Breed Specific Legislation & Responsible Pet Ownership
On 1st November 2024 tragedy struck again in a small village in North Yorkshire near my home town of Malton. Police confirmed that an XL Bully type dog, registered as exempt under the Dangerous Dog Legislation, was responsible for the death of a 10 year old girl in her own home. The dog was the family’s pet. For me it is unimaginable, the pain and grief of losing a child and my sincerest condolences go out to the family following this tragedy.
With a new government just a few months into its tenure I call for a serious review and overhaul of the Dangerous Dogs Acts, especially section 1, and a comprehensive review around the inadequate legislation that deals with the sale and ownership of ‘pets’. These reviews must be conducted for the welfare of both the animals and their owners.
As a former RSPCA Inspector who investigated organised dog fighting in the UK I used to fully support the ban on Pit Bull type dogs for the following reasons. Before the 1970s the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT) did not exist in the general population of pet dogs in the UK. They were brought to the UK by those involved in dog-fighting as they had been specifically bred for that purpose. Through the 70s and 80s their numbers increased through the network of these clandestine illegal dog-fighters. Under the old legislation (Protection of Animals Act 1912) the authorities were limited in their powers to seize dogs involved in dog-fighting unless the dog was injured and/or the perpetrators were caught in the act of an organised dog-fight.
It is my belief that with this in mind, the government of the time introduced the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA91). Within this piece of legislation it gave the power to ban breed types. Because they didn’t want it to look like legislation for just Pit Bulls they included, on the advice of the late RSPCA Chief Inspector Mike Butcher, a renowned expert on organised dog-fighting and associated breeds, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentinia and the Fila Brasilia. With the exception of the Pit Bull terrier, none of these breeds were known to exist in the UK. The DDA91 gave the police the authority to gain warrants for the possession of these breeds and this was a huge advantage in the fight against the breeding of dogs for organised dog-fighting. Any dog that has been bred and trained for the purpose of dog-fighting can be extremely dangerous. Their strength, bite power, tenacity and drive make them a formidable animal and potentially more dangerous than some animals on the Dangerous Wild Animals list.
By the late 1990s early 2000s, because of the banned status, the APBT had grown a cult status and more and more were being kept as pet dogs as a status symbol. This also saw the appearance of the other 3 breeds named above for the same reasons. This is a great example of the law of unintended consequences. With the increased number of people keeping these dogs as pets, what came with this was the breeding of dogs, not for there ability to fight but for their looks and their nature. The Pit Bull can be a very family friendly, intelligent dog that can make a great pet. This meant they were not being trained to fight or be physically fit enough to fight. This has now led to a large population of Pit Bull type dogs that do not pose the same danger as they once did or indeed the same danger as some other dogs. With the increase in the desire for dogs that looked bigger, meaner and more intimidating the APBT went out of fashion in favour of bigger broader breeds such as American Bulldogs, Boer Boels and eventually XL Bullys. And now, by banning this breed, it will increase people’s awareness of the breed and its perpetuate its cult status and in all likelihood increase its population.
In 2007 the Animal Welfare Act was introduced and includes a whole section regarding animal fighting which now gives the authorities the powers, they did not have prior to 1991, to apply for warrants to seize dogs and paraphernalia associated with organised dog-fighting. For this reason and the unintended consequences stated above I strongly urge those in power to reconsider section 1 of the DDA91. It is outdated and unnecessary.
Instead, we really need to take a closer look at the way we buy, sell, breed and re-home dogs and indeed all pets. At the moment anyone can buy a pet without any prior knowledge of how to look after them. To look after any pet properly and provide for its needs and give it a good quality of life you need to have an overarching understanding of its nutritional, environmental, health and behavioural needs, not only to prevent suffering but to understand and recognise when the animal is stressed, anxious and/or unhappy and how relieve its stress/anxiety and make it happier.
I believe education is the key and we should bear in mind that Animal Welfare is still not on the national curriculum in schools. In the UK, if you have a dog breeding licence you are expected to have a knowledge of animal welfare and your duty of care to provide for your dog’s needs but when you sell/re-home the puppies, there is no requirement for you to get proof from the new owner what knowledge they have, whether they are competent to look after a puppy/dog or indeed to educate them about looking after the dog you are selling. Pet shops also don’t need to do this for all the species they sell (including dogs). If someone sets up a ‘rescue organisation’ and/or charity they are exempt from licensing meaning there is no check on whether the rehomer is knowledgeable themselves. Even some of the bigger, more well known charities are more concerned about the age of your children, your working status or the height of you garden fence than they are about your ability to look after a dog or a cat.
Dog-licensing has been suggested many times as a solution to the problem, but this can only work if it has meaning behind it and funding to run it. Maybe instead of, or as well as, there should be a certificate of competence for owning a dog. This could be sub-categorised to distinguish the more ‘dangerous’ dogs and I shall clarify what I mean by dangerous. Every dog, whatever size, gender or breed, has the ability to attack, bite and mawl anyone. The reasons it does so will be down to genetics or environment or learnt behaviour or fear or a combination of any or all these things. But, the bigger the dog the more powerful it is and therefore the potential danger a dog poses is relative to its size, power and athleticism. If owners do not understand the factors that cause attacks or recognise when a dog is likely to attack, how can they be expected to prevent attacks from happening.
Dogs can be dangerous animals. If someone wants to keep a dangerous wild animal as a pet they are required to get a license (DWA) which, upon inspection, shows they can keep that animal safely by understanding the risk it poses and putting measures in place to ensure it doesn’t escape and/or harm anyone. A register is then kept of what dangerous animals exist and where. Should this apply to all dangerous dogs whatever their breed status?
The big questions about licensing is funding. Local Authorities are already underfunded and overstretched in their capacity to deal with animal welfare issues, often relying on charities and other enforcement agencies to fill in for the work they cannot do so an additional licensing scheme would need to be paid for. In Germany, they have a varying system depending on which state you live in but in Lower Saxony for example you must have a dog license for any dog you own and in North Rhine Westfalia you must pass a competence exam for dogs over 40cm or 20kg. In addition all dogs in Germany are taxed (90-150euros). If you applied that tax to the alleged 12-15million dogs in the UK that is a potential £1billion+ that could be used towards a licensing scheme.
I think if a licensing system can be implemented for dogs there’s probably no reason why it can’t be extended to other pet species as well.
Whatever your opinion on breed specific legislation and dangerous dogs we must all agree that more needs to be done to prevent the tragedies such as the one here in North Yorkshire or indeed the 23 deaths and 22,000 injuries caused by dog attacks in the UK since 2021*