Total Dog Magazine

Tag: dda

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
Major Shake-up of Sentencing for People Convicted of Dangerous Dog Offences

The Sentencing Council has published new guidelines today for how courts should sentence people convicted of dangerous dog offences.The information provided by the Sentencing Council is outlined below.

The guidelines cover offences where a dog injures or kills a person, where it injures an assistance dog or where someone possesses a banned breed of dog. The Council has introduced these guidelines following changes to dangerous dog offences legislation in 2014 which extended the law to cover attacks that occur on private property and introduced a new offence to cover attacks on assistance dogs.

The legislation also made very significant increases to some maximum sentences. For example, the maximum sentence for an offence where someone is killed increased from two to 14 years and for where someone is injured from two to five The new guidelines aim to provide clear guidance to sentencers, taking into account the changes to the law and ensuring a consistent approach to sentencing for these offences.

The increases in maximum sentences set by law have been reflected in the guidelines, so that they permit a much wider range of sentence lengths than the previous guidelines. Sentencing levels are likely to be higher than in the past, but magistrates and judges will still have to pass appropriate and proportionate sentences according to the seriousness of the offence.

The guidelines are designed to deal with a wide range of offending behaviour. For example, the guideline for a dog dangerously out of control where a person is injured covers situations which range from a nip causing a minor injury to a very serious attack causing life-changing injuries. The blameworthiness of the offender can also vary greatly between cases, with some owners deliberately training dogs to be dangerous, while other offences may involve a momentary lapse of control over a dog by an otherwise responsible owner.

Consistent with the changes to the law, the guidelines apply to offences that occur on private property in addition to public places. This covers situations for example where a guest is injured by a dog in someone’s home or a postal worker is attacked on their round in someone’s front garden. There is a new guideline to cover the offence introduced in 2014 of an attack on an assistance dog.

Assistance dogs may be those trained to guide someone with a visual impairment or help someone with a hearing impairment or other disability, and the guideline takes into account both the harm suffered by the dog and the potential impact on the assisted person of being without their trained dog for any period.

In addition to setting out appropriate sentence ranges for these offences, the guidelines emphasise to sentencers that they should consider whether an offender should be banned from keeping dogs, have dogs taken away from them, and be ordered to pay compensation to the victim.

The introduction of the guidelines follows a public consultation on the Council’s proposals. The consultation asked for views on aspects such as the factors that should be taken into account when assessing the seriousness of an offence, how the guideline should be structured and the sentence levels that should be set out.

During the consultation period, the Council also hosted a number of consultation meetings with sentencers and groups with an interest in this area. The guidelines take into account feedback received during the consultation. For example, a number of changes were made to the factors included for assessing the culpability of offenders, particularly in the guideline for the offence of attacks on assistance dogs. These reflected comments received that the factors should be more tailored to this specific offence and so the Council added a new high culpability factor for circumstances where assistance dogs and their owners have been specifically targeted due to the person’s disability (or presumed disability).

District Judge Richard Williams, a member of the Sentencing Council said: “We know that the majority of dog owners are responsible and ensure their pets do not put anyone in danger, but there are some irresponsible owners whose dogs do put people at risk of injury and in some cases even death.

“The new guidelines will help ensure a consistent and proportionate approach to sentencing following the significant changes to the law. They allow for a broad range of sentences to be given, depending on the seriousness of each offence, and encourage courts where appropriate to use their other powers to ban people from keeping dogs or to order them to pay compensation to victims.”

James White, Senior Campaigns Manager at the charity Guide Dogs said: “Sadly, every year we hear of more than 100 guide dogs being attacked by other dogs. Attacks on guide dogs are extremely distressing for their owners. Not only is the attack itself traumatic, but if the dog has to stop working, then their owner may find it impossible to leave home on their own. We welcome the publication of today’s dangerous dog sentencing guidelines, which will assist courts in sentencing these difficult and distressing cases appropriately.”

Malcolm Richardson, National Chairman of the Magistrates Association said: “The impact on the victim of this kind of offence can be severe. The sheer range of seriousness in dangerous dog cases is very considerable, so we are therefore glad that the Sentencing Guidelines now reflect that. “Because no two cases are the same, magistrates appreciate having as flexible a range of guidelines at their disposal as possible. It helps them to do their job of steering justice fairly.”

Following its publication today, the guideline will come into force in courts in England and Wales from July 2016.

March 17, 2016