Why is the Dangerous Dog Act Criticised? The Ultimate Guide

We believe Government should act to deal with the deed, not the breed and that it is unacceptable to ban an entire breed or type of dog based on the actions of a single animal. Dog ownership has many health and social benefits, but all dog owners must take responsibility for their dogs, as any dog in the wrong hands has the potential to be dangerous. This is proven by the number of biting incidents involving dogs that are not classified as dangerous under current legislation.

With over 8 million dogs in the UK, the dog-owning population accounts for approximately 25% of the British public, meaning that dog-related issues can have widespread voting appeal. The way to keep politicians interested in canine welfare is to speak to them about your concerns on a particular issue, e.g. dog walking access, dangerous dogs, puppy farming etc. and ask for their help. You can do this via email, a letter or even a meeting. The key is to keep their mailbags full with dog issues to ensure that as your elected representative, they keep up to date with the issues that are most important to you, their constituent.

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has proven that demonising certain breeds makes them more attractive to people who want to flout the law and use dogs in this way. This contributes to the problem of creating so-called status dogs. We firmly believe that doing away with breed-specific legislation would lessen the appeal of these dogs and also reduce cases of animal cruelty.

If there is an issue you feel strongly about, write a letter to your parliamentary representative lending your support to one of our many campaigns and letting them know how they can help. Your emails and letters dont need to be long, in fact, the shorter the better as politicians are very busy. By doing this you will be playing your part in keeping the welfare of dogs on the political agenda. Our guide to letter writing Writing to your Member of Parliament at Westminster (MP), Member of Scottish Parliament (MSP), Welsh Assembly Member (AM), or Northern Ireland Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) will inform individual politicians about important campaigns and therefore enable pressing issues to be taken up in parliament much more effectively. While we know that it is much easier simply to copy a letter and send it off, your parliamentary representative is far more likely to take notice if you write your own letter. Use the guideline below to draft your own letter:

Whilst we welcome recent measures taken by the UK Government to introduce some preventative measures to tackle irresponsible dog ownership, ultimately we believe that this needs to go further. We call on the Government to:

Many key canine organisations like us want to see an end to legislation that singles out dogs based on looks alone and focus instead on dog owners and a move to prevention. The Blue Cross has written to Lord Gardiner, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at Defra, to ask him to repeal the unfair and ineffective law.

Jackie says that this means court cases can be long and drawn out with arguments over small details. LJ and JM have previously been in court where they spent over an hour arguing over one measurement.

“All of the measurements are taken by a stranger who the dog has never met before. A number of dogs take umbrage to this, and this can cause lots of problems. ”

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has given guidance to law enforcers on what to look for when ‘typing’ a dog.

Cecil’s favourite pass time is snuggling up on the sofa next to LJ and playing with his frisbee.

Type-specific legislation is considered overinclusive as it subjects all members of the target breed to regulation regardless of prior behavior. The authors propose that dog guardians will only be “responsibilized” by type-specific legislation if they know that the dog in question is of that type. However, because determining the type of a given dog is notoriously difficult, guardians are often unaware that their dog is a banned type. On the other hand, type-specific legislation can be considered underinclusive given that only certain types of dogs are banned or regulated by virtue of their breed. The authors question how guardians can knowingly avoid certain types of dogs and become more “responsible” dog keepers, if it is difficult to determine what type of breed a dog is.

The authors contend that the current law does not enhance public safety per se. An increase in public safety would be illustrated by a reduction in the harm caused by dogs on private property, as opposed to providing a harmed individual with some form of redress under the criminal law after the harm has already occurred. The authors argue that much more radical change is needed, both legislative and cultural, to “responsibilize” dog guardians.

A possible solution to the aforementioned problems could be to create a consolidated piece of legislation that addresses these various issues. However, the authors argue that further legislation alone is unlikely to reduce the problem of dangerous dogs to the desired extent. Responsible guardians will respond to such legislation accordingly but could nevertheless become inadvertently entangled within it. On the contrary, less responsible guardians are either likely to be dealt with only after an incident has occurred or could be encouraged to take steps to circumvent the laws that are in place by, for example, obtaining dogs through the black market.

This paper explores two aspects of the 2014 Act: (a) the extension of regulations relating to the control of dogs from public to private spheres, and (b) the retention of type-specific definitions of which dogs are to be considered “dangerous.”

With regards to the next consideration – type-specific legislation – there was no movement away from this approach within the 2014 Act. Nevertheless, this approach received heavy criticism (not least because, as many animal advocates know, breed is considered a poor indicator of aggression).

RSPCA Says Dangerous Dogs Act Is Not Fit For Purpose | Good Morning Britain

Following a number of attacks by dogs, on children in particular, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was introduced in the United Kingdom. This act adopted a two-pronged approach to the problem of dangerous dogs.

Firstly, it introduced a new offense of either “owning or being in charge of” a dog which was dangerously out of control within either a public place, or a non-public place in which it was not permitted to be. Secondly, it introduced type-specific legislation. Such legislation presumes certain types of dogs to be dangerous (regardless of either the characteristics and/or previous conduct of the individual dogs in question) and therefore such dogs are automatically captured by the relevant legislation. Specifically, pit bull terriers, Japanese tosas and “any type designed … by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose”. As a result of the focus on “types” rather than “breeds”, cross-breeds exhibiting physical characteristics of a prohibited type were captured, in addition to pure breeds, and the onus was placed upon the guardian or person in charge to prove that their dog did not fall within this list.

Following the 1991 Act, it became an offense to breed or breed from, advertise, sell, exchange or give such a dog away, allow such a dog to be in a public place without a muzzle or lead, or abandon such a dog or allow it to stray. Those found guilty of such offenses could be liable to a fine and/or six months’ imprisonment. The 1991 Act also provided the courts with powers to order the destruction of any such dog (this was in fact a mandatory requirement in certain circumstances), and to disqualify the offender from having future custody of a dog for a discretionary period. The court could require the guardian to register the animal on the Index of Exempted Dogs, if it was decided that the dog was a banned type but that they did not present any danger to the public. The guardian was then allowed to keep the dog, provided that they comply with a comprehensive list of requirements, including taking out liability insurance against their dog injuring other people.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the 1991 Act has been the subject of consistently heavy criticism. The Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 removed the mandatory destruction order provisions, provided the courts with some discretion regarding their sentencing powers, and enabled the Index of Exempted Dogs, which was originally intended to be time-limited, to be re-opened. The next main piece of legislation in this field was the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014.

This paper explores two aspects of the 2014 Act: (a) the extension of regulations relating to the control of dogs from public to private spheres, and (b) the retention of type-specific definitions of which dogs are to be considered “dangerous.”

The 2014 Act extended the 1991 Act to cover dogs on private as well as public land, except in situations known as “householder cases” – where a dog is either within (or partly within) a building (or part of a building), which is either a “dwelling” or forces accommodation, and attacks a trespasser or someone who the owner of that building believes to be a trespasser. Although there were sound reasons for this extension, the authors submit that operational difficulties persist and achieving the key aims of the legislation is not guaranteed. The definition of dwelling is key to the question of whether a dog guardian will be responsible for damage caused by their dog to another, yet a definition is not provided within the 2014 Act. This leaves the law in an uncertain position in some cases; in fact, the level of responsibility which guardians have for their dogs in areas which fall upon the boundaries to their homes could be seen as blurred. This is one reason submitted by the authors for why this law did not result in a significant increase in “responsible owners.” Another reason is that the legislative change was not advertised in a clear way to guardians and they would need to be sufficiently aware of the change in law to feel forced to be more responsible.

With regards to the next consideration – type-specific legislation – there was no movement away from this approach within the 2014 Act. Nevertheless, this approach received heavy criticism (not least because, as many animal advocates know, breed is considered a poor indicator of aggression).

Type-specific legislation is considered overinclusive as it subjects all members of the target breed to regulation regardless of prior behavior. The authors propose that dog guardians will only be “responsibilized” by type-specific legislation if they know that the dog in question is of that type. However, because determining the type of a given dog is notoriously difficult, guardians are often unaware that their dog is a banned type. On the other hand, type-specific legislation can be considered underinclusive given that only certain types of dogs are banned or regulated by virtue of their breed. The authors question how guardians can knowingly avoid certain types of dogs and become more “responsible” dog keepers, if it is difficult to determine what type of breed a dog is.

Further, the authors submit that focusing on type tends towards absolving guardians of the responsibility for their own behaviour towards their dogs. Indeed, evidence suggests that dogs are more likely to be violent or dangerous as a consequence of how they have been raised or treated, as opposed to an innate propensity towards violence. Moreover, type-specific legislation arguably fails to serve its purpose of “responsibilizing” guardians in that it risks encouraging dangerous dogs’ issues underground. Labeling certain types as “dangerous” has served to make such breeds more attractive to particular groups.

The authors contend that the current law does not enhance public safety per se. An increase in public safety would be illustrated by a reduction in the harm caused by dogs on private property, as opposed to providing a harmed individual with some form of redress under the criminal law after the harm has already occurred. The authors argue that much more radical change is needed, both legislative and cultural, to “responsibilize” dog guardians.

A possible solution to the aforementioned problems could be to create a consolidated piece of legislation that addresses these various issues. However, the authors argue that further legislation alone is unlikely to reduce the problem of dangerous dogs to the desired extent. Responsible guardians will respond to such legislation accordingly but could nevertheless become inadvertently entangled within it. On the contrary, less responsible guardians are either likely to be dealt with only after an incident has occurred or could be encouraged to take steps to circumvent the laws that are in place by, for example, obtaining dogs through the black market.

Indeed, irresponsible human actions will continue to produce dangerous dogs, provided legislation leaves human conduct unchecked. Proper attention to the problem of dog bites requires the study of regulatory alternatives that will root out the causes of the problem, rather than the symptoms. This paper advocates for further research into the potential diversity of dog guardians’ motivations and characteristics. The outcomes from such research could support a more nuanced legislative framework in the U.K. which better reflects the fact that dog guardians are unlikely to be either a homogenous, or a binary, group: there is a spectrum, from willfully criminal dog guardians (e.g. involved in dog-fighting), through to more conscientious guardians who take responsibility for their dogs, whether within a public or private domain.