Dangerous dog protest to take place in Nottingham
Scores of people are to take to the streets of Nottingham this weekend in protest against dangerous dog legislation.
Rescue workers and dog lovers alike are demonstrating against Breed Specific Legislation, which under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (Section 1) bans certain types of dogs in the UK.
The Act makes it a criminal offence to own breeds including Pit Bull Terrier and Japanese Tosa, even if the dog has not acted dangerously, and regardless of whether a complaint has been made against it.
Banned dogs can be captured and in many cases destroyed on the basis of their breed alone.
This voucher entitles you to 25% of any of our Nottingham Photography Courses:
One Day intro to DSLR Photography
Landscape
Portrait and Studio
Evening City Photography
Terms: You can only use the one voucher per course. You cannot use this voucher in conjunction with any other offer.
Contact: 01159 078634
Valid until: Tuesday, December 31 2013
The maximum penalty for possessing a banned dog is a fine of £5,000, or six months’ imprisonment, or both.
The legislation seeks to reduce the number of dog attacks in the UK, but many campaigners – including prominent animal welfare and veterinary organisations – maintain the Act is ineffective.
The Dogs Trust says: “The Act has not reduced the numbers of pit bull type since the Act came in, and it has not reduced the number of dog attacks.”
Meanwhile the British Veterinary Association (BVA) says: “The Act is widely considered to be one of the most ineffective pieces of government legislation ever brought into force.”
And the National Canine Research Council (NCRC) points to a “record of ineffectiveness [which] comes to us from both Europe and North America”.
Peaceful protests against the legislation have this year taken place in London, Brighton, Glasgow, Cardiff and Manchester, and further demonstrations are planned in Wolverhampton, Peterborough, Sheffield and Birmingham. Worldwide events will take place on July 13, 2013.
Aside from maintaining that the legislation is futile, campaigners are opposed to the breed specific element of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 for four key reasons.
‘Deed not breed’
Firstly, campaigners maintain it is wrong that dogs can be seized on the basis of their physical characteristics alone. They stand by the motto “deed not breed”, arguing that, in the words of the Dogs Trust: “Breed specific legislation is not effective in tackling the real cause of the problem, which relates to the owner’s actions, or omissions, rather than the type of dog concerned.”
The Trust argues: “Genetics plays only a part in the temperament of an individual dog. Socialisation and environment also have an important part to play.
“A large proportion of dog bite incidents are a result of the irresponsible actions of owners, who have either not taken the time and trouble to train their dog correctly, or have indeed trained them to behave aggressively.
“Consequently any legislation based on genetics that ignores the influence of the dog’s breeder and its subsequent keeper on its behaviour is likely to be ineffective.”
Protesters are calling for the Department of Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to instead focus on irresponsible ownership. Nottingham protest organisers want the law to target “those who train or allow their dogs to pose a danger to the public, and not well-behaved, good-natured, loving family pets.”
Pauline Cole, who has been helping to organise a number of the protests, maintains it is “a racist law”. She explained: “So many innocent dogs are being killed; dogs that have not done anything wrong.
“A lot of them are family pets that have been brought up with kids, and they are being killed just because of the way they look.
“Obviously no one wants dangerous dogs to be running around, we are not saying everything should be going altogether, but the people with dangerous dogs should get targeted, not normal family pets.”
‘Bad science’
Secondly, many campaigners maintain there is insufficient evidence to support the law. Citing an article published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Canine Research Council (NCRC) says: “There is no scientific evidence that one kind of dog is more likely to bite or injure a human being than another kind of dog; and in no event should dogs be characterised apart from their relationships with human beings.”
‘Heartbreak’
Thirdly, campaigners feel the act is cruel. The NCRC says: “These laws break our bond with man’s best friend. Dogs are sometimes seized and killed for no other reason than their appearance.
“Animal shelters destroy countless thousands or millions of dogs, rather than attempt to place them in loving homes.
“Pet owners may face the grisly choice of submitting to expensive and onerous requirements, giving up their homes and moving, or turning over a cherished family companion for destruction.”
Ms Cole echoed this: “It’s heartbreaking to see what people are going through,” she said.
“You just see the high profile cases, that’s all people see. They don’t see the normal family at number 52 whose dog had been taken, incarcerated and murdered.”
‘Keeping up appearances’
Fourthly, there are concerns the law encourages so-called ‘status dogs’. Many campaigners maintain animals are being trained to fight and impress, as owning a potentially lethal dog becomes linked to security and social standing.
Ms Cole said: “It’s just barmy really. There are people who are breeding stupid things and make them fight and they are carrying on. It’s them that need to be targeted, not ordinary families.”
The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group, made up of animal welfare organisations, veterinary professionals and local authorities, maintains the legislation has created a 'status dog' problem.
However, not all bodies agree the legislation is flawed. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) backs the prohibition of certain breeds.
ACPOs lead for dangerous dogs, Assistant Chief Constable Gareth Pritchard, said: “In the short term, ACPO supports the continued prohibition of breeds within the Dangerous Dogs Act.
“The Pit Bull Type dog in particular remains the breed of choice in a variety of areas of criminality, and has been responsible for a disproportionately high amount of serious and fatal attacks on people, including young children, in both public and private places.”
‘Time for change’
As a result of their complaints, campaigners are calling for a number of alterations to be made. Firstly, many say microchipping is a vital first step. The Dogs Trust believes “compulsory microchipping of all dogs should form a central part of any future policy on tackling irresponsible dog ownership.”
It explains: “Microchipping will not prevent attacks, but we believe that it is the most effective way to link a dog to its owner, and to make irresponsible owners accountable for the actions of their dog.”
Protesters also advocate the removal of the stipulation to kennel dogs while court proceedings are pending. As it stands, seized dogs are kept by police until a decision is reached on whether it needs to be destroyed or released. This can take several weeks or months, during which times owners are not allowed to visit their dogs.
Many campaigners also believe mechanisms should be put in place to allow responsible owners to make applications to court for their dog to be registered, and for magistrates to be given a new power to allow a dog to be returned home on ‘bail’ pending a case being concluded. This, campaigners say, would improve welfare for dogs.
ACPO too acknowledges there are improvements to be made. Assistant Chief Constable Pritchard said: “In the longer term, we are keen to move to a system which has early preventative intervention at its core.
“Problem owners and dogs can then be identified, regardless of breed, and appropriate control measures and penalties can be applied, so that serious harm is avoided in the first instance.
“It is in the police service’s interest to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs, not only due to the serious physical and psychological harm that dangerous dogs cause, but also because kenneling dogs is a significant drain on police resources and is of no benefit to the animal or owner.
“We would like to see a more streamlined process which make the prosecutions process quicker, and so reducing the length of time dogs are kenneled.”
The Dogs Trust also advocates the introduction of Dog Control Notices. Already in force in Scotland, these measures would force an owner to take reasonable steps to control their dog after aggression has been demonstrated, but before an attack has taken place.
This could include training, muzzling, microchipping and neutering.
A peaceful protest against the legislation will take place on Saturday July 28 at Speakers Corner/Brian Clough Statue from 11am to 4pm.
To find out more, log in to Facebook and join Nottingham Peaceful Protest Against BSL .
To read more about dogs that are banned in the UK, visit www.direct.gov.uk.
Comments
by Barney_Biswas
Monday, September 17 2012, 1:13PM
“Most people here seem to agree that the main problem is one of owner responsibility, (although breed is still a contentious issue). Why not bring back the dog licence, (still required in many other countries)? Any sufficient act of neglect on the owner's part can then be dealt with by revoking the licence. Ownership of a dog without owning a licence can then be dealt with by more severe prosecution.
Why not deal with all irresponsible ownership in one go: failure to control one's dog; failure to vaccinate (who wants rabies?); failure to neuter; failure to provide medical care (recourse to vetinary facilities - insurance where required); failure to make the dog traceable to the owner (chip/tag); failure to clean up after one's dog; failure to muzzle a dangerous dog in a public place... and on, and on...
It's hard work training and looking after a dog, but surely a responsible owner doesn't begrudge doing it. It's also better for the dog involved, if anything.”
by gpvxfrmo
Monday, September 17 2012, 1:06PM
“Ban all dogs except for chihuahua's,
Problem solved”
by PatF2012
Friday, August 10 2012, 11:50PM
“To freesia66, regarding the comment about your 16-week-old puppy attacked and bitten by a Staff:
Of course, it is regrettable that it happened. I hope that your puppy recovers. A beautiful dog I had from 1989-2005 was bitten by a Pit Bull when my dog (an intact male) was about seven years old. My dog was leashed; the Pit Bull was not; the Pit Bull put a small hole in his ear before his owner got him off my dog. I barely managed to find out whether the Pit Bull was up to date on his vaccinations before the owner ran off with the dog. (thankfully, my dog was). My dog's injury was minor and healed completely. I do not blame all Pit Bulls or consider them all dangerous; I blame the owner of the Pit Bull who bit my dog. If that Pit Bull was vicious, he would have done far more harm; but the owner is at fault for failing to control her dog.
I hope that the owner of the Staff who hurt your puppy was responsible and paid for your pup's veterinary expenses.
I have been bitten by a Scottish Terrier, an English Springer, and a Toy Poodle, none of them serious injuries. I do not hate any of those dogs nor consider them a danger to society. I might be bitten by a Pit Bull or Pit Bull type someday; hopefully not; but it could happen, just as I might be bitten by a Doberman or a Labrador, there are lots of dogs out there, and I go to the dog park and see them, and most are friendly, but it could be that sometime I will meet one that is not. If I were bitten by a Pit Bull, it would still not mean that the entire American Pit Bull Terrier breed is dangerous, or all "PIt Bull types" are dangerous, even if, God forbid, such a dog did more than nip me.”
by leicsgirl1983
Tuesday, July 31 2012, 1:28PM
“wow gavpop you really are a heartless person arent you?" quote "and leicsgirl1983 - to use your example of the man who tripped, him dropping the dog lead and the dog pegging it off round the park - all I can say is what a bad dog owner he is - there's no dodging the fact that he lost control of his dog in a public place.".... this poor person you call "a bad owner" probably didnt choose to let go, accidents happen, they are "accidents" (heres a definition of Accident... An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury), i don't i'd want to trip/fall on purpose, concrete tends to be hard and hurt when fallen upto?!! if letting go of a dog lead in an accident is not acceptable.. what sort of dream world do you live in??!!! maybe you should invent some kind of locking mechanism for a dog lead to be permanently attached to a human, that way even in an accident/emergency, they cant let go. Wow, clever little bee you'd be then! You'd save the lives of millions, if not the world!!! Go for it dude!!!
bad owner for letting go of a dog lead when he fell, wow! So if you witnessed that, you'd be more bothered he'd let go of the animal, more than caring for the person who had fallen and making sure they were ok? Really? I love animals but im sorry, if i saw a person fall, i wouldnt diss them for letting go of their dog's lead, i'd make sure they were ok!”
by philstag3
Tuesday, July 31 2012, 8:29AM
“Hi DaveNotts. I simply typed in worst breeds of dog for the family into google. This actuall list was compiled based on experience and opinions of dog trainers, veterinarians, breeders, and statistics from the Center for Disease Control (CDC).”
by DaveNotts
Monday, July 30 2012, 8:12PM
“Philstag3
where on earth did you get those "facts" from regarding the ten worst dogs, as there is no way a Siberian Husky would be on it, as they are not human aggressive at all, they are only aggressive to small animals they may see as food, such as rabbits, rats, birds etc
infact they are regularly used in America where there are far more assistance and companion dogs schemes to work along side children and adults with learing difficulties due to them being so non aggressive and tolerant
so please do state where you got your facts from”
by kate1949
Friday, July 27 2012, 12:11PM
“I agree with Gavpop....a simple muzzle is a very simple solution.
My friends dog is not a dangerous breed and quite happily has his muzzle/lead put on for his daily walk to the park.
On goes the muzzle,wag goes the tail as he knows he,s going out.
He was a rescue dog so was trained to accept it well past his puppy stage.”
by gavpop
Thursday, July 26 2012, 3:06PM
“leicsgirl1983 - just for the record, I love dogs. I think they are wonderful animals and they always bring a smile to my face when I see one.
However - I am acutely aware that ALL dogs can be vicious. And even the quietest, most placid dogs can turn in the blink of an eye.
People love to say "My dog is wonderful, he'd never hurt anyone" to only eat their words a week later after their dog has taken a chunk out the postman.
People need to take more responsibility for their dogs. They need to take training seriously. They need to ensure their homes have a sufficiently strong boundary fence to hold their dog in.
And leicsgirl1983 - to use your example of the man who tripped, him dropping the dog lead and the dog pegging it off round the park - all I can say is what a bad dog owner he is - there's no dodging the fact that he lost control of his dog in a public place. I wonder if you'd be saying the same thing if the dog went and mauled a young child or perhaps ran into the road causing a car accident.
I'd hate to see a blanket law banning more dog breeds. I think people should be allowed to make the choices for themselves.
But I do appreciate that some of the larger breeds have a much greater capacity to cause harm than the smaller ones.
I once had a Westie - She was wonderful. But like all dogs, she was erratic. I can tell you now that even though she had a nice temperament, I would have never left her alone in a room with a young child.
I'd love another dog - An English Bull Terrier. And if ever I did get another dog, I'd be happy to muzzle my dog in a public place. For the simple reason that I'd love it too much to even contemplate the idea of it being put down for a simple erratic mistake that it might make.
And if people truly loved their dogs, they'd do the same.”
by leicsgirl1983
Thursday, July 26 2012, 1:08PM
“this makes me mad!! in most cases it is the owner not the pets fault. poor training/obedience.
i know a numebr of beautiful s*****'s, couldnt ask for more caring pets because they are well cared for and brought up in a good manner.
should we maybe then black list jack russells? a year ago, i rescued from another home a 4 year old miniature jack russell. cute as hell. long story sdhort, she was put down in february because she was aggressive. i was uaware of ehr temperement, sucked in by her cuteness. she was a killer. turns out, 3 others from her litter (total litter was 8) had already been put down before her. so, thats 4 aggressive jack russells therefore they all must be aggressive, right??? WRONG!!!
as for muzzling every single dog, are you having a laugh "gavpop"??? How about we muzzle you? that is the most ridiclous comment ever, clearly an animal hater right there. and loose dogs be put down? Really? so, last week only i was out with my dog in the park a dog came running over to me... around the corner, its owner had fallen over on some steps and therefore let the dog go. put the dog down then is the right thing to do? i foudn a dog in teh road once, one early morning not so long back, maanged to trace the owner, turns out their house was broken into and the dog got let out... put the dog down yeh, its clearly an aggressive animal?!
seriously, lets look at training dogs properly, or owners properly. maybe stop these back yard breeders, make neutering cheaper/more accessible? licenses to own dogs... as horse owners we now have to have passports, make something similiar for dogs and ensure they get training? again make training/obedience more easily accessible? Its never chepa i appreciate that. it reall is an owner issue, not a "breed" issue, thats just a cheap shot anda very lazy shot!!”
by EggyEggCup
Thursday, July 26 2012, 12:50PM
“When considering what to do with such dogs, these owners are the last people who should be listened to. They talk of the utter loyalty and friendliness of their dogs, not realising it is this loyalty and pack friendliness that is the trigger to them attacking when they think that pack is being threatened. Many dogs in threatening situations might raise their hackles, may give a suspicious eye or utter a gutteral growl, but dogs with hundreds of years of breeding for confidence in their fighting prowess , never-say-die courage, and a defend your corner attitude, are obviously going to be much more likely to launch a full blown attack.
Certain breeds have certain characteristics, that is a plain and simple fact. Why are the vast majority of guide dogs labrador/retrievers, why are the sheep dogs always border collies?. Just because some misguided owners beleive they can override the selective breeding of fighting dogs and make them nice family pets does not change undeniable truths. Tens of thousands of breed specific incidents cannot be swept under the carpet.”