Information, Education & Advice - helping dogs in need
Information, Education & Advice - helping dogs in need
Please sign the petition - to the Prime Minister, to help get the Index of Exempted Dogs re-opened to enable owner-led registration.
2008 Update - Our Review below is now available on PDF - 
The Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) was introduced in 1991, it is breed specific legislation (BSL) – Section One of the legislation directly prohibits four types of dog:
It is illegal to keep any of the above types of dog, unless the dog is registered (Neutered, ID Chipped, Tattooed, Insured) on the Index of Exempted Dogs and certain conditions of exemption are strictly adhered to.
Background:
Following a spate of highly publicised dog attacks in 1991, the Government took advice and responded by declaring the enforced total mass destruction of specific types of dogs. This was later modified and instead the DDA was passed under a Guillotine; with one of the shortest Parliamentary debates in modern times.
The new law gave owners a brief opportunity to register their dogs; intending to eradicate the pit bull terrier within a generation. Owners were faced with a choice – to have their dog put down or register it. The Government thought that the 1991 generation of prohibited types would be the last.
Index Closes:
When the law was first passed, dogs had to be registered within a short designated time after which the appointed registry – the Index of Exempted Dogs, under contract to the Government, CLOSED; there were 8.600 dogs originally notified to the Index and Police(1), 5,223 managed to fully comply and were issued a life-saving Certificate of Exemption, leaving 3,377 notified dogs with incomplete registration.
Many of those who in the confusion and panic had not fully completed registration by the deadline had their dogs seized and put to death, many owners who didn’t think the law applied to them, had their dogs seized and entered into lengthy agonising court hearings in an attempt to try and save their dogs life.
Never did Parliament envisage that owners would fight so hard to save their dogs, their courage and that of those who supported them and campaigned against the situation began to slow down what felt like a national witch hunt; a hunt down for specific dogs which was welcomed from many quarters or sadly initially ignored, leaving those affected often isolated and without help; EDDR supporters, dog owners and other groups worked tirelessly through these difficult years helping those persecuted, small networks of carers across the country were there to try and help those condemned working in a distressful often indifferent climate.
Dogs of the ‘type’:
Section One of the Act refers to a ‘type of dog known as a pit bull bull terrier’. It was originally estimated there were 10,000 ‘pit bulls’ in the UK, working from this figure the Government hoped to either have these dogs destroyed or registered, eliminating the ‘pit bull terrier’ over a generation.
In 1991 the then Home Secretary Kenneth Baker said:
“The problem with defining the pit bull terrier is that it is a cross-breed which has been cross-bred for nearly 150 years and which has drawn from various strains a degree of viciousness and strength and a determination to fight and kill. Other cross-breeds may be bred in the future.”
The American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT) has been registered with the United Kennel Club (USA) since 1898 and the American Dog Breeders Association (ADBA) since 1909. The breed wasn’t recognised by the Kennel Club and so Parliament legislated against a ‘type’ of dog.
The Home Office stated that the “pit bull terrier is not a recognised breed in this country: as a result there is no breed standard, hence the need to use the expression ‘type’ in the Act”.
Problems soon became apparent when trying to decide exactly what one of these prohibited dogs should look like. The Home Office issued several circulars offering advice, experts argued the finer points of anatomy for days and sometimes weeks in courts, but the ordinary dog owner was completely lost when trying to work out what it all meant, whether their dog was affected and which dogs were now illegal to own according to the advice being issued:
The court also ruled that the relevant breed standard for assessing whether a dog is or is not of the type should be that of the ADBA. Since part of that breed standard concerned the dog’s behaviour, the court ruled that evidence of a dog’s behavioural characteristics was relevant, but not conclusive.
So now the goal posts have widened to include any cross breed of dog, “irrespective of parentage”. The offspring of two perfectly legal breeds could produce an illegal dog. Type has a broader meaning than breed. But, the Index has closed and with it any hope of legalising many pet dogs condemned as an illegal ‘type’.
Mandatory Destruction:
Prior to the Act’s Amendment of 1997, any dog found guilty of an offence under Section One of the Act faced an automatic destruction order; in yet another injustice dished out to dog owners, the legislators had appallingly removed the courts discretionary powers when sentencing.
Unlike any other, this law was and still is, designed to promote death and for over five years many pet dogs were torn from their family homes and put to death via court order, but not all cases actually reached the court hearing stage as many a dog owner signed over their dog for destruction when subjected to the full weight of criminal law and faced with such an impossible situation.
Burden of Proof:
A constitutional principle that of ‘guilty until proved innocent’ was appallingly turned on its head for the purposes of the DDA. The Presumption of Innocence does not apply; under the law, an accusation need only be made, it is then up to the accused to prove their innocence. What this means for the ordinary dog owner, is that once accused of owning an illegal type of dog, it is then up to you to prove it is not.
Dog owners were singled out and unlike other ‘criminals’ not afforded the basic right to be even innocent until proved guilty!
Amendment of 1997:
Following six years of vigorous campaigning, hundreds of supported court cases, death and suffering to thousands of pet dogs from puppies to adults to the old and disabled and heaps of distress, misery and injustice regularly inflicted on law-abiding dog owners, the Act was amended in 1997, giving Magistrates limited discretion when sentencing, enabling some dogs found guilty to be registered and thus allowed to live a restricted life, as an alternative to destruction.
The Burden of Proof remained reversed and the Index still remained closed to applications to register from dog owners. Over the past few years the number of dogs prosecuted as an illegal type had drastically dwindled in number; unfortunately the BSL machinery capable of inflicting so much damage has remained intact.
Tragic events have resurrected the Act in 2007 and many now feel that it is high time to review the workings of the legislation and seek further changes to better protect the public and dogs.
EDDR Position on BSL:
Endangered Dogs Defence & Rescue does not support breed specific legislation (BSL), such as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA) which has failed over the past sixteen years to prevent many serious dog attacks whilst proving to be unworkable and grossly unfair to responsible dog owners.
Our position is based on over ten years experience with BSL in the UK, working daily at grass roots level directly with the pet dogs most affected by the legislation and with the families who have suffered due to its draconian nature, presumption towards destruction and presumption towards guilt.
We feel that attempting to ban types of dog has not actively worked to protect the public or promote responsible dog ownership; it is not the solution to problems created by irresponsible owners and breeders. This has been shown time and time again as responsible dog owners are persecuted whilst irresponsible or uneducated owners and breeders are largely unaffected. EDDR, along with many other groups, believe it is time to focus on the dog owner rather than the breed or type of dog.
Breed specific legislation is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that all dogs of a specific breed are inherently dangerous based on the actions of a few clearly in irresponsible hands. It is not based on any scientific fact or logical thinking. Dogs are restricted and deemed dangerous according to their phenotype - what they look like largely determines their fate.
Any dog of any breed can behave aggressively, labeling all individuals of a specific breed as ‘dangerous’ sends a false message to the public; that all other dogs not banned will automatically not show any aggression.
In our opinion, breed or ‘type’ bans are a smokescreen which falsely give the impression that action has been taken to prevent dog attacks, when in reality little is being achieved. It makes good headline news to be seen to ‘get tough’ meanwhile those who are actually misusing dogs go largely undetected or simply move onto another breed of dog and so the cycle continues.
The amended legislation ten years on has given a false impression that the problem of ‘dangerous dogs’ has been resolved, when the real concerns go by ignored. Unless, that is, there is a serious incident accompanied by press attention which causes a reaction and calls for action, as it did in 1991. To some, banning breeds may seem acceptable after an event, as it did 16 years ago. However, the hastily drafted Act of 1991 did not stop attacks by dogs and it never will.
It is time to get tough on bad owners and not the dogs themselves. The present law targets dogs not people. The growing problem of irresponsible dog owners as well as those purposely breeding dogs to line their own pockets with no regard to the welfare of their dogs is not addressed. Instead responsible pet dog owners can become easy targets and are unfairly persecuted through no fault of their own.
Dog Bite Injuries:
The number of dog bites per year is unfortunately not centrally recorded, so we have little evidence by which to gauge the effectiveness of any legislation. However, one study showed that that there was actually little impact on the number of hospital attendances due to bite injuries following the introduction of the DDA(2).
There are often many factors identified in leading to a serious dog attack. Animal behaviorists and welfare groups agree that the main factors which may cause a dog to act dangerously include poor socialisation, improper upbringing and care, a lack of suitable training and control, existence of health issues, neglect and abuse and in some cases the encouragement of aggressive behaviour by those who keep dogs for anti-social or criminal purposes.
Each year there continues to be serious dog biting incidents reported in the news, in our opinion - mostly by dogs that are known to the victim.
If we are serious about preventing dog bites and promoting responsible dog ownership then it surely must be important to realize that the majority of dog-related incidents actually happen in the home.
One study showed that 85% of bites occurred in the dog’s own home, the majority involving males(3). In a study of child victims of dog bites of 100 dog bite cases, 65 were bitten in the home and 35 in a public place. The bite accidents that occurred at home concerned children with a median age of 5 years, who were without adult supervision at the time of the accident. The children who were bitten by dogs in public places had a median age of 9 years(4).
Another study demonstrated that in over 70% of cases, people are bitten by their own pets or by an animal known to them, with children under five years of age most at risk(5). An increase in animal bites is thought to occur in hot weather and during public holidays.
There were 4133 patients admitted to hospital in England in 2006, as a result of being bitten or struck by a dog (the data does not separate bites from strikes), children up to the age of nine were most commonly admitted with 886 (22%) admitted due to a bite or being struck by a dog.
Ten years previously in 1995-96 (when the dog population was 6.6 million) 2265 patients were admitted to hospital, again the most commonly injured, either bitten or struck, were children (772) up to nine years of age(6).
With these factors in mind, clearly the way forward to preventing many dog bites lies not with attempting to ban a relatively small number of dogs but with educating a large number of current and potential dog owners and their families.
What we need is better education and circulation of freely available information which will inform people on how to prevent dog bites from occurring – there is a wealth of information available out there but it is simply not getting through to where it is most needed.
Present Situation-the Index of Exempted Dogs:
Presently dogs can only be placed onto the Index by order of a court; there is currently no provision whereby a concerned dog owner can take their own steps to have their dog registered without the need for police or court intervention.
Owners who may be worried about their dog’s appearance are realistically left with few choices available to them. There is no option of owner led registration to bring the dog within the law - another politician’s inspiration was to close the Index even though it is clear from Government circulars that the law can be applied to dogs which result from the cross breeding of perfectly legal breeds.
To get a dog onto the Index it is necessary for you be found guilty of owning an illegal dog (a crime!) and to place yourself at the mercy of the courts. Pet dogs end up leading miserable lives where socialisation and welfare can and often are impeded, too frightened to venture out in the day or even attend training classes and too worried to visit the vets and all because someone may point the finger of accusation at them.
The 1996 House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee examined the workings of the Dangerous Dogs Act; their report(7) specifically refers in section 39. (d) to ‘new pit bulls terriers born after November 1991 and states:
“A further category in which some leniency might be in order is in the case, already noted above, of new pit bull terriers born after the register was closed. Such dogs may arise from cross breedings of two dogs neither of which are pit bull terriers, and it might be argued that in such cases it would be unreasonable to an owner to destroy the puppies, which have never had a chance to be duly registered and which may have been bred purely accidentally.”
Section 48. goes on to state that to allow these animals to live would involve re-opening the 1991 register, accepting that the 1991 generation would not be the last, as intended. But to not do so would give rise to a different danger, namely that owners finding that they have an unregistered dog will have little incentive to declare their animal and to arrange for it to be subject to all the safeguards that the Act requires.
Following consultation and submissions from many including the Home Office, CPS, Association of Chief Police Officers, Metropolitan Police, Magistrates Association, National Dog Wardens Association, BVA and RCVS, The Select Committee gave a list of Conclusions and Recommendations; number 11 states:
“We therefore recommended that; “the 1991 Act be amended so that owners of pit bull terriers born after November 1991 may register their dog (in accordance so far as applicable with the procedures laid down under the Act for registration before the 1991 deadline).
The British Veterinary Association (BVA) stated(8):
that “if the bread definition of the word ‘type’ is to continue resulting in a variety of dogs such as cross bred Staffordshire Bull Terriers being categorised as Pit Bull Terriers the Index of Exempted Dogs should be reopened to give owners the opportunity to comply with the requirements of the Act. Because such a wide variety of dogs are now being included under the term ‘type’ the Index will have to remain open for the foreseeable future”.
Present Welfare of Detained Dogs:
Physical and psychological damage to seized and detained dogs is an important welfare issue; physical injuries noted include broken teeth, pressure sores, weight loss, tail damage, self mutilation to the extremities and untreated wounds. Impounded dogs often arrive in kennels with no health history collected from their owners.
Four dogs recently died whilst held in police custody, due to preventable infection from the deadly disease parvo virus.
Apprehended pet dogs can endure weeks and often months in unsuitable kennel environments at huge public expense awaiting breed identification and court hearings, when in the case of friendly pet dogs the law does not demand that this need be the case at all.
If a dog is seized and held with minimal opportunities for exercise and daily human and/or canine contact, the effects of isolation on the dog’s behaviour can be devastating. Recently, one previously friendly pet dog had to be put to sleep at his owners request to prevent his further agony - having suffered immense kennel stress due to the confines of his kennel environment.
The Way Forward:
When a dog attack receives publicity, what often results is a wave of negative press concerning the breed involved-especially if it can be easily demonized, which frequently ignites a reaction calling for tougher measures to be taken against dogs rather than addressing the real issue – owners.
We agree that changes must be made but it is vital that these changes are properly thought out long-term measures and not ineffective, reactive ones which will only cause more needless suffering to people and dogs alike. We want changes which will work to better prevent adults and children from being bitten by a dog.
All of us need to adopt a calm and mature approach and work together. This is the only way we can obtain the best results for humans and dogs alike.
Short Term Measures:
EDDR does not support ‘amnesties’ or ‘hand-ins’ whereby dog owners are asked or feel pressured to give over their pet dog for destruction without being prosecuted. The recent Merseyside Amnesty was based on whether the dog was ‘illegal’ - of the wrong ‘type’, whilst owners of ‘dangerous’ dogs were advised the hand-in was for illegal dogs only and to seek veterinary advice if they have a dangerous dog(9).
The Amnesty was not supported by the Dogs Trust or Kennel Club. Considering that those who abuse dogs are already operating outside of the law and not likely to take any notice of a hand-in, those mainly affected are responsible dog owners and so once again the law persecutes the innocent and fails to improve public safety.
EDDR supports the short-term opening of the Index of Exempted Dogs to enable a dog owner (including a local authority in the case of stray dogs) to register their pet dog and bring it within the law, without court or police intervention. This should be wholly voluntary and an individual choice for the owner; until such a time as an alternative to BSL is implemented.
We don’t want responsible dog owners living in fear from day to day, fearful that their pet dog may be seized and lose its life, too frightened to venture out to the vets, walk down the street, attend training classes, and all because of how their dog looks. Far too many dogs lead miserable impoverished lives due to the threat of being seized and prosecuted as a ‘type’. Enabling the legalisation of threatened dogs would bring relief to owners and ensure a better quality of life for those who feel affected.
Currently under Section 4b of the Act – an application for the dog’s destruction is made and the owner, who is desperate for their dog’s speedy return home and has already been waiting for weeks, if not months, will usually plead guilty and hope for the mercy of the court.
Without the likelihood of legal aid under this section, there is usually little chance of the defendant being able to afford the experts needed to prove their dog is not of the type.
Re-opening the Index would enable the registration of some pet dogs without the need for criminal or civil proceedings, in addition:
Currently the legal position regarding the transfer of registered dogs to new owners is unclear. EDDR believes it is important that registered dogs can be legally transferred to a new owner-in the event of their registered owner no longer being able to care for their dog.
Often registered owners carry a heavy burden with the knowledge that in the event of them being unable to care for their cherished dog – their dog will be without a legal owner and may end up dead.
There should be a procedure set up to facilitate the legal re-homing of a registered dog in a 
straightforward and easy to follow manner. Allowing the registered owner to transfer ownership to another responsible person, with the details recorded at the Index of Exempted Dogs within a designated time.
Enabling registered dogs to legally transfer ownership will safeguard that their whereabouts is at all times registered up-to-date and known.
Each year, thousands of dogs require the help of a rescue and rehoming service - registered dogs should be able to be legally registered and legally rehomed by a change in ownership when rehomed by rescue organisations.
There are no national figures to suggest how many home-able crossbreeds are dying each year, put to sleep as a ‘type’ as the rescue organisation is unable to register and rehome a pet dog that has come to them for help or is already under their care.
Allowing dogs to be registered and rehomed by rescue groups would better protect the public; as dogs who are not taken in by rescues due to the restrictive nature of the law, may end up not neutered and in irresponsible hands.
We would like to see health insurance cover made available to registered dogs; currently we have not found a company which will offer health insurance to a registered dog, with increasing numbers of dogs being registered, many dog owners may find themselves in the position of being unable to afford veterinary fees if their dog becomes ill and in need of treatment.
The seizure and prolonged detainment of pet dogs held either pending breed identification or legal proceedings in unsuitable kennel situations, has had serious welfare implications for many of the dogs involved.
The kenneling and subsequent isolation of any dog under any legislation should be avoided where at all possible-the vast majority of kennel environments into which dogs have been placed are simply not sufficient for long term use.
In present situations where only a dog’s type is in question, pet dogs should be left in their family homes whilst awaiting a legal hearing, with written legally binding agreement from the dog’s owner, to act responsibly and neuter and ID chip their dog if not already done. This would ensure that pets are not left deteorating in kennel situations, reduce the stress and anxiety to owners by enforced separation and greatly reduce the burden on the public purse – due to daily kenneling costs incurred by the tax payer.
The Home Office last issued guidelines in 1994(10) referring to the welfare of dogs in custody. These guidelines advise that due regard should be given to the welfare of animals held pending trials, with adequate veterinary inspection as necessary; these guidelines need to be brought up to date and better enforced.
The Metropolitan Police hold monthly meetings, Chaired by Superintendent Ovens, to review every detained dog to ensure that no dog is kept any longer than it should be, the Met. Police monitor each case and dogs are behaviourally examined by independent experts through partnership agreements, those dogs which can be re-homed after legal proceedings are re-homed, dogs are only destroyed on the personal authority of Superintendent Ovens.
We believe that the Government should consult with canine behaviourists and welfare organisations to immediately issue national guidelines, encompassing those welfare issues already identified by the Met. Police for the seizure and detention of dogs.
Guidelines which run in line with the Welfare of Animals Act 2006, raising the standards in which dogs can be held, so that their mental as well as their physical needs are met, with additional guidelines covering the special needs of pregnant bitches and puppies who should not be detained in kennel environments.
There should be regular independent inspection and monitoring to make sure these guidelines are being strictly adhered too, someone needs to be held accountable and responsible when a dog is held under their jurisdiction and not adequately cared for.
The constitutional principle of innocent until proved guilty should apply under the DDA. The Home Affairs Select Committee recommended that section 5 (5) relating to the burden of proof should be repealed.
Long Term Measures:
EDDR supports research and discussion towards alternative solutions, such as:
Regulation:
Education:
Research:
References:
Copyright
© Endangered Dogs Defence & Rescue Ltd
October 2007
Webmistress I Terms and Conditions I Contact Copyright © 2006-2007 Endangered Dogs Defence and Rescue Ltd |