Ten Years Of Hell - The Dangerous Dogs Act Of The UK
Dear Dog Owners:
It's the 10th anniversary of the Dangerous Dogs Act in the UK.
Ten years of making average dog owners criminals for owning the "wrong breed' - now "illegal dogs". Ten years of round-ups, arrests, court appearances. Ten years of killing innocent dogs for no other reason that they "look" like an illegal dog.
It's been ten years of hell.
The following is a message from the Endangered Dogs Defence & Rescue from the United Kingdom, and it contains an important lesson for every dog owner, anywhere in the free world...................
The Tenth Anniversary of the Dangerous Dogs Act Amendment
Ten years ago this month marks the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act (Amendment) which became law on the 8th June 1997. It was the only time the now infamous DDA legislation had been changed since its introduction in 1991 and it has never since been altered.
Background:
The DDA is breed specific legislation (BSL) – Section One of the legislation directly prohibits four types of dog:
· the Pit Bull Terrier
· the Japanese Tosa
· the Dogo Argentino
· the Fila Brasileia
It is illegal to keep any of the above types of dog, unless the dog is registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs and certain conditions of exemption are strictly adhered to.
Back in the early 1990’s there was intense media coverage of dog attacks, the ‘pit bull’ had become the new ‘devil dog’ and the focus of media attention. Events took a drastic turn following two separate highly publicised dog attacks in the summer of 1991. The Government responded by declaring that certain dogs would be culled in one mass operation, sending out panic into the dog owning community. Following further advice from animal welfare organisations, this knee jerk reaction of intended mass slaughter was later modified instead to a compulsory registration system embodied in the DDA, which with very little research was rushed through Parliament in record time.
The aim was to eradicate a type of dog over the next generation. Owners had to fulfill certain requirements within a very short space of time in order to bring their dog within the law. There was a deadline given after which time the Index closed and those dogs not fully exempted became illegal.
There were originally 8,200 dogs notified to the Index of Exempted Dogs, by the end of 1992 a total of 4,821 dogs were on the register, this figure had dropped to 2,841 when the Act was amended in 1997.
The Act doesn’t refer to the ‘American Pit Bull Terrier’ and uses the word ‘type’. What wasn’t initially explained was how the word ‘type’ should be interpreted. No governmental guidelines to ease the confusion led to frequent lengthy legal hearings debating the finer points of what was and what was not of the ‘type’.
Dogs found to be of the type faced the compulsory death penalty by court order. Courts were and still can be subjected to days of conformational analysis. Originally a points system was developed and using this score system a Great Dane scored 85% and a Dachshund was shown to be 76% type.
In 1993 the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court determined the legal definition of the word ‘type’. In the landmark case of Dunne and Brock Their Lordships, Justice Glidewell and Justice Cresswell stated:
“That a dog of the type known as a Pit Bull Terrier is an animal approximately amounting to, near to, having a substantial number of characteristics of the Pit Bull Terrier”.
Thus any dog regardless of parentage could be of the ‘type’. With this ruling the law was in effect extended to cover possibly thousands of mongrels, regardless of parentage; dogs which couldn’t be registered as the deadline had passed and the Index was now closed.
Extending the net to possibly cover any smooth haired, muscular shaped dog, the flood gates of abuse were open. As the law had gained momentum, innocent pet dogs were regularly seized from their family homes and held in isolation awaiting costly legal proceedings to determine their fate if not signed over for destruction.
Following the introduction of the DDA it became almost routine for pet dogs to be seized often amidst scenes of great distress. Taken away frantically struggling on the end of a catch pole, whilst children cried and pleaded for their dogs life, to be kept kennelled at secret locations with no contact allowed was and is still remarkably acceptable according to the Act. Owners endured months and in some cases years of complex legal hearings desperately attempting to secure the return of their dog.
The very young, the very old, the disabled and sick dogs, none were spared and many suffered physical and psychological trauma which has been well documented over the years. In some cases unexplained injuries have been suffered by dogs in custody as well as sudden death.
The basic right of innocent until proven guilty does not apply - it is taken away from dog owners who once accused have to prove their dog is not of the ‘type’ rather than the prosecution prove that it is!
The penalty for owning an un-registered dog, or breaking the strict rules of owning a registered dog, e.g., muzzling and leash at all times in a public place, (which was later determined to include the inside of your vehicle) was death to the dog if found guilty. There was no other option available to the Courts when sentencing; destruction of the dog was compulsory. Owners fought long and hard to keep their dogs alive and some cases became powerful symbols of a struggle for some justice and change.
Following endless campaigning by many groups including the NCDL (now Dogs Trust) and concerned individuals, the long hoped for Amendment came into force on June 8th 1997.
The main provision, which was widely welcomed, was the removal of the mandatory destruction penalty for dogs found guilty of resembling a ‘type’. Discretionary powers were returned to the courts giving the option to order the dog placed on the Index providing that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety. An option grabbed by many a dog owner considering the alternative of their pet being killed and returned in a plastic bin liner or not returned at all.
Seizures of pet dogs under Section One of the legislation have thankfully reduced since the Amendment of 1997, with only eleven cases of “being in possession of an illegal dog” prosecuted in the Magistrates Court in 2005 (England & Wales).
Where are we now, ten years on?
Dog bite statistics are still not centrally kept, so there is no nationwide supportive evidence available to examine the effectiveness of any legislation.
There continues to be serious dog biting incidents reported in the news, in our opinion - mostly by dogs that are known to the victim.
The legislation ten years on has given a false impression that the problem of ‘dangerous dogs’ has been resolved, when the real concerns go by ignored. Unless, that is, there is a serious incident accompanied by press attention.
Following a tragic and fatal dog attack on New Years Day 2007 the authorities looked to this flawed legislation once again to provide answers and once again family pets were and still are being persecuted, whilst those who use and abuse dogs giving everyone a bad name often walk free.
Pictured here is ‘Molly’ who was given up during the panic but one of the lucky ones who wasn’t condemned in the ‘type’ lottery - she was even luckier to have found a rescue space through the dedicated Staffycross Welfare Trust and is now safely enjoying life in a new home.
Over zealous use of the powers contained in the Act create a knock on effect which isn’t measured by any statistical information but is none the less damaging; a climate of apprehension has yet again been created amongst responsible owners. An onslaught of negative press was the catalyst which caused the numbers of bull breeds needing rescue help to steadily increase whilst the numbers of homes offered has noticeably dwindled to almost nothing in some areas. The situation had been desperate for some time.
We have reached a point where for the bull breeds there are often no more rescue places left and they are dying in the dog pounds on a weekly basis.
Presently dogs can only be placed onto the Index by order of a court; there is currently no provision whereby a concerned dog owner can take their own steps to have their dog registered without the need for police or court intervention.
To get a dog onto the Index it is necessary for you be found guilty of owning an illegal dog (a crime!) and to place yourself at the mercy of the courts.
the re-homing of registered dogs should be legal and straightforward
Rescue centres should also be able to re-home registered dogs in their care - registered dogs like Taff, pictured here, who came into rescue when his owner could no longer care for him at aged ten years - you couldn’t have met a more gentle dog.
Apprehended pet dogs still suffer weeks and often months in unsuitable kennel environments at huge public expense awaiting breed identification and court hearings, when in the case of friendly pet dogs the law does not demand that this need be the case at all.
So ten years on and still ten good reasons why change is needed, this time let’s hope and pray we get it as good as we can realistically expect. When the last Amendment was made we were informed to grab it as we could always ‘go back for another bite of the apple’ at a later date. Well that has been a ten-year interval and a lot of people and dogs have suffered and continue to do so.
There is no margin for error as we have seen how the use of just one word ‘type’ can make all the difference. It may be another ten years or a lifetime before any further changes are even considered.
1. Breed bans do not promote responsible dog ownership or actively work to protect the public – It is a smokescreen which falsely gives the impression that action has been taken to prevent dog attacks, when in reality little is being achieved.
It makes good headline news to be seen to ‘get tough’ meanwhile those who are actually misusing dogs go largely undetected or simply move onto another breed of dog and so the cycle continues. It is time to get tough on bad owners and not the dogs themselves. The present law targets dogs not people. The growing problem of irresponsible dog owners as well as those purposely breeding dogs to line their own pockets with no regard to the welfare of their dogs is not addressed. Instead responsible pet dog owners become easy targets and are unfairly persecuted through no fault of their own.
2. If the Index of Exempted Dogs is to remain, the law should permit the transfer of ownership for registered dogs who need to be re-homed, by either their owners or rescue organisations.
3. Breed specific legislation is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that all dogs of a specific breed are inherently dangerous based on the actions of a few clearly in irresponsible hands. It is not based on any scientific fact or logical thinking. Dogs are restricted and deemed dangerous according to their phenotype, what they look like largely determines their fate.
Deed not breed is a strapline long supported by the Dogs Trust, Kennel Club and many other welfare organisations, groups and individuals.
4. The burden of proof is reversed; the basic right in a civilised society of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ should be restored to dog owners.
5. Great distress is caused to responsible owners who end up prosecuted for owning a prohibited type of dog. Dogs are valued members of the family and their owners suffer immensely whilst separation is enforced, worrying from day to day about the care their dog is receiving, denied access and often basic information concerning their dog’s welfare before being dragged through what can be a judicial nightmare which can end in a criminal record.
Pictured here is a pet dog supported by the EDDR and relieved to be back home with his family. He was taken as a ‘type’ and returned without charge, ending weeks of trauma and upset for the young children eagerly awaiting his return.
6. There are huge welfare implications for dogs seized and held in kennelling environments for prolonged periods of time whilst awaiting breed identification or court hearings. Physical and psychological damage to the dog is an important welfare issue which should be independently investigated; physical injuries noted include broken teeth, pressure sores, weight loss, tail damage, self mutilation to the extremities and untreated wounds.
Impounded dogs often arrive in kennels with no health history collected from their owners. Four dogs recently died whilst held in police custody, due to preventable infection from the deadly disease parvo virus.
If a dog is seized and held with minimal opportunities for exercise and daily human and/or canine contact, the effects of isolation on the dog’s behaviour can be devastating. Recently, one previously friendly pet dog had to be put to sleep at his owners request to prevent his further agony - having suffered immense kennel stress due to the confines of his kennel environment.
Puppies should not be held in kennel environments. In the present cases of detained adult dogs, a full health history including details of any treatment administered should be provided to the legal owner.
7. Attempting to ban a breed of dog sets a dangerous precedent. Section Two of the DDA allows the Home Secretary to implement restrictions on further breeds or types of dogs.
8. Court, Police and Local Authority time could be much better spent. No one sensible wants truly dangerous dogs and more importantly their dangerous owners to be at large causing problems, but when the full weight of the law is aimed at responsible owners and their pet dogs, as has happened, valuable police and court time is wasted, the whole episode can become a public relations disaster. Valuable time to tackle the root causes - dangerous and irresponsible owners and breeders of dogs is lost.
9. The costs on the public purse can be quite staggering. There is the cost of kennelling confiscated dogs, police and local authority manpower costs, court costs, transportation costs, veterinary costs, payment to expert witnesses giving evidence, prosecution solicitors and legal teams etc. As an example the costs of kennelling dogs by the Metropolitan Police Service (London) during the five years following the introduction of the DDA reached £3,078,733 – yes you read that right, three million and seventy eight thousand pounds. The detailed expenditure of recent initiatives targeting pet dogs in Merseyside and other areas is yet to be seen.
10. The definition of type is vague, confusing and constantly open to misuse. It can also be used as a tool against a dog’s owner. Owners who may be worried about their dog’s appearance are realistically left with few choices available to them. There is no option of owner led registration to bring the dog within the law - another politician’s inspiration was to close the Index. Pet dogs end up leading miserable lives where socialisation and welfare can and often are impeded, too frightened to venture out in the day or even attend training classes and too worried to visit the vets and all because someone may point the finger of accusation at them.
The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG) has been discussing the issue of how to better protect the public and the welfare of dogs. They have drafted and proposed the ‘Control of Dogs Act’, which if passed though Parliament is expected to replace the amended Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as well as the Dogs Act 1871. For further details of the proposal which will affect all dogs if it becomes law - please visit the Kennel Club.
Helping to make a difference - what you can do:
Firstly please don’t do nothing – thinking that someone else will do it. Every letter counts, we have listed ten factors above for your consideration. Please write to those suggested below and let them know your own views in your own words.
The dog is your friend – will you help him?
o Your MP:
Please write to your own member of parliament (MP) and voice your concerns. Your MP is your representative in the House of Commons and contacting him/her can help make a difference.
Keep your letter polite and to the point - one side of A4 paper should be the maximum. MP’s like to hear from their own constituents, so why not help make a difference and put pen to paper.
Visit http://www.writetothem.com/ to find out who represents you in parliament or contact your local library and ask.
You can ask your MP to raise your concerns with a Government Minister on your behalf and you may receive a reply directly from the Minister.
You can contact your MP to raise an issue or support a proposed Bill – drafted version preceding an Act.
You can ask your MP about tabling a parliamentary question to the Government. Questions and answers are recorded and can be verbal or written-what would you like to know?
Thank your MP when you receive a reply.
MP’s can also be visited in person-contact yours to find out how you can make an appointment to visit them locally.
Post the letter addressed to your MP to:
The House of Commons,
Westminster
London, SW1A 0AA
(Or send to their constituency office, some MPs can also be contacted by email.)
o DEFRA:
Please write to Ben Bradshaw who is the Minister of State for Animal Welfare at DEFRA - the Governmental department with jurisdiction over the legislation. Post your letter to:
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
3-8 Whitehall Place
London
SW1A 2HH
o Prime Minister:
Please write to the Prime Minister Tony Blair, to be replaced by Gordon Brown taking office on June 27th. Post your letter to:
10 Downing Street,
London,
SW1A 2AA
You can also fax the Prime Minister on 020 7925 0918. (From outside the UK, the number is +442079250918)
o Home Secretary:
Please write to the Home Secretary currently the Rt Hon Dr John Reid. Post your letter to:
The Home Office
Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
o Dogs in the news:
If you see a negative news story in the press concerning irresponsible dog owners-write in and give your opinion. Dangerous owners and not dogs should be the focus of attention.
o
If you have the chance-why not send in a positive story about you and your dog, local papers like to receive local views, some positive news helps to readdress the balance. Being proactive can help make a difference.
o Being responsible:
Be responsible when out with your dog. Always pick up after your dog and be considerate of others at all times. Set a good example and always keep your dog under the proper control of a responsible adult.
o Petition:
Please sign the petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/deedNOTbreed/ and spread the word to your family and friends.
Copyright © Endangered Dogs Defence & Rescue
www.endangereddogs.com
June 2007
___________________________________
A Message For All Dog Owners
To all DogPolitics.com readers in the UK, Denver , the Province of Ontario, Australia - to any and all dog owners anywhere in the world..........
It's time to stand up for innocent dogs - and time to stand up for innocent dog owners. Breed-specific legislation is rapidly spreading across North American and around the world.
Innocent dogs need your help. We need your help - now.
Join The Vigil
This August you can help send a very powerful message in a very peaceful way.
Join the 3rd Annual My Dog Votes Worldwide Candlelight Vigil Against Breed Bans on Sunday, August 19th at 8 PM
By taking part in this vigil which literally spans the globe, you can can tell the world to stop killing innocent dogs.
Join us to Light A Candle, Save A Life
Sign up today. Email your name & location to: info@mydogvotes.com
Ten years on and ten factors for consideration, not in any order
Ten years on and the number of dogs persecuted on looks alone has dwindled, unfortunately the BSL machinery capable of inflicting so much damage had remained intact.
Ten years on and we take a look at where we are now with the breed specific component of the law.
my four year old pet cleo is to be destroyed on monday 29/10/07 my family are devastated my 14year old son cant come to terms with why they are doing this cleos mother also lives with us they have been together since she was born brit is seven yet she dosent come under the dangerous dog act just cleo they have never harmed anyone and all the kids love them they are taking one of my family and its killing me because i cant stop it court proceedings take so long that it would kill cleo to be taken away from us and it would be unbearable to us knowing she will be so frightend at being away from us like any parent you would die for your children my bond with my dogs is so great i would die to save them this hurts more than i could imagine someone needs to make courts aware of what they are doing to families
Posted by: margaret morrison | October 27, 2007 at 03:24 PM
Breed bans are alive and flourishing in the USA too. In Kansas City, Kansas a woman was accused of owning a pit bull along with two litters of 5 wk old puppies (19 in all.) All of the dogowners dogs were confiscated by Animal Control, the puppies, her male - Fleas, and two momma dogs (a Doberman and a Labrador). Most of the dogs were killed, only the male and the mamma Doberman were rescued from the city pound. Both dogs have been relocated outside of the city. Even though the dogowner had been under the impression she owned a sharpei/boxer mix dog as labeled by her vet 5 yrs prior, AC still confiscated all her dogs. Now she goes to court facing charges of owning 20 pit bulls. Say a prayer for this dogowner, she will need it in the upcoming months.
Posted by: Cheryl | June 21, 2007 at 03:54 AM
The Brits have always been ruthless.
At first it was very hard to believe that a nation of supposed dog lovers could even conceive of an idea like this. It's unfortunate that due to their image as animal lovers, their actions have been copied elsewhere.
It takes a particularly cold, heartless, self-serving type of person to come up with such an idea, implement it and craziest of all, defend it in the fact of total failure.
There are a few of those sick people in public office - and we all know who they are.
Don't ask how they sleep at night.
Their personality disorder means they lack empathy, compassion and a conscience. They put themselves first and will do anything to promote their own interests. Other people are merely stepping stones and pawns to be used and discarded in their endless quest for power.
Posted by: Caveat | June 18, 2007 at 01:12 PM
I think this is the ultimate show of ignorance, forget the fact that the breed of dog in question isnt dangerous by nature, but they arent even persecuting based on lineage. This is repulsive and abhorible by all accounts. I am glad not to live in the UK and now that I am aware of this discrimination I will never visit there. Just like Colorado and Miami, another place that will never see my tourist dollars.
Posted by: allie renar | June 18, 2007 at 01:07 PM
I haven't finished reading this yet because I keep crying.
Posted by: Dianne Singer | June 18, 2007 at 08:59 AM
I assume in the 10 years this breed ban has been in effect that the low-life, drug dealer and gang member types still own these types of dogs or similar. Who is going to go knock on their doors saying they have an illegal dog?
Posted by: susan | June 17, 2007 at 08:59 PM