Re-appeal the The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

I am contacting you with reference to the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991 as amended in 1997.

The DDA is commonly referred to as knee jerk legislation enacted in response to public pressure to tackle the issue surrounding so called “dangerous dogs”. It has now been 18 years since the legislation came into force and it is evident that the legislation has failed to be effective and instead has been detrimental in a number of ways.

The legislation has failed for the following reasons:

It is widely accepted by canine and animal welfare organisations that no breed or type of dog is inherently dangerous and that responsible ownership is the way to reduce incidents involving dogs. By focusing on breeds or types rather than irresponsible ownership we will never reduce dog bite incidents, as is already apparent from statistics showing dog bites and strikes have risen to higher levels than before the Act came in.

In recent years we have had four child fatalities. In each case human error contributed to the tragic outcomes. The majority of the dogs involved were legal breeds. The DDA failed those children and as dog owners and parent/aunt/uncle* (delete as appropriate) I find this unacceptable.

The DDA was meant to have eradicated the four named types however it is now thought that there are more “pit bull types” in the U.K than when the legislation came into force. A number of perfectly legal breeds and crossbreeds can result in an “illegal” dog and as such, the Act can never achieve its aim.

The legislation has also had a detrimental effect for the following reasons:

The Metropolitan police have a forecasted overspend of £1 million of its 2009-2010 budget for dealing with so called “Dangerous Dogs”. The total cost for kennelling, veterinary and transport costs of “dangerous dogs” for London
2008-2009 hit a staggering £1.342 million pounds.

The welfare of dogs held as court proceedings continue is of grave concern. The Metropolitan police saw an average of 1-2 dogs per week dying while in their care of unknown cause last year. Dogs that survive are coming home with sores, weight loss, diarrhoea, and even Parvovirus. Sadly some dogs find it hard to adjust back to the family life they once knew and lose their lives later on.

Surely 18 years is long enough to see the legislation has failed to protect the public while having a detrimental effect on the dogs and families affected. It is my belief that the ways forward to better protect the public MUST include a repeal of all breed specifics aspects of the Dangerous Dogs Act.

I would ask you to look into the points raised and let me know which, if any, steps you are taking to ensure a repeal is brought about.