Say No To Dog Amnesty - No To A Canine Witch-Hunt! What is Proposed? It is believed that there are several dog amnesties planned, such as the one already in operation in the North West of England and one in Northern Ireland. The idea behind the concept is that dog owners, who believe that their dog may be covered by Section One of the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA), the part which prohibits specific dogs, deliver their dog to a pre-arranged collection point and sign the dog over, it is then destroyed and the owner not prosecuted. The Amnesties are set for a specific length of time e.g., one month. Exactly whether or not the dogs handed over will be assessed according to the ridiculous guidelines already laid down, what form that assessment would take, who would execute it etc, is not currently known. Regardless of the wording, the end result is the same; dogs get handed over and put to death. Will amnesties remove dangerous dogs from our streets? Protecting the public is without doubt the number one priority. Amnesties are dangerous because they are diverting attention away from the real issues, e.g., how to prevent irresponsible people from breeding, owning and misusing dogs, placing the public at greater risk because it is vote worthy to be seen to take immediate action rather than addressing the underlying causes. When there is pressure on to act and to be seen to do something, an Amnesty can naively seem like a good idea, but it will only provide a false sense of security; 'the streets are now safe as all the dangerous dogs have been rounded up,' but there will be no improvement in the situation one year from now. It is time to get proactive and not just reactive. Because a cross breed dog can unintentionally fall into the wide reaching obscure area of ‘type’ does not make it any more a danger to the public than any other type of dog. A dog’s character is predominantly a result of its socialisation, training, upbringing and environment. This is a proven scientific fact. Are those people who have dogs for all the wrong reasons and already living outside of the law really expected to suddenly take note and hand their dogs in? Even if some do, what is to stop then from owning another dog, another breed? Nothing! Round and round in circles we go. Why Say No to a dog Amnesty? An Amnesty can result in hundreds, possibly thousands, of dogs being killed based on their physical appearance alone, we could end up with a mass slaughter. It sets a dangerous precedent; when another breed or type of dog hits the headlines will an amnesty be expected for them too? Section One of the DDA refers to a ‘type of dog known as a pit bull terrier’, dogs are persecuted based foremost on their physical appearance, rather than behaviour. The real issue of owner accountability and responsibility is not even addressed as the Amnesty throws the full weight of the law against the type of dog itself. The Act was amended in 1997 giving the Courts, based on the evidence before it, the power to order a dog be registered rather than destroyed. The Amnesty will not allow owners the option of presenting their case to a court or the ability to voluntarily register a dog as was the case when the Act was first introduced. Death is the only option and this is not in accordance with the provisions specified by the DDA Amendment, an Act of law which has been debated in and approved by Parliament. The root of the problem is being overlooked; an amnesty kills a dog but does not stop or prevent an irresponsible owner from breeding or owning another dog, causing problems all over again. What of family pets and people who are misinformed, frightened, harassed? An amnesty works during a climate of hysteria and anti-dog feeling, creating panic. How will destroying pet dogs based on appearance actually increase public safety? An amnesty sends out the message that dogs are disposable, that you can easily get rid of one without question or any education as to where mistakes have been made and simply replace with another at a later date. Genuine people who may need some assistance with their dog’s behaviour are discouraged from seeking advice and help, others who may need veterinary assistance can be too frightened to ask for it, in case their dog is targeted due to its appearance. There are huge welfare implications involved; Where and how will dogs be imprisoned awaiting their fate? How long will they be held in alien environments extremely distressing to them? Will they have the right to express normal behaviour as laid down by the Animal Welfare Act? What provisions will be made for frightened dogs, older dogs, sick ones who need medication, special care, pregnant and nursing bitches? Will owners be able to stay with their pets whilst they are killed, to provide a familiar and comforting face during their last moments? What of puppies handed over, will they be slaughtered too, even though their ‘type’ cannot be known until they are fully developed or are they to endure months of confinement? What of dogs of the type abused by their owners? Our attitude is to repeatedly shift all the blame to the dog, round it up and kill it we demand. Dogs who have been abused by their owners should be shown compassion, the same as any dog who has been subjected to maltreatment. Does a dog who has been used for fighting not feel pain, does he not hurt, does he not bleed the same as any other? These dogs do not get to choose who owns them, theirs is a life of misery and sorrow but their tails still wag as they look for a friendly face. Society is all too quick to condemn the dog when it is the other end of the leash we should be looking at, perhaps looking at what these dogs have had to endure is just too disturbing as it reminds us exactly what horrific acts we humans are capable of. What do we do then? The Kennel Club, Dogs Trust and many individuals, parents, groups and rescues are opposed to an Amnesty. There are alternatives, including the possibility of re-opening the Index of Exempted Dogs so that dogs can be registered and thus brought within in the law if necessary. We need to stop Amnesties and begin discussion on alternatives. The Dog Legislation Advisory Group has drafted new legislation to address the issue of dangerous owners, this needs to be debated as a priority within parliament. What’s not needed is spontaneous reaction which once again targets specific types of dogs, changes nothing and fails our children as has happened within the UK and at international level. The Police, the Dog Wardens, the Vets, no one wants to be killing innocent dogs, the Amnesty is forcing dog and innocent owner into a corner, spreading panic, misinformation and mistrust into the community.
Some very interesting points, We need to get to the cause of the problem,you can't just blame the dog nor for that matter an entire breed. We need better regulations over breeding selling and advertising dogs. We need to be supporting school based education,(future owners of dogs)i have already emailed our local schools with the Kennel Clubs safe and sound scheme aimed at schools and children and had a positive reply. We need proper legislation in place,which will hold,owners of all dogs,regardless of breed,accountable for their and their dogs actions.
Much as I applaud most of what is being done.. petitions etc.. and much as I support it.... I can't help but wonder if it would be more helpful to actually take another line alongside those actions.... one petition is pretty much like another, and if overdone it'll turn people off... "oh another one" sort of thing... It's already been said that a lot of the attitudes etc have been caused or at least added to by the media hyping up stories etc so why not fight back in another way... by promoting the good of those breeds.... For every picture of a mad snarling dog that they print... lets show a nice picture.... are ya with me so far? I bet we could find far more nice pics than they can nasty... do what they do... shove em in the publics face and let them see for themselves. As frustrating as these laws are, if we react by becoming aggressive or by attacking their laws, regardless to how unfair we think they are, then to some it might just look as though they are right. But by showing off our dogs, and highlighting the good that they do, then perhaps we might win some support even from outside the dog owning population. I also feel that although their reactions are kneejerk, to say the least, that these people are not the enemy. They are simply trying to keep children etc safe. The real enemy is the irresponsible owner who causes all the hassle in the first place.
I have to say thats a brilliant bit off advice and i can definately see that at the very least helping
As a Bull Breed owner i have even before the tragic events of last month had abuse hurled and aimed at both myself and our dogs.I have just ignored it and carried on,hopefully setting a good example of my breed. I have printed off leaflets about BSL/DDA and took them into our local vets,who currently have one up on the wall and the rest to hand out,the same with our local pet shop. I have done letter after letter to MP's etc..Still waiting a response, I have emailed our local schools and asked them to if they can impliment the kennel clubs safe and sound scheme,which i am pleased to say is been looked into and they have also put the link to the scheme into a recent news letter for all parents. I am getting off my butt and doing something,but still feel i am not doing enough...
Thats exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about, getting pro active instaid of being anti... even though we are against most of the stuff thats going on.. or at least the way it's being done. If we are seen to be anti this and anti that it then looks like we are sticking up for dangerous dogs and those who use them (in other peoples eyes). But if we instead go down the positive route which you describe then people may begin to see a different picture.
I am sure we all agree that the DDA is grossly unfair, we are not in favour of amnesties and that people should be made aware of the facts but I think we should beware of causing unnecessary fear or unintentionally misleading people Regarding the reason behind the recent dog amnesty which took place on Mersey side . We may all think the amnesty was a terrible idea but I think we should try to see the reason behind it. My understanding is that the DDA covers any dog which is out of control, but it only applies if 'the animal is in a public place' or somewhere it is not allowed to be. The tragic events involving the little girl Ellie took place in a private home and because of this it became apparent that it could be a case where the DDA did not apply. (Maybe this is why there has been no prosecution of anyone under the DDA). No doubt after the tragic events involving the little girl the police had to be seen to take some kind of action to pacify a great many members of the public who do not share our love of dogs. I guess the police thought (wrongly we may say) that an amnesty might give people the opportunity to report/hand over dogs that were clearly dangerous but were never seen in public places so avoided being subject to the DDA. I understood the dog amnesty that took place in Mersyside was a week long not a month and lasted from the 7th of February until the 14th of February. The one held in Ireland lasted for a month. Will there be any more amnesty's we ask , I can find no mention of any being planned at the moment and would guess the results of the last ones would be reviewed before any decision is taken . Personally I would think it unlikely because they must be costly in terms of money and manpower. For those who live on Mersyside and have concerns about further amnesties in that area there is a chat facility on the Merseyside Police website where you can ask questions of a senior officer. The next chat is due to take place on at 10.00am on Tuesday 6 March, I think if they get a lot of sensible but polite questions it may help the cause of those opposed to the DDA . Judging from he number of dogs that have been handed in to rescues it looks as though some people have been lead to believe that wherever they are in the country if they have a dog that looks remotely like any on the dogs on the DDA list the police will come to take it away when I am sure this is not the case. There must be thousands of dogs that look a bit like the dogs on the DDA list and there is no way the police could take all of them. Even during the amnesty the police were only seeking certain dogs . As Chief Superintendent Peter Brinkley said in the webchat - Tuesday 6 February ''We will respond to all calls or information on the presence of illegal dogs. Where our trained officers are satisfied that the dogs are not of the illegal type they will not be seized. We have already dealt with a number of incidents where this has been the case. '' I have seen reports of KC registered dogs being seized though no numbers have been quoted. Can I draw peoples attention to an answer to a question given by Chief Superintendent Andy Cooke in the webchat of 10 January 2007 Question .. If a pedigree and Kennel Club registered Staffordshire Bull Terrier was reported as being of a Pit Bull type, and not for actually being of any threat, could that dog be seized, and would the fact that it was a registered Stafford be any protection against the dog being held and the owner charged Reply from Chief Superintendent Andy Cooke .. The amnesty will be targeting specific types of dog. I am sure that if it is a genuinely registered Staffordshire this would undoubtedly be a protection against any proceedings or seizure. Anyone who is genuinely worried about their breed of dog can contact a number of agencies for general advice. Some examples are The Kennel Club on 020 7518 1020 or the RSPCA on 0870 333 5999. The police have a job to do and are responsible to the whole community not just to dog owners. It is not in their interest to alienate law abiding dog owners and although innocent dogs have no doubt been caught up in this terrible situation I am sure that was not the intention. There is no point in being uncooperative and showing animosity to the police, that will not help the cause of those opposed to the DDA and BSL and will make the situation worse, surely we need to try to work with them if we can... Exactly Ian ;-) sometimes people become so focused on one aspect of a thing they fail to see the whole picture.
Question .. If a pedigree and Kennel Club registered Staffordshire Bull Terrier was reported as being of a Pit Bull type, and not for actually being of any threat, could that dog be seized, and would the fact that it was a registered Stafford be any protection against the dog being held and the owner charged Reply from Chief Superintendent Andy Cooke .. The amnesty will be targeting specific types of dog. I am sure that if it is a genuinely registered Staffordshire this would undoubtedly be a protection against any proceedings or seizure What a load of rubbish that was,i know along with others that Staffords,KC Reg ones at that were taken,they were seized.One was even taken before the amnesty began and it took the owner 3 weeks to get the dog back....disgraceful. I agree amnesties don't work they never have,they never will.
Nissanmad assuming the dogs involved were under control, if you think it is 'a load of rubbish' I suggest you and the people involved contact the Merseyside Police and the officer involved and draw his attention to the statment he made on the 10 January 2007, it is there for all to see on the website.
I know what's on their website i also know they have mislead the public,they were not given the facts properly,saying they are giving a reciept for the dog can you sign it please,when infact it was a death warrent,how much more underhanded can you get? What the Police Say and Do are two completely different things. The dogs involved i assume were under control as they were on their own property and not in a public place.
Nissanmad as you are clearly in possession of many facts, I suggest you take it up with the police as is your right. Ps please let us know the outcome..
Thats SO true, unfortunately:-( Owners have signed over their dogs thinking they had rights, when in fact they have none once the dog has been signed over, but Police didnt make this clear, its been a case of If the owner doesnt ask, the Police dont tell them. This subject was brought up many times on the live-chat sessions, and was always skirted around or ,worse, the answer was verging on an outright lie. As for the answer given that if a dog was a KC reg. staffy, it would be safe, thats simply not true, as anyone closely following the bsl/amnesty/deed not breed situation would know. Merseyside Police have messed up, and they know it. In their enthusiasim to be seen to be doing something, theyve been heavy-handed and targeted the wrong owners and the wrong dogs. I do think they are now trying to do a bit of "damage limitation", buts its too late for all the family pets that have been killed. All the Police and the Echo have done is make things worse for bullbreeds and their owners, and even worse for all the bullbreeds, Staffys especially, that are in Pounds and Rescues. Who will offer a home to these dogs now? How many of these dogs will be PTS as "unhomeable"? Its not just the dogs that have dies in the amnesty, many more have died as a direct result of it. I just hope other towns and Police forces are learning a lesson and not acting in such a rash and inhumane way, because Merseyside Police are a prime example on how not to do it.
nissanmad, is that right about the receipt? my friend has friends in liverpool and one of them has asked her that if a dog gets taken should she ask for a receipt (scared that police will say 'dog, what dog?' later). my gut instinct was to say no in case you have to sign it but can I quote you to her? thanks
Very true and just like the DDA and the recent amnesties, it's just a kneejerk reaction to media reporting.
