Breed Specific Legislation - Mission Statements & Opinions Worldwide

Please click on each organisation from the list below or scroll down the page to view each reply as it was received:

American Humane recognizes that public safety is a concern with regard to dogs that have been determined to be dangerous or vicious. American Humane supports local legislation to protect the community from dangerous animals, but does not advocate laws that target a specific breed of dog. American Humane encourages communities to hold pet owners responsible for the actions of the animals in their care.

Communities may elect to adopt "dangerous" or "vicious" dog laws to help protect their constituents. Such laws may stipulate harsher restrictions on these dogs such as housing requirements, fencing, leash length restrictions, muzzles, posted warning signs, sterilization, additional licensing, behavior training, and liability insurance requirements. Additional stipulations may include harsher penalties and restrictions for violating the ordinances in place. Communities considering institution of such requirements should consider the additional financial implications and support for enforcement by animal control officers. American Humane encourages communities to educate the public, especially children, on dog behavior and what they can do to protect themselves against an attack.

Vicious or dangerous dogs tend to be, by definition, dogs that without provocation, have attacked or behaved in a terrorizing manner and/or have been trained for or used for animal fighting. Any dog, whether previously labeled as vicious or not, that has attacked humans or domestic animals may be euthanized when local laws and jurisprudence are followed. The owner should be given a period of time and process by which to appeal.

American Humane understands that any breed of dog can bite, and as such, believes that breed-specific legislation does not effectively protect the community from dangerous animals. Conversely, not all dogs of a given breed are dangerous. Legislation banning particular breeds can unnecessarily discriminate against dogs that are not dangerous, and does little to protect the community from dog bite incidents. Such legislation can often have unintended consequences such as spawning black market interest, indiscriminate breeding practices, and subsequent overpopulation issues. Additionally, there can be confusion when dealing with "mixed-breed" dogs, which can make legislation difficult to enforce. Therefore, American Humane supports local legislation to protect the community from dangerous animals, but does not advocate laws that target a specific breed of dog.

AKC consistently opposed breed-specific legislation and believes that dogs should be judged by the deeds not their breed.

Canine Legislation Department
American Kennel Club
5580 Centerview Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606

The American Kennel Club supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs. The AKC believes that dog owners should be responsible for their dogs. We support laws that: establish a fair process by which specific dogs are identified as “dangerous” based on stated, measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible owners; and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous. We believe that, if necessary, dogs proven to be “dangerous” may need to be humanely destroyed. The American Kennel Club strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be “dangerous” based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) was established in 1863. It is a not-for-profit association representing more than 72,000 veterinarians.

Statement from the American Veterinary Medical Association – received May 2005:

Banning specific breeds to control dog bite injuries ignores the scope and nature of the problem and is unlikely to protect a community's citizens. Breed bans assume all dogs of a specific breed are likely to bite, instead of acknowledging that most dogs are not a problem. These laws rarely assign appropriate responsibilities to owners.

Statistics on injuries caused by dogs are often used to demonstrate the “dangerousness” of particular breeds. Such arguments are seriously flawed. It is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds because:

2) the actual number of bites that occur in a community is not known, especially if they did not result in serious injury;

3) the number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed;

4) statistics often do not consider multiple incidents caused by a single animal; and

5) breed popularity changes over time, making comparison of breed-specific bite rates unreliable. Breed data likely vary between communities, states, or regions, and can even vary between neighbourhoods within communities.

Breed-specific ordinances have also raised constitutional questions concerning dog owners’ fourteenth amendment rights. Because all types of dogs may inflict injury, ordinances addressing particular breeds of dogs are argued to be under inclusive and to violate equal protection. Because identification of a dog’s breed with certainty is prohibitively difficult, such ordinances may also be considered vague and to violate due process.

Breed-specific approaches ignore five of the six and are not likely to result in effective injury control. Banning specific breeds may give owners of other breeds a false sense of security and decrease their desire to seek appropriate socialization and training for their pets.

1) enforcement of generic, non-breed-specific dangerous dog laws, with an emphasis on chronically irresponsible owners;

5) school-based and adult education programs that teach pet selection strategies, pet care and responsibility, and bite prevention.

The ANKC supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs.
The ANKC believes that dog owners should be responsible for their dogs. We support laws that establish a fair process by which specific dogs are identified as ‘dangerous’, based on stated measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible owners; and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous.

We believe that, if necessary, dogs proven to be ‘dangerous’ may need to be humanely destroyed.

The ANKC strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be ‘dangerous’ based on specific breeds or phonetic classes of dogs.
Rationale:
Dog Ownership (42% of all Australian households have a dog) is an integral part of Australian society. All Australians come into contact with dogs at sometime in their lives.
It is unfortunate that from time to time dogs have attacked people in society. These attacks range from rushing a person through to fatal injuries to human beings.

Controlling Canine bodies throughout the world have always put forward the message that one should judge the deed and not the breed when a dog attack takes place. The ANKC strongly supports this point of view.

Dogs offer companionship, social, physiological, health and financial benefits to many Australians. At the same time we all acknowledge that there is a small minority of dog owners who do not act responsibly and do not care for their dogs, which has resulted in dog attacks.

The media has well publicised these attacks and at times Governments and local Councils have given a knee-jerk reaction to these attacks and tried to introduce legislation that has not been well thought out and not appropriate to resolving the problem.

The problem can only be resolved by one identifying the reasons for the dog attack, secondly identifying the most common factors in dog attacks, and thirdly determining the most appropriate legislation which would involve education, penalties, etc, to reduce dog attacks.

Breed specific legislation has been introduced overseas in such countries as England and in some states of the USA, and has proven to date to be ineffective. The UK Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 has proven to be ineffective and subsequent studies, after the Act was introduced in England, clearly show that the legislation had no effect.

The recent legislation introduced in Germany was a result of a knee-jerk reaction to what one might describe as gross irresponsible dog ownership in modern times. The German legislation was draconian to say the least and it has far reaching ramifications and puts into question the ownership of some of the most popular breeds such as the Golden Retriever in doubt as a suitable dog.

The ANKC like many other canine bodies around the world does not support breed specific legislation, as there are no empirical studies to support such legislation. The ANKC believes further research by Governments and educational institutions should be conducted prior to any legislation taking place. Government should further research the existing empirical studies into dog attacks to determine the clear reasons for such dog attacks. At the same time we believe it is important that the Government adopts an education program at pre-school, primary and secondary schools as well as a general community at large to help them understand the behaviour of a dog as most Australians will come into contact with dogs regularly in their daily life.

The ANKC strongly believes in assisting the public in selecting their dog, socialising the dog, training the dog and making them fully aware of their responsibilities in owning a dog. The ANKC supports strong legislation and prosecution of dog owners who act in an irresponsible way, as we strongly believe that the irresponsible owner should be penalised rather than solely the dog, for inappropriate social actions.

The ANKC believes that state authorities, Canine Associations, Veterinary Associations, and animal behaviourists should be working together to understand dog attacks and translate that information to the public.

The ANKC strongly supports the development of the Good Citizen Awards that are presently in place in the UK and USA, where responsible dog ownership is appropriately awarded in the community. The ANKC believes that each State Government should follow the initiative of the Victorian state government where they have developed a responsible pet ownership program that is going into all primary schools in Victoria. This program is a first in the world and has been popularly received across Victoria. The program is further supported by a community advertising program.

In conclusion, it is important that Governments look at legislation for dangerous dogs in a responsible way and that they do not make hasty legislation, as in the case of Germany. Education, balanced with strict legislation and prosecution of dog owners with offending dogs is by far the most effective way to solve the unsociable acts of irresponsible dog ownership.

6.18 - Breed-specific legislation

Policy

The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) does not support breed-specific legislation for dog bite prevention, because experience in other countries has shown that such legislation has failed to reduce the frequency of dog bites.

The policy statement reproduced on this site is done so with the permission of The Canadian Kennel Club www.ckc.ca .

Policy Statement - Received May 2005:

Continental Kennel Club does not support legislation that bans the ownership of specific breeds of dogs. CKC believes that it is the owner's responsibility to control his or her dog and that the owner is
responsible for the actions of his or her dog. The right of people to own and enjoy the breed of dog of their choice should not be taken away. Owners of all breeds of dog should take the responsibility to train their dogs and maintain control of their dogs at all times both at home and away from the home. Proper obedience training and advanced obedience training in some cases is necessary for the owner to maintain control of his or her dog at all times.

The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE) is an umbrella organisation of veterinary organisations from 35 European countries, regulated by the law on international societies in Belgium.Dear EDDR,Please find enclosed the FVE position paper on dangerous dogs.In the meantime a lot of work has been done e.g. on behaviour testing. In October 2006 a congress will deal with this in Ghent of the European Society of Veterinary Clinical Ethology.

Over the last few decades the ownership of dogs primarily as companion animals has increased in the urban population, with benefits for the individual and the community. But, inevitably, it has also had some drawbacks.

Dog bite injuries have recently received increased publicity. Serious incidents involving dangerous dogs in several Member States have sparked fierce reactions and have led some Member States to call for a Community initiative to address this problem. This should however be seen in the context that the majority of dogs never bite anyone.

Dog bite injuries may be caused by various factors such as uncontrolled playing behaviour, lack of training, fear, pain, inappropriate offensive or defensive reactions. Sometimes dogs are also used as a weapon by criminals or are kept for fighting purposes.

To attempt to control these negative aspects of the dog-human interaction different countries have implemented various legislative measures.

The first addressing the behaviour of the individual dog and the second addressing the behaviour of certain breeds or breed types.

Although some countries have adopted breed-specific measures, there is no scientific or statistic evidence to suggest that these effectively reduce the frequency or severity of injuries to people.

• To date, no scientific criteria have been identified by which it can be determined that a dog is dangerous by simply describing its racial or other physical parameters.

• Breed-specific legislation has been shown to be difficult to apply due to the problem of defining breeds and breed types. This has been a major source of controversy.

• Breed-specific legislation engenders a false and dangerous perception that breeds not included will not show aggression. Aggression is a normal behaviour and can be shown by any dog of any breed, type or mixed breeding.

• Breed-specific legislation does not discriminate between individual members of a breed, many of which may not be predisposed to aggressive behaviour. Rather, all dogs of a specific breed, whatever their behaviour, are subject to the same restrictions.

FVE strongly believes that the most effective means of preventing and controlling aggression is to direct measures at the individual dog and its owner.

In particular, since part of the problem originates from the criminal use of dogs by well known individuals, measures to control this should be taken directly towards them. However because of the lack of reliable scientific data, it is proposed that further research is conducted with the aim of developing tools which will allow a proper risk analysis of the aggressive behaviour of individual dogs.

Education of owners and of dogs will lead to a more responsible attitude to ownership and decrease the risk to the public. There is a variety of opinion relating to the education of dogs and owners and this area requires further development.

Effective measures will require mandatory identification of all dogs in the European Community. This is the only way to link an individual dog involved in an aggressive incident with the person legally responsible for that animal, to collect and exchange data and to do epidemiological and statistical research.

• A central database in every EU member state to collect data on dogs involved in aggressive incidents will also be required.

Preliminary results in the fields of behaviour, genetics, neuro-psychology and physiology suggest that scientific protocols can be developed to address the issues of breeding, individual assessment and education.

• Comprehensive surveys on dog bites are required both to provide background information and to allow for the monitoring of the efficacy of any control measures.

There is some evidence that aggressive behaviour has an inherited component. Thus it is important to determine the genes involved and to develop controlled and responsible breeding programmes, supported by simple testing procedures.

• Behaviour is also influenced by the environment, in which the animal develops and lives. Thus, the testing of the individual dog's predisposition to show aggression can allow owners to take appropriate steps to prevent any incidents. Such testing procedures are still in their infancy and require further development. Existing procedures, though scientifically validated, are to be extended so that it becomes feasible to apply them on a large scale.

1. Promote education and training of dogs, dog owners and dog professionals such as veterinarians and trainers.

2. Postpone the adoption of further breed-specific legislation until a proper risk analysis has been carried out.

3. Introduce a mandatory identification for all dogs, which is compatible across the European Union.

4. Encourage research, through the 5th Framework Research Program for example, in such fields as:

• dog behaviour and its genetical, neuro-physiological and ethological background,

• dog bites monitoring,

• education and training of dogs, dog owners and dog professionals such as veterinarians and trainers.

The Humane Society of the United States offers the following position regarding breed-specific policies.

The HSUS opposes legislation aimed at eradicating or strictly regulating dogs based solely on their breed for a number of reasons.

Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is a common first approach that many communities take. Thankfully, once research is conducted most community leaders correctly realize that BSL won't solve the problems they face with dangerous dogs.

There are over 4.5 million dog bites each year. This is an estimate as there is no central reporting agency for dog bites, thus breed and other information is not captured. Out of the millions of bites, about 10-20 are fatal each year. While certainly tragic, it represents a very small number statistically and should not be considered as a basis for sweeping legislative action.

It is imperative that the dog population in the community be understood. To simply pull numbers of attacks does not give an accurate representation of a breed necessarily. For example, by reviewing a study that states there have been five attacks by golden retrievers in a community and 10 attacks by pit bulls in that same community it would appear that pit bulls are more dangerous. However, if you look at the dog populations in that community and learn that there are 50 golden retrievers present and 500 pit bulls, then the pit bulls are actually the safer breed statistically.

While breed is one factor that contributes to a dog's temperament, it alone cannot be used to predict whether a dog may pose a danger to his or her community.

A September 2000 study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (VetMed Today: Special Report) further illustrates this point. The report details dog bite related fatalities in the United States from 1979 through 1998, and reveals that over the nineteen years examined in the study at least 25 different breeds or crossbreeds of dogs were involved in fatally wounding human beings. Breeds cited range from oft-maligned pit bulls and Rottweilers to the legendary "forever loyal" breed of St. Bernards. The study was conducted by a group of veterinarians, medical doctors, and psychology and public health experts.

The main conclusion of the study was that breed-specific legislation doesn't work for several reasons: that there are inherent problems in trying to determine a dog's breed, making enforcement of breed-specific legislation difficult at best; that fatal attacks represent a very small portion of bite-related injuries and should not be the major factor driving public policy; and that existing non-breed-specific legislation already exists and offers promise for the prevention of dog bites.

Two decades ago, pit bulls and Rottweilers (the most recent breeds targeted) attracted little to no public concern. At that time it was the Doberman pinscher who was being vilified.

In 2001, few people had heard of the Presa Canario breed, involved in the tragic, fatal attack on Diane Whipple in California in January of that year. Now that breed is being sought by individuals who desire the new "killer dog." Unfortunately, the "problem dog" at any given time is often the most popular breed among individuals who tend to be irresponsible, if not abusive, in the control and keeping of their pets. Simply put, if you ban one breed, individuals will just move on to another one. Banning a breed only speeds up the timetable.

Communities that have banned specific breeds have discovered that it has not been the easy answer they thought it would be. In some areas, media hype has actually increased the demand for dogs whose breed is in danger of being banned. Animal control agencies, even those that are well funded and equipped, have found the laws to be an enforcement nightmare.

Restrictions placed on a specific breed fail to address the larger problems of abuse, aggression training, and irresponsible dog ownership. Again, breed alone is not an adequate indicator of a dog's propensity to bite. Rather, a dog's tendency to bite is a product of several factors, including but not limited to:

Early socialization, or lack thereof, of the dog to people.
Sound obedience training for recognition of where he or she "fits" with regard to dominance and people, or mistraining for fighting or increased aggression.
Genetic makeup, including breed and strains within a breed.
Quality of care and supervision by the owner (is the dog part of the family or is she kept chained outside?).
Current levels of socialization of the dog with his or her human family.
Behavior of the victim.
Whether the dog has been spayed or neutered.

If the goal is to offer communities better protection from dogs who are dangerous, then thoughtful legislation that addresses responsible dog keeping is in order. Legislation aimed at punishing the owner of the dog rather than punishing the dog is far more effective in reducing the number of dog bites and attacks. Well enforced, non-breed-specific laws offer an effective and fair solution to the problem of dangerous dogs in all communities.

Comprehensive "dog bite" legislation, coupled with better consumer education and forced responsible pet keeping efforts, would do far more to protect communities than banning a specific breed.

The HSUS encourages you to read the Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

The HSUS is committed to keeping dogs and people safe and is available and willing to offer advice, educational materials and model legislation to communities interested in decreasing the incidence of dog bites and aggression.

Breed specific legislation:

NAIA supports reasonable laws to protect the public from dangerous dogs and opposes breed-specific legislation in any form.

Breed-specific laws target good dogs and responsible animal owners along with the bad. Unfortunately, sensational media coverage and misleading claims of canine super strength and cunning of some breeds of dogs, especially the bull-and-terrier breeds and crossbreeds, have manipulated public opinion.

These factors often lead to limits on breeding and owning certain types of dogs despite the fact that many individual dogs fitting the description are beloved family pets or valuable working partners.

Restrictions from outright bans to requirements for confinement, insurance, and spay and neuter often follow incidents in which a breed and its crosses are implicated in aggressive incidents or dog fighting or other criminal activity.

Such limits cause the death of many well-behaved pets and rob law-abiding pet owners of their rights to choose a breed or mix and responsibly own or maintain a pet or working dog without government interference.

NAIA supports nuisance ordinances and dangerous dog laws to protect the community against unruly or dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog owners. NAIA supports sentences for violation of dog confinement and nuisance laws that include mandatory attendance at a basic obedience training class.

AKC dog obedience clubs have provided such classes for the general public for decades and, together with private trainers, they represent a well-established community resource for courts dealing with dog-related offences.

New statement:

NAIA is opposed to BSL and works to defeat and/or overturn it whenever it's necessary.

Dogs are like children: with rare exception, if you raise them with kindness and consistency, they'll grow to be happy, healthy and well adjusted adults. Once a breed is identified as mean or dangerous in the public's mind, however, it becomes the choice du jour of mean and dangerous people, who force them to fulfill their role by dog fighting, guarding criminal activities and by treating them cruelly and neglectfully.

The National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors was founded in 1965 when a small group of instructors gathered together and resolved to promote modern, humane training methods and at the same time elevate the standards of the profession.

To accomplish these goals, it was decided that members of the organization should be designated as having attained certain skills and knowledge of dog training and obedience instructing.

NADOI is not only the oldest group of its kind in the world, it is the only professional organization to require that all applicants demonstrate proficiency in their craft, as tested and measured by their peers, before membership is granted.

OUR MISSION today remains the same as was originally conceived: to endorse dog obedience instructors of the highest caliber; to provide continuing education and learning resources to those instructors; and to continue to promote humane, effective training methods and competent instructors.

Following is NADOI's official position statement on breed specific legislation. Margery West,
President

"The National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors (NADOI) strongly opposes breed specific legislation which targets or discriminates against certain dogs based only on their breed or appearance.

Such laws are unfair because they assume that a dog may be dangerous simply because of breed. In fact, it is almost always the behavior of the owners of these dogs which makes them a danger to others.

Since 1965, NADOI has worked to help people train their dogs to be well behaved.

Also, NADOI educates dog owners about their responsibility not only to their dogs but to their communities. Ordinances against dangerous dogs, unattended and loose dogs, nuisance barking, and other objectionable dog behaviors should be enacted and aggressively enforced.

These laws, unlike breed specific laws, force all dog owners to be responsible for the behavior of their dogs."

The NZ Kennel Club does not support Breed Specific Legislation but rather places the emphasis on Responsible Dog Ownership and Education.

I will attach the official NZKC Policy (printed below) plus the Submission that the NZ Kennel Club made to the Local Government and Environment Committee in June 2003.

This second document clearly states the NZKC position on the various facets of dog legislation.

Dangerous Dog Legislation now prohibits the importation of the following breeds into NZ.

1. The dog is a companion and working animal, it adds value to our quality of life and also to the country’s economy

2. New Zealand Kennel Club deplores people who breed/train dogs to fight, and the Club actively regulates against savage dogs

3. New Zealand Kennel Club’s focus is on the cause rather than the symptom

4. New Zealand Kennel Club supports owner licensing and more community education

On the:Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) and Supplementary Order Paper No 79

New Zealand Kennel Club
Private Bag 50903
Porirua
0-4-237 4489
nzkc@nzkc.org.nz George Mills
Director/Secretary20 June 2003Executive Summary

New Zealand Kennel Club is and always has been the supporter of sound Dog Control legislation. Our current Dog Control Act is progressive and the envy of many overseas jurisdictions that struggle with this complex social issue.

We support moves to strengthen the Act but are concerned that it may be damaged by poor law making

The principles attempting to be addressed in this legislation are applauded. Some of the details we are unable to support.

What we applaud

• Stronger Penalties for Owners of Savage Dogs

• Penalties for Minor infringements

• The Review of By Laws by Territorial Authorities

• Micro-chipping of all dogs for identification

• The Breed specific provisions are particularly repugnant

• Potentially Dangerous Dogs and what constitutes these

• The increased cost of compliance such as the new fencing provisions

• Blanket muzzling provisions. If these are to proceed an exemption is requested for all participants at New Zealand Kennel Club sanctioned fixtures

Further Initiatives we would like see included in the legislation or otherwise provided for

• Education initiatives should have legislative backing

• A review of By Laws by Territorial Authorities with a focus on consistency and best practice

• An obligation on territorial authorities to consult with New Zealand Kennel Club, New Zealand Companion Animal Council, New Zealand Veterinary Association and the SPCAs

Mr Ray Greer President of the New Zealand Kennel Club will present these submissions on behalf of the Club Introducing the New Zealand Kennel Club Mandate

The Kennel club is the authoritative organisation in New Zealand representing dog owners

Our objectives state that we are “The organisation of dog owners” We are charged with “Ensuring the well-being of dogs in New Zealand”

• Founded in 1886

• The sole National body controlling canine activities

• 8685 individual members

• 342 member societies

• 4450 registered Kennel Names

• Assets of $2,592,200.

• Member societies operate nation wide and hold recognised activities throughout the year.

• Cater for the sports of conformation showing, dog obedience, dog agility, gundog trials, working trials, sled dog racing, hound racing and coursing, and service organisations.

• Holder of the register for Purebred dogs recognising 183 breed registering 10,627 dogs per annum (2002).

• Provide for non pedigree dogs in Obedience, Agility and Working Trials, and register over 200 cross bred per year to compete at Championship level in these disciplines. Approximately 15% (1250) of our members participate in these disciplines

• Monthly magazine The New Zealand Kennel Gazette has an audited circulation of 5956 (ABC 31 January 2003) and is in the process of being taken to the retail market

• Our activities have considerable economic benefits for local economies. The 2004 National Dog Show is to be held in Auckland and projects an economic impact of $2.5m to the local economy.

• Activities held small provincial centres have a large impact on local economies

The canine “industry” is a large player in the national economy. The pet food market in New Zealand is a significant percentage of supermarket sales.

There are in excess of 400,000 dog owners in New Zealand. Expenditure on pet food, pet accessories, pet shops, veterinary services, housing and fencing of their dogs is a major contribution to the economy. Any curtailing of dog ownership will have a significant effect on the economy. There is a small but important export industry of pedigree dogs to Australia, the Pacific Islands, North America, Asia and even to Europe. 526 Export Certificates were issued by New Zealand Kennel Club in 2002.

• Minister’s approach

The Minister is to be applauded for the process he adopted, seeking information from those closely involved in dog management before announcing new policy initiatives. The plan announced by him on 14 April 2003 on the whole delivers a good direction. The Supplementary Order Paper addresses some of these initiatives. We must not lose sight of those initiatives that are not addressed in this legislation but are an integral part of the solution (e.g. further education)

In the current legislation there is no strong penalty that addresses the negligent owner of a dog that causes actual body harm. This is addressed in Section 28 of the Supplementary Order Paper amending Section 58 of the Dog Control Act. We support the strong penalties.

• Penalties for Minor infringements The stiffening of all penalties for infringements is a forward step. The current legislation is not conducive to prosecutions. The increased penalties will send a stronger message to the public, Territorial Authorities and the Courts and make the prosecution of offenders and the imposition of meaningful sanctions a more realistic option.

The time and effort involved in obtaining a prosecution does not warrant hard stretched territorial authorities pursuing offenders and the judiciary have shown a reluctance to impose meaningful sanctions. Any improvement on this situation will be appreciated.

One of the problems with the existing legislation is that enforcement is the responsibility of the Territorial Authorities. If the local authority does not properly resource its animal control and enforcement sections then the Act will not be effective. It is the responsibility of central government to ensure these resources are provided. We earlier recommended that more offences should be criminal offences and are disappointed to note this has not been incorporated into the legislation. We urge this be considered.

• Educational Initiatives Extremely Important

The educational initiatives announced are a step forward. The New Zealand Kennel Club is prepared to play a very important role in these. In partnership with the New Zealand Veterinary Association, New Zealand Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, NZCAC, Animal Control Officers organisations and other like minded organisations a sound educational program is an achievable objective With a network of 342 member societies we have nationwide infrastructure to support educational programs and a band of enthusiastic dog lovers whose energies could be channeled in this direction. We are in the process of introducing a national Canine Good Citizen Scheme.

These schemes involve dog owners taking part in education and training courses to teach the basic requirements on responsible dog ownership. In several areas pilots of this scheme already exist and several territorial authorities work with our member societies encouraging these.

The Supplementary Order Paper does not mention this aspect of Government’s policy. We believe a section should be added to reinforce this policy.

• Review of By Laws by Territorial Authorities Welcomed but should be extended

The announcement that all territorial authorities must review their by laws by July 2004, is timely. Section 3 of the Supplementary Order Paper mentions this. However, what is missing is any consistent guideline for local authorities to adopt.

One of the greatest problems dog owners face is the variation in by laws, registration costs and enforcement regimes that exist. Inconsistency of enforcement is a major problem with some territorial authorities poorly resourced to do this effectively.

The current legislation and what is proposed is totally dependant on local authority delivery of appropriate enforcement. The legislation should provide incentives for enforcement and not make it a further burden for responsible dog owners.

We urge this committee to oversee the setting up of a committee or process whereby best practise protocols can be established for all Territorial Authorities to adopt. This will lead to consistency at the local level.

Best Practise Models are available in Districts such as:-

- Waitakere City where owners can sit a licence test and if successful obtain a reduction in fees

- Selwyn District which runs an equitable regime for the setting of fees

• Micro Chipping

Section 15 of the Supplementary Order Paper (new section 36A of the principal act) requires the introduction of a micro-chipping regime. This we support. Already all pedigree dogs imported into or exported from New Zealand are required to be micro-chipped. Within the next calendar year we will introduce the compulsory micro chipping of all dogs on our register.

This is a process to further enhance the integrity of our register and is an integral part of our on going program to control and trace hereditary disorders, and improve the health and quality of pure bred stock.

This information will be available electronically through our website. There is a need for a standard for a national data base for micro-chipping. Whilst it is not this Select Committee’s brief it is essential that the funding for this be made available so that the provisions of the Supplementary Order Paper can be made a reality and a fully functional National scheme be introduced. It is not universal and nationally controlled then there is no point in legislating for it.

The New Zealand Kennel Club has already notified the Department of Internal Affairs of its desire to be considered for a pivotal role in any data base to be established.

After consultation with the Royal Foundation for the Blind (an honorary member of the New Zealand Kennel Club) on behalf of all service dog organisation we support their submission for special provisions for dogs registered with these organisations. We are concerned, like the recognised service organisations, that any organisation given legislative exemption is a credible organisation and meets proper criteria set down to ensure accreditation.

Aspects we do not support

The Breed Specific provisions in sections 11, 14 29, 31 & 34 of the Supplementary Order paper is particularly repugnant.

Any control must be aimed at specific rogue animals not a class or breed. It is the deed and not the breed that should be targeted.

It is difficult to ascertain what percentage of dogs in New Zealand are pure bred and what percentage are cross bred because no credible statistics are available. We can only assume a substantial minority are pure bred.

The majority of dogs in New Zealand are cross bred. A greater percentage of cross bred dogs are involved in attacks rather than pure bred dogs. How do you accurately identify these dogs?

To train as an All Breeds Judge in New Zealand involves a long process that takes at least twenty-two years from start to finish. Before embarking on this training process a candidate must have at least 6 years exhibition and breeding experience then sit in total eight theoretical examinations and eight practical examinations.

They also have to have considerable experience assessing and judging dogs against breed standards at each stage of the process before being able to progress to the next stage of qualification.

We fail to see how the legislature can expect Territorial Authority staff to gain the requisite experience in breed identification to enable them to enforce these provisions. In current ‘attack’ statistics a breed is allocated to a dog based on what an owner claims or what an Animal Control Officer believes to be the breed of the dog. This may bear little relation to reality.

The breed specification of most New Zealand dogs is not known and to allocate a classification based on misinformation invites wrongful diagnosis and legal challenge.

The breeds covered by this section can be extended by Order in Council and this is particularly worrying. We are concerned with uncertainty of a provision which is not definitive but open ended.

There are two New Zealand examples we can quote. - Kapiti Coast District Council in 1996 (quite illegally) banned Pit Bull terriers from the district. At the time it had recorded about 60 specimens registered. By next registration there were 24. It now has 275 “Staffy crosses” registered. Rod Shaw of the Kapiti Coast District Council was interviewed recently. He is quoted as saying breed specific bans didn't work and cannot work. - Since the announcement of the new measures there are anecdotal reports of veterinarians being approached by owners of dogs previously described as Pit Bull Terriers coming in and attempting to have the breed description of their dog changed.

This legislation will only result in a situation arising similar to that overseas with cases being bogged down in courts over arguments on the breed identity of the dog.

This will tie up limited resources both in people and costs of territorial authorities that should be employed in the administration of the Act and more productive duties.We understand New Zealand officials have consistently advised the Minister that breed specific legislation will not work.

The following information from official sources in the United Kingdom is pertinent “This is statistics and cost of the Dangerous Dog Act from England over the first three years of the Act, following its introduction in 1991.There are no estimates for legal costs, this would have been an additional burden on the public purse.

1) Information from the Home Office

2) Information from the Metropolitan Police (more seizures in London than anywhere else)1) The memorandum by the Home Office to the Home Affairs Select Committee:XI. Costs of operating the Dangerous Dogs Act;

'There are no centrally collated figures for administering the 1991 Act, nor in most cases would the individual agencies-the Crown Prosecution Service, the Court, etc.,- be able to distinguish all costs which they have incurred in respect of the Act. It would be costly, and in some cases impossible, for individual agencies to try to separate out the costs specifically incurred on Dangerous Dogs Act cases.'

The following summarizes the information which the Home Office has obtained from police forces as their estimate of the costs of administering the Act:Costs to police forces in England and Wales of operating the 1991 Act (first three years following introduction);

Number of police forces which were able to provide information on costs;

1992-93 - 24

1993-94 - 26

1994-95 - 26

Costs;

'The costs incurred by the MPS in administering the Act in respect of kenneling, transport and veterinary fees have been considered and are as follows:

'Kennelling;

1992-93 - £1,263,763

1993-94 - £773,469

1994-95 - £443,646

1995-96 - £368,000

Vet/Transport;

1992-93 - £66,075

1993-94 - £77,418

1994-95 - £57,829

1995-96 - £47,000

Totals:

1992-93 - £1329,838

1993-94 - 0.85 million

1994-95 - 0.5 million

1995-96 - £415,000 projected (actual £0.7 million)

”It must be noted that in the United States of America not one state has Breed Specific Legislation. Paul Polson of the American Canine Foundation verifies that the states of California, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia Texas and Maine all have laws prohibiting municipalities from passing breed specific legislation. Pennsylvania Dog Laws prohibits local municipalities from enacting breed-specific ordinances that declare dogs dangerous based solely on their breed. It also prohibits insurance carriers from denying coverage to homeowners because they own a specific breed of dog.

In Section 14 of the Supplementary Order paper (section 33A of the principal act) the definition of ‘potentially dangerous’ is inadequate and the provision unwarranted. Again this introduces elements of uncertainty around definition.

The current provisions for the control of dangerous dogs are more than adequate and are better worded. Over 80% of dog attacks are in the home - this legislation does not address this issue, rather it focuses on random attacks.Not stated is who has to “observe”, how they are to “report” or on what grounds this opinion is based. Dogs bite for several reasons including environment, training, health, victim behaviour and hereditary reasons. Not for one reason only.

Animal behaviourists will confirm most aggressive behaviour is not dangerous and does not lead to attack. Likewise seemingly unprovoked attacks seldom have any prior warning.This section is wide open to abuse by malicious individuals who could cause hardship to their neighbour without justification. If this section is to remain the grounds for the order must be spelt out and the nature of the complaint giving rise to the grounds must be promulgated and based on qualified opinion.

All dogs are have the potential to bite - regardless of parentage.

All cars are have the potential to kill - regardless of model. We do not ban specific models of cars – we sanction the individual driver who will not or cannot or will not control or maintain their car properly.

We should not ban a breed of dog – we should sanction the individual owner who cannot or will not control or handle their dogs properly.• Fencing provisions not realistic Fencing provisions in the Act will not be accepted by the majority of dog owners.

- Apartments, farms, lifestyle blocks, infill housing and a multitude of other dwelling house situations are not catered for.

- The security offered by the possession of a dog is compromised.

- The compliance costs are not accounted for.

Keeping a dog restrained in a fenced compound when unattended is responsible. Making people build fortresses around their dwellings is not.

• Muzzle Laws in Agility, Obedience, Working Trials and Gundog Trials impractical

The sport of dog agility, a fun version of which was enjoyed in the popular television program “Tux Wonder Dogs” is conducted in public under controlled conditions. Dogs working this sport are for safety reasons not permitted to wear collars. The sport is fast and furious. We have never had a case of a dog attack during the conduct of an Agility Event.

All breeds including a large proportion of Cross bred dogs and some Pit Bull Terriers and Terrier crosses participate alongside purebreds. Exercises off lead are also conducted in Obedience, Working trials and Gundog trials.

All these sports would be seriously affected by muzzle laws.If the amendments introducing muzzle laws for breeds of dogs in the Supplementary Order Paper are persisted with we seek an exemption from these provisions at all fixtures conducted by member societies of the New Zealand Kennel Club

In the past, along with others, we have recommended owner registration as a more equitable method of licensing dogs. This has not been accepted by the government so far. Many Territorial Authorities have in place a limited regime of owner registration.

This is usually limited to owners of more than a stated number of dogs or to responsible owner who wish to take advantage of reduced fees if they comply with specified Territorial Authority requirements.

These requirements usually involve a property inspection to ensure adequate fencing and housing and a rudimentary test on the responsibilities of dog ownership (e.g. Waitakere City).This system could easily be adopted to all dog owners.

• National Leash Laws an Alternative to Muzzling

Muzzling of dogs will not be an acceptable practice from many dog owners and are likely to be largely flouted. As an alternative stronger leash laws could be considered. Currently leash laws are the prerogative of Territorial Authorities.

The legislature could consider as a more acceptable alternative a requirement that all dogs be leashed in public with the mandatory requirement that territorial authorities must provide reasonable open spaces where the free range of dogs is permitted.

Again as registered places of public assembly we would seek to have New Zealand Kennel Club properties and fixtures exempted from this provision.

Dog Control Act – Further more general considerations Parliament’s Role in Canine Legislation

Man has had a symbiotic relationship with the dog for thousands of years. No matter what legislation is passed a percentage of the population will keep dogs.

As companions, workmates, and supporters the dog will remain a part of society as it has been since before civilisation began.

However the dog is not loved by everybody and some see them as unnecessary, undesirable or an object of fear and hate.

We also perceive a range of social issues related to dog ownership, social status, the neglect of dogs, and dog fighting which are not addressed by this legislation.It is up to the parliament to legislate a balance that allows all of us to live in harmony. Solution wider than legislation alone. The solution lies not only in legislation, which plays a vital part, but also in the changing of society’s attitudes.

Dog ownership should be a privilege and the obligations attached to dog ownership should be accepted as the norm. Dogs should be seen as a companion and an enhancement to one’s quality of life. Savage dogs, neglected of dogs and the straying of dogs must be perceived by all levels of society as unacceptable.

We are facing the prospect of a society where the keeping of a savage dog as a status symbol is accepted and in some circles valued. Allowing dogs to roam at will is acceptable, neglect of dogs is condoned and where it is acceptable that dogs are trained for fighting. Unless we change societal attitudes then more unsuspecting victims will be put at risk.

The New Zealand Kennel Club thanks you for this opportunity to make these submission.
……………………………………………….
George Mills
Director/Secretary
New Zealand Kennel Club

The Swedish Kennel clubs policy is the same as the Swedish government’s policy, and that is that no breeds shall be banned, but dogs with overly aggressive temperaments and extreme "fightdrive" must be banned.

The government has just put forward a new legislation regarding dangerous dogs which gives the police and authorities a greater possibility to take dogs that has a record of biting and that has a extreme temperament. This is something that the SKK has approved of.

The SKK is of the opinion that dangerous dog are not a breed problem but an owners problem and no specific breed or type of dog shall be banned.

Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) - Worldwide Opinions on Breed Bans

BSL Position Statements

6.18 - Breed-specific legislation

Please Visit Our Dog Law Section Here