UA-12921627-3 Jump to content

Statements from organisations (KC, Dogs Trust, SPCA etc)

ReikiAnge

By ReikiAnge
in Breed Specific Legislation

 Share

Recommended Posts

ReikiAnge

ReikiAnge

Posted
Posted

I thought I would put these in a separate thread.

 

I think the Dogs Trust statement has already been linked to on the Refuge somewhere, but here's the link again and statement below:

 

Dogs Trust Statement on dangerous dogs

 

Regarding the recent dog attack in Merseyside we do not know the full circumstances of this tragic event, but of course our deepest sympathies are with the family as they come to terms with this terrible loss.

 

 

While dog attacks of this kind are thankfully extremely rare, Dogs Trust advises all parents and dog owners, whatever the breed of dog, to take sensible precautions with dogs and children, even if the dog is a known family pet.

 

There is nothing inherent in the breed of a dog that makes him more likely to attack. A dog's behaviour is much more likely to be influenced by his training, upbringing and environment, whatever the breed of dog. Whether the dog was indeed a Pit Bull Terrier, or another Terrier-type dog, Dogs Trust has long been urging a change in the law to allow for more stringent warnings to be given to owners whose dogs have shown symptoms of aggression. An ASBO type warning system would help prevent attacks such as these, as it would help ensure that dogs are kept responsibly and safely for all concerned.

 

Dogs Trust also asks for calm amongst dog owners and urges owners not to abandon their dog in panic. There is no reason to suspect that your own dog, whether a Bull Terrier type dog (eg Staffordshire Bull Terrier) will suddenly become aggressive. If owners are seriously concerned about the behaviour of their dog, please contact a behavioural expert, veterinary surgeon, or a Dogs Trust behaviour advisor.

 

 

The RSPCA also has a statement here.

 

The devastating dog attack that resulted in the death of a five-year-old girl in Merseyside has shocked the public and made everyone aware of the danger that dogs can pose.

 

Our utmost sympathy goes out to Ellie Lawrenson's family. The RSPCA isn't normally involved in these sorts of incidents as they are investigated by the police - but any dog has the potential to attack and we urge owners to be responsible and keep their dog under control at all times.

 

Many factors such as a change of home and owner can cause an animal to become suddenly aggressive. Also, the noise and excitement of events such as Christmas and New Year parties or family gatherings or the loud bangs of fireworks could also cause an animal to react aggressively.

 

The RSPCA always advises owners to make sure that children are supervised at all times when in the company of dogs and other animals.

 

Deed, not breed

The Dangerous Dogs Act goes against the RSPCA's belief that that the focus should be on the deed, not the breed. All dogs have the potential to be dangerous if trained to attack, but it is the training that should be questioned, not the type of dog. Dog owners should train their pets to be sociable and by doing this potentially dangerous situations can be avoided.

 

If dogs and children are sharing the same environment, everyone needs to be aware of the potential risk. Some dogs are wonderful with children, others might react if they are provoked.

 

You can learn more about what your dog needs and responsible pet ownership by visiting our pet care section. photo © RSPCA Photolibrary

 

So perhaps it's not that the big organisations aren't speaking out (as there are statements from the KC, DT and RSPCA), but that the comments aren't creating the hysteria the press need to sell newspapers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pingu

Pingu

Posted
Posted

probably correct

 

 

 

and there is the "well they would say that wouldnt they" thing too..

 

 

 

bit of a no win situation when you come to think of it. If they go fior the jugular its "rabid self interested dog organistaions".. and if its a calm and collected response its ignored.

 

 

 

:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greyhound pal

greyhound pal

Posted
Posted

The Scottish SPCA don't have anything on their website but they do have this from todays Glasgow Herald. I'm actually quite impressed with the response from Mike Flynn because I've never really thought much of him or his values in the past...

 

 

Illegal trade makes dog tests ‘waste of time’

 

GERRY BRAIDEN January 03 2007

 

 

A competency certificate for dog owners, which has been suggested as a method of controlling dangerous breeds of dogs, has been derided by a leading animal charity. The SSPCA believes that the existing illegal trade in dogs would render such a test useless.

 

The organisation believes such a scheme would be an administrative nightmare but it suggests that if all dogs were registered it would potentially cut the number of attacks.

 

The claim comes after five-year-old Ellie Lawrenson was mauled to death by her family dog in Merseyside.

The dog, confirmed yesterday as a pit bull terrier, also attacked Ellie's grandmother The owner had previously been sent two letters about the dog's behaviour.

 

Some experts have appealed for all owners to be examined on dog care and control and supplied with a certificate which would have to be presented to breeders and rescue centres before an animal was handed over.

 

The SSPCA insists a registration scheme, similar to the old dog licence, is a more realistic and workable option as the vast majority of attacks are the fault of the owner.

 

The most effective way would be to microchip the dogs and register them when they changed hands or died, giving the authorities the name and contact details of the owner.

 

In Sweden potential owners have to register even before they buy their pet, specifying the breed they require. They are then bound by conditions which could lead to them losing the dog if they break the rules.

 

Given that the trade in dangerous dogs such as pit bulls is illegal and many dogs are sold by unregistered breeders, a competency certificate would have little use, the SSPCA says.

 

The organisation said it has it own vetting procedures for potential owners wanting to take dogs from its kennels.

 

Mike Flynn, head of the SSPCA's uniformed division and a former pit bull terrier owner, said microchipping would provide proof of ownership and who was legally responsible or the dog.

 

He said: "People would be more likely to be in control of their dog if they can be held to account. If the person hasn't the time or patience to properly train their dog and it attacks someone then the person cannot own a dog again.

 

"It would also be a far cheaper and easier scheme for the government to run."

 

According to Mr Flynn, the relaxation of the Dangerous Dogs Act in the late-1990s has led to many pit bulls re-appearing on the streets.

 

He also pointed to trends from the 1970s when alsatians, dobermanns and later rottweilers developed bad reputations because of poor breeding and bad ownership.

 

Mr Flynn said that border collies were the worst offenders for biting, but poor control, especially among rottweiler owners, led to powerful dogs being demonised.

 

He added: "The really sad thing is this won't be the last person killed by a dog. And in 99% of cases it is the fault of the owner."

 

Last night Ellie's family were said to be "together, comforting each other", according to Merseyside Police.

In a family statement released through police, her relatives said they were "absolutely devastated" at the loss of their "little angel".

 

"She was an active little girl, full of life and always running around. We are absolutely devastated," they said.

 

In Northern Ireland yesterday a pit bull amnesty began following an attack on a family in Co Antrim in November.

 

So far two of the dogs have been destroyed and the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said the scheme should be considered UK-wide

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ReikiAnge

ReikiAnge

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I contacted the Dogs Trust after reading what the KC had to say about the amnesty, to ask if there was a statement from the DT. They replied with the following.

 

They have granted permission for this to be used (in its entirety) on the new website, obviously attributed to the Dogs Trust.

 

January 2007

 

Dangerous Dogs: Dogs Trust Position

 

Dogs Trust, the UK's largest dog welfare charity, condemns the breeding of dogs for fighting and supports measures to bring the full force of the law against the breeders of such dogs. Dog attacks occur as a result of a dog's training, upbringing and environment. All dog owners should be encouraged to be responsible owners, regardless of the breed of dog.

 

Dogs Trust is calling for an amendment to the Dangerous Dogs Act to reflect the 'deed not breed' of a dog; to adequately deal with aggressive or dangerous dogs based on the actions of a dog rather than its breed. This could be implemented by introducing a more effective 'ASBO'-type control system to allow for suitably stringent controls on owners of dogs that display unwarranted aggression, whatever the breed of dog.

 

The DDA should also be amended to allow for controls to be imposed, and adequate punishments where controls have been unheeded, wherever an attack or warning of attack happens, whether in a public or private place. Such controls would include keeping the dog under control (including use of lead and/or muzzle where necessary), training, rehabilitation of the dog, and keeping dogs in a way that discourages any inappropriate aggression.

 

A 'Dangerous Dogs Amnesty'

 

Dogs Trust is very concerned that an amnesty is being proposed that will lead to the killing of many innocent dogs. Dogs Trust does not believe that an amnesty will achieve the desired result of eliminating aggressive or dangerous dogs, nor would it ensure the prevention of dog attacks on people.

 

An amnesty, with various conditions laid down by individual local authorities, may help encourage some owners to take more responsibility for their dog, but we are also concerned that it might in fact drive the encouragement of aggression in these dogs further underground.

 

Sadly the possession of an aggressive dog, no matter what the breed, is seen to be macho by some in society, and the abhorrent illegal practice of training dogs for fighting continues. An amnesty will do nothing to prevent this, but instead might lead to the unnecessary death of many beloved family pets simply based on their breed, regardless of their behaviour.

 

The 'type known as a pit bull terrier' is not a recognised breed and it is therefore difficult to positively identify a dog as prohibited. Consequently there are many Staffordshire Bull Terrier cross-breeds that have long legs and might therefore be classified as a pit bull type. Many of these are beloved family pets with no tendency to aggression and therefore no danger to the public.

 

Dogs Trust suggests that, where the dog is a family pet and shows no tendency to aggression, the owner should be allowed to have their dog entered on the Index created under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. They should also be required to comply with the other requirements under the Act (neutering, microchipping, insurance, muzzling).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...