Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Emma Judson
1. I believe there is a need for a more fundamental overhaul of dog legislation, and particularly its enforcement.
Whilst I fully agree that although thoroughly misguided, Breed Specific Legislation is now in place and to scrap that would now lead to importation of the other three breeds currently prohibited, I think some serious amendment to the way in which banned breeds are identified is necessary.
1.1 The way the current law regarding dogs of “Pit Bull type” is written, we will never see the end of “type” dogs in the UK, because they can be produced by breeding two or more none-type/perfectly legal breeds together.
1.2 As long as this is the case, given no human can in fact predict the future, people will continue to purchase dogs that grow up to fulfil the DEFRA criteria on “type” dogs. In fact there are documented cases where some animals from a litter turn out “type” and some do not, yet they are full siblings.
1.3 If in cases where the animal is not being used to intimidate people and not being encouraged to behave aggressively, or the animal has no complaints regarding the way it is managed or its behaviour, I suggest that making behaviour (assessed by properly qualified persons, not just Police officers who have done a short course!) a more valuable criteria would end the unnecessary killing of totally innocent dogs, and the unnecessary criminalising of people who’s only real crime is the inability to predict the future!
1.4 Furthermore, making whatever legislation is passed clearly written and passed to all local authorities would be a simple and yet very effective step. To my knowledge the last two LA’s I resided within, had wildly inaccurate information on the issues surrounding banned dogs (both different but both made it appear as if one could take a dog to the police station, have it added to a register of exempt dogs and then provided one followed the guidelines, one could keep the dog perfectly legally).
1.5 If local authorities are NOT aware of the law, what hope is there for the average dog owner?
2. Attacks on people need to be taken in context—was the person provoking the animal, was the animal provoked by the owner to attack someone, were clear instructions by the owner disregarded by the victim? There is a world of difference between a dog nipping because someone has stepped heavily on his paw, or a dog nipping a stranger who has been told NOT to approach, but has done so anyway, and a dog being intentionally encouraged to attack, or an owner knowing full well their dogs propensity towards aggressive behaviour with humans, and allowing the dog the opportunity to bite. Not all dog bites are “attacks” and not all are the fault of the owner (or indeed the dog).
2.1 Attacks on other animals should be viewed as criminal damage and treated as such, with the owner being dealt with the same as they would if they repeatedly damaged or vandalised another’s property by any other means.
3. Status dogs—More efforts need to be put into discovering why people need a status dog, and removing the cause. Better education into understanding dog behaviour and training methods would help certain communities, allowing people to own a dog that makes them feel safe without that dog being a danger to the rest of the community.
3.1 There should be much more strongly enforced action taken against those intentionally using dogs as weapons, and those breeding dogs for the same purpose.
4. Microchipping/Licensing—Microchipping is going to take too long to make a difference and is only of use to the authorities who carry scanning devices. It will not help the victim of a dog related crime identify the dog/its owner, and will not be enforceable amongst the most irresponsible of owners, namely those who treat their dogs as disposable “tools”, as these people will happily kill and ditch a dog and get a new one rather than be caught out.
5. Dangerous Dogs Act 1991—I don’t think this should be extended fully—I think reclassifying peoples front gardens/access to their front doors (where they do not have a gate intercom system) however COULD be done and would make a big difference to bite incidents with delivery people. It could then be an offence to keep a dog in such a way as it blocks access to a front door/mail box/letter box and for the purposes of action if an incident occurs, a front garden/access to a front door could be viewed as a public place.
5.1 Inside peoples homes, the majority of incidents occur with family/close friends—it won’t stop serious incidents occurring, but likely will turn minor incidents into massive affairs that are costly and divisive.
6. Educational aims—I think DEFRA’s proposal for educational and community support could be even MORE ambitious than they are. I think producing an education pack for all primary and secondary schools, that covers how to behave around dogs, what to do/not to do, where to get a dog from/where not to get a dog from, and for secondary level, the ethical, legal and moral issues surrounding dog breeding would make a huge difference in a 10 year time frame.
6.1 A huge part of the canine problem in the UK is irresponsible purchase, people buying dogs on a whim, dogs that have come from the wrong breeding establishments, raised as livestock rather than family pets. Dogs that are entirely the wrong breed/type for a family home and lifestyle. The very vast majority of dogs in rescue centres are the unwanted rejects and by products of the puppy farm industry and the ‘see it, want it, get it’ must have attitude and culture.
7. I do not think the current system with regard to local authorities/police responsibilities towards stray dogs are appropriate. Charities are working hard and always have, but since the law changed regarding police involvement in stray dogs, local authorities have had far too much free reign in how they deal with the problem. As an example, Hereford and Worcester where I live, have currently, one dog warden for the entire of two counties. When called to assist with two stray dogs who had killed a cat, this dog warden could not attend and these dogs had to be left to roam the streets. Under the old system, they could have been taken to a police station and the risk of them killing more pets/livestock, harming or scaring a person, and of course causing a traffic accident would have been instantly removed.
8. Dog welfare/breeding—I fully believe that there is no place in the UK for dogs raised as livestock. There is plenty of scientific evidence that demonstrates the first 12 weeks of a dogs’ life will irreversibly shape that dogs behaviour and temperament.
8.1 Within those eight to 12 weeks, a puppy needs to be exposed regularly to:
Human contact.
Variety of physical contact experiences (ie, humans touching legs, paws, tummies, ears, eyes, genitalia, being restrained, being brushed or combed).
Household noises.
Variety of substrate textures (carpet, concrete, grass, tarmac, wooden floors etc).
Other species of animal.
Adult dogs.
Children.
Variety of dog toys.
Variety of foods (fish, raw meat, dry dog food).
Without the experiences listed, puppies are at a disadvantage by 12 weeks old, they may never learn to tolerate certain kinds of handling, they will be predisposed to fearful behaviour (which can lead to aggressive behaviour) triggered by certain sights and sounds. Missing out on any of these things means the animal in question is less than suitable for a pet dogs lifestyle, and as such is at much higher risk of becoming a problem animal within a community, and ending up in rescue.
8.2 During the first four weeks of a puppies life, they need almost constant supervision by a human, the mother needs access to the outdoors and ad lib food of whatever type she prefers.
8.3 No puppy farm in existence could provide the above, and by necessity, any puppy farm producing dogs is doing so by denying the animals that which they require. For the mother, she will be suffering extreme stress at not being allowed to come and go as she pleases, and not having human assistance on hand. Many bitches become fussy over food when lactating and need to be offered a variety to choose from, and to eat adlib—mass production in puppy farms means bitches starve or make themselves ill whilst feeding their litter.
8.4 The bottom line is, it is just not possible to produce a healthy, mentally well balanced puppy, suitable for a pet life, in the mass produced intensive farming environment. Theres plenty of evidence that suggests this is not the ideal way to produce and keep actual farm livestock, why on earth would it be appropriate for an animal, in many cases capable of injuring or killing a human, who is intended to live as part of the family, in the family home?
July 2012