the DEFRA Dangerous-Dog Consultation summary

leashedForLife · #1 (**permalink**) 13-02-2011, 06:27 PM

Quote:

----- Original Message -----

Dear All,
DEFRA have today published a summary of the responses to the recent consultation on the Dangerous Dogs Act, which can be found by following this link:

Consultation: Consultation on dangerous dogs

David Warner
ADCH Secretary
Tel: 07815 583047
Cat rehoming, dog rescue & animal welfare best practice by ADCH

this is the PDF-file that summarizes the findings -

Quote:

Introduction
This document provides a summary of responses to Defra’s public consultation exercise
on dangerous dogs. It analyses the 4,250 responses.

Background
A more detailed background, including an explanation of the existing legislation relating to dangerous dogs,
can be found in the consultation document, which can be found at:
Defra, UK - Error page dangerous-dogs-condoc.pdf

There has been growing concern over public safety issues relating to dangerous and status dogs
and this is an issue which the Government takes very seriously. The term “status dog” describes the ownership
of certain types of dogs which are used by individuals to intimidate and harass members of the public.
These dogs are traditionally, but not exclusively, associated with young people in inner city estates and those involved
in criminal activity. In recent years, incidents, attacks and fighting of these dogs has increased, and some of these incidents
have involved children and disabled people, resulting in tragic consequences.

The Metropolitan Police alone have reported a rise in the number of dangerous dogs processed through the courts,
from 35 in 2002 /3 to 719 in 2008 /9 and in March 2009 they set up a new Status Dogs Unit (SDU) to specifically
address these issues. In March 2010 the SDU reported that they had seized over 1,000 dogs in their first year.
In 2008, the RSPCA received 188 calls related to dog-fighting in streets or parks involving young people.

Animal welfare charities have informed us that there are an increasing number of status dogs, which are difficult
to re-home. The resources required to enforce the law places an increasing financial burden on those responsible:
the Metropolitan Police spent £1.35M last year kennelling seized dogs while waiting for an outcome at court.
The cost to the health service and the court service has not yet been established.

It was therefore considered appropriate to give interested stakeholders and the general public the opportunity
to express their views on whether it is necessary to amend the current laws relating to dangerous dogs and if so,
how these might be changed.

Consultation
The consultation sought views on seven possible options:
1. An extension of the criminal law (ie section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991) to all places,
including private property;
2. Additions or amendments to (including possible repeal of) section 1 of 1991 Act (breed specific legislation)
3. Repeal of the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 to prevent any more dogs being added to the Index,
and introducing a mandatory destruction order
4. The introduction of Dog Control Notices;
5. A requirement that all dogs are covered by third-party insurance;
6. A requirement that all dogs, or puppies, are microchipped; and
7. More effective enforcement of the existing law, including a consolidation of existing statutes into one new updated Act.

To facilitate comments, the consultation asked forty questions about the seven options.

List of organisations that responded
Animal Concern Advice Helpline
Association of British Insurers
Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors
Association of Residential Managing Agents Limited
Battersea Dogs & Cats Home
Blue Cross
Bradford Metropolitan District Council
British Association for Shooting & Conservation
British Horse Society
British Veterinary Association/British Small Animal Veterinary Society
Camden Borough Council
Camden Community & Police Consultative Group
Canine99
Canine Care & Control UK
Cats Protection
Chester Cat Care
Communication Workers Union
Countryside Alliance
Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group
Dogs Trust
East Hampshire District Council
Greater London Authority
Guide Dogs for the Blind
Haringey Borough Council
Lambeth Borough Council
Local Authorities Co-ordinating Regulatory Services
League Against Cruel Sports
Leicestershire & Rutland Bridleways Association
Lewisham Borough Council
Manchester City Council
Metropolitan Police Service
National Animal Welfare Trust
National Dog Tattoo Register
National Dog Warden Association
National Farmers Union
National Gamekeepers Organisation
NHS National Counter Fraud & Security Management Service
National Working Terrier Federation
Naturewatch
Northamptonshire Animal Welfare Liaison Group
PDSA
Pet Care Trust
Pet Detect
Pet Education, Behaviour & Training Council
RBS Insurance
Rochford District Council
Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea
Royal College of Nursing
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
Royal Mail
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Self Help Group
South Coast Staffordshire Bull Terrier Rescue
Tenant Farmers Association
Tendring District Council
The Kennel Club
Tonbridge & Malling District Council
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
University of Bristol Companion Animal Group
Wakefield Council
Wandsworth Borough Council
West Midlands Police
Wokingham Borough Council
Wood Green Animal Shelters
World Society for the Protection of Animals
Wyre (Lancs) Agility Club

Summary of Responses
Summary of All Responses to Headline Questions
(Qs 1, 4, 7, 10, 16, 19, 24, 29, 36, 37, 38)

Below are the basic statistical answers to the “headline” questions for each policy option:

Option 1: [Extend] criminal law (i.e. section 3 of the 1991 Act) to all places, including private property
Q1: Do you think that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 should be extended to cover all places,
including private property where a dog is permitted to be?
Yes - 37% ------- No - 63% (3,215 responses)

Option 2: Additions or amendments to (including possible repeal of) section 1 of the 1991 Act
Q7: Do you think that BSL should be repealed?
Yes – 71% ------- No – 29% (2,737 responses)

Option 3: Repeal of the 1997 Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act to prevent any more dogs
[EDIT: dog-breeds, not individuals] being added to the Index

Q10: Do you think that the exemption introduced by the 1997 amendment should be removed?*
Yes – 38% ------- No – 62% (1,918 responses)

* Some people may have answered Q10 in the affirmative either because they did not want prohibited-type
dogs added to the Index or because they want breed specific legislation repealed altogether.

Q4: Do you think that breed-specific legislation (BSL) in its current form, is effective in protecting the public
from dangerous dogs?
Yes – 12% ------- No – 88% (2,850 responses)

Option 4: The introduction of Dog Control Notices

Q16: Do you think Dog Control Notices (DCNs) might be an effective preventative measure for tackling
dogs which are not being properly controlled?
Yes – 68% ------- No – 32% (1,894 responses)

Q19: Do you think it should be possible to issue DCNs which apply to private property?
Yes – 46% ------- No – 54% (1,824 responses)

Option 5: A requirement that all dogs be covered by third-party insurance
Q24: Do you think that third-party insurance should be compulsory for all dog owners?
Yes – 41% ------- No – 59 % (1,884 responses)

Option 6: A requirement that all dogs, or puppies, are microchipped
Q29: Do you think that all dogs should be microchipped?
Yes – 84% ------- No – 16% (1,875 responses)

Option 7: More effective enforcement of the existing law, including a consolidation of existing statutes
into one new updated Act
Q36: Do you think that all legislation relating to dangerous dogs should be consolidated into a single
piece of legislation?
Yes – 78% ------- No – 22% (1,719 responses)

Q37: Do you think that more effective enforcement of current legislation would improve the situation
regarding dangerous dogs?
Yes – 53% ------- No – 47% (1,758 responses)

Q38: Do you think further training for police officers to become Dog Legislation Officers would improve
the situation regarding dangerous dogs?
Yes – 63% ------- No – 37% (1,778 responses)

All Responses to Individual Questions
The following summary provides:
(i) the answers to each question represented as percentages of all responses;
(ii) total number responses to each question asked in the consultation document;
(iii) examples of the most popular reasons for each answer; and
(iv) random quotes from responses (main headline questions only).

Option 1: Extension of criminal law to private places
Q1: Do you think that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 should be
extended to cover all places,
including private property where a dog is permitted to be?
Yes - 37% ------- No - 63% (3,215 responses)

Yes -
• Lack of protection for people entitled to have access (eg postal workers).
• Dog owners should be responsible for their dog, wherever it is.
• Most dog attacks occur in home – legislation needs to reflect this.
• Social workers can feel intimidated and therefore unable to do their work.
• Should exclude domestic dwelling (ie only parts of property accessible to public).
• Exemptions for attacks on intruders.

No -
• Existing law is sufficient (ie Dogs Act 1871 and Dangerous Dogs Act 1989).
• Intruder could prosecute home/dog owner.

Quotes:
Yes -
“We would see such a change as having a deterrent effect, especially if penalties reflect
the seriousness of the assault. It is an anomaly that a physical attack on a nurse by a patient or their relative
within a private home is treated as a criminal offence, but not an attack by a dog for which the owner has
responsibility.” – Royal College of Nursing

No -
“A dog in its own home may be more territorial than outside and display more aggressive-type behaviour,
but would not necessarily be a dangerous dog or out of the owners control.
If it nipped or jumped up at a visitor, if the DDA was extended to include private property this could potentially lead
to the owner being prosecuted under a criminal proceeding. The Dogs Act 1871 allows for some civil remedies
and provides a court with additional powers on a complaint about dangerous dogs.” – RBS Insurance

Q2: Do you think that extending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to cover all places could have a financial impact
upon the police / courts / Crown Prosecution Service?
Yes – 83% ------- No – 17% (3,210 responses)

Yes -
• More offences leading to more seizures, kennelling, and prosecutions.
• May have an initial impact, but may act as a deterrent and therefore costs would drop.

No -
• Relatively few cases

Q3: Do you think that extending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to cover all places could have a financial impact
upon welfare organisations / dog homes?
Yes - 81% ------- No - 19% (3,214 responses)

Yes -
• More abandonment/animals being handed in.
• An initial impact, but not in long term.
• Other measures might offset costs (eg microchipping, dog registration).

No -
• Would affect local authorities more than rescue centres.
• Cases are rare.

Option 2: Additions or amendments to (including possible repeal of) section 1 of the 1991 Act

Q4: Do you think that breed specific legislation (BSL), in its current form, is effective in protecting the public
from dangerous dogs?
Yes – 12% ------- No – 88% (2,850 responses)

Yes –
• A high number of dogs that are found to be dangerously out of control are prohibited-type dogs.
• Pitbulls are used for dog-fighting and are not ideal pets.
• Although Pitbulls are not most aggressive of dogs they are dangerous because they reach an extreme state
of arousal far quicker than other breeds, and maintain [EDIT: this state] for longer.

No –
• Hasn’t reduced dog attacks.
• Breed only plays small part in temperament.
• Too costly (kennelling, lengthy court cases).
• Doesn’t target dogs that are dangerous.

Quotes:
Yes -
“One cannot say how many people have never been injured due to certain breeds being prohibited
in this country. Certain groups will criticise BSL when a person is injured by a legal breed of dog, stating,
“Any dog can bite”. Yet when a person is bitten by a Pit Bull Type dog, the legislation is still criticised
for being ineffective.
Similar “preventative legislation” is not considered for repeal when an individual is shot, stabbed
or poisoned, it is accepted that although not all incidents can be prevented, the preventative legislation
has been beneficial to some.” – West Midlands Police

No -
“Breed specific legislation is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that all dogs of a specific breed
(or type) are inherently dangerous, based on the actions of a few clearly in irresponsible hands.
It is not based on any scientific fact or logical thinking. Dogs are restricted and deemed dangerous
according to their phenotype - what they look like largely determines their fate.” – Endangered Dogs Defence & Rescue Ltd

Q5: Do you think that BSL should be extended to include other breeds or types of dogs?
Yes – 29% ------- No – 71% (2,829 responses)

Yes –
• Consideration should be given to placing controls (eg muzzling) on certain breeds rather than prohibiting.

No –
• It doesn’t work.
• No evidence that dangerousness of a dog is linked to its breed.

Q6: If BSL were extended to include other breeds or types of dogs, what is the evidence to justify doing so?
The overwhelming response was that there was no such evidence. For the handful of other replies,
some suggested that size and weight should determine whether breeds should have restrictions.

Q7: Do you think that BSL should be repealed?
Yes – 71% ------- No – 29% (2,737 responses)

Yes –
• Dangerousness of a dog is not linked to its breed.
• It has failed to prevent dog-attacks or reduce pitbull ownership.
• It is difficult to enforce/identify the prohibited types.
• Resulted in lengthy kennelling of dogs waiting to be identified.

No –
• No realistic alternative.
• Useful enforcement tool.
• Helps tackle illegal dog fighting.

Quotes:
Yes -
“Genetics (breed) plays only a part in the temperament of an individual dog and scientific studies from
around the world show that environment probably has a far greater effect. A large percentage of
dog biting incidents are due to 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 keeper
on its behaviour is likely to be ineffective.” – The Kennel Club

No -
“There appears to be insufficiently robust alternative laws to ensure the protection of the public
if the DDA were repealed.” – Metropolitan Police

Q8: Do you think extending BSL will have a financial impact on other organisations, such as the police and dog shelters?
Yes – 84% ------- No – 16% (2,729 responses)

Yes –
• Increased number of seizures, resulting in increased kennelling costs, and more dogs put down.
• Increased number of prosecutions with all the associated costs.
• Some breeds considered to be ‘dangerous’ by many are popular
breeds. This will mean significant impact for police and dog shelters.
• Many more dogs will be abandoned – implications for rescues.

No –
• Potential savings from fewer attacks.

Q9: Do you think that repealing BSL would have a financial impact upon other organisations, such as the police and dog shelters?
Yes – 46% ------- No – 54% (2,697 responses)

Yes –
• Shelters may see increased costs due to re-homing.
• Increased costs because of more offences under Section 3 as a result of more pit bulls (court and kennelling costs).
• Increased costs because of enforcement against all dog types, and costs to the NHS because of more incidents.
• Increased demand for pit bulls would result in more ending up in shelters.

No –
• No net financial gain because new control measures would have to be introduced.
• Fewer dogs abandoned and fewer dogs seized would result in reduced kennelling costs.
• Fewer court cases with ( ) a reduction in associated costs.

Option 3: Repeal of the 1997 Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act to prevent any more dogs being added to the Index

Q10: Do you think that the exemption introduced by the 1997 amendment should be removed?*
* Some people may have answered Q10 in the affirmative either because they did not want prohibited type dogs
added to the Index or because they want breed-specific legislation repealed altogether.
Yes – 38% ------- No – 62% (1,918 responses)

Yes –
• BSL is not effective.
• Would benefit from the eradication of pit bull type dogs.
• Would eliminate problem of cross-breeds.

No –
• Not unless BSL is repealed.
• Unfair to destroy dogs that are of a prohibited breed but do not pose a danger to public.
• But Index should be closed to new dogs.
• But Index should be reviewed to allow owner-led applications.
• Flexibility should remain for responsible owners, or ‘accidental owners’.

this continues below...

leashedForLife · #2 (**permalink**) 13-02-2011, 08:55 PM

continuing the PDF -

Quote:

Quotes
Yes -
“Dogs that can currently be added to the Index of Exempted Dogs pose
the greatest risk... The index in its current form is unworkable.
The Index should be closed to new entrants, so that the banned types are
eventually eradicated from the country. This was the intention of the
Index set out in the DDA 1991.”
– Royal Borough of Kensington Council

No -
“It gives an opportunity to responsible dog owners who genuinely did
not know the dog they purchased was a pitbull-type, to have
their dogs registered and therefore keep their pet as long as
the conditions are adhered to.
As a result of this, a huge number of dogs are not destroyed,
and owners enjoy their company.”
– Lewisham Borough Council

Q11: Do you think that the exemption should be kept, but with
tighter restrictions?
Yes – 29% ------- No – 71% (1,878 responses)

Yes –
• Owners should be assessed for suitability to own an exempt dog.
• Compulsory owner and dog training, microchipping, neutering, muzzling,
third party insurance.
• Introduction of licensing.
• Monitor dog’s behaviour.
• Restrictions on dogs in home with children, where most attacks take place.

No –
• Allow owner-led applications.
• Should be kept but [ED: introduce] further powers to order further conditions.
• BSL should be repealed.

Q12: Do you think that introducing an alternative monitoring system to the Index,
introduced by the 1997 amendment, would improve the current situation regarding
dangerous dogs?
Yes – 53% ------- No – 47% - (1,799 responses)

Yes –
• System needs to be accessed by LAs, police and the public.
• A licensing system would be more beneficial.
• Allow owner-led applications
• Owner-based system assessing suitability as an owner.

No –
• Current system works fine.
• Compliance will be a problem with any system.
• Change unlikely to have impact on efficacy of law.
• Prefer BSL repeal.

Q13: Do you think that removing the exemption introduced by the 1997 amendment
would allow more-effective enforcement of the current dangerous dog legislation?
Yes – 31% ------- No – 69% (1,793 responses)

Yes –
• If accompanied by target date for eradication.

No –
• Would push problem to different breeds.
• Would result in more well-behaved dogs being euthanised.
• The 1997 amendment Act specifically enables monitoring

Q14: Do you think that removing the exemption introduced by the 1997 amendment
could have a financial impact upon welfare organisations / dog-rescue homes?
Yes – 54% ------- No – 46% (1,745 responses)

Yes –
• More dogs would need to be kennelled while people appeal destruction orders.
• Increased abandonment.
• Dogs would have to be destroyed (which has an associated cost).

No –
• Dogs would not need to be kennelled while assessed for breed.
• Rescues would not deal with dangerous dogs.
• Dogs would be destroyed and not need to be kennelled.

Q15: Do you think that removing the exemption introduced by the 1997 amendment
could have a financial impact upon the police force/other enforcement agencies?
Yes – 57% ------- No – 43% (1,737 responses)

Yes – Increased costs
• More dogs being kennelled and assessed during appeals against destruction orders.
• More prosecutions with all associated costs.
• Destruction costs.

No –
• Reduced kennelling costs.

Option 4: The introduction of Dog Control Notices
Q16: Do you think Dog Control Notices (DCNs) might be an effective preventative
measure for tackling dogs which are not being properly controlled?
Yes – 68% ------- No – 32% - (1,894 responses)

Yes –
• Important to have a mechanism to tackle low-level offences before going to courts
where necessary.
• If correctly enforced by adequately trained enforcement officers.
• Allows early intervention and pre-emptive approach before a serious incident occurs.
• Focuses on the owner and not the dog.

No –
• Unless issued by the courts to remove any possible prejudice.
• Lack of resources available.
• Irrelevant if dangerous breeds eliminated.

Quotes
Yes:
“Dog Control Notices place more focus on actions & responsibilities
of the owners whilst also allowing intervention at the first signs of
unprovoked aggressive or bad behaviour. This... seeks to prevent
possible attacks before they take place, in a much more effective
way than the current legislation. Dog Control Notices... treat each
dog and incident individually, meaning those that are guilty or not
are judged on actions as opposed to appearance, breed or type.
If implemented correctly, the DDASG believes this could be a huge
step forward in improving the welfare of both humans and dogs.”
– Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group

No -
“DCNs would be a disaster. Restrictions on people’s liberties should only
be imposed by the courts. While some local authority employees might
be able to handle the power & keep their own beliefs and prejudices
in check, others would not.”
– Self Help Group

Q17: What incidents could be covered by DCNs?
Responses fell into two main categories: low-level incidents such as knocking
someone over; repeated straying; unprovoked aggression; dog fouling; intimidation;
excessive barking; and more serious incidents, such as attacks on people, animals
and livestock. (1,569 responses)

Q18: Do you think the proposed remedial measures are appropriate,
or would you remove any of them?
Yes – 48% ------- No – 52% - (1,488 responses)

Yes –
• Should consider raising the age of the person able to walk the dog to over 16 years.
• DCN should apply to any person in charge of the dog, including commercial dog walkers.
• Should include training.
• Muzzle should be considered as it can prevent exercise.
• Power to confiscate property should be left with the courts.
• Each case should be looked at individually.
• Neutering should be agreed to by court.

No –
• All measures are appropriate.
• Measures already available to police and courts.

Q19: Do you think it should be possible to issue DCNs which apply to private property?
Yes – 46% ------- No – 54% - (1,824 responses)

Yes –
• Only in front gardens where public have right of access;
i-e, not if a front garden has restricted access.
• Should be enforced by the police and the courts, and be subject to rights of appeal;
e-g, in cases where an intruder committing an offence is attacked.
• DCNs should apply anywhere where dog has exhibited unprovoked aggression.
• Particularly for cases of excess barking, intimidation, escaping and
nuisance.

No –
• Impossible to enforce.
• Open to abuse.
• Would not be appropriate for farmers’ working dogs.

Quotes:
Yes:
“Should apply to all property & places. Under the Animal Welfare
Act 2006, Authorised Inspectors can issue Improvement Notices
that [must] be adhered to, these are issued on private property,
why not introduce legislation that covers the issuing of Dog Control
Notices on private property, where the person has a legal right to
be there? For example, if postmen / visitors are regularly being
menaced by aggressive dogs, when they walk up the path
or driveway.”
– National Dog Warden Association

No:
“With the exception of the example provided in the consultation
document (Para 86), .... it is difficult to envisage other suitable
scenarios, particularly those relating to incidents that occur within
the home.
Dog Control Orders by their nature seem focused primarily on
addressing instances of public nuisance, therefore similarly drafted
‘notices’ would seem incompatible for application on private property.”
- NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service

Q20: Do you think there should be an appeals process for all DCNs?
Yes – 86% ------- No – 14% - (1,823 responses)

Yes –
• But should minimize cost – paid by applicant and appropriately structured so that courts
are called upon last.
• Through Magistrate’s Court.
• Issues by single officer, and therefore reasons for issue may be subjective.

No –
• Not if it is a civil complaint.
• But should be a system to challenge confiscation of property orders.

Q21: Who do you think should be responsible for DCNs, if they were to be introduced?
Local authorities – 47% ----- Police – 39%
RSPCA – 9% ------------- Others – 5% (1,741 responses)

Q22: Do you think enforcement authorities should have powers
to ban dogs from certain areas on public safety grounds?
Yes – 56% ------- No – 44% - (1,836 responses)

Yes –
• Powers should exist if dogs cause fear and intimidation.
• In places where it is not appropriate to have dogs.
• But only police should enforce to avoid too many dogs being banned.
• But must demonstrate a genuine risk to public safety.
• Dog Control Orders/Notices can take significant time to implement.
• To prevent possible serious incidents, although considerable support
for individual bans instead of blanket bans.

No –
• Local authorities already have too many powers to restrict dogs.
• Clean Neighbourhoods Act already does this.
• DCNs would be sufficient.
• Dogs need to run around for exercise.
• Will displace problems elsewhere; better to tackle individual instead of
blanket bans.

Q23: Do you think that introducing DCNs will have a financial
impact
on enforcement agencies?
Yes – 80% ------- No – 20% - (1,769 responses)

Yes –
• Training of enforcement officers, enforcement costs.
• Court costs from prosecutions and appeals.
• Likely to be redistribution of costs between different agencies.

No –
• Increased enforcement costs offset by savings elsewhere;
e-g, NHS from fewer dog attacks.

[u]Option 5[u]: Require all dogs be covered by third-party insurance

Q24: Do you think that third-party insurance should be compulsory
for all dog owners?
Yes – 41% ------- No – 59 % (1,884 responses)

Yes –
• Would cover costs in case of damage to property or injury.
• Would encourage responsible ownership.

No –
• Will target responsible owners with a dog tax, whilst ignored
by those it is aimed at.
• Too expensive and difficult to enforce.
• Small number of attacks compared with total number of dogs
does not merit compulsory insurance.
• Financial burden on dog owners, especially during this time
of national austerity, may lead to increased abandonments.
• Will not address dog aggression.
• Some owners may have numerous working dogs, which would be
costly to maintain.

Quotes
Yes:
“We recognise... there may be difficulties, as with car insurance
where irresponsible people will try to evade the law. While it may
not be possible to achieve 100%... issues surrounding cover for
a significant majority of dog owners shouldn't be insurmountable,
and therefore should not be reason not to do this.”
– Wood Green Animal Shelters

No:
“Responsible owners already take out insurance for their dogs or
may be covered by their house insurance; thus while we can see
the logic in this measure, we do not feel this would provide the
needed resources to provide better protection for the public.
In fact some may even see this as a ‘dog tax’, as monies would
not [go] to local enforcement agencies and potentially [make]
a difference, but instead to private companies.”
- Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Q25: If you support compulsory third-party insurance,
how should it be introduced and enforced?

License 51% ----- Microchip 20% ----- Oppose 18%;
Database 6% ----- Others 5% ----- (947 responses)

Q26: Do you think that third-party insurance should be
compulsory for owners of only certain breeds of dog?
Yes – 18% ------- No – 82% - (1,858 responses)

Yes –
• Perhaps to deter people buying certain breeds e.g. larger dogs.
• All dogs covered by Section 1of the dangerous Dogs Act 1991and
those involved in prosecutions.

No –
• Same charge for all breeds.
• Only for dogs that have been given a control order
and proved to be aggressive.
• Some breeds would be difficult to identify.

leashedForLife · #3 (**permalink**) 13-02-2011, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Q27: Do you think that compulsory third-party insurance could have
a significant financial impact upon individual dog owners?
Yes – 83% ------- No – 17% - (1,842 responses)

Yes –
• Those on low incomes e-g, elderly; could result in abandonment.
• Depending on how premiums are calculated.
• May discourage ownership of certain breeds, and deter
irresponsible owners from purchasing a dog.

No –
• Third-party insurance can be as low as £20 per annum,
very small when compared with feeding costs.
• Not for low-risk dogs.

Q28: Do you think that compulsory third-party insurance will have
a financial impact upon welfare organisations / dog-homes?
Yes – 76% ------- No – 24% - (1,819 responses)

Yes –
• Because of increased abandonment cases.
• If they have to insure all dogs in their care.
• More owners may choose not to adopt dogs [due to insurance costs].

No –
• If such places are exempt.

Option 6: Require that all dogs or pups be microchipped
Q29: Do you think that all dogs should be microchipped?
Yes – 84% ------- No – 16% - (1,875 responses)

Yes –
• Will link owner with dog, important when issues arise such
as attacks, and enables quick return of lost dog with owner.
• Step towards responsible ownership.
• Evidence microchipping works e-g, prevention of fraud [horses].

No –
• Would not target irresponsible owners but responsible owners only.
• Expensive to monitor and enforce.
• [Despite] wide support encouraging voluntary microchipping.
• Would lead to increased abandonment.
• Financial implications at time of national austerity.

Quotes
Yes:
“It is absolutely essential that any dog who is subject to
investigation after a complaint about unprovoked aggression
and, even more vitally any dog who is subject to a DCN, be
microchipped. Unless that is a requirement under the [law]
we consider it will be impossible to monitor properly the
future actions of the dog. In addition it is essential there is
a requirement upon the owner to ensure that data held is
accurate.
The introduction of compulsory microchipping for all dogs
would significantly assist with [identifying] irresponsible
owners and potentially deter 'casual' owners from obtaining
a dog in the first instance. Local authorities will also benefit
by not having to kennel dogs for days or pay for their
destruction.” – Dogs Trust

No:
“Its intrusive legislation with financial implications to dog owners
at a time of national austerity. It is an unnecessary imposition on
responsible dog owners (by far the vast majority) and will be
ignored by those it is intended to target (a tiny minority).”
– National Working Terrier Federation

Q30: Do you think that all puppies born after a specified date
should be microchipped before the age of one year?
Yes – 80% ------- No – 20% - (1,849 responses)

Yes –
• Target breeders by microchipping before puppies are sold,
some argument for ‘early as possible’, e-g, before 6 months.
• To reduce puppy farming.
• Should be microchipped at point of sale.
• Microchipped when they obtain their injections.
• At around one year of age due to health concerns of puppy.

No –
• Should be owner’s personal choice.
• Should be microchipped before they leave breeder.

Q31: How do you think a requirement might be introduced & enforced?

The most common responses included:
• Well-trained dog wardens, police officers, & local authority
appointed officers should enforce, and be allowed to stop & scan.
• All dogs should be microchipped in conjunction with processes
that are essential in a dog’s life, such as injections or sale.
• Could be made a Statutory Instrument under Section 12
of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
• Enforce in conjunction with organisations such as rescues,
vet surgeries, pet shops, dog groomers, local authorities etc.
• Given a specified start date, using a central national database.

Q32: Do you think that it should be compulsory for some
specific breeds of dog to be microchipped? What breeds?
Yes – 26% ------- No – 74% - (1,810 responses)

Yes –
• Dogs on the Index, and those covered by Section 1
of the Dangerous Dog Act 1991.

No –
• All dogs regardless of breed should be microchipped.

Q33 – Do you think requiring all dogs to be microchipped will
have a significant financial impact upon individual dog owners?
Yes – 38% ------- No – 62% - (1,834 responses)

Yes –
• Significant impact on responsible owners, whilst ignored by those
aimed at.
• Considering costs for amending details e.g. £7.50 with Petlog,
and replacement of microchips.
• But many charity schemes available that subsidise cost
or provide free microchipping.
• To those less well-off.

No –
• Low one-time cost of approx. £20 - 30 & 4.2M microchipped
pets with Petlog suggests that many owners don’t mind paying
the additional cost.
• Could be borne by breeder, & even added to the sale price.
• If the dog can be afforded, then so can microchipping.
• Impact should be minimal.

Q34: Do you think requiring all dogs be microchipped could
have financial impact on welfare organisations /dog-homes?
Yes – 46% ------- No – 54% - (1,818 responses)

Yes –
• More dogs would be abandoned and rescues would
be expected to provide chipping for free.

No –
• Long-term, fewer dogs would be abandoned.
• Dogs and owners would be reunited more quickly.
• Owners of abandoned microchipped dogs could be identified
and pursued for costs.
• Most rescues already microchip lost dogs.

Q35: Do you think that maintaining an up-to-date database
of owners’ details would have a financial impact?
Yes – 67% ------- No – 33% - (1,821 responses)

Yes –
• Would be costly to dog owners.
• Should be controlled by existing companies; e-g, Petlog.
• Run by local authority, police or Govt department; e-g, Defra.
• Should be accessible to rescue homes and other organisations –
communication between interested parties is essential.

No –
• Databases already exist & would [have] an increase in profits.
• Database run by Government... costs [should be] partially offset
by microchipping fees.

Option 7: More effective enforcement of the existing law,
including consolidate existing statutes into one new updated Act

Q36: Do you think that all legislation relating to dangerous dogs
should be consolidated into a single piece of legislation?
Yes – 78% ------- No – 22% - (1,719 responses)

Yes –
• Current... confusion [would be clarified] for enforcers & [the] public.
• Would make it easier to enforce.

No –
• Remove Section 1 of Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the 1997
amendment, introduce dog control measures and clarify
what constitutes a dangerous dog.
• Would waste parliamentary time & be a time-consuming
and costly process.

Quotes
Yes:
“This would enable all of the existing loopholes within the Act
to be closed and the actual Act clarified. Enforcement could be
simplified if the legislation was more straightforward and easy
to understand and use. It ideally would need to be UK-wide
rather than devolved.” - PDSA

No:
“The existing law and powers available to the police, courts
& local authorities are extensive. There seems little point in
using parliamentary time to put the respective Acts in to a
single document. What matters is that the law and powers
are understood by the public & those responsible for
enforcement. As such we welcome the recent guidance issued
by Defra.” – Countryside Alliance

Q37: Do you think that more effective enforcement
of current legislation would improve the current situation
regarding dangerous dogs?
Yes – 53% ------- No – 47% - (1,758 responses)

Yes –
• Evidence from Metropolitan Police’s Status Dogs Unit, which
demonstrates that better enforcement does improve matters.
• Current legislation is not being effectively enforced.
• Problems identified in current consultation are covered by law
but not enforced correctly.
• Need consistent national enforcement.
• But further legal changes necessary.

No –
• Current legislation is flawed. Section 1 of the DDA 1991
should be repealed.
• More effective use of law to target offences of intimidation
would improve status dog situation.
• Problem is with irresponsible dog-owners, not with dogs.

Quotes
Yes:
“The lack of continuity in interpretation & implementation
of existing legislation demonstrates quite clearly the need
for greater clarity, training and enforcement by all those
responsible, particularly local authorities.” – Blue Cross

No:
“More enforcement of unworkable legislation will not improve
the current situation. It is essential to consolidate all of the
workable and supported legislative items together into one
new Bill to be put before Parliament. This would make it more
effective for enforcement purposes.”
– Battersea Dogs & Cats Home

Q38: Do you think further training for police officers to become
Dog Legislation Officers would improve the situation regarding
dangerous dogs?
Yes – 63% ------- No – 37% - (1,778 responses)

Yes –
• But also [more] training for dog wardens.
• Specialist dog units are important as police have more
important issues, would enable standardisation and could
incorporate understanding of ‘dog behaviour’.
• Cities that have taken on DLOs already see improvements.
• Would enable faster breed identification.

No –
• Improved legislation that is workable (currently it is not)
would be better.
• Would not improve the current situation re dog bites,
officers should be pre-emptive.

Quote
Yes:
“Police officers need to know the law regarding dangerous dogs
& to use it. In addition, it should be possible to train local
authority officers as Dog Legislation Officers.”
– Manchester City Council

No:
“It needs commitment from the Police to deal with the issue.”
– Bradford Metropolitan Council

Q39: Do you think the Government needs to do more to raise
public awareness of the existing law and what to do if you are
aware of a possible breach?
Yes – 72% ------- No – 28% - (1,774 responses)

Yes –
• But current law is flawed.
• Education should focus on dog welfare, dog control,
& responsible dog ownership, especially for prospective
[or] new dog owners who are not aware of what is required
to be a responsible owner.
• Through various different media.
• Not just the general public; e-g, Lewisham’s BARK project, Oct 2009.
• Should target specific groups, e-g, children & owners of large dogs.
• Laws in place, but lack awareness. Specific guidelines would be useful.
• Law is confusing so greater awareness may improve situation.

No –
• Most serious incidents result from encouragement.

Q40: Do you think there are better ways the Government
[might] communicate with the public and dog owners,
including owners of ‘status dogs’?
Yes – 81% ------- No – 19% - (1,744 responses)

Yes –
• Primary schools, community projects and meetings.
• Animal welfare organisations should provide education schemes
in schools & in all media, with financial help from the Govt.
• Better enforcement for those that use dogs to harass.
• Family Intervention Programme should include reference to dogs.
• Criminal and anti-social laws needed for status dogs.

Responses by Key Interested Parties to Headline Qs
(Qs 1, 4, 7, 10, 16, 19, 4, 29, 36, 37, 38)
This section summarises the responses of key interested parties
(31) to the headline questions in the consultation.

In deciding what is a “key interested party” we tried to identify
those organisations which have a direct involvement in
dangerous dogs. We accept that others may disagree with our
choice of key interested parties, but the intention behind this part
of the summary is to allow people to see the responses of
organisations, who are close to the issue of dangerous dogs,
to some of the big questions.
The figure in brackets against each answer is the percentage
of all responses, including the public.

Some of the answers given were not necessarily clear cut and
many “yes” or “no” replies came with caveats. For details of the
full replies given, please refer to the individual responses available
from the Defra library.
The most popular proposals are as follows:
• 88% of all responses and 24 key interested parties
do not consider BSL effectively protects the public from dangerous dogs.
• 84% of all responses and 27 key interested parties
support the introduction of compulsory microchipping.
• 78% of all responses and 26 key interested parties
agree dangerous dogs legislation should be consolidated into one law.
• 71% of all responses and 20 key interested parties
support the repeal of breed specific legislation.
• 68% of all responses and 28 key interested parties
consider use of Dog Control Notices would be a good idea.

List of key interested parties:
Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)
Battersea Dogs & Cats Home (Battersea)
British Veterinary Association / British Small Animal
Veterinary Association (BVA/BSAVA)
Camden Community & Police Consultative Group (CC&PCG)
Communication Workers’ Union (CWU)
Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG)
Dogs Trust
Local Authorities Co-ordinating Regulatory Services
(LACORS – now known as Local Government Regulation)
Local authorities (14 responded and are identified separately)
Metropolitan Police (Met Pol)
National Animal Welfare Trust (NAWT)
National Dog Warden Association (NDWA)
PDSA (AKA People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals)
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS)
Royal Society for Prevention for Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)
The Kennel Club
West Midland Police (West Mids Pol)
Wood Green Animal Shelters (Wood Green)

Responses of key interested parties to the headline questions:
[u]Option 1[/i]: Extend criminal law (i-e, section 3 of the 1991 Act)
to all places, including private property
Q1: Do you think that the Dangerous Dog Act 1991 should be
extended to cover all places, including private property where
a dog is permitted to be?
Yes
ACPO; Battersea; Blue Cross; Bradford Council; BVA/BSAVA;
Camden Council; CC&PCG; CWU; DDASG; Dogs Trust; Greater
London Auth; Haringey Council; Kensington Council; Lambeth
Council; Lewisham Council; Manchester City Council; Met Pol;
NAWT; NDWA; PDSA; RSPCA; South Northants Council; Tendring
Council; Tonbridge & Malling Council; The Kennel Club; Wakefield
Council; Wandsworth Council; West Midlands Police; Wokingham
Council; Wood Green (all responses: 37%)

No: LACORS (all responses: 63%)

Option 2: Additions or amendments to (including
possible repeal of) section 1 of the 1991 Act
Q4: Do you think that BSL in its current form effectively
protects the public from dangerous dogs?
Yes
ACPO; Lewisham Council; Met Pol; West Mids Pol;
LACORS, Tonbridge & Malling Council; (12%)

No
Battersea; Blue Cross; Bradford Council; BVA/BSAVA; Camden
Council; CC&PCG; CWU; DDASG; Dogs Trust; Haringey Council;
Kensington Council; Lambeth Council; Manchester City Council;
NAWT; NDWA; PDSA; RCVS; RSPCA; South Northants Council;
Tendring Council; The Kennel Club; Wakefield Council;
Wandsworth Council; Wokingham Council; Wood Green (88%)

Q7: Do you think that BSL should be repealed?
Yes
Battersea; Blue Cross; Bradford Council; BVA/BSAVA; Camden
Council; CC&PCG; CWU; DDASG; Dogs Trust; Haringey Council;
NAWT; NDWA; PDSA; RCVS; RSPCA; South Northants Council;
The Kennel Club; Wakefield Council; Wandsworth Council;
Wokingham Council; Wood Green (71%)
No
ACPO; Greater London Auth; Kensington Council;
LACORS; Manchester City Council; Met Pol; Tendring Council;
Tonbridge & Malling Council; West Mids Pol; (29%)

Option 3: Repeal of the DDAA 1997 to prevent any
more dogs [EDIT: dog-breeds] being added to the Index
Q10: Do you think that the exemption introduced by the 1997
amendment should be removed?
Yes
CWU; Kensington Council; Lewisham Council; South Northants
Council; Tendring Council; Tonbridge & Malling Council;
Wandsworth Council (38%)
No
Battersea; Blue Cross; BVA/BSAVA; DDASG; Dogs Trust;
Greater London Auth; Met Pol; Haringey Council; Lambeth
Council; Lewisham Council; Manchester City Council;
NAWT; NDWA; PDSA; RSPCA; The Kennel Club; West Mids Pol;
Wokingham Council; Wood Green (62%)

Option 4: The introduction of Dog Control Notices
Q16: Do you think Dog Control Notices (DCNs) might be an
effective preventative measure for tackling dogs which are not
being properly controlled?
Yes
CWU; ACPO; Battersea; Blue Cross; Bradford Council; BVA/BSAVA;
Camden Council; CC&PCG; DDASG; Dogs Trust; Greater London Auth;
Haringey Council; Kensington Council; Lambeth Council; Lewisham
Council; LACORS; Manchester City Council; Met Pol; NAWT; NDWA;
PDSA; RSPCA; Tendring Council; Kennel Club; Tonbridge & Malling
Council; Wandsworth Council; West Mids Pol; Wokingham Council;
Wood Green (68%)

No: South Northants Council (32%)

Q19: Do you think it should be possible to issue DCNs
which apply to private property?
Yes
ACPO; CWU; Battersea; Blue Cross; Bradford Council; DDASG;
Dogs Trust; Greater London Auth; Haringey Council; Kensington
Council; Lewisham Council; Manchester City Council; Met Pol;
NAWT; NDWA; PDSA; RSPCA; South Northants Council; Tendring
Council; The Kennel Club; Tonbridge & Malling Council; Wakefield
Council; Wandsworth Council; West Mids Pol; Wokingham Council;
Wood Green (46%)

No (54%)

Option 5: Require all dogs be covered by third-party insurers
Q24: Do you think that third-party insurance should be compulsory
for all dog owners?
Yes
APCO; CWU; Kensington Council; NDWA; South Northants Council;
Tendring Council; Wakefield Council; Wokingham Council;
Wood Green (41%)
No
RSCPA; Battersea; Blue Cross; Bradford Council; BVA/BSAVA;
Camden Council; DDASG; Dogs Trust; Greater London Auth;
Haringey Council; Lambeth Council; LACORS; Lewisham Council;
NAWT; PDSA; The Kennel Club; Tonbridge & Malling
Council; Wandsworth Council (59%)

continues...

leashedForLife · #4 (**permalink**) 13-02-2011, 10:59 PM

[quote] Option 6: Require all dogs or pups are microchipped
Q29: Do you think that all dogs should be microchipped?
Yes
Battersea Dogs; Blue Cross; Bradford Council; BVA/BSAVA;
CC&PCG; CWU; DDASG; Dogs Trust; NDWA; Haringey Council;
Kensington Council; Lambeth Council; Lewisham Council;
Manchester City Council; Met Pol; NAWT; PDSA; RCVS; RSCPA;
South Northants Council; Tendring Council; The Kennel Club;
Tonbridge & Malling Council; Wakefield Council; Wandsworth
Council; West Mids Pol; Wokingham Council (only with insurance);
Wood Green (84%)

No: Greater London Auth; LACORS (16%)

Option 7: More effective enforcement, including consolidate
the existing statutes into one new updated Act
Q36: Do you think that all legislation relating to dangerous dogs
should be consolidated into a single piece of legislation?
Yes
Battersea; Blue Cross; Bradford Council; BVA/BSAVA; Camden
Council; CWU; DDASG; Dogs Trust; Greater London Auth; Haringey
Council; Kensington Council; Lambeth Council; Lewisham Council;
Manchester City Council; Met Pol; NAWT; PDSA; RSCPA; South
Northants Council; Tendring Council; The Kennel Club; Tonbridge
& Malling Council; Wakefield Council; Wandsworth Council;
West Mids Pol; Wokingham Council; Wood Green (78%)

No (22%)

Q37: Do you think that more effective enforcement of current
legislation would improve the current situation re dangerous-dogs?
Yes
Blue Cross; Bradford Council; CC&PCG; Greater London Auth;
Haringey Council; Kensington Council; Lambeth Council; Lewisham
Council; Manchester City Council; Met Pol; NDWA; PDSA; RSCPA;
South Northants Council; Tendring Council; Tonbridge & Malling
Council; Wakefield Council; Wandsworth Council; Wokingham
Council; Wood Green (53%)

No
Battersea; BVA/BSAVA; CWU; DDASG; Dogs Trust; NAWT;
The Kennel Club (47%)

Q38: Do you think further training for police officers to become
Dog-Legislation Officers would improve the situation regarding
dangerous dogs?
Yes
ACPO; Battersea; Blue Cross; BVA/BSAVA; CC&PCG; CWU;
Greater London Auth; Met Pol; Haringey Council; Kensington
Council; Lewisham Council; Manchester City Council; NDWA;
PDSA; RSCPA; South Northants Council; Tendring Council;
Wakefield Council; Wandsworth Council; West Mids Pol;
Wokingham Council; Wood Green (63%)

No
Bradford Council; DDASG; Dogs Trust; NAWT;
The Kennel Club (37%)

The Way Forward -
Defra will look to address gaps in the law to stop this anti-social
and criminal behaviour continuing, rather than making more piecemeal
changes to existing dangerous-dogs legislation.
Defra will continue working closely with interest groups to look closely
at community initiatives and other issues raised in the consultation -
such as breed specific bans, micro-chipping and attacks on private property.
Defra is working with the Home Office on their review of all anti-social
behaviour tools and powers, including Dog Control Orders. The review
will tackle a range of anti-social and intimidating behaviours that affect
the community, and a public consultation is expected on proposals in
early 2011.

We are currently funding a study to investigate the risk factors
for aggressive dog / human interactions:
[url=http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx [/quote]
END document

Nicky10 · #5 (**permalink**) 13-02-2011, 11:01 PM

Improve DDA but remove BSL as it hasn't actually done anything useful

My lil Babies · #6 (**permalink**) 14-02-2011, 01:09 AM

I voted Improve the DDA and remove BSL

View Poll Results: Which legislative option would U choose?
Keep the DDA as it is, with the BSL.	0	0%
Keep the DDA and remove BSL portions.	2	25.00%
Improve the DDA but retain BSL.	0	0%
Improve the DDA and remove BSL.	6	75.00%
Use other existing legislation to prosecute.	0	0%
Voters: 8. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Contact Us - Terms of use - Top
Pet Forum \| Dog Forum \| Cat Forum \| Small Animals Forum \| Bird Forum \| Horse and Equestrian Forum \| Reptile Forum \| Poultry Forum \| Fish Forum PetForums is part of the Pet Media group of websites including \| Pets4Homes \| PetsLocally