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

written by Hamish Lazari

Where did the succession of governments who have imposed the current plethora of legislation on dogs and their owners in the United Kingdom take their advice from?

The imposition of ill thought out and difficult to implement legislation crosses party political lines, the Conservatives can be held responsible for the Dangerous Dogs Act, whilst Labour can be credited with the Animal Welfare Act 2003 and the Clean Neighbourhoods & Environment Act 2005.

There was and is a need for specific dog related legislation if it protects the public and dogs from the problems caused by irresponsible dog ownership.

Unfortunately though no matter how well intentioned the reasoning behind specific pieces of legislation, it always seems that something has been overlooked when it is enacted .

With regard to the Dangerous Dogs Act, the government of the day should not have specifically outlawed four breeds of dog. instead the legislation should have had the option of the Act applying to all dogs to allow the authorities to deal with any dog that has acted dangerously.

The 1997 amendment was an attempt to try to sort out the mess of the original Act, why did the governments advisors not point out that this was an opportunity to make the DDA fairer and remove the breed specific element from it at the time?

Why also did nobody advising the government stand up for banned breeds at the time?  Would there have been a different outcome if more mainstream pedigree breeds had been included?

Some groups did oppose the DDA and other issues but their views were ignored by the government and its advisors.

DEFRA and other government departments do carry out consultation with interested parties, but are some of these parties more influential than for example those groups who do not have lobbyists, press offices or lots of funding to get their views and points across?

Another problem area seems to be the implementation of legislation that has been criticised for a variety of reasons but it remains unamended?

A lot of the advisors may be experts in their particular fields but do they have  any hands on experience of implementing the issues they are advising on?

There also seems to be a pattern of interference into areas where an advisors organisation may have no jurisdiction but they spend money on a subject that two or three similar organisations then follow suit with.  This leads to replication from the organisations as they try to be the lead in a specific area, why not talk it over instead of diverting vital funding and resources from primary roles.

It is good that there are groups who have the protection of dogs as their  major cause.  Unfortunately though there are some groups who are becoming involved in areas that they should not be and they are moving away from their original aims.

If an advisor on dog related legislation  does not actually carry out enforcement of legislation, dog handling or animal welfare work in a hands on role, or the advisors organisation does none of these things then the government should not rely on them for their input.

These un-elected people can influence the end result in regard to legislation and codes of practice

Section 68 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 is a good example of advisors not having much idea of what dealing with stray dogs actually entails.

The police have wanted to be rid of dealing with stray dogs for several years and it has taken until 6th April 2008 before this is to be finally achieved. What has not been fully appreciated is that the police are a 24 hour service and most forces would have had facilities to hold a dog at individual stations until the local authority could seize the dog.

With the publication of an explanatory letter and guidance to councils, DEFRA thinks that it has sorted things out prior to the implementation date. The guidance itself is an amalgam of diverse views from a variety of organisations with differing agendas and interests.

A major issue such as kennelling for dogs found outside office hours is skimmed over with advice given about having reception points where a dog can be taken 24 hours a day, but there is no need for a 24 hour collection service!  The reception point perhaps being a kennels that comes up to Chartered Institute of Environmental Health standards.

If the advisors and other contributors  had approached those who actually handle stray dogs they may have discovered a completely different scenario.

Unfortunately too many people from a plethora of organisations, none with a statutory responsibility to deal with stray dogs, have been called upon to advise on matters that are outside their remit.

Author Details
K9 Magazine welcomes submissions from freelance contributors. If you would like information on submitting dog related articles for publication see our webpage - See this author's webpage

Popularity: 3% [?]