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

[tracey.s]

I can't get it to open.

[Fiona711]

Go Spca

 

Fiona xx

[Richard (The Sane)]

I've just emailed for permission to use it on deednotbreed and asked them to carry our banner [and us theirs]

 

Ah, maybe I should have said, I emailed them to ask too

[AnnS]

Very sensible and clearly written.

 

AnnS

[Melp]

Ben Supple, SPCA publications editor has given permission for their article and banner to be used on deednotbreed at present they don't have an area on their site for links but will certainly consider adding us when they do.

 

Richaarrrrd if you're about can you add the stuff?

[Richard (The Sane)]

I've had that mail too

I'll stick it on later

[Richard (The Sane)]

On

[Allie No Dots]

 

 

The RSPCA also has a statement here.

[/i]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.

 

 

Im catching up on things and just reading RSPCA statement myself for first time (had it readout over fone beforehand lol)

 

It says that the RSPCA arent normally involved in the seizing of banned breeds or type and that it goes against there beleifs. Yet they are involved.

 

Has anyone at any time asked them to explain that?

[kola]

contacted Wood Green yesterday and they are sending a comment, should have today,

 

also spoke with senior PR lady at the Blue Cross about situation yesterday, she has just confirmed that the Blue cross are making a statement,

 

amanda

[ReikiAnge]

contacted Wood Green yesterday and they are sending a comment, should have today,

 

also spoke with senior PR lady at the Blue Cross about situation yesterday, she has just confirmed that the Blue cross are making a statement,

 

amanda

 

Cool I emailed the Blue Cross last week but hadn't heard anything back.

[ReikiAnge]

Excellent

 

We have a statement from Sarah Fisher and Anthony Head, which will be going on the website soon too:

 

Sarah Fisher and Anthony Head

 

There is little that we can add that has not already been said except to express our concerns about the back lash following the recent tragic events of dog attacks on children.

 

We see many private clients and work with a wide variety of breeds but of the dogs that visit our farm, the Bull breeds and Bull crosses are among the least common. Firstly because with the right environment and management these dogs make excellent, loyal companions and for the most part are chosen by responsible owners who understand the breed and have socialised and trained them appropriately. Secondly because those who choose to own such types as a status symbol, as a fighting or as a guarding dog would not seek the services of a trainer or behaviourist. This is where the flaw in BSL lies.

 

Responsible dog ownership begins and ends with the guardian of the dog.

 

Legislation that determines whether a dog lives or dies purely on type alone is both naïve and flawed and can have disastrous consequences. People who encourage reactive behaviours in dogs and who gain pleasure from watching them fight are already breaking the law and will simply move further underground. Owners who have even the slightest concern about their family pet may be discouraged from seeking appropriate help when they need it for fear of having their dog removed and destroyed if it has the characteristics of a specific outlawed breed. Others may panic and hand over a good tempered family pet for euthanasia. Fear creates prejudice which in turn creates more problems. Dogs that do pose a threat to members of the public but are exempt from BSL might be overlooked.

 

Aggression in dogs stems largely from frustration, poor breeding, pain, disease, poor and/or inadequate nutrition, lack of socialisation/training and inappropriate, aggressive handling. A person may have deliberately encouraged this response or created a potentially dangerous animal through sheer ignorance and ineptitude. This can happen with any dog and this should be the target for any legislation aimed at protecting people from problem dogs.

 

An associate recently asked for advice about a dog belonging to his friend. The owner is a first time dog owner and the dog is allowed to run freely around the property. The dog has not been to any training classes, has no boundaries and has not been socialised. It has bitten several visitors to the property already and is pinned and physically punished when it bites. When an elderly member of the family went to pet the dog it jumped on top of him and he suffered multiple bites to his arms and chest. This dog is only six months old and is exempt from the Dangerous Dogs Act. The attacks have all happened on private property and the authorities are as yet unaware of this dog. When our (strong) comments were passed back to the owner the only part of the conversation that apparently prompted any concern was the fear of being held personally accountable for his dog's behaviour.

 

Legislation must be a part of the solution and not a part of the problem. It is when understanding stops that violence begins.

[kola]

just spoke with Blue Cross senior PR lady, thanked them, permission to use on deednotbreed given amanda x

[kola]

Revised statement from the Blue cross, their Chairman wanted a couple of bits changing, here is the new version, replaces the last one, permission to use on deednotbreed

 

The Blue Cross voices concerns over ‘dog amnesties’

 

 

 

Since the tragic death of five-year-old Ellie Lawrenson in Merseyside earlier this month, there has been widespread public debate on the subject of so-called ‘dangerous dogs’. This has led to calls from some police forces and public figures for a nationwide ‘dog amnesty’, where dog owners can surrender any ‘dangerous dogs’ to authorities without fear of prosecution.

 

While public safety is of paramount concern, The Blue Cross is concerned about the nature and administration of any such amnesties, which could result in hundreds of innocent family pets being needlessly destroyed.

 

The Blue Cross has more than 100 years’ experience in caring for abandoned and problem pets, which has taught us that no animal becomes dangerous as a result of breeding alone. Animal behaviour research supports this view that a dog’s behaviour is affected more by its upbringing, training and the behaviour of its owner than genetics alone.

 

We believe that a dog whose breed is termed as ‘dangerous’ under the law has every chance of fulfilling a loving family life if treated in an appropriate and responsible way. Equally, any dog has the potential to act in an aggressive or threatening manner as a result of bad experiences or in the hands of an irresponsible owner. 

 

Focusing attention on particular breeds rather than the responsibilities of owners to train dogs correctly fails to reduce risk to the public whilst condemning well-trained family pets to death. 

 

The law allows for dogs of a ‘dangerous’ breed that do not exhibit ‘dangerous’ characteristics to be entered onto the Index of Exempted Dogs, allowing them to remain with their owners under strict guidelines. However, this Index has been closed, sealing the fate of any dogs of ‘dangerous’ breeds by requiring their automatic destruction.

 

In the event of a dog amnesty on any scale, The Blue Cross would urge the authorities to reopen the Index of Exempted Dogs for an extended period to give all dogs the chance to prove that they can be safe and loving pets with the right ownership.

 

ENDS.

 

 

 

sorry moderators, i've used the 'report' button by mistake instead of a normal pm, amanda x

Edited January 20, 2007 by Amanda2007

[Santa's Little Helper]

just came across this from bva. sorry, if it's already been mentioned but couldn't see it anywhere

 

"Dangerous Dogs

 

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as amended makes the ownership of four types of dog illegal - the pit bull terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Braziliero. Since none are recognised as breeds in the UK and there is no description of them in the Act identification can be difficult. Defra have however provided guidance on what they consider the breeds look like and this can be downloaded from the Defra website.

 

Because the Act refers to 'dogs of the type known as a pit bull terrier' it is impossible to claim that any dog is a pit bull cross. In any event the parentage and behaviour of any individual dog is largely irrelevant as the dog has simply to look like the Defra guidance.

 

Any person who owns a dog fitting the description is guilty of an offence and, if prosecuted, must prove to the court that the dog is not a pit bull. If convicted and if the owner can show the court that the dog is not a public danger, the dog may be entered on the Index of Exempted Dogs created by the Act (and closed in November 1991) as long as the other conditions are complied with i.e. neutering, microchipping, muzzled when outside and the taking out of third party insurance. The only mechanism now open to add a dog to the Index is after the owner has been convicted.

It is for this reason that The Kennel Club has called for the Index of Exempted Dogs to be re-opened. Read more here.

 

The BVA has long been opposed in principle to any proposals which single out particular breeds of dogs rather than targeting individual aggressive dogs. The problems caused by dangerous dogs will never be solved until dog owners appreciate that they are responsible for the actions of their animals. Read the BVA Policy statement.

 

Further information on the law and pit bulls is available on The Kennel Club website.

 

BVA supports the The Blue Dog campaign which aims to educate parents and children about the safest way to interact with their dog in a household setting and The Kennel Club's Safe & Sound Scheme."

 

http://www.bva.co.uk/policy/dangerous_dogs.asp

[Pingu]

http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?...27&marker=1