The following information comes from the recent British Veterinary Association congress discussing contentious issues affecting dogs in British society. Two arguments placed on the record come from Mark Callis – Dog Control Service Manager, Wandsworth Council and David Grant – Director, RSPCA Harmsworth Hospital. We publish their views here and remind readers that they are independent opinions and do not necessarily reflect the position of K9 Magazine.

Mark Callis

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has been a failure. This debate will consider some of the practical difficulties currently being encountered and will assess what kind of approach is needed to better protect the public. Mark Callis – Dog Control Service Manager, Wandsworth Council This presentation will focus on the London Borough of Wandsworth, which has been recognised as exceptional in tackling irresponsible dog owners.

Mr Callis presents some of Wandsworth’s initiatives and good practice, including:

• Defending young people and bull breeds and talking about stereotypes and public perceptions
• The change in tenancy and lease conditions for 35,000 tenants and leaseholders.
• Any tenant or leaseholder who wishes to keep a dog(s) in the property must have it microchipped and registered with the Dog Control Service in order to comply with their tenancy or lease agreements.
• Microchipping is provided free of charge and Wandsworth has registered and/or microchipped approximately 2,300 dogs since the scheme began in January 2009.

Wandsworth Council is unique in that it has a bye law to control the walking of multiple dogs in parks and open spaces. A licence must be obtained by anyone wishing to walk more than 4 dogs in any park or open space. It is free to obtain a licence but applicants must complete an application form supplying various details including their national insurance number and proof of public liability insurance to a minimum of £2 million, and attend an interview before the granting of a licence will be considered. Dog Control Orders. The council has recently introduced new orders.

The housing estate dog bye law. Established in 1996, this bye law helps manage dogs on housing estates by: banning dogs from all amenity greens, cultivated areas, playgrounds and drying areas; ensuring all dogs are kept on a lead on all estate roads and footpaths; and ensuring there is no fouling. The Council’s involvement with, and establishment of, the ‘People with Dogs’ project.

The group provides a DVD workshop that includes a short film and questions to encourage debate amongst its audience. It is targeted at young dog owners and is designed to challenge their attitudes and behaviours. The workshop is currently only available in London.

The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG). Wandsworth has been involved in this forum since it began. It comprises most of the major welfare charities and animal organisations and its objectives are to consider current legislation and make proposals/lobby for improvement. Currently, the group is advising and supporting Lord Redesdale’s Private Member’s Bill to replace the current Dangerous Dogs Act.

The Bill is progressing through the House of Lords and has completed two readings. Finally, the importance of partnership working, and an explanation of which partners are integral to tackling the current trend for status/dangerous dogs.

David Grant – Director, RSPCA Harmsworth Hospital

North London Dogs in the wrong hands have always been potentially dangerous and this applies to any breed of dog. In the past 5-10 years the problem has changed in that dogs are being used to convey status to youths mainly in deprived inner city estates.

The dogs can be any large breed but are mainly Pit Bull terriers and their crosses, Mastiffs, Rottweilers, Japanese Akitas and others. These dogs are often trained to protect, intimidate and attack other dogs and humans. There has been a marked increase in dogs seized by the Metropolitan Police from 35 in 2005-6 to 1152 in 2009-10, emphasising the escalation of the problem in recent years.

The dogs convey status to those people in our society who have no status. Fight wounds and neglect are common as is indiscriminate breeding for profit. The owners of these dogs find themselves on a conveyor belt of social deprivation which begins at birth and ends with the finished product-a youth with no educational attainment, job or prospects in life.

Many end up in gangs and acquire dogs. Politicians have tended to look for simple solutions such as rushed in laws which are unenforceable. It seems evident that politicians and others are not grasping the fact that dangerous dogs are simply a marker for an underlying social malaise. In this presentation dangerous dog issues will be looked at from a problem orientated way concentrating on the signs, diagnosis and underlying factors.

Some pictures of injured dogs will be shown which emphasise the shocking nature of the problem. In summary it will be suggested that no dangerous dog legislation will work unless the problem is looked at in an integrated way. This will need collaboration between the animal welfare societies, veterinary bodies such as the BVA, the police, local authorities, social housing providers and politicians. Understanding the complexity of the problem is key to formulating solutions.

—-

It seems the two speakers above share differing views with relation to so-called 'status dogs'.

This term has made its way in to popular reporting coverage, largely fuelled by the RSPCA themselves who have embraced the term and indeed, had a proactive fund raising campaign on the back of it (see http://rspca.org.uk/statusdogs which redirects to http://donations.rspca.org.uk/ – hmmmmm!). But Mr Callis touches on the other side of the debate, that stigmatising certain social stereotypes who choose to own particular breeds and types of dog is something to be defended against. This magazine has never seen any evidence to show that so-called 'status dogs' are the most dangerous in our society. In fact, of the fatal dog attacks to unfold in Britain over the past 5 years, by overwhelming majority the most common denominator amongst all the tragedies was in fact the presence of a grandparent and an attack unfolding NOT on a street corner, but in the home of the dog.

The issue of irresponsible dog ownership is far, far wider than simply attempting to label young people who choose to own a certain type of dog as 'status dog' owners.

In fact, it's quite simple: If someone is fighting a dog, abusing a dog, using the dog in a threatening manner…then they ARE BREAKING THE LAW ALREADY. So why are they not being dealt with?

What say you?

Do you identify with any of the opinions expressed above? Do you believe the large, vocal charities are practicing what they preach when it comes to anti Breed Specific Legislation rhetoric? Is the Dog Control Bill a positive step in the right direction?