Are the RSPCA Seizing Dogs Under Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act?
written by Dave Holden
Police and RSPCA officers seized two dogs in Burton after executing warrants under the Dangerous Dogs Act.
Following a number of complaints the dogs, thought to be pit bull terriers, were taken away from a house in Goodman Street and the owner has since signed an agreement for them to be destroyed.
Sergeant Chris Beckett of Burton Neighbourhood Policing Unit said: “The action followed concerns by police that these animals could pose a risk to people. Under the Dangerous Dogs Act it is illegal to own certain breeds which are considered highly unpredictable and this action was aimed at taking two animals, which had caused concern, off the streets.”
He (sic) police and RSCPA officers would always investigate reports that dangerous dogs were being bred or housed and take the necessary action.
This seems to be another example of a Major National Animal Welfare Charity publicly stating one position and then acting in a completely opposite way.
Why were RSPCA ‘officers’ involved here?
There is no mention of dog fighting or other cruelty issues. The RSPCA public position is that they are now anti BSL and have a policy that their field staff will not be involved in DDA Section 1 enforcement. Why the last statement that the RSPCA will take action under Section 1?
I would invite the RSPCA to comment on this and answer the two points to clarify their (non statutory) enforcement position and clear up any public confusion on just what their position is exactly.
Highly Recommended: What dog owner wouldn’t want a piece of THIS action? – Get FREE dog food!
Related posts:
- Dangerous Dogs Act Breakthrough: RSPCA Back Calls For Immediate End to BSL
- RSPCA Speaks Out Over BSL & Dangerous Dogs Act
- Have The RSPCA Failed to Act on Dog Fighting?
- Another Dangerous Dogs Act Canine Welfare Scandal: Dogs Continue to Die in “Police Care”
- The Dangerous Dogs Act: Costing Lives & a Whole Shed-Load of Cash!
Loading ...
The RSPCA were one of the original organisations with a non-statutory role who over-involved themselves with the Metropolitan Police in the 1990’s seizing and in at least one case destroying a dog at it’s home, who can forget the picture of a dog with a humane bolt sticking out of its head. If the Police and RSPCA were involved, which one would have used the humane bolt? They are one of the UK’s first and major upholders of Breed Specific Legislation as they were supporting the Met Police when they were going round seizing dogs in London. Why did they not just say ‘no’ and earned respect for their principled stand against an appalling piece of legislation?
If the RSPCA has any legitimate reason as a charity to now become an enforcement arm of the government and police in regard to BSL, why do they continue to have charitable status? They are accepting donations from the general public and then carry out enforcement action against the people who keep them going with donations?
They as a matter of urgency need to decide whether they do or do not have an enforcement role, also with their police style uniforms and regalia they confuse people into thinking they are an official enforcement agency.
Then again why are the RSPCA investigating reports of dangerous dogs, surely this is well outside their remit? Was it proven that these two dogs were PBT type, where was the expert breed identificaiton, yet again more dogs destroyed, wonder if the ‘authorities’ (police and RSPCA) convinced the dog owner to have the dogs destroyed so as to prevent any further action from presumably the police and not the RSPCA?
The RSPCA are a major prosecutor of cruelty cases in court (although they claim they are not experienced at court procedures etc, (see elsewhere on this site)). Although they regularly fail to disclose evidence to the defence as is required in English and possibly other law even when ordered to by judges, they obviously think that law does not apply to them, why else are they carrying out enforcement action when they are not authorised to do so? Is this a case of one law for us (everybody else) and one law for the RSPCA?
Sort yourself out RSPCA as you are losing the respect of the people.
Reply
The Government have all too freely passed the responsibity and control of certain areas into the private sector. And the RSPCA are no exception. The Government have basically handed over animal welfare into the hands of this animal charity. The RSPCA do not hide their animal rights political agenda and this must be seen as having a conflict of interest in too many areas. private prosecutions taken out by the RSPCA are seen as ” Guilty before being proven innocent ” and those being prosecuted have little to no Legal Aid entitlement.
The RSPCA as a non statutory body are above reproach and there is an unfair bias as to how their prosecutions are seen.
Animal cruelty needs to be stopped but the Legal system needs to be directly involved in any prosecutions and the CPS is an essential part of the legal system.
Reply
Andrew
You are completely correct in what you say, but for all it’s ‘we are only a charity’, they are really an arm of the establishment and they lobby the government to get things sorted out even when there is no role for the RSPCA to become involved.
Why are they seizing dogs with the police if there was no dog fighting issues involved here?
Keep an eye out for some kind of RSPCA sponsored call for a dog registration scheme to help reduce the number of stray dogs. Naturally the RSPCA will not have to enforce this as they are a charity, it will fall to the councils as the police have managed to get rid of dealing with stray dogs from 6th April anyway, so they are not going to get involved with enforcing a law that requires all dogs to be registered.
When the call comes from the RSPCA for dog registration, remember that you read about it on this site first!
Reply