Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by the Endangered Dogs Defence & Rescue Ltd

(1) Extension of Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to Include Offences Committed on Private Property

We are not convinced that this would be beneficial to those attacked and injured by a dog on private property, workable, or promote responsible dog ownership.

(a) Extension of Dangerous Dogs Act Section Three

Section Three of the DDA creates a presumption that a dog is presumed to be dangerously out of control if there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it may injure any person, whether or not it actually does so—with an aggravated offence being committed if the dog, whilst out of control, injures any person, regardless of the circumstances, ie, in defence of a family member, accidentally, under provocation.

If section three of the Dangerous Dogs Act were to be extended to include private places where the dog is permitted to be, ie, inside the owners home, we may end up with a situation where responsible dog owners could be criminalised if their pet had jumped up at someone and scratched them (causing injury-an aggravated offence) or barked at someone and caused reasonable apprehension (a non-aggravated offence) inside the confines of their own home-including their enclosed garden.

(b) Non-aggravated Offences

Apprehension felt by someone inside the dog’s home would be subjective and differ according to views held; one person’s interpretation could be completely different to another’s, yet it could result in criminal proceedings if the DDA was extended to include private places.

Where there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that a dog may injure a person—how would such a case be prepared for criminal proceedings to the standard of proof required? For example, a person invited into a home to read an electric meter makes a complaint that they believed a dog appeared dangerous and they felt reasonable apprehension, would this constitute evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt” and would a non aggravated offence under section three of the legislation commence with the dog seized by the police?

(c) Aggravated Offences

As injury can be anything from a serious bite to an accidental scratch or a bump from being knocked over, extending Section Three to cover the inside of the dog’s home could in our opinion lead to more problems that it seeks to solve.

There are also the issues of intruders and trespassers in the dog’s garden, provocation and self-defence inside the owner’s own home.

Following a serious dog attack within a family unit it is often suggested that the DDA is flawed as it doesn’t enable criminal prosecution. We ask what would be the benefits of criminally prosecuting the parents of a child which has been bitten by their own family dog? It is far more productive to encourage education to help prevent dog bites within the home than to seek to criminally punish families where their own dogs have transgressed.

An extension of section three to include private places would we believe result in an increased number of dogs being seized for minor offences which are currently dealt with under civil law, an increase in the kennelling and associated costs for seized dogs, welfare implications for dogs held waiting criminal proceedings and increased numbers of ordinary dog owners receiving criminal records—this is in itself a serious consequence.

(2) Dangerous Dogs Act—Section One:

(a) Seizure & Welfare of Detained Dogs

Defra’s April 2012 proposal includes giving the police more discretion by ending an anomaly requiring dogs be seized and held, whilst a decision is taken by the court on whether to allow exemption or destruction under the DDA. We believe it would make far more sense to repeal the breed specific elements of the DDA as part of any overhaul of dog legislation.

Jim Paice, Defra stated in April 2012:

“Our plans must strike the right balance between protecting the public from dangerous dogs and ensuring that safe and properly looked after pets don’t need to be wrenched from their home unnecessarily.”

In our experience, those “safe and properly looked after pets” some of whom are wrenched from their homes unnecessarily based on how they look—under section one of the DDA, are if spared a death sentence, also stigmatised by being placed, via court order, on a “dangerous dog” exemption list, they have little and in some cases no freedom to exhibit normal canine behaviour due to strict muzzling and leash restrictions, their owners cannot obtain any health insurance, some landlords and housing associations do not allow exempted dogs on their premises, exempted dogs are also restricted from many sites, public events and areas.

ALL dogs regardless as to whether a dog is held as a family pet, abuse case or so called “weapon dog” should be provided with suitable care and attention in line with the Animal Welfare Act and receive sufficient & suitable human contact.

We need to do a lot more than tinker with the current failed breed specific law as suggested by Defra, as the legislation continues to heap misery and suffering on thousands of innocent dogs, children and adults.

Welfare Guidelines for Seized Dogs

The Home Office last issued guidelines in 19941 referring to the welfare of dogs in custody and obviously our understanding of canine behaviour and welfare has evolved greatly in the past eighteen years.

We believe that the Government should urgently consult with canine behaviourists and welfare organisations to immediately issue national guidelines which run in line with the Welfare of Animals Act 2006.

There should be regular independent inspection and monitoring to make sure these guidelines are being strictly adhered too, someone needs to be held accountable and responsible when a dog is held under their jurisdiction and not adequately cared for.

(b) Welfare Impact of Breed Specific Legislation

All the main dog welfare charities support the “deed not breed” approach, yet 21 years since its introduction and the public, welfare organisations and those working with dogs are still stuck with what is widely held up to be failed legislation, at huge public expense, which dismally fails to promote dog control, dog welfare or responsible dog ownership on any level.

The Bateson Report includes a specific recommendation relating to the DDA and states the following;

“the Dangerous Dogs Act should be amended to apply to all dogs that have been shown to be dangerous rather than to specified breeds and should address the problem of dogs being bred and reared specifically as weapons or for fighting.”

Responsible pet dog owners are constantly affected by BSL; children have and continue to witness the distressing removal of their pets from their homes when seized on dawn raids and the trauma of legal proceedings.

Families are being put through distressful court hearings and endure a traumatic experience as their pet, a member of their family, is kept in isolation from them whilst awaiting a court decision on whether it will be allowed to live. We receive many enquiries from pet owners whose only crime is that they happen to own and love a dog of the wrong shape and size. We have dealt with owners who have suffered depression and become suicidal after their pet was seized from them as well as owners who could not cope with their pet being locked away in kennels and took the painful decision to have their dog destroyed. Owners will often contact us and other groups seeking advice, in floods of tears and distraught throughout the prosecution of their dog.

Thousands of rescue dogs are being caught up in the legislation resulting in the deaths of countless dogs, this is extremely frustrating and demoralising for the staff who dedicate their time towards the rescue and re-homing of dogs but have no say when a dog or puppy under their care is identified as a pit bull type and put to death despite its good nature. The enforced destruction of healthy innocent dogs condemned with a tape measure is a national disgrace. The plight of dogs condemned to death in council pounds, rescue centres and sanctuaries, due to BSL, should be the subject of a national enquiry.

(3) Dog Bite Injuries:

The number of dog bites per year is unfortunately not centrally recorded, so we have little evidence by which to gauge the effectiveness of any legislation.

There are often many factors identified in leading to a serious dog attack. Animal behaviourists and welfare groups agree that the main factors which may cause a dog to act dangerously include poor socialisation, improper upbringing and care, a lack of suitable training and control, existence of health issues, neglect and abuse and in some cases the encouragement of aggressive behaviour by those who keep dogs for anti-social or criminal purposes.

If we are serious about preventing dog bites and promoting responsible dog ownership then it surely must be important to realize that the majority of dog-related incidents actually happen in the home.

The figures widely reported relating to “dog attacks” refer to the statistics produced by the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). It is important to recognise that the HES data does not separate dog bites from strikes—a dog knocking someone over accidentally is a lot different to a dog attacking someone yet both incidents would be recorded under the same heading. It is also important to note that the number of dogs in society in general and the number of families owning a dog may also be increasing and a rise or fall in dog population should also be taken in account.

(4) EDUCATION-RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERSHIP:

Defra proposes to give £50,000 for education, whilst this is a step in the right direction, it is nowhere near enough and when compared to the number of dogs in society is a minuscule amount.

If government is serious about preventing dog attacks, then it needs to put forward the funding to help educate where it is desperately needed.

EDDR supports research and discussion towards a nationwide awareness initiative for all dog owners on their obligations and responsibilities under current legislation.

We also would urge support for school based education of all our children—the dog owners of the future, covering topics such as responsible dog ownership and canine welfare, with bite prevention programmes delivered by staff trained in canine behaviour.

Government should provide funding for localized educational and training programmes, set up in areas identified as having problems within the dog owning community.

(5) Compulsory Micro-Chipping of Dogs:

EDDR does support the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs, providing a scheme could be phased in over a period of time and believes there would be several benefits.

We do not think that compulsory micro-chipping is a “cure-all” for the problem of dog attacks on people and/or other animals and it does not in itself address the serious problem of an overwhelming number of unwanted dogs currently being put to sleep due to indiscriminate and “back-yard” breeding.

The emphasis should be on government support in encouraging people to micro-chip their dogs and helping them to do so, rather than concentrating on a punitive approach once legislation has commenced.

July 2012