Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Time's up for Dangerous Dogs Act

2021; Wiley; Volume: 189; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/vetr.782

2042-7670

Suzanne Jarvis,

Geographies of human-animal interactions

‘IT is a truth universally acknowledged that the UK's Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) is a cardinal example of poor, ill-thought-out regulation.’ So said legislation specialists Christopher Hood and colleagues back in 2000. Now, as the Act reaches 30 years old this month, vets and welfare experts continue to point out that this ‘ill-thought-out’ legislation is neither effective nor entirely legally or ethically sound, especially where the breed-specific aspects of the Act are concerned. In a paper summarised in this issue of Vet Record (p 114), Toby Allcock and Madeleine Campbell of the Royal Veterinary College assess whether the DDA meets legal and ethical standards. They find that there are legal issues around not allowing banned breeds to change ownership and around the burden of proof placed on owners. It also appears that judges in court cases are inconsistently applying the law depending on the appearance of a dog. They also conclude that ‘ethical failings could only be resolved through the abolition of breed-specific legislation'. In terms of reducing the numbers of people being bitten by dogs – the main purpose of the Act is to protect the public – the DDA has been ineffective. In a blog for the BVA published this month (www.bva.co.uk/dda-30-years), practitioner and BVA past president Robin Hargreaves makes clear the lack of progress: ‘A review five years after the implementation of the Dangerous Dogs Act found no significant reduction in dog bites. In fact, a study published this year found that adult hospital admission rates for dog bites tripled in England between 1998–2018, and the incidence of dog bites in children had remained consistently high.' So we have a situation where hundreds of dogs have been euthanased but there has been no concurrent reduction in dog bite rates, crucially including those needing hospital treatment. The breed-specific legislation in the UK targets four breeds – pit bull terrier, Japanese tosa, dogo Argentino and fila Brasileiro – which are ‘banned’ breeds. It is easy to see how this focus on breed must have made sense to those drafting the Act. While dachshunds and chihuahuas are among the dog breeds most likely to bite, they will probably do much less damage than a bigger dog with a strong jaw. However, with the number of those needing hospital treatment following a bite actually increasing while the DDA has been in existence, this train of thought would appear to have a false logic to it. The question is, does being a specific breed make a dog more likely to bite people? Allcock and Campbell point out that when breeds on the banned list were tested using the American Temperament Test Society (an organisation promoting temperament evaluation of dogs) assessment ‘they were just as likely to pass as any other breed, suggesting breed-specific legislation may lack scientific credibility'. Like any dog, whether these banned breeds bite people is down to how well, or not, they are trained and socialised and how people behave around them, not because they are a certain breed. “Whether these banned breeds bite people is down to how well, or not, they are trained As Hargreaves says, despite being nervous on encountering his first pit bull terrier around the time the Act was coming into force, he found it ‘no different to any other dog properly socialised and handled correctly by a sensible owner'. The BVA and British Small Animal Veterinary Association, among others, have recently renewed calls for Section 1 (the breed-specific legislation) of the DDA to be repealed, and for the introduction of other changes aimed at actually reducing dog bite incidence. Evidence, says BVA's senior vice president, Daniella Dos Santos, ‘supports our view that breed-specific legislation has been ineffective in its intended aims, thereby failing to properly protect the public or safeguard dog welfare over the last three decades.' This sums up the issue – no one wants dogs to bite people, but banning these four breeds has proved to be wholly ineffective in protecting people from being bitten by dogs. After 30 years, it's time for this breed-specific legislation to go. BVA grants editorial freedom to the Editor of Vet Record. The views expressed in the journal are those of the authors and may not necessarily comply with BVA policy