The term “necessary cruelty” in the context of English law and dog training is problematic for several reasons. First, cruelty implies intentionally causing harm or suffering, which is inherently negative and often illegal under animal welfare laws. Using this term can misrepresent or confuse the intent and methods of responsible dog training, which aims to prevent harm rather than cause it. Contrary to popular myth, not all serious dog behaviour problems can be modified or interrupted successfully with food or other stimulus rewards.
Why the word “cruelty” is not suitable for all circumstances
- Negative connotations: “Cruelty” carries a strong negative connotation, suggesting extreme intentional harm or suffering. This can conflict with the principles of animal welfare and humane treatment mandated by law.
- Legal implications: Under English law, particularly the Animal Welfare Act 2006, causing unnecessary suffering to animals is a criminal offence. Using the term “cruelty” could imply a breach of this law, even if the intent was to address problematic behaviour.
- Misrepresentation: In dog training, certain methods might be used to prevent greater harm (e.g. restraining a dog to prevent it from running into traffic). Labelling these methods as “cruelty” misrepresents the preventive and protective nature of the actions.
Animal Welfare Act 2006
Unnecessary suffering:
(1) A person commits an offence if –
(a) an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,
(b) he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,
(c) the animal is a protected animal, and
(d) the suffering is unnecessary.
(2) A person commits an offence if –
(a) he is responsible for an animal,
(b) an act, or failure to act, of another person, causes the animal to suffer,
(c) he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening and
(d) the suffering is unnecessary.
(3) The considerations to which it is relevant to have regard when determining for the purposes of this section whether suffering is unnecessary include –
(a) whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced,
(b) whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment or any relevant provisions of a licence or code of practice issued under an enactment.
Animal Welfare Act 2006 (c. 45) 3
(c) whether the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as –
(i) the purpose of benefiting the animal, or
(ii) the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal.
(d) whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned,
(e) whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person. Under the AWA If a person fails to do something or act to prevent an animal suffering then likewise, an offence could be committed under the legislation.
Using Physical Force in Dog Training
Using force in dog training should be approached with caution. Modern, humane dog training emphasises reward-based reinforcement and minimal use of force. When force is used, it should be for the dog’s, human’s or other animals’ safety and well-being, not to cause unnecessary harm. In basic dog training, especially puppy training, force is the last, not the first, tool to use.
A Labrador jumping on a person in the park can lead to a lawsuit, and I have given evidence in both criminal and civil law cases. Stating “he’s friendly” will not cut it in law. A dog simply hitting a person when running at full speed while chasing a friendly playmate can and has led to civil suits. I am currently involved in one such case involving significant financial damages against the owner of the Labrador.
The definition of the word force has many connotations, depending on the context in the way the word is being used.
Power – strength – energy – influence – impose – coerce – push – shove – pull – compel – to name but a few meanings for the word “force”.
Alternative Terms
To avoid the negative implications of “necessary cruelty,” consider using terms that reflect the intent to protect and ensure the well-being of the dog which are accurate:
- Necessary Intervention: This term focuses on the need to step in to prevent harm or manage behaviour.
- Controlled Measures: This emphasises that any actions taken are measured, controlled, and intended to prevent greater harm.
- Protective Actions: This highlights the intent to protect the dog from danger or harm.
- Behavioural Management: This term reflects the goal of managing or modifying the dog’s behaviour responsibly.
- Humane Correction: This term implies that any corrective measures are taken with the dog’s welfare in mind, following humane standards, especially where the alternative is committing a criminal offence under UK dog laws.
Using terms like “necessary intervention” or “controlled measures” is more appropriate and legally sound than “necessary cruelty” when discussing dog training. These alternatives align better with the principles of animal welfare and the legal framework in English law, emphasising the protective and preventive nature of the actions taken. Veterinary intervention is often an area in which the word cruelty is ignited despite the good intentions of the vet. Vets do not tell owners they are committing cruelty on their pet for its benefit, which they do physically and psychologically every day in the UK because the result is for the animal’s ultimate well-being.
In the context of a dog trainer handling a dog that suddenly becomes aggressive, “necessary cruelty” might involve using physical force to prevent the dog from causing serious injury. Here is an example:
Example: Using physical force to restrain an aggressive dog
A professional dog trainer is working with a large, strong dog known to have behavioural issues. During a training session, the dog unexpectedly lunges at the trainer, attempting to bite them. The trainer has to act quickly to prevent serious injury.
- In this situation, the trainer might:
- Grab the dog’s collar/harness or scruff: The trainer might grab the dog by the collar or the scruff of the neck to hold the dog back, preventing it from reaching them with its teeth.
- Use their body weight to hold/control the dog: To stop the dog from continuing to lunge and attack, the trainer might use their body weight to hold the dog to the ground. This could involve holding the dog down by its shoulders or chest, which might cause the dog discomfort or even pain but is necessary to prevent injury.
- Applying a muzzle: If the dog is particularly aggressive, the trainer might need to use a muzzle to prevent the dog from biting. The process of getting the muzzle on the dog might involve holding the dog’s mouth shut, wrestling with the dog, or otherwise using physical restraint that could cause distress; dogs don’t like muzzles. Circumstances dictate whether the above is urgent or not.
- You can go onto any website, and you will read that it’s easy to condition a dog to accept a muzzle. This is so factually wrong. It is not easy, and dogs that have not been conditioned to accept a muzzle may take months. Most dogs never truly accept it in my experience, and that is thousands of dogs I have seen. Exceptions to the rule are not relevant. A muzzle may be necessary or legally compulsive, but to a dog, it is anathema.
Here I will give a personal example of what I observed recently at my veterinary surgery. I was taking my German Shepherd there for a scan, as he is elderly. When I pulled up in the car park, I opened the back of my vehicle, and before I let my dog out, I saw a vet, a veterinary nurse, and a dog owner trying to control a beagle on the ground. The dog was panicking, and they were trying to get a muzzle on it, all three were on top of the dog. I concluded that the reason they were in the car park was that they could not get the dog into the surgery rooms due to a fear phobia learned from past negative experiences at the vets, regardless of what the vets or nurses were trying to do for its well-being.
I stood by my vehicle, and though a behaviourist, I did not interfere or offer my help because it is not always wanted, especially with veterinary staff. So, I just stood there waiting for them to finish so I could take my dog into the surgery. The dog began screeching and screaming so loudly that you could hear it from probably 500 metres away. If you were not observing what was going on, you would think the dog was being seriously injured, which, of course, it was not. I could see the vet staff trying to avoid being bitten, and the only person the dog did not try to bite was the owner.
This went on for quite a long time. Eventually, I decided to walk around the scene and take my dog into the surgery. It was obvious that the veterinary staff and the dog owner were trying to get a muzzle onto the dog and this was not the first time because you could see by the dog’s behaviour that it anticipated what was about to happen as it started screeching as soon as they got the muzzle out and it could see it. The veterinary staff and the owner intended to get the dog into the surgery so they could conduct an examination or help it with whatever was wrong. This is another example of necessary cruelty, hence why the word in law is not good.
Dog conditions for necessity:
In this scenario, the physical force used would likely be considered “Necessary Intervention” if the following conditions are met:
- Legitimate purpose: The trainer’s actions are taken solely to protect themselves from serious harm. The intention is not to cause undue suffering to the dog but to prevent an immediate and significant threat.
- Proportionality: The level of force used is proportional to the danger posed by the dog. For example, pinning the dog down to stop the attack is appropriate if the dog is actively trying to bite. However, once the dog is under control, continuing to apply excessive force would not be justified.
- No reasonable alternative: In the heat of the moment, the trainer may not have any alternative method to stop the dog’s attack, such as using a lead or command to de-escalate the situation. Physical restraint might be the only option available to prevent serious injury.
Legal Perspective:
Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, this use of force would likely be considered necessary to prevent greater harm (i.e. the trainer being bitten or severely injured). The law generally recognises that in emergency situations like this, causing some degree of suffering to the animal may be justified to protect human safety.
However, the force must be limited to what is necessary to stop the attack. Once the dog is restrained or muzzled and no longer poses a threat, the use of force should be immediately reduced to avoid crossing the line into unnecessary cruelty.
The necessity of dog training, especially when it involves teaching dogs to behave in ways that are unnatural to them, is often driven by the need to ensure both the dog’s safety and the safety of others in a human-dominated environment. This necessity is underscored by various laws in England that impose legal responsibilities on dog owners. Failing to properly train a dog can lead to legal conflicts, where the owner might be held liable under specific statutes.
For example,
The Dogs Act 1871 Section 2
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953
Necessity of Dog Training to Prevent Legal Conflicts
Dog training often involves teaching dogs to suppress or modify their natural instincts, such as hunting, territorial behaviour, and aggression, to prevent them from getting into trouble, either by harming others or by putting themselves in danger. This type of training is not just a matter of convenience but is often legally required to avoid conflicts with the law.
1. Animal Welfare Act 2006
- Legal Obligation: The Animal Welfare Act 2006 places a duty of care on dog owners to ensure the welfare of their pets, which includes providing a suitable environment, diet, and the ability to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, and protecting them from pain, suffering, injury, and disease.
- Example: If a dog is not trained to stay within the confines of a garden or to avoid running into the street, it might get injured or killed in traffic. Failing to train the dog in this way could be seen as neglecting its welfare, violating the owner’s duty under the Act.
- Conflict: If a dog repeatedly escapes and gets injured, this could be interpreted as a failure to prevent suffering and injury, leading to potential prosecution under the Animal Welfare Act for not taking reasonable steps to protect the animal from harm. Also, other offences would or could be committed, such as allowing your dog to stray (The Environmental Protection (Stray Dogs) Regulations 1992; offences under Road Traffic Act 1988 c.52 Part 1 control of dogs on roads).
2. Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended)
- Legal Obligation: The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is designed to protect the public from dogs that are considered dangerous. It is illegal to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in any place (England or Wales, whether or not a public place)
- Example: A dog that has not been properly socialised or trained to control its aggression might attack a person or another animal. Even if the dog is acting on natural territorial or protective instincts, the owner could be held liable under this Act.
- Conflict: If a dog bites someone because it was not trained to remain calm around strangers, the owner could face severe penalties, including the possibility of the dog being seized and destroyed and the owner facing fines and imprisonment.
3. Dogs Act 1871 Section 2
- Legal Obligation: The Dogs Act 1871 allows a court to order that a dog be kept under control or destroyed if it is shown to be dangerous and not kept under proper control.
- Example: If a dog is not trained to walk on a lead properly and continuously escapes, running loose and causing fear or harm to others, the owner could be summoned to court. This might lead to an order requiring the dog to be controlled in specific ways or even destroyed if deemed dangerous.
- Conflict: Repeated incidents where a dog escapes and behaves aggressively towards others could lead to the owner being taken to court under the Dogs Act 1871, resulting in legal action to ensure the dog is kept under strict control.
4. Highways Act 1980 Section 27
Legal Obligation: Under the Highways Act 1980, it is an offence to allow a dog to be on a public road without being on a lead.
- Example: A dog that is not trained to walk on a lead might run into traffic, causing accidents. The owner could be held liable for any damage or injuries caused by the dog’s actions.
- Conflict: If a dog causes a road traffic accident because it was not on a lead or under proper control, the owner could face prosecution under the Highways Act, with the potential for fines and civil liability for damages.
5. Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Statutory Nuisance)
- Legal Obligation: The Environmental Protection Act 1990 addresses issues like noise pollution, which includes persistent barking by dogs. Excessive barking can be classified as a statutory nuisance.
- Example: A dog that is not trained to remain calm and quiet might bark excessively when left alone or when someone approaches the house. This could lead to complaints from neighbours.
- Conflict: If the barking leads to complaints, the local authority could issue a noise abatement notice under the Environmental Protection Act. If the barking continues, the owner could face fines and be required to take action, such as further training or soundproofing.
Conclusion on natural and unnatural canine behaviour
Training dogs to behave in ways that may be unnatural to them, such as not chasing after animals, not barking excessively, or remaining calm in the presence of strangers, is essential to avoid conflicts with English law. Each of these laws imposes specific duties on dog owners to ensure that their pets do not cause harm, distress, or nuisance to others, and failing to train a dog appropriately can lead to serious legal consequences.
The necessity of dog training and modification behaviour plans is not just about creating a well-behaved pet but about fulfilling legal responsibilities and ensuring the safety and welfare of both the dog and the public in Britain.
