Written evidence submitted by Miss Clover Baker (DDL0020)

1. I am making this submission in a personal capacity.  I grew up with dogs, German Shepherds, my father had been a dog handler in the army.  For the past ten years or so I have owned dogs myself, including Staffordshire Bull Terriers.  My, albeit limited, experience in interacting with some of the breeds demonised by the media has been overwhelmingly positive, whereas the ‘cute’ and socially acceptable dogs have been far more likely to exhibit undesirable behaviours, and it often appears that their owners feel that because their dog is small or cute that they are not required to put any effort into training it to be social with either other dogs (after all everyone knows it will be the ‘mean’ dogs fault) or with humans.

2. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home report ‘Dog Bites: what’s breed got to do with it?’  highlights the failed Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and specifically challenged Section 1, on Breed Specific Legislation ('BSL') which bans four breeds of dog in the UK.  http://www.bdch.org.uk/files/Dog-bites-whats-breed-got-to-do-with-it.pdf

3. This report gives the opinions of expert behaviourists and consultants on the reasons why some dogs may be aggressive towards people. Of the 215 experts who responded, some 74% argued that breed was either not at all important or only slightly important, whilst an overwhelming 86% believed it was due to the way that the dog was brought up by its owner. 

4. This new evidence casts significant doubt on the whole basis of Breed Specific Legislation.  This has been in force for 25 years and in that time it has not protected the public but has led to the needless destruction of thousands of dogs.  The time has come, a quarter of a century later, for Parliament to reconsider this legislation and repeal it with all due speed.

5. The Kennel Club believes Government should act to 'deal with the deed, not the breed' and that it is unacceptable to ban an entire breed or type of dog based on the actions of a single animal.   https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/our-resources/kennel-club-campaigns/dangerous-dogs/

6. Dog ownership has many health and social benefits, but all dog owners must take responsibility for their dogs as any dog in the wrong hands has the potential to be dangerous - as is proven by the number of biting incidents involving dogs that are not classified as dangerous under current legislation. 

7. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has proved that demonising certain breeds makes them more attractive to people who want to flout the law and use dogs in this way. This contributes to the problem of creating so called 'status dogs'. The Kennel Club firmly believes that doing away with breed specific legislation would lessen the appeal of these dogs and also reduce cases of animal cruelty.

8. The problem of dangerous dogs is a social one and needs to be tackled through the enforcement of effective legislation that seeks to curb irresponsible owners of all types of dog and better educate the dog owning public to prevent incidents before they occur. The Kennel Club believes that preventative legislation should be based on the principle of 'deed not breed' and centre around the introduction of dog control notices (a form of statutory improvement notice for dog owners of all types of dog).

9. Ten factors for consideration:

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.

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 parvovirus.

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 owner’s 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.

Overseas the UK legislation has been used as an example of acceptable measures and over the years numerous breeds have been targeted elsewhere, including the Anatolian Shepherd Dog, Bull Terrier, Bullmastiff, Japanese Akita, Mastiff, Rottweiler, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Shar Pei and many other breeds as well as crossbreeds.

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.

May 2018