Spring 2001 Newsletter

We hope that this Newsletter helps to bring you up to date and is informative to our readers both here and overseas.

In our last issue we gave details of the terrible news of the situation developing in Germany and the introduction of breed specific legislation (BSL) throughout its 16 states.

Thank you to everyone who responded and helped by writing letters of protest to the German authorities and collecting signatures for the petition we circulated to you. News of the situation in Germany was slow to filter through to dog owners here in the UK but lots of people have helped to spread the word. Opposition to the new laws and support for German dog owners and their innocent dogs has been offered and continues in many forms from many different quarters.

In an effort to spread the breed bans into Europe the German Government raised the issue at the EU Justice/Home Affairs Council meeting, listed under the last item on the agenda 'any other business', the German delegation read out their statement of 1.5 pages but there was no discussion as no other national delegation commented on the item. The Chairperson closed the meeting by stating that the Council took note of the German initiative. It was felt that it was not up to the EU to legislate in the matter and the Internal Market Council were said to be responsible.

The position remains under close watch from several of our MEPs. The German situation is still very appalling, the new Federal Law has now been passed and much now depends on numerous court hearings which are awaited in many areas throughout Germany. Meanwhile countless people and their dogs remain to live in a terrible climate of fear, fear of reprisals from other people, fear from the authorities heavy handed tactics, fear that their dog will be taken away, poisoned or even shot, it has happened, the cases are documented.

Dog owners have found the strength to battle on, great uncertainty remains for thousands of pet dogs in Germany and now the threat of further breed bans has spread into other countries, it is the greatest threat to mans best friend ever known, but dog owners are uniting to hold back the tide, trying to gain an inch of ground here and there.

'Pan-European legislation on dangerous dogs not supported...'

HOME OFFICE RESPONSE:

In reply to our letter concerning 'Dangerous Dog' legislation here and overseas, this reply was received from the Animals, Bye-laws & Coroners Unit.

Thank you for your letter to the Home Secretary expressing deep concern about the position in Germany in relation to dangerous dogs and the possibility of the introduction of EU wide legislation in this area. I have been asked to reply.

As far as the position in Germany is concerned, Ministers and officials are only too aware of reports about restrictions to be placed on a number of breeds/types of dog under proposed internal legislation in Germany. The view is that legislation adopted by the German Federal Government and the Laender is entirely a matter for them. After all, such an approach forms part of the argument against a EU wide measure.

As to any possible move towards EU legislation, the Government's position on this issue remains, regardless of which of our European partners may be pressing the matter and how often it is raised, that the idea of pan-European legislation on dangerous dogs would not be supported. It is felt inappropriate to deal with this matter in such a way as legislation or other controls in this area should remain essentially a domestic public safety matter for each region - where such powers are devolved - or Member State. As you may know, the Government are firmly of the view that the current UK law, predominantly in the form of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended in 1997), is adequate for present and future needs in this country. There are no plans to extend those restrictions to types of dog currently listed or to use the other powers the Act confers. Whatever happens, the Government would not agree to any framework more stringent than that.

HOME OFFICE

News from YOUR MEP’s: Well done to everyone who has written to their MEP's, bringing the anti-dog situation in Europe to their attention. Many have responded on a very positive and encouraging note. Some have now received abundant correspondence so they are well aware of public feeling on the issue. Here is a sample (too many to print) from some of the responses received to EDDR letters.

Mr. N.J.Deva MEP: (Conservative)

- DOGS AT RISK IN EUROPE

Thank you for your letter about the possibility of an EU ban on dangerous dogs. I know that many people are worried about this. As I am sure you are aware, following a particular incident in Germany where a dog was apparently responsible for killing a child, the German Government brought in a ban on the breeding and importation of certain breeds of dog.

When the European ministers with responsibility for Home Affairs met on September the 28th, the German delegation tabled a short paper requesting that the European Commission should look at the legal basis for the introduction of EU-wide measure banning the keeping of certain dogs. The representatives of the other Member States present offered no comment.

The European Commissioner responsible for Justice and Home Affairs, Antonio Vitorina foresaw a number of potential problems with this request. He pointed out that the threat is not really sufficient to warrant an EU-wide measure, and that any proposal from the Commission would probably infringe the principle of "subsidiarity", which means that the EU should not do everything, but that decisions should where appropriate, be taken at the local or national level. Overall he doubted whether the legal basis for an EU proposal on this issue actually existed.

After many discussions with people at the Kennel Club and various breed societies, my view is that the German government has been panicked into seeking EU action by a single incident and the desire to be seen to be "doing something about it".

I have no doubt at all that, legally, there is no basis for EU action on this issue. If such an action is proposed, my Conservative colleagues and I will oppose it with all the force at our command.

****************************

Dr. C. Tannock MEP: (Conservative)

Many thanks for drawing this matter to my attention. As someone who is an animal lover myself, I deplore any laws which arbitrarily destroy dogs which pose no threat to humankind, as would appear to be the case with the legislation being proposed by the German Government. The Council of Ministers have very recently turned down proposed EU wide legislation in this area....

The European Union's remit only concerns animal rights with respect to their conditions during transportation between member states and the conditions concerning the rearing and slaughtering of animals due for human consumption. I am not aware that the EU has any other powers to intervene with regard to pets being banned because of a potential risk to public safety. Nethertheless, if a debate on the matter arises in the European Parliament, I would naturally support your views in the hope of putting pressure on the German Government to see more sense on this matter. I am not fully appraised of the issue of non-breed versus breed specific legislation and would be interested in more supporting evidence before concluding that this is the way ahead. I will be discussing the issue with my colleagues to see what more could be done to preserve these magnificent creatures.

**********************************

Stephen Hughes MEP: (Labour)

The German proposals for legislation on dangerous dogs, as in any other country, are a matter for that nation only and we are not able to intervene. As for any proposal for EU wide legislation, there is no detail of what form any proposals will take. The UK has had effective national legislation since 1991 for dealing with the problem of dangerous dogs. This prevents ownership, breeding, sale and exchange of specified types of fighting dogs: pit bull terriers, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Braziliero. The UK legislation also specifies severe penalties for owners of non-specified breeds who allow their dogs to be out of control or to injure someone, and it also allows for other breeds to be designated as dangerous if this becomes necessary. At present this seems to be a matter best dealt with by individual Member States - although where countries share land borders they may decide to tackle the issue in a similar way, as many dog owners and their dogs cross these borders regularly. Thank you for letting me know of your concerns about this matter. I will be following it closely as I know many of my constituents will be taking an interest. I will also ensure that your concerns are passed to relevant members of the European Parliament or Ministers, should any proposals be brought forward in the future.

*****************************************

Jonathan Evans MEP: (Conservative)

Thank you for your letter............I have actively campaigned for amendment of the UK Dangerous Dogs Act because of my concerns that similar UK tragedies led to poor and ill-thought-out legislation. It is of course, vitally important that public safety is paramount when dealing with issues of this nature, but the Staffordshire Bull Terrier has been a well loved fairly pet in the UK for many years, and in the care of responsible owners poses no threat to the public.

Although, as British MEP's we do not have any direct influence over internal German legislation, should this issue come before the European Parliament as a European matter you can be assured that we will oppose efforts to impose such ill-thought-out legislation and your representations are thus most helpful.

**************************************

Jean Lambert MEP: (Green Party)

Thank you for your letter.....I will be bringing the points raised by you and other constituents to the attention of my German Green Group colleagues, many of whom are especially concerned with animal welfare and the proper and fair treatment of domestic animals by humans. In the event of this issue ever being raised at the European level some time in the future the Greens in the Parliament would be opposed to breed specific legislation.

***************************************

Robert Evans MEP: (Labour)

In the meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 28th September, although Germany requested that the EC should draft legislation on this issue, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether they have the legal competence to do this. Although the matter is not completely resolved, the situation does look good for dog lovers in the UK and elsewhere, as the likelihood of EU legislation being introduced is dwindling. As negotiations continue within the EU institutions and the EU as a whole, you can be assured that Robert and many of his Labour colleagues in Parliament will fight against the adoption of such legislation.

This also reflects the view of the British Government, who are against the introduction of EU legislation on dangerous dogs. At present this seems to be a matter best dealt with by individual member States-although where countries share land borders they may decide to tackle the issue in a similar way, as many dog owners and their dogs cross these borders regularly.

***************************************

Baroness Ludford MEP: (Lib Dem)

Whilst I am no specialist in this field, I have enormous sympathy with your views that panic legislation is the worst kind of response to this problem. I also entirely accept that grouping together a Staffordshire Bull Terrier along with other breeds is inaccurate and in the eyes of many dog owners unfair. Indeed I have long been of the view that the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 in the UK is a classic example of rushed and imperfect legislation. If there are any moves to extend the German Legislation across Europe, you can be assured I for one would try to resist it. Like you, I believe there is no case of EU wide action.

***************************************

Theresa Villiers MEP: (Conservative)

I have discussed this matter with Conservative MP and MEP colleagues. I have written to the German Ambassador and to the European Commission urging them to stop this legislation. You might consider writing to them as well. I shall also raise the issue with my German colleagues in the European parliament many of whom are sympathetic to your point and willing to raise your concerns with their government. I raised the issue with their Animal Welfare Intergroup of the European parliament who are looking into the matter as a matter of urgency. One of my Conservative colleagues included your concerns in a speech to the full plenary session of the European Parliament I am pleased to inform you that the threat of an EU directive on so-called dangerous dogs seems to have receded. After consulting contacts at the Commission, I was assured that they had no plans for such legislation. The issue was recently discussed by EU ministers. They too decided against proposals for EU legislation in this area. I am sure that the many letters which have been sent to the UK and German Ministers had an impact on this decision and I would like to thank you for the role which you have played in highlighting the concerns of so many dog lovers in the UK. The German proposals are still ongoing, however, and remain a source of very serious concern.

I am continuing my campaign on this legislation. I remain deeply worried about the threat to thousands of harmless and much loved family pets. I will keep you updated on any further progress which I make.

************************************

Questions to the E.C:

Tabled by T. Villiers MEP on the subject of 'dangerous dogs'.

Question: Does the Commission have any plans to introduce legislation on dangerous dogs in the EU If so, on what grounds does the Commission justify action at a community rather than a member state level?

Should not the principle of subsidiarity dictate that this should be left to member States to decide? Does the Commission have any plans to introduce EU rules to ban the breed of Staffordshire Bull Terriers?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the EC: The Commission would inform the Honourable member that it currently has no plans to propose Community harmonisation designed to ban dangerous dogs.

It therefore has no intention of proposing any rules banning Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

In this case, the Commission believes that it is up to the Member States to adopt the appropriate national measures, while complying with the rules of the EC Treaty, in particular Articles 28 and 30 (ex Articles 30 and 36) thereof.

Indeed, although Article 28 stipulates that member States may not adopt national measures that create restrictions on the free movement of the animals concerned, Article 30 authorises them to do so if such measures are justified on grounds of the protection of the health and life of humans, provided that the restrictions concerned are proportionate to the objective to be attained and are applicable without distinction.

************************************

Scientific evidence requested:

I can inform you that the European Commission has recently sent observations, in the framework of the notification procedure laid down in Directive 98/34/EC on technical standards and regulations, to the German authorities concerning the dangerous dog law. As regard to articles 28-30 of the EC Treaty, the European Commission has asked the German authorities to communicate scientific evidence, which in their view could legitimate banning the import of Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Pit Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers.

Moreover, the European Commission has urged the German authorities to consider the adoption of less stringent, measures analogous to those adopted by France and United Kingdom.

David Byrne
European Commission
(So far the German Government has failed to respond)

************************************

Letter to Rt. Hon. Tony Blair MP
Prime Minister

Dear Mr Blair

On behalf of my parliamentary colleagues, the Kennel Club, other concerned canine charities and dog lovers in the UK, we visit you today to express our deep concern at some countries recent attempts to introduce punitive legislation aimed at curtailing the keeping and breeding of particular types of dog.

In particular, Germany, Spain, France and Holland are all in the process of drafting their own 'dangerous dog' legislation that specifically targets and persecutes individual breeds of dog solely on their ancestry, without any consideration for their individual temperaments. Dogs in America, Canada and Australia are also experiencing similar hostilities and we wonder what are the reasons for this blatant persecution of 'mans best friend'.

We are naturally very concerned regarding the current inclusion of breeds such as the Bullmastiff, Old English Mastiff, Rottweiler and Anatolian Karabash and several other historically significant and popular British breeds such as the Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, solely on the basis of their distant ancestry. Concerned dog lovers with these breeds of dog have specifically come to visit you today to demonstrate just how amiable they are. These breeds are well established in the UK and make ideal family pets.

The policy of dog lovers in the UK has always been clear with regard to so called dangerous dogs and vicious dogs. 'Punish the deed, not the breed', based on the circumstances of individual occurrences. Breed specific legislation is not the solution, as it is unacceptable to ban all dogs of a specific breed based on the actions of a single animal. The UK has experienced the complexities and injustice of our own Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and it has shown that Breed Specific legislation does not work.

Evidence from all over the world demonstrates the failure of breed Specific legislation to significantly affect any possible threat to the public and in contrast actually deflects both the public and enforcement agencies away from the right and proper measures needed to identify and restrict the activities of a few criminal or careless owners.

We urge you and your colleagues to consider the evidence amply demonstrated by the continuing popularity of these breeds in the United Kingdom as to their trustworthy and safe nature when properly owned and controlled by law-abiding citizens.

Whilst we have received correspondence from Mike O'Brien, Under Secretary of State at the Home Office assuring us that you will oppose any measures that you regard as over-prescriptive, or which would require laws more stringent than the Dangerous Dogs Act, the letter went on to say that "you have no objection in principle to harmonising controls of dangerous dogs across Europe." This factor obviously causes us all concern.

Please do not support any Breed Specific legislation IN Europe which would endanger the life or freedom of family pet dogs. Please consider the genuine facts and evidence before effectively playing a role phasing out these breeds and thus distressing thousands of family pets and their owners throughout the world.

Yours sincerely

Roger Helmer MEP
John Bowis OBE MEP
Dr Charles Tannock MEP
Theresa Villiers MEP

************************************

UK DDA Register-Exempt Of Exempted Dogs:

In a written Parliamentary question, Lord Baker of Dorking asked how dogs have been registered under the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act in each of the last nine years.

The answer was given by Lord Bassam of Brighton who listed the number of dogs registered with the Index of Exempted Dogs at the end of each year from 1991 to 1999.

 

Year	Dogs
1991	2,801
1992	4,821
1993	4,286
1994	3,825
1995	3,430
1996	3,135
1997	2,841
1998	2,566
1999	2,151

Considering how dangerous these dogs are supposed to be - it is amazing that we have not ever heard reports of people being attacked in their homes, these 'time bombs waiting to explode', have had nine years and still nothing!

As the years pass, the numbers decrease and the dogs get older –

What happens when the majority of 'dangerous' dogs have died?

When the scapegoat's numbers have dwindled - What breed will be next?

************************************

DDA Reform Group Update:

The DDA Reform Group held a meeting in October 2000. Colin Goff attended and represented EDDR. Other organisations represented included; BARDO, the Blue Cross, BSAVA, Kennel Club, NCDL, PRO DOGS, RSPCA, SBT Breed Council and Wood Green Animal Shelters.

There was a minutes silence for Baroness Ziki Wharton who sadly passed away earlier this year. Baroness Wharton was instrumental in pushing through the DDA Amendment Bill in 1997.

Legislation is now being passed in Northern Ireland to bring their laws into line with the DDA. There seems to be very little difference between the NI new law and the UK Amendment Act of 1997.

The Group agreed to consider preparing a draft Bill which could be put forward as a good basis for non breed-specific legislation to pre-empt the authorities in the event of EU legislation being imposed. If such legislation were imposed in the future, it could be a route to over-ride the breed-specifics of the UK laws.

Lord Soulsby explained that the CAWC group would, in time, be looking at the wider issue of dog legislation, but probably not before next year.

It was agreed that a Working Party be formed to discuss the issues of draft legislation-a model law for possible presentation to the European Authorities and the costs involved. A report would be presented to the Reform Group before taking any action which would incur costs.

Mr Cooper voiced his strong reservations at taking any pro-active steps to encourage non breed-specific legislation as he felt that raising the issue could have exactly the opposite effect, particularly in view of the fact that the UK legislation is breed-specific. He felt that the facilities of the Group should, rather, be used in attempting to settle outstanding issues in our own legislation. Mr Goody added that the Blue Cross would only proceed if the emphasis was on bringing together the current UK legislation.

************************************

DDA Reform Group-Working Party On Non Breed Specific Legislation
Meetings MINUTES (Jan 2001):

Item: Caroline Kisko (Kennel Club) was nominated Chairperson for the meeting. CK advised that the Kennel Club had met with European counterparts and it was felt that the best way forward was to directly approach David Byrne,the EU Commissioner, in an attempt to tackle Breed Specific Legislation (BSL). It was agreed by the Group that although EU legislative harmonisation may not be the solution, it would be best practice to prepare for it, if ever introduced. Action: All

Item: S. Goody (Blue Cross) proposed that the Kennel Club are best qualified to take the campaign forward, in conjunction with relevant parties to include input from FVE in particular. Action: KC/ALL

Item: P. De Vile (NCDL) reiterated why the group had been founded;

1. To combat BSL

2. To standardise temperament testing. All discussed the implications of drafting new legislation and the advantages/disadvantages of BSL and permanent identification.

Item: N. De Briyne (FVE) advised that FVE promotes both education and identification when considering 'dangerous dogs' - factors that the Veterinary 'Euro Group' were also interested in.

Item: D Levy (SBT KC Liaison) referred to the training of 'fighting dogs' and their early socialisation and also discussed draft legislation to penalise 'dog fighters' more severely. All parties agreed. R Green (FVE) felt that a more in depth study of socialisation needed to be implemented. C. Laurence (RSPCA) felt that the 'long term traits' in dogs also needed assessment. Action: ALL

Item: D. Levy considered the licensing of dog ownership to be an option. C. Laurence (RSPCA) advised that it would be difficult to legally enforce. All agreed that current legislation was inadequate and comprehensive scientific research was necessary. C. Laurence (RSPCA) and S Goody (Blue Cross) to contact John Bradshaw (statistician and researcher-Southampton University) to seek his views. CL to discuss with RSPCA Special Investigations Unit, how they would like to see current 'dog fighting' legislation amended. Action: CL/SG

Item: NDE was asked about FVE recommendations and PDV asked whether temperament tests could be standardised. NDE to discuss with relevant European Veterinary Association (FEDIAF). Action: NDE

Item: C.L (RSPCA) advised that we need to agree and approve any temperament tests prior to implementation, which should be based on temperament towards people rather than towards other animals (eg-cats). Action: ALL

ENDS

************************************

Federation Of Veterinarians Of Europe

FVE POSITION ON DANGEROUS DOGS:

Background

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. These measures can be divided into two categories. The first addressing the behaviour of the individual dog and the second addressing the behaviour of certain breeds or breed types.

Current Situation:

* 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 has 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.

Way Forward:

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.

a) Education:

* 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.

b) Identification:

* Effective measures will require 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.

c) Research programmes:

* 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.

d) Testing programmes:

* 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 developments.

* Existing procedures, though scientifically validated, are to be extended so that it becomes feasible to apply them on a large scale.

Recommendations:

FVE urges the European Commission and Member States to:

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.

For further information click on The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE).

************************************

DDA – Section Three:

Most of our readers will be aware that Section Three of the Dangerous Dogs Act applies to every breed or type of dog.

Offence Description:	Court proceedings	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999
s.3.1- aggravated offence. Dog dangerously out of control in a public place & injuring any person.	Cautions Prosecution Conviction	- - -	21 310 131	29 349 138	36 286 113	43 259 93	80 221 70	69 259 121	78 434 239	110 446 261
s.3.1- non aggravated offence. Dog dangerously out of control in a public place, no injury being caused.	Cautions Prosecution Conviction	- - -	143 389 181	148 302 137	134 196 81	112 189 77	44 162 64	65 175 88	67 248 125	67 245 122
s.3.3- aggravated offence. Allowing a dog to enter a non public place & injure any person.	Cautions Prosecution Conviction	- - -	5 20 8	2 36 8	3 25 13	5 23 8	8 18 6	8 22 5	5 28 13	19 31 18
s.3.3- non aggravated. Allowing a dog to enter a non-public place causing reasonable apprehension of injury to a person.	Cautions Prosecution Conviction	- - -	3 30 10	- 21 14	6 8 5	8 18 8	3 4 -	5 10 4	4 12 8	4 8 5

Are the Authorities more likely to commence proceedings under the DDA since the Act's Amendment in 1997?

Past Home Office Circulars have advised that practitioners be satisfied that the circumstances of the offence, including the gravity of the injuries caused, are so serious that the public interest requires a prosecution under Section Three of the DDA, rather than under one of the earlier statutes. Circular 9/1994 states: "Prosecuting authorities will wish to consider whether proceedings under one of these earlier statutes would be preferable to using the 1991 Act in cases of lesser severity."

Does this advice still hold now that the mandatory destruction has been removed?

Are lesser incidents prosecuted under the 1871 Dogs Act rather than the DDA?

Without the figures from other legislation we cannot compare, EDDR has requested statistical information for the 1871 Act.

Looking here at Section 3.1 aggravated and non aggravated/public place we do know that -

* Prosecutions for non-aggravated offences in a public place have risen since the Act was Amended in 1997:

Prosecutions for non-aggravated offences (public place) under the DDA s3.1 dropped from 389 in '92 to 162 in '96, but then increased from 175 in '97 to 245 in 1999.

* Prosecutions for aggravated offences in a public place, Sec 3.1, have also risen since 1997:

The mean average for the two years prior to the Amendment ('95,'96) was 240 prosecutions but in the two years following the Amendment ('98,'99) this figure almost doubled to a average of 440 prosecutions.

Are you more likely to be found guilty since the mandatory destruction was removed in the 1997 Amendment ? From the figures supplied we do know that -

* The conviction rate is higher for non-aggravated offences in a public place (sec 3.1) since the Act was Amended in 1997:

The percentage of people actually convicted under sec 3.1 has risen since the Amendment of 1997. From 41% in '94, 41% in '95 and 40% in '96 to 50% in '98 and 50% in '99.

* The conviction rate is also higher for aggravated offences in a public place (sec 3.1) since the Act was Amended in 1997:

The percentage of people actually convicted under sec 3.1 has risen since the Amendment of 1997. From 36% in '95 and 32% in '96 to 55% in '98 and reaching a all time high of 59% in 1999.

Solicitor Trevor Cooper commented: "It is an alarming change."

************************************

Petition Success:

The petition organised and launched by Joanna Mason, widely circulated and also enclosed with our August News Update has closed.

Over 11,500 signatures have been collected from all over the country.

Mrs Mason split the petition into five parts and sent with accompanying material to:-

* Roy Hattersley, Labour politician and owner of a Stafford cross named Spike - 2,500 signatures.

* German Embassy in London - 2,500 signatures.

* Gerhard Schroeder, German Chancellor - 2,500 signatures.

* Theresa Villiers MEP - 3,000 signatures.

* Tony Benn, former Labour MP - 1,000 signatures.

Letters of support have been received from both Roy Hattersley and Tony Benn.

Information packages also sent to Sports champions & Staffordshire owners Jimmy White & Nigel Benn.

Locked away in Germany, at the Unna Shelter. One of many shelters crowded (71 in December) with dogs due to new laws.

The petition was signed by many who are trying to help dogs like this one imprisoned above.

Thank you!

************************************

GLOBAL PICTURE:

It wasn't long before breed bans began to spread like wild fire across Europe. Amidst the confusion dog owners begin to unite in an effort to hold back the incoming tide, stacking their sand bags as high as they can, working day and night. In order to build a better picture and identify specific 'hot spots', we have gained details of breed specific laws in as many areas as possible. The idea is that if we know where laws are being proposed and debated the details can be circulated and we can all work together in opposition.

So we needed information as to exactly which countries already have and those which are considering introducing, laws which ban or restrict specific breeds or types of dog. The information we have gained is current, dated to this newletter, and mostly originates from official sources, we will post this list to the EDDR web site where it can hopefully be expanded, utilised and up dated.

It has been backbreaking work with hours consumed trying to access information from so many countries. The extensive search began by writing to the Embassies of 25 countries making enquiries as to what types of legislation existed, what might be proposed and which dogs are/where to be banned. Some replied, but we also needed to approach other sources such as Kennel Clubs and MAFF etc. We were also referred to many other sources overseas which we continue to follow up.

The more knowledge we can arm ourselves with, the better we can help defend and ultimately save the dogs threatened, imprisoned and persecuted - it's a global problem on a global scale and the situation will become a lot worse for many before we will optimistically anticipate any improvements.

We hope to add many more countries not yet covered on this list, if you have any information for a particular area - please pass it on to us.

Here follows what we know so far:

Austria: Is to introduce non-breed specific legislation. The law states that the definition of a 'fighting dog' is not possible. The legislation is the result of consultation in September 2000, where a team of advisors lead by Hans Mosser (editor WUFF) which included vets, scientists,behaviourists, trainers and breeders who carried out research and concluded that they opposed breed bans and that it is the owner not the breed which needs controlling. Catherine Walker said. "Being pro-active certainly pays, as long as your government is prepared to listen, but isn't that what governments were once supposed to do!"

Australia: There is a national importation ban for 'Pit Bulls', the Tosa and Fila B. It came into force in 1991. Each state enacts its own legislation. The state of Victoria is expected to be the first to be tested for BSL, a recent (May) news report states that Victoria is now set to overhaul dog laws which will include the COMPULSORY de-sexing, muzzling and microchipping of specific breeds of dog. Some dogs may also be CONFINED to their owner's property in purpose-built enclosures. In the report, RSPCA president Dr. Hugh Wirth has welcomed the new restrictions, which he said would be "put up as law very soon". "They appear to be plain common sense, we have got to lower dramatically the number of dogs of this type in the community," he said. Lost Dogs' Home General Manager Graeme Smith agreed pit bull terriers should be banned from the state. He said he would also fully support a government move to prevent any animal shelters rehousing lost or stray pit bulls. The article also stated: "The laws will see Victoria join parts of the US, Britain and Germany in banning the violent fighting dog known for its aggressive temperament and deadly bite."

It looks like breed bans have been a issue for some time now, even back to 1991, the negative publicity corresponds to the onslaught of stories we had over here in the UK around this time also, just prior to the introduction of the UK DDA 1991.

An example of what this hysteria causes - from the Herald-Sun:

'Pit Bull killed in yard stoning'

"A PET pit bull terrier was stoned to death and a second badly injured in the backyard of a Sydney home yesterday. The dog's owner arrived home to find the dogs lying in the yard, which was littered with half bricks and stones."

The attack was blamed on the recommendations before the Government to ban the importing of specific dogs, hysterical fears in the community were said to have been created. Apparently the killers had climbed a back fence and thrown the stones and bricks on to the defenceless dogs.

Just like the hysteria in Germany which also lead to terrible assaults on dogs that follow and continue.

Barbados: A reply to our enquiry from the senior Veterinary Officer at the Ministry Of Agriculture in St.Michael, Barbados, states:

There are presently no laws in Barbados restricting specific breeds of dogs. There are no restrictions on the importation of specific breeds of dogs. Dangerous Dogs legislation is being considered for introduction in the near future (ends). Also confirmed in writing from the High Commissioner.

Belgium: After no response from the Belgium Embassy we wrote to the British Embassy in Brussels, this reply was from an official at the Health Ministry in Belgium:

At the moment, there is no import ban on any breeds of dog in Belgium. There are certain towns that have locally banned the keeping of certain breeds of dog. At the national level, the issue is being looked at by the Health Ministry but, as it is not so topical (it was last year), it is not a priority. An official also told me it was unlikely that breeds would be banned in the long term. What measures might be decided upon, remains very vague for the moment (ends).

National BSL was proposed and dropped in 1999, 15 breeds were listed including the Bull Terrier, Mastiff, Ridgeback, Rottweiler and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. So at a national level Belgium is presently free of BSL, but at a local level there are some breed bans in force. Information also confirmed by a dog owner in Belgium.

Brazil: Our request for information has been forwarded to the authorities in Brazil. Meanwhile we have learnt (Jan Cooper web site) that there was apparently a Law proposed in 1999, breeds listed for restrictions included, the American Staffordshire, Bull Terrier, Pit Bull Terrier, Rottweiler and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

Canada: There are 10 Provinces and 3 Territories. No provincial or federal laws enacted for or against BSL. Individual cities currently with BSL include:

Alberta:

* City of Edmonton - regulation refers to the Pit Bull variety. American Pit Bull Terrier or Pit Bull Terrier.

British Columbia:

* City of Coquitlam - Vicious dog also includes APBT, SBT, AST, Bull Terrier, any mix of. Dogs must be muzzled in public and securely confined when in their property.

* City of Vancouver - Vicious dog includes - the Pit Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Pit Bull, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire, any mix of one or more of these. Regulations include that dogs must be muzzled and securely confined indoors.

* City of Surrey - A happy story here, the originally breed specific Vicious Dog bylaw (1992-May 2000) is no longer. Replaced by the Surrey Responsibility By-law which is non breed specific!

* British Columbia Dangerous Dog Act which is a Province wide law passed August 2000. It is by no means perfect but it is Non-Breed specific which is a great starting point for more Provinces to follow suit. Two warrants issued, none implemented or acted upon as yet.

Thanks to Karen Lau, Chairperson, City of Surrey Dog Owners Education Committee, Surrey, BC for the information. Karen has been opposing BSL for over ten years and is part of the task force which overturned the law in Surrey, BC - after eight years! They never gave up.

Manitoba:

* City of Winnipeg - Has banned 'Pit Bulls' since 1990.

* City of Macdonald - Specific ban refers to 'Pit Bulls'.

Nova Scotia:

* City of Halifax - Possible considering BS and may have a law based on dog size. To be investigated.

Ontario:

* City of Kitchener - Waterloo - ban of Pit Bull Terriers in 1997. Dogs had to be registered, leashed & muzzled in public, owners must have liability insurance. Dogs not registered prior to 1997 cannot reside in the area. Restrictions placed on the APBT, PBT also the 'Pit Bull dog' as defined by the pound keeper. This includes any Staffordshire Bull Terrier which is not registered with the Canadian Kennel Club.

* City of London - The City Clerk's office replied to us: "In response to your question ... although this subject matter has been discussed in great length, there has not been any by-law passed restricting or banning the ownership of any specific breed or type of dog that any London resident can own. Good luck with your research.

* City of Midland - Leash & muzzle law for the Mastiff, Pit Bull Terrier and Rottweiler
.
* Town of Lakeshore - By-Laws to be amended, will incorporate BSL. To "prohibit the keeping of a vicious dog within the Corporation limits of the Town of Lakeshore".

Vicious defined as any dog of the Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, and American Staffordshire Terrier breeds of dog, also any mixes of these breeds or crosses of these breeds.

Quebec:

* City of Sherbrooke - controls refer to the American Staffordshire, Mastiff, 'Pit Bulls' and Rottweiler, to be confirmed.

Columbia: Full text of legislation received from the Asociacion Club Canino Colombiano in Buenos Aires, it in part reads:

Following your enquiry over the subject, I am pleased to inform you that the Bogotá’s Council has produced the Bill 36 of 1999, which was regulated by the Resolution 1644 of 28th December of 1999, upon it was established the rules to be followed by the owners of dangerous dogs like Pit Bull Terrier, Doberman, Rottweiler, Fila Basileiro and Japanese Tosa. The owners of these breeds have to carry a license, that allows them to own or take care of the dog (even for walks), with physical characteristics, gender, age and a picture of the animal, as well as the owner’s data and picture. This license is valid for 6 months, after this time it must be renewed (end). There is also a muzzle/leash restriction, full translation in progress.

Cook Islands: Information below from the Commissioner of Police - COOK ISLANDS:

The Cook Islands does have legislation in place known as the Dogs Registration Act 1986.

We have provisions that deal with dangerous breeds of dogs under "Controlled Dogs".

Section 2 defines "Controlled Dogs" to mean;

(a) any pure bred member of the species of dogs designated from time to time in the regulations,

(b) every cross-bred where at least 50 percent in the aggregate of the genes are from any one or more of the species of dogs designated in the regulations, or

(c) any dog designated from time to time as Dangerous by a constable or Dog Control Officer where, in the opinion of the officer, the dog is Dangerous (ends).

Cyprus: Breed specific legislation in operation and further legislation pending.

The following breeds cannot be imported into Cyprus: American Pit Bull or Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro. Apparently a new draft bill under the title "the Dogs Law of 2000" has been placed before the House of Representatives for enactment. This new Law, once enacted, shall repeal the old Dogs Law, Cap 52 and shall introduce specific provisions (section 11) against the import, possession, breeding, reproduction, sale and exchange of specified dog breeds including the Pit Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull, Japanese Tossa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brazileiro.

Czechoslovakia: Breed Specific Laws were presented to the Czech Parliament on 20th February 2001. It was rejected. A new general dog legislation shall be discussed within the next 3 months and it will NOT refer to any specific breeds. This was a victory!

There was a tremendous campaign launched in Czech to oppose the proposed BSL titled 'one meter' (the same meter/measure of rights for dog owners as non dog owners). Their petition was signed by 50,000, it gained international signatories with the help of the internet, EDDR had signed and sent forward objections to BSL, as did many others, after receiving a request for help entitled 'stop the European Monster'.

The breeds proposed for the ban are: American Staffordshire Terrier, Dogo Argentino, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Fila Brasileiro, Rottweiller, Dobermann, Pit Bull Terrier and their crosses.

Denmark: We have been referred and written to the Danish Ministry of Justice in Denmark. Reply awaited.

BSL was introduced in June 1991, at present the law refers to the Pit Bull Terrier and Tosa. A Danish newspaper article published in Aug. 2000 suggested that there was a proposal to add more breeds to the list due to a number of incidents reported in Germany and Holland. Breed names were not given at this time. EDDR has received communications from a dog owner in Denmark, we have a copy of the original law to be translated and have written to the Danish Kennel Club to try and ascertain the present climate.

Estonia: Estonian Ministry of Agriculture officials have informed us that there are no legal restrictions on import into Estonia or on ownership of any specific breeds of dogs. Also confirmed by the Estonian Kennel Club.

Finland: Information from the Embassy of Finland, Press Office in London states:

As far as I understand, no specific breeds of dogs are banned in Finland. There has been discussion about the issue after some incidents abroad but according to the Finnish Kennels Association only individual dogs can be defined as "aggressive" not entire breeds. There are strict laws on the maintenance and training of dogs, according to which for example violent training could be seen as criminal (ends).

The Finnish Kennels Association replied: In Finland we have no laws relate to dangerous dogs. All breeds are welcome in Finland, if they have all vaccinations in order (ends).

Finland Cont: Jaana Mikkola, Veterinary Inspector, Animal Welfare Unit at The Finnish Ministry replied:

We have no specific legislation concerning dangerous dogs in Finland, nor any restrictions regarding import of dog races. The matter of dangerous dogs in our country is a matter of public order and safety and if in the future any amendments would be found to be necessary, it would thus be in the competence of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The reason of not finding it important to make any amendments in the existing legislation is that in Finland we have not so far had any problems with so called dangerous dog races. Also, the number of these dog races is quite low; for example just little over 20 pit bulls have been registered in the whole county (ends).

France: There has been an explosion of activity in France recently. With circulated reports of hundreds of dogs seized and euthanised. People have also been threatened with eviction from their homes due to the type of dog they own. Campaigner Marianne Spetier said: "Nobody talks..or knows what to do. Specific dogs are targeted, those of the jobless, poor, or dogs without pedigrees." Breed specific laws have spread to France and there are cases all over the country.

A special 'Shelter' for so called dangerous dogs is to open in Mulhouse. The 'Shelter' is for Category 1 and 2 dogs (see below), it has isolation boxes and euthanasia rooms. One French TV channel called it the "extermination camp" and another referred to it as a "high security jail". The Society for the Protection of Animals (SPA) refuses to keep specific dogs in their shelters, we wrote to them about this, their reply answered none of our questions and referred us to a magazine article in the post.

Dogs considered as dangerous are classified in two categories:

* List 1: Non pedigree dogs looking like - Pit Bulls - Mastiffs - Tosa ..... All dogs are forbidden to be imported, sold, given, or bred.

The dogs born before the law are to be sterilized, tattooed, with mandatory leash and muzzling in a public place. Owner must be over 18 years, with no court report, get a special insurance and register the dog with the authorities.....

The dogs born after the law have to be destroyed.

* List 2: Rottweillers (with pedigree or not), American Staffordshire Terrier and Staffordshire Terrier with recognized KC pedigree. (So the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is out of it, as the list indicates a breed that does not exist). Dogs have to be muzzled and leashed in public, tattooed, registered with the authorities, there is special insurance to obtain, owners/keepers must be over 18yrs and without prior court convictions.

Penalties: Any dog 'looking like a pit or any molossoïde can be considered by the authorities as part of list one.....be taken, destroyed, and the owner having still to pay a lot of money and even go to jail.....many young non pedigree dogs are officially euthanased for those reasons today'.

Any dog having bitten or caused damages can be taken away at the Mayor's decision, be placed in a refuge and tested by a vet...If considered as dangerous, the owner must prove that he is not (how) or he'll be euthanasied. The owner will have to pay for all the expenses.

A leading campaigner in France stated: - "ALL Staffordshire Bull Terriers without pedigree papers are at risk, they are recognised as Pit Bulls.” It has been reported that the only protection for these dogs is to have a pedigree and to then try and prove that the dog doesn't come within the description for List 1 or 2. There are reports that a black market is appearing for pedigree papers, with desperate people who own non pedigree dogs trying to make their dogs 'safe'.

Information received from the French Government states: The law concerning the dangerous dogs was voted the 6th of January 1999. The article 211-4 code rural says, concerning the dangerous dogs, (category 1) that: It is forbidden to sell them, it is forbidden to introduce them in France, it is forbidden to offer them freely, it is necessary to sterilise them.

The article 211-5 code rural says (concerning the category 1 and 2) that dogs must be muzzled in the street. Finally, concerning the category 1, these dogs are forbidden in the public transports and in the public areas. Dangerous dogs from category 2 who do not have a birth certificate are considered as being in category 1 (ends).

Germany: Germany still has 15 different breed lists, which in total ban or restrict ownership of 49 breeds. Two of these new edicts include the so-called 40/20-dogs, i.e. applied to any dog which is taller than 40 cm or heavier than 20 pounds:

Bundesrat (upper house of parliament) has decided for an import and breed ban. The new law was passed by the German Parliament on 8th February. Anybody keeping a dangerous dogs without the required permits can face up to two years in prison or a fine. This Federal Law is an ADDITIONAL law. It prohibits the breeding, sale and import of the American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and "all breeds classed at dangerous by the counties or any crosses with said breeds, even if the individual land has not even listed the breed.

The Federal Law was signed on the 20th April (2001), which is the day a certain Mr Adolf Hitler was born...The authorities have also been given the power to enter and search homes suspected of having a 'dangerous dog' - without a search warrant. In the areas where harsh new breed specific laws have been introduced, the restrictions and measures are different for each area. Common are muzzle and leash in public places, hefty taxes, police checks and temperament testing.

Some examples include:

* Berlin - Law passed on 4th July 2000. Lists 11 breeds/types and includes the American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Mastiff, Bull Terrier, Dogue de Bordeaux, Mastiff, 'Pit Bull Terrier', Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

* Hessen - Law valid since 15th August 2000. Category 1 lists the APBT or PBT, AST and SBT. Category 2 lists the American Bulldog, Bullmastiff, Bull Terrier, Dogue de Bordeaux, Dogo A, Fila B, Kangal (Karabash), Mastiff and four other breeds.

* North Rhine Westfalia (NRW) - From 4th July 2000. Category 1 lists the American Staffordshire Terrier, Bandog, Bull Terrier, Chinese Fighting Dog (later described as a Shar-Pei by Government official) Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Tosa Inu and six other breeds/types. Category 2: 28 breeds listed including the Briard, Bullmastiff, Doberman, Kangal, Komondor, Mastiff, Pyranees Mountain Dog, Rottweiler, Tibetan Mastiff.

* Schleswig-Holstein - From 28th June 2000. One category which lists 11 breeds including the APBT, AST, Bullmastiff, Bull Terrier, Mastiff and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

* Baden-Wurttemberg - From 15th August 2000. Category 1 listed American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier and Pit Bull Terrier. Category 2 lists nine breeds including the Bullmastiff, Mastiff and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

* Mecklenburg-Vorpommern - From April 1998. One category with 13 breeds listed including the American Staff Terrier, APBT, Bull Terrier, Bullmastiff, Mastiff, Staff Bull Terrier and Tosa.

* Hamburg - From 29th June 2000. Category 1 lists the American Staff Terrier, Pit Bull and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. You cannot own a classified dog after the deadline of 30 November 2000 without obtaining 'special permission' & this 'special permission' will not be granted to anyone by the authorities. Category 2 lists 10 breeds including the Bullmastiff, Bull Terrier, Dogo, Dogue de Bordeaux and Mastiff.

* Niedersachsen - From 7th July 2000. Category 1 lists the American Staff Terrier, Bull Terrier and Pit Bull Terrier. Category 2 lists 11 breeds including the Bullmastiff, Dobermann, Dogo, Mastiff, Rottweiler, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Tosa.

* Rheinland-Pfalz - From 30th June 2000. One category lists the AST, SBT and PBT.

* Thuringen - The only Laender in Germany without breed specific legislation.

It is estimated there are at least 10-15 court trials in each region. The German government is said to be waiting until all of the court trials are over, before amending/changing any part of the law. Until then, it will stand as voted on. Meanwhile in accordance with articles 28-30 of the EC Treaty of Rome, the European Commission has asked the German authorities to communicate scientific evidence, which in their view would legitimate banning the import of the four listed breeds. The EEC recognises that the German authorities must prove scientifically that these breeds represent a specific danger to the German public not present in other breeds. ‘Rulings of all kinds up to bans on breeding and keeping will touch sundry small breeds and all which are more than 40 cm high. Your imagination can try to find the few possible survivors’ (Mike Wollenweber). For further information click:

Netherlands-Holland: We have received copies of all the laws in Holland, the translation from Dutch to English basically boils down to - Since February 1993 it is prohibited to breed or to keep dogs of the Pit Bull Terrier type (character and build like the Pit Bull Terrier as described'). As of February 1993 it is also prohibited to import Pit Bull Terriers into the Netherlands.

The Ministry for Holland told us that: Since January 1999 the NL Parliament has been deliberating upon additional legislation, which will add a mandatory 'aggression test' for the following dog breeds; the American Staffordshire Terrier, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Mastino Napoletano, Rottweiler. After a dog goes through the test successfully, one is allowed to breed the dog and to walk the dog leashed and without a muzzle. Dogs that fail the test, because they are (possibly) aggressive, should be walked with muzzle, short leashed and should be made infertile. It is expected that this legislation will be enforced within the coming year (ends). The latest news from Holland is 'that the political parties have made a decision on 13th March that these breeds are not responsible for the many dog bites in Holland'. So the proposed law may not succeed. More to follow. For further information click:

Hong Kong: A Resolution was passed on 17 May 2000. Four breeds are named as dangerous: Pit Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino, Fila Braziliero and Japanese Tosa. There is a proposed ex-gratia payment of $3,000 (amount to be decided) for each 'fighting dog' voluntarily surrendered for destruction.

Iceland: A letter from Hákon Sigurgrímsson at the Ministry stated: According to Regulations of prohibition of import of animals to Iceland the following species are banned:

Akita Inu, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, Pit Bull Terrier, Fila Brasileiro, Toso Inu, Dogo Argentino. Also mixed species of above mentioned dogs and mixed species of wolfs and dogs (ends). We believe there may also be local ownership bans in operation.

Ireland: The Control of Dogs Regulations was introduced in May 1991, this imposed controls on several breeds of dog. It applied to every APBT, Bulldog, Bull Mastiff, Doberman, EBT, German Shepherd, Akita, Tosa, Ridgeback, Rottweiler, SBT. Also every dog known as a 'bandog' and EVERY cross of every breed or type described above.

Dogs have to be "securely muzzled" and "led by a sufficiently strong chain or leash, not exceeding two metres in length, by a person over the age of sixteen years who is capable of controlling the said dog".

The Control of Dogs Regulations 1998 consolidated existing laws and came into force in February 1999. The Bulldog was the only dog removed from the list (after enduring 7 years of compulsory muzzling).

There is no importation ban of specific breeds of dog existing in Ireland and there is no intention to introduce any new laws at this time. The Dublin Corporation also brought in new bye-laws - anyone living in their (local authority) housing may not own any dog on the list & must get rid of those they already owned.

Isle Of Man: They do not use the UK's DDA but have their own "Dogs Act 1990".

We have not yet been able to find out if it the Act is breed specific or not. It also appears that they are currently seeking to "review and seek to amend the provisions and administration of the Dogs Act 1990".

Apparently dogs and cats entering the UK under the terms of the PETS scheme are free to travel to the Isle of Man but there is an exception-prohibited is the importation of the 'Pet Bull Terrier' and the Japanese Tosa. Information taken from their on-line Government site and confirmed by Mrs. Callow, Dept. of Ag. Fisheries & Forestry, Douglas, IOM.

Italy: A list of 'dangerous breeds' was drafted but was cancelled following heated debate between Italian MPs who now mostly agree that it is the owners who are responsible and not the dogs themselves. The politicians held view is that there are not dangerous breeds but irresponsible owners. A proposed law which is non-breed specific has passed its first stage in Parliament, the relater of the law said in Parliament said that the laws in France and Germany are wrong. An important step had been achieved thanks to the lobbying from individuals and organisations.

Japan: A reply from the Animal Quarantine Service in Japan states: Every dog (including Dangerous Dog) can be imported into Japan (ends). Apparently there is no law which bans or restricts dogs in Japan.

Luxembourg: The Embassy of Luxembourg in London replied: At present Luxembourg does not have a Dangerous Dogs Legislation. It is definitely a current issue, however, we are unable to confirm whether legislation will be brought forward or not (ends). Suggested we write to their Veterinary Department in Luxembourg, we have and await a reply.

Malta: Malta has a breed specific import ban and currently no ownership bans.

We wrote to the Kennel Club of Malta and received this encouraging reply from their Foreign Affairs Secretary: The unfortunate killing of a six-year old boy by attack dogs some time ago has created somewhat of a hysteria in Germany. This, in turn, has fire-stormed the German Government into passing incomprehensible laws banning certain breeds and also restricting ownership of up to 30 breeds. We understand that as a result, shelter facilities have filled up with dogs and many have since been euthanised. Dog lovers in Malta have been appalled at this sad situation. We feel that this has been brought about by the German Government's inaction. Germany has ignored the problem of attack or fighting dogs for these past years and now suddenly want to implement these harsh and incomprehensive laws. We realise that Germany is not alone in trying to deal with dangerous dogs, in fact certain breeds have also been banned in Italy and France. Malta is no exception. Breeds which are ineligible for entry into Malta include Pit Bull terriers, Japanese Tosa Inu, Dogo Argentino and Fila Braziliero. Dog fighting here in Malta is a big problem and efforts to curb this bloody sport have always proved futile. Presently there is a strong public opinion which is enforcing Government to pass legislation in favour of animal welfare. So it seems that Malta is on the right track. As you are probably aware, Malta is strongly seeking membership into the European Union. The Malta Kennel Club is very worried at this farcical situation where Germany is trying to push the EU into standardising their regulations. Banning certain breeds might be part of the answer, however, enforcing laws against dog fighting is another. The Malta Kennel Club does not agree to a listing of breeds, since we believe that aggressiveness is a result of genes, which is brought about by breeders. We feel that the authorities should supervise the restriction of dogs who have proved to be aggressive in the past. More importantly, we believe that it is the owners who should be punished and not the dogs themselves. Other suggestions could be that all dogs should be registered and identified by using microchipping or tattooing. All dogs should have an obligatory insurance cover. We do understand that these suggestions will not restrict dog fighting and breeding of attack dogs, however these should prove to be of a deterrent rather than a cure. Malta does not yet form part of the EU, however the Committee of the Malta Kennel Club are adamant in their intentions to give our canine friends a place that they deserve in our society. We therefore offer our undivided support in this matter. We hope that the above answers your enquiry. If you need any further clarification, the Malta Kennel Club would only be too happy to oblige (ends).

New Zealand: We received a reply from the British High Commission in Wellington, NZ, who informs us that:

They have spoken with the International Trade Advisor, MAF Biosecurity Division, who advises that New Zealand has not banned the import of any domestic breeds of dog.

A Reply also received from the NZ Kennel Club, it states: There are currently no restrictions.

There are also Dog Control laws that target individual specimens rather than breeds.

Niue: No breed bans here. Niue is self-governing in free association with New Zealand.

Norway: We have received a copy of the Norwegian Act No 48 of 4 July 1991 with respect to imports and breeds of dangerous dogs to Norway. The law does not name any specific dogs or breed and their owners, but relates to dogs that are considered dangerous.

We believe there is an ownership ban on the APBT in force since the early 1990s.

Panama: We received a reply from Ingeborg Kincaid, Vice President of Club Canino de Panama in Dorado, Panama:

As of this moment, we do not have any laws pertaining to this matter in Panama (ends).

Poland: Breed Specific law was passed on 21st June 1997 and effective from 24th December 1998. Details with thanks to Catherine Walker in Austria who organised translation of the document for us:

* Section 1. The following dogs are considered the most aggressive breeds: Akbash Dog, American Bulldog, American Pit Bull Terrier, Anatolian Karabash, Canary Islands [de Presa] Dog, Caucasian Ovtcharka, Dogo Argentino, Majorcan [de Presa] Dog, Moscow Guard Dog, Rottweiler, Tosa Inu. You need to notify the authorities within 30 days of owning a dog and apply for a permit.

Portugal: In reply to our letter to the Portuguese Embassy we were informed that: Under Law 317/85 article 12 (1) 'It is forbidden for all dogs to be without leash and muzzle in a public place since 1985' (ends). Goncala G. Moura a concerned & experienced dog owner (his dog 'Brindle' an American Staffordshire Terrier champion who became 7th Best Junior Dog, of all breeds in Portugal in 1999) resident in Portugal explained that this law is widely ignored in Portugal. However, as the fever of breed specific laws spread across Europe, Portugal was to be next on the hit list: Goncalo is fully supported by the Portuguese Kennel Club and set up his own Dogs At Risk web site specifically for Portugal. The campaign against the proposed law was initiated, with opposition and alternative solutions put forward from many different countries, including us here in the UK, one of the politicians involved is himself an owner of the breed Fila Brasilerio, banned here in the UK.

Proposed Law No 269/VIII lists 15 breeds/types of dog as dangerous: Alsatian, American Pit Bull Terrier, American Stafford Terrier; Argentine Dogo, Boxer, Bulldog, Doberman, Fila de S. Miguel, German Shepherd, Napolitano Mastiff, Pit Bull Terrier, Rottweiler, Spanish Mastiff, Staffordshire Terrier; Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

The proposed law requires a register of 'dangerous dogs' to be kept by each city council, owners have to obtain a licence to keep their dog and detailed information of the residence where each dog is kept is required. Sterilization is obligatory, as is liability insurance, listed dogs also have to be muzzled and leashed in public. Some types of urban accommodation are limited to one dog only and the APBT and Rottweiler can only circulate in public in a cage or in a way so that there is no possibility for any physical contact with people or other animal so if the proposed law passed a first vote, the breeds here were in big trouble. Goncalo spoke with the parliamentary group PSD and they have said that the proposal is not presently a priority. He also said that the entire Parliamentary group had been flooded with information, not only national but above all international!! Goncala said: "The problem now is that the government is also preparing some sort of BSL but nobody was able yet to get the text... as soon as I find something I will post it."

Singapore: Details of Legislation in force in the Republic of Singapore: Animals & Birds (Dog Licensing & Control) Rules: The following breeds of dogs and their crosses are not allowed to be imported into Singapore - Pit Bull, American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldog and crosses between them and other breeds, Neapolitan Mastiff, Tosa, Akita, Dogo Argentino, Fila Braziliero and their crosses.

Spain: Awaited.

Sweden: In response to our letter asking whether Sweden has breed specific bans/restrictions and/or import bans. This reply was received from the Swedish Kennel Club, Information Department:

Thank you for your mail. Mr Hans Rosenberg has passed on your mail to me so I will answer your questions. We do not have a law which bans the import of any breeds and neither ownership bans but you shall not hold a dog who shows aggressiveness against people or other animals. In that case your dog must use a muzzle and be kept on a leash. We have a new law (from 1 January 2001) which says that your dog must have an ID-number, a tattoo or chip number, and the owner of the dog must be registered in our "ownership register". I hope you have got the information you needed otherwise do not hesitate to contact me again! The Swedish Kennel Club has a ban on Saarlos Wolfhond (recognised by FCI) but that has nothing to do with legislation (ends).

Maria Cedersmyg - Veterinary Inspector-Swedish Board of Agriculture has replied:

Sweden bans the ownership and breeding/production of aggressive dogs that turn on people or other dogs. This relates to all dogs irrespective of breed. The police have developed a test for dogs that are considered aggressive to define whether they are to be put down according to this law or not. Wolf hybrids are forbidden in accordance with CITES regulations (ends).

EDDR has made enquiries concerning the temperament test being used by the Police.

Switzerland: No breed specific legislation in Switzerland, despite its close proximity to Germany. We were referred to the Swiss Federal Veterinary Office, this was the reply received from Yuval Tempelman:

Dangerous Dogs are an important topic in Switzerland as well, especially since there have been several accidents in the last few months, but also in the wake of the events in Germany.

So far, there is no breed specific legislation in Switzerland. A symposium of experts and specific organisations was held in August 2000 to discuss possible measures to prevent accidents with dangerous dogs.

In general, the propositions (with no legal or binding character) of the hearing were:

* all dogs should be identified (microchip) and registered in a central database

* creation of a help and information desk giving advice on any problems with dogs

* better application of the existing dog legislation (public safety - laws etc.)

* better information & formation of dog owners and eventually introduction of tests

* information on all levels (e.g. general public)

* better socialisation and education of dogs, and especially of puppies

* legal liability for breeders / obligation to report dog bites

* most participants were against breed-specific actions

The canton of Geneva has already introduced the obligatory identification by microchip of all dogs from January 1st 2001. In the canton of Basel, there is a project of law which would put some breeds on a list of "potentially dangerous dogs". This list doesn't exist yet. Owners of such dogs would have to microchip their animal, they would have to prove their knowledge about dogs, they must have a clean criminal record, and the dog must originate from a controlled/official breeder. This law isn't finished yet and has still to pass the local parliament. Could we ask you to send us the publication (on the net?) of your results (concerning this query)? Thank you very much (ends).

Trinidad and Tobago:The Dangerous Dogs Bill places restrictions (import, muzzling, breeding) on the following dogs:

Pitbull Terrier or any dog bred from the Pit Bull Terrier and having the dominant characteristics of that dog. Fila Brasileiro or any dog bred from the Fila Brasileiro and having the dominant characteristics of that dog. Japanese Tosa or any dog bred from the Japanese Tosa and having the dominant characteristics of that dog.

Comments/Information Write to: EDDR Telephone/Fax: 0844 856 3303 E-mail: enquiries@EndangeredDogs.com

Back to the Top of this Page