Rspca Backs Call To End Bsl

[Lisa.]

RSPCA Speaks Out Over BSL & Dangerous Dogs Act

January 12, 2009 by Ryan O'Meara

Following our report last week that the RSPCA has backed calls from DDA Watch and C-fidos for the Government to end BSL by way of the deeply flawed section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, Claire Robinson, the RSPCA’s Government Relations Manager has echoed concerns about the weakness of a law which focuses on the breed rather than the deed.

Speaking to K9 Magazine she explains:

“The RSPCA has always stated the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is flawed, in that it focuses on breed, rather than ‘deed’. Clearly, Section 1 of the DDA is the most prominent example of breed specific legislation.

“Our animal hospitals treat bull-terrier type dogs on a daily basis for bite wounds, stabbings, injuries from traffic accidents and diseases caused by indiscriminate breeding.

“We believe that any future legislation concerning the control of dogs should focus on the action of the owner and preventing irresponsible dog ownership. Irresponsible owners can own dogs of any breed or type, and no dog should be penalised because of its genetic make up.”

The Coalition for Improved Dog Ownership Standards (C-fidos) and DDAWatch, an organisation lobbying for fair, effective dog laws, have publicly asked organisations who share a true anti BSL stance to vocally call for an end to section 1 of the dangerous dogs act. Section 1 of the act is the specific part of the dangerous dog law that outlaws dogs by type and has caused many innocent dogs to lose their lives as a direct result.

There is a growing awareness amongst the public and indeed legislators that BSL - as a concept - has failed and is grossly unjust. Opposition to the concept of BSL has not produced a change in the law though and lobbying groups are keen to stress that unless the BSL element of the law is tackled we will simply retain BSL even though many are publicly opposed to it.

One organisation which has consistently opposed breed specific legislation before it was introduced in 1991 is the National Dog Warden Association whose vice-chair, Dave Holden, was keen to offer congratulations to those calling for a repeal of the ill-thought out law:

I would like to congratulate the RSPCA on this announcement. The NDWA has been publically anti BSL from the beginning. I hope that some of the other large organisations now join with DDAWatch, C-fidos, NDWA and RSPCA to bring about the early repeal of Section 1. Well done to all concerned.

K9 Magazine echoes Mr Holden’s sentiments. If you oppose BSL, please be loud in your calls for a repeal of section 1. It’s time to address the specifics rather than oppose the concept. We have BSL, we need to replace it.

End BSL

Author Details

Ryan O'Meara is editor-in-chief of K9 Magazine, the lifestyle magazine for dog lovers. He lives in the East Midlands with his own two dogs, Mia and Chloe.

http://www.dogmagaz ine.net/archives /1677/rspca- speaks-out- over-bsl- dangerous- dogs-act/

[sandgrubber]

K9 Magazine echoes Mr Holden’s sentiments. If you oppose BSL, please be loud in your calls for a repeal of section 1. It’s time to address the specifics rather than oppose the concept. We have BSL, we need to replace it.

So far as I'm concerned the specifics are clear. BSL will be unnecessary when [and only when] breeds that have a history of problems are selectively bred NOT to be dog or human aggressive and an ethic arises among people owning and perpetuating the breed that promotes responsible dogs who will not attack people or dogs. FULL STOP.

[paulni]

So far as I'm concerned the specifics are clear. BSL will be unnecessary when [and only when] breeds that have a history of problems are selectively bred NOT to be dog or human aggressive and an ethic arises among people owning and perpetuating the breed that promotes responsible dogs who will not attack people or dogs. FULL STOP.

What breeds would that be then??

[Lisa.]

So far as I'm concerned the specifics are clear. BSL will be unnecessary when [and only when] breeds that have a history of problems are selectively bred NOT to be dog or human aggressive and an ethic arises among people owning and perpetuating the breed that promotes responsible dogs who will not attack people or dogs. FULL STOP.

What breeds would that be then??

any breed can be DA, and any breed may have a HA dog... there's no need to punish an entire breed over one having HA. if you were to murder someone, should humans be put to death because we are all 'capable' of murder? furthermore, i believe that with responsible ownership there is nothing wrong with owning a DA dog. take a look at all breeds, and the ones on the list aren't the only DA breeds... in fact, there are more bites from dogs who are NOT on the list, than by those that are...

[Lisa.]

So far as I'm concerned the specifics are clear. BSL will be unnecessary when [and only when] breeds that have a history of problems are selectively bred NOT to be dog or human aggressive and an ethic arises among people owning and perpetuating the breed that promotes responsible dogs who will not attack people or dogs. FULL STOP.

What breeds would that be then??

any breed can be DA, and any breed may have a HA dog... there's no need to punish an entire breed over one having HA. if you were to murder someone, should humans be put to death because we are all 'capable' of murder? furthermore, i believe that with responsible ownership there is nothing wrong with owning a DA dog. take a look at all breeds, and the ones on the list aren't the only DA breeds... in fact, there are more bites from dogs who are NOT on the list, than by those that are...

and i forgot to add, ALL breeds can be DA...its not a breed specific thing.

[paulni]

So far as I'm concerned the specifics are clear. BSL will be unnecessary when [and only when] breeds that have a history of problems are selectively bred NOT to be dog or human aggressive and an ethic arises among people owning and perpetuating the breed that promotes responsible dogs who will not attack people or dogs. FULL STOP.

What breeds would that be then??

any breed can be DA, and any breed may have a HA dog... there's no need to punish an entire breed over one having HA. if you were to murder someone, should humans be put to death because we are all 'capable' of murder? furthermore, i believe that with responsible ownership there is nothing wrong with owning a DA dog. take a look at all breeds, and the ones on the list aren't the only DA breeds... in fact, there are more bites from dogs who are NOT on the list, than by those that are...

and i forgot to add, ALL breeds can be DA...its not a breed specific thing.

I agree with you Lisa but I would like to know what breeds Sandgrubber referred to when He said '' when breeds that have a history of problems'' As you indicated it is not a breed thing

[Sticky]

Some more news on the new UK law.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?...07&marker=1

The actual Act

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2008-09/dogcontrol.html

Should see the end of this sorry saga!

S

[GeckoTree]

Some very good points in that bill it's great, this part really stood out to me

This Bill is intended to change the emphasis of the Dangerous Dogs Act, which was a piece of knee-jerk-reaction legislation to deal with pit bull terriers. Everyone who took part in it and spoke in the debates recognised that it was dealing with a current concern. It was meant to lead to the extinction of pit bull terriers as a breed in this country. Of course, if it had been successful, there would be no or only very elderly microchipped pit bull terriers alive today. However, research by the RSPCA shows that there are now more pit bull terriers in the country than there were when the Act was passed.

I think this would be true in most countries that have the BSL. I know I see more advertisments for them now than I ever did before it came about.

I think they were actually quite a rare breed without a very large population back in the mid 90's, now a decade and a half on I think they would be 10 fold in numbers..

[Zhou Xuanyao]

There has never been as many APBT's In Australia as there is today.

Thanks for the link Sticky lets wait and see

[Nekhbet]

So far as I'm concerned the specifics are clear. BSL will be unnecessary when [and only when] breeds that have a history of problems are selectively bred NOT to be dog or human aggressive and an ethic arises among people owning and perpetuating the breed that promotes responsible dogs who will not attack people or dogs. FULL STOP.

that covers all dogs. If you cannot accept a dog for what it is then do not own it. Watering down a breed creates its own set of instability and problems. Most dogs should be out of reach for the average idiot, not watered down so they cannot harm another dog or person.

I see more dogs act confrontationally or roughly through lack of leadership and consequence from their owners then simply being the breed.