Category: Campaigns

Taking A Lead

Posted on by

Take The Lead

East London council Tower Hamlets is proposing that dogs should be on lead at all times  in all areas of the borough. The council has reacted to what they identify as “a recent spate of high-profile incidents involving out of control nuisance dogs and their owners”, further stating that “Many residents are nervous about the presence of large and intimidating-looking dogs in the borough’s parks and green spaces.”

It is certainly true that the number of fatal dog attacks has increased hugely, particularly in the last three years, but such incidents are still incredibly rare. Non-fatal incidents are poorly and consistently recorded and are probably under-reported so are difficult to assess. An FOI request made by the BBC resulted in those police forces that responded (in England and Wales) recorded 30,539 offences of an out-of-control dog causing injury to a person or guide dog in 2023. This represents a 21% increase from those recorded in 2022. Whilst this is concerning, knee jerk reactions that restrict all dogs and punish responsible owners is never gong be the answer. The very fact that there has been an increase in incidents proves that the prohibitions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 are an abject failure.

The key to the problem in both the DDA and this proposed PSPO lies in the phrase “intimidating-looking dogs”. No doubt some sections of society purchase dogs precisely because they are perceived as being intimidating, either because they wish to intimidate or they wish to repel others who may be perceived as a danger, much in the same way that people claim to carry knives and guns for their own protection. Again, a  10st XL Bully is going to be more of a problem than a 10kg dog but a bite from the smaller dog is still capable of causing significant injury and, in the unlikely event that a major artery were severed, could also potentially prove fatal. Of course, any puncture wound provides a potential for fatal infection too.

Focusing on what dogs look like rather than how they are behaving and the emotional signals that they provide will led to yet more restrictions and yet more failure. Restriction of off lead exercise also has the potential to cause more incidents as dogs and humans become frustrated. Blanket restrictions hugely disadvantage time and resource poor owners who may not be able to travel out of borough to let their dog off lead on a regular basis.

The council run consultation closed in November and, in addition to the official responses, has engendered a wave of protest from locals and the wider dog community. Cash-strapped councils lack the resources to police such impositions and the cynical may feel that fixed penalty notices of £100 per violation may be a revenue raising venture. Un-policed legislation merely increases the ability of irresponsible owners who have no intention of complying with regulations and laws that they have caret blanche to behave as they want whilst compliant owners are forced to restrict their dogs for no reason.

Both owners and the council require education in dog behaviour because even dog wardens and Dog Legislation Officers are not behaviourists and may not have a full understanding of the consequences of draconian bans.

The root of the solution, as ever, lies in education and training using positive reinforcement techniques.

Time for the enlightened to take the lead.

Going Out With A Bang?

Posted on by


Going Out With A Bang?
Sarah Owen has introduced a private members bill in an attempt to restrict the sale and use of fireworks; it is currently in a second reading in the House of Commons. The effort is support by the Dogs Trust and supports a study which they undertook in 2021 that found that more than half of owners surveyed said that their dogs were afraid of fireworks.

Research by The Kennel Club’s Petlog has found that there was an 81% increase in dogs reported as missing (not to mention cats) compared to two weeks prior to the count. Not only are there more events that are “celebrated” using fireworks than in past decades, those events are not confined to the dates of the events but spread over a couple of weeks including weekends before and after. Fireworks are also easily available to those who deliberately intend harm.

So of course, it is not only dogs that suffer: in addition to other animals, fireworks engender pollution and anti-social behaviour and strain already overstretched resources whilst breeches of existing law are simultaneously inadequately policed. The Home Office recorded a 60% increase on the number of attacks on emergency service personnel in the last decade. Restricting sales and displays to public events only will be a lot safer as well as making it possible to predict noise and take suitable precautions.

There are plenty of alternatives to fireworks in addition to quiet fireworks for those who insist on noise as it is unlikely that an outright ban would ever succeed. Economic constraints have led to a decline in public displays for several years in succession so it is important that potentially dangerous private displays are policed adequately.

Unfortunately only 3-6% of private members bills are passed, but Sarah Owen is to be congratulated on her persistence. In the meantime, adding weight to campaigns is always helpful as it can put further pressure on government to take heed.

In the meantime, there is a lot that can be done to desensitise animals to noise and lights flashing in the months leading up to firework season as well as mitigating the effects during the events.

 

200 Years And Now What For The RSPCA?

Posted on by

200 Years and now what fr the RSPCA?

200 years ago, campaigners and social reformers managed to get legislation enacted that led to the foundation of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Later granted a royal charter, the organisation appointed its own inspectors and by the 1830s undertook private prosecutions where it deemed that cruelty had been enacted on animals.

It was only in 2021 that the RSPCA announced that it will no longer undertake private prosecutions, decades after other charities abandoned the practice. Whatever the publicly stated reasons for this, the fact is that serious concerns arose when the RSPCA were the main prosecutor of animal welfare offences in England and Wales routinely using private prosecutions against vulnerable individuals and when evidence was weak with little, if any, public interest. This was often supported by the police. There was also growing anecdotal evidence that it was difficult to get the RSPCA involved in cases of serious abuse, rejected in the majority of reviews that the RSPCA have on Trustpilot as just an example.

The RSPCA turned over more than £5M in 2022 and two of its employees earn between £70,000 and £90,000 each. Since its inception, the RSPCA had a blanket opposition to hunting and scientific use of animals. It has also been mired with governance problems since the outset, one of its founder members and first honorary secretary being the Rev Arthur Broom who was obliged to stand aside from the rôle after being declared bankrupt. Another founder member, Lewis Gompertz who was avidly anti-hunting, was also obliged to resign, although a large amount of anti-Semitism was undoubtedly involved too.

Concerns were raised in parliament over political campaigning as the RSPCA oppose the current badger cull which is helping to investigate and prevent the spread of bovine TB. A judgement was raised against them by the Advertising Standards Authority when it concluded that their anti-cull advertisement in the Metro newspaper was misleading following more than 100 complaints from members of the public.

Chief Inspector to the Crown Protection Service, Stephen Wooler published a report in September 2014, highlighting the serious shortcomings in the way in which the RSPCA was acting and the unavoidable conflict of interest engendered in it serving private prosecutions. The question came back to parliament too years later when the RSPCA had made no progress in implementing its conclusions and in 2018, the Charity Commission issued the RSPCA with an Official Warning regarding governance concerns.

Controversy arising over the RSPCA overtly supporting political lobbying groups even led to the Archbishop of Canterbury ending the precedent of patronage by refusing formal association. No doubt many donors who gave to the charity expecting that their money would help to prevent abuse of animals were horrified when the RSPCA spent £300,000 in prosecuting members of the Heythrop Hunt.

There are many instances of real animal cruelty in the dog world, not least puppy smuggling, back street breeding, irresponsible ownership and the breeding of dogs with disabling conformation. Where are the RSPCA in those campaigns?

 

 

They’ve Done It Again

Posted on by

They've Done It Again They’ve done it again – or should that be they are still doing it?

The French bulldog selected as best in the utility group was disgraceful. Severely brachycephalic, it bears no resemblance to the UKKC’s own updated breed standard.

As ever, UKKC breeders are responding to complaints by asserting that licensed breeders are responsible and it is the unlicensed breeders who are not. The UKKC has graded this dog as not having a problem because it has not been diagnosed with BOAS. They are tragically blind to the dog’s failings – and that of many others in the showing – because they have normalised the deformities. When they do, so do owners who, as studies have found expect their dogs to snort and snuffle and even take their regular collapse to be normal.

It’s not just confined to bull breeds: compare the German and Swiss shepherds in the Pastoral line up this year. I was too dispirited to even look at the other horrors that I know were perpetrated.

We have to keep chipping away at this, supporting campaigns for better welfare and fighting to stop people breeding and buying disfigured dogs. But first, they have to recognise that they are.

I’m biased, but thank goodness an Aussie won BIS. There’s hope yet.

Thanks a bunch Scotland

Posted on by

Thanks a bunch Scotland Yet more bad news for those of us who care about canine welfare and want to find effective solutions to problems caused by a variety of dogs and a variety of owners.

The fact that Scotland is implementing a ban on XL Bullies is another blow to the effective management of dangerous situations involving dogs, although, understandably, the large influx of dogs is potentially problematic from he country. Replicating an ineffective and potentially dangerous measure is hardly the answer though.

First Minister Humza Yousaf said “…ultimately, although we do have a very good system of dog control notice schemes, and we do take the approach of deed not breed, we have to respond to the situation as it currently stands and therefore we will do what we need to do to ensure public safety.”

Well they patently do not “take the approach of deed not breed” otherwise the ban would not have been considered. Further, Community Safety Minister Siobhain Brown had warned that it is “important to ensure that Scotland does not become a safe haven or a dumping ground for XL Bully dogs from England and Wales”.

Why not a safe haven? Again, this assumes that there is no such thing as non-problematic XL Bully. Meanwhile there is still some leeway for kennels to register XL Bullies in their care as long as the intake was agreed by October 31st, 2023 and the dog was in their care by December 30th, 2023.

 

How Many Dogs Will Die In 3 Years?

Posted on by

How Many Dogs Will Die In 3 Years? There’s good news and bad news for dogs in South Korea…The government has announced that it will ban the selling of dog meat in three year’s time.

The “grace” period is being deemed sufficient to allow existing businesses to transition to another trade.

Boshintang (dog meat stew) is a traditional delicacy but a 2023 Gallup poll found that just 8% of those polled admitted to having tried dog meat in the previous 12 months, a reduction from 27% in 2015. Fewer than a 20% of those polled said that they supported the consumption of the meat. Even allowing for a reluctance to admit to an unpopular practice, figures are low.

Once the new legislation is in place, convicted dog butchers will face up to three years in prison and anyone convicted of rearing dogs for meat two years. Details have yet to be announced of compensation for dog meat restaurants.

This is no doubt due to the spread of cultural change prompted by the spread of information globally and the rise in the keeping of dogs as companion animals. Whilst it is to be welcomed, it won’t help the dogs that will be butchered, perhaps under less than ideal conditions, over the next three years. However, it may act as an exemplar for other south Asian countries where the practice still continues.

XL Bully Owners Bite Back

Posted on by

XL Bully owners bite back All is not lost,  it seems, in the effort to prevent the XL Bully from being added to the proscribed dogs under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

The Licenceme Group (sic) has raised £150,000 and has already instigated a process which may end in judicial review and could, if successful, perhaps overturn breed-specific legislation altogether.

Licensing probably isn’t the answer to the problem that BSL is trying to address though. It will simply become a tax on dog ownership and irresponsible and criminal elements will evade it. Forgery of paperwork is comparatively easy and there will still be nowhere near enough resources to police the licensing.

We have a model of the problem already with the Pet Passport Scheme which is being roundly abused to allowed the illegal importation of thousands of street dogs as well as puppy farmed dogs, some under the legal age for leaving their mother. None of the national parliaments have done anything about this, so how would a dog licence be any different?

Whilst an overturn of this ineffective legislation would be welcome, a licensing scheme is not a solution to poor breeding and purchasing practices and until we address this, the next “XL Bully” type problem is just aorta d the corner.

Wales Takes The Lead

Posted on by


Wales Takes the lead Although the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is national legislation and is not devolved, Wales and Scotland are able to consider implementing measures to promote responsible dog ownership.

Accordingly, the Welsh Government has a web page with advice on responsible dog ownership and has called a summit comprising representatives from local government, the police, public health, third sector organisations and canine welfare and public safety campaigns.

This is so much better than the knee-jerk response implementing a ban on XL Bullies from the UK government. Such a response makes it easy to rabble rouse (surely with an eye to forthcoming elections) but does nothing to resolve a grave issue from recurring time and time again. BSL is also expensive and has resulted in the compulsory euthanasia of thousands of dogs that have never been a problem and were never going to be, not least those condemned under the vague designation of being a “pitbull”.

EFRA has released a report on Breed Specific Legislation recommending a focus on prevention through education and early intervention including training courses for dog owners who commit low to mid-level offences similar to the speed awareness courses for drivers.

As with the broken window theory, dealing with this at the lower levels of offences tackles the roots of the problem. It won’t prevent every incident but it may save a lot of dogs and owners from heartbreak.

Where Wales has taken a lead, we should follow.

Another Knee-jerk Reaction

Posted on by

Anther knee-jerk reaction The stupidity of the decision to ban the XL Bully knows no bounds. Yet again, the government ignore the weight of peer-reviewed science just as they did with Covid-19, and prioritise a populist response. Nothing to do with pending by-elections and a general election of course.

Once German Shepherds were demonised and the Staffie was the Nanny Dog and then they were demonised and became the media’s”devil dogs”. Now it is another bull breed derivative.

It seems the government is not prepared to learn the lessons from listing the so-called pit bull and we will have yet more perfectly fine dogs confined to leads and muzzles for no good reason and worse – owners will be obliged to neuter so that we will effectively be reducing the pool of dogs with good temperaments. More so-called expert witnesses will be polishing their callipers ready to measure those massive heads – how many millimetres over their limit does a bully have to be to be condemned even if it has done nothing?

There is a serious problem and that has led to so many injuries and fatalities this year but it is far more complex than sticking a type of dog on a list. Whether it’s a large dog confined to a council flat or a dog walker unable to cope with too many dogs, the problem lies with breeding, purchase and ownership.

This was a missed opportunity to improve the legislation regarding breeding and responsible ownership, a missed opportunity to support behaviourists and trainers who are trying to deal with the consequences and a missed opportunity to save lives.

XL bullies are already being dumped and now will probably be culled as, once the legislation is enacted, it will be illegal to exchange or sell them. Responsible owners will be demonised and, right now, I am thinking of the delightful XL Bully bitch that my puppy was romping with last week. She was well-trained and well cared for and, despite being three times the size and weight of my puppy had perfect play manners.

Rishi Sunak might like to consider that his own chosen breed, the Labrador is a restricted breed in Ukraine and they feature high on the list of dogs causing injury in the UK. Of course, the Labrador has excellent PR – puppies rolling around with lavatory paper, Guide Dogs; but anyone that has been on the receiving end of an aroused Labrador may have a different view, as might the person who like me, had a whale of a time playing with an XL Bully.

Shocking Shame

Posted on by


Electric kickback At last legislation is due to come into force on February 1st, 2024 to ban shock collars in England.

However, there is a strong lobby that regards shock collars as the only way to prevent livestock worrying and members of the House of Lords who happily boast of using them on their companion dogs. It is 23 years since they were banned in Wales, a country with 11 million sheep and just 3.1 million people.

There is plenty of research that shows that severe punishment – and we are talking about electrocution after all – does not work and research that shows that shock collars cannot and do not deliver a reliable measured shock. It is illegal to electrocute children, why are dogs any different?

We cannot take the passing of this legislation for granted, Lobby your MP and write to DEFRA in support.