Training

Dog Cruelty Laws in Training and Behaviour

by

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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:

  1. Necessary Intervention: This term focuses on the need to step in to prevent harm or manage behaviour.
  2. Controlled Measures: This emphasises that any actions taken are measured, controlled, and intended to prevent greater harm.
  3. Protective Actions: This highlights the intent to protect the dog from danger or harm.
  4. Behavioural Management: This term reflects the goal of managing or modifying the dog’s behaviour responsibly.
  5. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

www.colintennant.co.uk

Table of Contents
    Add a header to begin generating the table of contents
    Scroll to Top

    Why Theory Is Not As Effective As Practise

    by

    Why theory is not as effective as practise in canine behaviour and training

    The study of theories pertaining to dog behaviour and training offers a compelling perspective within this field. Nonetheless, individuals who have recently completed courses in dog behaviour often tend to place significant reliance on these theoretical constructs. This inclination can be attributed to their stage of career development, where they may lack the practical experience, skills, or knowledge to critically assess and challenge the theories they have acquired.

    Consequently, it becomes imperative for those seeking to gain knowledge in dog behaviour, training, and the broader realm of canine welfare to seek guidance from individuals who possess quantitative insights gained from extensive real-world involvement, as opposed to those solely rooted in academic frameworks. While certain academic programs explicitly declare their theoretical nature, there is a tendency to omit the fact that the information provided largely comprises theories and perspectives borrowed from published works, without direct application in the instructor’s own experiences.

    Hence, it is crucial to emphasize that at the Cambridge Institute of Dog Behaviour and Training, our team of instructors possesses a minimum of a decade’s worth of hands-on experience, having addressed hundreds, if not thousands, of dog behaviour and training cases on the frontline. This practical exposure forms the foundation for our teaching methodology, ensuring that our guidance is firmly rooted in reality, experience, and the skills honed through personal practice. While we do incorporate theoretical concepts and alternative viewpoints from external sources into our curriculum, we do so from the vantage point of practitioners who have first-hand knowledge of what it takes to effectively educate in this field.

    In the subsequent discourse, we will explore some of the strengths and limitations inherent in the utilization of theory as compared to practical fieldwork in the context of dog behaviour and training.

    1. “Theory provides a solid foundation, but practice reveals the nuances and complexities that theory cannot predict.”
    2. “In practice, real-world constraints often necessitate compromises that theoretical models do not or cannot account for.”
    3. “Theoretical knowledge is valuable, but practical experience is essential for translating that knowledge into real-world solutions.”
    4. “Theory may offer idealised solutions, but practical situations require adaptability and the ability to address unexpected challenges.”
    5. “Theoretical frameworks lack the individuality and variability that practical situations demand, especially in personalized fields like healthcare and education.”
    6. “Practice often involves a trial-and-error process, which allows for the refinement of methods and strategies that theory alone cannot provide.”
    7. “Theory tends to oversimplify complex real-world scenarios, while practical experience highlights the multifaceted nature of problems and solutions.”
    8. “In many cases, ethical and moral considerations come into play in practice, which may not be adequately addressed in theoretical models.”
    9. “While theory provides a roadmap, it is in practice that we discover the potholes, detours, and alternate routes to success.”
    10. “The gap between theory and practice underscores the importance of learning from experience, as real-world application reveals the limitations and shortcomings of theory.”

    These statements emphasize the limitations of theory in various fields and highlight the importance of practical experience in addressing the complexities of real-life situations.

    Theory versus breed reality

    In theory, if you desire to teach your dog the recall command, which instructs the dog to return when called, theory alone may not adequately consider the surrounding circumstances, location, canine population density, the dog’s previous history, or any negative behaviours it may have acquired, unless it is a young puppy.

    Advising individuals to reward their dog upon its return seems plausible in theory and makes logical sense. When instructing a highly adaptable puppy or a youthful adolescent dog, in a tranquil setting like your own garden, the expected results are often achieved. Most dog trainers have intuitively employed such methods long before the theory of operant conditioning, which offers a scientific rationale for its effectiveness, was elucidated. Operant conditioning did not originate these training practices; rather, it provided a systematic explanation for their efficacy.

    However, when dealing with breeds that were not specifically bred for establishing eye contact with humans or forming strong bonds due to their historical roles in serving human masters, the application of theory can become less effective. Breeds such as basset hounds, foxhounds, and beagles, which have been bred to enhance their olfactory capabilities and to lead rather than seek guidance from humans, can pose challenges when teaching recall. Attempting to teach them to return using treats or similar rewards can prove to be a formidable task.

    Conversely, instructing breeds like border collies or herding breeds such as German shepherds or Malinois, which exhibit a greater predisposition to focus on human interaction, tends to be far more successful. These breeds have been cultivated for their ability to communicate with their handlers, and their intelligence is tailored toward human engagement. When approached correctly in their early development, motivating them with toys, food, or the allure of being in your company and receiving praise yields more favourable results.

    This underscores the significance of ensuring that those imparting knowledge have substantial field experience encompassing diverse dog breeds in various settings, and have effectively handled numerous dogs with pre-existing training issues or ingrained behavioural problems. To rectify these deeply rooted habits, one necessitates the expertise of a highly skilled trainer and or behaviourist with the requisite practical experience. Terriers bred for combative pugnaciousness or toy breeds, which are primarily bred for companionship, come to mind in this context as more challenging and simply do not bend to theories in training.

    In conclusion, it is essential to recognize that theory serves as a foundational framework, while practical application, bolstered by hands-on experience, is the crux of successful dog behaviour and training.

    By: Colin Tennant MA. FCFBA