Politicians: learn from mistakes

This article has 3 Comment(s)

OWNERS face compulsory microchipping and having to take out third-party insurance for their dogs under new Government plans which went out to consultation this week.
The insurance is to cover injuries to victims of dog attacks.
DEFRA announced on Tuesday that it was gearing up to repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA), imposing new legislation to tackle dangerous dogs.
Police announced recently that they seized 900 dangerous dogs in London alone last year, and the RSPCA reported a 12-fold increase in complaints about dog fights.

Greater protection

In an attempt to give greater protection from ‘weapon’ or status dogs, owners of unruly animals would be subject to new antisocial behaviour orders, already dubbed ‘Dogbos’.
These control orders would make it unlawful for a dog to be out of control in any place, public or private.
According to the report from Home Secretary Alan Johnson and Environment Secretary Hilary Benn, police or council wardens would have powers to issue these orders, similar to fixed-penalty notices. They may require a dog to be fenced in, neutered, muzzled or kept on a lead, and for an owner to attend a dog handling course.
Any breaches could lead to prosecution, a fine, or even prison if animal cruelty were involved. The worst owners would be banned for life from keeping a dog and unruly animals would be destroyed.
Reform is supported by the Conservatives and Liberal Democratics and new powers are expected within a year.
At present the law bans ownership, sale, trade and advertising of pit bulls, Japanese Tosas, Dogos Argentino and the Fila Brasilieros, but does not apply to dogs in private homes and gardens. The aim is to tackle any dog behaving in a dangerous or threatening way in a public or private place.
The extension to private homes and premises has delighted the Communication Workers’ Union, which has been campaigning for years to highlight the number of postmen bitten by dogs, some 92 a week at present.
Discussions about these proposed new powers included input from the Kennel Club, Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Blue Cross, British Veterinary Association (BVA), Dogs Trust, insurance companies, local authorities, PDSA, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the RSPCA.
There is concern that owners who already microchip and insure their pets may be hit by red tape or higher bills while irresponsible owners would ignore the law.
The KC, Dogs Trust and the RSPCA favour repeal of the ban on certain breeds and for legislation to concentrate on ‘deed not the breed’. But some local authorities and ACPO reportedly believe that the proscribed list of dogs should be extended to include all bull breed types and Akitas.
Mr Johnson said: “People have a fundamental right to feel safe. The vast majority of dog owners are responsible, but some people keep dogs for the sole purpose of intimidating others. It is this sort of behaviour that we are determined to stop.”
The KC welcomed the plans: “The DDA is a knee-jerk piece of legislation which was rushed through in haste. It has not reduced the number of pit bull terriers in this country, nor has it reduced the number of dog biting attacks while it has had a huge impact on the welfare of many dogs.
“It is essential that any new legislation is properly considered and puts greater emphasis on animal welfare while better protecting the public.

More cautious

“We welcome this review and we hope that any future government will look at this pressing issue as soon as possible after this year’s election.”
The BVA was more cautious, welcoming reform but calling on politicians not to let the issue become ‘a political football’ during the forthcoming election campaign.
Its president Professor Bill Reilly said: “The BVA has been lobbying the Government and Opposition hard for a change in dangerous dogs legislation and so we are delighted that the Government is now considering reforming the hugely unpopular and ineffective DDA. We believe very strongly in the principle of deed not breed – targeting dogs for their actions, not what they look like – and we hope to see new legislation which tackles the actions of irresponsible pet owners which can cause dogs to become aggressive.
“We therefore support the concept of control notices, which is being pursued in Scotland through the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill, and the proposal for compulsory microchipping to ensure all dogs can be identified.
“However, the failure of the 1991 Act is rooted in the fact that it was drafted in a highly political knee-jerk response to a number of incidents. Politicians should learn from these mistakes and resist using the issue as a political football during the General Election campaign.
“The welfare charities, vets and KC have reached consensus on the need for the law to change and politicians of all parties should aim to agree the way forward.
“The problems caused by dangerous dogs will never be solved until dog owners appreciate that they are responsible for the actions of their animals. Rather than singling out individual breeds, we strongly believes in targeting individual aggressive dogs.
“With concern about weapon dogs rising and a new Parliament on the horizon looking for fresh ideas, the time is surely right for it to be at the top of the political agenda.”
The RSPCA said it had been calling for more effective legislation for a long time.
“Greater emphasis should be put on punishing irresponsible dog owners who cause animals to suffer, rather than the breed or type of dog concerned,” said the charity’s government relations manager Claire Robinson. “There is a real need for updated legislation that enables enforcers to tackle the problem effectively and prevent serious incidents from occurring rather than waiting till after a tragedy or penalising certain dogs just because of their breed or type.
“We have been working with the police and local authorities to develop good practice in this area and also consolidate and update legislation that will tackle the root cause of the problem – indiscriminate breeding and irresponsible dog ownership.
“It is fantastic news that the Government has opened a genuine debate on the subject and given the public a chance to have their say on the best way to tackle the issue of dogs being used anti-socially.
“It needs to be remembered that dog welfare isn’t just about ‘dangerous dogs’. Strays and over-breeding are also areas that would need to be properly addressed as part of any comprehensive dog welfare strategy.”
Dogs Trust has been lobbying the Government about the benefits of compulsory microchipping for a year.
“We believe permanent identification must form a central part of any new dog legislation, so it is deeply gratifying that this has been included as part of the consultation,” a spokesman said. “Just a third of dog owners currently have their dog ’chipped, but should this become a legal requirement more stray dogs can be reunited with their owners, thus ultimately reducing the 9,000 dogs that are destroyed by local authorities every year.”
She continued: “Similarly, compulsory third-party insurance is a sensible precaution to protect both human and animal victims of dog attacks. Many household insurance policies will include this as long as the dog is in the insured person’s control at the time.
“There are also membership schemes such as the one Dogs Trust offers where for just £20 a year, any dog within the household has third-party liability insurance up to a million pounds per claim.

Private property

“There is a real need to extend the existing dangerous dog laws to cover private property as well as public spaces but exemptions will need to be carefully thought through. For example if a dog were to bite an intruder in the home such as a burglar, wwould their owners be exempt from punishment? However it is essential that this is regarded as a social rather than a dog issue. It is unacceptable that a young person feels it is necessary to own a dog as a form of protection in order to feel safe on the streets.
“In terms of what appears to be missing from the consultation, we would have liked to see the total repeal of all breed-specific legislation and more consideration given to the penalties awarded to irresponsible owners including possible custodial sentences. We are currently lobbying for the introduction of increased penalties along the lines of dog owner ‘ASBOS’ which firmly place responsibility for the dog’s behaviour on the owner rather than looking at the breed of the dog in question.”
To take part in the consultation visit www.defra.gov.uk and look under ‘wildlife and pets’ and then ‘dangerous dogs’.