Tag Archives: nationwide

New Zealand: Presa Canario added to import ban

The New Zealand parliament has recently added the Perro de Presa Canario to Schedule 4.

New Zealand’s Dog Control Act 1996 prohibits the import of any dog believed to be of a breed listed in Schedule 4. Such dogs already in New Zealand are also classified as “menacing.” Menacing dogs must be leashed and muzzled in public; they may also be required to be neutered.

The breeds and types of dogs that are listed on Schedule 4 are now currently as follows: American Pit Bull Terrier (type), Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, Brazilian Fila, and Presa Canario.

The committee report on Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010 may be read here: http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/2B34A146-823B-47C2-B582-3C38B8D291A4/164778/DBSCH_SCR_4928_DogControlPerrodePresaCanarioOrder2.pdf

 

UK: Bill to repeal breed-specific law moves forward

In the UK, the Dangerous Dog Act of 1991 bans four breeds of dogs: “Pit bulls,” Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Fila Braziliero. Lord Redesdale has introduced a private members’ bill, Dog Control Bill [HL] 2010-11, that would replace the DDA. Lord Redesdale’s bill is breed-neutral.

The bill has been moving slowly through the necessary stages; it has just passed the House of Lords report stage and will be scheduled for a third reading at the end of summer.

The bill may be tracked here: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/dogcontrolhl.html

Private members’ bills evidently rarely become law. Rather, such bills serve as a “test,” with the hope that the government will be inspired to take up and pass a similar bill.

Although Lord Redesdale’s private member’s bill has come a long way and has considerable support from major animal organizations, the statements made by the government during report stage testimony are difficult to unwrap. On the one hand, the government acknowledges this call for change to the DDA, but on the other hand, the government repeatedly states that it does not support Lord Redesdale’s bill. The government appears to be making plans of its own.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley): I was rather hoping that I would be able to get away without intervening at all. The Government have made their views fairly clear at both Second Reading and Committee, when my noble friend Lord De Mauley dealt with this Bill. I will say very briefly again that we cannot give our support to this Bill, but we are well aware of the problems that it is addressing and are prepared to consider moving forward in due course.

As my noble friend Lord Redesdale mentioned, the House will be aware of the consultation issued by the previous Government towards the end of their 13 years in office-I think it was issued in about March 2010, just before the general election-and that concluded in June 2010. There were some 4,250 responses to that consultation, which Ministers are still considering. We published a summary of those responses in November 2010, and, as I said, we are still considering the right way forward. It is a matter that we want to discuss across government, because these matters are not just for Defra but for the Home Office and others. In due course, I hope that we will be able to have something to say, but we will not offer support to this Bill. It might be that, when the noble Lord seeks a Third Reading and moves that the Bill do now pass, that might be a moment when I might be able to say a little more. However, as I have made clear and as we made clear on earlier occasions, we cannot offer support to this Bill.

A good blog article about the current status of the bill can be read here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterwedderburn/100091717/its-time-for-government-action-on-dangerous-dogs/

The Kennel Club (UK) has further information and a link to a petition: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/3754/23/5/3

I encourage UK residents to reach out to their national lawmakers and the government to show support for Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill [HL] 2010-11.

Thanks to Charlotte and KC Dog Blog for the update.

Norway: Government may be receptive to breed ban repeal

The NKK (Norway’s major kennel club) has recently discussed with some members of Parliament the possibility of repealing section 19 of their Dog Act.  The Dog Act, section 19, allows the King to choose the breeds that will be considered “dangerous,” and to create restrictions to be placed on those breeds. Norway currently bans the ownership of the “pit bull terrier,” American Staffordshire Terrier, Fila Brasileiro, Tosa Inu, and Dogo Argentino.

The NKK has stated the many difficulties with the law, including significant breed identification issues, no effect on public safety, and the arbitrary selection of breeds to ban.

You may read more from the NKK here (Norwegian), article date March 21, 2011: http://www.nkk.no/nkk/public/openIndex?ARTICLE_ID=11782

Google Translate offers a rough translation in English here: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nkk.no%2Fnkk%2Fpublic%2FopenIndex%3FARTICLE_ID%3D11782

Because I’m not well-versed in Norwegian politics or parliamentary processes, and because it’s difficult to find English-language materials on this topic, if you are interested in assisting the Norwegian effort to repeal the breed-specific portion of the Dog Law, please contact the NKK (www.nkk.no) to find out how you can help.

Thanks to Charlotte for passing the link along.

U.S. Dept. of Justice: BSL has no place in ADA

In this July 2010 revision of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations, the U.S. Department of Justice has rejected some commenters’ opinions that certain breeds of dogs should be excluded as service animals. The Department also reaffirms their position that local breed-specific laws do not apply to service dogs.

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleII_2010/reg2_2010.html

Revised ADA Regulations Implementing Title II and Title III

(Updated July 29, 2010)

Title II: Final Rule amending 28 CFR Part 35: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services

Breed limitations. A few commenters suggested that certain breeds of dogs should not be allowed to be used as service animals. Some suggested that the Department should defer to local laws restricting the breeds of dogs that individuals who reside in a community may own. Other commenters opposed breed restrictions, stating that the breed of a dog does not determine its propensity for aggression and that aggressive and non-aggressive dogs exist in all breeds.

The Department does not believe that it is either appropriate or consistent with the ADA to defer to local laws that prohibit certain breeds of dogs based on local concerns that these breeds may have a history of unprovoked aggression or attacks. Such deference would have the effect of limiting the rights of persons with disabilities under the ADA who use certain service animals based on where they live rather than on whether the use of a particular animal poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others. Breed restrictions differ significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions have no breed restrictions. Others have restrictions that, while well-meaning, have the unintended effect of screening out the very breeds of dogs that have successfully served as service animals for decades without a history of the type of unprovoked aggression or attacks that would pose a direct threat, e.g., German Shepherds. Other jurisdictions prohibit animals over a certain weight, thereby restricting breeds without invoking an express breed ban. In addition, deference to breed restrictions contained in local laws would have the unacceptable consequence of restricting travel by an individual with a disability who uses a breed that is acceptable and poses no safety hazards in the individual´s home jurisdiction but is nonetheless banned by other jurisdictions. State and local government entities have the ability to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a particular service animal can be excluded based on that particular animal´s actual behavior or history–not based on fears or generalizations about how an animal or breed might behave. This ability to exclude an animal whose behavior or history evidences a direct threat is sufficient to protect health and safety.

UK: Proposed dog law revision would eliminate breed ban

Although we usually do not publish press releases as a matter of site policy, this particular press release has a wealth of information on the current status of a proposal to eliminate the BSL in the UK, including contact information for UK residents who want to get involved in this effort.

http://www.prlog.org/10772975-tough-new-bill-to-replace-failed-dangerous-dogs-act.html

Tough New Bill To Replace ‘failed’ Dangerous Dogs Act

Animal welfare organisations, veterinary professionals and local authorities today joined forces to condemn the much-criticised Dangerous Dogs Act, demanding that it must be replaced by a hard-hitting new Dog Control Bill.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRLog (Press Release) – Jul 04, 2010 – Animal welfare organisations, veterinary professionals and local authorities today joined forces to condemn the much-criticised Dangerous Dogs Act, demanding that it must be replaced by a hard-hitting new Dog Control Bill focusing on prevention rather than cure.

Existing legislation has failed to reduce the number of dog bite incidents in the UK, which have risen in the past five years by 79% in London and 43% nationally*. Meanwhile costs have continued to rise; it was revealed that 10 million pounds has been spent by the Metropolitan Police alone in the past 3 years simply to implement Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, relating to the seizure, kennelling and euthanasia of banned breeds.

The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG) has lobbied against the inadequacies of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 for many years and members of the group are now backing a new Dog Control Bill proposed by Lib Dem peer Lord Redesdale, which will receive its second reading in the House of Lords on Friday (9th July). This Bill would consolidate previous legislation and better protect the public by targeting the cause of dog attacks – dog owners themselves.

Lord Redesdale commented: “People deserve to feel safe around dogs and this Bill goes a long way towards protecting the public through tougher action against irresponsible dog owners. The current law has done nothing but make banned breeds and their lookalikes more appealing and created the issue of status dogs because they are a status symbol.

“Owners of aggressive or violent dogs of any kind would be brought to account with this Bill, which in turn will prevent a large number of attacks by dealing with problem behaviour at the first signs of aggression rather than when an attack has taken place, as in current legislation”.

If passed, the Bill will introduce major changes to current dangerous dog legislation, which is widely considered to be one of the most ineffective pieces of government legislation ever brought into force. These changes include:

• More emphasis on the owner’s responsibilities – the Bill supports the principle that it is the owner who has the potential to make a dog either well-behaved or badly-behaved. It gives authorised officers the powers to place Dog Control Notices on irresponsible owners at the first signs of dog aggression.

• Attacks which take place on private property would also become a criminal offence – a large number of dog attack incidents occur within the home and on private property. The Bill includes various exemptions such as being attacked by another animal, provocation, and attacks on individuals committing an offence for which they could be imprisoned.

• Legislation will no longer be breed specific – since the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, public money and resources have been wasted by already overstretched police authorities seizing dogs simply for being of a particular breed or type. Research now overwhelmingly supports the principle of ‘deed not breed’, and proves that genetics (breed) play only a limited part in the temperament of an individual dog, with environment and training having a far greater effect.

The DDASG has been working closely with Lord Redesdale in support of his Dog Control Bill and has long been calling on the government to repeal the current legislation. The Group believes that the breed specific nature of current legislation has caused it to fail, and that focusing on individual breeds has failed to prevent a large number of dog attacks, or reduce the number of Pit Bull Terriers in the UK.

DDASG Chairman Chris Laurence, Veterinary Director of Dogs Trust, said: “We firmly believe that the Dangerous Dogs Act needs to be overhauled to better protect the public and that a new dog control regime that emphasises responsible dog ownership should be introduced.

“The Dog Control Bill supports the principle that it is people, not the dogs themselves that make dogs dangerous. Lord Redesdale’s Bill would allow people to be better protected from dangerous dogs with tougher action taken against irresponsible dog owners.”

The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group has also launched a petition supporting Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill which already has almost 10,000 signatures. The petition can be found at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/repeal-and-replace-the-dangerous-dogs-act.html

For more information on DDASG, Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill and current ‘dangerous dog’ legislation visit http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/928

For further press information, images or interview requests please contact:

Victoria Brown, DDASG coordinator
07540 731320
020 7518 1008
victoria.brown@thekennelclub.org.uk

Notes to Editors

*Figures quoted from London Dangerous Dog Forum Evidence Base Research Paper and available on request.

The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group

The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG) is a wide-ranging group representing animal welfare, local authorities and veterinary professional organisations and includes representation from:

Battersea Dogs & Cats Home
Blue Cross
Mayhew Animal Home
British Veterinary Association
Dogs Trust
Kennel Club
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
Wandsworth Borough Council
Wood Green Animal Shelters

The DDASG considers that the Dangerous Dogs Act needs to be overhauled to better protect the public and that a new dog control regime which emphasises responsible dog ownership should be introduced.

Denmark: Breed ban goes into effect (additional breeds)

Previous alerts for Denmark: http://stopbsl.com/?s=denmark

Breeds now banned include: Pitbull Terrier, Tosa Inu, American Staffordshire, Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentino, American Bulldog, Boerbel, Kangal, Central Asian Ovtcharka, Caucasian Ovtcharka, Southern Russian Ovtcharka, Tornjak and Sarplaninac.

Denmark bans more dangerous dog breeds

July 1, 2010 – 6:59PM
AP

Denmark has added 12 more dog breeds to a law banning dangerous dogs that already forbade people from owning pit bull terriers and tosa inus.

Read the rest of the story here: 

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/denmark-bans-more-dangerous-dog-breeds-20100701-zqdv.html

Turkey ramps up enforcement of breed ban, groups protest

Animal rights group says it will go to court to revoke Turkish ban on attack dogs

By The Associated Press (CP) – 1 day ago

ANKARA, Turkey — An animal rights group says it will go to court over a recent Turkish government ban on certain dog breeds in the wake of an attack that injured a father and son.

Read the rest of the story here: 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gOanszij3gVapnMo7iIxlHJvZxew

Dog experts bite back at Turkey’s pit bull ban

Tuesday, June 29, 2010
ISTANBUL – Daily News with wires

The government’s issuing of orders to round up pit bulls and other “dangerous” breeds was an unfortunate, unscientific decision, experts have said, calling for assessments of individual dogs rather than a total ban.

Read the rest of the story here: 

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?msg=commentsaved&n=pitbull-ban-is-a-mistake-expert-says-2010-06-29