Written evidence submitted by Miss Charlotte Bridgwater (DDL0139)
Dangerous Dogs Act Amendments
The following information will provide reasoning behind amending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to become effective if such improvements were to be made.
This act was created to protect the public from “Dangerous Dogs” that were traditionally bred for dog fighting (The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991); this however did not include the protection of public from other dogs that are often aggressive. As stipulated in the inquiry the RSPCA reported 21 deaths by dogs that were not banned by this law - does this mean these dogs were not PTS (put to sleep) or owners punished because they were not banned breeds? This itself questions the integrity of what is deemed of public safety, because if they were not banned breeds; i.e if a Jack Russel, pug, french bull dog, or a chihuahua and they attacked a member of the public, is this matter pushed a side? If there is a punishment for four banned breeds it should be equal for all dogs as this is the owners upbringing of the dogs.
As stated in section 3 ‘Keeping dogs under proper control’ in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, it is an offence to have a lack of control over a dog in public that is not within their accommodation and the owner will receive a maximum of 6 months in prison. This still however has proven ineffective. As in 2018 Mr J.Dyson reported an attack involving a Jack Russel and two Japanese Akitas - note these are not banned breeds - where the owner of the Akitas lost control of the dogs resulting in a Jack Russel being attacked with life threatening injuries resulting in veterinary intervention and medical treatment. The owner of the Akitas were not punished and nothing happened to the dogs - does this make it dismissible as they are not a banned breed even though the owner had no control?
Punishments for dog attacks are appalling by only having 6 months in prison for the owners. There is an evident need for tougher punishment on owners committing such crimes, by incorporating a total ban on having any interaction with dogs after committing this crime, longer prison sentences such as 12 months minimum (more would be desirable), and tougher background checks by rescue centres on previous history of people wanting a dog. This can be further improved by the prevention/reduction of ‘Back yard breeders’, making all breeders require permits and licenses to both breed and ‘distribute’ their dogs. Similarly, to the Kennel Club who require strict background procedures and detailed documents of who and where the puppies have been distributed to. By undertaking this, we can ensure dogs are not distributed to the ‘wrong hands’ further reducing the potential of dogs being raised incorrectly.
Amending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to not portray specific dogs as dangerous but to portray them to require advanced training regimes and more sensible owners that know how to have appropriate and sensible control of such breed.
“We must remember it is not a dangerous breed, but a dangerous owner”.
The local authorities can help reduce the number of dangerous-dog related attacks by reducing the stereotypes of terrier breeds - i.e Staffordshire Bull Terriers - and informing the public of aggressive behaviours in non-stereotyped breeds. Expanding on previous statements, further enforcement of stopping/preventing back yard breeding is required, if unsuitable owners cannot obtain dogs for money the reduction of poorly treated animals would majorly decrease. This in turn, may reduce the potential of dog attacks due to dogs being raised and cared for appropriately and to U.K standards.
Charlotte Bridgwater – Animal Behaviour and Welfare University Student; very keen to improve animal related laws in the full interest of helping animals for the better.
2