What is the general reaction of the Blue Cross to today's Written Ministerial Statement on irresponsible dog ownership?
The Blue Cross is pleased that we have seen some forward movement from government at last. In spite of numerous promises in the past it has been a long time coming.
Whilst we feel that there are some potentially positive elements to what is being proposed, in terms of animal welfare, our overall view is that more could have been done and there are some opportunities that have been missed.
What is your view on the proposal to consult on the microchipping of all dogs? Will the microchipping of dogs reduce attacks?
Microchipping in itself is not going to reduce the number of attacks by dogs on people.
The consultation on microchipping is to be welcomed and it is good to see in the consultation document that a number of options are open for discussion.
Microchipping will certainly go someway towards ensuring that there is a direct relationship between an offending dog and an offending owner, which currently it is difficult to do.
If microchipping of dogs is restricted to puppies at the point of sale or exchange, as the consultation will recommend, that will obviously miss a very significant tranche of dogs that are out there in current ownership.
If government does go down this particular route there will be 11-12 years for all dogs to be permanently identified, so in the meantime we will still see a number of attacks.
A bigger concern for us is that, having identified the offending dog and the offending owner we then need to decide what to do next.
From our perspective we are very keen on continuing to pursue Dog Control Notices.
Without Dog Contol Notices, once you have identified dangerous dogs, law enforcement agencies can still do very little about it.
There are gaps in terms of what is being proposed, but at least permanent identification is being considered as a key component of dog control going forward.
The WMS states that respondents to the consultation showed “no support” to adding other breeds to the list of prohibited dogs. As proponents of ‘deed not breed’ policy is this a positive statement?
This is not really a step forward. From the Blue Cross perspective adding other breeds to the list of prohibited dogs was never even up for consideration.
If the government is willing to state quite clearly that no other breeds are going to be added to Section 1of the Dangerous Dogs Act that would be a good thing.
Our preferred option, of course, is for Section 1 to be removed in its entirety, but we understand why government is not in a position to do that at the moment.
We would certainly not be supportive of any legislation that would propose adding to the list of prohibited dogs.
Do today’s announcements show that the government is serious about its desire to tackle irresponsible dog ownership?
I don’t believe government had any choice, other than to declare that it had an interest in trying to do something to tackle the increase in the number of dog attacks on people.
The WMS demonstrates that they are prepared to do something. However, they could have gone much further and the message we are getting back from government is that organisations such as the Blue Cross can push as hard as we like, but this is as far as the government will go.
The opportunity to review dog control legislation more comprehensively appears to have been missed.
The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have both reviewed their dog control policies more broadly, rather than just looking at dangerous dogs.
The British Government is talking about methods to curb dangerous dogs and to promote responsible pet ownership, but realistically, with the exception of the microchipping and some minor funding for responsible pet ownership programmes, there is not much in the WMS that talks about dog control in its broader sense.
The WMS demonstrates that government is willing to do something, but from our perspective, not enough.
What are the next steps for the Blue Cross in your campaign for broader dog control measures?
We will respond fully to the consultation, open until June 15th.
We will continue to push for a review of dog control legislation more generally and we will urge government to reconsider its position on the introduction of Dog Control Notices.
There must be accountability from owners of errant dogs and at an early stage we must ensure that these problems are identified and addressed in order to reduce the number of attacks on people.