Fireworks - Early Day Motion

Reference is EDM 2128 27th October 2025

In regards to Fireworks anti-social behaviour and regulation, it has so far been supported by 26 MP's 

Motion text is as follows:

That this House notes with deep concern the growing impact of fireworks misuse on communities across the UK; recognises that the unpredictable use of high-decibel fireworks causes significant distress to animals, wildlife, and those with sensory sensitivities or neurodiverse conditions; further notes that local councils and police forces lack sufficient powers and resources to manage the increasing volume of complaints from residents; highlights that current firework legislation, much of it dating back to the early 2000s, has failed to keep pace with modern technology and changing patterns of use; acknowledges the calls of animal welfare charities including the RSPCA and Dogs Trust for a reduction in permitted decibel levels, stronger licensing of retailers, and a crackdown on unlicensed pop-up sellers during festive periods such as Bonfire Night; welcomes public campaigns that have highlighted widespread public frustration; and therefore urges the Government to bring forward comprehensive reform of firework regulation to ensure fireworks are used safely, sold responsibly, and enjoyed without causing harm to people, animals, and communities.

Updates: https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/64560

To support the EDM - contact your own member of parliament and ask them to add their signature.

www.writetothem.com 

Gov Petition - Ban immediately the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures

 

Parliament considers all GOV UK petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for a debate – this Petition is now currently waiting for a debate date.

Ban immediately the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures

As a first step to end animal testing, we want an immediate ban for dogs. They are commercially bred in what we see as bleak and inhumane factory-like conditions. We believe there is evidence suggesting that dogs are left being unattended for extended periods in a Government-licenced establishment.

In 2023, 2,456 dogs were used in 3,749 scientific procedures, 734 were classified as causing severe or moderate harm. There were 2,593 procedures for regulatory purposes even though there is no UK legislation that mandates animal testing. These procedures can include oral gavage, when a tube is inserted into the dog's throat, up to 3 times a day, to administer liquids to the stomach. There are studies questioning the reliability and human-relevant value of the outcomes of these tests.

Sign the petition here - https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/705384

The Government responds to all petitions that get more than 10,000 signatures – this Petition is currently waiting for a response.

Petition to replace DDA/BSL with new legislation:

 Signatures Needed for the current and latest Government e-Petition which is open for signatures until April 2023. 

At 10,000 signatures the Government will give a written response and at 100,000 signatures, if reached, the Government will consider a debate in Parliament, raising awareness and keeping the pressure on for smarter dog law.

Sign Here - https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/624876

The Petition reads as below:

Repeal the current Dangerous Dogs Act and replace with new framework

We want the Government to repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act and replace it with legislation that focuses on early intervention to prevent dog bites and tackle dog-related issues regardless of breed or type, based solely on their behaviour

The Government commissioned a steering group to provide advice on policies aimed at reducing dog attacks and promoting responsible ownership of dogs. However, their report is not due until next year.

In view of shocking and tragic events that continue to result from the current legislation, urgent action is required NOW, in the interest of public safety and the welfare of dogs. Organisations involved in the Government's steering group oppose Breed Specific Legislation and agree breed is not a prediction of aggressive behaviour. We believe the current legislation is enabling more fatalities and failing to prevent the dog attack trend. It needs repeal immediately.

BSL Petition Update-Committee calls on Government to respond

Please sign here: Exempt dogs assessed by experts as safe from breed specific legislation - Petitions (parliament.uk)

The Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition, however, the petitions committee has now requested the Government respond to new questions as below:

The Committee recognises the support that the petition has received. However, the issue raised by the petition was recently debated in the House of Commons on 5 July in response to a petition making a related request.

Given the significant support for petitions about prohibitions for certain dog types, the Committee has written to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, highlighting support for petitions on this subject.

The Committee has called on the Government to:

- Establish a new framework for responsible ownership of dog types which are currently prohibited under the Dangerous Dogs Act
- Commission new research to consider the evidence base for current prohibitions
- Look at alternatives to current prohibitions on certain dog types

In the letter, the Committee has said the Government should publish the outcome of this work, followed by a Government review of the prohibitions set out in the Dangerous Dogs Act.

You can read the Committee's letter here: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/7403/documents/77570/default/

The Committee will publish the Government's response when it is received, and notify petitioners by email.

DDA-BSL UK - further calls for total overhaul - the Vet Times:

 The Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) has been slammed in a damning new report as animal welfare charities and the BVA renew calls for an urgent review of the controversial legislation.

With the 30th anniversary of the act looming in August, the RSPCA has released a report titled “Breed specific legislation – a dog’s dinner” that blames laws surrounding supposedly dangerous breeds for harming dogs and dog owners.

Ineffective

The law was introduced in 1991 as a reaction to a period of highly publicised dog attacks which culminated in a law that the report admonishes as backed by “a surprising lack of scientific evidence”.

The report finds that while the DDA introduced a raft of measures intended to decrease the amount of dog bite incidents across the UK, it has in no way impacted the rate of such attacks.

Increased cases

Between March 2005 and February 2015, the number of hospital admissions in England due to dog bites increased 76% – from 4,110 to 7,227.

Samantha Grimes, an RSPCA dog welfare expert and lead author of the report, described the DDA as “letting down” dogs that look a certain way before going on to describe the DDA as “unfair, unjust and wrong”.

Fatalities

Dr Grimes added: “The Dangerous Dogs Act was a knee-jerk piece of legislation, introduced in response to a series of high-profile dog attacks.

“But in the 30 years since its inception, hospital admissions due to dog bites have continued to rise, tragic fatalities as a result of dog incidents have continued, and thousands of dogs have needlessly lost their lives.

“It’s high time the UK Government responds to the scientific research, follows in the footsteps of other nations around the world that have repealed breed-specific legislation and do not just what is right for dogs, but for public safety, and ensure both are better protected.”

Section one

The BVA has long called for a total overhaul of the law as part of its “Deed not Breed” campaign that urges the Government to consider new legislation that examines severity of incidents rather than the breed involved.

The association would rather see section one of the act – pertaining to specific banned breeds – removed entirely and an Australian-style database of known dog bites to be set up.

‘Total overhaul’

BVA senior vice-president Daniella Dos Santos said: “We have long campaigned for a total overhaul of the 1991 DDA because it targets specific breeds rather than deeds and gives a false impression that dogs not on the banned list are ‘safe’.

“Evidence gathered as part of our recent policy update further supports our view that breed-specific legislation has been ineffective in its intended aims, thereby failing to properly protect the public or safeguard dog welfare over the past three decades.”

Dr Dos Santos added: “We’ll be writing to the Home Office and Defra, and will be joining up with other campaign organisations in the lead-up to the act’s 30th anniversary in August to push for effective, evidence-based solutions.”

• For the full story, see the 6 July issue of Vet Times.

Lucys Law Passed in Wales

 Good News Update:

New regulations to ban  3^rd-party puppy/kitten sales in Wales has passed into law, the new legislation, a mayor step forward will come into force on the 10^th September 2021.

Lucys Law came into force in England in April 2020 and the Welch Senydd voted to pass their new law in March 2021, breeders are to be held accountable with enforceable legislation as it will become illegal to purchase a puppy or kitten from a 3^rd party source eg a pet-shop or online front which is selling puppies from diabolical battery farms where hundreds of dogs are imprisoned and used as breeding machines, a sickening situation which dogs, adults and puppies have suffered (and died) from for years.

The vote has now passed in the Senedd introducing new regulations for pet sales. The regulations will also ban third party sales of puppies and kittens – The Animal Welfare Licensing  of Animals (Wales) Regulations 2021.

#LucysLaw #Wheresmum #endpuppyfarming

This means that from 10 September it will be an offence to sell a puppy or kitten which the seller has not bred themselves. Crucially the new Regulations requires the seller to have bred the puppy or kitten “at the premises” – which puts a stop to lengthy and multiple transportations for the young animals, which can cause distress. This applies to travel in and around Wales, as well as banning puppies and kittens from being brought in to Wales, for sale.

Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs Lesley Griffiths said:

Our much-loved pets fill us with joy, complete our families, and have helped us get through tough lockdowns during the pandemic.

I want to thank all Senedd members for voting to ban the third party sales of puppies and kittens today. The people of Wales who responded to our consultation were overwhelmingly in favour of making this happen, and the charities, vets, volunteers and organisations that have worked tirelessly to help form the law into what has been passed today also deserve our thanks.

We hope a ban will encourage respectful and responsible attitudes towards all animals, provide greater transparency for people who wish to welcome puppies or kittens into their homes as to how they have been bred, and empower Local Authorities to take action if they have concerns about how puppies and kittens are being bred and sold.

Chief Veterinary Officer Christianne Glossop said:

The way we treat animals reflects the values of our society. That is why Welsh Government and the Wales Animal Health and Welfare Framework Group work in conjunction to promote high animal welfare standards and the responsible ownership of animals. This law will now close loopholes to protect the welfare and wellbeing of our puppies and kittens, while educating us all about what is right and fair for our pets.

The Regulations will come fully into force on 10 September.  During this time Statutory Guidance will be co-produced to support enforcement by Local Authorities and this timeline will also allow existing sellers affected to make changes and consider a different operating model to mitigate any potential impact.

A Pet In Every Home - Jasmine's Law

Andrew Rosindell M.P. has introduced to Parliament legislation that would place strict limits on the ability of landlords to include “no pets” policies in rented accommodation.

As part of a 10 Minute Rule Bill, a type of Private Members’ Bill, the former Shadow Minister for Animal Welfare and Member of Parliament for Romford  highlighted the frequently unjust way in which renters are forced to give up their beloved pets in order to move into new accommodation.

The legislation, backed by animal rights and animal welfare organisations, including the RSPCA and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, will prevent landlords from banning “responsible owners” from bringing pets into rented accommodation.

Recognising the concerns that landlords have, the legislation will require renters to demonstrate they are “responsible owners” with a suggested checklist including a vet’s confirmation that their pet is vaccinated, spayed/neutered, free of parasites and responsive to basic training commands in the case of dogs. In cases where the renter can prove they are a “responsible owner”, and the accommodation is suitable for their pet, the right to take a pet into rented accommodation would be assumed.

The legislation is being called “Jasmine’s Law”, named after a dog which was separated from its owner, Jordan Adams, because of restrictions like these. He will also highlight the tragic case of John Chadwick, a homeless man who ended his life after the only housing option his local council provided him with was one which meant separating from his beloved pets. 

His speech and proposals were covered in: London Playbook, Havering Daily, Big Issue, TalkRadio, Lad Bible, Mirror, Yahoo, MSN, Dogs Today Magazine and Pets Mag

Commenting, Andrew Rosindell M.P. said:

“I’m delighted to have secured this slot to speak about an issue deeply important to me. As a dog owner for twenty five years, I understand as well as anyone the connection a person can have with their pet and for too long I have heard tragic stories of pet owners separated from their pets because of blanket bans that landlords implement.

It is a huge opportunity to increase awareness of this issue and to pressure the government to make changes that they promised earlier this year. In January the Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick rightly called on landlords to make it easier for responsible tenants to have well behaved pets in their homes, but as of yet this hasn’t been followed by any legislation.”

DEFRA Consultation

Banning third party sales of pets in England: call for evidence.

Consultation description:

Defra are inviting evidence from all stakeholders and experts on the effect of introducing a ban on third party sales of puppies and kittens in England. 

This ban would mean that pet shops, pet dealers and other outlets and licensed sellers of puppies and kittens would be unable to sell these pets unless they themselves have bred them. 

DEFRA want to know:

• whether the ban should be made
• how the ban should apply
• what specific measures might be adopted
• what other issues should be considered

Presently, DEFRA  are seeking people to send them evidence which will specifically help them to understand the effect of introducing a ban, and any limitations of doing so. 

DEFRA do not want people to send in their wider opinions at this stage.

Click here - For full details and the closing date

Ways to respond

Email to:

AnimalWelfare.Consultations@defra.gsi.gov.uk

Write to:

Animal Welfare Team
Area 5B Nobel House
17 Smith Square,
London
SW1P 3JR

UK Government Petition-Pet Theft:

This petition will run to the 8th August 2018 and when it reaches 10,000 signatures the Government will respond (currently awaited). 

At 100,000 signatures the petition will be considered for debate in parliament.

Please sign and share - CLICK HERE

Reclassify the theft of a pet to a specific crime in its own right.

Review the sentencing guidelines for theft offences, so that where the theft of a family pet is involved, monetary value is irrelevant for the categorisation of the crime for sentencing purposes.

Ensure Police Forces are given appropriate guidance and training to record and investigate cases.

More than 60 dogs are stolen every week in England and Wales. Less than 5% of cases lead to convictions.

Pet theft is currently seen as no different to the theft of an inanimate object - despite pets being sentient beings. The theft of pets is generally categorised as robbery or burglary, but lead to minimal sentences. Enforcement of existing laws do not currently act as a deterrent or fit the crime itself.

For more information, please see: http://www.stolenandmissingpetsalliance.co.uk/

Anti-BSL Rallies Held Globally:

Dog lovers have united worldwide in peaceful protests, rallies and awareness days which have taken place in a united global day of anti-breed specific legislation events this month.

The UK joined the global day of action once again and London took part with a peaceful protest, the Westminster event was held on Saturday 15th July and there were also awareness day events in Coventry West Midlands and Cardiff, Wales.

The Westminster protest was organised by DDA Watch Ltd, a campaign group which helps and supports dogs and their families affected by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and this years' event marked 26 years of failed, unjust dog law in the UK.

Ottawa, Winnipeg, Ontario, Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Barrie, Truro, Nova Scotia in Canada and Germany also held anti-BSL events for the 15th July as part of the Global Anti-breed specific legislation issue affecting dogs and their families world wide.

Dog lovers travelled across the UK to unite and take a stand for innocent dogs and to call for a repeal of a failed piece of legislation that targets types of dogs and condemns them as 'dangerous' based on their physical appearance.

The Westminster protest was a grass-roots gathering, with volunteers present who actively campaign and support innocent dogs and their families being torn apart by breed specific legislation on a daily basis.

Attending to support the event was veterinary surgeon and animal behaviourist Dr Kendal Shepherd MRCVS, canine behaviourists Robert Alleyne and Jordan Shelley and dog trainer for film, television and stage productions, Robert Stuhldreer with his beautiful assistance dog Flora. One supporter was dressed as the 'Grim Reaper' with a message for Defra attached to the black outfit which said 'I am Breed Specific Legislation' and gave out information leaflets to those passing by outside the Parliamentary buildings.

Giving out plenty of canine kisses was the beautiful Staffie named 'Whippet', a Battersea Dogs Home Ambassadog who came along to support the event with her mum, Chris McLean. Whippet wore her special pink coat with the words 'Breed Specific Legislation Murders My Friends' written on it, raising awareness for her doggy pals.

At the event in central London, there was a large white sheet headed ‘People’s Messages to Defra – 26 Years of Tears’ and dog lovers wrote their own personal messages to be sent to Government; some in memory of much loved dogs who had never put a paw wrong and have been killed by the outdated legislation. 

Another precious dog named Paul was remembered, heartbreakingly his casket of ashes was brought to the protest to show the end result of many dogs affected by this harsh and unfair legislation. Paul had lost his life in 2015 and campaigners shed tears as his casket was placed in remembrance at the event.

Banners and placards were held high just outside the mighty buildings of Westminster where the law which condemns dogs based on their appearance was first passed 26 years ago; a young supporter who had travelled a considerable distance held up a photograph of Lennox, a canine victim of breed specific legislation from Northern Ireland whose death five years ago this month had sparked global outrage and condemnation, bringing the injustices of the legislation to the attention of thousands of people across the world and leaving a legacy of hope that disastrous BSL will one day end.

Two supporters from Devon held up their placard for a much loved dog named Sky who is held incarcerated and caught up in a legal nightmare due to BSL. 

Another innocent dog named Blitz who has been tragically sentenced to death under the barbaric law and endured two and a half years imprisoned on canine death row was remembered and many members of the public were shocked to learn that this is what can and often does happen in the UK and overseas, to pet dogs who have never bitten or hurt anyone. Several people who stopped to speak to the campaigners expressed their disgust and shock that this legislation exists in Great Britain and other parts of the world.

Over two thousand DDA Watch leaflets were distributed in central London and further petition signatures were gained to help create awareness of the situation which campaigners say is long overdue for repeal.

Maria Daines, a Director of DDA Watch and one of the event organisers said: 'It is high time breed specific legislation was at least extensively debated in parliament with a view to repealing section 1 (DDA) which has proven over 26 years to be ineffective, unfair and cruel to the dogs and families affected by it. Education (as opposed to prohibitive legislation) is necessary and helps to keep dog owners, the public and canine companions safe; Banning, restricting and killing dogs that look a certain way is ridiculously outdated, heartbreaking for many and a waste of public money. In 2017, we can and should be doing much better for our canine friends, their families, the public and those who work with dogs, including stray and rescue dogs.'

Quebec's Proposed BSL Bill.128

Quebec's proposed Bill 128 would be catastrophic - please sign the petition against it.

The proposed law, Bill 128, is the start of a gradual approach to legislating breeds in Quebec, according to Quebec Public Security Minister Martin Coiteux, who introduced it last week. Eventually the provincial government will be allowed to ban any ol’ breed of dog it decides is “dangerous.”

“Should Bill 128 pass, the result will therefore be the systematic, large-scale putting to death of dogs in shelters across the province,” stated the Montreal SPCA in an April 14 press release that said the ban would have “catastrophic consequences.”

Petition - http://www.care2.com/causes/no-quebec-you-dont-need-a-pit-bull-ban.html

London Assembly Requests Review of Dangerous Dogs Act

News regarding the request of a review is still eagerly awaited and we expect and hope that there will be positive news after the London Elections in May and the General Election in June.

The London Assembly agreed a motion, in December 2016,  calling on the Mayor to write to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to request a formal review of the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991).

The Assembly believes the Act – which uses Breed Specific Legislation to prohibit certain types of dog - has not reduced dog bite incidents and fails to protect dog welfare.

Steve O’Connell AM, who proposed the motion said:

“This is about recognising the current policies designed to protect people from dangerous dogs are not fit for purpose, as well as improving animal welfare standards.

It’s important that, if the current system is not working, we look at other ways of handling what is a growing problem.

The consequences for victims of a dog attack can be devastating and I hope the relevant authorities take note of our motion.”

Leonie Cooper AM, who seconded the motion said:

“It’s abundantly clear that the Breed Specific Legislation isn’t effective. We need stronger, more extensive legislation to reduce the number of dog attacks and bring irresponsible owners to justice.

Government must work not only with the police and councils, but organisations such as Battersea Dogs & Cats Home too, to consider the best way to protect people from dangerous dogs and safeguard animal welfare. It’s reassuring to see we have cross party consensus over what is a really important issue.”

The full text of the Motion is:

“The Assembly notes that the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) is 25 years old this year. 

It is noted that the Metropolitan Police will destroy around 300 dogs that have been seized by its officers this year. 

The Status Dog Unit, a special team of police officers only dealing with dangerous dogs, has seen a 7% increase in seizures in 2016. 

The Act’s aim, to use Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) (as applied through s1) to prohibit certain types of dog has not reduced dog bite incidents or the number of prohibited types of dog. 

The Assembly accepts that BSL has not had a positive impact on improving human safety or protecting dog welfare.

The Assembly notes that other authorities have started to review and overturn BSL such as the Netherlands, Italy, and Lower Saxony, Germany and have identified other ways of reducing dog bite incidents. 

The Assembly calls on the Mayor to write to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs asking for a formal review of the legislation as proposed by the RSPCA and for London bodies such as the Metropolitan Police, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the stray dog services of the London Boroughs and relevant non-governmental organisations to be part of this review.”

The Law Commission asked for submissions on which areas of law would benefit from reform, they are interested in examining laws which are:

causing substantial unfairness;

widely discriminatory or disproportionately costly; or

caused by laws or policies that are complex, 

hard to understand or have fallen out of step with modern standards.

We wrote to them concerning breed specific legislation and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, as amended, this is their latest reply:

Dear stakeholder,

Thirteenth Programme of Law Reform: First sift

Thank you for responding to our recent consultation and proposing that the Law Commission consider undertaking a law reform project on the question of reviewing the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. In line with our published timetable, we have now completed the first sift of submissions and I am pleased to tell you that Commissioners have selected your proposal to be taken forward for further consideration.

We had an excellent response to our consultation. We received more than 1300 submissions, many of which could potentially translate into valuable and important law reform projects. As I am sure you can imagine, it is taking us some time to evaluate what are often quite detailed suggestions.

To help us decide which proposals to include in our programme, we apply rigorous selection criteria relating to importance, suitability and resources. We also consider the degree of support available from the government department relevant to each project, and whether the department is able to give an undertaking that there is a serious intention to take forward law reform in that area. We are currently in the process of meeting with Departments to assess the potential level of support for your proposal.

If you would like to discuss with us what more you could do to support the case for this project, please contact public@lawcommission.gsi.gov.uk.
We would also be grateful for suggestions of groups or individuals that could assist us in gathering more evidence supporting the impact of the problem you have outlined and the benefit of reform.

Commissioners will be deciding on the final list of projects in May, after which, as required by the Law Commissions Act 1965, we shall refer the programme to the Lord Chancellor for approval. At this point we will contact you to let you know whether your proposal has been selected for the Programme. All being well, we hope to publish the Thirteenth Programme of Law Reform in July 2017.

Yours sincerely,

Phil Golding

Chief Executive

Law Commission Submission Closing Date

Closing soon is your opportunity to submit your ideas on which areas of the law you think would benefit from reform.

The Law Commission questionnaire can be found online here -
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/13th-programme-of-law-reform-consultation/

You can ask the Law Commission to examine a specific issue of concern - for example, breed specific legislation - found within the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and its associated Amendments and Statutory Instruments, for their 13th Programme of Law Reform.

If you feel that there is a problem in an area of law that would benefit from reform, you can tell the Law Commission, they are interested in examining laws which are:

• causing substantial unfairness;
• widely discriminatory or disproportionately costly; or
• caused by laws or policies that are complex, hard to understand or have fallen out of step with modern standards.

"For a law to be fair - it must be capable of being understood."

The Law Commission is independent of any department and does not necessarily accord with the position of the Government of the day.

Send your completed questionnaire to:

 Email: programme@lawcommission.gsi.gov.uk.

Our reply received from the Law Commission - November 2016:

Thank you for responding to our consultation regarding the Law Commission’s Thirteenth Programme of Law Reform. I apologise for the delay in acknowledging your email.

We will now carefully assess the details of your proposal on reforming the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The Law Commission is very grateful to you for the work that has been undertaken to produce your proposal.

We will contact you regarding the outcome of your proposal in due course.

Global End-BSL Rally and Protests

Dog defenders to rally at Westminster in peaceful protest against failed law that targets types of dog – breed specific legislation (BSL).

Peaceful protests have been organised around the world for July 2016 – the Westminster event takes place on the 16th July at Old Palace Yard, Westminster, SW1P 3JY at 1pm to 5pm. Other UK events have been organised for Wales, Northern Ireland, Herefordshire and the South West of England.

Ontario, Quebec, Winnipeg, Victoria, Ottawa Canada and Germany also have protests panned for the same day as part of a global movement to repeal breed specific laws.

The London event is organised by DDA Watch and will mark 25 years of failed legislation – the UK introduced breed specific legislation in the Dangerous Dogs 1991 Act and campaigners say the law continues to cost millions of pounds in taxpayers' money to enforce and does nothing to protect people nor dogs alike, neither does it promote responsible dog ownership.

Thousands of pets continue to be put to death or deemed ‘dangerous’ based on their physical appearance, the law makes no sense, is barbaric and is long overdue for repeal, dogs continue to be ripped apart from their families even though they have never put a paw wrong.

People are coming together, making a stand and speaking out in defence of ALL dogs regardless of what shape or size they happen to be.

Leading animal welfare charities have disagreed with and openly discredited BSL for many years, outlining the fact that dogs cannot be labelled 'dangerous' for their looks alone and they have called for an end to this outdated legislation.

The peaceful protest takes place at Westminster, London UK on the 16th July, event details can be found on the DDAW event page on FB.

22Yr Anniversary of BSL UK

Today, the 12th August 2013, marks twenty two years since the introduction of breed specific legislation, contained within section one of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA), as amended. This piece of law relates to England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland also have had their own version since 1991.

Currently proceeding through the House of Commons is a Bill (once passed through stages these become laws) and within that Bill are far reaching amendments to the DDA, amendments which will not only affect those persecuted on account of their appearance, but also amendments which will affect all dogs of all breeds and types. Amendments we do not support - such as the extension of section three of the DDA and sadly instead of any move to even attempt to repeal BSL - it is to be played with in the wording - which we believe will cause more heartache, distress and potentially lead to the deaths of more innocent dogs targeted by failed law which should have by now been thrown in the mad law bin.

The breed specifics of the law will remain - dog law is being discussed in Westminster, there have been endless consultations and although there was widespread support to end BSL this hasn't been listened to.
The main animal welfare organisations, the ones who carry the clout, speak much about  'deed not breed' yet sadly there is no move in Westminster to change it, nor no big push to rid us of it after all this time - why is that? The words 'deed not breed' become empty and mean little if action doesn't back the strap line. We don't need attempts to try and make it run more smoothly - you can't improve what is so blatantly dismal and wrong in the first place.
It was a positive step forwards when national organisations actually came out and publicly signed up to the 'deed not breed' concept, which has been around since 1991 and maybe longer, but we need more and the dogs which continue to be persecuted need more.

The dogs keep dying, they keep getting seized, persecuted, labelled dangerous, and those volunteers on the front line answering the phones and emails EVERY WEEK, listening to people breaking down in tears, trying to explain how the crazy law works, involved in these ridiculous cases where dogs are judged on phenotype, looking at photos of dogs who will not make it because someone states they look wrong - well we're just left hanging on in there whilst the onslaught of BSL marches on here and it can and often does spread like a virus overseas.

One can't help but be wondering when do the Cavalry arrive to back-up the troops on the front line?Those volunteers busting a gut in the trenches, fire-fighting for their cause be it BSL, the sickening puppy farming situation, the dogs stacked up dying in the pounds as the rescues are at breaking point to name just a few of the major issues we have; if we had a flag it would have been flying upside down for some time now.  You would think and hope that the well equipped political wings of the big canine organisations and professions would not let this happen yet where the hell are they all-why can't they work together and go all out to make a big difference, a real change for the better?

Instead there is so much effort to extend section three of the legislation, what about BSL-we don't need the wording tinkering with you can't improve a failed concept, you can make it even more difficult though.

Why is there no big political push to end it; to work together for national educational programmes to prevent dog bite incidents and actually protect kids, adults and dogs alike?
Instead we have the government looking at increasing the penalties for aggravated offences - the headline is 'life in jail for dogs that kill' - failing to make clear that it will actually look at increasing the penalties for dogs that cause injury - that's any injury, section three is one of strict liability and the statistics thrown about actually refer to both dog 'bites' and 'strikes' all lumped together but don't let that little fact get in the way of a juicy headline in the clamber to be seen to be getting tough.

Deja vu for some of us; the push for action, the real issues being side-stepped, certain dogs demonised and continued on as the scape-goat, the terminology is familiar - 'danger dogs seized' 'banned dogs rounded up' we may as well be back in 1991 as we head for new legislation.

Why not focus on preventing people being injured by dogs-how about giving people the tools they need to know how to keep dogs and children safer for starters?
What of the parents of a child hurt by their own dog - is the best we can do to throw the parents in jail, does anyone think hey don't leave the baby alone with the dog, we don't want a prison sentence under the new law? Seriously, with all the knowledge we now have on animal behaviour, that's the best we can offer to people and dogs alike in 2013? Stiffer penalties, go to jail, job done, move on people.

It is said it is not politically correct to ask for repeal of BSL - when will that ever change?
It's been said for twenty two years now but nothing changes unless you are prepared to stand up and speak out, if not then why not is the question?
Dogs don't get to choose what they look like - if the best anyone involved can do is turn their back on this mess and mutter it's not politically correct then fine that's your choice but this is a case of it being better to have tried than not to have tried at all - because then you send out the message that this is wrong and smaller ripples can lead to waves.
If you condone BSL and you are someone, a department, organisation etc there for the welfare and defence of our dogs, you're in it for the wrong reasons and it would do our dogs a favour if you just stand down and let someone in there with some mettle who will take a stand for all dogs.

It's 2013 and so the killing continues, rescue dogs continue to be picked out as 'type' and not given a second chance of a new home, eg, Battersea Dogs Home confirmed that 155 dogs admitted as strays were destroyed during 2012 as if no owner comes forward and they are identified as 'type' by the Met. Police - they are put to death under BSL-just another aspect of the legislation.

Puppies continue to be held and caught up in awful legal situations - entangled under the far reaching arms of BSL, it's perfectly legal in this country to hold seized puppies in kennels through their critical development periods-the time when socialisation is key, then some months later, release them if not 'type' following their mainly physical assessment with the tape measure, into the big wide-world, that's if they're lucky. Half a litter can be destroyed as 'type' the other half released as not 'type' - makes sense this BSL, you really couldn't make this stuff up.

Dogs continue to be taken and held as 'type' whilst their owner go to court to try and save them - if they are 'lucky' they get to live the rest of their lives restricted on the register of exempted dogs - labelled as dangerous by society even though they have never put a paw wrong. No health insurance available, muzzled and leashed even in the vehicle, no freedom to interact with other dogs, treated like k9 outcasts by many, branded with a tattoo - marked by society as 'dangerous'. Some owners find out their housing does not allow exempted dogs and are forced to part with their dog or face eviction, some face hundreds of pounds in court and kennelling costs heaped on top of exemption costs; being processed through the system and thrown out the other end is for many a traumatic experience with consequences.

And, so on and on it goes, but as always, we say it is Not In Our Name - as the truth must be spoken and silent we will never be - we will always continue to help and advise where we can and how we can; providing a life-line for many dogs.

We, alongside many others who care and those who join as the awareness spreads, will continue to take a stand, speak out and campaign to end the madness that is breed specific legislation.

No To DDA Amendments-MP Template Letter

Say No To DDA Amendments which will affect all dogs.

Please use our new template MP letter for ideas or use as it is, more letters needed - voice your concerns - innocent dogs need you.

You can send a letter via post to the House of Commons or email your MP

To find out who your MP is  click here

 

Your MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A OAA

Dear

 

I am contacting you regarding the amendments planned for the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991 which have been included in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill 2013-14 currently in progress in parliament.

 

I am very concerned that these amendments will unfairly incriminate responsible dog owners and their pet dogs and I do not support what is currently planned and before parliament.

 

I do not think that section three of the DDA should be extended to ‘any’ place – which I understand is for example inside my home and would apply to both aggravated and non-aggravated situations.

Under the legislation the legal definition of ‘dangerously out of control’ is: a dog is presumed to be such if on any occasion there are grounds for ‘reasonable apprehension’ of injury to any person - whether or not any injury has happened.

 

The planned extension of the DDA to private property I feel could leave responsible owners open to malicious complaints (e.g. neighbour and family disputes) and not suitably protected from trespassers and intruders – anyone present on my property without my consent.

 

Where will I stand if a burglar/trespasser is in my garden and my dog runs out and barks at them – this could give cause for ‘reasonable apprehension’ under the extended DDA and I would be presumably on the wrong side of the law?

 

What if someone comes to read my electric/gas meter and then later complains my dog barked at them and they felt reasonable apprehension – my dog could be seized from my own home?

 

What about a dog running and baking in its own garden and a neighbour complains they felt reasonable apprehension’ and the dog is seized by a dog warden or the police whilst the complaint is investigated?

 

Offences where any injury has occurred are currently treated as one of strict liability; I feel that defences should be allowed for example if a dog is acting in self-defence.

 

Following a serious dog attack within a family unit it is often reported that the DDA is flawed as it doesn’t enable criminal prosecution and this is described as a ‘loophole’. But what would be the benefits of criminally prosecuting the parents of a child which has been bitten by their own family dog? This will not prevent dog injuries inside people’s homes – in my opinion; education is needed and is the way forward to prevent the majority of dog injuries inside the home environment and to encourage/promote responsible dog ownership.

 

Education is the key to responsible dog ownership, education prevents dog bites, it should be compulsory in schools forming part of the National Curriculum.

 

Additionally, I do not believe that barking or growling, with no actual contact, at an assistance dog should be allowed to lead to a criminal prosecution or civil proceedings as the amendments will permit if passed as law.

 

I also do not support the amending of the DDA so that when the court is deciding whether a dog would constitute a danger to public safety, the court MUST consider whether the owner is ‘fit and proper’ and may consider ‘any other relevant circumstances’. In my view the definition of what is ‘fit and proper’ is wide open to interpretation as are ‘any other circumstances’; for example, whether or not there is a garden, a dog owner's disability or having children is considered by the court and a pet dog is given a death sentence because of it.

There should not be a compulsory stipulation as to what the court must take into account, this is removing discretion from the court and is in my opinion open to misuse and will result in the death of more innocent pet dogs who are not a danger to anyone in my opinion.

 

Furthermore I understand that the DDA is to be amended to allow civil proceedings to be performed under all sections but with no legal aid to cover civil proceedings, many dog owners will have no means to defend themselves and to defend their dog from a possible death sentence e.g. to instruct a solicitor. Surely legal aid should be extended also for these cases.

 

This Bill fails to address the need to put the emphasis on the education to encourage responsible dog ownership and help prevent dog bite incidents, the desperate need to remove the breed specific element of the legislation which is causing suffering and mayhem-the repeal of which has been widely supported in previous consultations but totally ignored by government.

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

 Repeal Breed Specific Law - Campaign Info.

No To DDA Amendments - Petition

Petition Against DDA Amendments - please sign the petition against the planned changes in dog law; add your name to the HM Government site e-petition.

Petition text:

Responsible department: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

We the undersigned oppose the proposed amendments to the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA).

We oppose extending section 3 to any place leaving dogs & their owners potentially criminalised in their own homes. ‘Dangerously out of control’ is any occasion a person has ‘reasonable apprehension’ of injury whether or not the dog has actually injured a person.

Offences should not be of strict liability as is currently the case.

Barking/growling alone at an assistance dog should not result in proceedings.

We oppose any extension of powers to enter private property or seize a dog from private property without a warrant.

We object to amendments that a court MUST consider if the owner is ‘fit and proper’ & may consider ‘any other relevant circumstances’.

 

BSL does nothing to protect the public, or address the problems of irresponsible owners/breeders.

Defendants should be innocent until proved guilty.

Legal aid should be extended to cover civil proceedings under the DDA & also the Dogs Act 1871.

Sign Here