Written evidence submitted by the Dogs Trust (PWA0078)

 

Dogs Trust Submission to EFRA Committee Emergency Session -

Government Ban on American Bully XLs

 

 

1.      About Dogs Trust


Dogs Trust is the UK’s largest dog welfare charity and normally cares for around 14,000 dogs across its network of 21 rehoming centres in the UK and one in Dublin. Since Dogs Trust was founded in 1891 (formerly National Canine Defence League), we have always campaigned on dog welfare issues. 

 

Dogs Trust was invited to give oral evidence to the Committee on 18th October but was unable to attend the session. This paper intends to set out our responses to questions likely to have been posed by Committee members. We are also members of the Dog Control Coalition, through which we have also submitted supplementary evidence to the Committee.

 

  1. Executive Summary

 

We share the public concern regarding the number of recent incidents that appear to involve American Bully XL (ABXL) type dogs and we agree that strong action needs to be taken to prevent similar incidents and to protect the public.

 


 

  1. How effective has the Dangerous Dogs Act been / what has been the impact on decreasing incidents of dog attacks?  

 

 

3.1 An initial assessment of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 five years after it was enacted, found that there had been no significant reduction in dog bites1. In England, hospital admissions for dog bites rose from 3,377 in 2000-01 to 8,758 in 2021-22, an increase of 159%2.

 

Any dog has the capacity to be dangerous if irresponsibly bred, reared and socialised and there is no conclusive evidence that shows any breed as being more aggressive than another or inherently aggressive, although we acknowledge the larger the breed, the greater the capacity for harm if they display aggressive behaviour.  

 

A review of the available evidence clearly shows that breed is a poor predictor in determining the risk of aggressive behaviour in individual dogs. Aggressive behaviour in dogs develops because of complex interactions between genetics and the experiences dogs have throughout their lives. We also know that aggression is most often a behavioural response to fear, and any breed of dog can act aggressively if they feel worried about something, particularly if they can’t get away from it.  

 

Although there are breeds and types of dogs originally bred and selected for fighting, this does not mean that individuals within a particular breed or type are inherently aggressive or pose any greater risk of aggressive behaviour towards people or other animals. The selection for specific physical and temperamental attributes can result in serious injuries. However, the extent to which these characteristics are expressed or displayed will vary within individuals and are influenced by the way in which the dogs are bred and their lifetime experiences. Therefore, not all individuals of the same type will behave in the same way. 

As breed specific legislation is based solely on a dog’s appearance and can apply to ‘types’ of dogs rather than breeds, the genetic and behavioural diversity will be significant within a group of dogs identified as prohibited types. While their phenotypes (physical characteristics) might look similar, it is inaccurate to consider them as behaviourally homogeneous. In fact, not even so-called purebred dogs of any particular breed are all alike in the way they behave or react to different situations, with evidence indicating that there can be as much variation between individuals within a breed as between breeds3. 

 

It is without doubt that serious injuries can be caused by large powerful muscular breed types. While is stated that the injuries inflicted by some breed types of dogs e.g. pit bull terrier types, are much worse than those associated with most other breeds or types of dog4, there is a lack of robust scientific evidence to substantiate claims around the unique ability of certain breed types to cause serious damage. Recent studies found no difference observed between legislated and non-legislated breeds in the medical treatment required following the bite5 or severity of bite and the type of dog that bit6. Furthermore, recent work has highlighted the need to consider more than the size of the dog when considering bite damage7. In fact, claims about the force exerted by domestic dogs, and specifically pit bulls, has recently been subject to review and none of the citations regarding the bite force of a pit bull type dog were substantiated with verifiable evidence8. 

 

After 32 years of Breed Specific Legislation, it is clear that this breed-based approach is not working. Dog bite incidents are on the rise and the Dangerous Dogs Act in its current form is failing to protect the public. We urge the Government to go further and overhaul the existing dog control laws as they are not fit for purpose and to take a holistic approach with associated legislation. 
 
 
 

  1. How will a ban be implemented?

 

4.1 Lack of clarity around how the ban will be implemented 

 

The UK Government has yet to confirm any details around the proposed ban. Although it has been confirmed that there will be a transition period, no further details have been confirmed around the process for enabling the legal keepership of ABXL type dogs and whether this will be an owner led registration scheme or one which will require a court process, potentially also involving the seizure of dogs. The delay in information since the announcement on 15th September is causing unnecessary uncertainty for owners and unnecessary pressure on the rehoming sector as we are unable to reassure owners. 

 

We need urgent clarity around the transition period and exemption process for responsible owners. 

Crucially, there must not be a need for a court process to exempt dogs during the transition period. This would not only be a significant expense for responsible owners, but there are already significant challenges in securing court time and so it is difficult to understand how this would be feasible. 

4.2 Challenges around enforcement of the ban

 

Our concerns surrounding the enforcement of the ban are outlined under question 9.
 

 

4.3 Inconsistency across the UK 

 

The UK Government can legislate to prohibit ABXL type dogs in England and Wales only. Although the Secretary of State has committed to engaging with the relevant devolved administrations about adopting a UK-wide approach, it is not yet clear whether Scotland and Northern Ireland will also introduce a ban.  

 

We have also had discussions with the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Executive to share our concerns about the UK Government intention to introduce a ban and how this will be implemented. However, should the ban not be introduced across the UK, it could remain legal to own, sell or exchange ABXL type dogs in Scotland and Northern Ireland. This will present significant enforcement challenges. 

 

 

  1. Challenges with data

 

5.1 Concerns with the data on which the announcement was based

Determining accurate statistics for dog bite incidents in the UK is not possible as data on dog ownership levels is estimated and it is not mandatory to record dog bites, or the breed type involved in any incidents, even in fatal incidents. An independent research report commissioned by Defra and published in 20219 found dog bite incident data to be lacking and inconsistent.  

 

Further to this, in 2021, the Dog Control Coalition requested dog bite data from across all 45 UK territorial police forces covering a five-year period from 2016 to 2020. Of the forces which provided data, only four could provide breed or type information for the dog involved in the incident. The breed or type involved is also likely to be a subjective assessment by the attending officer, not one who has been trained to identify type. Despite the lack of information around dog population levels and breed specific bite rate data, this has not prevented statements regarding the proportion of incidents involving ABXLs being made. 

 

Furthermore, media reporting of dog incidents usually relies on eyewitness accounts of the type of dog involved, but we know that accurate breed identification is notoriously difficult. This casts further doubt over the reliability of the breed types being reported by the media as being involved in the incidents. This challenge was highlighted in Patronek et al. (2013).[1]

 

As mentioned above, however, the data that we do have suggest the current legislation isn’t working. An initial assessment of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 five years after it was enacted, found that there had been no significant reduction in dog bites1. In England, hospital admissions for dog bites rose from 3,377 in 2000-01 to 8,758 in 2021-22, an increase of 159%2.

 

The Home Office collects data from police forces in England and Wales on the number of offences recorded of an “Owner or person in charge allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control in any place in England or Wales injuring any person or assistance dog” recorded by the police in England and Wales, since 2015/16[2].

 

Year 

Number of Offences 

2015-16 

12,509 

2016-17 

15,465 

2017-18 

16,507 

2018-19 

16,727 

2019-20 

16,812 

2020-21 

18,110 

2021-22 

20,117 

2022-23 

23,641 

 

This demonstrates that incidents and injuries caused by dangerously out of control dogs has steadily been increasing, with breed specific legislation failing and an overhaul of the existing dog control laws is needed as they are not fit for purpose.  

 

 

5.2 Number of dogs affected 

 

At the time of producing this submission, the final standard and definition of the type of dog known as the American Bully XL is not publicly available and so it isn’t possible to provide an accurate estimate on the number of dogs or owners affected by this policy change. However, a Pets4Homes industry report published in December 2022 indicated 33,268 “American Bully” type dogs were advertised on their platform between Jan - Nov 22. In separate data provided to the Dog Control Coalition (DCC), around 41-42,000 American Bully dogs were listed on their platform with the terminology ‘XL’ included within the advert title or description, in the period of September 2021 - September 2023 (this figure is indicative only as there has been no agreed standards for the type). While some of these adverts could be duplicates and notwithstanding the fact that Pets4Homes is one of, if not the largest online advertising platform, there are a number of other platforms, on which significant numbers of additional American Bully XL type dogs will have been advertised. It should be noted that puppy sales peaked during the 2020-2021 period, so it should be expected that a large number of American Bully XL dogs will have been acquired during that period, which won’t be accounted for in the figures provided above.  

 

The UK American Bully Kennel Club has stated that there are in the region of 100,000 registered American Bullies in the UK. There are four varieties of American Bullies and so these would not all be dogs considered to be of the American Bully XL variant. However, the American Bully Kennel Club only registers ‘American Bullies’ and not each of the four separate varieties. This is because a breeding pair of the XL variety could produce a dog that doesn’t reach the height requirements for the XL variety and so they would fall into the Standard variety. This further highlights the challenges, not only in defining dogs of the ABXL type, but also in estimating the number of dogs likely to be affected by the ban. 

 

A broader conformation standard, that draws a wider pool of dogs into the ban, will significantly uplift these figures. 

 

 

  1. Details of breed type and key characteristics, the difference between ABXLs and other types of dogs and the risks of other types of dogs being caught in the ban

 

6.1 Concerns around identifying American Bully XL type dogs 

 

Reliable identification of any breed or breed type is notoriously difficult. In the case of the American Bully, the XL is one of four variants (Pocket, Standard, Classic and XL) with features similar to each other as well as to other types of pure and cross breed dogs. This means that a broad range of dogs could be affected by the ban just because of their physical appearance and despite being well-adjusted, friendly dogs. For example, there is overlap in the height of Standard, Classic and XL; within litter variation could easily achieve this.

 

In addition to the definition of an ABXL type and the potential inclusion of crossbreeds, the interpretation and application of the standard will also determine the number of dogs affected. In the UK, to be identified as a prohibited type of dog, the animal is expected to approximately amount to, be near to, or have a substantial number of characteristics of a dog as described by the standard. This is a predominantly appearance-based standard; genetics and parentage are not taken into account and any dog can be considered a prohibited type if its appearance is similar enough to that described. None of the terms are defined and so this allows subjective interpretation and introduces significant variation in application of the standard by those undertaking an assessment. 

 

Furthermore, as prohibited dogs are judged solely on their physical appearance, not taking into account known parentage / genetics, it is possible for legal types of dogs to produce puppies which grow up to look like prohibited types and vice versa. This will place significant challenges on both animal rescue/rehoming organisations and owners. 

 

At this time, the final standard for ABXL type dogs is not publicly available, but we remain significantly concerned about the number of dogs that may be unintentionally swept up in the ban. 

  

 

  1. Relationship between bite incidents and ownership  

 
There is no complete data set that allows us to draw robust conclusions on the demographics of the owners for this specific type of dog, and as at the time of producing this submission, the final standard and definition of the type of dog known as the American Bully XL is not publicly available and so it isn’t possible to provide an accurate overview of the number of dogs or affected by this policy change. 

Published data on dog ownership and prevalence of bull breeds is available from data from Liverpool only. This data suggests that dog ownership and prevalence of bull breeds is higher in more socio-economically deprived areas. Dog ownership generally, and ownership of bull type dogs (including pit bull types), increased as deprivation increased in a study of dog ownership among children in Liverpool.  However, caution should be taken in extrapolating this to the rest of the UK.

   

  1. Relationship between ABXLs and mutilations 

 

8.1 American Bully XLs with cropped ears 

 We know anecdotally that many American Bully XLs have had their ears cropped for cosmetic purposes, ostensibly to make them appear more threatening. Although this barbaric practice is illegal in the UK, sadly it is becoming increasingly common to see dogs of this type with these mutilations. 
 
This unnecessary and painful procedure can have a lasting impact on the lives of these dogs. During early life, a puppy’s brain is still developing, which means that the trauma associated with ear cropping (which is often carried out at a young age) has the potential to negatively affect their pain tolerance and these effects can last for the entirety of the dog’s life. 
 

Underlying pain can significantly impact dog behaviour by causing distress, anxiety, fear or even frustration. Pain can cause changes in behaviour which can impact social interactions, movement and activity levels, ability to participate in normal daily routines and ability to concentrate and learn. Another complication with the experience of pain is that a dog might associate it with other things happening at the time, which might then impact how they feel about similar situations in the future. 

 

 

 

  1. Impact of the ban 

 

9.1 Impact on the rehoming sector 

 

Since the ban was announced, we have already seen a significant number of handover requests from concerned owners who are looking to relinquish their pets due to the uncertainty around which dogs will be included, many of which may not be covered in the eventual ban if they weren’t defined as an ABXL type. Between the ban announcement on 15th September and 8th October, we had 194 handover requests for dogs which were potentially ABXL types. We also had 1779 inquiries from members of the public over the same timeframe which mentioned American Bully XLs. We have also had reservations on dogs currently in our care cancelled and dogs relinquished/abandoned at rehoming centres.  

 

The rescue sector is already under considerable strain and pressure, due to the COVID pandemic and the ongoing cost-of-living pressures. The Association of Dogs and Cats Homes (ADCH) members are already concerned about the rising costs and increasing number of animals coming into their care. In a recent survey21, 83% saw increased costs for animal products, 81% increased energy costs and 74% increased food costs; veterinary costs were also increasing whether for external veterinary costs (95%) or on inhouse veterinary costs (83%). In addition, 97% of rescues expected to see greater demand for services and 44% are concerned that they may have to withdraw some services.  

An ADCH survey on dog rescues found that, in September 2023, rescues were operating at 130% capacity such that they either could not take in ABXLs or operated using private boarding. This puts the strain on private commercial boarding establishments as well.  
 
At Dogs Trust, we are also seeing more dogs enter our care who would have been born during the pandemic. Before the pandemic we saw a more even distribution of dogs of all ages, now we are seeing a much higher proportion of dogs aged 0-3 being handed over. The graph below shows that post pandemic we are seeing a 4% increase in handover requests for dogs that would have been born in the pandemic (ages 0-3), many with unwanted behaviours possibly due to a lack of socialisation during the early stages of their life. 
 
A graph of a number of dogs Description automatically generated 

It is clear that the rescue sector is already operating at capacity and facing unprecedented challenges. We are increasingly concerned about the UK Government’s expectation for the sector to assist with the implementation of this “breed” ban when many of us are already struggling to assist those animals in line with our charitable objectives. While we remain committed to assisting those dogs and owners affected by this ban, in reality doing so will be to the detriment of other animals in need of our care. 

 

 

9.2 Impact on rehoming 

 

Although owners of ABXL type dogs will hopefully be provided with an option to legally keep their dog (which urgent clarity is needed on) the law does not permit rehoming organisations to rehome prohibited dog types to new owners, regardless of the individual dog’s behaviour, and so, almost without exception, the only option is euthanasia. In extremely rare cases, and as a result of the Webb case from December 2017[3], there are circumstances that allow non-exempted dogs to be exempted to a person who can demonstrate that they have been in charge of the dog. However, in practice, this severely limits the number of people who could go through the exemption process to staff and volunteers of rescue/rehoming organisations, as members of the public could not have been in charge of the dog. This puts a potentially untenable pressure on staff and volunteers, who are unable to take on these animals. 

 

It will also not be possible for Dogs Trust to retain ownership of ABXL types already in our care once the ban on keepership comes into force, as the registered keeper of a prohibited type of dog must be a natural person. The Government should, as a minimum, amend the legislation to allow exemption to an organisation as well as a 'natural person'. This would allow responsible rehoming organisations, such as Dogs Trust, to retain ownership of dogs in our care, where it is not possible to rehome them. 

 

In the absence of being able to rehome prohibited types of dogs, or for rehoming organisations to retain ownership of them, the only legal alternative is for such dogs to be put to sleep. Dogs Trust never puts a healthy dog to sleep and so this would present us with a significant challenge. Across the sector, destroying dogs on the basis of their appearance would have huge moral and ethical implications and place significant emotional strain on rescues and their staff, as well as veterinary surgeons who invest much time and resource into caring for these dogs. 

 

 

9.3 Kennel spaces and costs 

 

As mentioned above, it is not currently clear whether current owners of ABXL types will need to go through a court process to exempt their dogs. The Government has confirmed there will be a transition period, but has not confirmed any details around this, including the exemption process for responsible owners. Either way, it is anticipated that once the transition period has ended, dogs suspected of being a prohibited type will likely be seized and kennelled to allow assessment and identification of the dog and to determine whether the dog is a prohibited type or not. There will be a significant requirement for kennel spaces to facilitate this. This is in addition to kennel space needed by dogs which are either abandoned (so needing local authority spaces for stray dogs) or relinquished to rehoming organisations by owners in anticipation of the ban.  

 

With the rehoming sector already operating at 130% capacity such that they either could not take in Bully XLs or are operating using private boarding. This puts the strain on private commercial boarding establishments, as well as local authorities who may be required to kennel dogs for some time.  

 

Furthermore, many dogs can find kennel life challenging and experience poor welfare as a result. Research using working dogs has found that for those neither bred nor raised in kennels the transition from a domestic environment to a kennelled environment is especially stressful; this will likely be the case for many pet dogs seized by enforcement bodies. Prolonged kennelling may significantly impact a dog’s mental health and subsequently its behaviours.

 

 

9.4 Impact on the veterinary sector 

 

The veterinary sector is facing multiple systemic challenges that are already impacting on the provision of veterinary services. The current situation within the profession means that vets are at increased risk of moral injury which has been shown to be significantly associated with adverse mental health outcomes in the UK profession22. Introducing a new breed ban will, without doubt, add further strain on veterinary professionals, not least the requirement to destroy large numbers of healthy and behaviourally sound dogs. 

There is also the issue of the capacity of the veterinary profession to cope with any increase in demand for its services, such as neutering of large dogs which will be required to enable legal keepership. There is an ongoing issue around the overall capacity within the veterinary sector. Practices may not be taking on new clients and some have waiting lists for procedures. Neutering of large breed dogs is time consuming, possibly not in the animal’s overall best interest and unlikely to be a priority when compared to the other demands on oversubscribed practices. 

 

 

 

 

9.5 Impact on the Freedom Project 

 

The Dogs Trust Freedom Project supports survivors of domestic abuse by providing free and confidential foster care for their dogs, enabling them to access refuge or emergency housing (as many refuges aren’t able to accept pets). The ban will prevent us from being able support ABXL type owners who are fleeing domestic abuse as we will no longer be able to accept such dogs onto the project. This is because the registered keeper of an exempted Section 1 dog must have the dog residing with them except for up to 30 days in any 12 months. As the timeframe for fostering dogs on the Freedom Project is generally around 6-9 months, and sometimes up to a year, this will prevent us from offering this support. This will keep both the survivor and the dog at risk of further harm. 

 

Research undertaken by the Freedom Project in 201923 found that 95% of professionals surveyed said that in their experience survivors will not access safe accommodation without knowing their pets will be safe too. 

 

Since 2020, we have helped 36 American Bullies and 3 Pocket Bullies through the Freedom Project and have some currently on the scheme. Over the past few months, we have also had several owners reach out to us via the Freedom Project for support for their Bullies, but this is now uncertain. 

 

Since 2020, we have also been unable to help 22 Pit Bull Terrier type dogs, due to the restrictions on prohibited types of dogs. When the proposed ban is introduced it will further impact us being able to help people fleeing domestic abuse as we will be unable to help owners of ABXL dogs.

 

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 statutory guidance formally recognised some behaviours towards pets as a form of domestic abuse, such as using animals to coerce or control a victim or using violence and threats towards a pet as emotional and psychological abuse. There is more research being carried out to highlight the links between pets and domestic abuse which demonstrates why the Government must enable the substitution of a person in charge of an exempted dog, to allow temporary keepership in situations such as domestic abuse. Without this change owners of American Bully XL type dogs may be trapped in an abusive situation, as owners of Pit Bull types already are, as they cannot legally access services such as the Freedom Project.  

 

 

9.6 Impact on housing 

 

Many housing associations have blanket bans on Section 1 dogs, despite current owners requiring to be classed as fit and proper by the Court. For the private rented sector, as the Renters Reform Bill has not progressed, tenants have little recourse if their landlord changes the lease terms to not allow Section 1 dogs. 29 of the leading 90 social housing providers have blanket bans on S1 dogs. This totals 820,000 homes24. 

 

 

9.7 Impact on enforcement - the police and local authorities 

 
Dogs suspected of being a prohibited type are typically seized and kennelled to allow assessment and identification of the dog and to determine whether the dog is a prohibited type or not. To determine whether or not a dog is a prohibited type, Dog Legislation Officers (DLOs) within the police then typically carry out an assessment. This is the first case of adding a new dog type to Section 1 since 1991, therefore no DLO past or current will have experience with how to identify an American Bully XL. New training will need to be devised and implemented for all current DLOs along with a recruitment drive to provide for the expected increase in need to type dogs. 

 

The dichotomy in this process is also worth noting. A DLO must assess a dog to determine if it is a prohibited type, yet bite incidents do not require a qualified person to assess the breed or type of dog involved. There is also likely to be an expectation of owners, or others such as rehoming organisations, to assess their dogs themselves during the transition period if they think they have a Bully XL type dog, yet there are such inherent challenges of judging a dog purely on its looks that in other circumstances only DLOs are deemed suitable to make an assessment. This could also have legal consequences if owners/organisations make a decision in good faith about whether or not a dog is a prohibited type, and this is later challenged.

 

The length of time taken to determine if a dog is a prohibited type or not and whether exemption is available to an owner varies and can range from a number of days through to months. Dogs may need to be kennelled throughout this process. Kennelling is not only a very stressful process for many dogs but it is also costly. In some cases, owners will be expected to cover costs but in others it falls to the police.  

 

As outlined previously, the availability of kennelling space is a significant issue with many providers operating at near to or complete capacity. Kennel space is not only an issue for rehoming organisations, but also for the police who typically use commercial boarding facilities to kennel seized dogs. 

 

Kennel space, and the associated costs, are also likely to be a challenge for local authorities. Since 2008, local authorities have had sole responsibility for stray dogs. They must legally care for stray dogs for 7 days, unless the dog is reunited with their owner within this period. We have already seen the ban announcement having an impact on relinquishment of Bully XL type dogs and it is also likely to lead to increased abandonments and pressure on local authorities to respond to straying dogs. As it is an offence to rehome prohibited types of dogs the only option will be to destroy these dogs, after kennelling them for 7 days.  

 

 

9.8 Impact on enforcement - at UK Borders 

 

We believe it would currently be incredibly difficult to effectively enforce a ban on American Bully XLs being imported into the country. For more than 10 years, Dogs Trust has been exposing the widespread abuse of the Pet Travel Scheme (PETS), which is being used by criminals to traffic underage puppies into the country for sale. Our investigations have highlighted ineffective border controls and enforcement at UK ports; and a lack of sufficient penalties to deter illegal smugglers, which has allowed this trade to flourish. 

 

Currently, there is no obligation for carriers at the ports to conduct a visual check of the animals being imported. In current practice, carriers simply ask to see the pet passport, and the transporters of the dog scan the microchip themselves – not necessarily in sight of the carrier, who merely checks to see that the microchip number which appears on the scanner matches that on the passport. This means there is no way of ensuring that a dog travelling into the country is the same dog as is listed on the pet passport. 

 
These checks are purely administrative, and not for fit purpose. We believe that the same tactics used by illegal smugglers to bring underage puppies into the country, could be replicated by those wishing to import American Bully XLs into the UK once the ban is in place. We urgently need visual checks to be introduced at the borders for dogs being imported. As well as tackling puppy smuggling, this would help with the enforcement of proposed legislation to ban the importation of dogs with cropped ears, as well as the ban on Bully XL type dogs. 

 

If a dog is suspected to be of type at a UK Border, it will also be necessary for a DLO to be present to assess the dog and confirm if they are of type or not, which will present a further challenge.

 

For the reasons stated above, there are challenges in banning the import of Bully XL type dogs, however as the law stands with Pit Bull types, it is not illegal to land a prohibited type of dog, but it is illegal to own one, hence the need for visual check and to have a DLO readily available.

 

 

9.9 Challenges with court process and costs 

 

It is not currently clear whether current owners of ABXL types will need to go through a court process to exempt their dogs. The Government has confirmed there will be a transition period, but has not confirmed any details around this, including the exemption process for responsible owners.  

 

Either way, it is anticipated that once the transition period has ended, dogs suspected of being a prohibited type will likely be seized and kennelled to allow assessment and identification of the dog and to determine whether the dog is a prohibited type or not. If a dog is identified as type and friendly, deemed not to pose risk to public safety and the owner/keeper is a fit and proper person, the Police can apply to a court for an exemption from the prohibition so that the dog can be lawfully kept. This requires Police presence, a court hearing, adherence to conditions of exemption and an application process. We have heard repeatedly from local authorities about the considerable challenges with securing court time currently. 

 

In some cases, the police may seek to bring criminal charges against the owner of a prohibited type of dog or an owner may seek to contest the decision that a dog is of type so that their dog is not labelled as a dangerous dog. These cases can be particularly lengthy with dogs spending months in kennels resulting in compromised welfare as well as significant costs associated with kennelling and court hearings. In many cases, owners will also request an independent assessment of their dog which is a further cost. 

 

The current cost of adding a dog to the Index of Exempted Dogs is £92.40. There is a £200 discretionary cost for court time. If an owner represents themselves, the cost could be limited to £200/dog. However, with professional legal advice, such as required in cases to contest a decision, the cost could be in the range of £5,000 - £10,000. 

 

 

 

9.10 Impact on health insurance 

 

Health insurance cover is not available in the UK for prohibited types of dogs. Although some insurers do currently cover ABXL types, once the ban is introduced it is likely that owners will either be unable to insure their dogs or will have their cover revoked. This means owners will need to cover all veterinary costs for their dogs, which may result in significant costs, even if they have previously taken steps to avoid this this through taking out health insurance. Owners may well turn to the charity sector for support, so adding to the burden placed on the rehoming sector by the ban. 

 

 

9.11 Requirement for third-party liability insurance 

 

To ensure compliance with conditions of exemption, it is expected that owners will need to purchase third-party liability insurance. The provision of cover is severely limited for prohibited types of dogs and at this current time it is only available via Dogs Trust membership (Dogs Trust provides its fully paid-up members the benefit of its own insurance to cover owners of prohibited dogs that are on the Index of Exempted Dogs).  ABXL types are currently covered by this third-party liability insurance and Dogs Trust membership costs £25/year, or £12.50/year for people who are over 60.  

 

Between 15th September (the date of the ban announcement) and 12th October 2023, Dogs Trust has had 6,732 new memberships taken out, the majority of which are likely to be related to the benefit of third-party liability insurance through Dogs Trust membership, as we have not been promoting our membership. This is an uplift of 1022% compared to the previous month. 

 

As we are still unsure of the details around the ban, both the cost and/or provision of cover to ABXL type owners could be subject to change if this cover is suddenly needed to be extended to a significant number of additional owners. This may include the underwriters revoking the third party provision. The Government must therefore urgently provide clarity around the transition period and exemption process for responsible owners while ensuring that the provisions necessary to ensure compliance such as third liability insurance remain available at a reasonable cost. 

 

 

9.12 Requirement for neutering 

 

Another condition for exempted Section 1 dogs is that they must be neutered. This is likely to present significant challenges, both in terms of the pressure on the already stretched veterinary sector, and the cost to owners. 

 

The Dogs Trust National Dog Survey, held in May 2023, received responses from almost a quarter of a million people (244,478) who owned 349,890 (almost 400,000) dogs. Whilst Bully XLs were a small sample size, we found that relatively few Bully XL type dogs were neutered (27% of females and 13% of males), which is quite different than the national average (77% of females and 70% of males). We would therefore expect that a significant number of dogs will need to be neutered as soon as this requirement comes into force, which is likely to be in the imminent future. 

 

The cost of neutering varies across veterinary practices, as well as depending on the size and sex of the dog. As a guide, we anticipate the cost of neutering to be in the range of £248 - £330 for male ABXL types and £365 - £410 for female ABXL types.  

 

Neutering of large breed dogs is time consuming and many vet practices will not have the capacity to make this a priority when already oversubscribed with managing sick patients. Furthermore, recent evidence shows that neutering large breed dogs before skeletal maturity can have a detrimental impact on their welfare by leading to conditions including joint disease and incontinence later in life. 

 

Studies also show both benefits and risks associated with behaviour and neutering, and findings are conflicting. If a dog shows any signs of fear or anxiety (which may manifest as aggressive behaviour), or any other behaviours of concern, we recommend that this is discussed with a vet prior to making any decisions, who may refer to a qualified behaviourist for support. 

 

 9.13 Requirement to be muzzled and on lead in public spaces 

 

Exempted Section 1 dogs are also prohibited from being in a public place without being muzzled and kept on a lead. Both of these requirements can inhibit their ability to display their natural behaviours and, in some instances, may increase the likelihood of aggression. 

The ability for prohibited types of dogs to take part in activities beyond a private property is also severely limited given the need for muzzling and being on a lead in a public place. This includes obedience training, agility, scentwork, all of which can provide important outlets for mental stimulation and/or the ability to express natural behaviour. 

 

To support owners of ABXL type dogs in preparing their dogs for the ban, Dogs Trust is offering free online sessions to help owners to introduce their dog to wearing a muzzle. Since the ban was announced, we have made 800 free places available on these sessions and 713 places have been booked by owners to date. 

 

 

 

9.14 Trends in online advertising 

 

Since the announcement of the ban, the Pet Advertising Advisory Group (PAAG) Secretariat at Dogs Trust has been monitoring the number of adverts for American Bully XLs on two classified websites (Preloved and Gumtree). At the start of the analysis on the 15th September there were 141 adverts on Preloved and 148 adverts on Gumtree. The average prices (based on the first page of approximately 15 to 20 adverts) were £579 and £872 respectively. 

 

In the month since the ban, numbers of adverts have declined steadily across both sites, as have prices. On the 13th October 2023 there were 68 adverts on Preloved and 78 adverts on Gumtree – approximately half the number of adverts as previously. Average prices had declined to £470 and £679 respectively. 

 

It is possible that sellers are choosing to ‘rebrand’ their dogs. Since Bully XLs are not a breed, sellers may simply look to relist them as crossbreeds or Standard Bullies. It is also possible that sellers were using ‘Bully XL’ to command higher prices and more interest prior to the announcement of the ban, for dogs that perhaps weren’t of the XL type. 

Other trends noted over the past month include: 

 

 

9.15 Impact on other legislation 

 

Given the wide-ranging challenges and impacts of introducing a ban on Bully XL type dogs, and the significant staffing resource needed within the Government to deliver this, it is clear that this will have an impact on the ability to deliver other, urgently needed legislation to protect dog welfare.  
 
In 2021, the Government made a commitment to tackle Puppy Smuggling via the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Disappointingly, despite cross-party support, the Bill was dropped earlier this year. The Government have since committed to bringing forward single-issue legislation to deal with Puppy Smuggling directly. Although we welcome any legislation brought forward to tackle Puppy Smuggling, we are concerned that whilst we wait the Pet Travel Scheme (PETS) continues to be abused by smugglers, who find new ways to avoid detection to illegally import heavily pregnant dogs, puppies, and dogs with mutilations. 

We are also concerned that the Government has not yet found time to pass much needed legislation to ban the use of Electronic Shock Collars in England. We were delighted when the Government laid the Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (England) Regulations 2023, and we welcomed this commitment to improve dog welfare. However, since then, time has not been made available for the Statutory Instrument to be debated in the Delegated Legislation Committee before being introduced in February 2024. It was originally scheduled for June 7th 2023, but nearly five months later, and with the end of the session looming, no date has been set. We are concerned that if a date is not set for the regulations to be debated soon, the legislation could fall. Following the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill being dropped, the failure to pass these regulations would send an unwelcome indication of the Government’s commitment to animal welfare.  

 

 

  1. Alternative approaches

 

10.1 An alternative approach to achieve effective dog control in the UK 

 

Strong action is clearly needed to prevent further dog control incidents and to protect the public, but we are concerned that quickly banning American Bully XL type dogs is unlikely to be effective, especially without other measures in place. Dog control and dog bites are a complex societal issue and there is no one size fits all solution. We believe a multifaceted approach is necessary, including legislative change as well as a change in human behaviour. 

 

We want to see the current dog control laws replaced with one consolidated law that allows for early intervention with a focus on the prevention of dog bite incidents and includes measures that deter and punish owners of dogs whose behaviour is dangerous. The current laws are predominantly reactive and breed-specific in their approach. New measures must be preventative, breed neutral and effective, and ultimately protect both dogs and people alike. Early intervention and prevention measures should include Dog Control Notices and a UK wide dog control database.

 

A model for this already exists in Scotland, where the Scottish Dog Control Database was launched in February 2022. This brings together the records of all 32 local authorities into a centralised online database that is accessible by local authorities and Police Scotland, ensuring that information on Dog Control Notices is available across local authority areas in Scotland. 

 

Another concern is the lack of standardised reporting of dog bite and strike incidents. Even in fatal cases, the breed of dog does not need to be recorded.  A standardised bite and strike scale must urgently be developed, which must then be consistently used across the UK. We also need to see the investigation of dog bite related incidents by suitably qualified people, including a certified clinical animal behaviourist. Mandatory reporting/recording of dog bite incidents must be introduced on a centralised database, including recording the breed or type of dog involved. Rolling analysis of this would enable evidence-based preventative measures to be identified. 

 

The increased popularity of ABXL types has made them valuable commodities, resulting in irresponsible breeding as well as rearing and ownership. To tackle irresponsible breeding, we need full traceability across all breeding and acquisition of dogs. The current legislation urgently needs to be improved as currently irresponsible breeders can evade the law entirely. Only a system of dog breeding and selling that has total traceability of all dogs involved can be fully effective and so we would like to see: 

 

Human behaviour towards dogs was another key risk factor identified by Defra commissioned research from Middlesex University. Many owners are unaware or don’t believe that their dog will bite and so affecting behaviour change, especially towards dogs in a family setting, can be difficult. We are using human behaviour change theory (HBCT) to help us understand how we can provide information in ways which affect meaningful change. HBCT is being used to target specific individuals, helping them actively supervise their children to help avoid dog bites and promote good dog welfare. This approach understands and recognises the different types of parent/caregiver audiences and designs interventions that are appropriate for them whilst also recognising that not all audiences are candidates for behaviour change interventions. The Government must also commit to the inclusion of HBCT in the development of interventions for keeping people safe around dogs. 

Dog aggression is preventable when dogs are bred, reared and owned responsibly. This is why we also invest in projects such as Dog School, which aims to provide dog owners with the knowledge and skills to avoid common problem behaviours, and Be Dog Smart, which helps young people and their guardians understand how to behave around dogs. 

 

 

10.2 Dog licensing as an alternative approach

 

The dog licence was abolished in Great Britain in 1987 as it simply became a tax on dog ownership with little enforcement and take up. A licence still exists in Northern Ireland, where less than 50% of owners have a licence for their dog. We do not believe that a return to the dog licence would provide any welfare benefit for dogs, unless funds raised by the licence were ringfenced for dog services.   

 

Aggressive behaviour is very complex and dogs of all shapes and sizes can cause harm, therefore we would not consider tiered licensing based on weight a viable option.  

There’s no evidence that larger, heavier dogs are more likely to act aggressively than other dogs, and incorporating factors like body weight into dog control legislation would be incredibly complicated. Establishing size and weight categories would be very difficult and open to the same criticism that the current subjective method of typing dogs suspected of being a prohibited breed/type receives.   

 

 

October 2023

 

 

16

 

[1]Patronek et al. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2013; 243: 1726 - 1736

[2] https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-09-18/200103

 

[3] https://www.animallaw.info/case/webb-v-avon