Kennel Club Response to Efra Committee Inquiry into Dangerous Dogs: Breed Specific Legislation Inquiry

Submitted by The Kennel Club, Clarges Street, Piccadilly, London W1J 8AB, tel: 020 7518 1020, email: holly.conway@thekennelclub.org.uk

The Kennel Club is the largest organisation in the UK devoted to dog health, welfare and training, whose main objective is to ensure that dogs live healthy, happy lives with responsible owners.

Introduction

Dangerous dogs and breed specific legislation has been a priority issue of the Kennel Club for many years. It was a central theme in our ‘A Dog’s Life’ manifesto’ which we circulated to MPs prior to the last two general elections since responsible dog ownership is key to ensuring dogs live happy lives with their owners. We are therefore grateful to members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for launching an inquiry on this matter.

In our ‘A Dog’s Life’ manifesto, we called on Government to focus on the ‘deed not breed’ of the dog, and target those persons responsible for of any type of dog that behaves aggressively. Further, we believe those who are cruel to dogs and who train dogs to be aggressive by using them to fight, should feel the full force of the law with regards to sentencing. We hope that this type of cruelty (i.e. actively training dogs to be aggressive) will fall under the scope of the forthcoming Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Act.

1. How effective is the Government’s current approach to protecting the public from dangerous dog attacks?

Based on available evidence it is clear that the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) has failed, the number of dog related fatalities has not fallen and the number of hospital admissions from dog bites and strikes continues to increase.

Key Statistics

• According to Office of National Statistics data 71 people have died as a direct result of dog bites in the years from 1991 to 2016.[1]

• The number of hospital admissions in England for dog bites has increased by 63% between 2006/07-2016/17 (NHS data)[2].
• Around 7,460 people were admitted for hospital treatment for dog bites and strikes in 2016-17 in England (NHS data).
• Children aged up to 16 accounted for 20% of hospital admissions for dog bites and strikes (NHS data for 2014-17).
• The number of people convicted for dangerous dog offences rose almost 40% between 2009 and 2010. In England and Wales in 2013, 636 adults were sentenced for having a dog dangerously out of control in a public place, or a private place where the dog was not permitted to be, which caused injury, compared to 333 adults in 2003 for the same offence.
• A 2008 study published in the journal of Applied Animal Behaviour Science, involving researchers from the University of Pennsylvania questioning 6,000 dog owners showed breeds not on the dangerous dogs list to be the most aggressive – the top three most aggressive being Dachshunds, Chihuahuas and Jack Russell terriers (Breed Differences in Canine Aggression - Deborah Duffy, Yuying Hsu, James Serpell, April 2008).
• Recent research published by Westgarth C,Brooke M, Christley R in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health in February 2018[3] estimates

-          One in four people had ever been bitten by a dog and when a bite occurred, only one-third sought any form of medical treatment. Only 1 of the 172 bites (0.6%) reported in more detail resulted in hospital admission.

• 71 percent of respondents to a Defra consultation agreed that breed specific legislation should be repealed

The statistics above demonstrate that the current approach to protecting the public from dangerous dog attacks is largely ineffective.

There is currently a plethora of legislation addressing ‘dangerous’ dogs, with at least nine pieces of legislation dating back to 1871. This causes confusion amongst enforcers and courts about which legislation to use and when.

Currently the law on dangerous dogs refers to specific breeds of dogs as ‘dangerous’. The Kennel Club believes breed specific legislation ignores the most important factors that contribute to biting incidents – primarily anti-social behaviour by irresponsible dog owners who train their dogs to be aggressive or do not train their dogs adequately (this is highlighted in analysis of recent fatal dog attack incidents in appendix i). All dog owners must take responsibility for their dogs as any dog in the wrong hands has the potential to be dangerous – as is demonstrated by the number of biting incidents (including fatalities) involving types of dogs that are not classified as dangerous under current legislation.

Consequently, current legislation based on assumed breed traits, completely ignores the influence of the dog’s keeper regarding the training and socialising of their dog. The result has been a failure to prevent a significant number of dog attacks or dog related incidents. Kennelling costs associated with breed specific legislation have been described as ‘considerable’. 

Furthermore, it has made banned breeds fashionable and attractive to people who want to flout the law and use dogs to be aggressive and intimidating. This contributes to the problem of creating so called ‘status dogs’, dog fighting, the use of dogs in gangs and other criminal activity.

There have been some positive developments with regards to legislative changes:

•          In 2014 the maximum sentence in England and Wales under the DDA for allowing a dog to fatally attack someone increased from two years to 14 years, with the maximum term when injury is inflicted raised from two years to five.

•          The DDA was also changed to permit prosecutions for dog attacks on private property.

•          For the first time, the DDA also includes a specific offence to protect assistance dogs, such as guide dogs, from attacks, with guilty owners facing up to three years in prison.

•          Further laws were introduced in 2014 to enable police, council officials and social housing landlords to issue community protection notices, or “dogbos”, to force the owners of nuisance animals to take steps to control their behaviour. These measures can include sending owners to dog training classes, repairing fencing to prevent dogs escaping and requiring dogs to be muzzled in public.

However although there have been improvements to the law, the Kennel Club firmly believes that repealing breed specific legislation would lessen the appeal of these dogs and also reduce cases of animal cruelty. In addition we do not believe police and local authorities are making sufficient use of their new preventative powers. We believe this could be addressed by the LEAD initiative which is explained later.

2. What changes, if any, should be made to the current approach and legislation?

Although there have been welcome legal changes in recent years (detailed above), further changes should be made to the current approach and legislation concerning the list of banned breeds. To date, no scientific criteria has been identified by which it can be determined that a dog is dangerous by appearance alone i.e. a dog has not been proven to be dangerous based on its appearance. In addition to this, as the most common British banned ‘breed’ of dog (the Pitbull) is not in fact a ‘breed’, but a ‘type’ it is notoriously difficult for police to identify them as the appearance of a Pitbull can vary significantly and can sometimes be mistaken for other breeds such as Staffordshire Bull Terriers or cross breeds derived from breeding different breeds

Some have argued that Pitbulls in particular are not necessarily dangerous because of how they look, but because they can lock their jaw. This is a MYTH. Dr. Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia states, “To the best of our knowledge, there are no published scientific studies that would allow any meaningful comparison to be made of the biting power of various breeds of dogs….the few studies which have been conducted of the structure of the skulls, mandibles and teeth of pit bulls show that, in proportion to their size, their jaw structure and thus its inferred functional morphology, is no different than that of any breed of dog. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any kind of “locking mechanism” unique to the structure of the jaw and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier”[4].

Whilst we do not believe that dogs are on the list of banned breeds are born dangerous, we do accept that many may be considered dangerous because of either poor training, or because they may have been trained as fighting dogs. This is part of a wider social problem, which dangerous dogs laws alone will not be able to resolve.. However, that is not to say they are not able to be re-trained. The high profile case of Michael Vick’ (an American NFL quarter back who was part of a dog fighting ring) is just one of many cases that prove that even dogs initially trained to fight, can be rehabilitated. This case was revolutionary in the way that dangerous dogs’ legislation developed in America - at that time it was common for dogs seized in dog fighting cases to be immediately euthanized due to the perception that they are inherently aggressive and dangerous. However the Vick case triggered behaviour experts to take a harder look. Now, dogs are evaluated as individual animals, and placement decisions are based on behaviour, not on background or circumstances. In fact, of the 49 Vick dogs evaluated by the ASPCA-led team, only one was deemed behaviourally unfit for rehabilitation, sanctuary placement, or adoption. This is what we would like to see happen in England, explained in more detail later on.

Much dangerous dog legislation (in particular the Dangerous Dogs Act) focusses on sentencing and prosecution due to the reverse burden of proof (guilty until proven innocent) embodied in the Dangerous Dogs Act whereby the onus is on the defendant to prove their dog is not dangerous. However this law hasn’t worked. Therefore it is our view that as an alternative to failing legislation, more emphasis needs to be placed on prevention. In order for prevention strategy to be effective more analysis must be done on the dogs involved and the circumstances surrounding serious dog bite incidents with the involvement of behaviour experts as well as the police. This would then help inform education policies on dogs.

i)                    Collection of data to develop better preventative approaches

Recent research published by Westgarth C, Brooke M, Christley R in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health in February 2018 determined that victim personality requires further investigation and potential consideration in the design of bite prevention

“To better understand dog bites, future research should attempt to explore the circumstances of dog bites, the nature of the injury and victims’ perceptions and impacts on them. It is essential that previously assumed risk factors are reassessed as this study has revealed that prior beliefs, such as bites typically being from familiar dogs, are contested……If UK or elsewhere hope to reduce dog bite incidence, it is essential that risk factors are accurately assessed in order to impose effective and well-informed dog policies in the future”.

We believe that to better aid education and prevention a central database of serious dog bite incidents should be set up as a priority.

At present there is a lack of detailed data to explain why dog bite related incidents may occur in order that prevention measures can be put in place. In order to aid this understanding, more data would need to exist – for example, on the medical and behavioural history of the individual dog involved, what were the circumstances surrounding the incident, what was the behaviour of those involved, and the connection between dog behaviour and the severity of bite inflicted. Research suggests there are a range of factors that may contribute to dog biting incidents and dog-related fatalities, though each incident is specific to the circumstances. Better investigation of dog bite incidents would result in greater understanding of the potential triggers which could assist in preventing such incidents occurring. At present there is little incentive to gather data relating to dog biting incidents since the focus of legislation is solely on prosecution and incidents of dog aggression are categorised on a purely numerical basis instead of being considered a public health issue on which doctors or health care workers can offer advice.

In addition to this, when a serious dog bite incident occurs, the dog involved is often either seized or immediately put to sleep. As a result very little research is able to be done into the cause of such incidents as investigation is done by police authorities. Access by independent defence experts, veterinarians and behaviourists to either the dogs or people involved, is usually hugely delayed owing to the legal process. Little, if any data is kept of outside influences such as the weather, the housing of the dogs concerned, reports of loud or unusual noises etc, that could have caused the dog to panic such as children screaming or shrieking in excitement. Criminal profilers and psychologists are used to determine motives for crimes committed by humans, yet investigating authorities are usually unqualified to determine the cause of an incident based on the behaviour of a dog. Rarely is the advice or support of a qualified person sought, and there is no incentive to do so.

In our view a central reporting system should be established, with a mandatory requirement for police, hospitals, behaviourists and veterinarians to input the data. The database would not necessarily have to be run by Government but would require a degree of Government support in order to ensure it was used.

Information which would be of use would include:

• the circumstances surrounding the dog bite
• signs of provocation
• adequacy of child supervision
• breed or type of dog
• sex of animal
• spay/neuter status
• behavioural and veterinary history of the dog, including incidents of prior aggression
• whether the dog was restrained at the time of event, and how
• patients’ previous histories of dog bites
• length of dog ownership by dog’s handler
• location where dog bite injury occurred
• disposition of dog afterwards
• physical factors
• environmental factors

These circumstances should be taken in to account as well as the behavioural assessment and should be interpreted accordingly.

ii)                  Education of children

Many dog bite incidents involve children - however there is no formal education in schools about how to understand dog behaviour (even though many educational tools are readily available). Similarly there is no formal support offered to victims of dog aggression in order that they can understand how this can be prevented in the future, by either doctors or vets providing medical attention to the dogs or victims.

However there are many sources of education for children, put together by an array of animal welfare organisations and charities. Other more formal education schemes include the Safe and Sound Scheme which focuses on staying safe around dogs. The programme plans canine accompanied school visits, background information and free resources for teachers. Teachers' notes and downloadable material are available free of charge. The website also includes a series of educational factsheets, outlining the Safe and Sound code, including some key 'safety positions' and why these should be adopted. The scheme is approved for the purposes of the national curriculum and it is our view that it should be taken up in every school. Other such schemes also exist that are suitable for inclusion on the national curriculum but there is no requirement for schools to make use of these.

iii)                Education of dog owners

It is our view that for lower/middle level offences of irresponsible dog ownership, keepers of the dog concerned should be required to attend a course on dog behaviour/training in order to prevent a more serious incident occurring in the future. Similar to speed awareness courses and driver awareness courses, designed to help motorists who have committed a low level offence prevent causing a more serious accident in the future, it is our view that consideration should be given to developing standardised courses on dog behaviour and training.

This is a measure that is permitted under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act if somebody is issued with a Community Protection Notice but there is little evidence to suggest this is taking place or whether the law allows for a variety of courses to be developed to deal with a range of offences – for example on responsible dog ownership (at a lower level of offence) and on dog training and dealing with dog aggression (when the offence is slightly more serious).

The aim of the course would be to educate the owner/keeper of the dog which behaved aggressively about how to spot signs of aggression, how to train and socialise a dog properly, and of factors that can cause aggression in order to prevent more serious incidents occurring in the future.

Just as motoring courses are offered by the police via organisations such as the AA, similar courses could be run by professional dog trainers and behaviourists and could be coordinated by the various animal welfare organisations and charities working on this issue.

Dog seizure arrangements

We believe that the current kennelling arrangements for dogs seized for assessment under the DDA are letting down dog welfare. Many dogs are spending excessive periods of time within police kennels while awaiting decisions on whether they will be released back to owners. These extended periods of kennelling are both detrimental to the welfare of the dogs and also costing police forces significant sums, funds which could be better deployed elsewhere.

It is also possible that in some cases these extended periods in police kennels, away from their domestic environment, may result in an increased risk in these dogs behaving in an aggressive manner when released from police custody. We would therefore like to see court cases involving dogs in police kennels fast-tracked, kennelling standards reviewed, and specific support offered to owners whose dogs have been detained for anything other than a nominal period of time.

Finally, as illustrated in the Vick case, in many instances seized Section 1 dogs may not pose a risk to the public (or could be rehabilitated) and therefore should be eligible to be exempted under Section 4 of the DDA, but the existing owner may not be a fit and proper person to be in charge of the dog. In these instances, the dog will be destroyed. We would like to see an amendment made to the law to allow the police in these instances to transfer the legal ownership and keepership of the dog to a third party who meets the fit and proper test.

3. How can local authorities and police forces be best supported in reducing the number of dangerous dog-related incidents?

Launched in 2011, Local Environmental Awareness on Dogs (LEAD) is a Sutton Borough, police-led initiative to engage with all dog owners of all breeds of dog encouraging responsible dog ownership.

The concept of the LEAD initiative is to identify problem dog owners at the earliest opportunity, share intelligence, and use appropriate interventions to reduce the risk of serious incidents in the future. A key aspect of the scheme is that information is logged every time the dog owner comes to the attention of an enforcement body. This information is then shared with all the relevant bodies, such as the police, local authority and social housing authority as appropriate.

On first instance the dog owner is sent a letter enclosing details of the incident (such as dog fouling, out of control dog etc); that the details have been shared with the other enforcement bodies; and the owner is provided with information on responsible dog ownership, including where advice and help can be sought.

If the dog is involved in a second incident the owner is visited in person by an enforcement officer, the intervention at this stage will be dependent on the nature of the prior incidents but could include Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs), Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs), or Community Protection Notices (CPNs).

LEAD is now being used as a model for police and local authorities in a number of other

boroughs and we would encourage as many as possible to follow suit.

4. What lessons could the UK learn from other countries dealing with similar issues?

With regards to low/medium level offences concerning dangerous dogs i.e. excluding dog fighting, the proposals we have put forward previously regarding prevention and education strategies require a degree of funding. For this reason, some look to the reintroduction of the dog licence, which is operational in other countries, as a means to assist with a funding stream, and also to allow for greater traceability in cases concerning irresponsible dog ownership.

Dog licence

Whilst we understand the obvious appeal of a dog licence as a means to generate a revenue stream, in practice, judging by the lack of success of the dog licence in other countries, and previously in the UK, we do not believe this would be a sensible way forward.

Fundamentally any of the potential benefits put forward to support the re-introduction of dog licensing are inherently twinned with the proportion of dog owners who license their dogs. This impacts upon the level of revenue generated, who shoulders the financial burden, the cost of enforcement, and finally its usefulness in promoting responsible dog ownership.

When the dog licence was abolished in Wales, Scotland and England in 1987 less than 50% of dog owners licensed their dogs.[5] Northern Ireland have retained the dog licence, though in 2015 we estimate only 30-40% of dogs were licenced.[6] This is broadly in-line with previous estimates from 2013.[7]

There are considerable administrative and enforcement costs in running a dog licensing scheme, a sizable proportion of funds raised (possibly all) through licensing will not deliver any benefit in promoting responsible dog ownership.

Alternative funding routes

We understand the call for increased funding to support the promotion of responsible dog ownership and enforcement action against irresponsible owners. We would therefore propose a small pet food levy could be introduced. The levy could either be applied in shops, in a similar manner to the carrier bag charge, or could be collected directly from manufacturers. This would ensure that the burden was split fairly between all dog owners rather than those registering their dogs. It would also allow for a much higher proportion of funds being raised to be invested where needed, rather than being diverted towards administration and enforcement of a complex licensing scheme.

Dog fighting

There are lessons to be learned, in particular from America with regards to the dog fighting element of dangerous dogs.

i)                    Risk assessing dogs

As touched on previously the Michael Vick case was instrumental in changing how animals were dealt with which were previously used in connection with animal fighting in America. It is now the case that the ASPCA have formed a dedicated team of highly skilled investigators, veterinary experts, behaviour professionals and sheltering professionals to provide specialised training for law enforcement, assist in animal cruelty investigations and respond to victims of animal cruelty and disasters across the country. Since then, a response team has assisted law enforcement in more than 100 dog fighting investigations, rescued more than 3,600 dogs from fighting yards or kennels, and have established a behaviour team to evaluate each animal and identify the most appropriate placements for each dog. It is essential that a similar system allows for this to happen in England. A step towards this would be establishing a central reporting system as described previously.

Appendix i - Dog attack fatalities involving children

Below are details of fatalities that have occurred as a result of dogs attacking children; in all these cases the parents of the children knew the dog involved. The tragic consequences were the same, regardless of whether or not the dog was a banned breed. In all of these cases, the deaths of these children would have been preventable. However it is unlikely that the force of the law would have resulted in a different outcome or made any difference to the owner’s behaviour.

The people involved in most of these cases did not have a criminal history. They would not have intended for their dogs to behave aggressively or trained them to be. Perhaps it is as a result of these high profile cases that the law on dangerous dogs has modernised somewhat but clearly there is still not sufficient early intervention or enough measures taken to aid prevention and educate dog owners and children about how to train and behave around dogs.

There remains an assumption in law that certain breeds of dogs are inherently dangerous, when clearly this is not the case – any dog can be dangerous and when the context of the dog attack is considered, a pattern emerges of irresponsible ownership.