Do you think Lord Redesdale's dog control bill is all that?

[Bullseye]

Just wondering what your opinions are on the bill that people keep getting excited about, that will apparently repeal DDA, I've already read it, just before it was reject in 2009 and I certainly have mixed feelings about it.....

........... what do you think?

[LeighandApple]

I would have to read it again as it's been a while since I first read it. But from what I remember I would much rather have the dog control bill in place than the DDA. I think any new laws will have issues to iron out when first in place, but if we keep saying no that won't work then BSL will never disapear from the UK. As long as the new law repeals BSL and places the responsibilty on the owners shoulders that's got to be a huge improvement on what we've had to put up with for the last 19 years.

Just my opinion and would like to hear others views on this.

Cheers Leigh

[Bullseye]

I hear you Leigh, but a DDA repeal doesn't necessarily mean a BSL repeal, they say it will remove DDA but the real problem part of DDA is only one part of it (section 1)

Here's an article I copied from the printed version of K-9 Magazine, there's an overview of it in the article and it has received rather a lot of criticism..........

As written in Issue #27 of K-9 Magazine by Desmond Fellows & Allie Green


In a landmark move, the RSPCA and subsequently the Kennel Club, have publicly backed calls for a repeal of the contraveral section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act. Whilst the wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly, this is to be a massive cornerstone in the relationship between dogs and the law.

What Is Breed Specific Legislation?

Breed specific legislation is legislation that is aimed at certain breeds or types of dogs based mainly on the appearance of those breeds or types. The best way to fully understand BSL is to see how it works in the UK.

Let's take the American Pit Bull Terrier as an example. The use of the term 'Pit Bull' is one that over the last 18 months has become increasingly commonplace yet many people will freely use the term without knowing exactly what it is that they are reffering to. So what exactly is a 'Pit Bull' in the United Kingdom in 2008?

Breed or Type?

First and foremost in the UK it is illegal to own any dog known as a 'Pit Bull Type. The breed American Pit Bull Terrier has never been recognized here by the Government so, instead of banning a breed that they didn't believe existed, they banned all dogs that looked like them. They attempted to ban a type of dog.

Definition

When the first cases of dogs charged with being illegal Pit Bull Terriers went before the courts, a huge problem became apparent. The courts had to decide, beyond reasonable doubt, that a dog indeed a dog that fitted the 'type'. Several Home Office Circulars followed issuing advice but it was decided by the High court in 1993 that a dog was a "type known as a Pit Bull Terrier" if it had a substantial number of characteristics of an American Pit Bull Terrier. In order to decide this they need to know what an American Pit Bull Terrier should look like. It was then decided in 1993 to use the breed standard as drawn up by the American Dog Breeders Association at the time. In recent years the ADBA have changed the standard a number of times, however the first standard is the one referred ti in UK courts today.
The High Court also stated that a dog could be of the "type known as the Pit Bull Terrier" regardless of its parentage and that behavior was relavent but not conclusive.

Identification

Under Section 1 of the DDA a dog becomes a Pit Bull type if it has a substantial number or most of the characteristics of an American Pit Bull Terrier as described by the ADBA standard. Substantial or most is normally a dog that scores more than 60 percent. Once an accusation has been made it is up to the defense tp prove otherwise, not the prosecution to prove the dog is a Pit Bull tpye. The standard set out 100 points to consider when looking at the perfect APBT.
Out of those 100 points only 10 points can be given in the respect of the dog's attitude and behavior. The way a dog scored falls down to interpretation. For example, a number of points can be given for a dog with a muscular build. Any dog is capable of having a muscular build of varying degrees and each person will have a different on how well muscled a dog is, therefore leaving several people giving different on the same dog. The standard also suggests the tail should rest at the hock, however some will give points for tail that rests just above or below. There is also a lot of debate over various points of the standard and how it is to be interpreted. As all dogs, even litter mates are never identical - one dog may score more or less than its sibling. This often leads to the same dogs with the same parentage being split into 'Pit Bull type' and not 'Pit Bull type'. Sometimes simply by being a little taller, a slightly shorter muzzle and a tail being a little to long can make the distinction between illegal or legal. Other breeds or cross breeds can and have been, deemed Pit Bull type. When looking at any dog being stated as being another breed, it often falls to which standard scores the most points. If a Staffordshire Bull Terrier or a Staffordshire Bull Terrier cross for example, doesn't fit the Kennel Club breed standard for a Staffordshire Bull Terrier quite as well as it does the ADBA standard for an APBT then its quite possible a court will find the dog to be Pit Bull type.

In Court

Court is often bizarre experience for an onlooker. Expert witness's will take the stand in hearings that often take two or more days to hear fully and discuss each point in turn. The very serious topic of dangerous dogs is stripped down to the bare bones, quite literally. The experts will state whether in their opinion the shape of eyes is correct, whether the coat is a single coat or not. They will argue over whether a tail is pump handled when relaxed. They will all produce pictures to try and prove their point. Interpretation of each point will be argued. The dog will be weighed and measured and all will be noted and scored. The judge will then have to decide if the defense have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the dog isn't a prohibited type. It is not up to the prosecution in section one cases, to prove the dog is a Pit Bull type to obtain a guilty verdict. So there we have it. That's what a Pit Bull type aka "dangerous dog" is in the UK legal system today. It's any dog that a judge believes scores enough points, mainly in conformation on a breed standard that is no longer used in that exact form as a standard for that breed.

What Are the Flaws In Breed Specific Legislation?

The flaws in BSL are all encompassing. There is nothing good, helpful or likely to protect the public in BSL. It simply puts a label on dogs that look a certain way and states that they are dangerous . In the UK the actual behavior of the dog has been stated as being "relevant but not conclusive" when determining a dog to of type. Further more, focusing on breeds rather than dangerous or aggressive behavior deflects focus away from the problem, irresponsible or deliberately reckless dog ownership. By deeming these dog dangerous, it ignores the fact that no breed or type of dog is inherently dangerous and that environment and upbringing are more likely factors in a truly dangerous dog. It does little to stop irresponsible breeding, sale and ownership of dogs. By focusing on certain types it gives the impression that all other breeds and type are "safe". For any irresponsible person who want a dog to flatter their own ego, the DDA made dogs look a certain way irresistible and the popularity of dog has grown in this sector. There are now thought to be more Pit Bull types in the UK than ever before.

Why Should The Government Get Rid Of Section 1?

Because it did not work and cannot ever work. When two legal breeds can produce an illegal dog we are chasing rainbows. It cost millions of tax payer's money. It has caused deaths of thousands of dogs. It has not stopped dog attacks or fatalities. It does not stop dogs from being fought or used as breeding machines. Its a complete and utter wast of time, money and energy. Without Section 1, the DDA would be a more coherent and effective piece of legislation, focusing on bad owners ans the unwelcome behavior that follows that follows. At present it is too easy for people to use Section 1 to tar all dogs of a certain appearance with the same brush, whilst ignoring the real problems. There is currently a proposal called the Control of Dogs Bill - which says it will repeal DDA, but as of this moment there are many flaws in that particular proposal and no clarification yet that it will end BSL.

What Is The Control Of Dogs Bill?

The Control of Dog Bill is a private members bill which had its first reading in the House of Lords in 2008. It is very different from current legislation. It is a proposed change to current legislation and is likely (and has to) change greatly from the current form. At present the Dog Control Bill proposes to the following a criminal offense

1. For a dog to be dangerously out of control or aggressive in either a public or private place. This part brings in new wording in "aggressive" which is not yet defined. It also makes it a criminal offense for a dog to be "aggressive" or dangerously out of control in a private place where a dog has a right to be (i.e its own home). At the moment it is a civil offense if a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control on private property.

2. To encourage a dog to be aggressive or intimidate other people or animals. The words "aggressive" and "intimidate" have not yet been defined. Currently the DDA only applies if your dog causes reasonable fear to a person and does not cover dog on animal attacks at all although other legislation may be used in some situations.

3. To Breed dogs for fighting.

4. To keep a dog that has been used for fighting. At present it is not illegal to own a dog that has fought. A dog that has fought may not actually be aggressive or dangerous. It also does not define what "a dog that has been used for fighting" is.

5. Keep a dog that has attacked a person or another animal. Currently you can keep a dog that has attacked another person or another animal, in some cases with restrictions with each case looked at individually by a court. Attack is defined as a dog that has bitten, mauled or injured a person or another animal. This section is currently open to quite a lot of interpretation. As it is written you could not keep a dog that knocks you down and injures you, two puppies playing could be deemed to be attacking each other. There are defense which include

(a) the dog was provoked into an attack;

(b) the attack was in self-defense;

(c) the dog was a service dog; or

(d) the attack was on a trespasser.

The bill also give power to the authorities to destroy dogs held prior to court hearings if it deems it to needed to protect the dog welfare. This is in my opinion, a highly controversial move and could lead to the destruction of many dogs.

Along with the proposed changes there will see a repeal of the following legislation:

(a) the Dogs Act 1871

(b) the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

(c) the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997

What Next?

By looking to other countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden and Australia we can see how progressive policy making can improve things for dogs and their owners. Sweden has no banned breeds, legislation focused more on behavior and individuality accountability than genetics. The Netherlands, by experimenting with Rottweiler breeding practices seek to find a link between genetics and behavior, something which will prove extremely useful when completed. The Dutch have also abandoned all breed specific legislation in favor of compulsory behavior assessments for breeding dogs.

We have got to stop looking at and blaming the breed or type of dog and start looking at the whole picture. There are many things that can contribute to dog bites - environment, training, owner capability, responsibility and knowledge. Alongside this we must look at at ways better breeding practices and restricting the sale of dogs to inappropriate owners. As it stands any one of us could go out and obtain any number of dogs any number of dogs on a whim. Pedigree or cross breed, young, old, legal, illegal. We can do this without any problem, any knowledge, in many cases without paying any money and with no regard to future aspects of that dog.


If you would like to know more about the Dangerous Dogs Act, Breed Specific Legislation or how you can have your say on repealing section 1 - visit:

http://www.cfidos.co.uk

http://www.dangerousdogsact.co.uk
**** Article Ended ****

[Ryan O'Meara]

Hi John,

My views on the Scottish proposal - published a couple of years back

http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/304 ... -proposal/

The dog control bill is based on the Scottish proposal. It's no better than the DDA we already have. That's my honest opinion. It retains BSL and as BSL the most controversial aspect of the law so until someone actually puts forward a proposal to effectively repeal BSL, it'll never get my support.

Rgds
Ryan

[LeighandApple]

I have a question about the Dog Control Bill,

Looking at the overview John posted about this Control Bill does the part I've copied below not mean the DDA would be repealed? Which in turn gets ride of BSL? I know politions are very sly in the way they word things but that's the way I read it.

Along with the proposed changes there will see a repeal of the following legislation:

(a) the Dogs Act 1871

(b) the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

(c) the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997

I totally agree there are quite a lot of issues with this proposed new law but what are peoples views on this law if it does indeed replace "fully" the DDA?

As I see it until there's another option the government will never repeal the DDA so we'll be stuck with BSL. I personally like the Dog Owners Suitability Test but it doesn't look like the government does

[Ryan O'Meara]

A repeal of DDA doesn't equate to a repeal of BSL is the breed ban remains in place with the new legislation (ergo BSL remains). This is the case with the Dog Control bill. So it doesn't repeal BSL.

Rgds
Ryan

[LeighandApple]

Hi Ryan,

I'm a little confused.......I didn't see the section in the Control Bill that specified breeds to be or remain banned? Also BSL in this country is section 1 of the DDA so I would have thought if the whole DDA was repealed then BSL would be gone.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Control Bill is good I'm just trying to understand where it say's BSL would still remain if the Control repealed the DDA.

Regards

Leigh

[Bullseye]

I have just been told that the dog control bill is in no way intended to repeal BSL and the author of the bill has also said that it will not scrap sect 1.


http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/543 ... -dogs-law/

I have also been told that the BVA have confirmed that the Scottish parliament is not able to change sect 1 of the DDA.

http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/541 ... ent-111079

Unfortunately none of the politicians are interested in a repeal of BSL, because they are still convinced that retaining BSL is a good way of protecting the public, but of course we all know that this is total nonsense!

I agree with you about the 'Dog owner test' and I would be willing to take part in that kind of evaluation, maybe that is the sort of thing that the big time organisations (RSPCA, Kennel Club, NCDL ect...) should be pushing for rather than pushing for something that is another total waste of time.


That is my opinion.