Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Felicity Lynch
1. The measures on Tackling Irresponsible Dog Ownership announced for consultation by Defra on the 23 April completely failed to address the biggest floor in the dangerous dogs act. The needs to be a complete overhaul of the dangerous dogs act and the repeal of breed specific legislation. Breed specific legislation has been detrimental to our society in a number of ways whilst failing to provide any protection to the public. Breed specific legislation has not been proven to reduce the incidence of dog bites in any part of the world. Many places with long standing breed specific legislation have repealed it as it failed to reduce dog attacks such as Italy, the Netherlands and Winnipeg. The results of the first dangerous dog consultation shows that an overwhelming majority, 71%, the kennel club and the RSPCA want breed specific legislation to be repealed.
2. Supporters of the dangerous dogs act often claim that there is no effective alternative to breed specific legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Well written and enforced breed neutral laws and educational programs have been shown to be extremely effective in places like Calgary Canada which has had a 70% reduction in canine aggression incidents since passing their dog by-law. Similar breed neutral laws and educational programs in the UK is the solution to the problems we are having.
3. Numerous breeds and crossbreds can produce an illegal type dog, so the types contain within the dangerous dogs act will never be eradicated. Thousands of responsible owners will still be unfairly targeted if breed specific legislation remains. Breed specific legislation has failed and will continue to fail to reduce dog attacks because it is a knee jerk response to selective and sensationalised media reports and is not based on facts or causes of canine aggression.
4. There is a belief that pit bulls are responsible for a majority of attacks that is used to defend this ban. However the study entitled “Does the Dangerous Dogs Act protect against animal attacks: a prospective study of mammalian bites in the Accident and Emergency department” proves that pit bulls were only responsible for a small proportion of attacks both before and after the introduction of the act.
5. The American temperament test society has tested thousands of dogs from hundreds of different breeds. Pit bulls have a pass rate of 86%, higher than golden retriever with 84.6% and collie with 79.7%. So poor temperaments are not general in pit bulls. Another reason for the ban is the belief that pit bulls attack without warning, this is simply not true. Schalke et al:, “Is breed specific legislation justified? Study of the results of the temperament test of Lower Saxony”, and Ott et al, “Is there a difference? Comparison of golden retrievers and dogs affected by breed specific legislation regarding aggressive behaviour”, both concluded that Dogs of the targeted breeds signal their intent just like other dogs and that Dogs of the targeted breeds are statistically no more likely to show inappropriate aggressive behaviour than are Golden Retrievers.
6. Another belief is that pit bulls cause higher levels of injuries than other breeds and this is often cited as a reason to maintain breed specific legislation. However, a review (Hockey 2003) done it Australia shows that this is not true. Two studies were reviewed to reach this conclusion. One study by Lockwood et al (1987). The study found the difference in severity of injuries between pit bulls and other breeds was not statistically significant. The other study reviewed by Hockey (2003) involved reports of 2,132 animal bites in to animal control authorities (Palm Beach County, 1993). All bites were graded for Severity from 1–5, with one being the lowest. 16% of pit bull attacks had a severity of three or above (requiring medical attention). Both Golden Retriever and Labradors also had 16% of attacks with severity of three or above. The review showed that compared to other breeds the risk for Pit Bulls is not excessive.
7. Many supporters of breed specific legislation claim that the pit bull ban is necessary to tackle illegal dog fighting. However, the dangerous dogs act does not give the police or courts any powers they haven’t got under the animal welfare act 2006 to target this offence so section 1 of the dangerous dogs act is unnecessary to target illegally dog fighting.
8. There is no justification for breed specific legislation to remain although DEFRA claim that police stated that dog attacks would increase if breed specific legislation was repealed, this is a personal opinion of non-dog behaviour professionals and there no evidence to support this. Many places where breed specific legislation was repealed have not have increases in dog attacks. It is also the only law in the UK where the burden of proof is reversed and because of this it is one of the biggest threats to the rights and freedoms of responsible dog owners today. The dangerous dogs act 1991 as amended in 1997, must be completely overhauled and replaced with effective breed neutral laws such as those passed by Calgary Canada.
June 2012