Supplementary written evidence submitted by the RSPCA (DDL0466)

The RSPCA would like to submit two additional pieces of information. The first (section A) is the landscape of BSL across Europe and the rest of the world which was requested by the Chair during the oral session on the 13th of June. The second (section B) provides an updated list and analysis of 48 adult and child dog bite related fatalities between 1989 and 2017.

SECTION A: The landscape of BSL in Europe and the Rest of the world

Introduction

The information below presents an overview of the present international situation regarding Breed Specific Legislation (BSL). Significant contributions have been provided by Dr Fiona Cooke[1] based on information from ‘Canine Aggression and the Law – an International Perspective’. This book chapter is published in Dog Bites – a Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by Daniel S Mills and Carri Westgarth[2].

There are many countries with BSL in force to greater or lesser degrees. Some of these are older pieces of legislation while others are recently enacted. There are also a number of countries who have recently made attempts to reduce dog-related issues by addressing ownership and the individual dog via breed neutral legislation, rather than grouping dogs into categories.

There are numerous examples of countries where BSL has been repealed or found to have been ineffective in its aims to reduce dog-related incidents. For example, in Italy, 92 dog breeds were restricted however this legislation was repealed in its entirety. Furthermore, scientific studies have shown that BSL has not reduced dog bite incidents in Ireland[3], Spain[4],[5], Florence (Italy)[6], Canada[7], the Netherlands[8] or Berlin[9]. The results of these studies have in several cases led to repeal or pre-emptive legislation prohibiting BSL. Various examples of this are highlighted below, as are examples of other approaches to dog management outside the framework of BSL.

EUROPE:

Holland

The Netherlands introduced BSL in 2003, and then repealed it as it was considered to be having little effect (a specific study[10] was carried out in 2010 to measure impact of the legislation and breed type bite risks). Now, in 2018, it has been proposed that 21 dog breeds or types are classified as high risk dogs (and cross breeds thereof). However, at this point they have no official status and the Ministry has requested evidence as to the validity of the listed breeds/types.

Germany

All dogs must be registered with their local council. Fees and other breed restrictions vary across local municipalities dependent upon individual fee setting structures, local breed restrictions and training class attendance. Each municipality can place restrictions upon dogs and set requirements according to their individual powers.

In Schleswig-Holstein, for example, there is no longer any BSL but dogs are considered dangerous if they are involved in a dangerous incident such as a bite incident, aggression towards people or an attack on another animal (Hundegesetz: Gesetz über das Halten von Hunden). It is forbidden to breed any dogs with the intention of increasing aggressive tendencies towards people or other animals.

In Lower Saxony BSL was enacted in 2000, but then ruled void as not based on scientific evidence[11]. However, there are strict lead rules for all dogs in the majority of public spaces.

The municipality of Hamburg classifies a number of breeds as ‘dangerous’ however, dependent on which category they are within, some can be exempted from these categorisations on passing temperament tests.

Spain

Spain identifies 3 categories of dangerous dogs, which all have restrictions placed upon ownership:

1. Specific breeds

2. Specific appearances

3. Dogs who have behaved dangerously

Switzerland

Since 2008, owners had to attend a practical and a theory class, although it was reported that 20% of owners never attended, despite it being mandatory. It was also found that dog bites had not decreased since the introduction of the training. As a result of this, as of 2017, dog owners no longer have to complete the previously mandatory dog courses. However, Cantons can still impose obligatory training on owners and dogs deemed ‘dangerous’ by the individual Canton. A number of Cantons still require all dogs to have third party insurance, and all dogs must be registered on the national database.

Poland

In Poland a permit is required to keep and/or breed dogs listed under their BSL, and property information for safety will be required from owners of such dogs. The list includes: Pit Bull Terrier, Perot de Presa, Morquin, American bulldog, Doggo Argentina, Perra depress Canario, Tosa, Rottweiler, Akbash Dog and Moscow Guarding Dog and Kaukashian Shepherd.

Austria

Austria has a dog registration model.

Individual Bundeslander may list ‘Kampfhund’ dogs and restrictions, and owners may have to take an assessment to be able to keep a dog categorised as such.

In Vienna, owners of any restricted dog must take an assessment in order to gain a licence to keep the dog[12]. However, the assessment is open to all dog owners. On application all owners receive a handbook about responsible ownership and behaviour. This highlights responsible dog ownership, care and welfare needs for the dog and dog behaviour. If the owner of a non-restricted breed takes and passes the assessment, there is a reduction in their standard licence fee (for the Wiener Hundeführschein).

Sweden

All dogs must be identified and registered before 4 months old. There is one charge to register the dog initially and none thereafter. However, owners must report any changed details including if they are rehomed, or if the owner’s name or address changes.

France

Particular ‘types’ of category 1 (‘attack’) and 2 (‘guard’) dogs must be registered. These dogs must also undergo a behavioural assessment with a vet to obtain a licence for ownership. All category 1 dogs must be neutered.

REST OF WORLD:

United States of America

In the USA there is no state level BSL and all remaining BSL exists in local ordinances of cities, counties, townships[13].  Data from the National Canine Research Council (NCRC)[14] in the USA shows that the national trend is moving steadily away from BSL. Between January 2012 and May 2014, seven times more municipalities rejected or repealed BSL than enacted it[15].  The list of states that are considering and passing legislation to pre-empt municipalities from passing BSL continues to grow and based on recent discussions with the NCRC, that number is now at 20.  The shift in approach is a result of increasing recognition that instead of legislation targeting certain types of dogs, public safety is better protected when laws are breed neutral in approach and owners are held accountable for how their dog is cared for and controlled. Repealing BSL has not resulted in more dog bites in these communities.[16]

Canada

The landscape of BSL in Canada can be found on page 10 of the Humane Society International, Canada’s report[17] and some examples are provided below:

Montreal suspended their BSL legislation (which was focused on Pit Bull Terriers) towards the end of 2017 and is aiming to bring in a non-BSL approach to dog safety mid-2018. This will be aimed towards a ‘global approach’. However, all the previous provisions regarding dogs that bite remain applicable, it is purely BSL that has been suspended.

Ontario restrict Pit Bull Terriers (with muzzle and lead requirements for all) and do not allow new ownership, breeding or acquisition of a Pit Bull Terrier since enactment of the BSL section of dog legislation in 2005. A survey of reported dog bite rates in 36 Canadian municipalities found there to be no difference between jurisdictions with breed specific legislation and those without, and a survey by the Toronto Humane Society found that dog bite numbers were unaffected by the introduction of such legislation in Ontario[18].

Calgary has a Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw[19], which focuses upon community-relations, licensing and education programs. Under this Bylaw, all cats and dogs must be licensed annually. There are restrictions upon management of dogs in public spaces and no person under 18 years old may hold a licence. Animal licences must be transferred on new ownership. Licenses for neutered animals cost less than for entire animals. Licences for ‘vicious’ or ‘nuisance’ animals cost more than for ‘standard’ animal licence fees. Vicious animals are deemed so if the Court rules them to have ‘caused severe physical injury to a person, whether on public or private property; or the Animal has, while off its Owner’s property, caused the death of an Animal’ (Bylaw, 29, 1a,b). 

A study[20] found that in Oregon, a breed-neutral ordinance in Multnomah County (which has varied penalties according to the incident the dog is involved in) reduced repeat injurious bites from 25% to 7%.

Australia

Victoria[21] has a restricted breed list, which includes American Pit Bull Terriers (or Pit Bull Terriers), Perro de Presa Canarios, Dogo Argentinos, Japanese Tosas, Fila Brasileiros. All restricted dogs must be neutered, microchipped, muzzled and on-lead in public places. There are specific housing requirements and dogs must wear an identification collar. These dogs are also subject to bans on breeding, importation, sale and change of ownership.  The Domestic Animals Amendment (Restricted Breed Dogs) Act 2017 came into effect on 30 September 2017. Prior to this Amendment, the only restricted breed dogs that could be kept were those owned in Victoria prior to 2010 and registered before September 2011. The 2017 Amendment Act amends the Domestic Animals Act 1994, to allow registration of restricted breeds and increase payments for registration of dogs. The 2017 Amendment also requires any owners who transfer ownership of their dangerous dog to inform the new owner in writing that the dog is considered dangerous, and standard notification letter templates are available.

Bermuda

There is a prohibited breeds list (12 breeds/types and crosses thereof) including: American Pit Bull Terrier, Fila, Tosa Inu, Presa Canario and wolf hybrids. These dogs may not to be bred from, imported or used for breeding. Restricted breeds may be imported or kept if certain requirements are met. However, to be allowed to own a restricted breed, the owner must gain prior approval to acquisition, and additionally if required, must obtain a breeder permit to breed any such dog. The restricted list of 14 breeds/types and crosses thereof includes the Akita, Australian Cattle Dog, Chow Chow, Rottweiler and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

The restrictions that apply to all the dogs on both lists also apply to any dog known to be ‘problematic’. The dogs must be safely contained, have secure housing and it is very rare for anyone to be granted permission to own more than two dogs of any of the prohibited or restricted types/crosses. Premises will be inspected for safety. There are some grandfather rights for dogs owned prior to 2012.

New Zealand

New Zealand restricts 5 breeds/types. They are separated into ‘breeds’ and ‘types’.

Part 1 (breeds) comprises of Brazilian Fila, Dogo Argentino, Japanese Tosa, Perro de Presa Canario. Part 2 (type of dog) comprises American Pit Bull Terrier.

These dogs are all subject to a ban on importation and must be muzzled (Dog Control Act 1996, Schedule 4)[22].

SECTION B: Adult and child dog related fatalities.

The Office of National Statistics (ONS) lists 78 deaths as a result of dog bites in England and Wales between 1981 and 2015 where as Defra list 31 fatalities as a result of dog attacks between 2005 and 2017[23]. BSL support groups: Draconian Dogs Act and Deed not Breed along with the RSPCA has recorded the breeds/types allegedly involved for 48 fatalities with the underlying cause being a dog bite, between 1989 and 2017. All information was sourced using media reports of court hearings or inquests and cross referencing to ensure information is reliable. This is especially important as initial reports on any dog related incident are usually unreliable so have not been used to compile this data. This is demonstrated in the case of Gloria Knowles where one of the dogs originally listed as involved in the incident by Defra was subsequently found not to be and was returned to the owner. As a further example, James Rehill was initially widely reported to have been attacked by his dog in the street. His cause of death was later deemed a result of natural causes but did not get the same publicity.

The list of dog bite related fatalities presented here do not match with the ONS or other sources of fatal bite incidences. There are clearly disparities in the criteria required to be recorded as a fatality due to a dog bite and this is one of the reasons why it is recommended that the UK and devolved governments commit to the investigation of dog bite related incidents by suitably qualified people including a certified clinical animal behaviourist and recorded on a centralised database – with rolling analysis so evidence-based preventative measures can be identified.

Although this is not a peer reviewed, scientific study, it supports findings from the analysis of 256 fatalities in the USA spanning a ten year period[24]. This study 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 were found to be those directly under the control of dog owners such as mismanagement of dogs by owners; abuse or neglect of dogs by their owners; dogs left unsupervised with a child or vulnerable adult. These factors feature among the deaths reported here.

Furthermore, having compiled this data it is clear that the actual cause of death is not always the direct result of a bite. For example, in some cases people have died of natural causes or as a result of a bacterial infection following the bite. As such, we have included any bite that we are aware of, that may have resulted in the person’s death due to subsequent infection. It is highly likely there are many more we are not aware of so this figure is likely an underestimate.

Tables 1 and 2 list dog related fatalities involving adults and children respectively. 28 adult fatalities are recorded which involved 33 dogs. Of these dogs, four were allegedly pit bull terrier types. Of the 29 dogs involved in the 20 child fatalities recorded, five were allegedly pit bull terrier types. Based on this information, and overall 14.5% of dogs involved in fatal incidents are allegedly pit bull terrier types.

Defra states in its evidence[25] and based on its own figures of 31 fatalities, that seven pit bull terriers involved in six cases represents a far higher proportion involved in fatal attacks than would be expected from the proportion of such dogs in the dog population as a whole and uses this to underline the heightened risk these types of fighting dog pose. However, in the absence of accurate numerical demographic data and specifically on the total number of dogs in the UK and total number of pit bull such claims simply cannot be substantiated and it is both misleading and erroneous to do so.

Table 1: Adult - dog related fatalities

Table 2: Children - dog related fatalities

June 2018

8