The RSPCA is urging for the repeal of the dangerous dog ban. MPs are now under pressure to change the law after research indicated that over two thirds of fatal dog attacks since 1991 were by breeds that weren’t on the dangerous dog list.
Do We Need a Dangerous Dog Ban?
During 2017, a record 7,719 people were admitted to hospital as a result of dog attacks. This was almost double the amount of attacks that occurred back in 2005. The RSPCA condemned the dangerous dog ban, stating that it was failing to protect the public.
Under the Dangerous Dogs Act, four breeds of “fighting dogs” were banned when the law came into force in 1992. The breeds included were Pit-bull Terriers, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro.
Legal Breeds Are Responsible for Many Attacks
In fact, of the 30 fatal dog attacks recorded from 1991 to 2016, seven involved Pit-bull Terriers or Pit-bull Terrier crosses. None of the other banned breeds were responsible for any of the attacks.
Staffies and Staffie crosses were responsible for eight attacks and American Bulldogs were implicated in six. German Shepherds and Rottweilers were involved in four attacks each. A Jack Russel, A Great Dane, a Lakeland Terrier and an Alaskan Malamute were also culprits.
What Next?
Currently, there is no sound evidence to prove that the banned dog breeds are more aggressive or pose more of a risk to public safety than any other legal dog breed. The owner’s behaviour plays a significant role in the development of a dog. How the dog is bred, reared and what they experience in their lifetime are all factors that contribute towards their behaviour. Essentially, whether or not a dog will become aggressive is not entirely dependent on the breed. MPs have now held an inquiry into how effective the law is.
