Halaman

    Social Items

Dangerous Dogs Act savaged

Dangerous Dogs Act savaged 
If you’re not normally remotely interested in the inner workings of government, you may not have noticed that there is both an Efra and a Defra. Efra is the select committee that examines the expenditure, administration, and policy of Defra (the government department for Environment,  Food and Rural Affairs).It was Efra that looked into puppy farming and recommended that Defra ban third-party sales.
Defra didn’t implement that, after some very unexpected secret charity lobbying. But, as you know, thanks to
Lucy’s Law, Efra’s recommendation did finally get adopted.
Efra spends considerable time collecting evidence and talking to experts before writing its reports.
The committee’s latest epic project was to look at the hugely flawed Dangerous Dogs Act.
This is a subject very close to the heart of Dogs Today.
For the last 28 years, we have campaigned hard to get this awful knee-jerk piece of legislation repealed.
Would Efra see what we all see? Back in the 1990s, when the DDA was even more vicious, our founder,
Lord Rothermere, was avidly reading the magazine’s coverage and getting more and more upset about the injustice to innocent dogs and their owners.
Being the proprietor of the massive Daily Mail, he obviously had special access to government officials. What he did with that power was really rather special. He confided in me later that he had invited the then Home Secretary around for dinner and then refused to let him leave until he had read our latest article on how the DDA was failing.
He actually stood over him and watched him read it.

HOSTAGE NEGOTIATIONS
Sadly, even holding a government minister hostage didn’t get the ghastly thing removed from the statute book – career politicians were terrified of repealing it, in case another child was bitten on their watch.
We seemed stuck with something illogical and unfair, that patently didn’t make anyone any safer.
Successive governments would tweak it, but it was still fundamentally flawed. You could not apologize for my language,
polish a turd.
Neil Parish is a mild-mannered Conservative MP. Not the rebel you’d really imagine would embarrass the government and show how the action brought in by his own party was literally a dog’s dinner.
Watching him chair the Select Committee inquiry via a live link was gripping. His bullshit monitor was quick to cut through the spin and he sometimes wore his heart on his sleeve while keeping his temper and his dignity.
Neil had obviously been deeply moved by his trip to Battersea to meet a very sweet-natured dog that, by law, had to be killed. The tape measure had decided the dog’s fate – it said the dog was dangerous despite it patently not being the case. Because the dog was a stray, it had to die.
Looking that one poor dog in the eye was enough to stir something in Neil; he was clearly a man on a mission. I awaited his report with considerable anticipation.
The government minister could not have been clearer that he wasn’t expecting to make a revision. The political line is always that the DDA is a hot potato; doing anything to it is probably a vote loser.
But, did the report hold back? Neil did that poor dog proud. Now, it’s over to Defra and we await news with great interest.
Should you feel like nudging them along, there’s a petition to sign, and writing to your MP would be a great idea. Make it clear that positive action on this is actually going to be a vote winner, too.
 
HERE IS THE COMMITTEE’S SUMMARY:
The UK is a nation of dog lovers. Whilst the vast majority of dogs pose no threat to the public, the concern is growing that the government’s current approach to dog control is failing to protect people adequately. In 1991, the Dangerous Dogs Act outlawed certain breeds/types of dog to protect the public from attacks, but since then the number of yearly fatalities has continued to rise.
Hospital admissions for dog attacks have increased by 81 percent since 2005. An unacceptably high number of victims suffer horrific life-changing injuries in these incidents. Even where no physical injury occurs, dog aggression can cause significant psychological distress. At the same time, too many harmless dogs are being destroyed
every year because they are banned and cannot be rehomed, even if they are well tempered and
pose no risk to the public.
The government has maintained that the breed ban is essential to public safety, arguing that these prohibited dogs pose an inherent risk. Our inquiry found insufficient evidence to substantiate this claim.
We agree with the government that it would be irresponsible to amend the breed ban immediately without adequate safeguards. That does not mean that the government should continue to sit on its hands.
Changing the law on breed-specific legislation is desirable, achievable,
and would better protect the public.
The government’s lack of action on this front shows a disregard for dog welfare.
The current approach to dog control is plagued with deep structural problems. Improvements to public safety that simultaneously safeguard animal welfare can only be achieved through an open-minded engagement with
new strategies. This will require time, commitment and political courage. To this end, we call on the
government to:
Immediately remove the prohibition on transferring a banned dog if it has been behaviourally assessed by experts
and found to be safe. This would prevent the needless destruction of friendly animals that could be
safely rehomed
 ■ Commission an independent evidence review to establish whether the banned breeds/types present an inherently greater risk than any legal breed or crossbreed
 ■ Commission a comprehensive review of existing dog control legislation and policy, with a view to developing an alternative model that focuses on prevention through education, early intervention, and consistently
robust sanctions for offenders
 ■ Ensure all future strategies are developed with a full and transparent commitment to
evidence-based policy-making.
If the independent evidence review concludes there is insufficient evidence to support the government’s position on
breed-specific legislation, this aspect of the law should be revised
 ■ Introduce mandatory training and education courses for minor dog offenses, similar to speed awareness courses for drivers
 ■ Support wider dog awareness training for schoolchildren, and run a targeted awareness campaign for dog owners and the general public on safe human-dog interaction
 ■ Increase support for local authorities and police forces to ensure they have the capacity to fulfill their duties
 ■ Engage with international partners to learn lessons and best practice from abroad 

Dangerous Dogs Act savaged

Dangerous Dogs Act savaged

Dangerous Dogs Act savaged 
If you’re not normally remotely interested in the inner workings of government, you may not have noticed that there is both an Efra and a Defra. Efra is the select committee that examines the expenditure, administration, and policy of Defra (the government department for Environment,  Food and Rural Affairs).It was Efra that looked into puppy farming and recommended that Defra ban third-party sales.
Defra didn’t implement that, after some very unexpected secret charity lobbying. But, as you know, thanks to
Lucy’s Law, Efra’s recommendation did finally get adopted.
Efra spends considerable time collecting evidence and talking to experts before writing its reports.
The committee’s latest epic project was to look at the hugely flawed Dangerous Dogs Act.
This is a subject very close to the heart of Dogs Today.
For the last 28 years, we have campaigned hard to get this awful knee-jerk piece of legislation repealed.
Would Efra see what we all see? Back in the 1990s, when the DDA was even more vicious, our founder,
Lord Rothermere, was avidly reading the magazine’s coverage and getting more and more upset about the injustice to innocent dogs and their owners.
Being the proprietor of the massive Daily Mail, he obviously had special access to government officials. What he did with that power was really rather special. He confided in me later that he had invited the then Home Secretary around for dinner and then refused to let him leave until he had read our latest article on how the DDA was failing.
He actually stood over him and watched him read it.

HOSTAGE NEGOTIATIONS
Sadly, even holding a government minister hostage didn’t get the ghastly thing removed from the statute book – career politicians were terrified of repealing it, in case another child was bitten on their watch.
We seemed stuck with something illogical and unfair, that patently didn’t make anyone any safer.
Successive governments would tweak it, but it was still fundamentally flawed. You could not apologize for my language,
polish a turd.
Neil Parish is a mild-mannered Conservative MP. Not the rebel you’d really imagine would embarrass the government and show how the action brought in by his own party was literally a dog’s dinner.
Watching him chair the Select Committee inquiry via a live link was gripping. His bullshit monitor was quick to cut through the spin and he sometimes wore his heart on his sleeve while keeping his temper and his dignity.
Neil had obviously been deeply moved by his trip to Battersea to meet a very sweet-natured dog that, by law, had to be killed. The tape measure had decided the dog’s fate – it said the dog was dangerous despite it patently not being the case. Because the dog was a stray, it had to die.
Looking that one poor dog in the eye was enough to stir something in Neil; he was clearly a man on a mission. I awaited his report with considerable anticipation.
The government minister could not have been clearer that he wasn’t expecting to make a revision. The political line is always that the DDA is a hot potato; doing anything to it is probably a vote loser.
But, did the report hold back? Neil did that poor dog proud. Now, it’s over to Defra and we await news with great interest.
Should you feel like nudging them along, there’s a petition to sign, and writing to your MP would be a great idea. Make it clear that positive action on this is actually going to be a vote winner, too.
 
HERE IS THE COMMITTEE’S SUMMARY:
The UK is a nation of dog lovers. Whilst the vast majority of dogs pose no threat to the public, the concern is growing that the government’s current approach to dog control is failing to protect people adequately. In 1991, the Dangerous Dogs Act outlawed certain breeds/types of dog to protect the public from attacks, but since then the number of yearly fatalities has continued to rise.
Hospital admissions for dog attacks have increased by 81 percent since 2005. An unacceptably high number of victims suffer horrific life-changing injuries in these incidents. Even where no physical injury occurs, dog aggression can cause significant psychological distress. At the same time, too many harmless dogs are being destroyed
every year because they are banned and cannot be rehomed, even if they are well tempered and
pose no risk to the public.
The government has maintained that the breed ban is essential to public safety, arguing that these prohibited dogs pose an inherent risk. Our inquiry found insufficient evidence to substantiate this claim.
We agree with the government that it would be irresponsible to amend the breed ban immediately without adequate safeguards. That does not mean that the government should continue to sit on its hands.
Changing the law on breed-specific legislation is desirable, achievable,
and would better protect the public.
The government’s lack of action on this front shows a disregard for dog welfare.
The current approach to dog control is plagued with deep structural problems. Improvements to public safety that simultaneously safeguard animal welfare can only be achieved through an open-minded engagement with
new strategies. This will require time, commitment and political courage. To this end, we call on the
government to:
Immediately remove the prohibition on transferring a banned dog if it has been behaviourally assessed by experts
and found to be safe. This would prevent the needless destruction of friendly animals that could be
safely rehomed
 ■ Commission an independent evidence review to establish whether the banned breeds/types present an inherently greater risk than any legal breed or crossbreed
 ■ Commission a comprehensive review of existing dog control legislation and policy, with a view to developing an alternative model that focuses on prevention through education, early intervention, and consistently
robust sanctions for offenders
 ■ Ensure all future strategies are developed with a full and transparent commitment to
evidence-based policy-making.
If the independent evidence review concludes there is insufficient evidence to support the government’s position on
breed-specific legislation, this aspect of the law should be revised
 ■ Introduce mandatory training and education courses for minor dog offenses, similar to speed awareness courses for drivers
 ■ Support wider dog awareness training for schoolchildren, and run a targeted awareness campaign for dog owners and the general public on safe human-dog interaction
 ■ Increase support for local authorities and police forces to ensure they have the capacity to fulfill their duties
 ■ Engage with international partners to learn lessons and best practice from abroad 
Dangerous Dogs Act savaged

No comments

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)