Total Dog Magazine

Tag: bsl

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
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
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
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