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.”
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:
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.
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.
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.”
Animal charity wants more emphasis put on education and preventative measures
News dog control laws that come into force today won’t have any impact on reducing the number of dog bites being treated in hospitals, according to the RSPCA.
Britain’s biggest animal charity welcomed the move to increase sentencing options for those convicted of some dog control offences and extending the law to cover private property, as part of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
However, we don’t think the measures under the new legislation will meet the Government’s aim to reduce the number of injuries from attacks.
The RSPCA instead believes the best way to reduce the number of incidents is to focus on educating people about how to behave around dogs, rather than react to them once they have already happened.
Dog bite statistics will be one of the Key Performance Indicators to be used by the Government to determine the effectiveness of the new Act.
David Bowles, the RSPCA’s head of public affairs, said: “We don’t believe these figures will go down because the new legislation doesn’t prevent bites from happening. It merely provides a framework for a possible response to them once they have already happened.
“The number of dog bites being treated in hospitals has generally increased by 2-3% year on year and I don’t expect it to change after the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act comes into force.”
The RSPCA is continuing to call for adequate resources and training for those enforcement bodies which will be using the legislation, including local authority dog wardens and police forces.
The RSPCA also believe a properly coordinated public education and engagement campaign about responsible dog ownership and how to stay safe around dogs is essential to achieve a reduction in dog bites.
“Statistics show that the age group with highest hospital admissions for dog bites are children aged nine and below.
“Children often tend to cuddle and kiss dogs with very close facial contact, which a dog could find threatening. Therefore it is vital that parents and others teach themselves and children about dogs so signs that a dog is uncomfortable are recognised and acted upon,” added David.
