The Dangerous Dogs Act has been in place since 1991 and has consistently proven to be both ineffective and a tremendous drain on police and local authority resources and funding.
The latest to fall under breed specific legislation, the ‘XL Bully’ left many innocent and responsible owners and their families heartbroken, rescue centres overwhelmed and many dogs abandoned and euthanized unnecessarily. Meanwhile, the type of owners for whom the D.D.A. was designed to address, simply move on to another breed. The Cane Corso is already predicted to be next target for breed specific legislation.
I feel that the ready availability of these types of dog only encourages people to buy without first considering the level of commitment and knowledge required to own them. Often it is the young child of a family who will become the victim and the family will claim the attack ‘came from nowhere’. In reality the dog’s behaviour will have gradually escalated over time but gone unnoticed through nothing other than lack of knowledge.
My proposal is for all owners of any potentially dangerous breed (I would add many more to those currently listed under B.S.L.) to be legally required to attain a certificate of training. The Kennel Club have had in place since 1992 the very successful ‘Good Citizen Dog Training Scheme’ which promotes responsible ownership and teaches owners how to train their dog to behave correctly in everyday situations. Both dog and owner are assessed in order to pass the four levels available. The scheme is very effective, can easily be provided by any dog training organisation and assessors are independent and Kennel Club approved.
My opinion is that if you are willing to take on the cost, commitment and responsibility required to own a large and potentially dangerous breed then you should be willing to attend the training and obtain the necessary certification required for your dog.
If you wish to own a gun, you need a license. If you choose to drive, you need to pass a test in order to obtain a license. The same should apply to ownership of a ‘dangerous’ dog.
I have a question about the logistics of this. How soon after the purchase of the dog should we require this certificate to be obtained? And what is the action for not obtaining it? Destruction of the dog? Do we let the dog into the home in the meantime?
Basically, I am wondering if we have a requirement of licenced breeders who keep hold of the dog until the licence is obtained, and only then do they let the dog go home with the owner.
I say all of this, but I also think that the XL bully is a step too far. I think that a general provision that any dog has to be weak enough that an average adult male is able to fend it off should it attack is reasonable for animals we keep as pets.
There is extensive information on the Kennel Club’s website on how the Good Citizen Dog Scheme is currently conducted and the guidance given to assessors and training organisations.
The first ‘foundation level’ is specifically aimed at puppies and teaches the owner the basics of ownership with high emphasis on their legal responsibilities. All family members are encouraged to attend the training.
Obviously it would be wise for experts in the canine field to discuss and agree which breeds require what level of training and by what age it should be obtained.
Based on my experience, at 9 months of age I would expect a ‘dangerous breed’ to have passed the foundation level. With most puppies being homed at 8 weeks old, there is plenty of time for both dog and owner to achieve this. 12 months for bronze, 18 months for silver and 2 years for gold would be in line with the physical and mental development of most dogs.
Should the owner fail to obtain the certification with no legitimate reason (e.g. dog has had major surgery with a long recovery time), the dog should be seized and the owner given an ownership ban. If the dog is aggressive, cannot be rehabilitated or rehomed then it should be euthanised.
I’m sorry I have to disagree with regards to owning an animal that is stronger than yourself. If this were the case then we would have to ban horses too. A horse kicking a young child can be just as deadly as an attack from an XL Bully. I would argue (maybe incorrectly!) that due to the cost and commitment required to own a horse, most people do not choose to do so without a minimum of riding lessons and the basic understanding of how to care for it properly and safely. Neither are they likely to choose an untrained horse.
I have owned Rottweilers in the past, more than capable of pulling me over and at the age of 10/11 years, my stepsons regularly received high placings when handling and showing our Rottweilers, all of course whilst under supervision. These breeds can be safely owned and can make excellent family pets but not without proper training, exercise and care.
There is extensive information on the Kennel Club’s website on how the Good Citizen Dog Scheme is currently conducted and the guidance given to assessors and training organisations.
The first ‘foundation level’ is specifically aimed at puppies and teaches the owner the basics of ownership with high emphasis on their legal responsibilities. All family members are encouraged to attend the training.
Obviously it would be wise for experts in the canine field to discuss and agree which breeds require what level of training and by what age it should be obtained.
The Issue I have with this is that we are talking about a legal requirement. We can talk about what currently is, and what the best practice around that is, but it doesn’t matter when people will do the legal bare minimum and still try to get away with doing less. Should it be law that say “all persons over the age of 12 and who reside in the property are required to obtain training in a reasonable time frame.”? How would we handle edge cases where a couple owns a dangerous dog, does the training but later adopts a 14-year-old? Does this new child need to get the training otherwise we take the dog away?
Further questions would be how we handle cross breeds? And how we handle the training scheme, does the Kennel Club become the industry regulator for potentially dangerous dogs? It would be unusual for a licencing scheme in a non-professional context to be run by a non-governmental body without oversight.
I’m sorry I have to disagree with regards to owning an animal that is stronger than yourself. If this were the case then we would have to ban horses too. A horse kicking a young child can be just as deadly as an attack from an XL Bully.
Stronger than oneself is slightly different to stronger than the average man, but that isn’t really the point here. We would not undo the ban on exotic pets, I don’t think that anyone seriously thinks that we need more people owning lions in this country. The reason being that a fully grown, even entirely tame lion is still a predator, and if it decides to attack, you have little hope of fighting it off. This is the difference here. A Horse or a Cow tend to be quite docile, and as prey animals, won’t keep attacking after the initial assault. A dog is different. A dog can decide to attack you and it will keep going until it is forced to stop or you are dead. Dogs also go out into the public more, as people walk them and this puts others at risk from your own poor behaviour.
Normally, I would be somewhat liaise fair when it comes to this, and say that if your dog hurts someone, you should be punished but we shouldn’t punish all people for the poor behaviour of a few. However, when the risk is a serious risk to life of innocent bystanders, I have to take the stance that there are some dogs which are too dangerous.
I think perhaps I should begin by clearing up some miscommunications. I have re-read everything I have written so far and at no point can I see where I have suggested that entire families would need to undergo training. I pointed out that families would be ‘encouraged’ to attend foundation or puppy training classes, just as they are in standard dog training establishments today.
At no point did I suggest that the Kennel Club should solely be an industry regulator either, I have simply highlighted their Good Citizen Dog Scheme as I believe it is an excellent way of educating both owner and dog and is currently the best alternative to breed specific legislation.
I did point out that it would be wise for a group of canine professionals to discuss and agree on the specific regulations. The law would then purely contain the conditions required to pass examination and obtain a license, just as is the case with driving licensing.
In terms of who owns the dog, the current law is clear and the legal owner/s are fully responsible for the actions of their dog, even if the victim of an attack is a family member. The legal owner/s would therefore be ultimately responsible and liable for obtaining the license.
At the age of 9 months, an approved assessor, canine professional or veterinarian would easily be able to determine whether the dog is likely to develop into a banned or potentially dangerous type in size and stature and the owner would therefore be required to complete the next level of certification. Crossbreeds would be considered and assessed using the same guidelines that are currently being used for breed specific legislation.
The gold level of the Good Citizen Dog Scheme is aimed at a competitive standard of training so would not be needed for the pet owner.
With regards to outright banning something that you consider to be extremely dangerous, I think it is important to bring things a little more into perspective. A quick Google search tells me that the UK average of annual fatalities caused by dog attacks is 3.29, an annual average of 3 people are killed by horses and the same number for cows.
By comparison, in 2023, 1,624 people were killed in road traffic accidents. Many of these people would also have been innocent bystanders and innocent children. As soon as there is a fatal dog attack, the media pounce on it and cover it for days at a time. The same does not happen in traffic ‘accidents’ and how many are actually ‘accidents’ and how many are caused by careless driving, speeding, talking on a mobile phone? Yet none of that is given anywhere near the attention that the XL Bully receives. For each XL Bully that attacks, there are thousands who are responsibly owned and trained and therefore do not and will not pose a threat to the public.
I would imagine should people be subjected to regular TV footage of the moment of impact and aftermath of every R.T.A., it would cause just as much public horror.
Please don’t hate me, but I really don’t see why anyone should be able to own a dog that could potentially kill a human. Dogs are unpredictable and any agressive breed scarily so. Even responsible dog owners can get a rogue dog. It’s just too dangerous.
I apologise if you feel like I have mischaracterised your position on the matter. Whilst a throwaway remark about the expectation that families do this training, I actually thought it was a good idea for it to be mandatory.
The thing that I feel you are missing in this discussion, is that right now, the people who do this training are engaged, interested, and willing to learn. The moment that you make it a requirement, you will have people who don’t care about learning or understanding, and who will do the bare minimum that they need to, to pass the course and then promptly forget all of the training and give the dog to their 7-year-old to look after. I think that you are coming at this from the perspective of someone who believes that all dog owners love their dogs and want to be responsible, caring owners, and that sadly just isn’t true.
I am glad we agree on this point.
So, I have two issues with this. Firstly, the question mark over the training being required until 9 months old. This could come as a hidden extra expense. Secondly, I am actually worried about enforcement. Are we going to track all dogs in the UK, at 9-months-old have a vet screening to determine the dangerous dog training to be had, and keep all of these on some database? If the police see you with a potentially dangerous dog, do they need to scan its chip, check for a training certificate and if it doesn’t have one take it to a vet to decide if the dog is illegal? And if we are expanding the number of potentially dangerous breeds, does this not just become even more work than the current Act?
Firstly, it is worth recalling that this is with the current regulations in place. That is to say, your statistic is properly understood as “under the regulations imposed by the DDA 1991, in the UK only 3.29 deaths per year result from dog attack.”
This is also a misleading statistic, as the number has actually sharply increased in the past years. The ONS reports that it was 16 in 2023, and I have seen the number 10 for last year (but cannot source it). This is also only deaths, it has nothing to do with non-fatal attacks. The BBC reported 30,000 dog attacks in 2023.
I would also put it to you, by your logic, we should let people have pet lions again. I imagine there will only be 1 fatality a year, given that it would be so expensive to keep them and even get them, that is nothing compared to the freedom of being allowed to have a lion as a pet.
At the end of the day, my answer is thus. “Yes, driving is dangerous, but as a society, we have determined that the relative risks involved in driving are worth it for the benefit we get in convenience. Conversely, no one needs a Bully XL, or a Japanese tosa. These dogs are bred to fight and be powerful. Selective breeding has heightened their aggression and prowess, and there are plenty of other, much safer dogs that people can buy for companionship or for security. Thus, there is not specific benefit in unbanning these breeds.”
