News Stories

Each week, more than 100 people are admitted to hospital after dog attacks. There has also been a reported rise in levels of dog fighting and illegal ownership, particularly by gangs who are using dangerous dogs as status symbols. The government wants to amend the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, which is the most prominent of the various laws that cover dog ownership in the UK.

The act bans the breeding and sale or exchange of four breeds of dog - pit bull terriers, Japanese Tosas, the Dogo Argentinos, and the Fila Brasileiros. Cross-breeds and any other dogs "appearing... to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose" are also banned. Under the act, a dog classed as being "dangerously out of control in a public place" can be destroyed. The owner can be fined and imprisoned for up to six months.

The act states that anyone who owns a "type of dog known as a pit bull terrier" must have it neutered and keep it muzzled and on a lead in public. The wording has led to many discussions in courts about what exact type a particular dog is. Although the act covers any dog which is out of control, it only applies if the animal is in a public place. The RSPCA says the act is like using "a sledgehammer to crack a nut" and believes it is wrong to criminalise individual breeds of dog.

The government's consultation suggests extending the 1991 legislation to cover private property. Ministers argue this will also protect postal workers, telecoms engineers and other people whose work takes them on to private land. Another proposal is to introduce compulsory third-party insurance for dog owners to ensure attack victims are compensated. "Britain is a nation of animal lovers," said Home Secretary Alan Johnson, "but people have a fundamental right to feel safe on the streets and in their homes."

A public outcry to third party insurance this month has led to the government abandoning this proposal. Arguably, compulsory insurance would penalise the vast majority of responsible owners and would be ineffective because those people keeping dangerous dogs would be unlikely to comply with the regulations.

Most recently, a survey for the RSPCA suggests that about two-thirds of UK dog owners would support the reintroduction of a dog licence, which was abolished in 1987. Maybe this would be the better option to explore in order to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs? The debate continues...