More Statistics on the UK Dangerous Dogs Act

TheUK released some more dog bite statistics.  Latest figures show that in the past year, 5,221 people were treated in hospitals last year due to dog bites -- a 66% increase over the 3,137 that were admitted 10 years ago.

Meanwhile,the article also notes that more resources are being used in enforcing the country's Dangerous Dogs Act -- with 777 people found guilty of owning breeds deemed illegal by the Act -- this is up from 237 dog owners found guilty in 1997.

The Dangerous Dogs Act was inacted in 1991 and bans 'pit bulls', Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro.  Obviously not only have they found the ban to be unenforceable, but the ban has also done nothing to improve public safety from dog bites there -- in fact, things are much, much worse.

The numbers have caused most organizations to step up and call for changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act.

Andy Robbins of the RSPCA:

'We would like to see the law target the minority owners who are using their dog for the wrong means. Typically, lads mixed up in gangs are using stereotypically muscular, macho breeds of dog to make themselves look tough and boost their own ego rather than have the company of a pet."

LibDem Health Spokesman Norman Lamb:

"We need to tackle the culture of some individuals using dogs as a badge of honour or fashion accessory."

And Jane Kennedy, Labour MP for LIverpool Wavertree:

'If it appears that the administrative burdens of the Dangerous Dogs Act contributed in any way, however small, to the tragic death of four-year-old John-Paul Massey will you agree to review it?'

And in a separate article, 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."

Clarissa Baldwin, the Chief Executive of the Dogs Trust:

"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."

And Alison Gree, 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 deatsh and an amnesty, bu tit has not been effective. It has not made one jot of difference in dangerous dogs."

The UK Dangerous Dogs Act continues to show that it is ill-conceived legislation to target breeds of dogs vs focusing on irresponsible dog ownership.

Hat tip on the second article to Stop BSL.

Comments

[Karen]

What is wrong with these people? Are their egos really so out of control that they can't admit that BSL is a dead duck?
Seems they are the breed that needs banning.

[Karla Jordan]

UK resident here. What those statistics don't say is that UK hospitals record any dog related incident under the same category. Thus, if your over eager Golden Retriever knocks greets you when you get home, knocks you over causing you to sprain your ankle, that is a "dog attack".

Secondly, the Daily Mail is a tabloid, well known for exploiting figures and whipping their ultra conservative readership into frenzies over the most mis-informed subjects. Hence, the correct term of "dog encounter" into "dog bites". It is primarily the Daily Mail readership, under-informed and over-paranoid, that caused the DDA to be enacted in the first place.

[Brent]

Karla,

In all fairness, the Daily Mail is one of dozens of newspapers across the UK that are reporting similar numbers -- most only for their own area. I included the Daily Mail because it has numbers from multiple cities and it saved me from providing multiple links.

While yes, the hospital reports cover everything from the very minor bites to severe attacks, they have for the entirety of the time they have been tracking the numbers. And yes, in the vast majority of the incidents are very minor. But if the country's breed ban was really improving public safety, you'd expect all of the numbers to go down...and it's just not happening...in fact, it is having the opposite affect.

[thehomefront]

there is an easy answer to this problem, and thats to have all dogs muzzeled in public area's, there for, it is impossible for anyone to get bitten by some out of control dog. i'm a dog owner and i would be more than happy to muzzel my dogs.

[Brent]

Sure seems like a very over-reactive response to a very small problem.

[war flash games]

Karla,

In all fairness, the Daily Mail is one of dozens of newspapers across the UK that are reporting similar numbers -- most only for their own area. I included the Daily Mail because it has numbers from multiple cities and it saved me from providing multiple links.

While yes, the hospital reports cover everything from the very minor bites to severe attacks, they have for the entirety of the time they have been tracking the numbers. And yes, in the vast majority of the incidents are very minor. But if the countrys breed ban was really improving public safety, youd expect all of the numbers to go down...and its just not happening...in fact, it is having the opposite affect.
+1