|
|
 |
| |
Pet hate? New dogs crackdown
After owners’ backlash, council considers new bid to tackle anti-social animals
ONLY 18 months after a backlash from owners forced it to neuter measures to control pets in streets and parks, the Town Hall is considering a new campaign to tackle dangerous dogs on council estates.
The councillor in charge of combating crime and anti-social behaviour on council estates, James King, a Liberal Democrat, said reports of dog fighting, bites, and intimidation were rising.
“My perception is that this is one area of anti-social behaviour that is on the increase,” he added. “It is not exclusively a crime concerning council estates, but I am hearing that this is an increasing problem, and I am seeing information about dog bites leading to hospitalisation, and about dog fighting from the RSPCA.
“I’m approaching this from the point of view that there is a problem that is seriously impacting on the quality of life of residents.”
In November 2007, the current Lib Dem and Conservative coalition agreed a raft of dog control order regulations, empowering street wardens to fine irresponsible owners for allowing their pets to foul the pavement or run off their leads in the streets.
But although the plan had been in response to surveys indicating the public’s increasing concern about dog issues, they were severely watered down after hundreds of owners protested against the more radical measures, including bans on dogs running off the lead in parks.
Cllr King said that the control orders had been about parks and land. “This is about anti-social behaviour, community safety and animal welfare. Blanket draconian rules for everybody are not the way to go.”
Rather than bringing in new proposals, officials are looking at how the existing rules can be enforced.
Officially, tenants are allowed to keep no more than two dogs in a council flat, and then only if they have notified the Town Hall – a condition that is thought to be widely ignored.
The Dangerous Dogs Act could also be used to target pit bull-type dogs.
Joint operations between the council’s environment teams and street wardens and police community support officers are an option. All three types of officer have no powers of arrest but are allowed to issue on-the-spot fines, or fixed penalty notices, of up to £80.
“There’s a lot more manpower for this type of environmental crime than there was 10 years ago,” said Cllr King.
Labour councillor Theo Blackwell, who objected to the dog control order plans on behalf of estate residents in his Regent’s Park ward last year, said: “Ultimately, this is about the owners.
“You get the impression that this council would like to put Asbos on dogs, but the real issue is where you’ve got out-of-control kids who have dogs which are threatening to other people or dogs. Before it takes steps that threaten the law-abiding dog owner on a housing estate, the council needs to produce evidence that there is a problem.”
‘Disgust’: Child attack terrier is spared
THE mother of a toddler who needed reconstructive surgery after he was mauled by a bull terrier in a Primrose Hill playground has criticised the courts for allowing both dog and owner to walk free.
Claire Lambert’s son Maurice, 2, spent four days in the Royal Free hospital last October while surgeons repaired ligament damage caused when a dog seized him from a ride by the ankle.
A 35-year-old businessman was handed 100 hours of community service and ordered to pay £500 compensation after pleading guilty to being in charge of a dog dangerously out of control in a public place. His pet, Chelsea, had a destruction order suspended under condition that she be muzzled and kept on a lead at all times.
Ms Lambert said: “I am very upset and disgusted. That dog should have been on a lead and muzzled already to protect
Maurice. The owner has shown he can’t obey the rules and the dog has shown it can attack a child.”
The owner was sentenced at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court on April 14. Yesterday (Wednesday) the Crown Prosecution Service said sentencing was a matter for the court, but that lawyers in the case had pressed for a destruction order under the Dangerous Dogs Act. |
 |
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
