Written evidence submitted by The Canine and Feline Sector Group (DDL0361)

INTRODUCTION

The Canine & Feline Sector Group brings together key stakeholders comprising of industry, welfare and veterinary to advise the Animal Health & Welfare Board England and to provide views on policy to Defra.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Problems with Existing Legislation

• Despite good intentions the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) has not delivered the improvements intended when it was implemented which were to reduce hospital admissions from dog bites, improve public safety and eradicate the number of individual dogs from breeds or types it legislates against.
• There is a lack of scientific evidence to support a breed specific approach to protecting public safety and significant evidence against it. Several countries have now repealed their breed specific legislation.
• As well as not being effective, the current legislation has meant the welfare of many dogs has been compromised as a result of the ambiguity over which types of dogs are banned by this law with many dogs seized from their owners and kennelled for long periods whilst waiting for a legal outcome.
• By focussing on breed this legislation ignores the fact that any dog can be aggressive and does not deal with the key factors that contribute to biting incidents. These key factors include:
• A lack of understanding of dog behaviour by dog owners, those handling dogs and the general public to understand dogs’ needs and to be able to predict if a dog is likely to become aggressive so that preventive action can be taken to ensure that individuals behave safely, and are safe, around dogs. This is compounded by a lack of regulation of dog behaviourists and trainers meaning that a variety of advice is available to owners, not all of it correct, and some of it harmful to both dog and owner.
• The breeding and selling of dogs that are not suitably prepared for life in a normal home with some breeders and sellers prioritising profit over the welfare.
• Owners purchasing irresponsibly and choosing a pet that is not suitable for their lifestyle.[1]
• Owners who are not able to meet the five welfare needs of their dogs including requirements for socialisation, exercise, training and companionship.[2]
• Anti-social behaviour by people who train their dogs to be aggressive.

Suggested Ways Forward

• CFSG would like to see the updating, consolidation and, where necessary, the replacement of existing legislation with preventative legislation on dog control which is based on the risks posed by the individual dog and owner, not breed.
• CFSG would like to see all severe and fatal dog bite incidents investigated using the services of a suitably accredited behaviourist to understand the causes, and aid effective preventative measures, and records of all incidents maintained centrally.
• CFSG feel that education of dog owners and the general public is paramount and would like to see nationwide initiatives aimed at preventing bites from occurring through improved knowledge of dog behaviour and understanding of when and how a dog is likely to become aggressive.
• If BSL is not repealed immediately, as CFSG believes it should be, measures should be introduced which improve the welfare of dogs affected by this law.
• CFSG believes there needs to be improved measures to target individuals who purposefully train their dogs to be aggressive.

1. HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE GOVERNMENT’S CURRENT APPROACH TO PROTECTING THE PUBLIC FROM DANGEROUS DOG ATTACKS?

The DDA has not been shown to have had a positive impact. There are three key indicators for assessing the effectiveness of the current approach where outcomes suggest that the current approach has been unsuccessful. These include:

1)      Has implementation of the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) improved public safety?

Evidence would suggest it has not. In the UK, an initial assessment of the DDA with data collected in 1993-4, found that there had been no significant reduction in dog bites[3]. Between March 2005 and February 2017, in England, the number of hospital admissions owing to dog bites increased 81 percent from 4,110 to 7,246[4].

It is worth noting that determining which dogs are most involved in dog bite incidents and which pose the greatest risk to public safety is difficult as there is no requirement for bites to be recorded centrally. There are also well recognised problems associated with accurate breed and type identification as e.g. ‘pit bull type’ as stated in the legislation is an ambiguous definition. Therefore, it is impossible to calculate accurate breed specific bite rate data. Where data around dog bites and fatalities is presented in the UK it should be heavily caveated as it is likely to be incomplete and skewed data. 

Multiple studies have shown that BSL has not reduced dog bite incidents in Ireland[5], Spain[6],[7], Canada[8], the Netherlands[9] or Berlin[10]. In the Netherlands where databases of registered dog owners do exist, it has been possible to calculate a breed-by-breed bite related index. As a result it was found, unsurprisingly, that the most commonly owned dogs were those most likely to have bitten[11]. This supports the point that any dog, of any size, has the potential to bite.

Indeed, there is a strong view that BSL creates a false sense of security through over simplification of the problem and under inclusiveness in the solution as it focuses attention on such specific breeds and takes attention away from the fact that any dog could bite. As aggression is a normal behaviour for dogs, legislation should not create a false sense that it can be eliminated, but should instead support owners and the general public in preventing it from leading to bites.

Analysis of 256 fatalities in the USA spanning a ten-year period highlighted the multifactorial nature of dog bites and a number of major factors which co-occurred across a large number of deaths; breed was not one of these. Many factors are directly under the control of dog owners including the wrong choice of breed for their lifestyle, not understanding how to meet their dog’s welfare needs; abuse or neglect of dogs by their owners and dogs left unsupervised with a child or vulnerable adult[12].

It would seem evident that the current approach of relying on BSL has not succeeded in its aim to better protect the public.

2)      Have the numbers of prohibited types of dogs fallen since implementation of the DDA?

In the three years proceeding April 2016, nearly 5000 dogs were seized owing to suspicions that they were a prohibited type[13] Figures obtained from a number of Freedom of Information requests reveal that dogs registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs are as follows:-

11.3.13 - 2,002

10.2.14 - 2,658

20.2.15 -  3,010

17.3.16 - 3,100

11.9.17 - 3,435

31.5.18 - 3,538

It would appear that the current approach has not led to a significant reduction in the number of prohibited dogs and they are still being bred.

3)      Is there evidence that BSL is effective in targeting dogs which are most likely to pose a risk to the public?

The relationship between prohibiting breeds and a reduction in dog bites is predicated by the belief that either the breed has the potential to be dangerous because of its physical characteristics and functional history and/or the breed in question has a record of bite frequency that supports the view that the breed shows a high level of aggression towards people.

Yet scientific research has proven that the pit bull terrier and related breeds are anatomically no different from any other breed of dog.  For example, Dr Lehr Brisbin[14] has proved the skeletal structure of the pit bull terrier jaw is no different from that of any other dog with respect to 'jaw locking' - they simply have strongly muscled jaws in common with many other breeds. Whilst the four prohibited types of dogs in the UK were traditionally bred for dog fighting and selected for physical and behavioural attributes which predisposes them to benefit from training and enhance fighting ability, such selection cannot infer inherent aggression in these types of dogs or guarantee that these attributes will be expressed. It is stated that the injury inflicted by these types of dogs are much worse than most other breeds or types of dogs[15]but recent studies found no difference observed between legislated and non-legislated breeds in the medical treatment required following the bite[16] or severity of bite and the type of dog that bit. 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 evidence[17].

Evidence shows that the cause of aggression, dog bites and fatalities are complex and multifactorial.  In 2016 Battersea conducted research into the effectiveness of BSL on preventing dog attacks[18]. Battersea surveyed 215 professional canine behaviourists and trainers to provide an informed view of the causes of dog bites to people, including the role of breed. The outcome of the report was that BSL is a flawed concept.  Specifically, 74% said that breed was either not important at all or only slightly important in determining dog aggression levels. Of the 26% who believed that some breeds could be more aggressive, there was little agreement on which breeds these were, with collies and small terriers cited as often as German Shepherds, bull breeds and perceived ‘guarding breeds’. None of the four proscribed types were singled out as being the most dangerous to the public.

Additionally the British Veterinary Association has stated that “the manner in which a dog behaves is partly as a result of its inherited characteristics, but more importantly is a result of the rearing and training provided by its owner and the environment in which the dog is kept.”[19] In the USA, a study examined more than 250 dog bite fatalities and found major concurrent factors which included: absence of an able bodied person to intervene; unneutered dogs; dogs kept in isolation from the family; mismanagement of dogs; and a history of abuse and/or neglect[20].

In Spain, a study published in the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour (2007) showed the Dangerous Animals Act (2000), which targeted a number of breeds of dogs, had no impact on reducing dog-related injuries.[21] In 2009, Italy abolished its breed-specific regulations in favour of legislation that holds individual dog owners responsible for their dog’s behaviour. In late 2008, the Dutch government repealed a nationwide ban on pit bulls after a study of the ban’s effectiveness revealed that banning a breed of dog was not a successful dog bite mitigation strategy. Instead, the researchers recommended better education for children and adults on proper interactions with dogs.[22]

Finally, there are many complexities in identifying the four prohibited breeds. Regulations that target specific breeds force law enforcement officials to focus their time on breed identification which requires expert knowledge of the individual breeds. It is difficult to enforce such provisions in a fair and effective manner and, as a result, many dogs are included under BSL when they should not be.  Blue Cross figures show that 550 dogs seized under section 1 of the DDA last year were eventually deemed safe and returned to their owners after the cost of a lengthy court case and the welfare impact on the kennelled dog.[23]

It would seem clear that evidence is still lacking to prove that breeds included under the current approach are significantly more dangerous to the public than other breeds and many studies show no association between bites and breed. Additionally, evidence continues to indicate that there are significant other factors aside from genetic inherited conditions which lead to a dog behaving aggressively. Several other countries have repealed their BSL.

Additional Concerns

There is a negative impact on animal welfare owing to the processes applied to fulfil the BSL. A seized dog is taken to a kennelling facility and if the dog is not returned to their owner using the Interim Exemption Scheme until the court case is heard, then the dog can be left in kennels for long periods whilst court cases go through. Figures recently obtained by the BBC[24] show that the time spent in kennels can range greatly, from 26 days to over two years. Many dogs find prolonged kennelling very difficult to cope with[25] and it can result in undesirable changes in health and behaviour which may prejudice the likelihood of exemption[26].

2. WHAT CHANGES, IF ANY, SHOULD BE MADE TO THE CURRENT APPROACH AND LEGISLATION?

The existing legislative approach is predominantly reactive in its approach.  It is the agreed position of CFSG members that any legislation to deal with dog bite incidents should be preventative, evidence based and proportionate in its approach. Government should consolidate and reform current legislation to introduce genuine early intervention and prevention measures such as Dog Control Notices (DCNs) alongside educational measures supported by key stakeholders which are touched on in the next section. Dog bite related incidents need to be investigated and recorded on a centralised database so that evidence-based preventative measures can be identified.

If Government do not wish to move forward with reform and consolidation of BSL at this time, CFSG would strongly highlight the real need to introduce measures to improve the welfare of dogs affected as the RSPCA have set out clearly in their response.

3. HOW CAN LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND POLICE FORCES BE BEST SUPPORTED IN REDUCING THE NUMBER OF DANGEROUS DOG-RELATED INCIDENTS?

Local Authorities and Police can be at the centre of preventative work and are already using the many tools within the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) to deal with social issues in a much more proactive way tackling the roots of the problems and identifying key areas and individuals.  Tools such as Dog Control Notices are helpful in tackling dog related incidents and advice and guidance, specific to the individual situation and circumstances, could then be provided offering better protection for public safety before an incident has occurred. The Local Environmental Awareness on Dogs (LEAD) initiative is a good example a system already in existence encompassing engagement, intervention, prevention and where necessary enforcement[27]. Following reports of criminal, anti-social or irresponsible behaviour, letters are sent to owners either with advice or, on the second occasion, seeking an Acceptable Behaviour Contract. The successful outcomes of this approach can be evidenced by the fact that between January 2011 and June 2016, 297 letters were sent to dog owners and only four proceeded to commit an offence.

In general, improved education of owners and the general public on dog behaviour and meeting their dog’s needs would enable better preventative action being taken on time as well as helping prospective owners chose the most suitable pet for their lifestyle. Resources such as the support of qualified experts who understand dog behaviour should be brought into trouble hotspots to assist police and local authorities in tackling the problems in a more proactive manner as has been done with the Merseyside Dog Safety Partnership[28]. Many CFSG member charities have programmes working up and down the UK to promote responsible dog ownership and safety in the community and would be happy to work with Government to support trouble spots or local authorities who need assistance and guidance from experts.

Of course it is recognised that resource is an issue and the Blue Cross’s ‘Unpicking the Knots’ report[29] found there was a huge resource issue when it came to local authority dog warden services. On average annual spend on local authority dog warden services have decreased by £4,500 per local authority across the UK since 2013 meaning a cut back or completely end to the education and enforcement work they had been doing on irresponsible dog ownership. The measures introduced in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) demonstrate a proactive approach to dealing with irresponsible dog ownership but it requires adequate resources or guidance to properly provide these types of services. The RSPCA have established that between 2016 and 2017, the Metropolitan Police Service alone spent £1.32 million on kennelling.[30] On the whole BSL can be very expensive to enforce so repeal of S1 could release significant sums which could be put into local authority dog warden services.

4. WHAT LESSONS COULD THE UK LEARN FROM OTHER COUNTRIES DEALING WITH SIMILAR ISSUES?

Data from the National Canine Research Council (NCRC) in the USA shows that the national trend is moving steadily away from BSL and forging relationships between pet owners and enforcement agencies rather than penalising first is now the progressive trend.

The Responsible Pet Ownership bylaw in Calgary, Canada[31] is a commonly referred to as an example of breed neutral legislation. This bylaw advocates responsible pet ownership and in terms of dog bites, placing responsible dog ownership at the heart of the matter has had striking results. From 1985 to 2008 reported dog bites decreased from 621 to 200 despite an increase in Calgary’s population. It clearly evidences that dealing with the wider issues of responsible purchasing, meeting the 5 welfare needs and easier access to professional advice on socialisation and training are crucial to reducing dog attacks.

Many of the principles of this work have already started to come into place in the UK through compulsory microchipping, and the new Animal Activity Licensing Regulations in which there is a push towards improving how people buy their dogs. With an increased focus on understanding dog behaviour, responsible pet ownership and owner education, the UK has the tools to follow elements of the Canadian model which has had such positive results in regards to reduced dog bites and attacks on other animals. CFSG members would be keen to support the Government in taking forward such an initiative, albeit one tailored to suit the UK, which would result in a more effective approach to reducing dog attacks.

June 2018

5