Tag Archives: nationwide

UK: 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act an obvious fail

UK statistics show that emergency room dog bite treatments have increased by 94% over the last ten years, reaching 6,097 treated bites in the year ending March 2011. Prosecutions of dangerous dog owners and costs for boarding seized dogs have also risen to new highs.

The 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act is generally acknowledged by most people in the UK, from vets to politicians to the general public, as a massive failure that does not adequately address dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog owners. According to the Daily Mail, the DDA is “often cited as a classic example of over-hasty law-making by ministers, officials and MPs working too fast in the face of a temporary scare.”

A couple of news articles from the UK this week have been interesting to read for their slant. Two new crossbreeds of dogs are generating concern, at least in the press: bull lurchers (Guardian) and presweilers (Daily Record). Both of these articles are worth a read; in particular, the sensational rhetoric used by the Daily Record to describe presweilers. (What happens when you put a Presa Canario and a Rottweiler together? You get a deadly cross-bred superbeast sharkdog, and, gasp, there are no laws against it!)

These mixed-breed dogs are not covered by the breed-specific portion of the DDA. Although the press recognizes the larger problem—hoodlums who want to own big, threatening, vicious dogs—much of the news coverage continues to place the blame on dog breeds. The news media seems determined to find fault with the DDA not because it is breed-specific, but because it is not breed-specific enough to keep up with the “dangerous breed du jour.”

As the failed DDA has shown us, it is not possible for a breed-specific law to effectively eliminate dangerous dogs. The hoodlums simply turn their attention to a new type of dog. Because there is no focus on the humans in the equation, thugs are free to continue misusing and abusing dogs of unrestricted breeds.

So, what’s being done about the DDA?

Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill [HL] 2010-11, which would overhaul the DDA and repeal its breed-specific portion, is moving along in the House of Commons (currently scheduled for second reading on 3/30/12).

For its part, the government has consistently rejected Lord Redesdale’s bill, indicating that it intends to introduce a different proposal. To that end, the Environment Department (DEFRA) has announced that it will introduce new dog control measures in the coming months. Unfortunately, we’re not convinced that DEFRA intends to repeal the breed-specific portion of the DDA. It remains to be seen exactly what the government will propose.

UK citizens and residents are encouraged to contact their government representatives (and DEFRA) and stress the need for effective breed-neutral dog laws.

Bermuda: Govt revises prohibited breeds list, creates new “restricted breeds” list

Bermuda has moved some previously prohibited breeds into a new restricted-breed category. (We last told you about this plan in September 2010, but the official breed list is now finalized.)

Prohibited breeds may not be imported or bred. All of the below breeds were also prohibited under the previous prohibited-breed list.

  • American Pit Bull Terrier
  • American Bulldog
  • American Staffordshire Terrier
  • Argentine Mastiff / Dogo Argentino
  • Boerboel
  • Brazilian Mastiff / Fila
  • Cane Corso
  • Presa Canario
  • Neapolitan Mastiff
  • Tosa Inu
  • Wolf / Wolf hybrid
  • Any crossbreed of above

Restricted breeds can be imported or bred, but there are restrictions on ownership, such as special enclosures, property inspections, etc. Some of the below breeds were previously on the prohibited breed list, and some of the below breeds were not previously restricted or prohibited. I have noted the changes. Restricted breeds are as follows:

  • Akita (previously prohibited)
  • Australian Cattle Dog (previously unrestricted)
  • Belgian Malinois (previously unrestricted)
  • Bouvier Des Flandres (previously unrestricted)
  • Bull Terrier (previously prohibited)
  • Bullmastiff (previously prohibited)
  • Chow Chow (previously unrestricted)
  • Doberman Pinscher (previously unrestricted)
  • Dogue De Bordeaux (previously prohibited)
  • German Shepherd (previously unrestricted)
  • English Mastiff (previously prohibited)
  • Rhodesian Ridgeback (previously unrestricted)
  • Rottweiler (previously prohibited)
  • Staffordshire Bull Terrier (previously unrestricted)
  • Any crossbreed of above

News articles with details regarding the new breed lists:
http://bernews.com/2011/12/minister-bean-on-dog-importations/
http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20111229/NEWS01/712299932

All alerts for Bermuda: http://stopbsl.com/?s=bermuda

Australia: Medical journal editorial calls for education, not breed bans

An editorial (note it is not a study, though it does cite studies to support its argument) in the Medical Journal of Australia says that breed bans in other countries have not improved public safety. Rather, the editorial authors are of the opinion that better dog safety education for children would help reduce dog bites.

We agree that child education is one excellent component for creating a safer community. Teaching dog owners about their responsibilities is another important component.

The editorial may be read here at the original source: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/195_11_121211/kim11319_fm.html

Listen to an audio news report (with transcript) from the Australian Broadcasting Company here: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3388691.htm

The Herald Sun has a more critical article, with a rebuttal quote from State Agriculture Minister Peter Walsh, and a disappointing comment from KidSafe Victoria president Robert Caulfield that he doesn’t think educating children will work: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/dog-breed-bans-wont-stop-bites/story-fn6bfm6w-1226219374164

View all StopBSL postings on Australia: http://stopbsl.com/?s=australia

Australia: National government urges all states to pass breed ban

Attorney General Robert McClelland and Home Affairs Minister Brendan O’Connor have issued a media release stating that they would like all Australian states and territories to review their dog laws and think about adopting the recent legislation passed by Queensland and Victoria.

It should be noted that the media release does not explicitly recommend BSL or breed bans as the correct solution; the national leaders instead support these states’ ”creation of new offenses and penalties.” We are left to read between the lines, since QLD and VIC recently passed several new dangerous dog laws, not all of which were breed-specific. McClelland and O’Connor are either supportive of, or ignorant of, the new restrictions that mean certain death for unregistered dogs that appear to be a “dangerous breed.” (The news article below puts forth the former interpretation.)

Australia citizens may contact and educate these two leaders about the tragedy of BSL at the below addresses.

The Hon. Brendan O’Connor, MP Minister for Home Affairs, PO Box 6022, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2601
Telephone: 02 6277 7290 Fax: 02 6273 7098

Attorney General Robert McClelland, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600
Tel: (02) 6277 7300 Fax: (02) 6273 4102
Email: attorney@ag.gov.au

Govt calls for uniform dangerous dog laws

news.com.au November 18, 2011 5:17PM

THE federal government has called for uniform state and territory laws for the control of dangerous dogs.

Attorney General Robert McClelland and Home Affairs Minister Brendan O’Connor on Friday pressed state and territory attorneys general to adopt Victoria and Queensland’s approach to the registration and management of certain dog breeds. [...]

Full article retrieved 11/18/11 from http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/govt-calls-for-uniform-dangerous-dog-laws/story-e6freuyi-1226199295362

UK: Bill to repeal breed-specific law moves to next House

In the UK, the Dangerous Dog Act of 1991 bans four breeds of dogs: “Pit bulls,” Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Fila Braziliero. Lord Redesdale has introduced a private members’ bill, Dog Control Bill [HL] 2010-11, that would replace the DDA. Lord Redesdale’s bill is breed-neutral.

The bill has been moving slowly through the necessary stages; it has just successfully cleared the House of Lords and is now in the House of Commons.

The bill may be tracked here: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/dogcontrolhl.html

Private members’ bills evidently rarely become law. Rather, such bills serve as a “test,” with the hope that the government will be inspired to take up and pass a similar bill. Although Lord Redesdale’s private member’s bill has come a long way and has considerable support from major animal organizations, the government does not support Lord Redesdale’s bill. The government appears to be making plans of its own.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach): [...] I hope that I can reassure all noble Lords that I understand their concerns about dog control. However, the Government cannot support this Bill. My noble friend Lord Henley had been working on a comprehensive package of measures to deal with dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog ownership. I continue to carry on his good work, including meetings with key stakeholders, and I hope to announce this package shortly.

The government has been extremely reluctant to repeal the breed-specific portion of the DDA, and rumor has it that the government’s proposal will change the DDA without repealing the BSL. However, it remains to be seen what will happen with Lord Redesdale’s bill now that it has reached the House of Commons.

The Kennel Club (UK) has further information and a link to a petition: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?ap=1&id=4018

I encourage UK residents to reach out to their national lawmakers and the government to show support for Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill [HL] 2010-11—in particular, the portion of the bill that removes the breed discriminatory language.

Lithuania: Ten breeds will be banned

Lithuania currently classifies the following breeds as “aggressive” or “fighting” breeds, and the government is now working on a law that will ban dogs of these breeds:

  • American Pit Bull Terrier
  • Bandogas (American Mastiff) [ED note: This refers to a bandog type. Not the English Mastiff cross that Americans call an American Mastiff.]
  • American Staffordshire Terrier
  • Staffordshire Bull Terrier
  • American Bulldog
  • Dogo Argentino
  • Fila Brasileiro (Brazilian Mastiff)
  • Kangal (Turkish Shepherd)
  • Caucasian Ovtcharka
  • South Russian Shepherd Dog

Various drafts of the law are being considered, so at this time, it’s not clear how they intend to address the dogs of these breeds that are currently living in the country. It has been suggested that currently-existing “aggressive” breeds will be allowed to live out their lives with their owners, but they may not be bred, and any such dogs that become homeless (i.e. end up in a shelter) would be killed rather than rehomed.

The following links are in Lithuanian. If you don’t know Lithuanian, you can use Google Translate to get the gist of things, but the translation isn’t great.

A group in Lithuania that opposes the breed ban (rough translation “Against Dog Racism”) can be found on Facebook here: http://www.facebook.com/groups/265365626833937/266727803364386/

An article about the proposed Lithuanian law can be read here. http://www.grynas.lt/gyvenimas/agresyvus-sunys-lietuvoje-drausti-negalima-pasigaileti.d?id=51038443

This is a link to the official Lithuanian government proposal page. I’m afraid I don’t understand it well, due to poor translation: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=403129

Thank you to Arvydas for this information!

Bermuda: Political party speaks out against BSL

A new political party in Bermuda, called One Bermuda Alliance, has come out in criticism of Bermuda’s breed-specific laws.

All alerts for Bermuda: http://stopbsl.com/?s=bermuda

Dog amnesty ‘won’t solve’ problem OBA’s Cole Simons

By Nadia Arandjelovic
Published Jul 18, 2011 at 8:48 am

Government’s six-month amnesty on illegally held dogs “alone will not solve Bermuda’s dog control challenges”, according to the Shadow Environment Minister.

Cole Simons, of the One Bermuda Alliance, said if in power his party would have taken a different approach by also introducing legislation and regulations which would “punish the deed and not the breed”. [...]

Full article retrieved 7/19/11 from http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20110718/NEWS01/707189940

New Zealand: Presa Canario added to import ban

The New Zealand parliament has recently added the Perro de Presa Canario to Schedule 4.

New Zealand’s Dog Control Act 1996 prohibits the import of any dog believed to be of a breed listed in Schedule 4. Such dogs already in New Zealand are also classified as “menacing.” Menacing dogs must be leashed and muzzled in public; they may also be required to be neutered.

The breeds and types of dogs that are listed on Schedule 4 are now currently as follows: American Pit Bull Terrier (type), Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, Brazilian Fila, and Presa Canario.

The committee report on Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010 may be read here: http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/2B34A146-823B-47C2-B582-3C38B8D291A4/164778/DBSCH_SCR_4928_DogControlPerrodePresaCanarioOrder2.pdf

 

UK: Bill to repeal breed-specific law moves forward

In the UK, the Dangerous Dog Act of 1991 bans four breeds of dogs: “Pit bulls,” Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Fila Braziliero. Lord Redesdale has introduced a private members’ bill, Dog Control Bill [HL] 2010-11, that would replace the DDA. Lord Redesdale’s bill is breed-neutral.

The bill has been moving slowly through the necessary stages; it has just passed the House of Lords report stage and will be scheduled for a third reading at the end of summer.

The bill may be tracked here: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/dogcontrolhl.html

Private members’ bills evidently rarely become law. Rather, such bills serve as a “test,” with the hope that the government will be inspired to take up and pass a similar bill.

Although Lord Redesdale’s private member’s bill has come a long way and has considerable support from major animal organizations, the statements made by the government during report stage testimony are difficult to unwrap. On the one hand, the government acknowledges this call for change to the DDA, but on the other hand, the government repeatedly states that it does not support Lord Redesdale’s bill. The government appears to be making plans of its own.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley): I was rather hoping that I would be able to get away without intervening at all. The Government have made their views fairly clear at both Second Reading and Committee, when my noble friend Lord De Mauley dealt with this Bill. I will say very briefly again that we cannot give our support to this Bill, but we are well aware of the problems that it is addressing and are prepared to consider moving forward in due course.

As my noble friend Lord Redesdale mentioned, the House will be aware of the consultation issued by the previous Government towards the end of their 13 years in office-I think it was issued in about March 2010, just before the general election-and that concluded in June 2010. There were some 4,250 responses to that consultation, which Ministers are still considering. We published a summary of those responses in November 2010, and, as I said, we are still considering the right way forward. It is a matter that we want to discuss across government, because these matters are not just for Defra but for the Home Office and others. In due course, I hope that we will be able to have something to say, but we will not offer support to this Bill. It might be that, when the noble Lord seeks a Third Reading and moves that the Bill do now pass, that might be a moment when I might be able to say a little more. However, as I have made clear and as we made clear on earlier occasions, we cannot offer support to this Bill.

A good blog article about the current status of the bill can be read here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterwedderburn/100091717/its-time-for-government-action-on-dangerous-dogs/

The Kennel Club (UK) has further information and a link to a petition: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/3754/23/5/3

I encourage UK residents to reach out to their national lawmakers and the government to show support for Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill [HL] 2010-11.

Thanks to Charlotte and KC Dog Blog for the update.

Norway: Government may be receptive to breed ban repeal

The NKK (Norway’s major kennel club) has recently discussed with some members of Parliament the possibility of repealing section 19 of their Dog Act.  The Dog Act, section 19, allows the King to choose the breeds that will be considered “dangerous,” and to create restrictions to be placed on those breeds. Norway currently bans the ownership of the “pit bull terrier,” American Staffordshire Terrier, Fila Brasileiro, Tosa Inu, and Dogo Argentino.

The NKK has stated the many difficulties with the law, including significant breed identification issues, no effect on public safety, and the arbitrary selection of breeds to ban.

You may read more from the NKK here (Norwegian), article date March 21, 2011: http://www.nkk.no/nkk/public/openIndex?ARTICLE_ID=11782

Google Translate offers a rough translation in English here: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nkk.no%2Fnkk%2Fpublic%2FopenIndex%3FARTICLE_ID%3D11782

Because I’m not well-versed in Norwegian politics or parliamentary processes, and because it’s difficult to find English-language materials on this topic, if you are interested in assisting the Norwegian effort to repeal the breed-specific portion of the Dog Law, please contact the NKK (www.nkk.no) to find out how you can help.

Thanks to Charlotte for passing the link along.