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.
Highly Recommended: What dog owner wouldn’t want a piece of THIS action? – Get FREE dog food!
Related posts:
- Major Animal Welfare Charity Will Attend Crufts Despite Controversy
- Another Council Recommends Breed Specific Legislation
- Police Chief: Breed Specific Legislation is Stupid
- The Dangerous Dogs Act: It’s Time For Breed Specific Legislation To Go & Go Now
- Attention Dog Lovers, Yes YOU! THIS is What Breed Specific Legislation Does
Loading ...
For an ANIMAL WELFARE charity to make these rules which will put many animals on the street purely because of their looks or their (legal) breed name does not come across as the actions of people who have ANIMAL WELFARE at the front of their agenda.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Blue Cross’s public statement in Jan of last year so why are they going against their own public beliefs??
On a personal note, I am deeply offended as an American Bulldog owner that this legal breed is seen by the Blue Cross as worthy of exclusion of help if needed. The Blue Cross stated that the list of breeds (that are not on the DDA) are excluded so why then have they turned around and said each individual dog will be considered on an individual basis? Clearly not!
Reply
I am an American Bulldog owner and am very saddend that Blue Cross would operate in this way, there are no specialist recues for american bulldogs that I am aware of, and I am concerned this stance by the blue cross will unfairly label a legal dog as dangerous, I would not offer support to this charity.
I recently followed the progress on the BBC of a deaf american bulldog called Colin, the actor and his wife who run a rescue had worked wonders with him, he was rehomed via the tv programme,a great piece of animal rescue work, that made no attempt to lump an american bulldog in with breeds banned rightly or wrongly-wrongly in my opinion by BSL !
Reply
You couldn’t make it up! (To quote a well known blogging Police Inspector) RSPCA, Kennel Club, various UK MP’s, the Red Tops and other Media and now the BLUE CROSS?
How on earth do they include the American Bull Dog and the Red nose(?) Stafforshire Bull Terrier ??? I’ve been doing this job for years and thats a new one on me. Yet more problems for the poor old Staffie. The constant repetition of the same ‘types’ doesn’t help their credibility. Is it another example of if they repeat something often enough it must be right?
These big organisations seem to be becoming more like politicians all the time. ‘We will say one thing to you in public but practice the opposite when we think you won’t notice. If you do notice we will repeat constantly that we didn’t mean it that way and it’s a misunderstanding on your part’
Reply
I would like to know if my perfectly legal American Bulldogs will get vet treatment by a blue cross center.
Will someone from the Blue cross please answer this question?
Reply
Absolutely disgusting. Having said that I worked for the Blue Cross some years ago and the centre and Manager I worked for already had the (unwritten) policy of not admitting staffy types. I asked head office at the time and a number of reasons/excuses were given.
They certainly do not get my support after a spell working at one of their centres.
Reply
Julie
Interesting that you worked for the Blue Cross and they had this type of BSL in operation a number of years ago, how many years ago was that?
Dave the Dog
It is like a bad dream that unfortunately has all the big gun dog and animal ‘charidee’ establishment involved in it. They are advising MP’s and government types about how WE the ordinary people should be governed regarding our dogs. Well frightening, but sadly not that unexpected. Great to see yet again K9 Magazine standing up for the ordinary dog owner and bringing these double standards and BSL type issues out in the open.
Reply
Just realised that in my last post I should have said
all the ‘big gun’ dog and animal ‘charidee’ establishment involved. I was not saying anything about big gun dog organisations….phew!
Reply
Just remembered a previous reference to the Blue Cross and BSL, this is from the K9 Magazine article about the 240 minute breed ID course (you can find it elsewhere on this website):
Alison, it is bad enough with some of the long term ‘breed experts’ getting it wrong, how can somebody who attends a course lasting 240 minutes be treated as an expert! Yet again the Kennel Club starts meddling and I am surprised at Battersea Dogs Home and at Trevor Cooper being involved in this charade. You are also dead right about the impartiality issue. I thought that there was anecdotal evidence that a former KC Chairman allegedly refused to help PBT owners in the late 80’s and early 90’s because of the ‘type’ of people who owned them, surely this was BSL even then with a bit of socio-economic/class distinction thrown in for good measure? I dont think that the Home Office two week dog identification course is long enough either but then again the government and the police can basically do what they want nowadays. The scenario you write about has already happened, a policeman who had apparently recently finished the Home Office Dog ID course was walking around a Blue Cross kennels in the south of England and pointed out that a dog in there had the characteristcis of a PBT type, the Blue Cross made the rescue centre take the dog back? They did this on the say so of a copper who had just done a two week course, why was he walking around the kennels, was he practicing? Kennel Club if you want to regain trust and respect, you sure don’t want to do it by holding this appalling course cancel it now!
Reply
Interesting comments. Forgive me if this has been previously mentioned but if I recall correctly the Blue cross make up part of the Dangerous Dogs Act Study group, who thought up the Control of Dogs Act that they claim repeals BSL . However if you read the actual proposal it does NOT repeal BSL at all.
Reply
The main problem in the UK as I see it, is that puppies are bred for money without any thought of temperement or socialising or general health – looks are all. I have a 2 year old male tosa who is gentle, well socialised and loves other dogs – my female jack russell is a monster by comparison. Obviously we keep a careful eye on him because of the bad press the breed receives – but a dog with a sweeter nature I cannot find.
Reply
Caz
How is your Tosa perceived by the public where you live? The breed was added to the list of prohibited dogs at the start of the DDA but apparently there was only ever one Tosa in the UK and the owner took him/her overseas before the prohibition came in. True what you say about your terrier though, little scamps!
Alison
You have hit the nail on the head, all the large animal welfare groups are on these types of committees and work groups, it is just that not all of them come to the surface around the time such things hit the ground and before we knew it they became law. Probably easier to try to find some kind of dog advisory group to government that none of these large welfare groups are on?
Reply
[...] seems to be another example of a Major National Animal Welfare Charity publicly stating one position and then acting in a completely opposite [...]