Dangerous legislation for family dogs – Telegraph Blogs

Friday 31 October 2014 | Blog Feed | All feeds

Pete Wedderburn


Dangerous legislation for family dogs

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA) was brought in by John Major's government, in a kneejerk reaction to some well-publicized attacks by dogs on humans. The aim of the act was laudable: who can argue against any measure to prevent the pain and injury of innocent humans at the hands of bloodthirsty fighting dogs? Some aspects of the Act work well and do assist the police in protecting the public's safety. The problem is something that was mentioned in the comments to my blog on anti-hunting legislation: the law of unintended consequences.

The first part of the DDA deals with types of dogs that are bred for fighting. The fighting dogs named by the Act are the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Fila Braziliero. The last three are virtually non-existent in the UK, so it's the Pit Bull that's been the focus of attention.
Possession of such a dog is illegal unless it is placed on a register after the owner has had the dog microchipped, tattooed, neutered and insured, then has obtained a certificate of exemption following a report from a police expert or behavioural specialist that the dog is not dangerous. Such dogs then have to be muzzled and on a lead in public places and be in the charge of someone who is at least 16 years old.

This all sounds sensible and reasonable, until the details of implementation are followed through.
The problem is the definition of the "Pit Bull Type" of dog. A Staffordshire Bull Terrier can be accused of being a "Pit Bull Type", and if this is not successfully contested, the owner may be pressurized to have their dog destroyed, regardless of its nature and history. An article in K9 Magazine this week reported on just such a case. The burden of proof seems to be the reverse of the normal expectation of justice, meaning the dog is "guilty" unless it can be proven not to be a pit bull type, rather than there being a need for the police to prove their case. Owners don't always realize that it's possible to contest such an accusation.

When a dog is reported to the police as an illegal type, they have two options: they can leave the dog in its home until the case comes to court, or they can seize the dog. There's a lot of regional variation on what happens to the dog, with different police forces taking different stances. Different types of owners may also be treated differently: some research by a behavioural specialist recently demonstrated that people's perception of the nature of a dog is tempered by the appearance of the owner of the animal. A dog with a tattooed skinhead owner is likely to be seen as much more dangerous than an identical dog belonging to a lady in a suit.

If a dog is conceded as being a "Pit Bull Type", but with good temperament, it's usually neutered, tattooed and microchipped while in custody and placed on the register before being returned to the owner.

Again, this sounds reasonable until some aspects of implementation are looked at: this dog had a tattoo carried out that seems bizarrely huge and unnecessarily damaging. Was some type of point being made by the person doing the tattooing?

Section 3 of the DDA covers all dogs (not just "Pit Bull Types"), if they are accused of being "dangerously out of control". This can of course be genuine, but it could also refer to a harmless dog barking loudly, reported by someone with an antipathy to dogs. Again, there's a delay while the case comes to court, and while behavioural reports are carried out. If a dog is seized during this time, it's taken to an undisclosed location: owners are told nothing and cannot get their dog back. In 1997, the average length of incarceration for a dog in these cases was two years and four months. 

According to a Freedom of Information query, last summer, every week around thirteen dogs were seized by the Metropolitan Police, and around two dogs died each week in police custody, of unspecified causes. A number of owners feel strongly that their dogs have been treated badly while in police care: a Facebook site called "Cruelty to dogs in police care" has over 2000 members. Non-dog lovers may think "what's the big deal?" – but when a family pet is the subject of this type of treatment, the emotional trauma for those involved can be very significant.

Has the DDA prevented dogs being used by drug dealers and for dog fighting? The word on the street is that it's happening more than ever, with the breed of choice evolving to include breed types that are not mentioned in the legislation, such as the Canary dog and the Bully Kutta.

Has the DDA prevented dog bite injuries in humans? There are still regular reports of such incidents, although the risk of injuries caused by dogs needs to be seen in perspective. As many as 18000 children may have been injured while playing on trampolines last summer, yet the level of debate about "trampoline control" is non-existent compared to the emotional furore that follows incidents involving dogs.

Dogs can only be kept safe through informed and responsible ownership, and that's where the focus should be. Draconian laws that drag innocent parties through the same convoluted machinery as genuinely dangerous animals can hardly be the answer.

comments powered by Disqus