UK: Dangerous dogs law is a mess, warn campaigners

Dangerous dogs law is a mess, warn campaigners

Dog attacks and number of people taken to hospital have doubled since 1991 act, activists say

Helen Carter
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 6 December 2009 21.07 GMT

The death of four-year-old John-Paul Massey, who was mauled by his uncle’s illegal pit bull terrier in Liverpool has led to calls for a repeal of the Dangerous Dogs Act.

The act, introduced in 1991, is failing to prevent dog attacks, campaigners say. Former dog trainer Ryan O’Meara, publisher of K9 magazine, calls the act a shambles: “We need to have a new law that compels every single person who owns a dog to have compulsory education — that is the only way we are going to reverse these problems.”

O’Mears adds that labelling all pit bulls as dangerous is as ridiculous as saying Ford Mondeos are the most dangerous car on the road.

Clarissa Baldwin, the Dogs Trust chief executive, said: “By banning certain breeds of dog rather than focusing on tackling anti-social behaviour it has not prevented a large number of dog attacks or reduced the number of pit bull terrier-type dogs in the UK. Since that act was introduced. the number of hospitalisations is reported as having doubled.”

Alison Green, the head of DDA Watch, says the act is not working “as has been proven in the most horrible way in Liverpool”.

“There have been deaths and an amnesty, but it has not been effective,” she says. “It has not made one jot of difference to dangerous dogs.

“After cases like this people feel pressure to re-home their dogs by family members because of the media coverage.

“If people have bull breed-type dogs they find it difficult to walk them and they will often not be allowed at training classes when they are legally held, exercised and treated by vets.”

Chief Superintendent John Martin, of Merseyside police, says pit bull describes a variety of dogs and is a complex issue. “If there is a dangerous out-of-control dog, we can instigate section 3 of the act and seize the dog.

“We have to respond in a way that is lawful, reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances and we try to reduce the risk and harm to the public.”

John-Paul Massey’s uncle, 21-year-old Christian Foulkes, was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter.

The Dogs Trust wants the act to be repealed, to deal with aggressive or dangerous dogs based on actions rather than breed.

Certain breeds such as Staffordshire bull terriers, bull mastiffs and rottweilers are being vilified and labelled “dangerous dogs” because of their popularity with certain members of society and gang members.

When the dog fails to behave in the desired way it can be abused or abandoned. The trust’s re-homing centres are seeing more unwanted bull breeds than any other dog.

Another dog, a brown pit bull, walks past with its owner, but won’t talk.

The pit bull was made illegal under the Dangerous Dogs Act, along with Japanese tosas, fila brasilero and dogo argentino. The only way they can be allowed is if the owner obtains a certificate of exemption from a court after having the dog neutered, insured and a transponder implanted and an identification tattoo.






More from StopBSL.com...

 

Thank you for posting this!

 

Lets hope common sense prevails ,but best not hold our breath

 

Trouble being is learning by mistakes is one thing,but taking legitimate advice is a whole different ballgame ! Still here's hoping things may change,cheers Terry. :cool:

 

Government,R.S.P.C.A and other bodies have said the 1991 DDA the law needs amending since it was first introduced. I think it was 1999 or early 2000's that the R.S.P.C.A. bactracked and said the Pitbull should never have been eradicated yet the law remains the same. Most of the dogs that have attacked have been crosses (mutts) that have usually been teased deliberately to be people mean by the feral youth . I think there are more type looking dogs on the streets now than there was midle to late 1980's when the purebred dogs were being kept by the feral youth of the day. I know for a fact in recent years that a few people were breeding ambulls x staffs and other similar crosses and selling them for big bucks. You only had to look in the Trade papers (Exchange & Mart and similar mags) you would see oldtime staffs from Patrick/Mayfield/Reid lines again most were just mutts or there was the odd litter that may have been purebred with no pedigree or hung pedigrees on them.
Pitbulls are still not illegal to have here as long as they are desexed ,registered,insured and always wear a muzzle in public.
Trouble with the authorities they have'nt got a clue how to amend the DDA of 1991,no doubt they will still be trying to work out what to do in a few years from now ..

 

i still think there should be an age limit on ownership of the breed.......say 21yr old+.......some might not like me saying that.......but it will certainly go some way to making the little gangsta wanksta wannabes get a little hot under the collar at the thought of every cop and neighbour looking for him an his dog.alot of pets might get seized and put down....but the sooner bad owners are dealt with the better for the rest of us!!

 

Its a good idea peppa , but the authorities would not be able to enforce it as it would not be cost effective . To make any new law work regaurding all breeds that are deemed dangerous would mean a whole new set of laws being written and then approved. Which like i said cant see it happening at least not in the near futue.
But the witch hunt will carry on !!!!

 

i think a national reg scheme for all dogs , where they are chipped to the owner so any dog can be traced and owners made responsable would help ,
but in reality i think oldtymer is probably right the witch hunt will go on , and the chavs with designer mutts will continue to cause shit for real dogmen:mad:

 

not to be mean but thats what they get.

 

Theres plenty of ways to fix the issue:
Mandatory Education
Assessment of Owners
Mandatory Register
Mandatory Chipping
Licensing (breeder/owner)

Just to name a few. The only reason they aren't implemented? Money.

It costs the government money to run and implement all of those things and if they turn around and say no, it has to be at the owners cost. There will be a billion people jumping up and down saying, just because we can't afford it, you are going to discriminate against us and say we can't own a dog, discrimination, deprivation of civil liberties/rights bla bla bladdy bla

Its cheaper, to place a ban. The public think they are doing something about it, so it shuts them up and keeps their votes. The government doesn't have to do much, or spend much. And meanwhile... the minority "us" get screwed.

Don't hold your breath, don't get me wrong, I'd love to see something proactive and supportive done to "really" improve the situation, but I can't see it happening

 

I think the pitbull laws in ohio are insane i own a pitbull and live in ohio. i have to pay for outrageous insurance on a dog that wouldnt hurt a fly my dog is the biggest sissy. Only the people who do take the time to train their dogs and care enough to purchase insurance suffer.The bad owners dont get insurance and could care less if the dog is euthanised or not. i think you should have to take a test to own a pit but to pay for insurance is stupid you dont even need insurance on a gun.:mad:

 

its obvious that if you ban something because its supposedly dangerous, thats the reason the wannabe dickhead gangster will want one and get one. thats why the dda is aload of shit