Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by National Animal Welfare Trust

Dog Control

1. There is definitely a need for a fundamental overhaul of dog legislation and its enforcement in all areas, not just in dog attacks. Over the centuries, dog related legislation has been piecemeal and often in response to a particular incident or situation, leaving us with a collection of legislation that lacks cohesion and synergy. It has been disappointing that Defra’s consultations in 2010 and 2012 seem to cover much of the same ground with no progress having been made in between.

2. Moreover with the media’s main focus being on Pit Bulls your average member of the public’s understanding of dog legislation is of Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) covering Banned Breeds. It is interesting to watch the reaction of pet dog owners attending one of Trevor Cooper’s Doglaw seminars as they slowly realise just how much of the DDA and 1871 Dogs Act relates to them and their legal responsibilities as a dog owner.

3. The 1871 Dogs Act is a good piece of legislation as it applies regardless of where the incident took place, and covers attacks on animals as well as people. Unfortunately awareness of the Act seems low, even amongst law enforcement agencies! This Act should be considered as part of any legislative review, although the DDA should also be extended to cover offences committed on private property.

4. The “headline” Section of the DDA—Section 1 relating to banned breeds is widely viewed as an ill though through piece of legislation following an increase in dog attacks in 1990 and 1991. It has led to a significant increase in Police expenditure on seizing, assessing and kennelling suspected Pit Bull types. Moreover, these dogs are often kennelled for a long period of time—over a year in some cases, which can seriously impact their welfare and chances of returning to “normal life” as most animal welfare charities will agree that the bull breeds are more prone to kennel stress and the development of stereotypic behaviours.

5. Banning breeds is not the answer to preventing serious dog attacks—it only addresses one element of what Malcolm Gladwell describes as “a perfect storm of bad human-canine interactions”. A review of serious dog bite incidents over the years will show a list of elements that have all built up to the point when the serious attack occurs such as:

a socially isolated or antisocial dog owner;

a dog that has attacked previously;

an unsupervised young child that unwittingly does something to provoke the dog;

a dog in a high state of arousal due to something that happened just before the attack (injury, attack, fear, hunger, frustration etc);

an irresponsible action by the dog’s owner; and

It will only be by addressing all elements of these situations that further dog attacks will be reduced—banning breeds will not solve the problems. Attached is a copy of Malcolm Gladwell’s thought provoking and highly relevant article from the New Yorker in 2006—Troublemakers—What pit bulls can teach us about profiling.

6. Legislation that focuses on what the dog looks like presents a particular problem for animal welfare charities, as by law we are required to kill any Pit Bulls that come into our care, irrespective of temperament, as we can neither gift nor sell them and it is inappropriate to keep a dog in kennels for the rest of its life. This “death sentence” is completely contrary to the NAWT’s policy that “no healthy animal will be put to sleep”. It is also extremely upsetting for staff and supporters and, in fact we had one incident where the night before a suspected Pit Bull type in our care was due to be formally assessed, it was stolen and never found.

7. This Breed Specific legislation and the media hype has been responsible for making a Pit Bull the dog of choice amongst some groups of society, as it is the one out of the four breed that is most easily obtained in the UK. It has also led to the development of numerous crosses with bull breeds and mastiff types to try to create a “legal” Pit Bull type, and resulted in new, powerful breeds increasing in popularity such as the South African Boerboel, a dog bred to bring down big game!

8. I have avoided calling these “status” dogs, as it has become an overused and incorrect term that puts the emphasis on the dog rather than the owner. A dictionary definition of “status” is “social standing” and “the relative standing of a person”. As such the use of dogs to increase an individual’s social standing is a social problem rather than a dog related problem and in that context a Chihuahua in a handbag is as much of a “status” dog as a Pit Bull. To deal with the “status” dog problem (and there are a good number of “handbag dogs” around with behavioural problems due to being used as a “status” dog) the Government needs to tackle the problem of why (mainly) young people feel so disadvantaged or on the margins that their problems can be solved by owning a particular breed of dog.

9. For many pet dog owners, in today’s society it is all about “instant gratification” and people don’t think through the consequences and responsibilities of owning a dog before purchase. Animal Welfare charities find they are now competing against websites where you can pick up your dog the next day rather than go through an “adoption” process where both parties can assess if this is the right match. Once through the tribulations of puppyhood, there is usually worse to come as the dog hits adolescence if there has been little training done, and this is the age a lot of dogs end up in rescue.

10. Whilst we don’t want to preclude people from the joys of dog ownership, education and legislation need to work together to make new owners aware of their responsibilities. They need advice on choosing the right breed for them, what exercise and mental stimulation is needed, how to socialise and train the dog, advice on microchipping, neutering, insurance and legislation, advice on general care and what to do if things start to go wrong. Advice should also be given on mixing dogs with children and never leaving children and dogs unsupervised together (or apart for that matter!). Most of the high profile attacks have occurred when the dogs and child were unsupervised.

11. If the dog is deemed to have behavioural problems there could be a number of approaches increasing in severity depending on the circumstances:

Provide information on training or managing your dog’s behaviour.

Issue an “improvement notice” requiring the owner to, for instance, seek training advice to modify the dog’s behaviour, or to keep the dog in at certain times. These could have a review date and be lifted if the owner has met the required standards.

Issue a “control notice” requiring the dog to be on lead and muzzled when around people or other animals (public or private place).

For more persistent “offenders” use multi agency groups such as BARK (Barnet Action for Responsible K9s) run by the police and involving housing authorities and animal rescue organisations to present a joined up approach to education and enforcement.

12. To implement the above activities it will require additional resources within local Councils but there is no consistent approach to education and enforcement at present and unless an ambitious, co-ordinated approach is taken across the country, dog and human behaviour will not improve and there will be more high profile attacks.

13. Compulsory microchipping will not solve any of the current problems but should be introduced as a way of being able to identify not only the current owner but previous owners. It will also help in keeping track of dogs that have come to the attention of the authorities. If the legislation made it illegal to sell or buy an un-microchipped dog and vets were required to scan the dog before treatment then enforcement would be more straightforward.

14. Dog Licensing would be an administrative burden that would provide little benefit as the responsible owners would comply and it would be hard to identify those who are not compliant.

15. As stated in the opening paragraph, dog legislation needs to be reviewed in its entirety including the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 which transferred the responsibilities for stray dogs from the police to the local authorities. At NAWT we do not have any “stray contracts” where we take in and kennel strays on behalf of local authorities, but we do have very good relationships with our local dog wardens. If Dog Wardens are to take on a greater role in issuing improvement notices and dog control notices, they are under-resourced at present as most councils have just one person in the role. Additionally, a number of local authorities have contracted out the stray collection and kennelling services so we are starting to lose some of the personal contact that makes information sharing on dog control issues in the local area that much richer.

16. It will take a brave Government to repeal the breed related legislation in section 1 of the DDA as they will be seriously under scrutiny when the next Pit Bull attack happens, but well thought through alternative legislation can provide better protection for people and animals. A recent Facebook posting sums up the issues with the current breed specific legislation:

“Police, open up”

“Police? What’s the trouble?”

“Is that your teenage boy in the garden?”

“Yes he is. Is there a problem?”

“He’ll have to come with us”

“What? Why?

“He’s a dangerous criminal”

“What?!? He’s never been in any trouble at all. What do you mean “criminal”?

“Well, it’s not that he’s done anything wrong YET. But he will. Look at him—he’s exactly the type. That longish hair, the provocative, shabby clothes. He looks like trouble to me”

“Well, he’s a teenager. They all look like that”

“Precisely, ma’am. That’s why we’re taking him in”.

Dog Welfare and Breeding

We do not have much involvement with dog breeders in the course of our work and do not feel qualified to respond to the second section of this inquiry.

June 2012