Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Angela Kennedy

1. My submission to this Committee is informed by my own position as a dog owner (of a small English Bull Terrier Cross rescue who is NOT “of type”), and as an academic social science lecturer and researcher, with a research interest in the social and material effects (on both people and dogs) of breed specific legislation (or BSL), and in public and state construction and management of risk. I have a number of grave concerns about the BSL component of the current UK Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA) in its present form. As I shall demonstrate, it is not a rational law, and gives rise to many instances of injustice, while failing to protect the public, or dogs. Any attempt to extend this aspect of the law would not be rational or just. In addition, there are a number of additional proposals around dog control that are unreasonable and unworkable. These will make owning and controlling a dog more difficult, and will not protect the public or dogs. I will therefore also address these.

2. There are a number of discrepancies in the BSL component of the DDA. This legislation was drafted in hastily. It has been suggested it was drafted to suit political contingency rather than actual need (see discussion in Lodge and Hood, 2002, and in Kaspersson, 2008). BSL fails to take into account the following issues.

3. Injuries to humans by dogs need to be considered in a risk management and epidemiological context. Dog-bite fatalities are, for example, extremely rare. According to DEFRA’s website, there have been five fatalities since 2007 (an average of one a year). As with all injuries, the description of “serious injuries” is itself subjective and subject to instability in definition, but certainly life-threatening injuries due to dog-bite also appear to be rare, according to quantitative data. To put the relative risk of death from dog-bite into perspective: In 2010, 1,850 people were killed in road traffic accidents, with 1,901 killed in 2011, according to recent Government figures.1 North American figures show that one of the largest source of lethal danger to children is from family caregivers, hundreds of times more than dog-bite (see Bradley, 2008: 21–22). To compare the two categories of causes of death in children would require a graph 8 feet tall in order to incorporate the “death by caregiver” category. Figures from the Home Office indicate that on average two women a week are killed by a male partner or former partner.2 To place the risk of injury from dog-bite into perspective, the relative risk of dog bites was studied by Kahn et al (2003) who found dog bite injuries were about one quarter as frequent as road traffic casualties and about one third as frequent as burns at home. Child attendance at Accident and Emergency departments due to dog bite equalled less that 0.24% of all children attending Accident and Emergency departments. This is not to trivialise dog-related injuries, especially in children. However the low relative risk of dog-bite injuries has to be taken into context if rational and safe social policy and law are to be made.

4. This information may seem counter-intuitive to the perception of risk from “dangerous dogs”, but this is likely to be because of the moral panic (Cohen, 2002) around dogs that is a common feature in current media reporting practices, where rare events are reported, but appear to be more frequent in occurrence because of the frequency of reporting in the media.

5. With fatalities being so rare, and in general, the relative risk of dog bite being so low (especially considering the enormous amount of dogs and dog-human interaction in the UK) it is impossible to provide a scientifically rigorous, let alone definitive, relative risk related to breed. It is also relevant, for example, that of the four so-called “banned breeds” in the UK, there has, to my knowledge and after research, no fatalities recorded from dog-bites from any of the Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino or Fila Brasileiros breeds. As regards the category of so-called “pit-bull”, there are a number of discrepancies in how this so-called “breed” in conceptualised in the UK, which also a scientifically rigorous, let alone definitive, relative risk related to the “breed” impossible.

6. The conceptual category of “pit-bull” as a “breed” in the UK is highly unstable and self-contradictory at best. Indeed, it can be argued that, technically, there are no “pit-bulls” in the UK (or indeed elsewhere). Neither the “pit-bull” or the American Pit Bull Terrier are recognised by the Kennel Club in the UK, for example. Current DNA profiling techniques cannot establish any “pit bull” profile (and may never), because of the genetic diversity of dogs called “pit-bull” though other breed profiles are established.3

7. In the absence of British recognition of any “pit-bull” breed, police, judges, pound vets and DEFRA have relied on a highly subjective “standard” from a North American pit bull fancier’s magazine from the 1970s. Many dogs of various breeds will have some similarities to the “pit bull” standard, even if they are not pit bulls, hence the police seizure of many crossbreeds, and longer-legged Staffordshire Bull Terriers. If, by genetic chance, a dog has a certain amount of physical similarities to that subjective standard, it can be deemed of “pit bull type”. This means that those dogs with no known American Pit Bull Terrier lineage, no DNA profiling of such, indeed may be known to breeds other than “pit-bull”, are nevertheless at risk of being seized, and either killed, or subject to muzzling and leading in public, practices which have a fundamentally adverse effect on the dog’s ability to socialise, play (fetch balls or sticks, for example), or exercise, and therefore on the quality of life for the dog. Currently, at the time of writing, this is the situation regarding the dog Lennox, seized in 2010 in Northern Ireland and under a court order to be killed.4 The term “pit-bull” appears to be merely a colloquial linguistic description of any dog that shares physical similarities with molosser breeds. This enormous amount of certainty does not allow a fair and rational law.

8. An owner is therefore criminalised, even where previously a law-abiding citizen, and unaware that their loving and non-aggressive family dog’s wedge-shaped head and “pump-handle” tail renders it of “type”. Anecdotal evidence from, for example, social networks, indicate an enormous amount of distress to families is being caused by BSL. Loved family non-aggressive pets are seized in their homes. Dogs, including in at least one case a puppy, have been summarily destroyed soon after seizure without the owner’s knowledge or consent, after they signed the police disclaimer form while under duress, leading to dog organisations to instruct owners never to sign that form.

9. Media reports around dogs are accompanied by pictures of various bull-breeds with their mouths wide open, whether barking, panting, yawning, sneezing, or straining at a leash (as if only bull-breeds do this) with captions such as “dangerous dog” or “a pit bull”. This is in marked contrast to how other breeds (including those who have bitten) are portrayed: often sitting demurely with mouths closed, for example. There has also been an insidious classed portrayal of owners of bull-breeds as an anti-social, criminal underclass, especially where boys or youths, who might only be taking the family dog for a walk. While this stereotype remains popular, it means those caught up in it are demonised, and likely subject to social exclusion and opprobrium, ironically rendering them less able to socialise their dog, seek advice on training or neutering, or develop their skills as responsible dog owners.

10. Certain of the proposals outlined (and implied) regarding general issues of dog control are specifically unworkable in practical terms, and, if enshrined in law, will be irrational and unjust. Extending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to private property contradicts other legislation around private property, for example (including the situation regarding intruders on private properties, including homes). With regard to BSL, to expect dogs to wear muzzles and leads at all time on private properties (including homes) is unworkable and unreasonable.

11. With regard to the question of so-called “status dogs” and their welfare and alleged “impact on communities”, there is firstly the issue of what constitutes a “status dog”. Chihuahuas and Pomeranians, for example, are dogs used to exhibit a certain type of social status. The term appears to have become a colloquial and ideologically informed description, used by police and media, to describe popular breeds of the working class and poor. As discussed above, the demonisation of bull-breed owners is possibly a major barrier to access to support and responsible dog ownership, though it should be noted, bull-breed’ dogs are very popular among all demographic groups. A fundamental overhaul of prejudicial attitudes towards all bull-breeds, displayed by police and Government agencies in their literature, and by media domains, is probably a major priority if sensible law and social policy is to be established. Such prejudice itself has a major adverse impact on communities of all demographics.

12. With regard to the welfare of dogs seized under BSL, there are a number of high-profile cases where police and councils have failed in their duty of care and welfare of such animals, so that animals health and safety are adversely affected. The case of Lennox is a major example of this, but there are various others. The way such animals are treated while their owners try to save their lives, against those agencies attempting to have them killed, is extremely important, and currently public confidence in the police and councils’ ability to care for such dogs appears extremely low, and likely for good reason. It should be obvious that any dog, whether seized from an organised dog-fighting ring (and therefore actually a victim of animal cruelty), or seized as looking like a “pit-bull”, or another of the banned breeds, remains an animal to which rules and laws of welfare and prevention of cruelty and neglect still apply. It is worrying that this does not appear to be so obvious in some discourses around “dangerous dogs”.

13. With the above in mind, further “extension” of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 should not be undertaken. However, overhaul of the legislation is necessary, based on a rational, un-emotive, evidence-based understanding of the issues of dog ownership and public safety, and problems that adversely affect these, with a few to eliminating these. This overhaul should be undertaken with the consultation of a wide range of dog behaviourists, scientists and social scientists, and owners. A rational, pragmatic and respectful understanding of the relationship between dogs and humans needs to inform this overhaul, so that people can be helped to be responsible dog owners, and other members of the public can be helped to behave responsibly around dogs and their owners.

15. References

Bradley, J (2005). Dogs Bite: But Balloons and Slippers are More Dangerous Berkeley: James and Kenneth Press.

Cohen, S (2002). Folk Devils and Moral Panics: 30th Anniversary Edition: Creation of Mods and Rockers London: Routledge.

Delise, K (2007). The Pitbull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression New Jersey: Anubis. Also available as a free pdf at: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/publications/ncrc-publications/

Kahn, A, Bauche, P, Lamoureux, J (2003). “Child victims of dog bites rated in emergency departments: a prospective survey”, European Journal of Pediatrics 162:254–258.

Kaspersson, M (2008). “On Treating the Symptoms and not the Cause: Reflections on the Dangerous Dogs Act’ papers from the British Criminology Conference British Society of Criminology Vol 8: 205–225. http://www.britsoccrim.org/volume8/13Kaspersson08.pdf

Lodge, M and Hood, C (2002). “Pavlovian policy responses to media feeding frenzies? Dangerous dogs regulation in comparative perspective” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 10, 1: 1–13.

June 2012