The BSL Crisis

No, this has nothing to do with “Mad Cow Disease”.   This is about “Mad Politician Disease”.   Over recent years dog owners across the world have been forced to endure creeping and discriminatory legislation aimed at restricting the rights of dog owners by a method known as Breed Specific Legislation, more commonly referred to as BSL for short.

What is BSL?   Basically this refers to the regrettable fact that rather than try to find real solutions to the problem of dog bite incidents many local and national governments have instead decided, buoyed on by a minority of dog haters within the media and public at large, to opt for a more cosmetic option that seems, to them, to be a much cheaper and more politically expedient solution.   Rather than targeting the real culprits, whose irresponsible or even criminal behaviour invariably leads to these attacks, politicians have all too often decided to ban so called ‘dangerous dogs’ based on their breed.   In reality the effect of this has been to punish the innocent while the guilty are rarely caught.   Although many courageous politicians have come forward to actively oppose such laws sadly they are in the minority.   In most cases the remainder either actively campaign against dogs and their owners or, because of their own political self-interest, bury their heads in the sand and ignore these injustices.

So is BSL really a less expensive option?   Decide for yourself.   Consider the time and manpower involved in taking police officers away from their normal duties to go around searching out people that own a particular breed of dog.   Add to that the cost of training officers to be able to identify particular breeds.   Then add the cost of housing and looking after dogs that have been impounded and the veterinary fees involved.   Next there’s the cost of drawing up, arranging and carrying out mass testing to ascertain the breed and temperament of dogs suspected of being a certain type.   Of course owners who believe they’ve been unfairly victimised aren’t going to just sit back and do nothing so there will be costs involved in fighting, and settling, numerous court actions.   Many more costs, both financial and emotional, could be added to the list.   Unfortunately, in the face of media hysteria, the temptation of this apparently easier ‘quick-fix’ solution to satisfy politicians desire to be seen to be doing something in the eyes of the ‘voters’ is overwhelming.

The role of the general news media, printed and broadcast, cannot be overstated here.   How many times have we seen banner headlines screeching about another ‘ferocious attack’ by an alleged ‘dangerous fighting breed’ in order to sell more copy or increase their ratings?   Whilst some journalists try to be fairer minded regarding dog related issues the antipathy and irresponsible actions of many of their colleagues continue to blight the lives of many innocent people and their dogs.   They revel in the opportunity to portray owners of muscular breeds as mindless thugs when in fact the vast majority are pet owners or breed enthusiasts who are passionate about their dogs.   Media reports of these alleged incidents are frequently highly exaggerated, inaccurate or sometimes blatantly untrue.   The breed of dog involved is rarely reported correctly.   There are countless examples of stories where Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Boxers, Beagles and even in one case a Pomeranian were all reported as being Pit Bulls.   Of course if the dog involved was confirmed as being a less muscular breed such as a Collie or Dalmatian the media is predictably silent about the event.

The much maligned Pit Bull was itself not so long ago considered to be America’s national dog and was regularly featured in pictures with the American flag, much as the Bull Dog is in Britain.   Temperament tests, carried out in America on a variety of different breeds, showed the Pit Bull to rank 4th highest with a pass rate of 95%.   The Staffordshire Bull Terrier, frequently confused with the Pit Bull by poorly informed journalists, is the 9th most popular breed in the UK and includes amongst its admirers Roy Hattersley MP and Michael Owen of Liverpool FC.   Staffords are renowned for their love of humans and are one of only two breeds that include the stipulations ‘totally reliable’ and ‘good with children’ within their breed standard.   They are one of the many muscular breeds also used as therapy dogs under the UK Pets As Therapy (PAT) Scheme.   This scheme requires them to pass a variety of tests in order to qualify for a certificate that allows them to be used to provide comfort and therapy to patients and children in hospitals, schools and hospices.   There are many other notable people that own muscular breeds, among them HRH Princess Anne who owns Bull Terriers.

But if it gets all the dangerous dogs off the street why not have BSL you may ask?   To begin with BSL only targets specific breeds and no breed of dog is inherently dangerous.   Dogs are what we make them.   Secondly it's totally unfair to innocent dogs and their owners who have done nothing wrong.   Then there's the stark fact that BSL simply doesn't work and never will.   Certainly some of the more muscular breeds were originally bred, 200 to 300 years ago, for pitting against other dogs or types of animal but since the Humane Act of 1835 outlawing such “sports” the role of these dogs has changed beyond recognition.   They have since proved to be exceptionally well suited in the role as family pets.   The vast majority of them are extremely good-natured and highly trustworthy towards humans and the majority of owners are quite caring and responsible people.   The best interests of the public will only be served by removing all dogs that are genuinely dangerous from our streets regardless of their breed.

Unfortunately there are those that choose a dog for their own personal image or to use as a weapon.   Lets face it if you’re the kind of person that wants a dog to boost your own ego what are you going to choose, an Old English Sheepdog or a Rottweiler, a Poodle or a Pit Bull?   The sad fact is that in any normal circumstances all of these muscular breeds are in fact exceptionally people friendly and it is only the foolish behaviour of certain owners that turn some of them into aggressive dogs.

In late June, 2000, a 6 year old German boy, Volkan Kaja, was killed inside a school playground as a result of being attacked by two dogs.   The dogs involved, an American Pit Bull Terrier and an American Staffordshire Terrier were both owned by a local criminal who had trained them to fight.   It was also later revealed that the dog that actually killed Volkan had been starved for three days and given illegal drugs.   Since that time the German national Government and its various regional Governments have been rushing through new laws aimed at banning specific breeds.   This knee jerk reaction has completely failed to address the real problem and has left the German people with a local authority and police force that are clearly failing in their duty to the public.   The widespread rounding up and killing of dogs that has ensued has led to thousands of innocent people, and their pets, paying the price for the actions of these two abused dogs and their criminal owner.

These new laws have given the authorities the power to enter homes without any kind of search warrant, seize dogs without any evidence of wrong doing and execute any dog they decide hasn’t passed their own cobbled together ‘temperament tests’ which themselves have no proper scientific basis.

Such infringements of people’s basic human rights are inexcusable.   How can it be accepted that a dog owner who is not suspected of any crime (apart from owning a particular breed of dog) must allow police officers to enter their home and seize their pets when at the same time even murderers, rapists and drug dealers aren’t expected to endure such basic infringements of their human rights?

The German media, with the encouragement of their Government, have been largely responsible for creating an atmosphere of hysteria amongst the public and have actively encouraged, and often incited, dog hatred throughout Germany.   There have been numerous incidents where dogs have been shot without justification by police officers, owners have been threatened or beaten up by complete strangers and dogs have been kicked, punched, stabbed and even set on fire.

Most notably there was the story of Bexter the Pit Bull whose owners were ordered to take him for a temperament test.   His owners explained that he was excellent with people but was not as keen on other dogs.   However the testers duped them into believing there would be no problem.   When this so called test began it consisted of the tester kicking Bexter’s legs, hitting him on the head with a clipboard and generally trying to incite him, all without any success.   Then they made his owners take him over to a van where there were three, very agitated, German Shepherds in a cage barking and snarling at him and he reacted by jumping against the bars and barking back at them.   The tester agreed that Bexter was excellent with people but because of his reaction to the other dogs the owners were informed that Bexter had failed the test and that they had to hand him over.   They had no rights of appeal and were later informed that Bexter had been destroyed that afternoon.

BSL never has, and never will, in any way solved these problems.   Its only real effect has been to unfairly punish innocent people, and their dogs, that have done nothing wrong.   This is why those who oppose BSL have always believed in the principle - PUNISH THE DEED, NOT THE BREED.

The death of a child as a result of a dog attack, such as that of 6 year old Volkan from Germany, is a heartbreaking occurrence and the enormity of such a tragedy cannot be overstated.   If dog owners believed for one moment that BSL would prevent such deaths they would back it wholeheartedly and you wouldn't be reading this now.   What is needed are laws that will punish those responsible with more than just some pathetic slap on the wrists whilst leaving innocent dogs and their owners in peace.

It has been two years since anyone died in the UK as a result of a dog attack.   At the same time two children are murdered every week BY THEIR OWN PARENTS yet the national media rarely reports such deaths.   It is also a fact that two thirds of all deaths of school-aged children are caused by accidents on our roads so why aren't we banning cars?   In 1998 (the most recent figures I’ve been able to obtain) there were almost 43,500 school-aged children killed or injured on our roads in the UK.   Amongst those 103 school-aged pedestrians were killed, many of them as a direct result of people driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.   That figure excludes child cyclists or those who were passengers inside vehicles.   You don’t need to just accept these figures see them for yourself.   That's 103 tragedies like that of Volkan Kaja every year.   These are official figures published on the DETR Website (The UK Governments Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions).

So why not just ban every vehicle?   Perhaps you are thinking, “Well we need them.   How would we all get about?”   Maybe you should be asking yourself whether the necessity and convenience of owning a car justifies the immense numbers of child casualties we have on our roads each year so why shouldn’t we ban them?   Quite simply because in any civilized Country it is unacceptable to punish innocent people that have done nothing wrong.   The whole basis of our law is that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

So what should we do?   The only sensible approach, as it is with dogs, is to begin by trying to prevent such incidents by providing better education for owners, to improve both their knowledge and also awareness of their moral and legal responsibilities towards their dogs and other people.   We should be looking for practical ways to identify and assess the risks to reduce the likelihood of dog bite incidents.    Then there has to be suitable, intelligent, laws and effective punishments to act as a deterrent.   Such laws also need to be properly enforced.

That last paragraph may sound great but what does it all mean?   Well let’s see.   Owning a dog requires a certain degree of knowledge in order to take care of it in a responsible manner.   The dog world has long advocated responsible ownership both in terms of learning how to look after a dog correctly and also making owners aware of their responsibilities to their dogs and other members of the public.   It’s well past time that Government’s began helping by playing a more supportive and active role in raising awareness of these efforts and providing better funding to achieve these aims.   By including aspects of pet ownership within school curriculum’s children would be far more likely to become more responsible pet owners in later life.   The task of educating people about the responsibilities of pet ownership is constantly ongoing.   Despite this even the largest and most prominent UK organisations involved in trying to carry out this role, such as the NCDL, get absolutely no Government or Lottery funding.   The media should also play a much more positive role in persuading society as a whole to adopt a more tolerant and responsible attitude.

It’s all very well talking about effective education for those willing to listen.   However, that will not completely eradicate the potential for dog bite incidents.   Governments need to start listening to the representatives from the various dog and veterinary organisations.   The aim of this must be to enable a more realistic and intelligent assessment of the most likely areas of risk in relation to dog attacks so that fair and workable solutions can be found.   Undoubtedly the greatest area of risk, as already mentioned, comes from the criminal fraternity, particularly drug dealers and illegal dog fighters.

Certainly there are some owners who are irresponsible and don't correctly socialize, train or properly care for their dogs, which can lead to some dogs running amok.   In most Countries laws are already in place to control the nuisance effect of those irresponsible owners who cause these problems.   More education along with better enforcement of the existing laws would substantially decrease such occurrences.   Generally these situations rarely lead to any problems as regards incidents of serious dog attacks.   Owners who, for one reason or another, encourage their dogs to be aggressive are far more likely to be the cause of the most serious problems.   Of particular concern are those such as the drug pushers and other criminals who think they can use dogs as weapons and train them to attack anyone they view as a threat to themselves.   Then of course there is the age old problem of illegal underground dog fighting where some people think it’s fun to pit one dog against another, or against some other type of animal, and watch them tearing each other apart.

Criminals have proven time and time again how easily they can avoid the effect of BSL by simply choosing a different breed, crossing various breeds to create new ones or even switching species, cock fighting and fighting monkeys being just two examples.   Such people want extreme aggression in their dogs and will even specifically breed for such traits.   It doesn’t matter what breeds you try to ban, these people will get around such breed specific laws and the only people who will suffer are innocent law abiding people, and their dogs, who have done nothing wrong.   If one chose to do so it would, in fact, be perfectly possible to breed a highly aggressive strain of Poodles or an extremely docile strain of Pit Bulls.   The experience of hundreds of years of dog breeding, giving us the wonderful diversity of different breeds we have today, has proven that.   Genetic experiments over recent years have further demonstrated how selective breeding affects the outcome of dog characteristics and responsible breeders only breed from dogs that have a sound temperament.   It’s simply a matter of choosing the right ingredients to achieve the desired results.   It only requires one such dog, that has been bred and trained for aggression, to be let loose and attack a child and the lives of thousands of innocent dogs are once again imperilled.

Another area of risk is puppy farmers who are just out to make money.   There are enormous numbers of ‘enthusiast breeders’ who all love and care passionately about their dogs and are extremely responsible in the way they breed.   Ask any one of them and they’ll all tell you that the most important considerations when breeding are good health, good temperament and good type.   Because of that they only breed very infrequently and are extremely careful in choosing only the best dogs to breed from.   Puppy farmers, on the other hand, are far more interested in quantity that quality.   They’ll breed from anything that’s fertile and breed it relentlessly.   It doesn’t take much working out to realise that puppy farm dogs pose a much higher risk of being unstable due to poor health or temperament, no matter what breed they are, so breed bans are once again completely ineffectual and entirely miss the point.

So what kind of legislation do we need?   Well, as has already been made clear, laws aimed at banning particular breeds of dog will never solve these problems.   Surely the right way forward must be to draft laws that will target the real criminals, the PEOPLE responsible.   Those who train their dogs to be extremely aggressive and used as weapons.    Such people should be prevented from ever being allowed to own any dogs and those found guilty of serious offences involving animals should be given much stiffer MINIMUM sentences.

Within the UK a great deal of excellent work has been done by members of the DDA Reform Group (a parliamentary campaign group which was set up to lobby on issues relating to the UK 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act) that includes representatives from the NCDL, Kennel Club, RSPCA and other organisations.   They have made many excellent recommendations so far.   They played a leading role in achieving the Dangerous Dogs (Reform) Act 1997 and are still working hard to get all forms of BSL removed from our Statute books that hopefully, with our support, can be achieved.

What about enforcement?   The Courts should be given the power to hand down far stiffer penalties for the most serious offences.   At the same time the police need to be given better powers to work with the RSPCA to investigate these crimes.   The types of offenders mentioned above, along with many others, are frequently guilty of some of the most heinous acts of animal cruelty yet currently go effectively unpunished for such crimes.   Here, in the UK, if someone is caught supplying a class ‘A’ drug, even as a first offender, the MINIMUM sentence they can expect is five years imprisonment.   However, that same first offender can go out and brutally torture and kill an animal and the MAXIMUM sentence they could expect would be a six-month prison sentence and a fine.   How is that going to persuade people to behave responsibly?   It doesn’t exactly punish or deter people effectively either.   Surely such a crime is every bit as bad as supplying drugs, if not worse.

Even when offenders are caught all too often they are still allowed to keep animals.   How can we ever have proper enforcement when our police have little or no power to investigate or bring criminal charges in animal cruelty cases?   That is left to the RSPCA, a charitable organisation.   When will our politicians wake up to the fact that animal cruelty is all too often just the first step up the criminal ladder?   Studies have proved that many of history’s most notorious mass murderers began their ‘careers’ with some form of animal cruelty.

At the end of the day there has not been a single positive benefit to the public from Breed Specific Legislation.   It’s time governments ended this discrimination and did the job they were elected to do.   Give us fair and effective government by scrapping BSL and implementing sensible policies that will protect the public and the rights of dog owners.

PUNISH THE DEED, NOT THE BREED

Author:   M D Collcutt

13th January 2001

PLEASE SIGN OUR GUEST BOOK

Randal and I love to see new paw prints in our guest book from our visitors. Please click on the "Back Home" link below or click here to go straight to it and make your mark before leaving.   If you have a home page and wish to have a link to your site leave your site URL in our guest book.   Randal will visit the home pages of those that leave a link and leave his paw print in your guest book if you have one.

Java Top Float Menu courtesy of:

© M D Collcutt 2001.

Last updated 7th October 2002