Dog Magazine dot net - free online dog magazineby K9 Magazine, the lifestyle magazine for dog lovers

Written by Cuthbert Jackson of the National Dog Warden Association. All rights reserved.

When publications report on the facts fairly and accurately they allow their readers to develop an informed opinion. It is sad to find that some writers in the canine press have now adopted the same style found in the mass media when they first demonised the Pit Bull Terrier ‘type’, a style which attempts to manipulate opinion rather than inform it.

The celebratory headlines and editorial copy regarding recent cases in which dogs have been allowed to be placed on the index of exempted dogs appear to suggest to readers of canine papers and magazines that the cases were in some way flawed and were lost; but in giving this impression the writers have failed to report, factually, that the outcome of these cases was not a verdict of not guilty.

Many of these prosecutions have been brought under s.4B(1)(a) or (b) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended). This section, with (b) applied, states that the dog cannot be returned to the custody or possession of its owner without the owner contravening the prohibition in section 1(3) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended).

The verdicts have actually upheld the charge that the dog is an unregistered Pit Bull Terrier; but then, under the 1997 amendment to the Act, the law has allowed for the magistrates to open the index of exempted dogs for that dog’s inclusion rather than its mandatory destruction. Once placed on the register it can be returned to its owner.

But for it to be placed on the register requires the dog’s owner meet all the requirements necessary for inclusion before that dog can be returned i.e. neutering, micro-chipping and tattooing, insuring, holding on a lead and muzzling at all times in public places and prohibition of breeding, sale or exchange or gifting of the dog to any other person. This is far from a not guilty verdict.

By using 4B the authorities have dealt as sympathetically as the law allows with the owners of these dogs. They have not subjected them to a criminal prosecution for their ownership of the dog; their ignorance of ‘type’ has been taken to indicate a lack of intent. The prosecution has not challenged the good nature of dogs, where this was the case, and has often provided the courts with supporting evidence to that effect.

The courts on their part have accepted that it is not necessary to prove that a dog is aggressive to prove that it is a Pit Bull Terrier ‘type’ – which mocks breed specific legislation for its identification of danger by breed, but does not repeal the law regarding prohibition of that breed (or type).

What has also been proved by these cases is that, whether through the ignorance or intent of their owner, there are many Pit Bull Terrier ‘types’ seen by the public every day. Once these observations are passed to the authorities there remains an obligation to act, it was very apparent after the fatal incident in St Helens that allegations tantamount to dereliction of duty were being made against both the local authority and the police.

Indeed Mr Justice Royce, after the not guilty verdict on Jacqueline Simpson in his court, asked if the Police had investigated earlier complaints about Keil Simpson’s dog saying: “It is important for that to be investigated because if a report of an unlawful dog was ignored, it is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs”.

Many people, even dog owners, continue to be genuinely threatened by dogs and their owners; irresponsible and fad breeding provides inappropriate and irresponsible owners with a range of powerful and threatening dogs of all breeds and types, while at the same time there is an overall disinclination to see the law observed in the form of the Dangerous Dogs Act which is perceptible from otherwise responsible people in the dog owning community. 

The law has been amended, to prevent mandatory destruction, it has not been repealed, nor have the Dangerous Dog Act Study Group (part of the Dog Legislation Advisory Group on which the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust and RSPCA all sit) recommending its immediate repeal, or apparently even recommending revision of the principle that there should be prohibited breeds and a requirement for an exemption register.

Unless the law is repealed and replaced it is incumbent on the canine press to correctly report not only their opinion, that the law is flawed and needs revision, but also the fact that it remains an offence to have in your possession a dog of the Pit Bull Terrier ‘type’ and that if you do have such a dog, unless it is on the exemption register, a very minimum requirement on the authorities may be the removal of the dog from your possession until you can comply with any order legally made by a court to have the dog placed on that register; the only existing way for that register to be opened being through the courts (the DDASG would have it open to “owner led applications” but this is not the existing procedure).

Misleading readers into thinking that cases brought have been dismissed in court, when they have not, and encouraging them to think that ownership of dogs of the Pit Bull terrier ‘type’ is something that should be supported by the canine community goes further than believing that a law is unfair or unjust.

By suggesting that the law should be ignored when it must be applied, even to people of otherwise good character who are ignorant of the ‘type’ of dog they own, critics of the law, unwittingly perhaps, provide support for those who threaten our communities through irresponsible dog ownership and anti-social behaviour.

By all means campaign against the Act, by all means call for its revision or repeal and replacement; but please do not pretend that it does not exist, or, that anyone has a right to ignore it, or, that every case brought under it has failed.
Reporting on the use of the Dangerous Dogs Act should be done accurately and fairly throughout the media, knee-jerk headlines and unsubstantiated copy from either ‘side’ is unhelpful to an informed opinion and to the chance of any meaningful revision being made to this very flawed legislation. For National Dog Warden Association (NDWA) proposals for replacement legislation please visit www.NDWA.co.uk

Author Details
Neil Burton is a dog warden and chairman of the National Dog Warden Association. - See this author's webpage

Popularity: 3% [?]