My response to you is split following the separate proposals;
i. Extending the criminal offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control to private property (where the dog has a right to be);
ii. Compulsory microchipping of dogs;
iii. Removing the need to seize and kennel all dogs where court proceeding are pending; and
iv. Increase the fee for placing a dog on the Index of Exempted Dogs;
i. I think that extending the dangerous dogs law onto private property is a good idea where postal workers and similar are concerned. The issues of it being extended to cats that may stray onto property have come to my attention, I just hope that common sense will prevail. The straying cat had no obligation to approach the property. I think the law should extend up to the front/back door/building walls but not inside the building, apart from via letterboxes designed for the purpose- protective wire cages are easily available and inexpensive. This will halt people’s fear of burglars being exempt. A dog’s natural instinct is to defend it’s territory, and any dog could feel threatened by the approach of strangers.
ii. I do not think that microchipping should be compulsory. I really cannot see how this can curtail dangerous dogs in any way. I believe this is a general response.
It should be made common knowledge that microchipping is a good idea if you are worried about losing your dog, and be encouraged with national campaigns (the media attention this law has attracted so far has done a large part of this) but the dangers (e.g. migrating chips/cancers, faulty chips, etc) need to be known as well, and it should be the owner’s choice. It is an invasive action upon another animal and if a guardian does not want it for their dog, they should not be penalised for this view.
- If microchipping is relied on, and if it has migrated or is faulty, it might get overlooked, and dogs not given more effort to be reunited.
- Where is all the money going? In the UK there is roughly 10.5 million pet dogs nationwide, expected to be microchipping at £35 a time, and you have proposed a mere £50,000 towards education and services between THREE major charities- it seems quite tiny, particularly as education is the most effective means of dealing with the problem at source and for the longer term.
- How will it be policed? It is not possible to check visually that a dog has been microchipped. Before any new law is passed, every attempt should be made to keep the current laws enforced.
- As far as puppy farms are concerned, I believe these should be stopped altogether. This will help with the health and welfare of many dogs, and also make a large dent in halting overpopulation. This is something which needs to be considered when this law is brought in, as you know that lots more dogs will be dumped into rescues, which are already overfilled, on account of an unwillingness to obey the new law, or to escape fines.
Any single dog that suffers as a result of this law is a failure on its part.
- I am concerned that a black market of unmicrochipped dogs might arise alongside the already problematic black market for illegal breeds- this is a massive social issue which is being avoided by stamping new laws down. BSL was created in this tone- I fear microchipping may go the same way.
iii. It is documented that the stressful conditions dogs of ‘type’ are put under once seized and held during the court process, are incredibly detrimental to their welfare and natural disposition. I am happy to hear that they are able to remain at home- which I believe is thanks to the case of Snoop in Surrey, who was returned home emaciated and with an injury. It is a real shame that this poor dog had to suffer to such an extent to get this particular fault in the system noticed. I hear of stories of dogs suffering under the laws already in place every day, for instance Lennox in Belfast; or more recently a dog called William who arrived as a stray into a shelter, and was blatantly not “type”, but was killed regardless, because somebody had deemed him so, before a rescue could raise funds to hire an expert’s opinion.
iv. I think the BSL law should be withdrawn. It is the general belief amongst experts that it is ‘deed not breed’, and down to the owner, and if the number of dogs bites has risen since 1991, it is blatantly not working as far as curtailing dangerous dogs is concerned. Something else needs to be tried. Keeping these dogs illegal keeps them on the black market and keeps them desirable to the ’wrong’ people. I am very happy that making Staffies illegal was halted. Where would you stop? Victoria Stilwell documented that the biggest biter in the USA, where Pit Bulls are largely legal, is the Golden Retriever. The issue of ‘status dogs’ needs to be investigated, and is, I believe, an important factor in the rising number of dog attacks.
I do have an idea that may help this situation. Many experts agree that the dogs do not want to be aggressive, that they are pleasing their owner. Training a dog to become aggressive, and encouraging this state of mind in the animal should be classed under animal cruelty, with the related penalties for this. And this goes for any type of dog. This will also help with the irresponsible dog ownership concerning toy dogs that get greatly abused and turned aggressive as a result, but nothing is done because they are small and aren’t going to do much harm. Lift the BSL ban, so that no more dogs of ‘type’ need be denied the loving home they deserve- instead dying for how they look- and extend animal cruelty to cover aggressive dogs. There are some wonderful people out there who do great work with aggressive dogs, rehabilitating them. These people should be allowed exemption with a free-to-obtain certificate, granted by specialist rescues, acknowledging that they can do the job at hand, alongside experts being called in to rehabilitate the dogs seized under the new dog aggression/animal cruelty law. There are centres in the UK who currently deal with problem dogs, successfully. They may never reach another ‘forever home’, and remain at a sanctuary, but they certainly do not deserve to die for what their humans have done to them. As far as the nature of the Pit Bull goes- you only need to look at all the positive ‘Pibble’ groups in America to understand that they have been grossly misjudged.
To summarise:
- extension of dangerous dogs laws up to the building but not inside (except letterboxes);
- microchipping should be up to the guardian, and everyone involved be fully educated, and profits raised from this system please be put back into education and dog welfare, and other ways of addressing status dogs be found;
- whilst BSL is still in place, allow the dogs to stay in their home environment during the decision making process;
- eliminate BSL laws completely, removing illegal dog breed trade, improving the welfare of these animals involved, and increase the animal cruelty charges to include dogs trained to a state of extreme human/dog aggression, and offer exemption to those working in rehabilitation.
Thankyou very much for taking the time to read my consultation reply.
No comments:
Post a Comment