Stop Dog Attacks

DOGS TRUST KEEPS UP PRESSURE TO REFORM DANGEROUS DOGS LAWS

UK ’s largest dog charity urging for calm over dangerous dogs and focus on ‘deed not breed’

Dogs Trust, the UK ’s largest dog welfare charity, is keeping up pressure on government, policy-makers, media and local authorities to take a balanced approach to tackling dangerous dogs, and not to give in to a knee-jerk response to the events of new year’s day and the tragic death of five-year old Ellie Lawrenson.

Dogs Trust’s view is that the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) needs urgent review in order to tackle the real problem of aggressive dogs not by definition of breed, but by enforcing effective controls of any dog who shows unwarranted aggression, whatever their breed, and imposing strict conditions on the owners of such dogs.

This position has been widely reported in national and regional media, and the charity is now focussing on discussions with central government to push for an urgent but considered review of the DDA, and warning that an emotional and rushed response will simply repeat the mistakes of the original DDA.

The charity is also warning that rushing to bring in amnesties for pit bull-type dogs will not tackle the problem of aggressive dogs in the long-term, but could simply mean the destruction of a large number of dogs simply on the basis of their breed, and will also do nothing to tackle the owners who are deliberately encouraging aggression in their dogs.

Dogs Trust has been in discussions with several local authorities who are implementing amnesties for pit bull-type dogs, including attending a recent meeting held by Merseyside police and attended by all six local authorities in Merseyside, where the force confirmed an amnesty would be brought in on 22 nd January.

Clarissa Baldwin, Dogs Trust Chief Executive, said:

“It is really worrying as we are seeing a similar situation to what happened in the late 1980s, where legislation was rushed in as a knee-jerk reaction to hysterical media coverage of so-called dangerous dogs. It is essential that whatever action is taken has to be the best course in the long-term. Sadly, these amnesties will not tackle the problem as the policies remain fixated on a dog’s breed, rather than its deed. Until we bring in effective controls for dog owners of all breeds based on a dog’s behaviour, and put resources into enforcing this, some reprehensible owners will continue to encourage aggression in their dogs, while innocent dogs are destroyed simply because of their breed. We must keep calling for a thoughtful review of the law itself.”

Over the last two weeks Dogs Trust has also seen a marked increase in the number of dogs abandoned and handed over to its rehoming centres, with particularly large numbers of Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Staff are particularly saddened by this as many dogs have been loving and beloved family pets for years. Dogs Trust is urging dog owners not to panic that their dog will suddenly become aggressive, and has issued guidance for anyone concerned about their dog’s behaviour. 

The Government of Gibraltar has issued news of its plan to ban the American Bull Dog. In a statement released by the Government last week, it was revealed that due to a series of attacks from American Bull Dogs on other dogs, the Government now believes the breed to pose a danger to people and other dogs and therefore has banned the breed, effective of January 11.

Owners of the breed have been given three choices. To permanently export their pet, have it destroyed or to pay £50 followed by £25 a year for the rest of the dogs life to apply for an exemption.

Dog owners on the Rock are furious at the apparent hypocrisy of the move. One group called the Government into account, slamming them for the decision.

“On the one hand the government is saying these dogs are dangerous and should be got rid off or destroyed. On the other hand they are saying you can keep your dog alive if you pay us money. It’s outrageous.”

Gibraltar’s minister for the environment has expressed an intention to keep the new legislation “flexible” in case they want to add any more breeds to the list in future.

Government of Gibraltar Statement.

“Under the provisions of Section 2 of the Dangerous Dog Act 2003 the Government, has made an Order declaring the “American Bulldog” a dangerous dog. The Order comes into effect on the 11 January 2007. This action was deemed necessary following concerns by members of the public regarding a series of attacks locally by these type of dogs on other smaller dogs which resulted in horrific injuries.

The American Bulldog is an emerging breed and the Government is concerned that because of their large muscle mass and strength these animals have the ability to deliver a very powerful attack on other dogs and persons alike. These dogs are therefore considered dangerous and are now required to be kept muzzled and on a lead whilst in a public place or any place to which the public have access.

Within a period of two months of the Order coming into force an owner of this type of dog has to permanently export it, destroy it or apply to the Commissioner of Police for an exemption. An owner who fails to take any of these courses of action is liable to prosecution. The importation into Gibraltar of these dogs is now prohibited. An exemption will be granted to genuine family pets where the owner can show that this type of dog is well looked after, properly trained, and poses no danger to the public or other dogs.

Application for exemption forms may be collected at the offices of the Environmental Agency, 37 Town Range. Before an application for an exemption is considered the following has to be submitted by the applicant: 1. Evidence as to his suitability as the custodian of the dog (e.g. a Good Conduct Certificate issued by the Royal Gibraltar Police). 2. A Certificate from a Veterinary Surgeon as to the nature of the dog. 3. Copy of the current licence of the dog issued under the Animals Birds Rules. If after considering the application the Commissioner of Police authorises the grant of an exemption certificate, such certificate will only be granted on proof that:-

a. The dog is covered by insurance in respect of damage or injury caused by the dog to a third party;

b. The dog has had an identification microchip inserted; and

c. The dog has been neutered. A certificate of exemption, if granted, is renewable on application to the Commissioner of Police on a yearly basis.

The fee for the issuing of a certificate of exemption is £50 for the first year and £25 thereafter.

Commenting on the new measures the Minister for the Environment stated: “The listing of the ‘American Bulldog’ within the current listing of Dangerous Dogs under the Dangerous Dogs Act 2003, follows representation from various bodies with an interest in public safety. It is for this reason that the legislation is purposely kept flexible, in order to allow future breeds that have the potential to cause significant harm to other animals or humans to be so listed.”

The Kennel Club will be calling on the Government to review dangerous dogs legislation in light of public concern and Police raids on homes where pit bull type dogs are kept.  However unlike Easington Council that is calling for an amnesty of all pit bull type dogs, the Kennel Club is seeking an alternative amnesty and deems the actions taken by Easington Council deplorable. 

Although it is unknown whether the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be reviewing the Dangerous Dogs Act in light of the tragic incident involving Ellie Lawrenson, the Kennel Club would strongly support such a review. 

At the present time, however, the Kennel Club believes that there should be a national alternative amnesty whereby all owners of pit bull terrier type dogs would be able to apply to a court, without fear of prosecution, for their dog to be registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs on the basis that their dog would not constitute a danger to public safety.

Proof of this could be determined by the court’s judgement taking into account the dog’s history, the dog’s owner and the dog’s character.  If indeed a dog was found to be aggressive then it would not be able to be registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs and would subsequently have to be humanely destroyed. If however, the dog in question was of a pit bull type but was well trained, had a responsible owner and generally posed no threat to the public then it would be able to be registered on the Index.

The amnesty currently being carried out by Easington Council is a poorly thought out and ineffective response to a tragic situation, that will lead to the death of many well loved family pets and cause a great deal of distress to dog owners.

The temperaments of pit bull type dogs vary significantly since a dog’s genetics (breed) has very little to do with its behaviour. Research shows that this is influenced most by the dog’s owner, the environment it lives in and the training it is given. In the wrong hands, any breed of dog can be dangerous - the number of dog attacks by breeds other than those on the dangerous dogs list, illustrates this. Similarly, any dog that has been trained by its owner appropriately and sufficiently should not be outlawed or destroyed based on its breed alone.
Said Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary, “It is important for people to understand that current legislation is out of touch with reality. There are estimated to be thousands of pit bull terrier type dogs in the UK and it is morally objectionable for those which have done nothing wrong, which have loving and responsible owners to be killed for no good reason; akin to ethnic cleansing which is considered to be abhorrent in terms of human beings. There seems to be a misconception that these dogs are inherently bad, but that is a complete fallacy.

The 1991 legislation was rushed through Parliament as a knee-jerk response to a spate of pit bull attacks and has since failed to prevent further attacks. Most importantly it failed to address the root cause of the problem, the dog’s owner and its training”.

Ryan O’Meara, editor of K9 Magazine commented, “The alternative offered by the Kennel Club is a far more humane and realistic option to the disgraceful guilty before commiting a crime resolutions offered by Easington council. We applaud the Kennel Club for taking a stand and offering a more viable alternative in this current climate of dangerous dogs hysteria.”

The president of the National Dog Warden Association has leapt to the defence of her members in light of recent criticisms levelled by Lord Kenneth Baker, the former Home Secretary who introduced the Dangerous Dogs Act, at dog wardens.

In an open letter to Lord Baker Susan Bell takes issue with claims from him that the Dangerous Dogs Act is not being implemented properly by the wardens, and that they are in some way responsible for recent tragedies involving dangerous dogs.

- Letter from the National Dog Warden Association to Lord Baker -

“The ability of some individuals and organisations to re-write history still absolutely amazes me!

I do not need to re-write history to know that from the outset in 1989/90, through documents I myself wrote, that the National Dog Warden Association presented to government the concept of punishing the deed not the breed. It would have also allowed for the introduction of pre-emptive measures (control orders) where there was evidence that a dogs owner by act or omission was failing to provide appropriate control.

At the time however, the RSPCA, Dr Roger Mugford, Home Secretary Kenneth Baker (now Lord Baker) et al provided us with the Dangerous Dogs Act, and now they are publicly blaming dog wardens for failing to implement that legislation fully and properly?

They appear to have forgotten, I have not, that the incidents in 1989 which led to that Act began with the death of a child (Kelly Lynch) attributable to two Rottweillers. Conveniently that was overlooked in the legislation and instead two non-fatal incidents (Rucksana Khan and Frank Tempest) enabled the transfer of attention to an American breed, the Pit Bull Terrier, a ‘breed’ predominantly present in this country through a very few imports and otherwise through a lot of look alike cross-breeding.

Of the other three ‘breeds’ they named in section one only one at that time had a limited number of specimens in the UK (the Japanese Tosa) the other two were merely known by continental reputation and canine mythology.

A lot came down to opinion rather than fact and eventually many of those originally involved in its creation backed away from the Act and openly criticised it (e.g. the RSPCA) leaving local authorities and the police to implement highly flawed legislation. In this period some of those who brought the Act into being began to appear regularly as defence witnesses (e.g. Dr Roger Mugford) and others arrived on the scene to be hailed as defender of the dog (e.g. Trevor Cooper).

For the working Dog Warden the object in use of any legislation remained the same: the reduction of danger on the streets and the promotion of responsible ownership and control.

During the summer of 2006 a child died after being ‘attacked’ by – two Rottweilers. Although there was some comment at the time the world seemed to have moved on and realised the flaws of the Dangerous Dogs Act, opinion appeared balanced and review of the law was placed on the agenda again.

As in 1989 a few months later another child is killed and this time the incident is laid at the door of a Pit Bull Terrier type. We are told on television that the dog is one of a banned breed it is even suggested that post-mortem this is proven by ‘tests’ (implying DNA tests) despite the fact that no such test has previously been available to decide court cases?

As if to ward off any challenge to these ‘tests’ we are told (by no less than Trevor Cooper) that even its ‘type’ could have ensured its seizure and destruction and we are told, by no less than Lord Baker himself, that had Dog Wardens (not the police or local authorities but, by name, Dog Wardens) implemented the law properly the tragedy would not have happened.

Lord Baker made little reference in his comments to the legal opinion which has so roundly criticised his Act in the intervening fifteen years to the point at which it is thoroughly discredited. Instead he made vague reference to including Rottweillers and Alsatians - not the way the German Shepherd Dog breed is now actually referred to by Lord Baker! - in section one saying they should be muzzled but failing to mention that he chose not to include Rottweillers in section one at the time he introduced the Act despite the death of Kelly Lynch or to mention that section one also requires compulsory neutering, micro chipping and tattooing and an undertaking from the owner to register the dog and not to sell or give away the dog for its lifetime i.e. guarantees the extinction of the breed in the UK within two decades.

What Lord Baker did say yesterday was that the rights of people to own ‘these dogs’ was not worth the life of even one child. So what happened in 1990 Lord Baker? The child that died then was killed by Rottweillers. The ‘breeds’ you did have the political nerve to put into section one were not responsible for any UK fatalities at that time. By your own standards you allowed a child’s death earlier this year by failing to include Rottweillers in section one!

In office Lord Baker understood political expediency, now he can freely make statements to boost his ego and reappraise what has already been determined to be a legal disaster – The Dangerous Dogs Act 1990.

Its failure has nothing to do with Dog Wardens (or even the police) failing to implement it fully or properly. It was bad law. It attempted to transfer responsibility for human failings onto animals by demonising them into killing machines worthy only of total obliteration. It was an important attempt at transferring legal responsibility not only onto an animal involved in an incident but any animal by virtue of its breed alone. It was found out and it failed.

We can continue to blame breeds if we want. If so the Rottweillers should have been named in 1990 and it was criminal negligence by Lord Baker not to do so. Or we can decide to provide legislation which works without using it as an emotional crutch for our own failings.

Children are precious, but hundreds die every year in preventable road accidents with cars and motorcycles (we do not blame the car or the motorcycle or attempt to ban them). Children are precious, but dozens die in accidents in the home with electricity, at play near water and at the hands of human beings who have been put in charge of them either as parent or carer. Why is it that we look differently at the law when the cause of the terrible loss of a precious child is a dog?

Understanding is not increased by eliminating animals from life, after all, the most dangerous animal to a child is the human animal (look to your figures for child murder last year and compare them with the children killed by dogs).

Over the past couple of days I have seen so much ill-considered or ill-conceived comment in the media my head is bursting. I saw figures quoted suggesting 30,000 dog bites treated at hospitals in the last year, but the last time I checked these figures hospitals listed all types of bite as ‘bites’ and did not differentiate between dog and humans bites even though emergency departments confirmed that most of the bites they were treating were of human origin.

It sometimes appears that the only thing we have learned to do better in the last decade and a half is re-write history, but still continue to make all the same mistakes.

So it is with complete despair that I commit these words to the page but also with the complete knowledge that there is no blood on my hands nor on the hands of my many friends who operate Dog Warden Services throughout the UK.”