What should be done about 'dangerous dogs'?

Re: What should be done about 'dangerous dogs'?

Sally Burnell — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:13:37 GMT

The BVA briefed MPs and Peers on our opposition to breed-specific legislation and the need to scrap the DDA last November and received a clear message that we should forget about any political party tackling the issue. We were disappointed but carried on regardless and it featured quite heavily in the President's speech at the London dinner in February.

And now we have both main parties with a lot to say on the topic and a Defra consultation. We're very pleased that the consultation is taking place (but a bit nervous about the timing and as has been said by several people we don't want the politics to ruin the legislation again) and if any BVA members who have commented on this forum want to contribute their ideas to the BVA consultation response we would be delighted to have your views.

You can head to the current consultations page on the BVA website

http://www.bva.co.uk/activity_and_advice/Current_consultations.aspx

or email policy@bva.co.uk with your thoughts.

Thanks, Sally

Re: What should be done about 'dangerous dogs'?

Rob Loxley — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:03:20 GMT

[quote user="Catherine Williams"]It strikes me as a poorly thought out policy being put forward[/quote]

Um, I think it's a consultation not a policy.

On a related note I got a survey phonecall from the local police today ref dangerous dogs. Q1: 'how many dangerous dogs do you see, you know like staffies and rottweillers'!!! If the police don't know what breeds the DDA covers...

Re: What should be done about 'dangerous dogs'?

Catherine Williams — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:58:05 GMT

Third party cover is a wise idea, many owners do not understand what they are culpable for if their dog causes an injury or accident, even if the owner is not the person in charge of the dog at the time. it isn't too costly to arrange, whether that be through house insurance, dogs trust etc. I think it could feed into the litigation culture if people become aware that there is a potential fund there, I'm not sure whether the insurance companies would fight the pay outs or whether they'd transfer the rising costs to the dog owner. I know the 3rd party cover on some policies is already markedly restricted if say your dog comes to work with you.

Microchipping is an excellent idea in theory but enforcement concerns me. Who is going to check these and how is it ensured that the details are up to date, I already have clients who have chosen to chip their dogs failing to keep details current. I'm not sure I want the job of supervising this situation, I want to work with owners not officiate over them, I don't want people avoiding bringing in their sick pet because it's not official and to be honest the people who are most likely to avoid insurance and idchipping are also the people least likely to present their pet in any capacity.

How do they intend to monitor and enforce this? Given the number of uninsured drivers on the road who aren't picked up and the low priority given to dog control I don't think this will work. Both ideas I would support as a good idea and would normally recommend to people (though the insurance usually as part of general pet insurance) this is not going to address the underlying problems. The criminal and gang fraternity with weapons dogs are not going to bother about a weak unenforced law, the tragic "dog bites family child" are normally because of an inappropriate situation with misunderstanding of dog behaviour, poorly socialised dogs unsupervised with children -a chip and an insurance policy will have no impact on the occurrence of these and be little compensation in aftermath.

It strikes me as a poorly thought out policy being put forward to be seen to be doing something. Please think again!

Re: What should be done about 'dangerous dogs'?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:46:40 GMT

The usual "Law of unwanted consequences "

Since there's no suggestion of compulsory veterinary insurence, it won't do a thing for the actual dogs, will increase costs for decent law-abiding owners of well-behaved dogs, and the law will be ignored by those people who are involved in illegal dog-fighting, or drug -dealers who keep pit-bulls for protection-and those are the dogs causing the problem

Wynne

Re: What should be done about 'dangerous dogs'?

Vikki Moran — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:39:43 GMT

yes but when i work as an expert witness on these cases i assess the dog against the ADBA breed standard for the American Pit Bull terrier, and if the dog conforms to type, then that's what counts.

(as directed by Trevor Turner who has been doing these for years!)

Re: What should be done about 'dangerous dogs'?

Vikki Halliday LLB — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:14:37 GMT

[quote user="Richard Carter"]

Similarly had an elderly golden retriever that got hugged unexpectedly by a little girl who then got bitten in the face - public response - baying for blood of course. However on this one my opinion did defuse the situation re the immediate death of the dog but still went to court etc for 'damages'

[/quote]

Similar anecdote, I was the silly little girl who at age 7 threw her arms round an unsuspecting Golden Retriever dog belonging to a family friend and got bitten on the face as a result.

Took me years to get over my fear of dogs barking or growling, but thankfully my parents were sensible enough to realise it was my own stupid fault! (And as the owner was an orthopaedic surgeon, all I got was a tetanus jab in my posterior that afternoon )

Oh for the good old days pre-litigation.......

Re: What should be done about 'dangerous dogs'?

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:04:17 GMT

I do think DD act should apply on private property.

I do think that all dogs should be microchipped and would support that legislation.

What use is insurance? My dog is insured twice, through my house contents and through the BASC for 3rd party damage. It's no consolation if you child is mauled by a dangerous dog and you get a nice fat insurance payout. (IMO cyclists should have compulsory insurance and road tax if they want to ride on public highways).

Think the responsibility should lie with the dogs owner, and if their dog does something they should be prosecuted for ABH/GBH/wounding/manslaughter. Not a slap on the wrist and a euthanasia.

Re: What should be done about 'dangerous dogs'?

Utlendigur — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:00:11 GMT

This is being couched as an method of dealing with DDs - whereas in actual fact it appears it will completely fail to do so, while simultaneously causing increased expense, worry and hassle for the majority of (responsible) dog owners. Seems a typical Labour policy - pick a soft target (dog owners), create or expand a database (microchipping), extract money (insurance), create lots of new legislation to be seen to be "doing something" - all to grab a few headlines before a general election. Cynical, moi?? Meantime the average yob with a DD will continue to ignore this legislation (along with the previous DD laws, legislation on knives/guns, taxing and insuring your car etc).

Yes, compulsory microchipping would be nice - but many strays we get in with chips have out of date details, and again typical status dog owner wouldn't be the type to keep the state informed of their every move...

I don't think the problem of status dogs can be tackled as a subject in isolation without looking at the wider picture of why people feel the need to own large aggressive dogs - then you start getting into gang culture, reaons for criminality generally, deprivation, unemployment, social breakdown...but hey, forget that, it's too difficult - lets tackle Mrs Pumphrey and her Peke instead

Insurance - yes a good idea in principle, but would it lead to an increase in spurious claims as people see a chance to make a quick buck with no win no fee lawyers jumping on the bandwagon. By the way Dogs Trust membership also includes 3rd party insurance - good value and supporting a good charity.

The DD act was a poor piece of legislation but these suggestions don't seem any better thought through. And it seems the usual government response of legislative diarrhoea to appear to be doing something, but without putting the resources into policing and enforcing laws (often existing laws would be sufficient) which means that on the ground the problem just carries on (while criminalising a greater proportion of the general population - allowing the authorities to fine people or better still get them on the DNA database...).

Re: What should be done about 'dangerous dogs'?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:40:52 GMT

[quote user="Vikkivet"]I tell a lot of my clients with the type of dog that the law doesn't care if it's mother was a pedigree staffiem and it's father was a pedigree boxer, it LOOKS like a pit bull therefore it's a prohibited dog.[/quote]

Ummmm actually (Oh no here he goes again) ......... the law specifies "the type known as the pit bull" not "the pit bull type". It had to be worded like that because people pointed out that "pit bull" was not a "breed".

Bad drafting of course, but this stupid law was, as we all know, a knee-jerk measure rushed through to keep the populace happy.

Remember the "pit bull", or maybe it was a pit bull, that had its muzzle removed to allow it to drink on a boiling hot day: result, owner prosecuted and fined, dog killed. What about the Protection of Animals Acts (that were in force then)? If it happened today, what about the offence against the Animal Welfare Act if the dog were prevented from drinking?

Which brings us back to the original title of this thread. Whatever is done, please for heavens' sake let us have a well-thought-out, carefully considered, well drafted piece of legislation.

Re: What should be done about 'dangerous dogs'?

Richard Carter — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:05:46 GMT

most household insurances already cover actions by your dog (i.e. as an action ultimately the house owner's responsibility).

My problem with dangerous dogs is the completely unprofessional view that leads an animal to be classed 'dangerous' and how the police then proceed immediately to 'destroy'. Had an atrocious case a few years back where a 2 year labrador got out of his yard, was being chased silly by everyone and then bit the person who grabbed his collar - and no amount of pleading and/ or explaining that this bite was a normal response by a frightened dog would change the result.

Re: What should be done about 'dangerous dogs'?

Rob Loxley — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:43:09 GMT

At the moment it's just at consultation stage, whether with an election upcoming it'll get beyond this at present is up for debate.

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]It is already a criminal offence to allow your dog to be out of control[/quote]
in a public place

See this story for why the law needs updating:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/8531030.stm
(postman savaged by dogs but ruled to be on a private road, so not a public place).

The Scottish Parliament's proposals for dog control notices make interesting reading, but where the funding to pay for them comes from I'm not sure:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/29-dogControl/b29s3-introd.pdf

Re: What should be done about 'dangerous dogs'?

Vikki Moran — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:25:05 GMT

i see an awful lot of these, and was involved in a KC/BVA action group on dangerous dogs a few years ago.

yes the important point about the law is what the dog looks like, not it's breeding. I tell a lot of my clients with the type of dog that the law doesn't care if it's mother was a pedigree staffiem and it's father was a pedigree boxer, it LOOKS like a pit bull therefore it's a prohibited dog.

I usually strongly advise these clients to neuter and microchip their dogs, at the very least, to make sure that if or when the police come knocking, they have done some of the things required to keep their dog. I also recommend training classes well into adulthood, so the dog can be deomstrated as a sensible animal.

I am a firm believer in deed not breed.

But, I do have a zero tolerance policy on aggressive dogs. I don't care what breed it is, a dnagerous dog should be euthanased. I just don't believe a dog is dangerous simply through phenotype.

in my region the police have become very hot on dangerous dogs, but there's been a few high profile cases, so they've had to be. A few years back they weren't!

I agree that insurance won't be bought by the unscrupulous, nor will they be microchipping their already illegal dogs. however, i think mandatory chipping is a good idea, simply from the point of view of strays and theoretically cruelty cases.

no matter what legal restraints are brought in there will always been people who find ways round them. otherwise we wouldn't be nearly 20 years on from the original DDA and still discussing how to tell if you're looking at an illegal pit bull type (incidentally who is it that lets the dog charities rehome these dogs?? I keep seeing them!)

Re: What should be done about 'dangerous dogs'?

Clive Ansell — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:31:16 GMT

I think Labours idea of compulsory insurance is nonsense and is more to do with political spin and the pending election. The legislation already in place is routinely not enforced, so a good start would be to actually apply the existing laws. It is already a criminal offence to allow your dog to be out of control, as well as ownership of certain breeds under the DD act unless certain criteria are complied with. In any event, the type of people who own illegal dogs are hardly likely to purchase insurance for them.

In one of the low cost clinics I have worked in, I was concerned about the number of pitbull type (note, the DD act refers to pitbull type dogs, so if it looks, smells, sounds, or behaves like a pitbull - it's a pitbull), 8 - 10 most days, and almost none were microchipped, neutered, or muzzled in public as required under the DD act. When I contacted the local police, they were not interested, until and unless someone is actually attacked.

I think all dangerous or uncontrollably aggressive dogs should be euthanased, there is just no place in society for them.