DDAWatch Presentation to the NDWA 2009 AGM
Good afternoon, for those who don't know me, my name is Alison Green and I run the anti BSL group DDAWatch.
It's a rather strange situation, being asked to speak to members of the NDWA about BSL. As we all know the NDWA is the only major group to have consistently opposed BSL, rightly pointing out from the very start, that no breed or 'type' of dog is inherently dangerous and that BSL is unworkable. 18 years later and here we are!
In 1997 the law changed to remove mandatory destruction and that is as far as any changes to BSL have gone in the UK. However, changes have taken place that have had a massive effect on the campaign to repeal one of the worst pieces of legislation we have. Hopefully we can show you some of the issues that affect dog owners and their dogs and explain why enforcement of section one is one of the greatest tools we have in ensuring repeal. Firstly I will explain a little about DDAWatch and what we do.
DDAWatch was set up approximately 18 months ago as part of an initiative within the Pet Owners Parliament.
DDAWatch was set up in the main to offer assistance to owners affected by BSL. However we have also been contacted to help section 3 1871 dogs act and other canine legislation. Often we are simply someone at the end of the line that owners can talk to.
We also deal with a large number of general enquiries and it is clear that dog owners have little knowledge of what legislation is in place and what their responsibilities are under that legislation.
We are not legal experts but we are lucky to have good relationships with a number of solicitors with who specialise in Canine legislation. They offer assistance both to us and to those in need of legal representation. We are also not breed ID experts and unlike certain organisations or individuals, we make no claim to be, nor wish to be!
In the last 12 months particularly, DDAWatch has taken on a life of its own or rather of its supporters. The age of the Internet and “social networking” sites such as facebook and twitter have provided a way of reaching dog owners that has never existed before. One year after setting up a facebook group our membership level hit 1600 with an average of 5 new supporters every day. In the last month we have seen ten new members each DAY. The group now has 2,000 members.
Over the last 3 months we have had no less than 40 ongoing cases at any one time. We have had to take on more help and have opened two more helplines. We have launched our own website to try to increase awareness of owners responsibilities and raise awareness of the flaws within BSL.
People who five years ago had did not know nor really even care about BSL are now asking questions of their own. Logic and common sense is starting to fight back in defence of the dog.
Statistics statistics, no one kept any statistics! In an almost laughable “oversight” statistics relating to what we are told is a "dangerous dog" aka the pit bull terrier are practically non existent.
What we do know is that when the Index closed in 1992 there where 4912 registered pit bulls types.
Between 1991 and 1997, when mandatory destruction was removed 770 dogs were ordered by the courts to be destroyed as illegal dogs.
Between 1997 and 2006 the number of registered dogs slowly declined and until 2007 few dogs were added to the Index.
This Chart shows figures for successful convictions for all charges under the DDA from 2000 to 2006. The part I want to draw your attention to is this purple line....right there at the bottom running into the baseline. This is the number of successful convictions for owning a banned pit bull type. Single figures, no increase to speak of. It's pretty safe to say that before the media hype kicked in Pit bull types were the least of our worries.
We are told there is a rise in reports of dog fighting yet a rise in reports means little. Reports of dog fighting could be young people with dogs, irresponsible or anti social behavior or simply owners lacking in handling skills. It doesn't mean dog fighting is actually taking place.
Since the death of Ellie Lawrenson BSL has taken on a new lease of life and bringing with it the destruction and seizure of thousands of dogs. But Ellie is not the only fatality to hit the UK in the last few years. Legal breeds are responsible for the deaths of Cadey Lee Deacon, Archie Lee Hirst and Jayden Mack.
Despite the few true statistics we have, banned breeds are not involved in the bulk of incidents and the enforcement of the dangerous dogs act has led to any dog of muscular build, bigger than a breed standard Staffordshire Bull terrier and 'regardless of its temperament' being placed in danger of being seized and destroyed or restricted, for a crime it has not committed. And it's not just the dogs who suffer.
Some claim that the BSL goes some way to saving certain breeds but removing a dog, only to kill it, due to its physical appearance, is scarcely salvation. Any other type of dog can be removed under the AWA and that dog may go on to live a happy healthy life... But not so for those "of type" and until BSL is removed these dogs will not truly be saved. Instead BSL continues to have a detrimental effect on the welfare of thousands of dogs and not just banned breeds.
One of the common questions asked by rescue organisations who are approached to take a dog in is "is it long legged or short". Has it got a red nose? These dogs may be refused entry. It's a catch 22 situation. If you refuse that dog may turn up in a pound as a stray or at a vets practice and will be destroyed. It may not even be 'type' but if there's nowhere else for it to go it may well be euthanised. Maybe not as an illegal dog but it may still find its death in part due to the DDA.
Other rescue organisations will take the dogs in having an open policy. Once in, the dog will be identified and if found to be of 'type' it will be destroyed.
Rescue organisations have no choice but to abide by the legislation and they may well not be campaign organisations. But rescue organisations do rightly speak up about welfare and overbreeding, they give examples of how it effects them in these situations.With the massive overbreeding of bull breeds, finding homes can be difficult but having that option taken away because a dog is a little too tall or a little too wide often goes against the beliefs of rescue and welfare staff and this is soul destroying.
I have spoken to many people who work within this sector. One such person told us of a loving friendly dog at their rescue center and the effect it had on her as she watched him die. She said:
"All the long months of love and care to put him back on the road to recovery were wasted. I was with him when he was put to sleep and his last act on earth was to trustingly lick my hand. The memory still makes me weep.
At that moment my fate was also sealed. Due to a ridiculous and arbitrary law—Section One of the Dangerous Dog Act -- I had become a fully paid up member of the canine Gestapo and if I wanted to continue rescuing, rehabilitating and re homing unwanted dogs I was being forced to go along with it.
My only comfort is that I am not alone, however, if legislation threatens to turn our daily workplace into doggy death camps then lots of us will lose the will to live—or at least lose the will to carry on the struggle. Thank you Defra for making us do your dirty work for you."
There's also the reverse side. Owners who don't know where to go. Too scared to take their dogs to the vets for basic vaccinations. They want their dog neutered but are terrified the dog will be seized so they don't go . Too scared to walk their dogs until it's dark, if even then. Dogs stop being as well socialised but the dogs are safe, alive and well. Being a responsible owner is now in the cruelest twist of fate more likely to lead to their dog being seized.
Many owners will ring through to us asking where they can go for vet care and training and we can't help them because we don't know of anywhere "safe".
Muscular build, wedge shaped head when viewed from the side, the legendary red nose...Won't someone please go seize that cow? Incidentally cows have been responsible for many more deaths than Pit Bull types or even all breeds of dogs this year, maybe we should look at bovine Specific Legislation?
While that is light hearted the issue of expert vs Hexpert is far from light. As mentioned we are not breed ID experts. Neither are most vets, members of the public, trainers... We are often asked what breed or type we think a dog is. Unless a dog is blatantly NOT type my answer is usually "flip a coin".
The "status dog" as the hip new phrase, is contributing too. No idea what a status dog is meant to look like.. Still waiting for that all important breed standard and it seems the press are also confused. Just before coming I saw an article which stated that Ridgebacks are a banned breed. We know they arent but members of the public may think its true as it has been reported.
Hexperts exist and are becoming more and more common. The most dangerous hexpert is one who is also seen as a professional, a vet, trainer, animal warden. These have little or no experience but when going unchallenged the outcome is often disastrous.
Hexperts are responsible for the destruction of many dogs, but again, no figures exist. The pup in this picture died two days after it was taken. Apparently this pup is the perfect example of a Pit Bull terrier. This pup's owner was told her dogs where ticking time bombs, that they would be seized and killed no matter what she did. Believing the 'expert' this owner took the tragic decision to spend two days with the dogs before taking them to the vet herself to watch them die. They were just 5 weeks and 6 days old.
In one area a certain someone is literally knocking door to door asking residents if they know anyone with a Pit Bull. This person isn't a breed expert. He's an animal warden who is due to retire in a couple of years and is planning his future employment so he needs to make a name for himself now. No doubt he will be keeping figures though!
Another area, and someone who has no power whatsoever, simply a local 'business' offering animal related services forced himself onto private property and demanded a family hand over their dog as 'he' believed it to be an illegal dog. The family nearly did hand the dog over, believing that they had no choice, however, thankfully stopped at the last minute. The dog in question is a kennel club registered Stafford, within the breed standard . This family are now terrified to walk their dog.
This year's stray dog figures. I watched a few discussions on this topic as these were published and it was clear that many dog wardens feel these figures are an accusation, particularly with regard to the put to sleep figures and I was struck by the irony of the whole thing.
The PTS figure has increased this year and one of the biggest reasons for this is BSL. In London for example the pts rate increased by 211 dogs. There are 33 councils within london. We sent a Freedom of Information request to each of them, asking how many dogs where deemed Pit Bull type and asking how many were destroyed due to no owner coming forward.
Of those 33 councils only ten could give us figures and those figures equaled 86 dogs. It's clear from speaking to dog wardens and others involved with holding stray dogs deemed of 'type' that most of these dogs are logged down as "normal" strays. The fact that the option to rehome and avoid euthanasia is taken out of their hands is not mentioned when looking at these figures. So if the figures do hold a tone of accusation, its tone is aimed at something you had no choice in and have opposed for 18 years!
Enforcing the legislation is always going to be "problematic" because the legislation is flawed.
This dog was held for six weeks as a suspected “Pit Bull type”. His owners state he was barely able to walk on return and they had to carry him to the car and take him straight to the vets. He had parvo virus and spent 12 days on a drip. His owners received no information on his return. He was returned as a legal breed and the charges of pit bull type dropped.
Inconsistent approaches from area to area are a thorn in the side for owners and dogs. Lack of knowledge from the authorities leads to many responsible owners being treated very differently. The absolute basics of the legislation itself are still proving too much for some to grasp. This was proved to us recently when police attempted to use Section One to prosecute the owner of a German Shepherd Dog! This case went to court where it was dutifully thrown out by an amazed magistrate.
In another case a chipped dog was stolen, the owner reported the theft, searched and put up posters, to no avail. Four months later the dog was found during a raid and her true owner was contacted via the microchip. This owner stood and fought through the courts for the return of her dog. She was found guilty of owning a Pit Bull type but the dog posed no danger and so the responsible owner and dog were reunited. However the owner was fined a staggering £2,500. A short time earlier and 14 defendants were found guilty of attending a dog fight at Alum Rock. They too received fines but theirs varied between £500 and £1400 pounds.
The recent Lincoln dog fighters got sentences ranging from between 18 and 26 weeks in prison, in reality half that - yet the true victims of their activities, the dogs, spend months or years confined before being destroyed. These dogs don't get out earlier for 'good behaviour! So it seems being a responsible owner or a victim of abuse does indeed cost you more than if you are a criminal dog fighter.
Welfare of seized dogs is still one of the biggest problems with the enforcement of BSL. During a period of 18 weeks and four days a total of 41 dogs died in the care of one authority that works out to an average of two dogs each week. Owners are not routinely offered their dogs remains or the chance to carry out their own post mortems. Some owners tell us that they are not informed of their dogs death for some time.
At least one dog died in secure kennels, accused of being a Pit Bull type. The owner was still taken to court and the court found the dog "not guilty" but it's too late then isn't it?
Another dog, seen by defence experts who were shocked at the dog's condition during her year in kennels. Kennel staff said the dog was fine but was "sly". The defence team had to fight for the dog to be taken to a vet where it was discovered the dog had tumours in her spine. The vet report stated the dog may have had a chance had she been seen earlier but now it was too late and she was allowed to slip away peacefully.
The ACPO guidance suggests obtaining basic information prior to seizure. Curiously it doesn't ask if the dog is neutered but that seems of little concern as none of the owners we have dealt with have been asked for any of the information. This leaves owner having to attempt to contact the authority often with no contact details of who they need to speak to. Certain authorities say they vaccinate all dogs on arrival which in some case may be unnecessary and further adding to costs, if only the questions had been asked.
The ACPO guidance also suggests that all dogs go home with information outlining the medical, behavioural and general routine of their dogs whilst they have been held. Again, few owners speaking to us have received these details on their dog's return. Most of the dogs returned will at least have been neutered, yet even when case notes have a space for these details they are often left blank, leaving owners unaware of whether stitches are dissolvable, in need of removal or the date of when the operation took place. The date of vaccinations is also often 'blank' once again leaving owners with no knowledge as to when boosters should be given.
Behavioural issues are not uncommon with returned dogs, particually if more than one dog is seized. Younger dogs miss out on vital socialisation. I have dealt with a number of cases where dogs have been returned only for their owners to destroy them at a later date because of inexplicable behavioural issues of their dogs since being kenneled.
All exempted dogs must be tattooed and the tattoo must be at least one centimetre in height. The tattoo is meant to be on the inside of the back leg so it can be seen without having to roll the dog over. This tattoo clearly will not allow for that. This dog was sent home the day after neutering. His owner claims he was returned with his feet red raw, weeping and with infected wounds. The owner received no buster collar nor any advice when collecting her dog other than a PC telling her he thought her dog was a Labrador.
This is the state, four months after being seized as a “dangerous dog” Kodee was in, with cuts to his muzzle, he was riddled with worms, and smelt strongly of faeces. Despite putting in an official complaint, Kodee's owner was told her complaints were "unfounded" and no action would be taken. She did not find out about the decision until three months after it was made.
Does anyone remember the dog spotted on google earth? Well this tattoo would give that dog a run for his money. 3cm in height, lettering 1 cm in width. Bishop was seized shortly after an operation on a luxating patella. He was due a second operation which didn't take place until he was returned 9 months later. He now walks with a limp.
The seizure of puppies is an often controversial issue. Puppies, particularly of crossed breeding can vary greatly in size and shape until they reach maturity, making this one of the reasons why many will not attempt to identify a dog less than 9 months of age.
The wording of the legislation means even a dog born of parents deemed “Pit Bull type” may not grow into an illegal dog. When seizing a bitch and young still nursing, the stress can often cause the mother to abandon the pups or even in very extreme cases, to kill them. They are also much more vulnerable to illness.
Puppies are often destroyed because owners are unable to have so many dogs returned, yet these dogs may well be able to be rehomed via reputable rescue organisations. With a young dog, particularly if one parent is not known or not "of type" there should be no presumption. Entire litters have been split in the past and as these dogs are crossbreeds we have no idea how they will turn out.
Some owners are offered the chance to opt for the 4B section of the legislation, but this is only for the adults. In one case a number of pups died even with a rescue organisation willing to take them in. The suggestion given to the owners was that failure to sign over would result in criminal charges and a much longer kenneling time and the pups would die anyway so they signed them over.
If an owner does refuse to sign over pups for destruction they are faced with the option in many cases of waiting to see if the dog measures up during the ID process, but then has to offset the outcome with the fact that they may see the return of an unsocialised dog with behavioural issues.
With early neutering being more popular there is no concern that any puppy will be bred from and undertakings can be agreed with owners to muzzle and keep the dog on a lead until it is properly identified.
The leave at home policy is widely available and yet this policy is seemingly rarely used. A Freedom of Information request shows the Metropolitan Police seized 332 dogs under Section One during March and July 2009. Only four dogs were left at home. Overall the cost of boarding, vet fees, transport and court costs for the same period was a huge £864, 909.55
A number of changes to legislation have been proposed yet none of them remove BSL. The only other major change suggested is to remove the compulsory seizure of dogs. Sounds great on the tin but here's the crack...These dogs are no more dangerous than any other dog. If the dogs stay at home more owners will plead guilty as the right to seize remains, as will the threat of having their dog seized if they plead not guilty. All bull breeds will be in trouble as more and more will be deemed 'Pit Bull type'.
We have a massive problem with the overbreeding of bull breeds. We have a massive problem with the fact that ANYONE can get a dog and it appears that some are using BSL to try to solve a problem created in part by the legislation itself!
BSL says to people if you want a tough dog this is the breed or type you get. It encourages people to sign over their dogs for destruction, therefore contributing to the idea that dogs are indeed disposable.
It also discourages the right people from owning many legal breeds. The RSPCA recently appealed for funds to help care for "status dogs" a video featuring bullbreeds was shown. The RSPCA go on to state that these dogs are great family pets and they are. But with the dogs being renamed 'status dogs' most responsible people shy away from them because 'status dogs' are not a good thing.
And when the worst happens, when a banned breed or a 'status dog' does hurt someone, the owner, the media and the public have a scapegoat. They can blame the dog because everyone knows they are dangerous! Not the owner, who may have made a crucial error.
We can keep pouring millions of pounds down the drain potentially removing dogs from a few unsuitable people, we can keep killing friendly dogs because we don't want the owner having that dog. Millions of pounds, hundreds of dead dogs and destruction of peoples faith in the authorities, rescue organisations and the government are not going to increase responsible ownership!
The main organisations all say BSL doesn't work, and yet with the exception of the NDWA, none are doing anything to repeal this legislation. Some even blame political climate! 'Political climate' or not, if we wanted to repeal Section One we could. This is about ensuring the welfare of the public and the dogs of the United Kingdom, and petty politics should play no part in blocking the safety of animals and people.
In the early 90's a small group stood up for what they believed in and thanks to their efforts mandatory destruction was removed, thereby saving the lives of countless dogs. Cases of destruction became rare, the media hype relaxed and there was a very good chance that BSL would stay with us forever.
But that isn’t the case anymore.
BSL discriminates against dogs that look a certain way but it does not discriminate against their owners.
Irresponsible, abusive or uncaring owners may lose their dogs but irresponsible, abusive and uncaring owners aren't interested in their dogs lives.
If welfare is an issue, charges can and should be brought under the AWA. BSL is not needed here.
The flip side is the responsible owner. These people have the family dog, the trained dog, and the neutered dog. They have the pet dog. These owners also go to court, but these people, they fight for their dogs lives, not for themselves.
To these owners the DDA throws a treat, section 4B. You can plead 'not guilty' but there's no legal aid, you can't afford thousands for experts and legal representation, if you fight your dog will be held much longer. Or you can go guilty, never allow your dog freedom in public again, a potential legal battle may arise should you need to rehome your dog. You will be treated like a leper in the street with your muzzled dog and responsible or not you cannot get health insurance and everything you were ever taught about responsible ownership will be null and void. But your dog has a higher chance of surviving.
So they swallow a bitter pill and save their dogs lives.
But the shock of what has happened to them and their dog stays with them. Every time they have to put their dogs muzzle on they remember that pain. They remember feeling as though they had to plead guilty when they believed wholeheartedly that they were not. Others feel they may indeed have a Pit Bull but then surely the experts are wrong because Pit Bulls are meant to be a dangerous dog, and their dog isn't.
One owner told me of his deeply held fears, he was convinced “revenge” would be taken. But now he is simply angry. He has had a meeting with his MP and has spoken to many people, even total strangers who are as shocked as he is at what this country is doing to our dog owners. People are finally seeing BSL for what it is. These people are fighting back in a more powerful way than any of us ever could.
Two years ago I asked everyone I knew if they thought we would be rid of BSL in five or ten years. Almost everyone thought it would stay for good. But now, 'the media hype' is challenged, owners are speaking up and people are telling me “attitudes are changing, we may actually overturn this”
We can keep talking about 'The Pit Bull problem' - 'The dog fighting problem' and 'The status dog problem' until the devil cows come home, but, here's a secret, none of those things truly exist. What we do have is a "people problem" and until we have legislation that deals with targetting the 'people problem' instead of the dogs, we will never see an improvement in responsible ownership or an end to the abuse of man's best friend.
While care has been taken to ensure information is correct it must be noted that this site should be considered a guide only. If you find yourself affected by legislation you must seek legal representation. Information given is for England and Wales only. Legislation in Scotland and N. Ireland may differ.
|
