Dangerous Dogs Act 'fails to protect public'

---

Steve Goody of the Blue Cross discusses his objections to previous dangerous dogs legislation, ahead of today's Dog Control Bill Committee in the House of Lords.

Could you give us a little background to the Dog Control Bill and why it has been introduced?

The Dog Control Bill is a Private Member's Bill introduced by the Lord Redesdale. It is intended to replace current legislation covering dangerous dogs which it is generally agreed has failed to adequately protect the public.

Despite the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act in 1991 (amended 1997) there is still a problem with dangerous and out-of-control dogs in the UK. Leading welfare organisations and veterinary groups have long campaigned for a change in law so that the actual root cause of the problem, irresponsible owners, can be tackled in a practical and cost-effective way.

What provisions for the control of dogs do you think are necessary?

The vast majority of dog attacks are as a result of the irresponsible actions of dog owners, who have either not taken the time or trouble to train their dog correctly, or have indeed trained them to behave aggressively, which is completely unacceptable and compromises the welfare of the animal. We want to see the introduction of a Dog Control Notice regime, essentially a series of preventive measures, to compel an owner to take action, such as neutering and behaviour training, before a serious attack takes place.

We also believe that ultimately breed-specific legislation should be repealed, and we would wish to see dog attacks on private property become a criminal offence. A large proportion of dog attacks occur in the home, some of the most horrific dog attacks on children have happened in the family home and have involved a dog that has previously shown aggression.

Greater responsibility should be placed on owners to ensure that their dogs are not out of control in any place, public or private. It is not acceptable for an owner to allow their dog to behave aggressively in the home or towards legitimate visitors such as postal workers or health visitors.

What are your concerns regarding the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991? Was the legislation too swiftly conceived and enacted?

At present the law very much focuses on the breed of the dog rather than the action, or deed. The only preventative measures that are currently in place apply to breed-types (Section 1), which means in practice that a dog can be seized by the police because of the way it looks. Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) does allow for any dog that is deemed dangerous to be seized by the police, however this is normally after a serious attack has already taken place.

We, and others, are concerned that such measures do not adequately protect either the public or the welfare of dogs. In addition, Section 1 of the DDA, which outlaws four breed-types including the pit bull terrier, has clearly failed to eradicate that particular breed of dog in the UK. The Blue Cross is seeing more of these dogs than ever at our London hospitals, an 86 per cent rise in the last five years. We do not feel that focusing on the breed type of dog is ever a useful way of preventing dog bites and attacks, but regardless of our stance on that issue, the fact is the current legislation just does not work.

Since the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act do you believe that the prevalence of violent dogs and the breeding of dogs for fighting has increased?

We do not believe that there has been an increase in so-called violent dogs, but we do acknowledge that there is an increase in visible, irresponsible dog-related activity in some areas of the UK.

We know that there are plenty of young people on the streets with bull breed-type dogs, and that this can quickly become both a social and an animal welfare issue. There is a problem with the indiscriminate breeding and ill-treatment of these dogs, and sadly bull-breeds are now often thought of as inherently violent or dangerous, which is simply not true. Part of the reason that people believe this to be the case is the current legislation.

We are seeing more and more bull breed-type dogs abandoned and neglected than ever before. The majority of these dogs have been acquired for 'status' purposes, because they have the look of a banned breed-type, and they are certainly not inherently dangerous.

The Blue Cross has three London hospitals where we offer veterinary care. We also provide education services across the UK and in London, and we aim to support and educate young dog owners. We consider that with the correct support dog ownership can be a positive thing for young people in urban areas, and we want to promote that at every opportunity. With the introduction of practical and useful legislation we can better protect the public and at the same time improve the welfare of these dogs, the vast majority of which would make perfectly acceptable pets if entrusted to a responsible owner.

You mentioned the repeal of breed-specific legislation. Why is this of such importance?

The police expend significant resources on the enforcement of the Dangerous Dogs Act. Large amounts of money are spent on the seizure and kennelling of dogs simply because of their breed-type, many of which are returned to their owners once proved to be of good temperament.

Removing breed-specific legislation would allow these resources to be used more effectively elsewhere, and concentrated on those dogs showing unprovoked aggression before an attack takes place.

You mentioned the need to make dog owners more responsible for the actions of their dogs. How can this be achieved?

A system of Dog Control Notices would place greater emphasis on the owner's responsibilities with regard to their dog. To allow a dog to be dangerously out of control is, in our opinion, completely unacceptable, and endangers both other people and the dog itself. With the introduction of preventative measures an authorised officer would have the power to issue a Dog Control Notice at the first sign of aggression.

A dog owner will then be required to microchip their dog, and can be compelled to muzzle the animal in public, keep the dog on a lead, neuter the dog, or undergo some training. This list is not exhaustive, and the point is to ensure that owners can be made to take the appropriate action to protect other people.