Please be aware of a DNA test being advertised offering an “exemption” DNA test to show that your dog is not a Pit Bull “which can be used in court or with any agency” they also imply that the dogs in the attached photograph have had their test applied saying “Here are a set of images taken of dogs that some may consider a “pit bull” based on physical characteristics. Based on our test, the only dog with significant pit bull terrier is picture #3. This dog according to our test is only 12% pit bull.” The attached image is from a quiz published on the blog site “The truth about Pit Bulls” in April 2011 and the dog they refer to as the Pit Bull (#3) is actually an Alapaha blue blood bulldog. The Pit Bull is actually the red dog at #16 which we guess says it all really
We’re receiving reports of owners breaching the terms of their dogs’ exemptions. Simply put, your dog’s life is at risk if you don’t comply. We cannot state this strongly enough. Please also remember, if you move, you must inform DEFRA of your change of address.
If you unsure of any aspect of your dog’s exemption, call us, in strict confidence, for clarification or advice.
A Skelmersdale dog owner is fighting to keep her family pet dog Roxy, after council officials refuse to let Roxy continue to live in her council property.
On 7th March Roxys Owner, Sophie attended a microchipping event run by Dogs Trust. Whilst there, Sophie was approached by Phillipa Sandall, Dog Control Enforcement Officer for West Lancashire Borough Council. Ms Sandall informed Sophie that she had no doubt Roxy was a pit bull and that she would be contacting the police. Further, she told Sophie that she could not get Roxy microchipped and she should go home to wait for the police there.
Owners of registered dogs, please ensure that you renew your insurance on time. Failure to do so causes you dog to become unexmpt and can lead your dog to be re-seized and you being put back before the court. This will incur costs far in excess of the insurance renewal fee and may well result in the court deciding that your failure to comply indicates that you are not ‘a fit and proper person’ to won an exempted dog and ordering destruction on that basis.
Each force area deals with renewal failures differently and police policies change regularly without notice. Just because, when you have beena few days late in the past you have not had difficulty, or been given a few days in which to renew, or not been visited at all, does not mean that it won’t happen. The ONLY way to ensure you are not in this position is to ensure you do not let your insurance lapse for even a day.
We have been increasingy contacted bu owners in the GREATER MANCHESTER force area whose dogs have been re-seized and who are now faving court action for breach of insurance leading them to be in possession of a non exempt dog; some of these are only days out of date. This appears to reflect a change in how things used to be dealt with in the area so anyone who knows anyone with an exempt dog in this, or indeed any area, please point out the importance of renewing the insurance and informed DEFRA on time. Their dogs lives depend on them complying with the exemption
LEAD (Local Environmental Awareness on Dogs) is an award winning initiative that is recognised as “Best Practice” nationally, and is being used by police forces and local authorities throughout England and Wales; for dealing with nuisance dogs and irresponsible dog owners.
We are happy to inform you that we have also began to receive enquires from Europe, i.e. Netherland National Police Force and the Royal Dutch Association for the Protection of Dogs, with regards to our work.”
You can download the LEAD Initiative leaflet here
Below is a statement from good friend and colleague Trevor Cooper who as a result of the case of Battersea dog Francis has been subjected to the most vile and disgusting abuse in the last 24 hours by facebook lawyers who clearly do not understand the law relating to strays.
We are absolutely appalled at the abuse that has been levelled at an organization whose aim was to highlight the flaws in the Dangerous Dogs Act in an effort to change it and which is now being levelled at their legal advisor who also happens to be the leading dog law solicitor in the country (and in our opinion entirely correct)
If you suspect that your dog may be type no amount of posting pictures and inviting opinion on the internet will make things any clearer in fact in all likelihood you will end up more confused than ever (especially when faced with kindly intended but incorrect suggestions that your dog is a Weimaraner cross when you know for a fact your dog has never even seen a weimaraner from across the road let alone been born of one).
A dog cannot be typed definitively from a photograph by anyone, experts included, its not true that the law is simply about the way a dog looks though obviously if the dog does not give the first impression that it resembles a dog of type it isn’t one. The ADBA standard focuses on the ability of a dog to do the job of a fighting dog and any faults it has related to its ability, agility, or stamina will have greater impact on a dogs type that those which are cosmetic only. Photographs can also be deceiving with a dog looking different on practically every one.
It will most likely be suggested if you post online that your dog has been seized, that you set up a support group and start a petition. Petitions are only of use if they are government ones related to the law itself, petitioning for the return of a specific dog to either the police, councils, or to the court are of no use in getting your dog back. The police or council will not release a dog they believe is a banned breed because a petition asks them to.
Two who were on section three charges with the first being released by the court and the second after a caution, the third being a dog found to be type several weeks ago and given exemption only for it to be discovered not to be type at all and a control order being issued instead.
The fourth was dealt with by our fabulous solicitor, Kathryn, and should have been a simple substitution of person in charge but thanks to legal argument was changed to a fresh application which was granted. Huge thanks to Kathryn who was clearly wearing her wonder woman pants.
Its been a funny old week
The issue of transporting dogs in cars crops up on a regular basis.
ALL dogs must be suitably restrained in a vehicle so that it doesn’t distract the driver or injure them if the vehicle stops quickly (UK Highway Code).
However, conditions of exemption state that:
The dog must be muzzled and kept on lead in public places at ALL times, including the car and under the control of a person over the age of sixteen
This means that to follow the letter of the law even if the dog is in a harness attached to a seat belt or in a crate, the dog must still be on a lead and under the control of a person over the age of sixteen if the car they are in, is itself in a public place.
DNB’s original director, Mel Page, contacted DEFRA regarding the application form for owners of exempted dogs:
I wrote to DEFRA a while ago regarding some concerns I had with the information on the Exempted dogs application form:
Re: Dangerous Dogs Act Section 1. Conditions of Exemption.
After studying the DEFRA application for certificate of exemption and a further telephone call to the Dogs Index, I am seeking answers to the following questions:
- Where in the Act does it state that a person must be aged 18 or over to own an exempted dog?
- The Act states that an exempted dog must be controlled by a person aged 16 or over thereby implying that a person must be 16 or over to own such a dog. Page 2 of your form, the ‘Declaration’ states ‘I am over 18 years of age’ which implies that a person under the age of 18 may not own such a dog. The form also states that a person must be over 18 to obtain appropriate third party liability insurance. This is incorrect. Dogs Trust accept members from the age of 16 and as you will be aware provide appropriate third party liability insurance as part of their membership scheme.
- Where in the Act does it stipulate the length of lead that an exempted dog must be walked on?
- Your form states that the length of lead must be less than 2 metres, yet the Act states that an exempted dog must be held securely on a fixed lead. There is no mention of length as far as I can determine.
- I am unable to find any reference to the size of tattoo in the Act, although I am aware of a Home Office Circular stating that the letters and numbers should be at least 10mm in height. I wonder if you could tell me where in the Act there is any mention of the required sizes for tattoos for exempted dogs?