Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Billy de Goede

I am writing to you with regards to the proposed amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA). In my opinion, the proposed amendments will do very little to tackle the occurrence of so-called dog “attacks”. A micro-chip will not stop a dog from biting, nor will the inclusion of “attacks” on private property. And while micro chipping dogs will definitely go some way towards reuniting lost dogs with their owners, a micro chip under current law is not a proof of ownership. So anyone wanting to avoid prosecution for their dog’s behaviour can deny ownership of the dog and will walk away from court freely.

It is without a doubt that post deliverers, and others aiming to provide a service to the occupant of a property, should be able to do this without fear of getting hurt by anyone, including an out-of-control animal. The same goes for other, legitimate, visitors to the property.

However, under the proposals it would be acceptable for a dog to defend its owner, when present during a burglary or similar (violent) unlawful act. It would not be acceptable though for a dog to attack a burglar when the owner was not present at the time. This is a hugely unfair proposal for both the dog and the owner. How would a dog owner be expected to stop his dog from behaving dangerously when he is at work and his property, where his dog resides, gets broken into? What about people whose dogs are at home while they are at work during the day? Not everyone has the privilege to work from home while waiting for a burglar to come along. The trespasser is fully aware of the fact that he is breaking the law, yet the dog would face a possible death sentence for defending its owner’s property, as well as possibly its own life? How is that fair?

And where does this leave guard dogs, whose presence is made clear by signs put up on the fencing around a property?

Any UNINVITED trespassing should be excluded from this new proposal.

Breed Specific Legislation is, without a doubt, the most ineffective, cruel piece of legislation ever. A dog is not inherently more dangerous because it’s of a certain breed or because their legs are “X” inches long and their muzzle is “Y” inches wide. Since its inception 22 years ago it has been proven that it does not stop dog “attacks” from happening. It has however caused the deaths of thousands of innocent dogs and immense suffering for their families. The vast majority of dogs, whose owners go to court and fight for their lives, are now deemed not dangerous and allowed to be added to the Register of Exempted Dogs, which just proves how useless this piece of legislation is. It has, however, managed to make so-called “status dogs” more desirable to those people who should not have a dog of any description. Adding more breeds to the list of banned breeds will give these criminals even more breeds to choose from, while even more responsible owners and their well behaved dogs will suffer.

The key to avoiding dog “attacks” is EDUCATION. Dog owners should be held responsible for the way their dog behaves. It is up to them to learn how to train a dog, and avoid putting it into situations in which the dog feels that it has no other option but to defend itself. Children especially should learn how to behave around dogs, to avoid being bitten and to keep themselves as well as the dog safe. Rather than investing more money into developing ineffective legislation, where the owner gets punished and a dog gets destroyed after an incident, money could be spent much more wisely on measures that prevent these incidents happening in the first place.

Another issue that deserves a lot more attention than it’s currently receiving, is that of so-called “back yard breeders” and “puppy farms”. These breeders turn out thousands of puppies every year, for nothing but financial gain. Because dogs are such readily available commodities, they are all too often bought on a whim, with the owner really having no idea about the needs and requirements of a dog. When the dog then does not behave as expected, or requires more care and attention than the owners are willing to give, they get advertised as “free to good home” or dumped in a rescue or just on the street. As a result the pounds and rescues are all full to the brim, with no end in sight of the scores of dogs in need of a new home.

It is a lack of EDUCATION and taking RESPONSIBILITY that is causing dogs, and their responsible families, in this country to be in the mess that they are finding themselves in. The law should be amended to target dangerous dog OWNERS.

April 2013