Last week saw the RSPCA hold a dangerous dogs seminar where it was revealed that Britain is seeing a rise in dog attacks, dogs used as weapons and dog fighting.

Grim news. Grim indeed.

But how are we quantifying these proclamations? Who and how are we measuring this information? Is it a fair and accurate portrait of what is really happening?

Less than one calendar year ago we heard this from the Metropolitan Police:

. There are comparatively few reported instances of its breach and a very small reported number of dogs being used in other criminal offences.

. There is very little evidence of anyone being in possession of a dog used to commit an offence not covered by the Dangerous Dogs Act. Those that were recorded are shown in Table 2:Table 2 – Numbers of individuals recorded on CRIS as using a dog on other criminal offences.

Year	ABH	Harassment	Business Robbery	Personal Robbery	Total
2001	0	0	0	0	0
2002	1	1	1	0	3
2003	1	0	0	1	2
2004	1	0	0	0	1
2005	0	0	0	1	1
2006	2	0	0	2	4

On the 5th of June, just two days after the RSPCA conference where it was claimed dog fighting was on the up as was the problem of ‘dangerous’ status dogs, a question was raised by Labour MP Gordon Prentice in the House of Commons:

We know from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that over the past 12 months there has been a huge increase in dog fighting and an explosion in the number of ferocious dogs on our streets. Such dogs just intimidate people, so can we have an early debate on the operation and continuing relevance of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and on whether we should bring back a system of dog licensing?

So, the question that needs to be asked, has there been an ‘explosion’ of ferocious dogs since 2007?

We are told that dog attacks are on the increase. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren’t. Statistics are in dispute.

The RSPCA tell us:

* The RSPCA has recorded a huge increase in the number of calls regarding ‘dangerous’ dogs, dog-fighting on the street or dogs used as intimidation or weapons over the last two or three years.

* Over the same period, RSPCA inspectors in certain areas, mainly urban, have been aware of a large increase in the number of ‘tough-looking’ dogs on the streets. These would include pitbull-type dogs (which are illegal under the Dangerous Dogs Act), Staffordshire Bull Terrier-type dogs and mastiffs.

All of which is conflicting. In 2007 Police tell us they are NOT seeing dogs used as weapons. The RSPCA tell us they are recording more calls about dogs being used as weapons.

So let us ask this.

If you were being intimidated by a thug with a dog, would you call the Royal Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals or would you call the Police?

Let us also ask, what, exactly, is a ‘tough-looking’ dog? It is suggested a ‘tough-looking’ dog is a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, a Mastiff or a Pit bull type dog. Just what does this have to do with anything?

The RSPCA themselves are encouraging us, actively, on June the 6th to adopt a Staffie. They implore us:

Through no fault of its own, the breed is suffering a bad press due to its aggressive image and popularity as a status symbol.

yet the RSPCA’s own inspectors are reporting on their findings that there are more ‘tough-looking’ dogs on the street, including the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Are they not therefore contributing the bad press?

A crime is a crime. It must be reported to the Police, not an animal charity.

For us to try and link an increase in professional dog fighting and baggy trouser wearing kids who go out onto the street with their Staffies in order to emulate their American gangster rap idols is one HELL of a leap. The two things are NOT one and the same. Professional dog fighting is underground, hard to crack and the RSPCA deserves our full and unswerving support in trying to combat this criminal activity. Kids hanging out on the street with their status dogs is not a criminal activity. If they do decide to break the law, the Police are the organisation who will record the statistics.

The linking and assumptions being made are unsettling. Status dogs are not a new trend. From times of early Royal families the status of some breeds has been an attraction. Many people choose a dog breed to reflect their personality. We will NEVER outlaw the status dog. As an issue, unless we wish to make it illegal for certain people not to become dog owners per se, we are completely wasting our time and energy on trying to battle a trend which is not illegal.

What we don’t need is speculation, wishy washy figures based on nothing more than assumptions and two totally seperate activities being tarred with the same brush.

Dog bite stats are hard to measure. Take a look:

A spokesman for George Eliot hospital in Nuneaton told a reporter for IC Coventry

Although we don’t have access to detailed statistics, we can say anecdotally that, if anything, the number of people needing treatment for dog bites is falling.

“We’re a bit bemused by these figures, to be honest. We don’t get anywhere near as many as we used to.”

The article goes on to state:

The same sentiment was also expressed by spokesmen for the University Hospital, Coventry, Warwick Hospital, and the Hospital of St Cross, in Rugby.

So yes, maybe dog bites are rising, maybe they’re not. We don’t know for sure.

RSPCA inspectors say they are seeing more ‘tough-looking’ dogs on the streets. And? That’s not a crime, that’s a trend. Are these dogs being abused? Are they being underfed, not looked after? The RSPCA’s objective is to prevent cruelty to animals, they aren’t the Police, here to protect us from criminals. The Police, you may recall, were telling us not more than a year ago that dogs ARE NOT being used in crimes to any great extent.

The RSPCA go on to tell us this:

RSPCA animal hospitals are receiving a lot of these dogs in for treatment on injuries including fight-related, road accident (if they’re running off lead) and diseases caused by indiscriminate breeding. At Putney Animal Hospital, 80% of all the dogs seen are bull-terriers types

Now we’re really getting into the detail. This IS cruelty. This IS abuse and this IS something the RSPCA has every right to be alarmed about.

But we need a bit more detail. Lots of ‘these’ dogs does not tell us about ‘those’ dogs owners? Are these the same dogs owned by the street thugs mentioned earlier or is this an extrapolation of wider figures?

The press briefing goes on:

At least 50,000 dogs were recorded as stray by local authorities in England and Wales in 2006, according to RSPCA figures. See: (www.animalwelfarefootprint.com)

OK, that’s bad. But, excuse my ignorance, so? What has this got to do with the story at hand? Are these 50,000 strays the result of inconsiderate hoodies or is this a national trend across the range of all, irresponsible dog owners?

And more:

Dog thefts across the Metropolitan Police area have risen from around 20 per month in 2003 to around 40 a month in 2006.

This IS getting confusing. More people giving their dogs away/letting them stray and more people prepared to break the law to actually get a dog? OK, let’s take it on face value. Who is stealing these dogs? How many dog theft crimes are being SOLVED in order to give us an accurate picture of what is happening here? And furthermore, what does THIS stat have to do with the original message about status dogs and illegal dog fighting?

The RSPCA are hard worked. They do a thankless task. They deserve our support in protecting animals from abusive situations.

Personally though, I object to ANY organisation bombarding me with conflicting statistics in order to get a message across.

It’s simple really. REAL simple.

1) If the status/ ‘tough-looking’ dogs on the street that the RSPCA inspectors are seeing more of are being abused or suffering cruelty at the hands of their owners, seize the animals and prosecute. Otherwise this really is a non issue. It’s not illegal and therefore gnashing our jaws about it is a complete waste of time and energy.

2) If dogs being used as weapons or for criminal activity is on the rise, this is a Police issue that the Police should be dealing with. A criminal offence is a criminal offence.

3) If we had a dog ownership suitability test in place we WOULD be able to marginalise and criminalise irresponsible dog owners who were not the legal owners of the dogs in their possession, who didn’t have the responsibility to sit and pass the test and who were using their dogs in anti social ways.

We do the same things decade after decade and expect different results? That’s madness. If dog ownership standards are falling, abandonments rising and we have NEW challenges facing us along with rising dog attacks that provides us with a very clear message that we would do well to heed, our existing laws have failed, are failing and will continue to fail.

Complaining about lawful activity is a literal waste of time and energy. Effort should be put into making a change, doing things differently and accepting that we got it HORRIBLY wrong when we allowed Ken Baker to introduce his cruel, unfair and terribly flawed 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act. It also relevant to mention, the RSPCA supported that legislation along with Kennel Club and others who now position themselves as best placed to advise on solutions to remedy the problems we are now faced with in terms of poor laws and rising problems with irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs. Let us not be swept into throwing bad legislation after bad legislation. We’ll regret it if we do.

Have your say on dangerous dogs, status dogs, dog laws and any other animal welfare issues. Join the Pet Owners Parliament today ! It’s free and it your membership CAN make a difference.

Highly Recommended: What dog owner wouldn’t want a piece of THIS action? – Get FREE dog food!

Related posts:

1. Dangerous Dogs on Britain’s Streets: The Truth (all we want is the truth)
2. Are the RSPCA Seizing Dogs Under Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act?
3. Dangerous Dogs & Status Dogs Look Past The Hype & See The Truth
4. It’s time to repeal the dangerous dogs act – by Felicity Lynch
5. Finally It’s Here – the Most LOL Dangerous Dogs ‘Report’ EVER!