Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Dr Kasia Szpakowska
1. There needs to be a complete overhaul of dog legislation and its enforcement. The current BSL laws have failed miserably here, and in other countries, because they do not attack the problem, but merely a perceived symptom. The current dog legislation which focuses on killing dogs based on their physical appearance has backfired and created a serious problem—one that did not exist to this extent before. Dog attacks on people have increased, and this is not really surprising. Irresponsible people who should never have been allowed to own a dog in the first place get them as status dogs, and encourage unnatural and vicious behaviour as a means to seem “tough.” The problem is with these irresponsible dog-owners. Anybody can now own a dog, but there are few penalties for those who are irresponsible, cruel and neglectful. Those individuals who purposefully take an animal and work to make it vicious against other people are not the ones being punished. When cases of animal cruelty do arise (and animals are made vicious by being treated cruelly) the punishment is so slight that it does not act as a deterrent.
2. All people should be educated as to what constitutes proper dog care and welfare. Those that cause the problem, irresponsible dog-owners and breeders, should be severely penalised and educated. Killing a dog because it looks a certain way has not resulted in any positive benefits. It has succeeded in devastating too many families, especially they children, whose innocent dogs have been destroyed for no other reason than they look a certain way.
3. Dog attacks on livestock and pets should not be treated the same as attacks on people. Many dogs chase animals. It is in their nature. It is even encouraged by humans (for example, greyhounds are trained to chase running furry things in races for the enjoyment of humans). When a dog then carries out this same behaviour elsewhere, a death penalty is not the answer. There is no link between a dog chasing or catching another animal, and later attacking a human. There is no link between a cat torturing a killing a mouse, and later killing a human. There is, however, a link between humans perpetuating animal cruelty and escalating into worse criminal behaviour against humans elsewhere (see for example, Sara C Haden and Angela Scarpa, “Childhood Animal Cruelty: A Review of Research, Assessment, and Therapeutic Issues,” The Forensic Examiner 14 (2005): 23–33). There is therefore great benefit in severely punishing and rehabilitating the humans responsible for being cruel or neglecting their dogs—it may deter them from further crimes against animals or humans. But this link and escalation does not exist in dogs. No animal should be condemned for acting out its nature. If a dog is left out of control of the owner and harms livestock, a fine on the owner to recompense the livestock owner is reasonable, in just the same way that the owner would be fined if he or she had directly killed the livestock. Seizing and killing the dog is unreasonable. No dog has in its innate nature attacking humans. Various breeds and hunting dogs were trained to bring down other animals, not humans.
4. Is sufficient action being taken on pets raised as status dogs to ensure their welfare and reduce their impact on communities? As far as I can see nothing is being done. The media is allowed to “glamourise” certain dogs based on their physical characteristics (as outlined in the BSL), and it is this media attention in large part that creates the idea that they are “status” dogs. There seems to be no penalty for neglecting the welfare of dogs, nor is there any indication of any sort of educational campaign.
5. While microchipping of animals is certainly desirable, it is an issue completely unrelated to dog attacks in any way. Responsible owners already microchip their animals. Irresponsible owners will not microchip, nor will they license their animals. What will work is serious fines and sentences for those who endanger others by criminal acts or negligence in relation to their dogs. At the moment, the punishment is so slight that it is not noticeable.
6. Should the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 be extended to include offences committed on private property? No. Owners should be liable for the behaviour of their dog (no matter the breed) on their own property. A dog should not lose its life for defending the life of its owner from the threat of physical harm by a burglar, rapist, or murderer.
7. All proposals for wider community and educational approaches to support responsible dog ownership should be ambitious and effective. Education is the key. Some dog owners are irresponsible simply because they do not know better. I have heard people say that their dog will become calm once bred. They honestly do not realise that there is a serious problem with over-population, nor are they aware of the many health benefits of spaying and neutering. Their ignorance is very much part of the problem. Why shouldn’t responsible dog care be part of the education of all children?
8. Do local authorities, the police and animal welfare charities have the right roles in managing stray dogs under the current legislative regime? No, only registered animal charities should manage stray dogs. The police should be dealing with human criminals, not attempting to read the future based on how a dog looks. Nor should the local authorities have any say in their treatment. Both groups have proven themselves less than successful, and again, they have added to the problem. The horrific physical and mental condition of the dogs currently seized and being held under BSL in hidden government sanctioned kennels is appalling. They emerge emaciated, ill, and suffering nervous ailments. The conditions in which they are being held are ones that would be considered animal cruelty if perpetuated by an individual.
9. Are further controls required on dog breeders, including puppy farms, and those selling or importing dogs to ensure the welfare of bitches and puppies? Yes, puppy farms should be banned, and breeders should be strictly regulated not only in terms of the welfare of bitches, puppies, and studs, but also in terms of selling, and disposal of dogs that they deem do not fit the desired characteristics. The characteristics should be based on physical, psychological, and behavioural health rather than appearance and cosmetic. Again, the laws are far too lax in terms of what is allowed by the breeders (and who is allowed to breed) and it is the animals who suffer. Breeders should be licensed, and should have to pay, and should be liable to maintain the welfare of bitches and studs after their breeding usefulness has been expired.
10. Make spaying and neutering mandatory. This would help with the over-population problem. However, again there must be controls to ensure that it is not just the responsible dog-owners who are targeted.
11. The Dangerous Dogs Acts and BSL are expensive to run, and have been proven as utter failures. The government should stop wasting tax-payers money, repeal the laws (it is better to admit that a mistake was made, than to continue with a policy that is patently flawed), and invest instead in an educational campaign coupled with stiffer sentencing against irresponsible owners and breeders.
June 2012