Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Wood Green, The Animals Charity
While there are some positive proposals from Government to tackling irresponsible dog ownership, Wood Green, The Animals Charity is particularly disappointed that the opportunity to make the changes that are so urgently needed to improve the welfare of dogs and to protect the general public and reduce anti-social behaviour has been missed.
At Wood Green we are actively working in our local communities to promote responsible pet ownership. In the last year alone we microchipped 1,000 dogs through our Outreach projects and gave training and behaviour advice and support to reduce antisocial behaviour associated with dogs. The clear message coming back from owners is that legislation associated with dogs is at best unclear and this latest announcement has done little to clear-up this confusion.
Dog Control
Are the approaches proposed by Defra in its announcement on “Tackling Irresponsible Dog Ownership” on 23 April 2012 sufficient to ensure that there is a reduction in the number of attacks by dogs on people and animals?
In particular:
1. Is there a need for a more fundamental overhaul of dog legislation, and its enforcement, including that relating to dog attacks on people, livestock and pets?
Wood Green is concerned that DEFRA have made no reference to preventative measures in these proposed changes to legislation. It’s vital that measures are put in place at an early stage to try to prevent attacks from happening in the first place.
The Charity also feels that the legislation remains complicated and cumbersome making it difficult for frontline enforcers to use. This “piecemeal” approach to legislation is not tackling the wider issues associated with dangerous dogs and responsible pet ownership and we strongly feel that consolidation of the legislation will make it more effective and more widely enforced.
2. Is sufficient action being taken on pets raised as status dogs to ensure their welfare and reduce their impact on communities?
DEFRA’s proposal does not go far enough to offer preventative measures to reduce antisocial behaviour associated with dog ownership.
Wood Green, like many other animal welfare organisations, is promoting responsible pet ownership in the local community. The Charity holds community roadshows offering low cost preventative treatment and behaviour and training advice as well and giving out donated leads, collars, harnesses, muzzles etc to ensure better control of dogs in public areas. This type of activity is particularly targeted to those areas where issues associated with status dogs are most problematic.
This type of outreach activity works well in addressing the issues at ground level; however significant investment is needed to extend the reach to all communities before society really start to see a difference. Legislation including Dog Control Notices would also be a useful supporting measure for local authorities so that owners are accountable for their own dogs’ actions.
3. Will compulsory microchipping of puppies improve dog welfare and help prevent dog attacks at an affordable cost to dog owners? Should a dog licensing scheme also be considered?
Wood Green believes that legislation should dictate that all dogs are microchipped within a year of the legislation coming into effect.
Microchipping is proven to be the most effective way of ensuring that lost dogs are returned to their owners. However of the 8.2 million pet dogs currently in the UK more than a third are unidentifiable. Consequently, their owners cannot be tracked to be held accountable for any irresponsible or dangerous behaviour.
If more dogs were microchipped, more could be returned to their owners and the cost to local authorities would be vastly reduced. Moreover, that microchipping would help with the enforcement of other existing legislation such as the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 or Dogs Act 1871.
We consider that the introduction of compulsory microchipping would help improve animal welfare, while at the same time providing the Government with a solution to a number of issues surrounding irresponsible dog ownership and easing financial pressures on local authorities at a time of financial austerity. Importantly, compulsory microchipping could be introduced via secondary regulations under the Animal Welfare Act (2006) and would, therefore, not require the introduction of any new primary legislation or a dog licensing scheme.
4. Should the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 be extended to include offences committed on private property?
The extension of the legislation to cover private places is a positive move towards ensuring that owners take greater responsibility for keeping their dogs under control in any place. This should make the law more effective in preventing bad behaviour escalating to unacceptable levels ie bites occurring. This is particularly necessary to offer protection to those lawfully undertaking their duty at a property ie postal workers, health care assistants, utility inspectors etc.
Equally, the law must clearly protect pet owners from people intent on criminal activity. Exemptions must be included to cover such circumstances where attacks occur when a person is committing an offence or threatening unlawful activity ie an intruder. These exemptions should also be extended to be seen as a valid defence when an attack occurs in a public place eg during a mugging.
5. Are Defra’s proposals for wider community and educational approaches to support responsible dog ownership sufficiently ambitious?
No. Resources for the proposals are extremely limited and seem to be working within what already exists as opposed to measuring the success of current interventions and extending the reach of those effective solutions to the most significantly affected areas.
6. Do local authorities, the police and animal welfare charities have the right roles in managing stray dogs under the current legislative regime?
Where local authorities are resourced correctly and efficiently the NDWA have proven that they can be extremely effective in managing stray dogs and irresponsible pet ownership. A number of authorities have introduced “Acceptable Behaviour Contracts”—offering and staged approach to dealing proactively with an issue in order to prevent escalation of unacceptable and anti-social behaviour.
Wood Green would recommend that adequate support to enforce dog control notices should be written in to legislation.
Dog Welfare
In respect to concerns expressed in Professor Bateson’s report over poor welfare that has arisen in the course of breeding dogs:
1. Has the response by dog breeders and the veterinary profession been effective?
We have seen evidence that some of the most responsible breeders are working to reduce health issues associated with their breeds although we understand that it will take time for these improvements to be seen in the general populous. The exclusion of unacceptable examples from the Crufts ring this year was a strong “zero tolerance” message to those flouting the rules.
The Charity is however saddened that not all breeders and vets have taken the issues sufficiently seriously and that poor examples of certain breeds are still being allowed to reproduce leading to a continuation of suffering.
July 2012