Government Makes Dogs Dinner of Dangerous Dogs Consultation

Published on March 17, 2010 by Ryan O'Meara   ·   7 Comments

Less than a week after announcing their public consultation call on dangerous dogs, the Government has announced that one of the much touted ideas – compulsory insurance for all dogs – has been ditched. The U-turn is not only embarrassing back track, it also highlights the ineptitude of those charged with the task of issuing dog related legislation. Not only that, given the rationale for the about turn – citing the problem of only so-called ‘responsible’ owners being prepared to take out the insurance, then it must, surely, also knock on the head the whole idea of compulsory microchipping too, as the exact same logic applies.Launched to great fanfare just seven days ago, the Home Secretary and Environment Secretary Hillary Benn faced the press to talk about the problem of so-called status dogs or ‘weapon’ dogs.

This embarrassing climb down, less than a week after the initial launch is not the first in this already botched attempt at fixing the much derided Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991.

A Home Office grant of £20,000 is to be spent this year helping police forces train dedicated dog legislation officers to deal with dangerous dogs.

A leaked Whitehall discussion document on dog control legislation suggested that competence tests for dog owners would also be included. This sparked a storm of protest on the blogosphere among dog lovers and does not appear to have been included in the final version.

Benn said: “There is a lot of public concern about dog attacks, including the recent tragic deaths of young children, and about the rise in the number of so-called ‘status dogs’ used to intimidate or threaten people. This is a serious issue of public safety.

“The government wants to hear what people think about the law as it stands and what more we might do to protect people from dangerous dogs.”

Just a few weeks ago a suspiciously leaded Whitehall discussion document on dog control legislation hinted that competence tests for dog owners would also be discussed. However, this was not included in the final consultation document either.

It seems the Government is bumbling and lurching from one idea to another and flailing around in an attempt to kick dog legislation about like a political football.

Benn said: “There is a lot of public concern about dog attacks, including the recent tragic deaths of young children, and about the rise in the number of so-called ‘status dogs’ used to intimidate or threaten people. This is a serious issue of public safety.

“The government wants to hear what people think about the law as it stands and what more we might do to protect people from dangerous dogs.”

Well, it seems, the Government doesn’t want to hear what the public has to say at all, given it’s already made two decisions on two of the most prominent ideas touted within just a few weeks and on the back of a media reaction.

The need to remove, completely, breed specific legislation from UK law doesn’t appear to be up for discussion and it looks increasingly clear that even the proposal to insist all dog owners microchip their dogs can also be discounted, given the logic and reasoning used today by the Government:

Mr Benn said: “We can rule out compulsory insurance for all dogs. The idea of compulsory insurance was something that was raised with us because of the horrific injuries some very dangerous dogs can cause.

“It was therefore included in the government consultation document. But we would still be interested in views on whether third-party insurance could be a requirement of a dog control notice (ie if a dog is causing a problem).”

“We don’t want to penalise the vast majority of responsible dog owners because they’re just as concerned as everybody else about that small minority who mistreat dogs, get them involved in dog fighting or use dogs as weapons.

“We’ve got to make sure that the public are protected and we’re taking public concern seriously by asking how can we sensibly review the law that we’ve currently got.”

The Government’s view that forcing dog owners to compulsorily insure their dogs is ‘punishing’ responsible owners surely brings in to major doubt the proposal to insist all dogs be chipped, too. If the opinion is, as it seems to be, that only responsible owners will comply and adhere to the law, then the exact same must surely be true of compulsory chipping. There is no difference at all in the compliance argument with regard to insurance versus chipping.

Given this, it is sure to upset some of the animal charities who’ve campaigned for compulsory chipping as there is now zero chance the Government can push such an idea through without drawing accusations of hypocrisy, double standards and incompetence.

Nobody has yet put forward a credible argument as to how one compulsory scheme can and will work whereas another compulsory scheme wouldn’t. It seems politics are, once again, more to the fore than logic and clear thinking.

The Conservatives accused ministers of messing up the proposals.

Shadow environment secretary Nick Herbert: “Labour have dithered for years on this issue and then rushed out a policy consultation weeks before an election that was immediately seen as totally flawed.

“A dog tax on more than five million owners was proposed last week, and is now ruled out by Hilary Benn in a humiliating U-turn that just proves how tired and incompetent this government has become.

“We need a comprehensive approach to this problem with a focus on the minority of owners who use dangerous dogs as weapons, not the vast majority of responsible dog lovers.”

Mr Herbert failed to mention that it was his own party who launched and implemented the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, one of the most derided and unsuccessful laws in UK history and that Kit Malthouse, the deputy mayor for policing in London is still a big supporter of that very law.

It appears none of the political parties have a clue when it comes to dangerous dogs.

The RSPCA were one of the loudest voices in speaking out about s0-called ‘status’ dogs, a term which is not only stupid, undefined and openly prejudiced, causing many responsible owners of dogs such as Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Mastiffs and Rottweilers to feel persecuted and under attack, but it seems even they can’t quite get their position straight.

K9 Magazine has seen communication from the RSPCA suggesting they do not use or like the term status dog as it could just as easily apply to the likes of Paris Hilton as anyone else, yet on their own website(s) The RSPCA has dedicated sections to….yes, you guessed it – STATUS DOGS!

1) There is nor ever will be a legal definition of what a ‘status dog’ is. Many people own dogs for a wide variety of different reasons.can

2) If a person is using a dog as a ‘weapon’ there are already laws that tackle this crime (and it IS a crime, right now).

So, if there is such a rise in the so-called ‘status’ or ‘weapon’ dogs, then what exactly are the authorities doing right now to address this?

The Government minister for the Environment cites the deaths of 5 children in the UK when talking about this issue, yet in all 5 cases, those children were killed by family dogs on the family property. In those cases, the children killed were mauled by dogs who lived at the property and where the dog’s owner was not present at the time.

This can be put down to sheer ignorance with regard to the risks associated with dogs. It’s got nothing to do with out of control kids, hoodlums, status dogs, weapon dogs or any other glib, sound-bite or gimmick. These children died as a result of sheer ignorance and a lack of judgement from the people in charge of those dogs and the only cure for ignorance, is education. Not microchips, not insurance and not hype. Education. Compulsory education.

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne put the boot in to the Government, saying: “Another headline-grabbing Labour announcement has gone to the dogs.

“The law on dangerous dogs does need to be tightened up but not by a canine tax on millions of law-abiding British dog lovers.”

The fact remains, NONE of these politicians have come up with single, sensible solution between them. They’ve asked the public for their view but have already shown just how shallow that appeal actually is, having ditched two of the most prominent discussion points already.

Given the reasoning for this decision, there is no chance at all that the Government can push through a compulsory microchipping proposal as the exact same objections they’ve cited themselves as a reason NOT to pursue compulsory education or compulsory insurance applies to microchips, too.

It would seem that if people are going to make suggestions about how to fix our broken dangerous dogs act – be they in Government or prominent canine organisations – they should, at the very least, make sure they’ve thought through what they’re saying, what they’re asking for, what they’re objecting to (and on what grounds) before they collectively shoot themselves in the foot and come across to the public as bumbling around without any sound, clear logic between them, all of which will leave us in just as much of a mess as are today.

It’s as simple as this:

If BSL worked, why do we still have these problems that are being discussed, seemingly every week?

If BSL was even practical, how many thousands of innocent dogs would have to be wiped out in a state sponsored, dog killing spree before the next ‘status’ dog came up on the rails?

If one compulsory initiative ‘can’t be done’ on the basis that some people will ignore it, why bother with ANY law at all? After all, what’s the point in ME paying car insurance and taking a driving test when I know full well that there are plenty of people who don’t? Surely this Government should just ditch the entire concept, giving in to the idea that because certain people won’t comply, the idea itself is bad? Seems pretty weak-willed, limp and pathetic when we’re deciding against legislation on the basis of the minority of people who are going to break the law.

If you are a dog organisation and you object to a compulsory scheme for education, even describing it as ‘ludicrous’ then don’t make yourself seem completely out of touch by then getting behind your own compulsory scheme which is subject to the EXACT same problems as any other compulsory scheme – if certain people will ignore compulsory education, what on earth makes you think they’ll go along to a vet to get their dogs chipped? That, I’m afraid, is ludicrous thinking. and it makes you seem self-interested and detached from logic and reason. It’s hypocrisy and it sets the debate back.

If you are a major dog charity who puts on a public image of being against BSL, it would sound much, much more convincing if A) You actually did something to ensure we are rid of BSL immediately and B) You don’t make private comments to journalists expressing the view that ‘campaigning against BSL is pointless’ (you know who you are.)

It would seem, depressingly, that the woolly thinking, knee-jerk reaction to hype and media noise that was at the forefront when Ken Baker rushed through his failed Dangerous Dogs Act is as prevalent in 2010 as it was in 1991.

The personnel may have changed, but the screamingly disjointed, illogical, self-interested voices are pretty much the same now as they were then.

Whilst the UK retains a practice, enshrined in law, that seeks to kill dogs because of what they look like, we have absolutely no right to call ourselves a national of animal lovers and we have no right to expect a single, shred of difference when it comes to dealing with the problem of irresponsible dog ownership.

It may have escaped some people’s attention when they talk about responsible dog owners paying for the irresponsible ones, but that’s exactly what’s happening RIGHT NOW.

Where else does the money come from that allows charities to deal with the thousands and thousand of abandoned dogs?

Where else does the money come from that allows police to round up (many innocent) dogs, keeping them in kennels (often seeing them die in those kennels) whilst experts argue about whether the dog is a pit bull or not. That costs the tax payer MILLIONS of POUNDS.

Where else does the money come from to fund the over worked, under paid dog wardens who have to pick up the pieces of irresponsible dog ownership?

That’s right, the tax payer foots the bill once more.

So come on, can we cut to the chase – this public consultation idea has been a disaster, a sham, from the start. Decisions are made before the public even has the chance to mail their views.

Whether we get a new Govt of the Conservatives, Labour, the Lib Dems or a combination of any two, NONE of them have actually come out and acknowledged that breed specific legislation is a failed, expensive concept that has actually exacerbated the problem of dangerous dogs, so whilst the UK still deploys BSL as a concept, we can expect (and would deserve) more of the same. Which political party is going to be brave enough and intelligent enough to make the right call and end BSL and place the emphasis of ALL dog related legislation on owners, not dogs?

Highly Recommended: This could be the most important link you EVER click as far as your dog’s life is concerned – see why….!

Tags:  Breed Specific Legislation, Dangerous Dogs, dangerous dogs consultation