O
O O O
The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG) is an organisation which was originally set up to provide support and legal advice to people being investigated or prosecuted by the RSPCA.
O
O
We are being increasingly consulted on other aspects of animal legislation, especially issues relating to “dangerous dogs”. This puts us in a unique position of hearing how legislation affects dog owners and their fears and concerns.
O
O
Any change in the legislation relating to dogs is going to affect every single dog owner in the country. To consult with a few special interest groups, some of which have been actively campaigning for legislation that restricts dog ownership is not a proper consultation. It is asking those with a vested interest in increasing legislation and power, and those who are already campaigning for such legislation whether it should be enacted.
O
O
No new legislation or restrictions of any sort should be imposed without giving every single dog owner or potential dog owner the chance to be consulted.
O
O
O
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA) should not be extended to cover all places including private property.
O
O
All dogs need exercise and the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA) requires dogs to be allowed to exhibit their normal behaviour patterns and to play and exercise. It would be wrong to impose regulations on private land that would limit the owner’s ability to comply with the requirements of the AWA, not simply because it would leave those owners vulnerable to prosecution but because it would be detrimental to the well being and needs of the animals so restricted.
O
O
Criminal legislation should only be imposed where there is a clear need for it and no other means of obtaining the same result. The main concern appears to be the protection of public sector employees. The Royal Mail already notifies people that post will not be delivered if there is a dog loose that frightens the postman. Their protection is easily achieved by lockable post boxes being positioned outside properties. Alternatively people collect their mail from local post offices. Both of these approaches also occur in many country areas where the Royal Mail refuses to drive down rough tracks.
O
O
By leaving the Dogs Act 1871 in place dogs on private property can be dealt with and people do not face the problems that having to declare a criminal conviction can cause in both their work life and travelling abroad, for example.
O
O
The availability of civil proceedings for negligence provides an adequate remedy for those who are injured by dogs on private property without the need to criminalise the owner.
O
O
O
It is inevitable that there will be a large increase in the work of the above agencies and therefore a large financial impact.
O
O
Laws like this provide fodder for neighbour disputes. The vast majority of cases that come in on the SHG help line are the result of neighbour disputes over other matters. Complaints are made about dogs (and other animals) as an easy way to “score”. Even if the complaint is unfounded an official calls and investigates, thus using resources that could be better utilised elsewhere.
O
O
The only way to prevent the problem of legislation being used to further neighbour disputes would be to include a severe penalty for false complaints, and that penalty would have to be seen to be imposed in order to get the message across that time wasting complaints would not be tolerated.
O
O
Organisations like the RSPCA, who originally campaigned for the DDA, and who actively identify “dangerous dogs”, would not hesitate to use the legislation and to push the police to prosecute. It is inevitable that there would be an “RSPCA generated” increase.
O
O
O
The RSPCA does not take in stray and unwanted animals. This means that they will be immune to the effects of extending the DDA to cover all places. The real welfare organisations will have to deal with people letting dogs loose out of fear of prosecution or simply handing them in to those rescues that still have places. Most are claiming to be full.
O
O
As the SHG predicted in its evidence to the EFRA committee during the consultations on the Animal Welfare Bill, the numbers of people giving up animals for rehoming has increased drastically. This had nothing to do with the recession. During previous recessions RSPCA figures showed that there was no such increase, in fact people prepared to take on animals actually increased. What is different this time around is fear of prosecution and a pro-active RSPCA ordering people to get rid of their animals.
O
O
An extension of the DDA will inevitably lead to an increase in the numbers of people giving up their dogs.
O
O
O
Breed specific legislation (BSL) actively endangers the public. It wastes resources by targeting friendly family dogs of the wrong body shape. It creates a false sense of safety in dealings with breeds of dog that are not banned, thus encouraging inappropriate behaviour around other breeds of dog.
O
O
Looking at Table 1. it can be seen that there was an incredible increase in the number of people found guilty of owning pit bull type dogs and of those permitted to be added to the index during the years 2007 and 2008. Prior to those years the trend had been downwards with very small numbers involved.
O
O
The SHG believes that this increase has little to do with a sudden increase in the numbers of these dogs but rather an increase in the RSPCA claims about them being reported in the media and increased police activity. We have taken many calls from people who have been visited by RSPCA and police as a result of “neighbour complaints” that their dog is of a banned type. The fortunate few have pedigree papers to prove their dog is not “type”.
O
O
Before history repeats itself it should be remembered that the DDA was passed as a result of the hysterical moral panic led by RSPCA campaigns which misled the public into believing that increased reporting of dog bites actually reflected an increase in such attacks. It did not.
O
O
Not only are dogs which are not pit bull type being seized, the authorities admit it is impossible to tell which dogs are which. In 2003 DEFRA actually advised people NOT to bring American Staffordshire terriers into the country because they could not guarantee that the dog would not be seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act and its fate decided by a court. Types of Dogs prohibited in Great Britain PB 8711 (DEFRA)
O
O
Dealing with the small annual increase of people found guilty of offences under Section 3, about 50 or 60 per year, this is again likely to be due to increased willingness on the part of prosecutors to take action a result of publicity campaigns.
O
O
O
BSL should not be extended. No other breeds or types of dogs should be included.
O
O
O
O
O
Breed specific legislation should be repealed. As detailed above it wastes money and resources, targets responsible owners whose dog has developed into a body shape that has no relation to its temperament. It allows campaigning organisations like the RSPCA to harass people and bully them into giving up or killing their animals.
O
O
What BSL does not do is deal with problem dogs. It has led to people not reporting bites for fear that the dog will be killed. It has led to people failing to seek medical attention for fear that it will lead to a report that will lead to the death of the dog.
O
O
Looking at the differences in the rates of increase year on year in Table 1 for Section 3 and Section 1 offences it appears that the dramatic increase in convictions of S.1 offences does not correlate to a corresponding increase in ownership of pit bull “type” dogs during the lat two years when compared with the static yearly increases (about 50/year) in those guilty of dogs being dangerously out of control. If it does indicate an increase in the numbers owned then clearly the fact that there is no corresponding increase in S. 3 indicates that there is no reason for these dogs to be banned.
O
O
O
Extending BSL would increase the numbers of people and dogs affected. Even the run up to such an extension would result in more animals being abandoned or given up to already overflowing shelters. The police would have to seize and accommodate many more animals. But far worse would be the increase in human and animal misery that would result.
O
O
O
Repealing BSL will dramatically reduce the numbers of dogs being held while their fate is determined, freeing up those places at dog shelters. It will reduce the amount of time and resources the police need to put into investigating complaints that someone is keeping banned breeds of dogs.
O
O
O
If the Act remains in place the amendment should remain. But the requirement to neuter dogs and microchip them should be removed due to the health problems these procedures can cause. Also, it seems strange to enforce neutering when it can lead to an increase in aggression. See attached:
The long term health effects of spay/neuter in dogs, Laura J. Sanborn march 27, 2007
and
Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete One veterinarian’s Opinion, Chris Zink DVM, PhD, DACVP, 2005.
O
The long term health effects of spay/neuter in dogs, Laura J. Sanborn march 27, 2007
and
Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete One veterinarian’s Opinion, Chris Zink DVM, PhD, DACVP, 2005.
O
The need to wear a muzzle in public should be amended. For instance it should not be a breach of the Act to remove the muzzle of a dog that would otherwise have choked while vomiting. Nor should the inside of a car be classed as a “public place” for the purposes of the DDA.
O
O
O
The exemption should only be kept if the DDA itself is not being repealed. No further restrictions should be added.
O
O
O
BSL is inherently flawed legislation. Tinkering with the monitoring system will not make it work.
O
O
O
Removing the exemption would take us back to the situation where dogs were being killed simply because of their looks. The DDA is supposed to deal with problem dogs, not create human misery by destroying perfectly well behaved dogs. It would make the legislation far more difficult to enforce as people will refuse to support what they see as draconian legislation.
O
O
O
Removing the exemption would mean that more people would fight to try to prove their dog was not “type” and so dogs would have to stay in kennels for as long as the appeals ran. Currently, if people accept that their dog is “type” the courts are invited to enter it on the Index and the dog is released after a relatively short stay in kennels. This is bound to increase costs for everyone concerned.
O
O
O
The inevitable increase in long and bitterly fought court cases will be expensive both in financial terms and public relations.
O
O
O
Dog Control Notices (DCNs) would be a disaster. Restrictions on people’s liberties should only be imposed by the courts. While some local authority employees might be able to handle the power and to keep their own beliefs and prejudices in check others would not.
O
O
There is already a dearth of legal aid for animal related prosecutions. There is no legal aid available for people to make an application for the return of an animal seized under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, leading to great suffering of both people and animals. Unless full legal aid was available for people to appeal DCNs we will again see wide ranging injustice as a result of animal legislation.
O
O
O
The SHG opposes the introduction of DCNs and believes no incidents should be covered by them.
O
O
O
As already stated, microchipping and neutering are controversial and can lead to serious health problems, which means that enforcing them could be in breach of the AWA.
O
O
If a dog is contained in its own secure garden why should it be muzzled?
O
O
The only reasonable measure is that a particular dog should be kept on a lead in public. And then only if a court orders it. Enforced muzzling is a possible cure for extreme situations but unfortunately even if the act stipulated this the prosecuting agencies would work to extend that to cover most situations, as always happens, so we would be reluctant to see it as an option.
O
O
Training schemes for dog and owner have the potential to go very badly wrong. It would all depend on the abilities of the trainer to interact with a worried and/or angry owner. We see little evidence of any need for this.
O
O
O
Yes. It is outrageous to consider such an interference with people’s property and rights without any checks and balances. But it is not good enough to simply provide an appeal process. There must be legal aid available to enable people to use the appeal process. Rights which are effectively unenforceable due to lack of funding are of no use whatsoever.
O
O
O
The police. There is too much duplication of responsibilities in animal legislation which serves only to confuse the public and allow the different enforcement bodies to pass the buck. It should certainly not be a campaigning body.
O
O
O
No. Dogs need to be part of everyday life, not swept out of sight. If youngsters are mistreating or abusing their dogs there is already legislation to deal with those problems. If youngsters are acting in a threatening manner, whether with a dog or not, then that can also be dealt with by existing legislation.
O
O
The only reason to introduce new restrictive legislation is if existing legislation has failed to control the situation. Currently there is no evidence that is the case.
O
O
O
If there is a right to appeal backed by legal aid then the DCNs will inevitably be appealed through the courts. If there is no legal aid then people will attempt to act as litigants in person and while they will then have little chance of success they will still clog the court system and tie up witnesses and prosecutors.
O
O
O
No. Putting further costs on people who are doing nothing wrong in a recession is ridiculous. It penalises the poor for being poor and pushes them further out of the normal activities that everyone else takes for granted. Only those who are law abiding would comply. The people who are likely to have “out of control dogs” would not.
O
O
O
The SHG does not support such a requirement.
O
O
O
The SHG does not support the idea of compulsory insurance for any category of dog owners or breeds of dog.
O
O
O
Most people are not extremely wealthy. They have to struggle to pay their bills. Each time another cost is added to any activity the number of people who can afford it decreases. What is it suggested should happen to the dogs of those people who simply do not have the money for yet another bill? The RSPCA will not accept dogs unless they are “RSPCA generated”. Other rehoming organisations are full. Are we going to start killing the dogs of the poor? Or of people who simply forget to renew their insurance?
O
O
O
It will have no effect on the RSPCA since they no longer take homeless animals or animals that people can no longer afford to keep. It will have an impact on genuine welfare organisations and dog homes to whom people will inevitably turn when they can no longer afford to keep their dogs.
O
O
O
The SHG is opposed to compulsory microchipping. The government has just committed to closing down the ID card database. Dog microchipping is just another register of people. It does nothing to prevent dog theft or to help find dogs that are lost. Indeed, reading reports of missing dogs there seem to be as many lost and stolen that are microchipped as those that are not. There is no evidence that this leads to an increased percentage of dogs that are microchipped being found when either lost or stolen. Since there seems to be no correlation in Table 1 between the numbers of people found guilty of keeping banned “types” of dog and those who are prosecuted for dogs being dangerously out of control, the idea that microchipping would somehow deter people from keeping dangerous dogs is puzzling.
O
O
Far more importantly, there are serious health issues with microchips. They may move within the dog’s body. There are certainly instances where chips that have been inserted for pet passports have not been found resulting in dogs facing long stays in quarantine. Microchips appear to be associated with the appearance of tumours at the site of the chip. No responsible pet owner is going to want to risk the health of their animal for a dubious benefit. Again the procedure might well be in breach of the AWA.
O
O
Tattooing appears to be a far less dangerous procedure and at least is visible on the dog, unlike microchipping which needs specialist equipment. There is already a dog tattoo register. http://www.dog-register.co.uk/ .
O
O
O
The SHG is opposed to compulsory microchipping at any age. The arguments are the same.
O
O
O
Only by great intrusion into people’s privacy and by introducing the sort of database and registry of people and their movement that has already been condemned by campaigners and withdrawn by the government for ID cards.
O
O
O
As above, the SHG does not support the compulsory microchipping of any dogs, of whatever breed.
O
O
O
It is difficult to provide evidence when the proposed sum has not been stated. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that anyone would disagree that many people are struggling financially during the recession. Any extra expenditure is likely to be beyond the means of many dog owners. Even those who are not actually in debt are unlikely to have spare cash.
O
O
We are getting calls in on the help line from people who had asked the RSPCA for help with veterinary fees only to be told that they could either hand their animal over to be treated and rehomed or euthanised or they would be prosecuted. People are being given the choice of paying up front for veterinary treatment or having their animal put down when vets tell them an animal needs expensive treatment. You only have to look in the newspaper reports every week to see examples.
O
O
O
Yes. They will have to take the dogs of the people who simply cannot afford to comply. They will also be expected to take the dogs of people who oppose microchipping on health or privacy grounds.
O
O
O
Someone is going to have to enforce the database. Someone is going to have to pay for it. It is inevitable that costs will rise as the difficulties become apparent. People will move. They will be required to change their details. If they do not they will have to be found and punished for breaching the requirement. It is a bureaucratic nightmare that is bound to be expensive to implement and enforce.
O
O
Responsibility for maintaining the database must be with the government, whether an existing agency or a new one. This must not be put in the hands of the RSPCA. Dog owners would be terrified at such a prospect.
O
O
More important is the question of who would have access to the information held within the register. We would oppose any access being made available to any campaigning body such as the RSPCA. Indeed, the thought of their being able to see who owns how many dogs where is likely to deter people from complying with any such law.
O
O
O
The SHG believes that the DDA should be repealed totally and that the Dogs Act 1871 combined with the right to sue the owner in negligence is sufficient to deal with any situation.
O
O
O
As above, there is already legislation to cover every situation that has been suggested even with the repeal of the DDA. Until situations occur that cannot be dealt with by existing legislation being enforced there should be no further legislation, especially such restrictive legislation as is being proposed.
O
O
O
The SHG is saddened but not surprised to hear official confirmation that there is a problem with the police understanding and enforcing the law relating to dangerous dogs. Legislators should remember that in a country where lack of knowledge of the law is deemed to be no excuse it is the duty of legislators to ensure that laws are easily understandable by the people they apply to. If even experts such as the police find this legislation difficult to understand without specialist training then the answer is not to provide further training for the police but to simplify the legislation.
O
O
O
What more could the government possibly do when the campaigning bodies have been raising the issues regularly?
O
O
O
The government needs to listen to individual dog owners more than the special interest groups. We are hearing from dog owners who tell us that when their current dog dies they will not have another. They say that dog owning is no longer fun.
O
O