Exclusive: Major British Animal Charity in Breed Specific Legislation Controversy

By Hamish Lazari. All rights reserved.

Animal Welfare charity the Blue Cross is operating a policy of breed specific admittance in relation to what dogs it will accept at its animal centres.

According to Appendix A of Blue Cross Standard Operating Procedures dated July 2007, the charity will not allow the following dogs to be admitted:

Specified in the Dangerous Dogs Act:

Pit Bull Terrier

Japanese Tosa

Dogo Argentino

Fila Braziliero (sic)

Excluded by the Blue Cross, including crosses of these breeds:

American bull dogs

APBT

American Pit Bull Terrier

Am Staff

American Staff

American Stafford

American Staffordshire Bull Terrier

American Staffordshire Terrier

Bandog

Bandogge

Czechoslovakian Wolfhound

Irish Blue Staffords

ISBT

Irish Stafford

Irish Stafford Bull Terrier

Irish Staffordshire Terrier

PBT

Red Nose Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Tosa

Wolf or Wolf hybrids

The procedure also advises:

‘also be aware that the following descriptions combined with any of the above may suggest prohibited dogs and must be referred to Head CAW for advice:

Blocky; Gameness; Game bred; Game proven; Leggy; Long Legged; Old Thyme; Old Tyme; Psychobred’

As there are lots of crossbred dogs seized as strays every year, the imposition of breed exclusion makes it that bit harder to find rehoming place for stray dogs that, most probably through no fault of their own, end up on the streets of the United Kingdom.

Apart from the legislatively banned dogs in accordance with the Dangerous Dogs Act, the Blue Cross has now created a breed specific obstacle to helping dogs who are in no way, shape of form ‘guilty’ of anything other than looking a certain way or having had their names tarnished by criminals involved in the dog fighting world.

The Blue Cross procedure starts with the following statement in bold:

‘Unusual or uncommon breeds should be referred to a specific breed rescue, or should be thoroughly researched before admission.;

It ends with:

The procedure informs that the Head CAW (Companion Animal Welfare) must be referred to for advice if any of the ‘following descriptions combined with any of the above may suggest prohibited dogs.’

All of which begs the obvious question, what is an unusual or uncommon breed?

There are a plethora of dog breeds that I have never seen up close, these to me would be ‘unusual’ and therefore uncommon were I to ever meet one.

For instance. The only time I have ever interacted with a Hungarian Puli I was amazed at its apparent ability to move around without the need for legs, due to its long coat! The corded coat also made me think that somebody had woven dreadlocks on, does that qualify as an ‘unusual breed’?

The apparant breed specific admissions policy begs far more questions. We posed the following to the Blue Cross for clarification on their stance. They issued us with the following statement:

“This information has been taken from some of our staff guidelines but has been taken out of context and is not breed specific legislation. Blue Cross animal adoption centres successfully rehome thousands of homeless pets every year and these guidelines would only apply to a small number of dogs coming in.

To put the guidelines into context….

It would be illegal for The Blue Cross to admit or rehome any of the four breeds that are banned under The Dangerous Dogs Act. The other types of dog listed are often used to refer to these same banned breeds and as a result we need to be very cautious before admitting any of them.

As for the more unusual breeds, there are certain dogs which would be better looked after and rehomed through a specific breed rescue centre because of particular needs. This will also ensure that they have the best possible chance of finding a suitable new home . Breed rescue centres for less common breeds may also have suitable homes waiting and this can actually reduce the time the dogs are with us and make spaces available for other urgent cases. Each dog is considered on an individual basis and many unusual breeds are successfully rehomed through our centres.”

Having received the statement I was left unsatisfied that this policy was anything other than blatant breed specific discrimination, something the Blue Cross themselves had publicly derided, stating in January 2007:

“The Blue Cross has more than 100 years’ experience in caring for abandoned and problem pets, which has taught us that no animal becomes dangerous as a result of breeding alone. Animal behaviour research supports this view that a dog’s behaviour is affected more by its upbringing, training and the behaviour of its owner than genetics alone.

We believe that a dog whose breed is termed as ‘dangerous’ under the law has every chance of fulfilling a loving family life if treated in an appropriate and responsible way. Equally, any dog has the potential to act in an aggressive or threatening manner as a result of bad experiences or in the hands of an irresponsible owner”.

Still feeling unhappy that my concerns over this apparent breedist policy had not been properly addressed by the charity, we contacted the Blue Cross with a set of specific questions in an attempt to establish some real clarity on this issue.

Are there stats on how many “game” dogs they are asked to take?

Are they are aware “Blocky” is a term used to describe ordinary Staffordshire bull terriers and the shape they are meant to be?

How do they determine the breed or type?

Are there expert breed ID staff employed to undertake this task?

What advice (if any) is given to owners of any of these dogs if they are not taken in?

Why is red nose stafford - a perfectly legal breed- listed and what makes a red nosed (legal dog) more difficult than a black nose?

Are they aware that American Bulldogs are legal and are not a breed used as ‘code’ for illegal dogs?

Have any dogs fitting the descriptions of the breeds listed been put to sleep and if so, how was that decision arrived at?

Does this policy on breed exclusives extend to vet centers too?

Are they aware that it is possible to legally register a dog that may be of Pit bull type and they can also legally apply for a change of keepership meaning the dog can be rehomed perfectly legally?

Is this information/policy kept out of the public domain for any particular reason?

Who decided which breeds/types/colours/sizes would be included in this policy and for what reason?

What expertise does the above person(s) have in this subject?

Did the blue cross consult with anyone else before drawing up this list of exclusions?

How many dogs have been euthanised by the Blue Cross for any of these reasons and what breeds were those dogs?

The Blue Cross declined to answer any of the questions posed, instead stressing that I could contact them privately to discuss my concerns further and that “We think our statement covers the majority of these questions”. I’m afraid I disagree. I do not feel the statement covers the majority of those questions at all, which is the questions were posed after receiving the initial statement. I still feel as uncomfortable about this policy as I did originally. I still believe this is a serious issue that must be addressed public. In simple terms, is one of the UK’s most prominent animal welfare organisations preaching an anti BSL message in public whilst operating a breed specific policy in private?

I have and will decline to take up this matter privately with the charity. I believe this issue needs to be addressed publicly for the benefit of Blue Cross members, people who give money to the charity and for dog owners in general, who I believe, like me, need to be convinced that what appears to be a blatant BSL policy is anything other than that.

Breed Specific Legislation has no place in the world of animal rescue. Yes, four breeds are illegal and it would be absolutely wrong for the Blue Cross to have anything other than a lawful policy on those dogs. But what about the others? American Bulldogs are not illegal. ‘Red nosed’ Staffordshire bull terriers are not illegal. ‘Blocky’ dogs are plentiful and perfectly legal. Why are they being singled out by a British animal welfare organisation who are publicly opposed to breed specific discrimination? I feel questions still need to be answered, and soon.

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: 28% [?]