Consultation on Dangerous Dogs: breed specific legislation

Written evidence submitted by The Animal Behaviour, Cognition & Welfare group, of the School of Life Sciences of the University of Lincoln

1. This submission is sent on behalf of the Animal Behaviour Cognition and Welfare Group of the University of Lincoln. The Group is one of the largest research groups working on companion animal behaviour problems in the world, and includes both clinicians working with problem animal behaviour (including aggressive dogs) and a range of life scientists, including geneticists who are actively working in this field.
2. We welcome this review, which we note follows the overwhelming opinion expressed in the DEFRA consultation of 2010 that breed specific legislation in its current form is not effective. It is our opinion that such legislation cannot be supported on both scientific and ethical grounds. It is also apparent that there is little public support for the legislation, and that demonising dog, may have serious costs for the UK  economy; for example, as the health benefits of pet ownership will be realised less  often ( see: Hall, S., Dolling, L., Bristow, K., Fuller, T. and Mills, D.S., 2016. Companion animal economics: the economic impact of companion animals in the UK. CABI.)
3. This response does not allow us to provide a comprehensive review of the evidence, but we would like to draw attention to the recent  multi-author academic text “ Dog Bites: a multidisciplinary perspective” (edited by Daniel S. Mills & Carri Westgarth, 5m, 2017), which we believe provides the most comprehensive review of the subject available to date.  We recommend that the committee ensure they are fully aware of the contents of this publication with regards to the current consultation. Our response here focuses on specific evidence available from our own research which we wish to draw to your attention. We would be happy to meet and discuss this further with relevant authorities, should you wish to receive clarification or elaboration on any of the information below. 
4. We acknowledge that this is a complex matter and note that there are many opinions on it; but the strength of opinion should not be confused with the strength of evidence. For example, the link between dog fighting and aggressive behaviour towards people by dogs. A dog who is bred for fighting another dog, would be at a disadvantage if it showed any interest in people during a fight. Thus the suggested link between historic or current fighting selection and human risk is logically flawed.
5. Since we have no mandatory quality-assured reporting system of dog bites in the UK, we have no way of knowing the risk associated with certain breeds, for example even apparently objective measures such as the reported NHS statistics, do not cover “dog bites” alone, but “dog bites and strikes”; as such they are likely biased towards bites from unfamiliar dogs and towards children, since these are the ones most likely to meet the inclusion criteria for hospitalisation associated with this survey. Likewise any public report on the breed or type is likely to be biased, since any short coated stocky breed may be labelled as a “pit bull type” whether or not it is truly of the type.  In addition, it should be recognised that any apparent breed related behaviour could be due to general differences in the way certain breeds are managed. Thus if owners of a retriever often play retrieving games with their dog, and owners of Jack Russel terriers tend to play tug type games, this will create associations with behaviour whether or not there is any genetic difference in the predisposition in these behaviours between the two breeds.  In the case of breed specific legislation, it is not unreasonable to consider that any apparent breed related behavioural traits could reflect the way these dogs are managed as much or more than any genetic difference. We refer you to the PhD thesis of Tracey Clarke (2012, University of Lincoln) for further unpublished evidence of the public’s poor ability to recognise banned breeds and the effects of labelling dogs according to type on their public perception. 
6. In support of the legislation it has been argued, that we cannot know how many bites have been prevented by the legislation, but we could use the same line of argument to suggest that we also do not know how many bites have been caused by the legislation. For example, the stigmatisation of certain breeds through the legislation may have inadvertently increased the value of dogs as weapons in general, or particular breeds, and thus increased the problem. Secondly the labelling of some dogs as “dangerous” carries with it an implicit suggestion that other breeds are “not dangerous”, which might lead to individuals abandoning normal risk management around these latter types, and an increased risk as a result. Any dog can bite if provoked. Accordingly we maintain that the management of this risk depends on both responsible dog ownership and responsible public behaviour around dogs. 
7. In consideration of breed, we suggest that breed-specific genetic background probably plays only a minor role in the risk. Although dogs have been bred for specific functions which may create differences in behavioural tendency at the group level, variation in behavioural traits within a breed is generally substantial, making breed a relatively poor (insensitive) predictor of the behaviour of a given individual (Fadel, F.R., Driscoll, P., Pilot, M., Wright, H., Zulch, H. and Mills, D., 2016. Differences in trait impulsivity indicate diversification of dog breeds into working and show lines. Scientific Reports, 6, p.22162.). This does not mean that the genetic predispositions are inconsequential, only that it should be assessed at an individual level rather than at a breed level. Our ongoing work has recently identified a potential genetic marker of a particular form of higher-risk aggressive behaviour. Since we are in the process of protecting the associated Intellectual Property of this discovery, we cannot say more in a public consultation, but we would be prepared to disclose further details subject to the necessary confidentiality agreements being put in place with interested bodies. Using a genetic assay to estimate the aggression risk at an individual level, in combination with questionnaire-based assessment of individual behavioural tendencies, provides a more solid evidence-based approach to the genetic component of the risk associated with bites, which does not involve the stigmatisation of whole breeds. We posit that this is a scientifically more sound and defendable approach to public protection. 
8. In addition to the points made above, we note for the record our full support of the 15 recommendations of the RSPCA report “Breed specific legislation – a dog’s dinner” and the 3 points made concerning the direction of future policy on public protection from dog bites and attacks made on page 5 of the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home 2016 report “Dog Bites: What’s breed got to do with it?”.