Total Dog Magazine

Tag: Breed Specific Legislation

Staffordshire Bull Terrier Ban: Charity Issues Warning

Staffordshire Bull Terriers are one of the UK’s most popular dog breeds and today a petition opposing calls to add the Staffordshire Bull Terrier to the banned breeds list will be debated before Parliament today.

The debate will take place in the House of Commons, Westminster Hall at 4:30pm, and you can watch the debate live on Parliamentary TV.

Firmly opposed to banning the much-loved breed, a Battersea Dogs & Cats Home spokesperson said: “Battersea strongly opposes adding Staffordshire Bull Terriers to the list of banned breeds and supports the petition before Parliament today. We have, and always will, champion Staffies for their loving, gentle and loyal natures. Last year we rehomed 350 Staffies that have become wonderful, life-changing companions and their new owners constantly tell us that these dogs make a wonderful addition to their family.

“Staffies are a much-maligned breed that don’t deserve a bad reputation. We know that in the right environment, and with the right owners, Staffies can and do make ideal family pets. Thousands of proud owners will tell you that Staffies really are softer than you think. We know these owners, just like us, will be appalled by the slightest suggestion of banning the breed. The fact that over 150,000 people have signed this petition is testament to how many people across the UK love Staffies and have had their lives touched by these great dogs.

“There are, of course, dangerous dogs in our communities, but Battersea does not believe a dog is dangerous simply because of the way it looks. We support a common-sense approach that says dogs should be judged on what they do, not on what they look like. We, and every other major dog welfare organisation, are opposed to breed-specific legislation – which has failed to protect the public. Dog attacks have continued to rise since four breeds of dogs were banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, proving that these laws do not work. Adding another breed to the list will not keep the public safe and will lead to thousands more innocent dogs being needlessly put to sleep.”

July 16, 2018
If You Own A Staffordshire Bull Terrier In The UK, This Organisation Wants Your Dog Wiped Out

Breed specific legislation has been debated in Parliament this past week. Evidence was put forward for politicians to consider whether or not the law introduced hastily in 1991 should be kept or overturned.

A panel of experts gave their considered opinions on the legislation, particularly the element that makes certain dogs illegal on looks alone, regardless of whether they’ve actually done anything dangerous or not.

A huge number of dog experts have condemned breed specific legislation as a cruel, ineffective law that has seen many lives ruined and innocent dogs killed by the state. Dogs who, it has been openly admitted by the very people seeking to kill them, have never shown aggression or acting in a dangerous way at any point.

Well it would appear one particular organisation not only thinks breed specific legislation should be kept, they actually want MORE dogs added to the banned list.

In written submission to the committee Elisa Allen on behalf of PETA (People for the ethical treatment of animals) is keen to add your Staffy terrier to the list of breeds to be caught up in the BSL killing machinery of the British state.

She says:

“The failure to include Staffordshire terriers and American bulldogs, both pit bull–type dogs, in the Act has resulted in continued severe incidents of mauling by dogs of these breeds in the UK. It also creates a loophole that can lead the owners of prohibited breeds to misidentify their dogs as Staffordshire terriers or American bulldogs – or mixes of these breeds – on purpose. ”

She then goes on to cite an incident of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier that was involved in a high profile attack on a person as well as a report of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier that attacked and killed another dog.

You will need to read the entire piece for yourself before you make your mind up:

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/environment-food-and-rural-affairs-committee/dangerous-dogs-breed-specific-legislation/written/84343.html

BSL has failed. It has failed to protect the public. It has failed to protect dogs. It has lead to deaths of people and deaths of innocent dogs and it costs the tax payers MILLIONS of pounds. The state is routinely seizing people’s dogs because of what they look like.

So PETA’s position is that more dogs should be added to the list?

Staffordshire Bull Terriers, in fact all well socialised, properly cared for dogs from the bullbreed family are some of the most loving, loyal and even tempered dogs on the planet. A call to have them all banned is, quite frankly, astonishing. Millions of people own these dogs. Millions of good people who love their dogs dearly.

Banning dog breeds neither works in practice or theory. The reasons are well known and we’ve had more than a quarter of a century of breed specific legislation to learn whether or not this cruel law solves the problem of irresponsible dog ownership or not. The answer is, unequivocally NO. Adding more breeds to a ban list would create carnage. Carnage for police, the courts and total devastation to the lives of the people who own, love and care for these dogs.

PETA clearly has the opinion that Pit Bulls are an inherently bad, dangerous dog breed. That much is obvious. And now they would like the Government to come for your Staffies too.

The Kennel Club disagrees with BSL.
The RSPCA disagrees with BSL.
The Dogs Trust disagrees with BSL.
The BVA disagress with BSL.

Up to now it’s been very, very difficult to find any credible voices who support the legislation. And let me totally clear about this, PETA is NOT a credible voice. They are a voice, yes. A loud one. But for an organisation that kills as many healthy animals as they do, true animal welfare advocates all over the world have raised serious concerns about what PETA actually stands for.

If you care about dogs. If you care about YOUR dog. Write to your MP today and ask them to listen to the experts on BSL. Online petitions, polls and the like are all well and good but you need to write to your MP and tell them that this is a subject you care about, that it matters to you what your MP does in terms of animal welfare legislation.

In super simple terms, we only need to ask ourselves one question: is it right that dogs should be seized, locked up and potentially killed purely because of what they happen to look like? If you think the answer to that is no, then PETA is not your friend and your MP owes you an explanation as to where they stand on the issue. Write to them today. Do it now. Please.

June 18, 2018
Could The UK FINALLY Be Set To Abolish Breed Specific Legislation?

The RSPCA has today welcomed an inquiry by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee into the current legislation on dangerous dogs.

The announcement comes almost two years after the RSPCA – the country’s largest and oldest animal welfare charity – launched its high-profile #EndBSL campaign, calling on the UK Government to review Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991 which, under Breed Specific Legislation (BSL), prohibits the ownership of four types of dogs: pitbull terrier, fila Brasiliero, dogo Argentino, Japanese tosa.

Today, EFRA has launched an inquiry into this legislation following considerable debate about the effectiveness of banning dogs based on their breed or type.

RSPCA dog welfare expert and lead author of the charity’s report – Breed Specific Legislation: A Dog’s Dinner – Dr Samantha Gaines welcomed the move: “We are really pleased that Parliament has listened to the concerns raised by us and dozens of other animal welfare charities and organisations, not only here in the UK but also around the world.

“Launching this inquiry is an important step towards the ultimate goal of our #EndBSL campaign – to repeal Section 1 of the law and replace it with legislation that not only better protects dog welfare in this country, but also effectively protects public safety.

“Since this legislation was brought in almost 27 years ago, hospital admissions in England due to dog bites have continued to increase showing that the targeting of certain types of dogs simply isn’t working.

“Not only is the legislation failing to protectthe public, but it is also failing dogs. Thousands of dogs have been kennelled unnecessarily and huge numbers put to sleep over the years simply for looking a certain way and that’s a serious welfare and ethical issue.”

Data collected by the RSPCA has shown that of 37 people who have died in the UK in dog-related incidents since 1991, 28 involved breeds/types not prohibited by law*.

“There is no scientific basis to BSL,” Dr Gaines added. “There’s no robust scientific evidence to suggest the types that are banned pose a heightened risk to the public compared to other types and no research that shows dogs traditionally selected for fighting are inherently aggressive or that their bite style could cause more serious damage than another dog.

“The simple fact here is that the way a dog looks is not a predictor of whether he or she is a risk or is likely to be aggressive. Aggression is a much more complex behaviour than that and any dog, regardless of its breed or type, has the potential to be dangerous if they are not properly bred, reared or given the right experiences in life.”

More than 67,000 people have signed the RSPCA’s #EndBSL petition – calling for the launch of an inquiry – and organisations around the world have stood side-by-side with the charity.

“The Dangerous Dogs Act was brought into force in 1991 following a number of high-profile dog attacks but, since it’s launch, has proven to be ineffective at protecting public safety and unjust for thousands of dogs who have lost their lives just for looking a certain way,” RSPCA public affairs manager, David Bowles, said.

“Our campaign has had support from organisations around the world and, in many countries, there is now a trend to repeal BSL with a focus on encouraging responsible dog ownership and improving education around dog safety.

“The RSPCA has long been calling for a legislative framework that uses effective laws and enforcement to tackle dog-related issues regardless of the dog’s breed or type; encourages responsible dog ownership; ensures better education, particularly targeted at children, who are most vulnerable to dog bites; and gains a better understand of why dogs bite so steps can be taken to address the reasons and reduce risk.”

The RSPCA will now be working on a submission for the Committee’s consultation and will continue to work tirelessly to bring about a change in the law.

May 11, 2018
Sir Patrick Stewart Lends His Voice to Fight BSL

Actor and dog lover Sir Patrick Stewart is lending his support to a Care2 petition demanding DEFRA Secretary of State Michael Gove repeal breed specific legislation (BSL) in the UK under the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991.

Under current law, the Dangerous Dogs Act prohibits the ownership of certain types of dogs – in particular, the pit bull terrier type.

What many people are unaware of is that ‘type’ means purely the physical dimensions of the dog. So you can in fact get two dogs, from the same litter – they could even be Kennel Club registered, but if one sibling grew to match the physical description of ‘pit bull type’ then, by law, that dog could be seized and potentially destroyed.

Under the Act, sometimes dogs can be placed on an exemption order, with special permission given from a court, but dogs who have been classed as type may not be owned, bought, sold, or even rehomed from rescue centres.

The regulation is outdated. It was brought in with the public being told it was intended to improve public safety, but animal rights groups say it is unnecessary and ineffective, arguing that a dog’s behaviour is not driven by its breed, but by how it is raised and treated.

On his decision to join the campaign Sir Patrick Stewart said, “It is essential that The Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 be re-examined.

“Caring, good-natured creatures are being denied homes and their owners and potential owners deprived of a healthy and loving partnership.”

Sir Patrick Stewart and Ginger, pictured when they first met

“Caring, good-natured creatures are being denied homes and their owners and potential owners deprived of a healthy and loving partnership.”

Earlier this year, Stewart announced to his fans that a foster dog named Ginger, who had been taken in to live with him and his wife Sunny Ozell in their Los Angeles home, would not be adopted by the couple, because the UK – where the family lives for part of the year – does not allow pit bulls under the Dangerous Dogs Act.

Care2 has been fighting breed-specific legislation for a long time and has successfully fought the introduction of similar ordinances in the United States.

Care2 CEO and Founder Randy Paynter said, “There is no evidence that certain breeds are naturally more aggressive than others. Better policy would be to crack down on dog fighting and to institute a public awareness campaign on how to raise happy, gentle dogs. We are honored that Sir Patrick Stewart is joining Care2 in the fight for a kinder world.”

Add your voice to the campaign to fight BSL in the UK by signing the petition here: www.care2.com/EndBSL

December 13, 2017
Why is Breed Specific Legislation Wrong?

Dog experts from two of the country’s leading animal welfare charities highlighted to members of the London Assembly public safety and dog welfare concerns around part of the current dangerous dogs legislation.

Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and the RSPCA briefed members of the Assembly at City Hall on Thursday (14 September) to highlight the flaws in Breed Specific Legislation, the 26-year-old legislation which prohibits owning four types of dog in the UK.

The RSPCA launched its #EndBSL campaign in August 2016 – to mark the 25th anniversary of Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act – calling for an urgent parliamentary inquiry into Breed Specific Legislation.

Two happy, well-adjusted family dogs. In the UK, one of these dogs would be illegal.

Dr Samantha Gaines – dog welfare expert and lead author of the RSPCA’s ‘A Dog’s Dinner’ report – told London Assembly members that the law was not working, why it is ineffective at protecting public safety and how it seriously compromises dog welfare.

“In the 26 years since BSL was introduced hospital admissions for dog bites have increased and prohibited types of dogs continue to be seized from our streets,” Dr Gaines, pictured, explained.

“Public safety is not protected by targeting certain types of dogs. The welfare of thousands of dogs has been affected by this law and countless dogs have been euthanased because of how they look.”

“The opportunity to brief members of the London Assembly means that they have the evidence they need to see that this law is completely ineffective at safeguarding the public, and are armed with the information as to how it unfairly affects dogs.

“We are hoping that with this knowledge they can influence change which will positively impact on the lives of thousands of family pets.”

Trevor Cooper, dog law expert, representing Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, and also pictured, said “This part of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 isn’t fit for purpose. The intention of Breed Specific Legislation was to weed out potentially dangerous dogs before they have a chance to be dangerous. Yet the impact has been to condemn many innocent dogs for no reason at all other than looking the wrong shape. The legislation was relaxed in 1997 and amended further in 2015 but it remains an unfair law that particularly affects rescues as they are unable to re-home certain types of dog even if they pose no danger to anyone.”

In December, the RSPCA welcomed a motion unanimously agreed by members of the London Assembly to request a formal review into the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

The London Assembly agreed a motion calling on the Mayor of London to write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to request a formal review of the act, brought in 25 years ago. However, the Mayor is yet to support it.

Now, the RSPCA is hoping that the Assembly will again approach the Mayor to support it to improve welfare for London and the UK’s dogs.

The charity – the oldest and largest animal welfare organisation in the country – has taken a stand against the part of the Act which prohibits owning four types of dog – pit bull terrier, Japanese tosa, dogo Argentino and fila Brasileiro.

David Bowles, assistant director of external affairs at the RSPCA, said: “This legislation is outdated and flawed and urgently needs reviewing, repealing and replacing with something which ensures the public can be protected from dangerous dogs while also protecting innocent dogs from being punished simply for looking a certain way.

“Currently, breed specific legislation means that a well-adjusted, well-behaved, much-loved family pet which has never shown any signs of aggression can be torn from his home and everything he knows and could face being put to sleep simply for looking a certain way.

“The RSPCA is calling on the Government to launch a public inquiry into breed specific legislation. Ultimately, we’d like to see this part of the Dangerous Dogs Act repealed and replaced with legislation which deals with dogs on an individual case-by-case basis and does not penalise dogs simply for the way the look.”

Almost 85,000 people have signed the RSPCA’s petition and the campaign has gained the support of organisations and charities both nationally and internationally, as well as being backed by world-renowned actor and pit bull terrier lover Sir Patrick Stewart.

September 15, 2017
Breed Specific Legislation – Cruel, Costs The Tax Payer Millions & Protects Nobody

The RSPCA is releasing a video to mark the 26th anniversary of the Dangerous Dogs Act and controversial breed specific legislation – and one year since the charity launched its high-profile #EndBSL campaign.

Saturday (12 August) marks 26 years since the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) was introduced to the UK, including Section 1 which applies breed specific legislation (BSL) and bans four types of dog – the pit bull terrier, the Fila Brasiliero, the Dogo Argentino and the Japanese Tosa.

Last year, the RSPCA published a report into BSL and how it has failed to protect public safety since its introduction (hospital admissions due to dog bites has increased year on year) and how it seriously compromises dog welfare. The charity – the UK’s oldest and largest animal welfare organisation – also launched its #EndBSL campaign calling for the Government to review the ineffective legislation and replace it with something that will better protect public safety and improve the welfare for all dogs affected by it.

RSPCA dog welfare expert and lead author of ‘A Dog’s Dinner’ report, Dr Samantha Gaines, said: “Almost 80,000 people have signed our petition and want to see a review of this ineffective and outdated piece of legislation.

“Our campaign has also had support from experts and organisations around the world, showing that this is an issue close to the hearts of many people from many corners of the globe.

“Many believe that, ultimately, the law should be repealed and replaced with something that is fit for purpose – something that better serves to protect the public and which doesn’t punish dogs because of how they look, irrespective of their behaviour or whether they pose any risk to the public.”

BSL makes it illegal to possess or own any of the four banned types in the UK. Dogs suspected of being of a prohibited type are typically seized from their owners and kennelled so that they can be assessed by a police dog legislation officer. This process can take several days through to weeks.

If officially identified as being of type, and the dog is not considered to pose a risk to public safety owners can apply to have their pet added to the exemption register which allows them to be lawfully kept but they must both comply with a very strict set of rules including keeping their dog muzzled at all times when out in public.

Kacey (pictured above) was just three-weeks-old when her mother and eight siblings were seized under Section 1 of the DDA. They were held in kennels for more than six months before being assessed.

All nine puppies were identified as prohibited types but the decision about two of the puppies – including Kacey – was, at a later point, overturned allowing them to be rehomed – the other seven were tragically put to sleep. Mum, Mercedes, was typed and later exempted which meant she could be lawfully kept under the Dangerous Dogs Act.

Kacey’s owner, Nay Beard from Devon, said: “This is where an already sad story almost defies belief. Nine puppies, the same litter, from the same parents but – for the grace of a couple of centimeters, two of their lives were saved. The others weren’t so lucky.

“Although Kacey got the chance to live, her incarceration under this cruel and unfair law impacts on her daily.”

Kacey was terrified of people and the outside world.

“She was frightened of grass, a breeze, water bowls, even toys. Absolutely anything and everything frightened her, she would back away while shaking uncontrollably,” Nay explained.

“Little by little, she got there. But even now, almost five years later, she’s still very nervous and anxious.”

Peanut (pictured above) was born at the RSPCA’s Birmingham Animal Centre and soon rehomed by volunteer, Julie Wainwright. But, at nine months old, she was typed under BSL and Julie had to begin the long exemption process.

Peanut was later exempted but her life is impacted every day by the restrictions placed on her – simply because of the way she looks.

“Peanut is just like any other dog – she loves playing in the garden, sleeping on the sofa with her canine companion, Anna, and will follow you into the toilet if you don’t shut the door firmly behind you!” Julie said. “However, according to the law, she is dangerous. And therefore, she spends her life being restricted.”

Julie is still trying to get Peanut used to her muzzle and has to hire a private field so her pet can enjoy running off-lead.

She added: “I’ve not met one person who has been negative about Peanut when I’m out on a walk. A lot of people ask why she has a muzzle on and when I tell them that it’s because of BSL they always say say the law is ridiculous and what a lovely, lovely dog she is.”

To sign the RSPCA’s petition or find out more about the #EndBSL campaign, go to www.rspca.org.uk/endbsl.

August 11, 2017
26 Years of Hurt Spilled out Into Streets of London at Peaceful BSL Protest

Peaceful protests have taken place in London, Coventry and Cardiff to highlight the injustices of breed specific legislation. The failed law, which was introduced 26 years ago, sees dogs lose lives because of how they look rather than act.

The UK joined Germany and Canada in a united global day of peaceful protests, rallies and awareness days to speak out against the law.

The Westminster protest was a grass-roots gathering, with volunteers present who actively campaign and support innocent dogs and their families being torn apart by breed specific legislation on a daily basis. It also put faces to the names of dogs who have lost their lives in recent years.

Maria Daines, a Director of DDA Watch, a campaign group which helps support dogs and families affected by the law was one of the event organisers. She said, “It is high time breed specific legislation was at least extensively debated in parliament with a view to repealing section 1 (DDA) which has proven over 26 years to be ineffective, unfair and cruel to the dogs and families affected by it.

“Education (as opposed to prohibitive legislation) is necessary and helps to keep dog owners, the public and canine companions safe; Banning, restricting and killing dogs that look a certain way is ridiculously outdated, heartbreaking for many and a waste of public money. In 2017, we can and should be doing much better for our canine friends, their families, the public and those who work with dogs, including stray and rescue dogs.”

Danes was joined by dog lovers who had travelled across the UK to add their voice and take a stand for innocent dogs calling for a repeal of a failed piece of legislation that targets types of dogs and condemns them as ‘dangerous’ based on their physical appearance.

Judge dogs on how they act, not look

Perhaps speaking to the fact that part of the objection to the Dangerous Dogs Act as it is now is the life threatening impact to dogs purely because of their looks rather than actions, the event was attended by some of the UK’s most well known dog trainers and behaviourists including Robert Alleyne, Jordan Shelley, Robert Stuhldreer and veterinary surgeon and animal behaviourist Dr Kendal Shepherd.

A Staffie named ‘Whippet’, a Battersea Dogs Home Ambassadog came along to support the event wearing a special pink coat with the words ‘Breed Specific Legislation Murders My Friends’. She was joined by another supporter who was dressed as the ‘Grim Reaper’ with a message for Defra, the organisation who overseas the law in action, attached to the black outfit which said ‘I am Breed Specific Legislation’ and gave out information leaflets to those passing the Parliamentary buildings.

Photo Credit: DDA Watch Ltd

Remembering those who have lost lives to breed specific legislation in the UK

As well as highlighting the ineffective law, the event highlighted stories of dogs who have lost their lives over the last 26 years sending personal messages to the British government in the process.

Dogs remembered included Blitz, an innocent dog who was imprisoned on death row for two and a half years, as well as Reggie and Tyson.

Lennox was also given a voice. He was a victim from Northern Ireland whose death five years ago sparked global outrage and condemnation, bringing the injustices of the legislation to the attention of thousands of people across the world and leaving a legacy of hope that disastrous BSL will one day end.

A dog named Paul was also remembered, heartbreakingly his casket of ashes was brought to the protest to show the end result of many dogs affected by this harsh and unfair legislation. Paul had lost his life in 2015 and campaigners shed tears as his casket was placed in remembrance at the event.

Two supporters from Devon held up their placard for a much loved dog named Sky who is held incarcerated and caught up in a legal nightmare due to BSL.

Sky’s story is heartbreaking since she was seized after being abandoned by her owner (read it here).

Two thousand flyers were given out to spread the word and raise awareness to what breed specific legislation is.

Watch the video to hear about the history of the law:

Join the conversation online on Facebook @K9Mag or find out how you can get involved in the next event: @DDAWatch

July 18, 2017
Today Marks One Year Anniversary for Dog Seized on Suspicion of Being Banned Breed

Today (Thursday 20th April 2017) marks the one year anniversary for a dog who was seized last year on suspicion of being a banned breed based on her appearance.

The four-year old cross-breed dog named Sky was seized after she was abandoned in kennels by her owner who it was later found had emigrated to Australia and she has not been allowed to see anyone since she was seized.

Although police are said to have confirmed verbally to Sky’s solicitor that she is doing ‘okay’ in kennels, she has spent a year of her life alone and without anyone with any connection to her past.

Photos all taken before she was seized

K9 Magazine recently spoke with the organisation attempting to save Sky’s life and free her from police custody, DDA Watch told the magazine, “Sky had previously been registered (exempted via court order) on the Index of Exempted Dogs some time ago.

The Index of Exempted Dogs is a list of dogs who are deemed to be a banned breed, or ‘type’, but the court think the dog is not a danger to the public and allow the dog’s owner to register their dog and adhere to restrictions and guidelines in order to keep and save the dog’s life.

DDA Watch continued, “In 2015 her owner had placed Sky in kennels and did not return for her. This was when it was discovered he had moved to Australia and the kennels took care of Sky before she was seized by police under Breed Specific Legislation.

“The police then applied to the court for a destruction order which the magistrates’ court granted. Sky initially had no legal representation. Since then DDA Watch have agreed to fund her case and Wheldon Law was instructed to act on her behalf and an appeal was then lodged.”

Eleanor McCann, daughter of Barbara (who was granted keepership of Sky) told K9 Magazine that Sky will be their family dog after they fell in love with her during her time when she was abandoned at the boarding kennels before being seized.

On Sky’s uncertain future, she told us, “The next hearing will hopefully be in June at the High Court but there is no decision pending that will mean Sky will be free soon, this will be decided by the High Court. This will be the final decision of whether Sky, a dog who has never done anything wrong in her life, will live or die.”

She continued, “We have not been able to see Sky since she was seized. We have not even received a photo and we would love to see one of her. Nobody that we know has been allowed to see Sky since she was taken away.

“DDA Watch and Wheldon Law have been amazing. Without their support, I don’t know where we would be. We are asking anyone who can help us to get in touch.

“The whole process will cost thousands and we are fundraising very hard to raise this in order to save Sky’s life. DDA Watch and ourselves are selling ‘Save Sky’ wrist band they are only £2.00 each including a pretty organza gift bag, plus £0.76p postage (for up to 4 wristbands in one envelope). If you would like to purchase one or more wristbands, please send your payment via PayPal to: ddawatch@gmail.com stating how many wristbands you would like and please mark your payment ‘Sky Wristband’.”

Read more about Sky’s story, the petition to save her life here >> http://www.k9magazine.com/this-dogs-owner-put-her-in-kennels-left-the-country-so-the-police-seized-her/

April 20, 2017
Anti-BSL Organisation Sends Clear Message to UK Dog Law Makers ‘Have a Heart’

A leading anti-bsl campaign and lobbying organisation have launched a campaign today asking the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to have a #Haveaheart and show ‘Where is the Love?’ for our dogs.

The non-profit group, Born Innocent, have launched their #Haveaheart campaign and are calling on the public to flood DEFRA with Valentine’s cards, asking them to ‘Have a Heart’ and end breed specific legislation, which has done nothing to reduce dog bites and attacks, and yet every year innocent dogs lose their lives, not because of what they have done, but purely because of how they look and how the act judges ‘type’ dogs.

Key facts about the Dangerous Dogs Act

Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced in 1991 due to a spate of dog bite incidents.

However, since its introduction, dog bites and attacks have risen and continue to rise.

Figures for 2016 show that dog bites rose by 5% according to NHS figures (versus a population rise of 0.6%), on top of a rise of 76% in the previous 10 years.

Experts condemn approach of targeting dogs based on looks

Critics have long argued that pursuing dogs based on their looks alone does not keep the public safe from dog bites or attacks and that unfairly targeting owners with dogs, who fit the characteristics of a banned breed, do nothing more than penalise, on the whole, innocent family pets and puts both emotional and financial strain on hard working people.

Peer reviewed scientific research by many leading academics and scientists, such as International Psychologist, Dr Dr Páraic Ó Súilleabháin, has extensively shown that ineffectiveness of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in preventing serious injury, as it lacks any efficacy as a public health measure and bite prevention.

Indeed, according to a study on the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, in order to prevent one dog-bite hospitalisation in a city or town by a given breed, in excess of 100,000 dogs of the identified breeds would have to be removed completely from the population. Figures would need to be doubled to prevent a second dog-bite hospitalisation, and so on.

The campaign aims to highlight to the government just how strongly the public disagrees with this piece of legislation and are asking people to send their cards to DEFRA by 14th February 2017.

Professor John Cooper QC, Patron of Born Innocent, said, “This legislation has failed to protect the public from dog bites. It was a knee jerk reaction by Parliament 25 years ago, to a spate of high profile incidents and it is time to apply mature thought to produce an Act which works both for the dogs, their owners and the public.”

Born Innocent Board Member, Shaila Bux, added, “over the last year we have been having some helpful meetings with key decision and policy makers, such as The Law Commission and the London Assembly.

This campaign is part of an overall strategy to repeal breed specific legislation and introduce reforms that
do not see innocent dogs die or dog owners left with huge legal bills or worse, a criminal record.

Get involved in the campaign to encourage UK lawmakers to ‘Have a Heart’ by visiting the Born Innocent Facebook page at @borninnocentdda or visit their website at www.borninnocent.co.uk

January 16, 2017
Breed Specific Legislation MUST Go – How Many More Innocent Dogs Need to Die? #EndBSL

More than 50,000 people have backed the RSPCA’s campaign calling for an end to the controversial legislation which bans four types of dogs being kept in the UK. Four months since the launch, groups, bodies and individuals from around the world have also supported the petition.

In August, the UK’s largest and oldest animal welfare charity launched its campaign calling for the Government to hold a public inquiry into section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) which uses breed specific legislation (BSL) to ban pit bull terriers, Japanese tosas, fila Brazilieros, and dogo Argentinos.

The campaign – called #EndBSL – sought to raise awareness of the plight of thousands of dogs whose welfare is compromised due to the law and also highlight the ineffectiveness of the legislation at protecting public safety.

Four months on, the RSPCA’s petition has been signed by more than 52,000 people and the charity’s opposition to BSL has received support from around the world.

RSPCA dog welfare expert Dr Samantha Gaines – lead author of the charity’s BSL report ‘A Dog’s Dinner’ – said: “Our message is simple: BSL is ineffective in protecting public safety and results in the suffering and euthanasia of many dogs. We believe BSL should be repealed and issues surrounding human safety tackled using education and effective legislative measures that do not unnecessarily compromise dog welfare.

“Since publishing our report and launching our campaign in August – marking 25 years since the Dangerous Dogs Act was implemented – we’ve received support from around the world, not only from members of the public, dog lovers and people who have experienced the devastating effects of BSL first-hand, but also from other UK and international organisations, charities and bodies.”

The need to repeal BSL has already been backed by more than 30 organisations around the world, from countries as far-flung as Australia, Japan and USA, including:

Animal Behaviour and Training Council (ABTC)

Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors (APBC)

British Veterinary Behaviour Association (BVBA)

British Veterinary Nursing Association (BVNA)

Deed Not Breed

DDA Watch

Dogs Trust

Dutch Veterinary Behaviour Group

EU Dog & Cat Alliance

Eurogroup for Animals

European Society for Clinical Veterinary Ethology (ESCVE)

The International Association of Animal Behaviour Consultants (IAABC)

The Kennel Club

Massachusetts SPCA (MSPCA)

People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA)

RSPCA Australia

SaveABulls

Renowned experts including Dr Emily Blackwell and Dr Emma Milne are also in support, as well as behaviourists Sarah Fisher – and her actor partner, Anthony Head – and Victoria Stilwell.

Dr Milne said: “The Dangerous Dogs Act, that came into force in 1991, was and remains one of the most pointless laws we’ve ever had. The fact is that dogs’ behaviour is dictated by so many factors beyond their breed.

“If we had used the last 20 odd years using the law to make people better dog owners it would have been a much better use of the law.

“The whole thing has been a mess for far too long and the time has come for the law to be repealed and for the politicians to try and do something constructive to improve the lives of dogs and reduce bite injuries.”

And Dr Valerie Jonckheer-Sheehy, chair of the Dutch Veterinary Behaviour Group, said: “Breed specific legislation will not resolve dog bite incidents.

“The focus must be on educating the public on dog behaviour and welfare, and ensuring that dog breeders breed healthy animals who are able to cope with the mental demands that they may be challenged within their day-to-day life.”

In another positive step, in December, the London Assembly unanimously agreed to support a motion for the Mayor of the city to write to the Secretary for State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs officially requesting an inquiry into the law.

“Hopefully, with the support of these wonderful organisations and the backing of tens of thousands of voices, we stand a chance of getting the Government to sit up and listen,” Dr Gaines added.

“It’s high time we made a change that will not only make the public in the UK safer, but will also ensure dogs are not punished for simply looking a certain way.”

In November, Becky Hughes discovered the BSL issue for the first time – when one of her two blue Staffordshire bull terriers, 18-month-old Chesney (pictured), was seized by police under Section 1 of the DDA.

He was taken away and returned a few days later under the interim exemption scheme. Becky, from Chester-le-Street, must now go through the court process to have Chesney exempted permanently.

She said: “What doesn’t make sense is that Chesney is being punished when he has done nothing wrong.

“I had no idea about BSL, what it meant, or how common it is? It baffles me. Even the police said Chesney is a lovely, friendly dog but look what the legislation is doing to him? It’s crazy.”

January 6, 2017
Staffies Top Most Neglected Breed List With More Seized by UK Councils Than Any Other Breed

New research out today has discovered that more Staffordshire Bull Terriers than any other breed are seized by UK councils. They’re also the breed most rehomed by councils, yet also the breed most put to sleep by local authorities.

Other most common dog breeds taken in by councils this year include Jack Russell Terriers, cross-breeds, Terriers and Lurchers.

Behind the Staffie as the most rehomed and most put to sleep breed, the cross-breed is also most rehomed and most put to sleep.

Once seized, whether as a result of being abandoned by their owners or otherwise, councils have a clear policy. They try to locate owners, if owners aren’t found – or don’t wish to take the dog back – they have 7 days to find a new home or find a rescue who can take the dog into their care. If this doesn’t happen, the dog is sadly put to sleep.

But while these findings, released by Direct Line Pet Insurance, are saddening, do they also highlight a widespread bias in the UK against the Staffie?

The pet insurer asked dog owners for their thoughts.

Around 6 in 10 said they felt this happened to the Staffie because of a lack of education about the dog breed and their owners lacked understanding about general dog ownership.

Prit Powar, head of pet insurance at Direct Line said: “It is a shame Staffies top the list of the most seized breeds again and again. As with any dog, it takes energy, care and attention to train and Staffies are no exception.

“While it is encouraging to see that the number of dogs being seized is reducing significantly year on year, there is still a long way to go. As a nation of dog lovers, there really shouldn’t be tens of thousands of dogs seized each year. Dog owners have a responsibility to ensure they can care for their pet and if they can’t, should take it to a rehoming centre or animal welfare charity, not let it roam the streets.”

Here are 5 dogs who were abandoned by their owners who are looking for a new home to start anew in 2017

Please share their stories & help them find a home to call their own in the New Year.

This is Boris, he’s a Staffie boy aged approximately 1 1/2-2 years old who was found as a stray before coming in to rescue.

Resembling a certain Star Wars character, he has a huge personality and a lot of love to give. He thinks you’ll love him, you will.

Read more about Boris on dogsblog.com

This is Hester, she’s a 6-year-old Staffie cross who was abandoned on the street by her owners.

Hester is a very friendly girl and loves showing off the tricks and commands she knows. Her new perfect home would be one where she’s the only dog and ideally in a rural area.

Read more about Hester on dogsblog.com

This is Archie, he’s a 3-year-old Bearded Collie cross who came into rescue after being abandoned.

Poor Archie has clearly had a rough time of it before he came into rescue as he’s recovering from both a wound on his leg and a broken tail. Currently in a foster home, he is recovering well and starting to feel safe. He is ideally looking for a new home with active owners.

Read more about Archie on dogsblog.com

This is Burt, he’s a 6 year old Staffie cross boy who was found as a stray before coming into his rescue’s care.

Sadly while in rescue, Burt has been overlooked and has been waiting since July for a new family to choose him. He is one very very sad lonely boy but has a lot of love to give. Could you change this for him?

Read more about Burt on dogsblog.com

This is Peggy, she’s a 7-year-old German Shepherd who came to rescue after being abandoned by her owners and found straying.

Peggy has worked really hard on her socialisation skills since coming into the breed specific rescue. She really is eager to please and would ideally suit a cat free home with experienced owners who will give her the time to settle into her new home while she learns the ropes.

Read more about Peggy on dogsblog.com

Direct Line Pet Insurance urges anyone considering buying a dog for Christmas to seriously consider the implications of owning a dog, both financially and whether the recipient has the means to properly care for it in the long term.

December 23, 2016
London Assembly Backs Charity’s Calls to Review Dangerous Dogs Act

With hopes of ending breed specific legislation in the UK, dog lovers and animal organisations alike have welcomed a motion unanimously agreed by members of the London Assembly to request a formal review into the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

The London Assembly agreed with a motion calling on the Mayor to write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to request a formal review of the act, brought in 25 years ago.

The RSPCA, who launched a campaign earlier this year calling on the Government to hold an inquiry into the effectiveness of the law believes part of the act – which uses breed specific legislation to prohibit owning four breeds and types of dog – Pit bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro – has failed to protect public safety and is seriously compromising dog welfare.

Something echoed by other organisations across the globe who have seen breed specific legislation implemented with no decrease in dog attacks, in fact in Toronto, Canada dog attacks have risen.

Speaking about the members of London Assembly’s decision to request a formal review into the DDA 1991, RSPCA senior parliamentary advisor, Rachel Williams, said: “Breed specific legislation is a piece of outdated and ineffective legislation which urgently needs reviewing, repealing and replacing with something which better protects the safety of the public as well as considering the welfare of dogs in this country.

“Currently, breed specific legislation means that a well-rounded, well-behaved, much-loved family pet which has never shown any signs of aggression can be torn from his home and everything he knows and could face being put to sleep simply for looking a certain way.

She continued, “Ultimately, we’d like to see this part of the Dangerous Dogs Act repealed and replaced with legislation which deals with dogs on an individual case-by-case basis and does not penalise dogs simply for the way the look.

Assembly Member Steve O’Connell, who proposed the motion, said: “This is about recognising the current policies designed to protect people from dangerous dogs are not fit for purpose, as well as improving animal welfare standards.

“It’s important that, if the current system is not working, we look at other ways of handling what is a growing problem.

“The consequences for victims of a dog attack can be devastating and I hope the relevant authorities take note of our motion.”

Add your voice to the RSPCA’s petition calling on the Government to review the law here

December 8, 2016
City of Montreal Lawyer Compares Identifying Pit Bulls to Pornography ‘You Know It When You See It’

A judge has put a temporary hold on the city of Montreal’s plans to introduce a new breed-specific bylaw following Montreal SPCA’s lawsuit against the city, announced last week.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Louis Gouin listened to the petition in the Superior Court yesterday (3rd October) and after raising questions about issues terminology decided to suspend the breed specific legislation bill with plans to make a further decision on 5th October.

UPDATE: Decision reached on 5th October by the judge is to suspend indefinitely inviting clarity on the bill’s wording about how to identify the breed/s which will be affected.

At this stage and until a further decision is reached, the new bylaw which was due to come into effect is on hold and Pit Bulls and Pit Bull types can continue to live with their families as they were before the bylaw was announced last week.

During the hearing, at which lawyers were present on behalf of both Montreal SPCA and the city of Montreal, both parties made arguments in front of the judge.

According to local CBC news, the judge admitted to the city’s legal representative René Cadieux “I won’t hide from you that in my reading of the bylaw … I had several questions,” echoing concerns raised by Montreal SPCA.

The judge paid particular attention to wording around muzzling, and how dogs would eat or drink when muzzled, and specifically how you assess a Pit Bull or Pit Bull type, given cross-breeds from the list of breeds set to be banned is lengthy. The judge had concerns about generational crosses and how far back in a dog’s pedigree you review to identify a cross-breed, i.e. if a dog’s grandparents were cross-breeds.

To this, Cadieux voiced the opinion that “It’s like pornography, you know it when you see it.”

In response to concerns that Pit Bulls who have done nothing wrong will be caught in the cross-fire of this blanket ban (which has not worked when been implemented in other cities such as Toronto, who are reporting an increase in dog bites with hardly any Pit Bulls now living there) Cadieux said, “It’s sad, but not cruel.”

The Montreal SPCA are claiming this as their first small victory in a journey to save dogs from a fate undeserved.

October 4, 2016
Montreal SPCA Takes Action Following Introduction of Breed Specific Legislation
In light of an impending municipal bylaw targeting pit bull type dogs, the Montreal SPCA met with its partners from local boroughs and municipalities it serves on the Island of Montreal and informed them that it will no longer provide dog control services to them, a decision that would come into effect in early 2017, if a city-wide ban on pit bulls is adopted across the 12 boroughs and municipalities.

With the imminent adoption of a new animal control bylaw in Montreal, the SPCA had no other choice but to meet with its partners. The organization is aware of the impacts of the proposed changes on the services it provides and wishes to act with transparency hoping the proposed animal control bylaw will not be adopted.

“We hope that the proposed animal control bylaw will not be adopted on September 26th and that we will not have to alter the contracts we currently have with boroughs. We will pursue our efforts with Montreal’s elected officials and repeat our assertion that public safety is fully compatible with animal welfare. The Montreal SPCA has always acted with this in mind and intends to continue to promote this principle,” says Alanna Devine, Director of Animal Advocacy.

“Like any organization, we need to act in a way that respects our fundamental values. Contributing to a system that would ultimately result in the euthanasia of healthy animals that do not pose any danger is a step that the Montreal SPCA cannot take,” says Benoit Tremblay, Executive Director.

Each year, the Montreal SPCA receives over 2,000 abandoned, stray, or seized dogs, a certain proportion of which are euthanized due to medical conditions or behavioural problems. “If it had been in effect this year, the bylaw would have made it impossible to find adoptive homes for between 300 and 700 perfectly healthy, behaviourally sound dogs. As we know, animals that cannot be adopted must too often be euthanized,” explains Dr. Gabrielle Carrière, Head Veterinarian at the Montreal SPCA.

In recent months, the Montreal SPCA has shared its experience and outlined best practices for bite prevention and the management of dangerous dogs. The organization proposes the following:
1. More rigorous enforcement of existing bylaws
2. Strict penalties for owners who fail to comply
3. Clear procedures for reporting dog bites, designating dogs as “dangerous”, and seizing animals
4. Education and prevention measures, including the development of community programs
5. Adoption of new municipal bylaws focusing on bite prevention and responsible animal ownership
September 8, 2016
25 Years of Breed Specific Legislation Has FAILED & This Report PROVES IT

The RSPCA has released a new report which exposes the ineffectiveness, flaws and negative impact of the breed specific law. This week marks 25 years since the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991 which applies breed-specific legislation – BSL – via section 1. The RSPCA is now calling for a Government inquiry into its effectiveness.

This week they have released a report – Breed Specific Legislation: A Dog’s Dinner. This shows the weaknesses in breed specific legislation as it has failed to meet its goals of improving public safety by reducing the number of dog bites and eliminating dogs that are prohibited. Indeed more dog bites are reported now than ever before and the numbers of prohibited dogs continue to rise. Many organisations agree that a breed specific approach is failing to protect public safety as dog bites continue to rise.

It also has a negative impact on dog welfare. Because of section 1 of the DDA, the RSPCA has been forced to put to sleep 366 dogs over the past RSPCA dog welfare expert Dr Samantha Gaines said: “The police, the RSPCA and other animal rescue organisations have to deal with the consequences of this flawed law by euthanising hundreds of dogs because legislation is forcing us to due to the way they look, despite being suitable for rehoming. Not only is this a huge ethical and welfare issue, it also places significant emotional strain on staff.

“It is the view of the RSPCA, and the public, that every animal’s life matters. “We conclude that breed specific legislation has not achieved its objectives whilst causing unintended harms – a new approach is required.

“The RSPCA believes it is paramount for the Government to launch an inquiry into the effectiveness of BSL, assess other options to improve human safety and dog welfare, and ultimately repeal the breed specific part of the legislation.”

The report raises concerns that there is a lack of evidence to support BSL and that there are also issues around the evidence required to designate a dog as being of prohibited type. There are also concerns over the potential to mislead the public that non-prohibited dogs are always safe, and our primary concern is BSL’s impact on dog welfare and owner suffering.

Despite many countries using BSL, there is a lack of evidence to show that it reduces dog bites. Several studies have shown that BSL has not reduced dog bites in countries abroad. In the UK, an assessment 1 in 1996 – five years after the DDA was enacted – found there had been no significant reduction. In fact, the number of hospital admissions due to dog bites rose from 4,110 (March 2005) to 7,227 (February 2015) 2 and continue to rise – see graph above.

BSL is now being reviewed worldwide and has been reversed by three European governments and many US administrations following studies. A 2010 Defra consultation 3 in England revealed that 88% of respondents felt BSL was not effective in protecting the public, and 71% felt it should be repealed.

Television personality and dog behaviour expert Victoria Stilwell agrees with the RSPCA that BSL is ineffective, outdated and flawed, saying: “BSL tears apart families while punishing innocent dogs and their guardians solely because of a dog’s appearance. Any dog can bite under the right circumstances, so legislation should focus on protecting the public through responsible pet guardianship rather than targeting a particular breed.”

The Dog’s Dinner report shows a number of cases from other countries, including Canada, where a reduction in dog bites has been achieved, not by BSL, but by focusing on improving responsible dog ownership. There are already mechanisms in the legislation to improve human safety. These should be prioritised as well as a focused education campaign, particularly aimed at children.

Welfare concerns As well as being ineffective at protecting public safety, BSL raises serious dog welfare concerns and causes trauma to owners who are affected. “The process of seizing a dog suspected of being prohibited and the stress associated with a kennel environment can compromise the dog’s welfare,” Dr Gaines added.

“The impact on dog welfare and owner wellbeing has been very much hidden but it is clear that BSL comes at a significant cost to many who would not ordinarily come into contact with the police or courts. “Until such time that BSL is repealed, there needs to be urgent action to protect the welfare of dogs affected by this law. In the absence of any evidence to show that BSL is effective in safeguarding public safety, it is the very least that we can do for man’s best friend.”

August 9, 2016