Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by John Rogerson KCAI, The Northern Centre for Canine Behaviour, and Davis Davies ex police dog handler
In response to the invitation for submissions on the various topics addressed by EFRA and the inquiry into dog control and welfare we would like the committee to accept this submission for their consideration.
1. Background
1.1 In the majority of cases where a change in laws relating to dogs is concerned, most of the changes are the result of evidence submissions given by representatives of organisations that are not connected to the grass roots of dogs in the UK.
1.2 In a written ministerial statement given by Minister of State for Agriculture and Food (James Paice) Dated: 23 April 2012 He stated:
Given growing concern about the number of dog attacks, the previous Government consulted the public in 2010 to find out whether the law needed to be changed and, if so, what changes might help. The consultation found that most people thought that powers contained in the existing dangerous dogs legislation were inadequate. The police and the dog welfare charities said that the criminal law in relation to dogs being dangerously out of control should be extended to cover private property (the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 only applies on public land or private land where the dog is trespassing) and there was also widespread support for compulsory microchipping.
1.3 Sadly, as in most consultations, the people who are involved at the grass roots level are never consulted so changes that come about are often the result of input from large and powerful dog charities, the Kennel Club, the police etc. These laws are therefore often badly thought out and usually make little or no difference to the overall dog scene in the UK. Take a look at the Animals Act 1971 and you will see what I mean. This is so badly worded that even the legal profession have difficulty in interpreting it. We respectfully ask that the committee carefully consider our evidence and further ask for the opportunity to address the committee in order to present oral evidence.
2. Changes in Dog Law with Regard to the Increase in Dog Attacks
2.1 We presently have two laws on dangerous dogs, the 1871 act and the 1991 act.
The 1871 act covers dogs that attack people on private property. The 1991 act covers attacks that take place in public places.
2.2 The last successful prosecution under the 1871 act was by Swale Borough Council some seven years ago. The circumstances were that a young boy had climbed over a garden fence onto a neighbouring property and had been attacked by two American Bulldogs. The court found the owner guilty and imposed a destruction order on the dogs which was upheld on appeal.
2.3 Creating new legislation often overcomplicates everything. Existing powers are already there and in many cases are often more effective and easier to prove. We already have laws which are applicable to dogs that attack people regardless of whether this happens on public or private land. There is the law on criminal damage which is very easy to apply in cases where a dog has injured a person or another dog or animal. There are also existing laws that cover things such as actual bodily harm and offences against the person.
2.4 Instead of widening the scope of the 1991 act it would seem to be more sensible to use existing laws to deal with owners whose dogs injure people. These laws include the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (outside London) and Metropolitan Police Act 1839 (London) which make it an offence to allow an unmuzzled, ferocious dog to be left at large, or for a person to set on or to urge any dog attack, worry or put in fear any person or animal in the street.
3. Licensing of Dogs
3.1 In the USA There are approximately 4.5 million reported dog bites annually in the United States (nearly 2% of the American population). The majority of dog bites are never reported to local authorities. Dogs that are licenced with an identifiable owner are implicated in the vast majority of dog bites.
3.2 Licencing a dog does not make it less likely to bite. It actually appears statistically that unlicenced dogs are less likely to bite people!!! As always it is the people who are already responsible that will buy a licence and those that are not will avoid buying one.
4. Identification of Dogs
4.1 By law all dogs have to wear a collar and identification when in a public place. The identification has to be on a plate or disc attached to the collar which identifies the owner and their postal address. This is an existing law and is very easy to enforce as any member of the public, police, dog warden etc can see at a glance if the owner is complying with the law. I accept that there may be an occasional prosecution for a dog being picked up as a stray and the owner being prosecuted for not having the correct identification on the dog but how many owners who accompany their dogs in public places have been prosecuted for not having the correct identification over the last five years?
4.2 My research shows that in the Borough of Darlington which has a dog population of around 97,750 people of which 30,000 own a dog, there has only been one person prosecuted for not having a collar and identification on their dog and yet I see dogs out with their owners every day without identification discs on their dogs collar. This is largely because there is no one enforcing this law. The police are not interested particularly in light of the government in their wisdom deciding to take the responsibility for dealing with dogs away from the police and give it to other agencies. These other agencies agreed to fill the gap created by removing the police responsibility but, to date this has not happened.
4.3 In 2010 Darlington Borough Council brought in Dog Control Orders in many of the parks and recreation areas. I attended the consultation meeting and pointed out that, according to law, the measures have to be reasonable and in proportion to the number of complaints that had been received. The council brought in the control orders anyway and in order to compile this submission I asked them how many people have been prosecuted and fined for having a dog off lead in one of the designated “dogs must be on a lead” areas since 2010. Their answer was 34 and I asked them how many people have been prosecuted and fined for taking a dog into a designated dog free area and their answer was just three.
4.4 If we do not have anyone enforcing the law on collar and identification which can be done visually then how is it possible that microchipping can be enforced. For a microchip to be located a scanner is required and any member of the public finding a dog straying on the street will not have access to a scanner. If the simple existing law on identification is not working then bringing in a new law will do nothing at all to solve the problem. Again it is only the responsible owners who will comply with the law and pay a price for doing so.
5. Status Dogs
5.1 This is a simple one, just use the existing Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (outside London) and Metropolitan Police Act 1839 (London) to prosecute offenders.
6. The Role of Animal Charities
6.1 Dogs are being overbred, of this there is no doubt. As a result there are now more and more animal charities which exist to take care of the vast numbers of dogs that are unwanted in the UK. I carried out a study for the Dogs Trust many years ago and what I found was disturbing. If we keep on increasing kennel capacity for unwanted dogs at the rate that we currently are then by the year 2075 there will be no land to build houses on because the UK will be one large kennel to house unwanted dogs.
6.2 Taken from the Dogs Trust Annual Report 2011 it states that “The value of the group’s investable funds (investments plus net current assets) remained at £69 million, of which £42 million is earmarked for acquiring new rehoming centres and redeveloping existing centres”.Battersea dogs and cats home annual report for 2009 states that their income was over 12 million pounds. In 2011 the RSPCA raised 100.7 million pounds from voluntary donations including legacies. The Blue Cross annual review for 2010 shows that their income was 26.9 million pounds and yet the government has just given £50,000 to the three big animal charities to foster innovative new community projects.
6.3 This is a crazy state of affairs where animal charities are acquiring more and more land to build more and more kennels to house more and more dogs which encourages more and more people to breed dogs and more and more people to abandon them. This is simply not sustainable. The Dogs Trust is not alone in this headlong rush to build kennels. Smaller charities that, like the Dogs trust, that started with one rehoming kennels now are building more. The National Animal Welfare Trust started with one kennels in Watford. Then they opened a second one in Oxfordshire, then a third in Somerset then a fourth in Devon.
7. The Kennel Club
7.1 I was a keynote speaker at the launch of the Kennel Club Safe and Sound programme at the Clarges street headquarters. This is a programme that teaches bite prevention in schools. I was astounded at the number of people who work full time at the Kennel Club who actually know nothing about dogs.
7.2 If you take a look at the breed standard issued by the Kennel Club then you will get an idea as to why we are having more and more problems with dog related injuries.
For example the breed standard of the Wire Haired Fox Terrier states “Alert, quick of movement, keen of expression, on tiptoe of expectation at slightest provocation. The Tibetan Mastiff breed standard states “Independently minded, aloof and protective. Calm and patient. May be wary of strangers.Why do the Kennel Club not modify all breed standards to the standard required for the Labrador Retriever which states:
Characteristics—Good-tempered, very agile (which precludes excessive body weight or excessive substance). Excellent nose, soft mouth; keen love of water. Adaptable, devoted companion.
Temperament—Intelligent, keen and biddable, with a strong will to please. Kindly nature, with no trace of aggression or undue shyness.
It is very rare for Labradors to be involved in acts of aggression towards people which is why they are favoured by organisations such as Guide Dogs etc.
7.3 Bearing in mind the fact that the vast number of dogs bred in the UK are purebred (87% of the households that own a dog own one that is a purebred with only 13% that are mixed breeds or mongrels), precious few breeds were developed purely as household companions. The Kennel Club could take a leading role in improving general temperament of dog breeds but choose not to.
8. The Way Forward?
8.1 In 2010 I visited Taiwan for the first time as a consultant on dog training and behaviour. The largest and wealthiest dog charity there (Precious Dogs Association) had acquired a sum of money to buy land and build a shelter in Taipei. I managed to talk them out of it as this would only lead to a second shelter, then a third and so on. Building more shelters only encourages more people to abandon their dogs and breeders to breed more and more puppies. They have now invested their money into education in schools.
8.2 Many of our animal charities do school visits but this is more for the purpose of promoting themselves and the work that they do rather than teaching responsible dog ownership and breeding practices.
8.3 If we accept that the next generation of dog breeders are now in full time education in primary and secondary schools then surely this has to be where we teach subjects such as breed history and development, ethology, genetics, legal implications, breeding practices and welfare issues.
8.4 In general terms, dog are more out of control today than they ever have been in the UK. There are a multitude of reasons behind this but only two ways that problems of out of control dogs can be addressed. One is by introducing more and more dog laws which penalise owners who do not abide by them. The second way is to give owners an incentive to train and control their dogs. As we have seen from the law on collar and identification, there is no one policing this and, no one interested in policing it.
8.5 A better approach is by rewarding those owners who do take the time and trouble to train and control their dogs. This could be in the form of allowing such dogs more off lead access to open public areas after successfully completing a course of training with an approved instructor*. It could also take the form of a reduction in pet insurance etc.
Who would then police the scheme? Largely it would be the owners who had passed the test with their dogs who would then help ensure that others in the area knew of the incentives to be gained by responsible dog ownership.
8.6 Something has to change and what is needed is a radical approach to dealing with the current spate of problems arising through over breeding and out of control dogs. What will not work is allowing charity figureheads and lawmakers to dictate what we should and should not do with our dogs. It is surely better to get a working party of people together, some of whom represent the grass roots level of the dog world in the UK who can come up with a more positive view on the way forward.
8.7 Here in the UK we have always had the right to own a dog of our choice but now, because of lack of education, we have lost that right. The same is true for taking a dog out in public. We need a serious look at the numerous factors that have resulted in so many laws relating to dogs and why they are needed. It is not too late to once again make our dogs’ man’s best friend instead of public enemy number one but it needs to be done sensibly and involve all interested parties.
June 2012