By Mark Boleat
ON 11 November, the States Assembly will debate new regulations governing the ownership of dogs – proposed by the Committee of Constables.
The main purpose is to deal with dangerous dogs. This has prompted me to look at all the laws governing dogs in Jersey.
In short, they are a dog’s breakfast – a mixture of the absurd, the impossible and stating the obvious as well as some necessary provisions.
The existing law imposes requirements which are not enforced, in some cases because it would be ridiculous to do so.
The best example is Article 8 which provides that where someone takes possession of a stray dog, they must either return the dog to its owner or “notify a police officer that he or she has found the dog and give his or her name and address to the officer”. Failure to do so is an offence punishable by a fine of £1,000.
The proposed new regulations largely replicate this provision, but with an added clause that the person may inform the police officer “that they are willing to look after the dog until its owner is found and, if the police officer considers it appropriate, the police officer may allow the person to look after the dog”.
There is no recorded instance of a fine ever having been levied. Indeed, there are probably few instances of anyone informing a police officer that they have taken possession of a stray dog.
What happens in practice is that if people find a stray dog and cannot contact the owner, they do a post on one or more Facebook pages – Jersey Dog Forum with 16,000 members, Lost Dogs in Jersey with 8,000 members and Jersey Lost and Found Pets with 6,000 members.
For example, one post last week was “Rottweiler been found at Havre des Pas Gardens. Some girls have got it and called the JSPCA”. Those girls committed an offence by not telling a police officer, who probably would not have a clue what to do.
These pages do a great job in reuniting lost dogs with their owners and where they cannot do so the JSPCA has a role.
But use of the pages contravenes the law which says that the appropriate action is to notify a police officer.
The proposed new regulations impose new requirements for dog collars. The current provision is that in a public place a dog “shall wear a collar with the name, address and telephone number of the owner”. The proposed new regulation is that the collar shall have the name of the dog, the telephone number of the owner and the licence number. The penalty for not doing so is a fine of £1,000.
However, until 1 February 2026, the previous requirements will still be acceptable. Given that few, if any, dog collars currently record the licence number, this new regulation would mean that, by February 2026, almost every dog in Jersey would need to have a new tag attached to its dog collar. Penalty for failure to do so is again a fine of £1,000.
But this provision will never be enforced, particularly if there is no attempt to publicise it. The explanatory note to the draft regulations failed to mention this rather important point and the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel did not comment on it.
Finally, there is the question of dogs on beaches. It was in 1959 that the current restriction that prohibits dogs being off-lead on beaches between 10.30am and 6.00pm in the summer months was introduced.
In 1959, the beaches were packed with tourists. In 2025, the beaches are largely empty even in the middle of summer, yet the provision remains, which again is seldom enforced.
In 2024, 1,174 people signed a petition to “have dedicated dog-friendly beaches where dogs can run freely all year round and close the popular beaches to dogs 24/7 during summer months”.
The ministerial response over a year ago was fairly positive: “I have written to the Committee of Constables to ask their views and seek suggestions for beaches that might be appropriate for dogs to be walked off the lead at any time”.
Officers were also asked to explore additional options, including “changing the start time and reviewing the arrangements for May”.
However, nothing has happened since and the issue has not been on the agenda for the Committee of Constables.
The government’s coffers could usefully be augmented were all the fines levied but the reality is that they are not. There has been no prosecution in the past ten years for a dog being off the lead on the beach in the prohibited period.
And there is no effective penalty for not having a dog licence. In 2022, the last year for which there are detailed figures, two fines were levied of £20 and £40, one caution was issued, one person was given words of advice and no action was taken in eight cases.
These issues are symptomatic of a political process in Jersey that produces laws that are not fully thought through, contain illogical and unnecessary provisions and set out stringent penalties which will never be enforced. The process is also costly in terms of the time taken to draft laws and then to implement arrangements.
There is, in fact, no need for dog licensing in Jersey. It does not exist in the UK for the very good reason that it serves no purpose. The system simply produces a register of dogs at a cost of £100,000 a year.
There is no need for laws telling people what to do if they find a stray dog because the last thing somebody does in such circumstances is search for the appropriate regulation.
There is no need for such onerous restrictions on walking dogs on beaches that otherwise are empty.
And there is no need to require all dog owners to have new discs for their dogs containing information, which again serves no purpose.
Nor is there any need for a children’s rights assessment for such measures, which fascinatingly concludes that “all children will be positively impacted by controls on a type of breed of dog considered to be dangerous”.
Sir Mark Boleat has held a number of leadership positions in companies, public bodies and charities in Jersey and in the UK. He is senior adviser to the Policy Centre Jersey.
