News No Review Of Dangerous Dog Breeds Law



No review of ‘dangerous’ dog breeds law
30th January 2019

By Karen Pickwick

The RSPCA is disappointed with the Government’s announcement that it will NOT commit to reviewing the current legislation that brands four types of dogs as dangerous.

The Government responded this week to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s announcement, released in October after a public inquiry based on evidence provided by the RSPCA and other animal welfare organisations that showed no robust scientific evidence that Breed Specific Legislation works.

The RSPCA has been calling for a parliamentary inquiry into the effectiveness of BSL in protecting public safety and dog welfare since August 2016. The charity’s #EndBSL campaign called on the UK Government to review Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 which, under BSL, prohibits the ownership of four types of dogs: the pitbull terrier, fila Brasiliero, dogo Argentino and Japanese tosa.

Dr Samantha Gaines, RSPCA dog welfare expert and lead author of the ‘Breed Specific Legislation: A Dog’s Dinner’ report, said: “We are extremely disappointed that the Government is still suggesting that prohibited types of dogs are more dangerous than other types of dogs and that they are involved in a disproportionately high number of attacks on people, including fatalities. The RSPCA, in its evidence to EFRA, made it very clear that in the absence of robust data around the dog population such claims cannot be made and it is misleading to do so.


“We are also hugely disappointed that, despite EFRA recommending changes which would mean that friendly and rehomeable banned types of dogs could avoid being put to sleep, the Government is unwilling to do so. For the past 27 years, thousands of dogs have paid the ultimate price as a result of this draconian and unjust legislation which penalises dogs simply for the way they look. This has led to the unnecessary destruction of hundreds of friendly and well-behaved family pets and dogs that organisations like ourselves could rehome.

“We’re looking forward to the conclusions of the research project currently being undertaken by Middlesex University. Our own research has shown that there is a lack of scientific evidence to support BSL and positive evidence against it. We remain confident that the outcome of the research will be one which recommends breed neutral legislation and that Government will act on this.

“The Government urgently needs to act on this; public safety and the lives of thousands more innocent dogs in the future rely on it.”


In October, EFRA’s report called on the Government to remove the ban on rehoming these banned types to new owners as currently it results in the unnecessary euthanasia of good-tempered dogs that could have been safely rehomed. It also asks for an independent review into the factors affecting dog aggression, and a new Dog Control Act to facilitate early intervention in dog incidents, as well as better education for children and dog owners.

In response, the Government on Monday (January 28) said it would not at this time review or change the law to allow rehoming of Section 1 dogs.

The RSPCA welcomes DEFRA’s commitment to further research around dog control and the Government’s pledge to research dog legislation and practices outside of the UK. The charity is also pleased that the Government is keen to explore the collection of centralised data on dog bites, better childhood education around dog safety and that it agrees that seized dogs should not spend long periods in kennels.

The RSPCA remains strongly opposed to Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act and will continue to campaign for immediate repeal and replacement of the law.