PM backs overhaul of Dangerous Dogs Act

This article has 3 Comment(s)

THE PRIME Minister has backed a national newspaper’s campaign to overhaul the Dangerous Dogs Act.
Gordon Brown spoke out as ministers faced calls to review the Act after the death of John-Paul Massey, the four-year-old who was mauled by a pit bull-type dog at his grandmother’s home in Liverpool.
Mr Brown stopped short of agreeing to a review of the Act but he said: “The Daily Mirror is absolutely right to raise awareness of this important issue. Every tragic incident where a child is killed or savaged by a dog is a chilling reminder to all owners of the duty they have to keep pets under control.
“We must also make sure that those who fail in their responsibilities feel the full force of the law.”
Speaking in the House of Commons, Mr Brown said ministers will work with police, town hall chiefs and housing associations to make sure they use ‘all the powers at their disposal to tackle dangerous or intimidating dogs’.
He also backed a call for dogs to be microchipped.
Labour MP Angela Smith said that the mounting toll of dog attacks was now so serious that ministers should change the law.
The Kennel Club and the RSPCA are also in favour of rewriting the Act in a way which would boost the powers of police and the courts to deal with irresponsible dog owners. They argue that the DDA – which outlaws four breeds of dog including the pit bull – is wrong to focus on specific breeds and want tougher action against owners instead.
But vets say the current legislation can never work unless the human and canine behaviour which led to the bite or attack is fully understood. Writing in the Veterinary Record, vet and behaviourist Kendal Shepherd, commenting on DEFRA’s guidance on the DDA said it was well documented that the ‘vast majority’ of dog bites occurred in the home to humans known to a dog, frequently children.
“The vast majority of cases that come to court under section three of the DDA involve dogs whose owners had no idea their dog might ever have the inclination, or the occasion, to bite,” she said. “The vast majority of dogs identified as pit bulls or pit bull types under section one of the DDA have never bitten, nor would ever want to bite, a human.”

Doomed to failure

Therefore it followed, she wrote, that any law which sought ‘to inflict retribution, tit-for’ tat style’ by strict liability for unforeseen accidents, or made the owners of illegal breeds criminal was ‘doomed to failure’.
“A consequence of any punishment must be that the behaviour which led to the ‘crime’ in the first place is subsequently diminished,” he said. “Until we fully understand exactly what the behaviour is, of both humans and dogs, that has led a dog to bite, enforcement of laws and subsequent punishment can never be expected to work.”
Routine education regarding the true nature of canine aggression was essential, she said.
“Immediately destroying dogs after the event with no such investigation is as unacceptable as crushing an unexamined vehicle after a road traffic accident,” she said.
“Until society as a whole understands the true nature of dog bite incidents we cannot effectively legislate against them. And if we as vets do not fully understand how to prevent canine aggression in our own surgeries, why should the general public, whose dogs we are deemed to be responsible for?”