Scottish Dog Owners Have Been Sold Out Over new Dangerous Dogs Proposal
A prominent daily newspaper in Scotland is calling them ‘ASBOS for dangerous dogs’.
The Kennel Club is calling it ‘A step in the right direction’.
We’re calling it a complete and utter sell out of dogs, dog owners and the victims of dog attacks.
————————————————————-
Ever hear the one about the organisation who claims to be anti breed specific legislation but believes it wouldn’t be ‘practical’ to do away with the section in the dangerous dogs act which, wait for it…., bans breeds?
Apparently the ‘current political climate’ is not right for the elements of the Dangerous Dogs Act that legislate against dog breeds to be challenged.
Instead though ‘a step in the right direction’ is how a proposal which will do nothing to prevent unsuitable people getting or producing unsuitable dogs, is being described.
A proposal that will not stop people being attacked or killed. A proposal which is nothing more than a weak, pathetic capitulation to the political view than certain dog breeds are dangerous. A proposal which would NOT have prevented ANY of the three children who have lost their lives to dog attacks over the past 16 months from happening. A proposal which will not reduce dog attacks in anyway. A proposal which claims to be about prevention but actually does nothing to prevent.
So how does this work exactly?
If you’re like me you might have a reasonably simplistic view on breed specific legislation. You might think to yourself that either BSL is a good, effective thing. Or it is a bad, non effective thing. You might hold the pretty clear cut opinion that bans on dog breeds are right or they are wrong. It either works, or it doesn’t. So that may leave you asking, what, exactly, does the ‘current climate’ have to do with anything? A law is either good or bad. The political climate is irrelevant.
Pinging into K9 Magazine’s email in-box today came this:
KENNEL CLUB HAILS CHANGES TO DANGEROUS DOGS LEGISLATION IN SCOTLAND ‘A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION’
The Kennel Club has today broadly welcomed a consultation issued by Alex Neil MSP seeking to introduce a ‘Control of Dogs Bill’, which would strengthen the Dangerous Dogs Act in Scotland.The Kennel Club has been advising Mr Neil MSP in drafting his Control of Dogs Bill, which is to be introduced as a Members Bill. If passed the Bill would introduce 3 changes to current legislation relating to dangerous dogs:
* Instead of applying only to attacks that take place in public, the Bill would also make attacks on private property a criminal offence;
* The introduction of ‘control orders’ would apply to all types of dog that have acted dangerously without provocation;
* The microchipping of dogs that had transgressed, whose owners had been issued with a control order, would be compulsory.Providing the appropriate defences are put into place, the Kennel Club believes that introducing streamlined ‘control orders’, for example to order irresponsible dog owners to keep their dogs subject to conditions including being kept on a lead and/or muzzled or in severe cases, disqualify irresponsible dog owners from owning animals, will better protect the public and thus the welfare of dogs.
However, the Kennel Club wanted the Bill to go further and fully reflect its position of ‘deed not breed’ by making significant changes to Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act which would have ultimately repealed it.
Although the Kennel Club understands that it would not be practical in the current political climate to remove the list of banned breeds from Section 1 of the current Act, we do believe that the amnesty in Liverpool following the tragic death of Ellie Lawrenson last year proved even further the need to re-open the Index of Exempted Dogs (IED) to owner led applications. This would allow responsible owners of illegal dogs to register their dogs (providing their dogs were deemed safe, and met the registration requirements), and for the police to focus their activities on non registered pit bull terrier type dogs e.g. those that are likely to be owned by irresponsible dog owners.
Said Caroline Kisko: “We very much welcome Alex Neil’s Members Bill as a step in the right direction to making dangerous dogs legislation more effective. However, it is a shame that the proposals contained in the Bill have not gone so far as to change the highly flawed Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act and recognise that certain types of dogs are not inherently dangerous or that the actions of dog owners and a dog’s training have more of an impact on dogs’ behaviour than breed”.
I say pinging its way in, spinning its way would be more apt.
Read it people. Read that statement and read what’s being praised.
Then read it again. Try and figure out how and why this is a step in the right direction.
Let’s take a look at it piece by piece.
* Instead of applying only to attacks that take place in public, the Bill would also make attacks on private property a criminal offence;
OK. This is merely making an already pathetically weak, flawed law a little bit less pathetic and weak. It needed to happen. It’s a given. A must. Still, nothing preventative about it at all.
* The introduction of ‘control orders’ would apply to all types of dog that have acted dangerously without provocation;
Let’s examine this. The dog needs to display it is dangerous and then action is taken? So how would this have prevented Archie-Lee Hirst being killed? The Police confirmed the dog had shown no signs of being aggressive until it attacked and killed. And how do we define provocation? How does this prevent dogs who’s first attack happens to seriously injure or even kill their first victim? What is preventative about it? It takes action after the event. And furthermore, let’s examine the minefield of that word provocation.
The draft, hailed as a ’step in the right direction’ states:
Question: For the purpose of the Bill, how would you define a dog as being ‘dangerously out of control’?
It will also be an offence if, under these same circumstances, the dog attacks another animal. At the moment allowing a dog to attack another animal is not covered under criminal law.
However, I feel that it is important that people take steps to ensure that a dog under their control does not harm other animals. In addition this will provide protection for working dogs such as guide dogs, police dogs and other assistance dogs. It would be a defence however if the dog attacked the other animal in self-defence, or if it was defending its owner who was being attacked by the other animal.
Unless I’m very much mistaken, there will be lawyers up and down the country rubbing their hands together with glee at this.
Let’s take a look at an example.
Dog A) Is walking with his or her owner on a lead in a park. Dog B), a playful young dog is off lead and goes running up to Dog A in a playful manner. Dog A reacts by biting Dog B.
Self defence? Only the dog itself can know. So this will be one for the solicitors to argue. Unless we can get dogs to testify the legal implications of what canine self defence is are enormous. It is completely realistic to assume that dogs could be subject to control orders who are no danger to people but are simply assertive adult dogs who do not like being approached by out of control playful dogs. Dog on dog aggression is no indicator of human aggression.
The point being, this is a law that is missing the point. EXACTLY like the original DDA in 1991 where it is now obvious that not enough thought was put into what the implications of the word ‘type’ would entail. It is a stone cold fact that many dogs of a ‘type’ are now dead. They were never dangerous. Ever.
Are we about to rubberstamp a proposal which could lead to inherent canine behaviour itself going on trial?
Finally we look at the third element:
* The microchipping of dogs that had transgressed, whose owners had been issued with a control order, would be compulsory.
How exactly does ‘knowing where a dog is’ stop it from being dangerous or attacking a person. Cadey Lee Deacon was killed by her Grandparent’s dogs in their own home. Ellie Lawrenson was killed by her Uncle’s dog in the dog’s home. Archie-Lee Hirst was killed by his Grandparent’s dog in its own home.
If there is a huge problem of dogs going out, attacking people and then going into hiding, I’ve not heard about it. And even if that was the case, having a microchip doesn’t enable the victim of a dog attack to track the dog or its owner down. Simply knowing where a dog is does not prevent it attacking someone.
This whole proposal works on the basis that dog owners want or intend their dogs to attack people and then try and evade capture. Which, as anyone with half an ounce of common sense knows, it’s completely untrue.
This proposal talks about the folly of breed specific legislation and then proceeds to do nothing to change it.
This proposal talks, constantly, about the need for prevention but contains absolutely nothing preventative. Nothing at all.
What we’ve got here is not even a compromise. At best it’s a complete deaf ear to all the legitimate calls for dog owners to be compelled to understand what responsible dog ownership entails.
This proposal does not do anything that would force dog owners to adopt better standards of ownership BEFORE a dog attacks, BEFORE a dog kills a person, BEFORE their dog becomes a potential danger.
Tougher penalties for dogs who attack on their owners property?
Where are the cases where dog owners intended for their dogs to attack and kill? Where are the dog owners who will now adopt a new mentality and think to themselves “Hmm, I’d better start training the dog better because now if it kills or seriously injures someone in my home I won’t be able to get away with anymore.” It’s like saying to someone now there is a 25 year sentence for involuntary manslaughter rather than a 10 year sentence. Who then is going to change their ways to rectify a future problem they don’t even expect to happen?
If this law existed last year, who reading this believes that because of it, Archie-Lee Hirst, Cadey Lee-Deacon or Ellie Lawrenson would still be alive today? I certainly don’t.
Education for dog owners, who may well be well intentioned but fundamentally lacking in awareness of many aspects of dog ownership, should be compulsory. It should be the law. Additional punishment for these people when their dog has committed an offence doesn’t stop it happening in the first place. Not even in the slightest.
The 1991 DDA drawn up by Kenneth Baker is now widely derided as being ill thought out, watered down, misguided. Full of ideas endorsed by representatives from within the dog world. Well guess what? We’re heading down the exact same path with this proposal.
Take a look at this, from the new Scottish proposal:
Problems with the existing legislation
Perhaps the strongest evidence that current dog legislation has not made the public any safer is demonstrated by British Medical Journal statistics, which show that the number of people attending hospital following a dog bite has doubled since the Act was introduced. This section examines the reasons why the DDA has not worked.Issues surrounding breed specific legislation
The DDA bans specific types, in the belief that some are intrinsically more dangerous than others. This has been the most controversial aspect of the DDA. The main problem is that it gives the false impression that dogs that are not banned are not potentially dangerous.Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 (c.53)
Several organisations – including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust and the Metropolitan Police – formed the DDA Reform Group to look at how to improve the DDA. Pressure from this group led to the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997.
Now take a look at this extract from a piece written by Kenneth Baker in 2007 not only defending his 1991 legislation but also calling for MORE breed specific legislation:
Why the law should bite back
Kenneth Baker Jan 3, 2007My Dangerous Dogs Act should never have been watered down. Now it needs strengthening.
The Dangerous Dogs Act which I introduced in 1991 had two purposes. The first was to remove from the UK the pit bull and pit bull-type dogs and to prevent the import of three other dogs which had been bred to fight. Secondly, to oblige all dog owners not to let their dogs get dangerously out of control in a public place.
Pit bull terriers were bred to fight – there were many illegal dog fights then as there are now. Some of them changed hands for thousands of pounds, being advertised in magazines as “heroic” or “very heroic”. They were trained to be vicious and when their jaws clamped on an arm or leg it was impossible to prise them open until the dog was dead. There had been many attacks by pit bulls, not only on humans but on other dogs, and I had support for my proposals from the Kennel Club, the RSPCA and a body of vets. (emphasis added)
Why in the policy document does the Kennel Club proudly attach its name to the 1997 revision but makes no mention of any support it gave to Baker’s original proposal? Either Lord Baker is lying or the Kennel Club is conveniently re-writing history to suit itself.
Dog owners and members of the public need to know. They’ve been sold out once and dog attacks have risen over the years since. They’re about to get sold out again, by the very same people.
If we want radically different results (less people being attacked and killed by dogs) the we need radically different legislation. It’s so obvious even a politician should be able to work it out.
How can anyone give credibility to a document that highlights the immense weaknesses in breed specific legislation but is then met with the statement ‘the political climate is not right to ask for a change’. The political climate will NEVER be right to ask for a change. Either it’s right, or it’s not.
We live in a society where it’s easier for a person with absolutely no knowledge of canine behaviour to purchase a dog, any dog, with less effort than it takes to buy a canister of gas to operate a barbeque. And this ’strengthened’ dog law does what exactly to prevent that? It does what to plug the REAL gaps in dangerous dog laws that will REDUCE the number of dog attacks? It does what, exactly, to send out the message to the public that breed specific legislation hasn’t worked and should be scrapped all together?
This existing dog law and this proposal is no different to allowing a person to drive a car without explaining how the car works, that it needs certain things to function properly and that its driver needs to remain in control by attaining particular skills.
We test that knowledge and then we allow the person behind the wheel.
The alternative would be to allow anyone to get behind the wheel and hit them extra hard when the accidents happen. Does that make a lot of sense to you?
If we changed the laws on driving and didn’t demand compulsory training, compulsory education and a compulsory test but instead opted to quadruple the penalties available to those who are involved in collisions, do you believe we’d see less car crashes or more?
So please dog lovers, before you buy the spin. Before you are taken in by this capitulation to political correctness rather than real, effective, radical reform of a misfiring law, please be aware what you are being asked to acknowledge as a ’step in the right direction’ is actually nothing of the sort. You’ve been sold out once, you’re being sold out again.
This proposal won’t stop dog attacks, won’t reduce dog attacks, won’t make owners more aware, won’t reduce the supply of dogs to unsuitable people, won’t stop children being killed, won’t stop people still focusing on breed specific issues, won’t do anything other than give more punitive powers which, in turn, won’t stop the cycle happening again and again.
The Kennel Club should have had the backbone to, instead of hailing this as a ’step in the right direction’ to shout from the rooftops that this is nothing but a token gesture, call it what it is, an abject failure to make a difference to the core problem. To call it a compromise would be giving it more credit than it deserves. The only reason it’s being called a ’step in the right direction’ is because the Kennel Club has been advising the MP in question.
If Lord Baker is speaking the truth, and we have to assume he is and the Kennel Club supported his, now widely derided 1991 act, will we be seeing the Kennel Club lining up to condemn this legislation in years to come when we find dog attacks have not reduced and more calls are coming in for breed bans and tighter restrictions on large breed dogs?
Scotland, you’ve been sold out. Don’t buy it. Stand up and demand that the law focussses on the prevention of dog attacks.
Stand up and demand that you not be sold this spin and rhetoric over changes that will do nothing to reduce the number of unsuitable people owning dogs.
Stand up and demand that your interests as responsible owners not be sold out because you’re represented by people with no backbone. Who ‘broadly welcome’ additions to a law which won’t change a damn thing’. This should not have been broadly welcomed, it should have been torn into a million pieces. A radical change is essential if we want radically different results. Not more weak amendments to an already weak piece of legislation.
Owners are the problem. Always have been, always will be. This proposal won’t stop them getting the dogs. Won’t prevent them from exposing people to risk. Won’t stop the same calls for breed bans happening in the future when these proposals are shown to be a flimsy, lily livered addition to an already pathetic piece of knee jerk law making which was supported at the time by the same organisation who are supporting this one.
Dog owners and non dog owning members of the public need real laws that will have real results. This isn’t it. You know it I know it and it’s a crying shame those who’ve put their name to it don’t know it.
Support calls for a compulsory dog ownership test.
(Thanks go Alison Green for contributing to this article)
Download a copy of the Scottish dog control proposal here
Highly Recommended: What dog owner wouldn’t want a piece of THIS action? – Get FREE dog food!
Related posts:
Loading ...
This article raises a large number of points all worthy of attention, but I will deal with just two. One of the ‘proposals’ the Kennel Club makes here which was created by the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group on which they sit (a sub committee of DLAG the Dog Legislation Advisory Group) is for ‘owner led’ inclusion onto a re-opened ‘index’. Exactly what do they envisage? That owners of perfectly well behaved dogs which may or may not be Pit Bull Terrier type (or other breeds the secretary of State decides are dangerous) will put them up voluntarily for inclusion on the register/index thus volunteering for all the restrictions that would place on them (neutering, muzzling, holding on a lead, insurance etc.)? I certainly wouldn’t if I owned one, I would wait to be told and may even then take the opportunity of my day in court. My conclusion therefore is that this is totally unworkable, like many of the study group’s proposals.
Unfortunately I also think that the alternative presented by the author of a pre-ownership ‘test’ is, in its current form, also unworkable although it could be developed.
Unlike a car there is no completely set way to ‘drive’ a dog because a dog is not a machine requiring limited physical control, and, although there are similarities, a great many techniques may be adopted to sucessfully ‘drive’ any dog safely. But also, most importantly, there is not any one organisation who could administer a test equivalent to the driving test. the Kennel Club, Association of Pet Dog Trainers, Animal Behaviourists etc. would all demand that they be the final arbiter.
But ‘tests’ could be useful if placed in another context!
If instead of using the test as a primary qualification for ownership the primary qualification was compulsory (third party) insurance, and dog owners were also made strictly liable in law for their dog’s behaviour, then ‘tests’ could be applied by the insurers to reduce premiums making involvement in ‘improved ownership (by qualifications) of benefit to dog owners.
Insurance rather than crimminal law could sort out many of the claims created by dogs; at the moment victims get neither crimminal nor civil satisfaction. Using insurance rather than a ‘National Identification Scheme’ would also enable enforcement agencies to concentrate on dogs that were putting people at risk rather than administering identification schemes etc. Permanent identification would in all probablity be required by the insurance companies in order to identify the insured dog or dogs on any given policy.
If you want to read more about these proposals please visit the website of the National Dog Warden Association and under NEWS loook at the documents on the revision of Dangerous Dog Legislation.
Reply
Hi Cuthbert. Implementation of the tests would indeed be a challenge and you are absolutely correct in saying there is currently no organisation or Govt dept in place to administer it. I would propose that this is half the problem. Dog owners are left to rely on representation by un-elected organisations who may mean well but all have their own individual vested interests in various aspects of the pet world.
Other countries in Europe are ahead of us in terms of management of canine welfare issues. I would propose that should a dog ownership test be introduced, it would require investment from the Govt but the long term environmental, economic and lifestyle (even life saving) benefits it would bring would pay the country back many times over.
Ultimately I take the view that whilst we make it easy for dangerous or ignorant people to own dogs as a right, no matter what punitive changes we make to the law, dog attacks and indeed mistreatment and neglect of dogs will never decline in Britain.
For me, if it’s radical results we’re after it’s a radical reform we need.
That would mean a genuine, electable person/people into Govt positions who are not puppets for large dog organisations.
Reply
KENNEL CLUB HAILS CHANGES TO DANGEROUS DOGS LEGISLATION IN SCOTLAND ‘A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION’
‘This would allow responsible owners of illegal dogs to register their dogs (providing their dogs were deemed safe, and met the registration requirements), and for the police to focus their activities on non registered pit bull terrier type dogs e.g. those that are likely to be owned by irresponsible dog owners.’
The above is a quote from the Kennel Clubs own self congratulatory article.
Surely the fact that a person owns an outlawed breed (under the DDA) shows that by owning it they are actually acting irresponsibly, so how do you differentiate between ‘responsible’ and ‘irresponsible’ owners of PBT type dogs? Surely they are one and the same thing, typical KC though, they seem to forget that they contributed to this Act? Maybe this is why they set up KCDOG to have a go at councils for having to deal with irresponsible dog owners of both pedigree and non-pedigree breeds as it diverts attention from the historical invovlement of the KC in legislation such as the appalling Dangerous Dogs Act? I know that there is now devolution around our country but we really need to have a federal style law that applies to the whole country in relation to dangerous dogs, otherwise we risk the ‘balkanisation’ of dog legislation in the UK & Northern Ireland.
Reply
I agree that we need radical reform. I disagree that the governement would produce it by a person or department. Legislative reform however could change the understanding of dog ownership if it created ’strict liability’ i.e. the owner was responsible by both action and ommission for whatever their dog did; this however would necesitate as a primary enabler that all dogs were insured against third party claims. Many probelms could then be reduced to ‘civil’ level using criminal law for only the worst cases – See the more detailed (but needing further work)suggestions on the NDWA website document.
The situation we have at the moment is ludicrous. I have just had something sent to me from another NDWA member, from the BBC website, which shows just how ludicrous.
Bear in mind that the judiciary have already provided case law which deemed the inside of a car to be a public place meaning that registered Pit Bull ‘types’ in cars should be muzzled and held on a lead. So a car is a public place – but a shared driveway is not a public place!!!:
Dog attack convictions overturned
A dog owner whose pet bit three people has had his convictions relating to the attacks quashed.
Michael Bogdal’s German Shepherd attacked three visitors on a shared driveway in Hull in 2005.
Mr Bogdal, 59, was given a six month suspended jail sentence at Hull Crown Court for three offences under the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act.
But the Court of Appeal ruled that the driveway was not a public place, and overturned the convictions.
Care home
The dog bit three people on the driveway between a property owned by Mr Bogdal and occupied by his elderly mother, and Sycamore House, a private care home for the elderly.
The issue before Lady Justice Smith, Mr Justice Underhill and Sir Christopher Holland was whether the location where the incidents occurred was a “public place” within the meaning of the 1991 Act.
Mr Justice Underhill said they appreciated that by overturning the convictions, users of shared access paths or roads would not have the protection of the provisions of the 1991 Act.
But he said: “Parliament chose, for reasons that we can understand, to limit the effects of the Act to cases where dogs are let out of control in a ‘public place’… even though, as the facts of the present case show, dangerous dogs may also be a menace in private places.”
Mr Justice Underhill encouraged Mr Bogdal to ensure there was no repetition of the incidents.
He added: “The fact that that driveway is not a public place does not mean that they may not incur civil liabilities arising out of its behaviour or get into trouble with the law in other ways than under the 1991 Act.”
Mr Bogdal, of Grassdale Park, Brough, near Hull, who runs a care home, represented himself during court proceedings.
The law itself needs revision, but in doing so we need to remember that the law will then only be as useful as those enforcing it. As a dog warden I judged a number of Good Citizen Tests for a local dog club, I have got three of my own dogs to the test’s gold standard, but the way I have seen the test administered at times gives me grave cause for concern. people expect to pass things, no matter how usless they are at them and that makes me wonder if a dog ownership ‘test’ would not simply become a ‘fix’. I think it must be part of some thing else and the only thing I can think of that would apply it is insurance – no government involvement.
With required insurance and strict liability the gentleman in the report wuld have been liable to compensate his dog’s victims, and I’m sure the insurance company would have someting to say about his next premium especially if the police or Council put a control order onto him.
Regards Cuthbert
Reply
Sharon Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 7:10 am
My pet dog (a greyhound – retired racer) was this week viciously attacked by my neighbour’s new staffy. Their spontaneous remorse expired when I suggested they pay the vet bills, at which point they tried to say it as normal behaviour, bitches never get on, etc etc. As they would not take responsibility I have reported the incident to the police.
The attack took place on our shared driveway, so I understand from what you say that tis is not a public place. Is there anything the police can do? I’m not so concerned about them paying for the vet bill, though that would be the “right” thing to do. But I am concerned that they take measures to prevent it happening – such as keeping their dog on a lead or muzzled when on ours shared space (mine was on a lead – we were walking through it, theirs was not). I am concerned as we both have young children, and mine was there at the time – what if they had been attacked?
I’d really appreciate your response – thank you!
Sharon
Reply
[...] you watching Breed Specific Legislation around the world? If so, check out the recent post by the ever-watchful Ryan O’Meara of K9 Magazine. Scottish Dog Owners Have Been Sold Out Over new Dangerous Dogs Proposal 16 Jan Posted by Ryan [...]
“That owners of perfectly well behaved dogs which may or may not be Pit Bull Terrier type (or other breeds the secretary of State decides are dangerous) will put them up voluntarily for inclusion on the register/index thus volunteering for all the restrictions that would place on them (neutering, muzzling, holding on a lead, insurance etc.)? ”
I have worked with many owners caught up in the law in Merseyside and around the country. While it is not the perfect answer, many of those owners would come forward. They are currently living in fear of their dogs being seized. Its hell on earth for them and has a drastic effect on the dogs welfare. Opening the register to owner led applications without the need for police and court involvment would be an interim measure but one that would be thankfully recieved right now.
Reply
In response to Allie. We are talking about the revision of the law here. If owners place their dogs on the index they are tacitly agreeing that their dogs are dangerous and it is reasonable for them to face the restrictions of muzzling in public plces, being held on a lead, being microchipped and tattooed and being insured. Once this becomes accepted do not belive that the government would use it as an interim measure, what would happen is that the Secretary of State would name other ‘types’ which must volunteer for those restrictions. It would therefore be far worse than not a perfect answer, and do not belive that it would prevent any dog from being seized, in fact it would provide at least six reasons for doing so i.e. you have volunteered your dog as being ‘dangerous’ but you have failed to keep it muzzled and held on a lead, or failed to neuter it, or failed to insure it, or failed to microchip and tattoo it.
I think you are underestimating the consequesnces of taking this course of action considerably. Keep your mind on long term solutions for solving the problems that would be acceptable to the whole community dog owners and non-owners alike.
Reply
Hi Cuthbert,
Forgive me for admitting ive not looked through NDWA suggestions in great detail but could you quikcly tell me if your suggestions have some good news in it for the owners of dogs that may be deemed type by the courts?
Reply
I do hope that somebody from the Kennel Club sees this article and tells the ’special ones’ who sit in the Kennel Club boardroom knocking back the whisky and brandy that people are not happy with them! Sad thing is however, is that they exclude non-pedigree dogs but think that they can call the shots on behalf of owners of cross breeds etc. For your information Kennel Club, you do not speak for me, even though I own a ‘pedigree dog’. When you go into your judgely huddles with government to get something really naff passed, then try to distance yourself from it years later it shows what an utter disgrace it all is! Nice one K9 Magazine on bringing this to the attention of those dog owners who are apparently represented by an unelected clique of establishment figures who somehow have the right to advise the government on how I should be ‘controlled’ as a dog owner because they have some kind of gentlemans club up in London.
To paraphrase the call from the American Colonists of ‘no taxation without representation’
‘NO KENNEL CLUB INTERFERENCE WITHOUT REPRESENTATION’
I know that it does not have the same ring but you never know!
Reply
In belated reply to Allie.
I’ve just lost a much longer reply by pressing the wrong button, but, briefly. I think that if we as dog owners are all prepared to live within much more demanding regulations which apply strict liability and require compulsory (third party) insurance. If we leave the Police and local government out of running this bureaucracy but allow them to enforce strictly against offenders under a new set of Control Notices and Court Control Orders. If we place these arrangements on the table for consideration (as the NDWA has done by putting them on its website) then we also place ourselves in a position to say that we would expect such a revision to repeal existing breed specific legislation. The current article from Alison shows why it is so very important to do this – if we don’t legislators will assume that the only offers on the table which strengthen public protection are those like the Scottish ones (praised by the Kennel Club) which Alison so effectively demolishes in her latest contribution to these pages. Demolition is not enough at this point we need to present an effective alternative and I happen to belive that the NDWA document goes further in this than all other current suggestions.
Reply
Thanks for the reply. I shall look into the NDWA in more detail later. I agree that opening the register for OLR is still not good enough and I agree that demolition to ill thought out proposals isnt the answer to our current problems. The reason behind the article was to show as clearly as possible why the Scottish proposal does not seem to do what it claims, in the hopes everyday dog owning public will question it for themselves and make themselves heard. The Scottish proposal is much more in the minds of those owners than the NDWA suggestions. Maybe if those suggestions where pushed further then they would recieve more backing if they appear to be an answer?
What I dont think any of us want to see is a repeat of 1991 and maybe your suggestions hold some of the answers, I will certainly read it. I dont pretend to hold the answers but as a mere dog owner with a little knowledge I havent yet seen anything in detail that could work. Still, Im happy to keep looking provided we dont have something ridiculous (imho Scottish proposal) rushed through in the meantime.
Reply
For anyone trying to acces the NDWA documents at the moment you may have trouble as the website has just undergone a revamp and parts are no longer accessible today – hopefully will be fixed soon!
I agree that what we don’t want is a repeat of 1990/91, and I think that there is a critical sentence in htis respect at the start of Ryan’s critique i.e.:
The Kennel Club is calling it ‘A step in the right direction’.
The Kennel Club, RSPCA, and representatives of some police and local authority services formed a group called the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG) as a sub-committee of the larger Dog Legislation Advisory Group (DLAG) they have presented their paper which in my opinion is critically deficient in its contents. But the reason I think it is critically deficient is based on what I know, not on an emotional response, nor can they say that there are no alternatives as I have already rpresented one on behalf of the NDWA.
If there is a further incident (and I can barely believe that the child killed at Christmas didn’t provoke this) I believe that the governement will allow the snowball to roll on this revision (i.e. something similar to the the Scottish version) quoting the support of all the major animal organisations (who sit on DLAG).
In 1990 the NDWA stood alone in continuing to criticise breed specific legisaltion while all around pushed through the DDA for reasons best found in their various hidden agendas. The same will occur now. The difference this time will be that the criticism of the existing legisaltion and other possible arrangements made on behalf of the NDWA are in the public arena (and not just in a report to Hugh Marriage of the Home Office).
Reply
It may well be an emotional response. I am a mother and a dog owner. We are taking about the lives of children and many family pets among other things. Both of these things mean alot to me. I do not claim to be an expert on all canine legislation however, that doesnt make my opinion any less valid. The core points raised in my response are all valid as you mention previously.
I learnt what I do know because of that emotion and I know for a fact other good people learn from things I write. I presume it is because of how I write that they understand it. Some of those people had the new proposal and the NDWA suggestions both at hand however, they didnt see a problem with, and where prepared to back the proposal until they read my *emotional* response. Just because one proposal is not the right one, doesnt mean the second proposal should be grabbed with both hands. I have glanced at the NDWA proposal and as with every other one I have seen, there are things I believe are missing that could have a positive impact on reducing dog attacks. But thats just my opinion.
Its often down to complacency and lack of understanding that any changes go unchallanged. If a little emotion means people understand a little more and become less complacent thats not a bad thing.
Your comments about standing alone may or may not be true as an organisation however there are a huge number of parents and dog owners out there whose opinions are equally valid. I am thankful that places like K9 media allow us the chance to voice our thoughts. Its all too often our opinions seem to be “written off” .
Reply
It is great that there is a debate forming that ‘ordinary’ people can have access to. Cuthbert Jackson is totally correct that if there is another fatal incident then the government will take on board what the major canine organisations have all said via DLAG. It is also true that NDWA stood alone when all others were backing the Dangerous Dogs Act. With the advent of computers and emails as well as sites such as this one, the truth outs as in the case of the Kennel Club et al all supporting at the time breed specific legislation, which they are all now opposing and supporting BSL groups? The government cannot do wrong by at least looking at the NDWA’s ‘thoughts/proposals’ can it?
Reply
Most cetainly not. All suggestions/proposals MUST be looked at in great detail before any decision is made even if that decision is too keep looking for an alternative solution. Everyone in the country with a dog or thinking of owning a dog in the future should also look at all suggestions.
Reply
Allie; please don’t take my comments regarding emotion as a personal criticism of yourself, they were not intended as such. Many people are emotional about BSL, there are constant emotional tirades about it in what is generally thought of as the ‘canine press’ but it hasn’t moved us further than the 1997 ammendment – it has however often served to polarise opinion and deminish the chance of a legislative review.
Meawhile you have the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust, RSPCA being consulted by government in the background and, in my opinion advising them badly on legisaltive development, which they then disociate themselves from once enacted!
I am not being critical of your legislative knowledge either (its actually quite good) when I say that I can give you chapter and verse on this type of ‘consultation’ over a great many years and a great deal of legislation – why? – because the NDWA provided the questions that needed to be answered but weren’t, as you are doing now.
This time I want it to be quite clear that the NDWA has both made the demolition of the exisiting, and some proposed, legislation and provided an alternative as a starting point for discussions on radical reform so that not only the things presented by government are criticised but it is made quite apparent that alternatives were tabled.
Engaging in public debate as we are is something that those whose advice is most likely to be taken by government do not like – do you see any Kennel Club contribution to our ‘comments’ on their support for the Scottish proposals? What they will do AGAIN is distance themselves from whatever the government produce; they did it with the DDA 1991, they have recently done it with Dog Control Orders, it is a known technique I for one do not believe they should be allowed to get away with again.
To all those in any doubt the Kennel Club support the proposals by this MSP which began this section of comments; read his proposals and tell me if the Kennel Club support of it does not continue their support of Breed Specific Legisaltion. He consulted with people associated with the Kennel Club and the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group before producing it!
Reply
Cuthbert, you are spot on about where are the pro-Kennel Club comments on this feature. Also why has the Scottish Kennel Club not defended this Bill against any critical comments posted here? Dont forget that whatever the Kennel Club and other ‘worthies’ come up with for the government to front, they themselves will not have to deal with the fall out, that is usually down to councils and the police, with the adjacent criticism that comes down from the ‘experts’ The reason that the government and its advisors ignore the NDWA is because they do not like the truth, they only want to hear what their advisors push on them! Regarding examples of blame everyone else, the Dogs Trust ‘Stray Dog Survey’ that duplicated the original NDWA Stray Dog Survey is an excellent example. The Dogs Trust contacts councils for their publicly available statistics on dog control, collates them then accuses councils of ‘killing’ hundreds of dogs every week. If the figures were used more rationally, it would show that in some areas out of 5-6,000 dogs seized if around 90 are destroyed (mostly because of the illness or injuries for which they may have been thrown out) per year then it does not have the same sound bite effect of ‘150 dogs killed in UK each week by councils’ Allie, the sad thing is that despite the sterling efforts of people like Cuthbert, who are actually working at the ‘coal face’ of the problem, the government prefers to work with people from organisations that may indeed deal with dogs, but they do not deal with the issues that they feel so qualified to advise on. No wonder the state of the dangerous dog legislation in this country is such a shambles!
Reply
Cuthbert,
There is no doubt in my mind of the position of the NDWA. They have consistantly stated being opposed to BSL, prior to the Act coming into force and to date. I totally understand that with things as they are you wish to make that point heard loudly again. I have contacts with people in the dog world who ask mt opinion due to my interests and I want them to know my thoughts on the proposal just as you do. Totally understand that. I have, with one or two others, been looking at some ideas which may be worth discussing as to the pros and cons of involving them in any new legislation…not breed specific. I do think that some of the suggestions will be, dare i say, foolish, to leave out should legislation change (as imho it must). I have also contacted Alex Neil myself to ask a few questions. So long as people dont sit back and expect others to look after their interests and that of their dogs without question, we could have a shot. Otherwise, it will be a re run of years ago.
CrazyCanine,
I have previously been involved with working with dogwardens and pounds and do find there is often a gross misunderstanding of the job they do. Fact: We NEED Dogwardens because of the behaviour of irresponsible owners. It is also down to those owners that we have a PTS figure at all. I know through what I have done that there simply isnt enough room for all the dogs abandoned each year and have often had to pick and chose knowing who is left my die. That is a people problem, not a dog warden problem. I know of many dogwardens who have paid out of their own pockets to try and save as many dogs as they can but while the core problem (irresposnible owners) continue to go unchallanged, so will our stray problem continue to grow. I noticed in the NDWA that there are suggestions (iirc) to make an owner pay for costs whether they claim their dog back or not. Tbh I think thats a very good idea and may make them think twice. at present they are free to abandon the dog with no repercussions at all. That imho is not good enough.
Reply
I fail to understand how this proposal will protect the pubic. I am sorry but it also gives me more concerns as a responsible dog owner.
to apply court orders to dogs that may act “dangerously out of control” have an “aggressive nature” or “act aggressively” in a private place.
Who is to define these statements? Who will be responsible in making the decision that a dog was:
a, Dangerously out of control
b, Have an aggressive nature
c, Act aggressively
I list all three as seperate as I would define them seperately. As a behaviourist and someone that has worked with dogs day in and day out for 20 years I know some would define (lets say) an aggressive nature as a dog that barks or growls at them. Others would define a dog that barks or growls (but not lunge forward or bite) as a dog that was using self control and their only means of communication to ask the person to move away (often the case if the dog is cornered or on a lead where it cannot just move itself away from the situation)
Under this proposal what would stop my neighbour (that hates all dogs) making a complaint regarding my dogs?
Who would be qualified to judge the situation? Or would I be left spending time, money and heartache fighting to prove my dogs innocence whilst watching my dogs suffer having to be kept on lead and muzzled when they are used to off lead controlled exercise?
We all know that the DDA has not worked, that it has not prevented the recent attacks, but I fail to see this as an answer. No one wants more attacks, instead we want a law which will address all the issues and works.
Reply