court instead.