UK Dangerous Dogs Act = Fail

 For the better part of the last 15 years, the UK has been pointed to by people who support breed bans as a model that should be followed. They say, see, look, the UK did it -- as if that is reason enough for other places to pass an ordinance.

I've dedicated a fair amount of time here talking about the UK Dangerous Dogs Act, noting that everyone over there is unhappy with the Act, calling it "Intellectually Ridiculous", and noting that the UK has seen a 50% increase in serious dog bites since 1997, and Scotland, whic also is affected by the act, has seen a 150% increase in serious dog bites.

For those who aren't familiar, the UK Dangerous Dogs Act essentially banned four breeds of dogs from the island: The American Pit Bull Terrier, the Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Braileiro. The law has been a major failure because it focused on breeds of dogs as being the problem, instead of focusing on irresponsible ownership practices.

The lack of acknowledging that it is poor ownership, poor training of dogs, poor recognition of canine behavior and poor supervision of children with dogs that leads to attacks, not breeds, has caused the UK Dangerous Dogs Act to fail.

Weekly it seems I have dog attack stories from the UK that make the Weekly Roundups -- but this week, they've earned a spot of their own. I never think that individual dog bite stories are an accurate way of determining anything, but this list of stories, combined with the overall increase in bite numbers over the past decade, are a strong indication that the ordinance is beyond a complete failure at this point.

A three month old toddler was mauled to death when it was left unattended with two dogs, a Jack Russell Terrier and a Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

Six people were attacked and injured by two German Shepherds that were running loose.

An 8 year old boy required surgery when it was attacked by an Alsatian/Rottweiler mix that broke free from its leash.

A 6 year old boy required a two hour operation and 70 stitches to reattach his ear after being attaked by a Weimaraner.

The failures of the act have caused many to step forward calling for the review of the Dangerous Dogs Act and to change it, or disband it. Catch these quotes from MP Wayne David captured by Dog Magazine in the UK:

"This underlines the need to make sure dogs are supervised, irrespective of their breeds or temperament."

"It is important to remember the dictum 'Laws rarely prevent what they forbid.' And this isn't just about the law, it's about the human behavior and common sense on the part of anybody who is an owner of a dog."

"We need to have a much better education process in relation to dogs."

There is more here.

The education part is one thing that is severely missing when communities discuss Breed Descriminatory Laws because it makes it seem as if the dog is responsible for its own behavior, not the humans that are the owners and providers for the dogs.

And without education, laws are bound to ineffective.

I'd like to note here that even in the UK, major dog bites are quite rare compared to the overall population of people and dogs. Most dogs, regardless of breed, will live their lives in harmony with humans. However, the VAST majority of all attacks could be prevented if owners of dogs understood canine behavior better, and cared for their dogs better.

Dog Magazine writer Ryan O'Meara has another article on the Dangerous Dogs Act Costing Lives and Money for the taxpayers of the UK.

Is this the type of legislation we should emulate?

London Telegraph writer Peter Wedderburn also questions the breed-specific nature of the DDA:

"In fact, there is little evidence from dog bite data to implicate specific breeds as a greater or lesser risk of hurting humans....There's far more evidence to sugest that the best way to prevent this type of tragedy is by education of dog owners about possible risks."

It's all about the dog owners. The sooner we start addressing that, and NOT the dogs, the better off we'll all be.

Comments

[budgie]

Brent,
It almost seems like these animal welfare issues germinate in the UK and then spread to Europe and the US.

The current criticism of show dog breeders started in the UK and then inspired the recent PETA dog and pony show outside of Westminster. Was the UK dangerous dog act essentially the first bsl?

[Brent]

The UK ordinance went into effect in 1991. It wasn't the first, but was certainly one of the first really high profile large-scale BSLs.

To the best I can tell, Hollywood Florida was the first place on this contenent to ban a breed of dogs -- in 1987 I think. There were many more that came on right about that time - Dade County, and many in the Kansas City area. Kansas City, KS, Leawood and a couple of others date back 87/88ish. The big scare following the Time and SI articles prompted several cities to pass BSL -- they didn't even really know what they were banning, but they were doing it anyway. I've never seen anything in the US that pre-dated 1987.

I believe several countries -- including Australia, banned German Shepherds in the 30s and 40s -- part of it was no doubt motivated by the hatred of all things German following a couple of World Wars, but the dog had a tough reputation at the time too.

I wish PETA would just STFU. I do think there are some legitimate issues with some of the show-breeding community -- the UK's situation is much worse than ours since they have so much smaller breed registries and they are an island that further shallows the breeding pool. But they suffer from the same problems -- where breeding for extreme looks has caused health issues. There are legitimate reasons to be concerned on that issue -- unlike PETA, who would like to get rid of all breeding period because they're a bunch of wackos are just using a legitimate concern to further their selfish cause.

[Selma]

Here are some numbers from a 2008 report by the MPS, which is the Metropolitan Police Service in Metro London only. I have it as a pdf, it's no longer available online.

This is for kenneling costs only. Double the numbers to get the rough equivalent cost over here.

Table 3 – The numbers of dogs seized by MPS officers under the Dangerous Dogs Act
2002 32
2003 37
2004 29
2005 33
2006 148 [1]

Table 5 - Cost of kennelling seized under the DDA.
Year Cost
2001 N/A
2002 £191,000
2003 £186,000
2004 £162,000
2005 £175,000
2006 £406,000

3. Any increase in the number of seizures has a commensurate impact in the amount spent. Dogs often have to be kept for long periods of time, often over a year, whilst the legal process takes place.

[KC KS Kills Dogs]

What's interesting is some of the cities in the USA that have had breed bans for a long time, refuse to supply breakdowns like London's information.

So in many of these cities that have had breed bans since 1987 ++ we have no idea of their intake numbers of the banned breeds nor the cost breakdown.

Do you think these cities have something to hide?

[Selma]

I just read one of the stories about the UK fatality before I saw this post. Here's what caught my eye in the third-last paragraph:

"The baby's grandmother, named locally as Denise Wilson, was treated in hospital for shock in the early hours of Saturday. Neighbours described hearing her screaming when she discovered what had happened to her grandson."

[Selma]

KCK Kills Dogs, why would you think they'd have anything to hide? How mean.

You'd have to add in the costs for police/aco time, court costs, etc, to get the true picture.

It's also noteworthy that the DDA came in in 1991, yet in 2006 they were still seizing 'pit bulls' under the law. Heck, those dogs must have been at least 15 years old by 2006. The ones they are grabbing today are around 18 - at the youngest.

Also, they didn't have one Tosa or Dogo in the UK when they wrote the law.

[Rosemary]

There's now a bit more information about the baby who was killed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7887994.stm and it sounds as though he may have rolled off the table where he was sleeping and that triggered the attack. He doesn't seem to have been unattended, but his grandmother fell asleep.

[R craven]

I live in the UK and my 5 year old daughter was chased into the house by two Rottweilers that bit her coat, but fortunately did no harm to her.
You may be surprised to read that I agree with you about the act. It is entirely wrongly focussed on the offending animal and not the owner.
We were able to threaten criminalising the owners using the act, but only because the attack started in a public place. If the attack had happened solely in our garden or in our house we would have been powerless. But that is just bad drafting of the law, the more important part was that we were unable to stop the owners from keeping other breeds of dog. We live next door to them and have seen their poor animals abandoned in their yard, bored witless and un-socialised. They are kept out there in all weather day and night and the yar is awash with excrement.
We are unable to get the authorities to deal with anything except the two dangerous dogs, the animal welfare issue is left to charity.
It is all wrong. Please don't go down this path - ban the bad owners not the dogs.

[R craven]

Another observation about the UK dangerous dog act. It was brought in after a spate of attacks and a tabloid (gutter) press campaign. It was rushed through to appease the press.
You are better off addressing your issues now by agreeing a reasonable way forward with your legislators than waiting for an attack to trigger a knee jerk legislation.

[Brent]

R Craven,

Thanks for your thoughts -- and I'm glad your daughter is ok.

No one wants aggressive dogs around. But it is very obvious to those that are paying attention that it is ownership issues that are causing the problems. These owners' dogs are going to be a problem regardless of what type of dog you force them into owning. Meanwhile, 10s of thousands of 'pit bulls', rottweilers, etc live happily ever after with good owners around the world.

We MUST focus on the problem dog owners -- doing anything else will be ineffective and is irresponsible.

[Mrs Maeve Chandler]

Our case should be of interest - in April 2009 whilst we were out walking our dog who was on a lead we were the subject of a terrifying dog attack by an off lead German Shepherd dog. My husband was bitten and knocked to the ground, it went to bite my face but got my hand instead, our poor dog was attacked. The dog was with an 11yr old boy who did nothing to help. This dog was kept at the time in the owners garage where it had got out. The boys Mother just hoped we would go away but I demanded she came out and when she did she was abusive to us. When we got home we called the Police who took photos and statments. The owner refused to believe we were bitten and pleaded not guilty. She hired a barrister, and a forensic person to dispute our doctos report. Her barrister applied for the case to be heard in the crown cour as there was a better chance of getting her off. 15 months later July 2010 the case was heard, we were torn apart in court by her barrister. The boy lied and said my husband pushed me over and thats what the mark on my hand was and that the dog was playing and that we beat it with a newspaper. The jury believed him and the verdict was not guilty. So they got away with it and we are left afraid to walk our dog locally in case the dog gets out again. Where is the justice, all we requested is that the dog be muzzled and on a lead when out and socialised more.

[Mrs Maeve Chandler]

part 2 of above. Sorry forgot to mention that the attack was in the UK. Also the owner got all her expenses paid by the Court. This is where our Justice system in the UK fails us. The Police should have more powers and owners should be more responsible. A garage is not the place to keep a pet dog. If people cannot and will not look after their dogs or any animal properly and kindly then they should be banned for life for keeping any. If it is found out that they have breached this ban then they should get a large fine, community service for 2years and the threat of prison. Anyone who cannot be good and kind to dumb animals are cowards and bad people. However what can we do? In our case we went about things the right way and did not get justice at all. We are left with a nervous dog who does not like walks because he is afraid of other dogs, although he lives with three little ones whom he loves.
It is the owners not the dogs that are the problem and far too many people are breeding dog for the money and not being careful about getting good responsible homes for the puppies. However what can we do, I really despair.

[Brent]

Mrs Maeve -- Sorry to hear your story. I'd recommend calling your representative with the House of Lords, tell them your story, and request that they repeal the current Dangerous Dogs Act and replace it with one that will hold all dog owners, regardless of breed, responsible for the actions of their animals.