Jan
RSPCA Speaks Out Over BSL & Dangerous Dogs Act
Following our report last week that the RSPCA has backed calls from DDA Watch and C-fidos for the Government to end BSL by way of the deeply flawed section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, Claire Robinson, the RSPCA’s Government Relations Manager has echoed concerns about the weakness of a law which focuses on the breed rather than the deed.
Speaking to K9 Magazine she explains:
“The RSPCA has always stated the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is flawed, in that it focuses on breed, rather than ‘deed’. Clearly, Section 1 of the DDA is the most prominent example of breed specific legislation.
“Our animal hospitals treat bull-terrier type dogs on a daily basis for bite wounds, stabbings, injuries from traffic accidents and diseases caused by indiscriminate breeding.
“We believe that any future legislation concerning the control of dogs should focus on the action of the owner and preventing irresponsible dog ownership. Irresponsible owners can own dogs of any breed or type, and no dog should be penalised because of its genetic make up.”
The Coalition for Improved Dog Ownership Standards (C-fidos) and DDAWatch, an organisation lobbying for fair, effective dog laws, have publicly asked organisations who share a true anti BSL stance to vocally call for an end to section 1 of the dangerous dogs act. Section 1 of the act is the specific part of the dangerous dog law that outlaws dogs by type and has caused many innocent dogs to lose their lives as a direct result.
There is a growing awareness amongst the public and indeed legislators that BSL – as a concept – has failed and is grossly unjust. Opposition to the concept of BSL has not produced a change in the law though and lobbying groups are keen to stress that unless the BSL element of the law is tackled we will simply retain BSL even though many are publicly opposed to it.
One organisation which has consistently opposed breed specific legislation before it was introduced in 1991 is the National Dog Warden Association whose vice-chair, Dave Holden, was keen to offer congratulations to those calling for a repeal of the ill-thought out law:
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.
K9 Magazine echoes Mr Holden’s sentiments. If you oppose BSL, please be loud in your calls for a repeal of section 1. It’s time to address the specifics rather than oppose the concept. We have BSL, we need to replace it.
There is a site Change.org our site" BAN BSL" is one of the causes we need Votes and plenty of them by Thursday 15th,to get into top 10 and be presented to the Obama administration for changes in USA.
Our cause is in the finals and running at 34 th,we need plenty more votes please.
smarock@hotmail.com
I would love to stop BSL… Pit Bulls are no different then any other dog.. Everyone is so eager to ban Pit Bulls. That’s not going to stop all dogs from biting! Instead of banning the dog why not when they get adopted out check where they are going. That means go check to see if they have a fenced in back yard. Check the background of the person to make sure the were not in any dog fighting, or abusive to animals. I will support these wonderful dogs.. the dogs that has been by our side since world war 1. Its not the dogs fault they have irresponsible owners. They have every right to live on this earth as us & every other animal.
& also.. banning the dog its going to cause more trouble. Its not going to help banning this bred of dog. Cause if it comes down to it.. I would move before anyone take my Pit bull away!