The Blog

Why Do The Cowards Insist on Breed Specific Legislation?

It's 2012, a full 21 years since the introduction of the knee jerk legislation known as The Dangerous Dogs Act.

Widely derided, globally panned, the Act has singularly failed to do any of the things it set out to do, namely, reduce dog attacks or eradicate certain 'types' of dogs.

Any sane person realises that, even if it was possible to wipe out a 'type' of dog (it isn't possible by the way), as a plan of action it's a ridiculously flawed approach.

Further, the banning of breeds has lead to genuine misery for so many owners of well behaved, friendly dogs and has cost the tax payer millions to enforce.

So, given what we now know, I ask, would any government introduce the act today?

I'd like to think not. I'd like to think there would be enough opposition from the stakeholders who, in 1990, helped to get the DDA introduced in the first place and who now line up to deride it. I'd like to think the public outcry would be enough to prevent us being lumbered with a horrible law that doesn't achieve anything it sets out to achieve.

On that basis, I have to ask, once again, why is it still here?

Successive Governments have acknowledged the failings of the Act. Successive Governments have kept it in place.

Why do we still have it? I can only draw one conclusion, the political elite who have the power to make changes are, when it comes down to it, cowards who would rather wash their hands of the blood of innocent dogs who've been killed in the name of this awful legislation than stand up and do what needs to be done. Full reform. End breed specific legislation. Give us a law that actually works.

1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Team Pit-a-Full

    August 22, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    Q: Why would any government introduce the act today?

    A: That is an easy (batch) of various answers: The enactment / enforcement of BSL was/ will never be about dogs or public safety, rather:
    – (In the case of a city like Denver, CO) originally enacted as a cover-up to the city’s own negligence in enforcing a dangerous dog law [in which a little boy lost his life]… the continued enforcements of their ban is 100% about egotistical legislation: “We are a Home Rule City and no one is going to tell us our business.” A city like Denver has know legitimate statistical data supporting their ban, they have no credible testimony from any experts in the field of animal welfare, nor do they “represent our constituents” when it comes to popular opinion about the ban.
    – VOTES (two fold purpose) as long as a city “appears” to have public safety first and foremost on the agenda… mayors and city councils appear to be not asleep at the wheel when it comes to public safety, there fore raising their odds of re-election.
    Also… the vast [major] of dog fighting, abuse, neglect, backyard breeding, chaining/tethering, lack of proper care (training, socialization, spay/neutering, exercise, healthy diet, clean water, proper shelter, being included as part of one’s family, etc… aka the reasons why dogs turn bad) is occurring in ethnic neighborhoods. If a city was to enforce fair and effective pet laws… they would have to sweep these neighborhood, issue MANY citations for abuse and neglect, etc… thus alienating the ethnic neighborhood and ultimately losing that vote come next election. See how this works?

    On the other hand… every credible Veterinary Doctor, Professional Behaviorist and Trainer, Animal Control Officer and all major Animal Welfare orgs (ie HSUS, ASPCA, AKC, UKC, AVMA, AND NOW The American Bar Association) all denounce the use of BSL. More so…. The American Temperament Test Society CONTINUALLY reports year after year that the Pit Bull Breed(s) exceed 80-86% of all other known domestic breeds in multiple temperament testing (www.ATTS.org).

    These and numerous other FACTS have been presented to cities like Denver, CO… yet, no one at city hall is listening. It does not take one with a PHD in mathematics to conclude that something OTHER THAN public safety is going on in these cities.

    The real issue behind a city enacting/ continuing the enforcement of BSL is not the city at all… rather the lack of the animal welfare community to drop THEIR ego-driven agendas, drop the drama, drop the notoriety/ donation driven campaigns… and just come together to confront these cities.
    Oddly, it worked for the legalization of medical marijuana and the acceptance of same sex marriage. WHY NOT use this same approach to abolish BSL?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top