RSPCA CALLS FOR BAN ON FOUR DOG BREEDS TO BE LIFTED IN ‘URGENT’ UK LAW CHANGE

The RSPCA and other leading animal organisations have renewed calls to lift the ban on so-called “dangerous” dog breeds on the anniversary of the Dangerous Dogs Act.

The Act, which was first introduced on August 12, 1991, states that there are currently four breeds banned in the UK: the Pit Bull Terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the Filo Brasileiro. This means that it is against the law to own, sell, breed from, give away or abandon these dogs.

However, a Dog Control Coalition, consisting of the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club, the British Veterinary Association and others, wants to see the law overhauled in a bid to address the rising numbers of dog attacks and save “innocent” dogs from being put down. NHS data suggests that there were a provisional 9,366 dog bites recorded in 2022/23 – an increase on the 8,819 recorded the previous year.

The Dangerous Dogs Act states that a dog will be ruled to be a banned breed depending on what it looks like, for example a dog matching the characteristics of a Pit Bull Terrier may be judged to be a banned breed. Banned dogs can be seized even if they are not acting dangerously or there have been no complaints about them, and it is the owner’s responsibility to prove that their dog is not a banned type.

However, the RSPCA and others have criticised the law, writing: “We believe focussing on the type of dog, rather than their individual actions, is a flawed and failing approach. We’re very concerned to see more discussions around adding another type of dog to the banned list.”

In recent months there have been growing calls to add the XL Bully to the banned breeds list, after the breed was responsible for seven deaths within 12 months – although ministers said there were currently “no plans” to do so. “The law needs to be urgently reviewed,” the RSPCA agreed. “But adding more dogs to Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act will only see history repeating itself.”

The charity added: “There’s no robust research to demonstrate that these breeds or types are any more aggressive than other dogs. Aggressive behaviour can be influenced by factors such as how they’re bred, reared and experiences throughout their life. Breed isn’t a good way to predict risk of aggression.

“Dog aggression is highly complex, and taking a breed-focused approach is fundamentally flawed.” Banned breeds are not allowed to be rehomed under the Dangerous Dogs Act, and because of this the RSPCA said it has had to euthanise more than 370 dogs since 2016.

Evidence submitted to Parliament by the Dog Control Coalition earlier this year said: “The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has compromised the welfare of many dogs through the application of Breed Specific Legislation. This includes the extended periods of time dogs can spend in kennels during the court process, the conditions required for the legal keepership of exempted dogs and the number of prohibited dogs that are euthanised because the law prevents them from being rehomed.”

The coalition also said that the Dangerous Dogs Act had placed “undue emphasis” on the four banned breeds, creating an “illusion” of public protection, but argued that the recent rise in dog attacks demonstrates that the Act is “not protecting the public as intended”. According to the RSPCA, dog bites have increased 154% in the past 20 years, with 48 deaths from dog-related incidents between 1989 and 2017 – of the 62 dogs involved in these incidents, 53 were breeds not on the banned list.

In its campaign to get the law changed, the Dog Control Coalition said there is an “urgent need” to improve the welfare of dogs affected by the Act, suggesting that rehoming conditions for banned breeds should be relaxed. The coalition also said that police should have to prove on the criminal standard – “beyond reasonable doubt” – that a dog is a banned breed.

Speaking on behalf of the Coalition, RSPCA dog welfare expert Dr Samantha Gaines said: “Breed specific legislation has been in force now for 32 years, and is still failing. We have been devastated by some recent dog bite incidents, which have been tragic events and highlight the need for urgent action and a change in approach.

“But simply adding another dog breed type to the already flawed approach of banning certain types of dog because of how they look clearly isn’t the answer. Any such move will just force charities to put to sleep more innocent dogs, and offer another layer to the false sense of security to the public that hasn’t worked for 32 years – and won’t suddenly start working now.”

In response to a petition earlier this year calling for the Dangerous Dogs Act to be repealed, which gained over 100,000 signatures, the Government said: “We currently have no plans to repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. We are considering improvements to the existing legal framework through the Responsible Dog Ownership working group.”

The response continued: “We recognise that some people are opposed to the prohibitions placed on the four types of dog under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. However, the Government must balance the views of those who want to repeal or amend breed specific legislation with our responsibility to ensure that the public is properly protected from dog attacks.

“Simply repealing the breed specific provisions contained in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 with no other changes may increase the risks to public safety, which the Government is unwilling to do. Any changes to current legislation would require careful consideration to ensure that public safety remains at the heart of the regime.”