Dangerous Dogs Act Breakthrough: RSPCA Back Calls For Immediate End to BSL
In a landmark event, the UK’s largest animal welfare charity the RSPCA has joined forces with DDAWatch and the Coalition For improved Dog Ownership Standards (C-fidos) to publicly call for an end to the unfair law that results in dogs being deemed ‘dangerous’ as a result of their physical appearance.
For the first time, the UK’s most prominent animal welfare organisation has been prepared to publicly support calls for a repeal of section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) – Section 1 is the part of the legislation which bans dogs based on their breed or type.
Section 1 of the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act is a highly controversial and widely criticised clause that promotes breed specific legislation. Many experts, law makers and dog lovers from around the UK and globally have seen the devastation caused by breed specific legislation – which outlaws dogs by ‘type’, meaning a dog is deemed ‘dangerous’ and illegal simply based on what it looks like and not because of any offence caused by the dog. As a result of breed specific legislation (BSL) in the UK, many innocent dogs have lost their lives since the law was brought in by Ken Baker in 1991.
Now the RSPCA has set the wheels in motion for other prominent welfare groups to come out and publicly call on the law makers to end section 1 and replace it with fair, effective dog laws which do not condemn dogs to death based on what the look like. The UK can put itself in a position to follow the example set by the Netherlands in repealing section 1 in favour of a law that will place the burden of responsibility on owners rather than terminating the lives of dogs who are guilty of nothing more than looking a certain way.
The move comes about following a productive and engaging meeting between the RSPCA’s Government Relations Manager, Claire Robinson, DDAWatch and the C- fidos at the end of 2008.
The RSPCA public backing for repeal gives anti BSL campaigners the boost they have been waiting for while sending a clear message to the Government that section 1 of the DDA is a failed, unfair concept that needs to be reformed without delay.
DDAWatch – an anti BSL campaign group – has congratulated the RSPCA on the decision to call for action having been previously disheartened to hear many organisations publicly state anti BSL positions but falling short of actually calling for an immediate repeal of section 1.
Alison Green of DDAWatch:
“We are so thrilled to see the RSPCA step up to the plate on such an important issue that has cost the lives of many innocent dogs. For those people who have been actively involved in fighting section 1 cases, for those of us who’ve seen dog owner’s lives ripped apart by this appalling law, which has not protected the public at all, this announcement from the RSPCA will hopefully herald the start of many more calls for repeal and eventually the repeal itself. Now owners and anti BSL campaigners alike have some hope to cling to after so many false dawns. Now we have the opportunity of a lifetime to finally get the Government to see sense. They need to listen to the RSPCA and make the right call. Section 1 has been an unmitigated failure and an animal welfare disaster. It is such a relief to hear the RSPCA being brave and honest enough to publicly call for a repeal where other influential and supposedly anti BSL organisations have fallen short, instead citing ‘political climate’ as a reason to keep BSL.”
Ryan O’Meara, chief executive of C-fidos:
“This is truly great news. It seems such a simple thing to do, to publicly support an end to BSL – especially given that the RSPCA and other major animal welfare organisations have publicly stated their position as being anti BSL – but despite the anti BSL positions held by many organisations and individuals we still have BSL and we have it because we still have section 1 of the DDA. The way to end BSL is to end section 1 and replace it. The RSPCA coming in with public support for the position held by C-fidos and DDAWatch gives legitimacy and momentum to campaigners to call on their government to end BSL. It’s no longer a concept, being anti BSL, it’s a real, tangible opportunity to call the government to account over a highly unfair, unpopular and completely unsuccessful law.”
Highly Recommended: What dog owner wouldn’t want a piece of THIS action? – Get FREE dog food!
Related posts:
- RSPCA Speaks Out Over BSL & Dangerous Dogs Act
- Are the RSPCA Seizing Dogs Under Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act?
- RSPCA Commended For Breed Specific Legislation Stance
- Bateson Report Calls for Dangerous Dogs Act Reform
- Another Dangerous Dogs Act Canine Welfare Scandal: Dogs Continue to Die in “Police Care”
Loading ...
Great news, well done to all involved for making a stand on an issue that's so deserving of backing.
Reply
Sam Reply:
January 8th, 2009 at 4:34 am
Hear hear!! This is indeed great news! Finally someone is standing up to the nonsense that the government and it's pathetic associates spew out when they have nothing better to do! Top marks RSPCA!
Reply
As the Vice Chairman of the National Dog Warden Association I would like to congratulate the RSPCA on this announcement. The NDWA has been publically anti BSL from the beginning. I hope that some of the other large organisations now join with DDAWatch, C-fidos, NDWA and RSPCA to bring about the early repeal of Section 1. Well done to all concerned.
Reply
Well done RSPCA for publically stating that section one of the DDA needs to be repealed. it brings hope to every dog locked away on looks alone and to those who have fought hard for so long for just laws which do not discriminate against specific dogs, here and overseas.
Reply
Fantastic news! Welldone RSPCA for speaking out against such an unjust and unworkable law.
Reply
Well done to the RSPCA for supporting a repeal of section 1 of the DDA , hopefully other organisations will now follow their example. Excellent news.
Reply
WOW this is great news. RSPCA I am sending you lots of hugs and kisses. Thanks for the courage of your convictions and keep on keeping on.
Reply
Pleased to see the RSPCA publicly speaking out against BSL and asking for a repeal of sect 1. Good News!!
Reply
Amazing news and now let us hope that this momentous announcement moves the debate forward and brings about the repeal of Section 1. Wonder who else will not be happy apart from Lord Baker?
Reply
Fayclis Reply:
January 8th, 2009 at 5:54 am
Lord Baker must be the equivent to Canada's Michael Bryant. The Ontario Ban was not so much about dogs (as was proven in the debates when all legitmate organizations were against it) but about Bryant getting attention, getting his outragous quotes in the paper and being able to "mug" for the camera's. Thousands of dogs have been slaughtered because of this sicko's ego. (sigh)
Reply
wow this is great news. big thanks to RSPCA.
Reply
Great news! I hope the RSPCA in Australia and other similar organisations around the world will soon follow suit!
Reply
As the administrator of a bull breed dog website firstly its good to see that this bill is going thru parliment and secondly it is great news for the RSPCA to be adding their support and backing to the bill, the DDA has stood for too long when it is clearly known to be a failed law, now it needs more groups and organisations to come in and show their support and backing alongside RSPCA, DDAwatch, C-fidos & NDWA – keep up the great work
Reply
Hi Andrew,
Im slightly confused, I think your getting a little mixed up with the proposed dog control bill recently read in Lords. This article is simply stating that the RSPCA back a repeal of BSL as do DDA Watch, CFIDOS and the NDWA.
I cannot speak for the other groups but DDA Watch and the DDA Sterring group within CFIDOS do NOT currently support the proposed bill put forward by Lord Resendale, in full. It does have some good aspects, repealing section one being such a point but also some bad aspects and some that frankly are highly confusing and contradict themselves!
I hope that clarifys things?
Reply
Australian RSPCA seems to be adding fuel to the BSL fire in NSW. See today's article in the Australian Herald Sun in which the RSPCA says the bull mastiff is one of the most dangerous breeds (in response to a fatal attack by bull mastiff crossbreeds).
Reply
One question for Mr. Lord Baker. What does he think about the Staffordshire bull terrier being banned in Canada. I bet he can't answer that one can he? The American pit bull terrier being banned in the UK is as ridiculous as the Staffy being banned here. Ridiculous! Lord Baker and Micheal Bryant are related. This is not about viciousness. This is about legallized racism.
Reply
Let me repeat myself. Lord Baker needs help.
Reply
this is great news, the sort of news ive been hoping would come, well done to the RSPCA and all involved!!!!!!!!!. x
Reply
dda watch and the cfidos are making good progress, please keep going to help innocent dogs and their owners who need you to stand up for them. Dogs owe their lives to you, well done for your hard work and achievements so far, it's good to read what's going on in the name of BSL on sites like this, all to often it goes unknown but you keep banging the info out there, in the public domain, someone has to start taking note, someone in power to make changes.
Reply
This is great news, this ban should of been lifted years ago, my fingers are crossed, Get rid of the pratts that fight these dogs and BRING BACK THE AMERICAN PITBULL. good luck RSPCA these dogs are counting on you………..
Reply
Bullseye Reply:
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Colin you are so right, bad breeds are fiction but sadly bad owners are not, however we must try to get the word around that Pitties and Staffords are NOT bad, my motto is: If you look after him/her then he/she will look after you! I have been telling the world this.
I myself own a stafford and I have known people who own pitties and they are more likely to drown you with there tongues than anything else.
anyway good luck to all anti bsl groups and lets hope that we can say goodbye DDA and Hello to all Bull breeds
p.s. I am currently fighting the bsl and dda myself on flickr
Cheers
Bull Terriers Galore!
Reply
i think the dda is a joke at the end of the day you can train any dog to be nasty i have 2 staffys and trying to talk my girlfriend to let me get another 1 they are brillant with kids as for pit bulls any dog will do what its master wants and what its master trains them to do i think if people train them to be nasty or dog fighting hammer them give them a prison sentence of 5 years minium like for having a loaded gun in there house it should be on the owner you dont get bad dogs only bad owners
cheers ian
Reply
If we succeed here we need to put pressure on our EU Mps next. I have a Staffie and although allowed in the UK they are banned in many EU countries so I cannot take her on holiday with me in my campervan. This is stopping me going touring abroad for any length of time, so affecting my civil rights.
Reply
Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United Nations adopted in 1948 and the UK Government signed and adopted, article 17, section 2 states
“No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property”.
According to the legal dictionary one of the definitions of arbitrarily is:
1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by standards, rules, or law
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as amended in 1997 states in section 1A
“Nothing in subsection (1) (a) above shall require the court to order the destruction of a dog if the court is satisfied—
(a) that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety;”
This means that the judge has the sole discretion to place the dog on the list of exempted dogs or to have the dog destroyed. There are no standards or rules to dictate what dogs do not pose a danger to public safety or what evidence or how much evidence is required or allowed to prove that the dog doesn’t pose a danger to the public. This means that it is left to the personal opinion of the judge as to which dogs can be registered on the list of exempted dogs. There is no law, rule or standard which says the court has to allow dogs to be registered. This means that if the judge uses his discretion to have the dog destroyed, the dog owner has been deprived of his property arbitrarily. This makes destroying dogs under section 1 of the dangerous dogs act 1991 as amended 1997, a human rights violation as it violates article 17 (2) of the Universal Declaration of human rights.
By signing up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this Government promised those rights to every person living in the United Kingdom. This government was never dissented from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so this government still has to uphold these laws including article 17 sections 2. Protocols 1 article 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which this government also signed, cannot be used if it violates article 17 section 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because this government has promised to up hold this right. This government has signed up to two different human right acts and in doing so has promised to uphold ALL rights from BOTH acts. The government cannot choose which rights to uphold and which ones to ignore for their own purposes. Destroying dogs under section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act as amended in 1997, whilst allowed under protocols 1 article 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights, it is still a violation of article 17 section 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which means that it is still a violation of human rights.
so the dangerous dogs act 1991 as amended 1997, is illegal any way. i hope they relies this and remove it.
Reply