The 20 groups have come together to demand action against irresponsible dog owners by the Government and the provision of necessary resources for those tasked with policing dog control laws.

It comes ahead of the summary of responses from Defra’s consultation on dog legislation which is expected this autumn.

The consultation received more than 4,000 responses by the time it closed in June, indicating the scale of interest in the subject.

The statement will be sent to Prime Minister David Cameron MP, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg MP and acting leader of the opposition Harriet Harman MP.

The statement says: “We believe that irresponsible dog ownership, whether it is allowing dogs to stray, be dangerously out of control or indiscriminately breeding them, causes significant problems for the safety and welfare of both humans and animals. Current legislation is proving inadequate in many cases to ensure sufficient protection.

“We believe that both the provision of sufficient resources at a local level for local authorities and the police, and updated and consolidated legislation that has a genuine preventative effect, are needed to address this problem.

“We call on the coalition Government to act and bring forward legislation that addresses these areas effectively.”

Organisations signed up to the statement include:

Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, The Blue Cross, The British Horse Society, British Veterinary Association (BVA), CIEH (Chartered Institute for Environmental Health), Communication Workers Union (CWU), Dogs Trust, GMB, Guide Dogs for the Blind, IIRSM (International Institute of Risk and Safety Management), Kennel Club, The Mayhew Animal Home, National Dog Warden Association (NDWA), PDSA, Police Federation, Prospect, RSPCA, TUC (Trades Union Congress), UNISON, UNITE.

Charlotte, owner of rescue Staffordshire Bull Terrier Meatball, says ”The law right now is ridiculous and must be changed, all dogs have the potential to be dangerous but also all dogs have a much greater potential to change and fulfil the lives of their owners. Punishing people’s pets that have done nothing wrong on the basis of their appearance is terrible; they are family members who are loved. The truth is dogs bring more joy to people than they bring harm – but that doesn’t make headlines”

The current legislation has come under fire again recently with major organisations demanding the legislation is scrapped and a new bill proceeding through Parliament that removes the emphasis off the type of dog and places it firmly on the owners. The Metropolitan police expect to spend a staggering £10,000,000 of taxpayer’s money on enforcement of the current failed legislation over the next four years with the vast majority of dogs held having never shown any sign of aggression.

Meanwhile dogs can be held for years in almost solitary confinement while cases drag on. Welfare of seized dogs has also caused uproar as more than one hundred dogs have died of illness or unknown reason while in the care of the authorities, while others have been returned cut, bleeding and emaciated.

And Charlotte isn’t all talk and no action. On 24th July Charlotte and Meatball will be joining Anti B.S.L group DDAWatch and members of the public at a Vigil entitled ‘Not Guilty!’ in Richmond Terrace, London. DDAWatch members hope the event will send a strong message to the Government that the current legislation is flawed and must be replaced.

One attendee, Sarah Anderson said “I watched my dogs as they died because I believed I had no choice. They had never hurt anyone and I would never have put them in a position that they felt they would have to. The Vigil will be a time for me to remember my girls and I hope that with Charlottes help, the Government will heed our call and stop punishing the Breed rather than the Deed.”

Charlotte believes now is the time to speak up and protect friendly pet dogs whose only crime is in their appearance.

At 5pm during the vigil Charlotte will accompany representatives of DDAWatch to Downing Street where they will hand in letters from members of the public requesting a repeal of section one of the Dangerous Dogs Act. They will also hand over a scroll in memory of some canine victims of BSL.

Liberal Democrat Peer Rupert Redesdale outlined before the Lords his intention to introduce major changes to current dangerous dog legislation, which is widely considered to be one of the most ineffective pieces of government legislation ever brought into force.

These changes include:

· More emphasis on the owner’s responsibilities – the Bill supports the principle that it is the owner who has the potential to make a dog either well-behaved or badly-behaved. It gives authorised officers the powers to place Dog Control Notices on irresponsible owners at the first signs of dog aggression.

· Legislation will no longer be breed specific – since the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, public money and resources have been wasted by already overstretched police authorities seizing dogs simply for being of a particular breed or type. Research now overwhelmingly supports the principle of ‘deed not breed’, and proves that genetics (breed) play only a limited part in the temperament of an individual dog, with environment and training having a far greater effect.

· Attacks which take place on private property would also become a criminal offence – a large number of dog attack incidents occur within the home and on private property. The Bill includes various exemptions such as being attacked by another animal, provocation, and attacks on individuals committing an offence for which they could be imprisoned.

Regarding the second reading, Lord Redesdale commented: “The Control of Dogs Bill has had a successful second stage and is now going to Committee in the House of Lords. A number of issues were raised which will have to be dealt with in Committee but all contributions in the debate stressed the need for responsibility on the other end of the lead – with owners”.

Lord Redesdale’s work on the Bill has been supported by the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group, which is made up of animal welfare organisations, veterinary professionals and local authorities. The DDASG has lobbied against the inadequacies of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 for many years and believes that current legislation has failed to protect the public and instead caused a significant welfare issue whilst creating the problem of status dogs.

DDASG Chairman and Veterinary Director of Dogs Trust, Chris Laurence said “Contrary to the comments of Lord Grantchester in this afternoon’s speech, Dogs Trust wholeheartedly supports the work of the DDASG, at which we Chair, and Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill.

The Bill focuses on prevention rather than cure, better protects the public and emphasises responsible dog ownership and all members of DDASG are delighted that it has passed its next stage through Parliament”.

Existing legislation has failed to reduce the number of dog bite incidents in the UK, which have risen in the past five years by 79% in London and 43% nationally*. Meanwhile costs have continued to rise; it was revealed that 10 million pounds has been spent by the Metropolitan Police alone in the past 3 years simply to implement Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, relating to the seizure, kennelling and euthanasia of banned breeds.

The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group has also launched a petition supporting Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill which already has almost 10,000 signatures. The petition can be found at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/repeal-and-replace-the-dangerous-dogs-act.html

For more information on DDASG, Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill and current ‘dangerous dog’ legislation visit http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/928

http://www.londontown.com/LondonStreets/richmond_terrace_096.html

Everyone is welcome but please note that NO DOGS ARE PERMITTED TO ATTEND THIS EVENT. It is our turn to fight for them so their presence is not required and they would prefer the sofa at home anyway!!!

We are asking everyone who attends to write a personal letter stating why they are opposed to B.S.L. At 5pm two representatives of DDAWatch will be escorted to Downing Street to hand in your letters.

If you cannot attend but would like us to hand in a letter on your behalf please post your letter to:

Endangered Dogs Defence and Rescue Ltd

Post Office Box 1544, London, W7 2ZB

Please ensure all letters are handsigned and ideally an address for any response to be sent directly back to yourself.

A selection of letters may be read out at the Vigil although names/addresses will not be given out. Please state on the reverse of your letter if you do not wish your letter to be read out.

Please bring posters and banners and keep all dialogue with the public polite and friendly. We wish to share our message in a positive and memorable way.

We have a job to do, to educate the public and campaign peacefully to the government and we need to engage rather than enrage.

We hope many of you will be able to attend the vigil and show your support for the repeal of Section One, DDA.

Please bring cameras and soft drinks. Poster and banner ideas will be uploaded to DDAWatch facebook group in the next few days.

We are also hoping to do a live broadcast of the event and would love to hear from anyone wishing to hold a similar event in their area. Please email mail@dangerousdogsact.co.uk for more info

To add a fun element to our peaceful vigil, there will be a mystery PRIZE for the best T-shirt of the day, best banner and after the event, best of photograph from the vigil, get creative folks!!

Thank you for your support and we look forward to seeing you there!

Please confirm attendance by emailing mail@dangerousdogsact with the number of people in your group or you can confirm via our facebook fan page http://www.facebook.com/pages/DDA-Watch/366883744658?v=app_2344061033#!/event.php?eid=110461509003483&ref=mf

Existing legislation has failed to reduce the number of dog bite incidents in the UK, which have risen in the past five years by 79% in London and 43% nationally*. Meanwhile costs have continued to rise; it was revealed that 10 million pounds has been spent by the Metropolitan Police alone in the past 3 years simply to implement Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, relating to the seizure, kennelling and euthanasia of banned breeds.

The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG) has lobbied against the inadequacies of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 for many years and members of the group are now backing a new Dog Control Bill proposed by Lib Dem Peer Lord Redesdale, which will receive its second reading in the House of Lords on Friday (9^th July).  This Bill would consolidate previous legislation and better protect the public by targeting the cause of dog attacks – dog owners themselves.

Lord Redesdale commented: “People deserve to feel safe around dogs and this Bill goes a long way towards protecting the public through tougher action against irresponsible dog owners. The current law has done nothing but make banned breeds and their lookalikes more appealing and created the issue of status dogs because they are a status symbol.

“Owners of aggressive or violent dogs of any kind would be brought to account with this Bill, which in turn will prevent a large number of attacks by dealing with problem behaviour at the first signs of aggression rather than when an attack has taken place, as in current legislation”.

Can you spot the dangerous dog? The answer lies with the owner holding the lead.

If passed, the Bill will introduce major changes to current dangerous dog legislation, which is widely considered to be one of the most ineffective pieces of government legislation ever brought into force. These changes include:

• More emphasis on the owner’s responsibilities – the Bill supports the principle that it is the owner who has the potential to make a dog either well-behaved or badly-behaved. It gives authorised officers the powers to place Dog Control Notices on irresponsible owners at the first signs of dog aggression.

• Attacks which take place on private property would also become a criminal offence – a large number of dog attack incidents occur within the home and on private property. The Bill includes various exemptions such as being attacked by another animal, provocation, and attacks on individuals committing an offence for which they could be imprisoned.

• Legislation will no longer be breed specific – since the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, public money and resources have been wasted by already overstretched police authorities seizing dogs simply for being of a particular breed or type. Research now overwhelmingly supports the principle of ‘deed not breed’, and proves that genetics (breed) play only a limited part in the temperament of an individual dog, with environment and training having a far greater effect.

The DDASG has been working closely with Lord Redesdale in support of his Dog Control Bill and has long been calling on the government to repeal the current legislation. The Group believes that the breed specific nature of current legislation has caused it to fail, and that focusing on individual breeds has failed to prevent a large number of dog attacks, or reduce the number of Pit Bull Terriers in the UK.

DDASG Chairman Chris Laurence, Veterinary Director of Dogs Trust, said: “We firmly believe that the Dangerous Dogs Act needs to be overhauled to better protect the public and that a new dog control regime that emphasises responsible dog ownership should be introduced.

“The Dog Control Bill supports the principle that it is people, not the dogs themselves that make dogs dangerous. Lord Redesdale’s Bill would allow people to be better protected from dangerous dogs with tougher action taken against irresponsible dog owners.”

The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group has also launched a petition supporting Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill which already has almost 10,000 signatures. The petition can be found at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/repeal-and-replace-the-dangerous-dogs-act.html

When legislation is designed to eradicate a certain species, in this instance, a certain type of dog, you’d imagine then, that the law must be so super-protective and of such great benefit to mankind that we simply couldn’t do without it, wouldn’t you? You’d expect a law that has the almost God-like power to rob innocent beings of their lives, to be entirely righteous and justified for its absolute necessity, wouldn’t you? Because the fact that a law like this exists at all should surely mean it is supremely validated and irrefutably indispensable in keeping the majority of the public safe. Welcome to BSL, it doesn’t work like that.

Though the banning of four types of dog is part of the British legal system, known as section one of the Dangerous Dogs Act, you will find if you read the sad stories of those who have been affected by the breed ban, that victims of this law are in fact those who do not own dangerous dogs, and the obvious point of contention that people from all walks of life become distressed and annoyed by, is the fact that Breed Specific Legislation is based on a wholly unfair specification that outlaws the appearance of the dog rather than the behaviour of the dog or its owner, hence identification of dogs deemed to be ‘of type’ is flawed, haphazard and mistakes and miscarriages of justice cannot be rectified once the death penalty is carried out. If we were talking about a parking fine I would not be writing this. Innocent lives are ended, unbelievably, by the measuring of big heads and bulky bodies, curly tails and smiling jaws. Breed specific identification is a farce because it concentrates on the physical features of canines that are essentially of crossbred descent, discounting character, temperament and the environment in which the dog has been reared. Environment is of course intrinsically linked with canine behaviour but breed specific law has no use for common sense or the value of responsible ownership, nor does it value the obvious potential of education as a means to make our streets safer. BSL goes on is merry way barking up the wrong tree and killing healthy, well behaved dogs at every opportunity.

So, this broadly sweeping act of parliament that delivers the death penalty to dogs that fit its ambiguous and dubious criteria, should, in 19 years of operation, have ended dog attacks, should it not? Well, err, no, it seems dog attacks are (according to government spiel) on the increase, yet the monolithic monster that is the BSL experience, remains ominously set in stone on the Statute Book and continues to cost the taxpayer millions. Messrs Cameron and Co should look no further than the Dangerous Dogs Act in their quest to cut public spending!

BSL by nature of its design is built to keep the public unanimously in an unfounded state of fear and the good old gutter press helps enormously with this task, news teams bash out sensational headlines of dog attack accidents including their ‘standard’ photographic response, which is the picture of a fighting dog unrelated to the story.

So, BSL teaches nothing, fixes nothing and blames and condemns dogs for the irresponsible behaviour of human beings. Trial by tape measure continues and apart from the occasional comment from one or two clued up politicians, MP’s generally cannot be bothered to question the inherent flaws that keep this crazy piece of legislation busily doing its worst.

Members of the public may find their MP approachable on most subjects of interest to the taxpayer – but the DDA seems to render members of parliament speechless. It is easy to ignore the great big mess of BSL because its victims are locked out of sight and cannot defend themselves. Assumption of pit bull type is not good enough reason to remove a dog from its home and prosecute its owner. Clearly the prohibitive ’catch all’ agenda renders ‘dangerous’ dog legislation farcical because it is entrenched and based upon the ridiculous premise of guilt by association. This is why repeal is the only way forward. We cannot continue to stand idly by whilst countless innocent canines are imprisoned and/or destroyed because of what they may, or more importantly, may not look like.

Being a responsible dog owner (of a bull breed dog) quite literally becomes of no consequence and of no benefit to your dog if it is seized. It matters not that your dog has never bitten anyone when the reason for the dog’s seizure and your possible prosecution (yes this is criminal law) is based upon the fact that you have what ‘looks’ like an illegal breed. So, you may live in fear of your beloved dog or dogs being seized but the law doesn’t care how responsible or irresponsible you are, the law wants you to put your loveable bullies to sleep or they will come looking for them. Caring owners who train and socialise their dogs are not and never will be, out of the range of the all seeing eye of BSL henchmen. Those who want to see this law enforced and who often push enforcement to the nth degree, can be counted amongst the population in a range of capacities, they can be ordinary people who do not like dogs, the cheery postman, the dog warden, the county councillor and otherwise friendly neighbours. But beware the enemy within, for when it comes to BSL, everyone believes they can identify a banned dog from forty yards, and many bull breeds have arrived in BSL prison because someone with a grudge against someone else shouted ‘Pit Bull!! Pit Bull!!’ Yet most pit bull sightings are as believable as the Loch Ness monster! And those with true compassion for companion pets, who seek to align dog legislation with a ‘deed not breed’ ethic, are ignored.

One Belfast family is making vast strides ahead in a very new and sadly vital campaign which they began because of the shock confiscation of their family dog Lennox. The brutal reality of BSL recently interrupted their happy lives, and now in order to save their gentle and very much loved pet dog Lennox, the Barnes family have set out on a fight to win back his freedom and his life. Mr and Mrs Barnes have no other option but to campaign and campaign hard, because their hearts are literally broken into pieces and they are missing their boy. Lennox has been in prison, at time of writing, for 43 days, 5 hours, 2 minutes, 43 seconds and counting…

I spoke with Caroline Barnes earlier this month when Lennox had been removed from her home for only a few days. The lady I heard on the other end of the phone was quietly spoken, intelligent, compassionate, polite and friendly. Though Caroline covered her heartbreak by chattering (as dog lovers do) about all the sweet and funny things Lennox did, I knew and I could hear in her voice how brave she was trying to be, but her heart is brimming over with the pain and hurt she is experiencing since Lennox was taken without warning, leaving every member of the household in shock. Caroline’s heartbreak was obvious in the sad and weighted moments of our conversation. I came off the phone feeling wretched and at a loss for what to do to help this family. My own dogs gathered around me making a furry garland of care, their noses pushing softly to comfort me as I wiped tears from my cheeks and cursed the hateful BSL.

I imagined the pain Caroline Barnes was feeling having to discuss the loss of her dog because of a law that does not take into consideration the law abiding lifestyle of its victims, canine or human. I liken those who uphold and enforce BSL to bailiffs. BSL ‘bailiffs’ remove living objects from those who do not owe a debt and innocent dogs are confiscated from their families for what can be months, even years. The ongoing and high profile case of family dog Bruce, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier crossbreed in Northern Ireland, reaches its 3 year mark this September and Bruce has been incarcerated for all of this time as the wheels of the legal system run in slow motion and councillors and officials deliberate and pontificate at a snails pace, leaving Bruce existing in some kind of depressed half-life. This is the fate of many muscular pit bull look-alikes. If suspected pit bull type dogs are allowed to come home they can be returned under strict conditions known as the Exemption Register, this can only be achieved via order of a court and it means the dog must live a life of restriction for the rest of his or her days. Most worried owners agree to these restrictions to spare their dog’s life. This is yet another humiliating and time consuming aspect of BSL, but owners do as they are told and jump through hoops or their dog gets it. Caroline has the misfortune of living in Northern Ireland where dangerous dog legislation is currently up for debate. They claim they do not have the exemption amendment there, which would allow friendly dogs deemed of type to live, but UK barristers state they do. As things stand, if Lennox is said to fit around half the characteristics of a certain vague breed standard that is no longer used for that breed, he will DIE.

So, what can I tell you about Lennox? I can tell you that Lennox was seized by a dog warden on Wednesday 19th May 2010, following Caroline’s application to renew her dog licenses, a task she attends to annually. Belfast City Council have issued a dog licence for Lennox every year since he was a puppy, this year, after being registered for 5 years as an American Bulldog cross, he was seized under the dangerous dogs act, suspected of being of pit bull type. Until last month Lennox lived happily with the family’s other dogs, an 8 year old male Yorkshire Terrier and a 3 year old female Boxer. Lennox is also insured, neutered, DNA registered, Pet Safe registered and micro chipped. The dog warden came to the Barnes home armed with a dressmakers measuring tape, yes you did read that correctly… And after measuring Lennox’s head the warden decided that he should be seized, that was the last the family have seen of their dog. Lennox has an underlying medical condition that requires regular treatment from a vet. Caroline does not know whether Lennox is receiving any medication because his physical and mental condition is unknown. There is no council helpline or resources for people like the Barnes family, no updates from the dog warden or the dog control department, no canine welfare reports, no visits, no feedback, no correspondence from the authorities, no comment, no care, no way to find out a thing. This is pure heartbreak. Families who have their dog taken from them in this way just sit and wait by the phone worrying about their pet. It seems the most dreadfully cruel way to treat people and of course the dog, who finds itself in a new and frightening environment. Human prisoners, no matter how heinous their crime, are allowed a visitor from the outside world. But even the most basic human consideration is denied dog owners, before any court proceedings have taken place. This is nothing short of mental and emotional cruelty, which should have no place in a society such as ours.

Caroline’s main concern is for Lennox’s health, she said, ‘We know Lennox so well, he will be fretting terribly being parted from us and we have not had any replies from Yolanda Elwood, Dog Control Manager at Belfast City Council, though we have written to her several times to inquire about the welfare and whereabouts of Lennox, and we would at least like to be able to visit him to see for ourselves how he is coping and let him know that we have not abandoned him. I just cannot understand how Belfast City Council can be so heartless. We are responsible dog owners and law abiding citizens, our dog has never caused any trouble to anyone and we feel that we are being treated very badly. Our only option is to take our campaign to the highest possible level in order to save Lennox’s life. People have offered us tremendous support and each day there are new messages inquiring about Lennox. We are receiving letters from as far away as America and Canada, we have also had amazing support locally from friends, family and neighbours and members of the public who want to help us bring Lennox home. Lennox now has his own campaign song and the media is contacting us to broadcast and share our story. We are so grateful and would like to pass on our sincere thanks to everyone from the bottom of our hearts, it is so touching to think that people all over the world are reaching out to be part of Lennox’s campaign and we hope to highlight the injustice of BSL not only in the UK but world wide. It is a sad reflection of today’s dog legislation that this could really happen to any responsible dog owner, and through our story we can show people how wrong it is for an innocent family pet to be seized, and maybe destroyed, simply because of the dog’s appearance, it’s not right or fair and the law must be changed to protect people like us and dogs like our Lennox who have done nothing wrong’.

What would we do if we were faced with this devastating scenario? How would we cope? Caroline and Craig Barnes and their disabled daughter Brooke had to begin ‘coping’ immediately and with no time to waste. This caring and respectable family launched the Save Lennox Campaign within days of Lennox being taken from their lives. If you visit Lennox’s website you cannot fail to be moved by the pictures of him as a chubby, carefree pup playing in the grass, and now at 5 years old he is a very handsome, well cared for companion dog whose eyes look kind and gentle. The photographs are like the ones you see on any dog lovers’ forum, but in this case the photographs are shared because Lennox’s family are literally fighting for his life.

On the website you will see a picture that 11 year old Brooke created to plead for Lennox’s safe return, for at the centre of this sad story there is a bewildered little girl who cannot understand where her pet dog has gone. On the picture Brooke has written the words ‘Please bring my bestest friend in the whole world back to me’. The picture has reduced grown men to tears and compelled many groups and individuals world wide to gather and galvanize support for this family in their hour of need. Indeed a law that takes disabled children’s pets from them does not deserve respect. Yes the law must protect the public from dangerous or out of control dogs, Lennox is neither, yet he was taken from Brooke and her family as easily as a teacher confiscates sweets from a child in class time. How will Brooke regard the law in years to come, I wonder?

The only explanation that Mr and Mrs Barnes can give their daughter is that Lennox is caught between a rock and a hard place for he is simply not permitted to be alive whilst BSL law exists, and it is deemed that, along with many other innocent dogs like him, Lennox should become null and void, a species that must be cut out of society and exterminated because of how he looks and nothing more. If we treated human beings this way we would almost certainly find ourselves in jail. But, this is a law for dogs and it would seem we are not the nation of animal lovers that we are considered to be after all.

You can find out more about the campaign for Lennox on this website –

http://www.savelennox.co.uk/

And please sign the petition here –

http://www.petitiononline.com/sl190510/petition.html

You can ignore the rise of Breed Specific Legislation if you wish, until the day you may wake up to find your breed of dog, your best friend, is on the banned list. Since 1991 thousands of dogs have been destroyed because the dangerous dogs act doesn’t like how they look – regardless of how well behaved they might be. If even half of the UK’s 10 million responsible dog owners spoke out against this uncivilised and disreputable law, we could actually repeal it and ensure BSL is replaced with educational resources that would better equip dog owners with training standards and bring irresponsible owners in line with safety measures that could save lives and ultimately help to keep the public safe.

BSL legislation does what it says on the tin, it bans breeds of dogs and types of breeds. What really needs banning is unfit law and your dog needs your voice, now!

Maria Daines

June 2010

The list of breeds was compiled at ‘random’ says reports from The Associated Press and these 12 breeds carry the stigma of ‘fight dogs’. Alexander Willer, a spokesman for Vienna’s main animal shelter, told The Associated Press that it was now harder for abandoned breeds of this kind to find new homes.

“The image of these dogs has hit rock bottom,” Willer said, adding that since Christmas, the number of “fight dogs” seeking refuge in the shelter increased from 123 to 170.

“The majority of people who own these kinds of dogs are normal — they aren’t psychopaths,” Willer said.

The law has caused outrage as some groups say that parks, streets and public places are now safer, whilst others claim this is victimisation against certain breeds of dog.

The AP report that officials estimate that about 2,500 dogs will be affected by the new law in a city where man’s best friend is often spotted snoozing in cafes, riding the subway and sitting outside shops.

If owners don’t comply by this time next year and are caught without a permit, they face fines and could even see their pet confiscated by police.

“The animal doesn’t have to know any tricks, fetch the paper or do a double back flip — all the owner has to do is show that he has it under control in a city setting,” city councilor Ulli Sima said.

“This is not about the criminalisation of any types of dogs,” added fellow councilor Sandra Frauenberger.

Have your say on breed discrimination – tell the Government what you think TODAY at: http://k9m.ag/bslrepeal

At the dinner, attended by Cabinet Secretary Richard Lochhead MSP, parliamentarians, key representatives of animal health and welfare organisations and the agri-food industry, and senior members of the veterinary profession, BVA President Professor Bill Reilly outlined the positive links between the veterinary profession, industry, and government in tackling animal disease and securing better welfare.

Professor Reilly also challenged the Scottish Government on a number of important issues, including funding of Scotland’s major scientific institutions and the future procurement of OV (Official Veterinarian) services.

On dangerous dogs, Professor Reilly highlighted the importance of new legislation in Scotland in getting the issue discussed in Westminster. He said:

“I have no doubt that the success of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill was a catalyst in the Labour Government announcing a wide-ranging consultation on dangerous dogs in March.

“For many years we were told by politicians of all parties in Westminster that there was no way we would get the issue of dangerous dogs legislation on the table. By leading the debate on this controversial issue, the Scottish Parliament proved that it does not have to be avoided.”

[note]Note: When I initially published this, it was the early hours of the morning. For those people who’ve been asking what can you do (thank you!), please add your voice using the comments section below as it acts as a digital archive of people’s feelings (one that can not be simply deleted or manipulated). But also, please write and express your heartfelt feelings to the newly appointed Home Sec, Theresa May: http://www.tmay.co.uk/contact – these dogs need people to speak up for them at this critical time.[/note]

Long – and possibly recent – term readers to this site will know that the dangerous dogs topic is one of the most widely covered here.

We have long since covered the various debating points and, often hair-brained, proposals as to how we can responsibly and effectively implement laws that don’t attempt to define a dog as ‘dangerous’ based purely on how and what it happens to look like.

The following is from the BBC:

Scotland Yard has been urged to destroy thousands of dangerous dogs rather than paying more than £10m to care for them.

The Metropolitan Police (Met) plans to outsource kennelling and care of dangerous dogs, which could cost up to £10m over four years.

Lord Harris, former Metropolitan Police Authority chairman, asked: “Why don’t we just put them down?”

A record 1,146 dogs, including pit-bull terriers, were seized in London in 2009. Police currently have 451 dogs.

Each dog can cost the force up to £9,000, while owners fight lengthy court cases trying to prevent destruction.

‘Enormous sum’

Lord Harris said the public would be shocked by the cost.

“We seem to be spending an enormous sum of money on keeping weapons for other people. Why do we keep on doing that?” he asked.

The number of dogs held by the police often surges after high profile incidents, such as when children are attacked.

Police said they could complete the paperwork needed to destroy a dog within 72 hours, but court cases can take years to conclude.

Supt Julia Pendry, who is responsible for the Met’s status dogs unit, said the force must operate within the law.

“It would be absolutely fantastic if we could destroy these dogs,” she said.

“Unfortunately it is a criminal offence because the property belongs to other people.

“Secondly, the RSPCA would probably prosecute me, and people like Defra and the national press would have a field day if we started killing dogs that were people’s pets,” she added.

SOURCE

As we have pointed out many times via these pages, the UK tax-payer is currently footing a VERY large bill for the implementation of this failed law.

Has it just dawned on the power’s that be the fact that if we have a law that compels Police to seize dogs that happen to LOOK a certain way, then the costs associated with such idiocy would be massive and they’d be picked up by the tax payer?

It was the Conservatives who brought this law in to force in 1991 and Labour failed to remove it.

In the past 5 years, 6 people have been killed by dog attack.

Breed specific legislation has had absolutely zero impact on reducing the number of deaths or dog attacks – since its inception it is widely acknowledged that the Pit bull type dog is now more desirable and carries a ‘premium’ price PURELY because it is contraband.

If Britain is to be genuinely committed to a reformist, progressive path – may we suggest the idea of wholesale killing of dogs would go some considerable distance to blowing that image clean out of the water.

When China hosted the Olympics, world-wide media levelled considerable criticism at the authorities who ’rounded up’ the stray street dogs and ‘dispensed’ of them in killing chambers.

Just a couple of days in to the UK’s ‘new dawn’ and we have this obscene suggestion that a mass cull of dogs – who are being held BECAUSE they have not been PROVEN to either be of ‘type’ or to have ever acted dangerously. Quick work.

Please, if you are compassionate dog lover – BE outraged. This is every bit worthy of your anger and emotion.

We must rid the UK of breed specific legislation, if not for the clear and obvious animal welfare reasons but quite simply because it does not work, has never worked and is costing us a fortune. If you live in the UK, YOU are paying for these dogs to be held up, often in shocking conditions (MANY dogs die in police care – the numbers are astonishing).

Nobody wants dangerous dogs on the streets. But the solution is to tackle dangerous owners, not dogs that simply happen to look a certain way and fulfil a definition of ‘type’. This is a system that has reached tipping point and we have a clear fork in the road…

we can either:

Seize and seize as many dogs as we have been doing and PAY for keeping them locked up, PAY for them to go through a ludicrous court process where ‘experts’ will argue as to whether their fur is thick enough to be a ‘type’ or if their chest is broad enough, experts with tape measures, experts opposing the experts with tape measures – all the while not even bringing in to consideration whether they dog ACTUALLY DID anything dangerous

or

Seize and seize and arbitrarily kill as many by virtue of the death rate that unfolds with seized dogs in Police ‘care’ or dispense with the charade all together and just put a needle in them as soon as they are seized.

When you think about folks, it really is ONE way or the other.

End BSL now!

Don't forget about Bruce!!

It can be very intimidating when a big, strong, dog approaches you and after a rise in the number of attacks by the popular pet, many people are calling for new measures to make sure that dogs are kept on leads. But are dogs being given a bad reputation unfairly?

I myself am terrified if a large dog comes up to me as I walk my Collie cross on open fields near my home. However this never used to be the case.

Around four years ago my family bought home a young male Weimaraner from the local dog’s home. At first everything was fine but after a few weeks things turned nasty. He went on to bite three members of the family, including me, meaning that we sadly had to send him back to the dog’s home.

It was especially heartbreaking, as 99% of the time he was a normal, loving dog. Something seemed to snap in his mind, he’d have five minutes of savageness then return to being nice and look up at you with his soppy sad eyes. In my opinion this could only be put down to how he was brought up. The same as if a human was treated badly it could have effects later on in their lives and on their mental state.

Despite how much I loved him and felt sorry for him it is the reason why I would never be able to trust a big, strong dog again. Just in case. I still hold the scars from his attack, and know that to have a dog’s jaw clenched around you is one of the most terrifying things that I have ever experienced.

The argument for keeping dog’s on a lead is simple. A dog can turn nasty at any time, and recent reports of family pets turning on children is a clear example of this. When I am out walking my dog not only am I in fear for myself but also for my dog, as she is small, not big built, and would not stand a chance if attacked by a big dog, an increasingly likely event in today’s society in which many dogs are bread to attack.

One breed in particular that has developed a bad reputation is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. At all the local dogs homes inside almost every kennel is a dog of this breed or a Staffordshire Bull Terrier cross, with the amount of Rottweilers not far behind.

Voluntary group and registered charity, Animal Lifeline, based in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire has saved over 10,000 dogs since it was founded over thirty years ago. The group never puts a dog down and always has at least 100 dogs in its kennels waiting to be re-homed.

Nick Fletcher from the centre explains why he thinks so many of these breeds get brought in: “We get all types of dogs in though there is a higher proportion of Staffies than there used to be. This is because the Staffy has become a fashion accessory for many young people, mainly young men. They then find that either the dog isn’t as fierce as they thought, and want to get rid of it, or their circumstances change, particularly if they have a partner. Young couples often have a dog until they have a baby, then they want to dump the dog. Also, many couples split up after a while and return to parents or go into rented accommodation, where they cannot keep a dog.”

It seems that like with a lot of things in today’s world looks are more important that the dog’s behaviour.

Nick added: “People often select a dog because of its looks, so smaller prettier dogs are always the first to be homed. Lovely dogs with nice temperaments are often ignored and remain in kennels for months just because they are plain in appearance.”

It can be easily seen why these people think they look tough with one of these dogs when they are basically being used as a weapon. Some dogs go on to be re-homed and make loving family pets but others will never find a home ever again because of their vicious mentality from their upbringing.

Despite their bad reputation, created through the media, Staffordshire Bull Terriers are in fact known as a trustworthy animal and sometimes referred to as the ‘Nanny Dog’ for their great affection towards children. Owners of so called ‘status dogs’ believe the facts and figures used in today’s news stories about dog attacks are unfair as the majority of attacks by smaller breeds go unreported.

Daniel Berrisford, from Stoke-on-Trent, has owned two Staffordshire Bull Terriers and agrees that the negative press towards the breed is unfair.

“I think the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the same as any other dog; it all depends on how you bring them up as to how they turn out. If you bring a Staffy up to fight then they have the mentality to fight, however if you bring a Staffy up as a loving house dog that is what they will become. Both of the Staffies that I have had would not hurt anyone and I believe it is because they were brought up like that. I think that if you bring them up in the right way you will not find a more loyal and loving dog.

“Some owners only have a Staffy or other strong dogs because they want to bring it up to fight and attack but I think that you could find any breed that has attacked somebody, so for a Staffy to have a particularly bad reputation is ridiculous.

“Little dogs often come up to larger dogs and go to attack them, even if they are on a lead but because the bigger dog retaliates and can do more damage they get the blame. Smaller dogs should be kept on a lead just the same because they can cause just as much trouble.”

The truth is that no dog should be branded a vicious breed when the victims of most attacks do not recognise the exact breed so stick to what they know, and certain dogs get the blame, the reason why there are no real statistics for dog attacks in this country.

It is also difficult to distinguish what actually is an ‘attack’. A recent incident in my area occurred in which the police were involved as a dog had knocked somebody over and ripped a coat. A total accident in which the dog was playing, but accused of a vicious attack just for being a big animal.

The truth is that however much the media tries to scare people about our favourite furry friends, the increase in ‘attacks’ has not risen that much and that dog attacks and collisions involving children have actually declined by approximately 18% over the last 10 years.

With a UK dog population of around eight million, it is an issue that cannot be ignored. Measures need to be brought in to deal with the irresponsible owners who are giving all dogs a bad name, and to protect the public from them so that we can feel safe around the nation’s most popular pet again.