Promoting responsible dog ownership in Scotland: microchipping and other measures

Transcription

1 Promoting responsible dog ownership in Scotland: microchipping and other measures CONSULTATION QUESTIONNAIRE Sector 1 I Which of the following best describes you? A dog owner A dog breeder ' (Please tick whichever option applies) An animal welfare organisation/rescue A local authority * Other r I I have been involved with dog rescue and campaigning for dog welfare for 4 years. I have been involved in securing reputable rescue placements for stray dogs and promoting rescue dogs looking for their forever homes. Current situation in Scotland 1. Are all, some or none of the dogs/puppies In your care already/routinely microchipped? Please explain. (Please tick whichever option applies) All 13 Some None Don't know N/A i My dog is already microchipped. Please see attached document for further information.

2 2. Do you offer a microchipping service to the general public? If you do, what geographical range do you cover, how many dogs did you chip in Scotland in 2012 and how much do you charge? Please explain your answers, i YesD No N/A (Please tick whichever option applies) Number: Fee: L 3. If you run a rescue/rehoming centre, do you ensure that all, some or none of the dogs are microchipped prior to rehoming? How many dogs did you microchip/arrange to be microchipped in 2012? How many dogs came to you in 2012 that were already microchipped? Please explain your answers. All Some None N/A (Please tick whichever option applies) Number microchipped in 2012: I r Number arriving microchipped In 2012:

3 Potential benefits of compulsory microchipping 4. Do you consider that compulsory microchipping would help to make dog owners more responsible? Please explain and provide any evidence that you may have. YesQ No 13 Don't Know (Please tick whichever option applies) Microchipping alone will not make dog owners more responsible. Education and legislation is the only way to promote responsible dog ownership. Please see attached document for further information

4 5. Do you consider that compulsory microchipping for dogs would help to deter dog theft? Please explain and provide any evidence that you may have. Yes No S Don't Know (Please tick whichever option applies) Unless vets, dog wardens and police are compelled by law to routinely scan for a microchip, there is no deterrent. [ Please see attached document for further information. \ 6. Do you consider that compulsory microchipping for dogs would help to tackle the issue of puppy farming? Please explain and provide any evidence that you may have. Yes 13 No Don't Know (Please tick whichever option applies) Compulsory microchipping would also ensure that puppies bred by unlicensed breeders or on puppy farms could be traced back to the source. Please see attached document for further information.

5 7. Do you consider that compulsory microchipping for dogs would help to address other dog welfare issues, such as abuse/mistreatment? Please explain and provide any evidence that you may have. Yes 3 No Don't Know (Please tick whichever option applies) Compulsory microchipping would provide evidence of ownership in the case of cruelty, abandonment and neglect. However, keeping microchip details up to date would need to be a legal requirement. Please see attached document for further information. 8. Do you consider that compulsory microchipping for dogs would help to prevent dog attacks on people/animals, including on assistance dogs? Please explain and provide any evidence that you may have. Yes No 13 Don't Know (Please tick whichever option applies) Only changes in what constitutes responsible dog ownership and appropriate penalties for irresponsible dog ownership would go any where to preventing attacks.

6 Potential challenges of compulsory microchipping 9. In the long term, the compulsory microchipping of dogs may require all owners to pay to microchip their dogs and to update their details on the commercial database that their dog Is registered on. Do you think this would be an unfair burden on any particular sectors? Please explain. i YesD No 3 Don't Known (Please tick whichever option applies) Rehoming/sanctuary charities Individuals in receipt of benefits Other L If you cannot afford the nominal fee to microchip, how can you afford to provide all the necessary care for that animal? I Many charities offer subsidised microchipping. If this service were offered during the introduction of compulsory microchipping, everyone would be able to afford to do it. 10. When a microchipped animal changes ownership, the registration details on the database must be updated for microchipping to be effective. If microchipping was to be made compulsory, with whom should this responsibility lie: The seller, the buyer, or both? Please explain why and how you consider that the requirement could be enforced? i Seller Buyer Both 3 Don't Know (Please tick whichever option applies)

7 Both seller and buyer should be responsible for ensuring a change of ownership - using a system similar to vehicle registration documents. However, the last known keeper ofthe animal should be ultimately held responsible should they not have ensured transfer of ownership. Please see attached document for further information. 11. Are you aware of any difficulties due to different microchip companies using different technical specifications regarding scanners etc.? Please explain. Yes NoD Don't Know (Please tick whichever option applies)

8 12. Do you think that any regulation being introduced on microchipping should set minimum standards for commercial databases? Why, and If so what should they be? Yes 3 NoD Don't Know (Please tick whichever option applies) Minimum standards should be at least: i Name, address, 2 telephone numbers, description of animal, vets details, details of any illnesses. In the case ofa rescue or pound dog, dog should be microchipped to that rescue or pound but also have dual registration including the above information for the current keeper (adopter). There has to be some form of security in place to stop just anyone from changing microchip details to protect lost or stolen animals. Please see attached document for further information. 13. Presentiy, the dog owner, the microchip implanter, and some animal welfare organisations are able to access current database records, but only enforcement authorities are able to see previous records. Do you think this should remain the same? Please explain. Yes No3 Don't Know (Please tick whichever option applies) People should be able to trace the history of a dog. There are many benefits to this - finding out the dog's history, illnesses, etc. oiiiiiii

9 14. Do you believe that compulsory microchipping would be easy or difficult to enforce effectively? Why? Can you suggest what approach to enforcement would be most appropriate? Easy Difficult Don't Know (Please tick whichever option applies) At the moment, it is virtually impossible to enforce effectively as nobody is willing to take responsibility for the job. There has to be a system of mandatory scanning in place with vets, dog wardens and police to ensure that all dogs are microchipped. Please see attached document for further information 15. Do you have any concerns that microchipping could cause health problems in dogs? Please explain. Yes No Don't Know (Please tick whichever option applies)

10 Business impact 16. Do you believe that compulsory microchipping would have a positive or negative financial or other impact on owners, enforcement agencies, animal welfare organisations/rehoming charities, dog breeders, pet shops, microchip database companies? Please Explain. ^ Positive Negative Don't Know 3 10

11 Compulsory microchipping in Scotland 17. Do you believe that all dogs In Scotiand should be microchipped? Why? Yes 3 No Don't Know (Please tick whichever option applies) Microchipping is an essential part of dog ownership. Please see attached document for full information 18. Do you consider that any sectors of dog ownership (for example rehoming/sanctuary charities, police, armed services, security services, guide/helper dogs, vermin control, sheep dogs, or other sectors) merit exemption from any requirement to microchip? Why? Yes No 3 Don'tknow (Please tick whichever option applies) Exemptions would defeat the purpose of compulsory microchipping as any dog can be lost, stolen or abandoned. 11

12 19. Which ofthe suggested options for introducing any requirement for compulsory microchipping do you believe would work best? Do you have an alternative option to suggest? Please explain. / t-r'.9' - (Please tick whichever option applies) i j 1. Status Quo ' 2. All puppies born after a specific date should be microchipped 3. All dogs microchipped on transfer of ownership 4. Two-phase approach over 2 years 5. Microchipping of all dogs within one year of legislation coming into effect. 6. Other. \ 12

13 other possible measures to promote responsible dog ownership 20. Do you think a system of dog licensing could help encourage responsible dog ownership and help make our communities safer from dangerous and out of control dogs? Do you have views on how such a dog licensing scheme might operate? I have several suggestions on how to achieve responsible dog ownership: 1, Compulsory Microchipping 2. Restricted Breeding 5. Dogs in Public Places 4, Restrictions on persons in charge of a dog 5, Education 6. Responsible rehoming of stray dogs 7. Advertising Restrictions Please see attached document for full details.

14 21. Do you think muzzling of dogs while in public should be Introduced? Mandatory muzzling of all dogs quite simply would not work. i Most dog attacks (particularly recent attacks) have occurred in the home where mandatory muzzling would not apply. ' - ' It is likely to have the detrimental effect of people not bothering to address behavioural issues with their dogs because they would be relying on the muzzle to deal with any problems or issues. ' Muzzling will affect a dog's ability to pant and drink in hot weather, which could have a detrimental effect on a dog's health. It. V Muzzling dogs would prevent normal behaviour and the stress caused to a dog by wearing a muzzle could potentially lead to more behavioural issues. If a dog became unwell whilst out and started vomiting, removing the muzzle to prevent the dog from potentially choking would result in the owner breaking the law. Whilst responsible dog owners would follow the law and muzzle their dogs, there is still an element of the general public who will not do this, which means that an unmuzzled dog could still attack a muzzled dog, potentially inflicting serious injuries and the muzzled dog would have no chance of defending itself. 22. The Dog Fouling (Scotiand) Act 2003, gives local authorities the powers to deal with dog mess Are you aware that local authorities have these powers? i Yes 3 No Don't know Q (Please tick whichever option applies) Do you think they are being used effectively In your area? Yes nh No 3 Don'tknow O (Please tick whichever option applies) Is there more you think can be done to address this issue effectively? Yes 3 No O Don'tknow (Please tick whichever option applies) 14

15 Provision of more dog bins, regular emptying of dog bins -1 have seen bins in certain areas overflowing with people unable to get any more in them. Provision of free "poo bags" and easy access to them. Patrols of problem areas and investigation of reports of dog fouling. 15

16 Any other comments 23. Do you have any other comments on the possible Introduction of compulsory microchipping for dogs in Scotland? 24. Do you have any other comments on the promotion of responsible dog ownership in Scotland to help improve the safety our communities from dangerous and out of control dogs?

17 y 25. Do you consider that the consultation paper explained the key Issues sufficiently for you to properiy consider your responses? 26. Do you consider that you had sufficient time to respond to the consultation?

18 27. Do you have any other comments on the way this consultation has been conducted? 18

19 Promoting responsible dog ownership in Scotland: microchipping and other measures Consultation Document 27 December 2013 to 31 March 2014 I have given great thought to the consultation document and I would like to take this opportunity to put fonward some suggestions as to how responsible dog ownership can be achieved in Scotiand. I have been Involved with dog rescue and campaigning for dog welfare for 4 years. I have been Involved In securing reputable rescue placements for stray dogs and promoting rescue dogs looking for their forever homes. Introduction According to the Dogs Trust stray dogs survey, local authorities picked up a staggering 111,986 stray dogs last year in the UK. That's over 300 dogs every day. I would suggest that It Is vitally Important to speak to many dog rescues (not Just The Dog's Trust), dog owners, the Scottish Kennel Club, veterinary surgeons and accredited behaviourists on the subject of how responsible dog ownership can be achieved in Scotiand. Victims of dog attacks and their families have been through a traumatic incident and are understandably going to have the knee jerk reaction of wanting certain breeds banned and other, possibly ill thought out measures piit into place with regard to dog ownership. Proposals for Responsible Dog Ownership I would like to put fonvard the following proposals: , 7. Compulsory Microchipping Restricted Breeding Dogs in Public Places Restrictions on persons In charge of a dog Education Responsible rehoming of stray dogs * Advertising Restrictions

20 Compulsory Mkrochipping This should be an essential part of dog ownership. 1. It allows for a lost dog to be reunited with its owner. This would mean fewer dogs would be euthanised In stray pounds. i 2. It should not solely be used for Identifying "dangerous dogs" but should also protect dogs from abandonment and abuse. Microchipping should be a legal form of Identifying the owner of a dog. If a pet is lost or stolen, there is nothing to stop the finder applying to the microchip company for a change of ownership. Although the microchip company may well contact the registered owner to advise them that their pet has been found, the Data Protection Act does not allow the details of the person who now has the pet to be divulged. In many cases, the police are not interested in trying to help reunite a pet with Its registered owner. Cleariy there are some further changes required to ensure that once a microchipped pet has been identified as not being with the owners to whom It Is registered, there is a sensible process In place to get the pet back home. ^ Many people also do not know how to change or update their microchip Information. This needs to be addressed and highlighted in the papenwork that accompanies the microchip. When a dog is first taken to a vet, that dog should be scanned as a matter of course and microchip details confirmed to be those of the person presenting the dog. Microchipping should be similar to vehicle registration - a legal requirement that ownership or address changes be notified to the chipping company. When a licensed breeder sells a pup, they must also microchip that pup and send the details of the new owner to the database. The majority of rescues microchip the dog to themselves. This is to ensure that a rescue should always be able to keep a track of their dogs should they be lost, stolen or abandoned. However, it would be useful for the microchip company to operate a dual registration system so that the current keeper (adopter) can also be notified should a lost or stolen dog be found or so that the last known keeper can be traced should the dog be abandoned. Only the rescue or pound should be allowed to change the details held for the microchip. Failure to complete the transfer of ownership Incurs a fine. Fines for not keeping microchip details current should be imposed. Strict penalties should be in place for the abandonment or abuse of any dog. I feel that the Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 is not used enough. There are many times that a dog has ended up In the stray pound, the owners are traced and they refuse to claim their dog. In such cases, the owners should be penalised to the full extent of the law.

21 I also feel that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is not used to Its fullest extent. The Act can be very subjective and in many cases is down to the opinion of an investigating officer as to whether it Is being broken. Compulsory microchipping would decrease the workload for those dealing with stray dogs. Enabling a stray dog to be quickly reunited with its owner would also reduce kennelling costs to local authorities. Compulsory microchipping would also ensure that puppies bred by unlicensed breeders or on puppy farms could be traced back to the source. ia 11 Due to the number of microchipping companies, there should be a central, national database to make checking microchip details easier for the authorities. Give dog owners one "free pass" per year - if a lost dog is picked up, the owner won't have to pay pound fees. If this happens more than once, then fees will be incurred. Restricted Breeding Only licensed, registered breeders to be allowed to breed dogs. Anyone found to be breeding dogs whilst unlicensed should have the monetary proceeds of that breeding seized, pups rehomed via an appropriate rehoming centre when they are of the correct age to leave their dam to ensure good socialisation and behaviour in adult life and the parent dogs only returned to the owner following neutering to prevent further unlicensed breeding - unless of course that person wishes to apply for a breeding licence and Is willing to adhere to the regulations relafing to being a licensed breeder. TTiere is an element of society that sees breeding dogs to be a form of income - an income on which they do not pay tax. Unlike responsible breeders, they do not breed for the betterment of their breed of choice. These people do not carry out the relevant health checks for the breed, they do not seek appropriate care for the pregnant bitch and they do not care who buys a puppy from them, nor do they care what happens to that puppy once it's left their hands. The first few weeks of a puppy's life can have lasting effects on Its behaviour in later life and can create a reactive or balanced dog depending on the knowledge and intent of the breeder. In-esponsible breeders and puppy farms do not allow for the proper emotional development of a dog causing behavioural and health problems of dogs that are bought by unwitting members of the public. I do not believe that the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 is enforced as well as it should be. Licensed breeders would be regularly inspected to ensure that the health and welfare of the dogs Is being taken care of. -.

22 They would have appropriate contracts whereby they will take any dog back should the owner not be able to keep that dog. Appropriate health checks would be carried out. Income from selling puppies should be taxed. i I. ' This could be enforced In a similar way to benefit fraud. It is common for people already on benefits to see the breeding of puppies as a supplemental income which they do not declare. A hotiine numlier for reporting unlicensed breeding would enable members of the public to report such cases. Simple campaigns showing the public how an unlicensed breeder profits would encourage the public to report. I do not believe that the public Is aware of the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act This Act needs to be publicised thoroughly. Close down and ban all puppy farms. This protects dogs, puppies and the i unsuspecting public from buying ill and diseased animals. The RSPCA reports that puppy farming and puppy trafficking has risen by a staggering 21% in just one year. Compulsory microchipping would also ensure that puppies bred by unlicensed breeders or on puppy farms could be traced back to the source. ;[ < 9 The sale of puppies in pet stores, which may well be supplied by puppy farms or the importing of puppies, should be banned. These stores enable anyone to buy a dog on a whim. No checks are made for the suitability of the home. The parents are not available to be seen. Very often, if a puppy has been taken from a puppy farm, it has been brought up in less than ideal conditions and any problem behaviours will follow that puppy to its new home. Unsuspecting customers do not realise the Implications of buying a puppy ] I from a pet store. Placing restrictions on breeding is the only way to try and take control of the ever-increasing numbers of puppies being bred and the resulting numbers of dogs abandoned. The kennelling and destruction of unwanted dogs by the council costs the taxpayer thousands of pounds each year. Rescues and their volunteers spend millions in an attempt to help these dogs. Unwanted dogs are also a valuable source of bait for dog fighters. Allowing anyone to breed dogs and then killing unwanted animals is a poor reflection on our society. Dogs in Public Places All dogs on the public highway should be on a lead. The Road Traffic Act 1988, section 27 should be strenuously implemented. This may appear Draconian to some but there are many people who are frightened of dogs, or dog owners who have pets that are frightened or have a dislike of other dogs. These people should be able to walk on

23 the streets without the fear of an off lead dog approaching them. Having your dog on a lead also protects the dog from the risk of being run over should anything happen which may cause an off lead dog to run in fear or panic. % 1 Fixed penalty fines to be Issued for any dog not on a lead In a public place. 3.1 Designated dog exercise areas should be provided, which are secure and fenced off., Dogs In these areas should still be under the control ofthe handler and not allowed to cause nuisance to other dog exercise area users. Children under the age of 16 should not be allowed in these areas without the supervision of an adult. In these circumstances, the adult should be accountable for both the behaviour of the child and the dog in their charge. Restrictions on persons in charge of a dog 1. Children under the age of 16 years should not be in sole charge of a dog. Any person over the age of 16 who is In charge of a dog should be of the maturity and ability to control that dog in the event of any incident. Any person who is convicted of cruelty should be banned from living with animals for life. At the moment, such a person can be banned from owning a dog but there is nothing to stop them residing with someone else that has a dog. Education We do not have a dog problem - we have a people problem. Education on responsible dog ownership is key. Children can be taught from a young age how to behave appropriately around a dog. Nurseries, primary schools and secondary schools should have an education programme in place which is suitable for the age group involved. Children are often more likely the victims of dog attacks for many reasons. Children are normally shorter and weaker and have poorer judgement than most adults. Beaver (2001) summarises that:

24 "Children's natural behaviours, inciuding running, yelling, grabbing, hitting, quick and darting movements, and maintaining eye contact, put them at risk for dog bite injuries. Proximity ofa child's face to the dog also increases the risk that facial injunes will occur." I Kahn et al (2003) report that In dog bite cases, 65% of patients were bitten at horjie and 35% of bites took place in public. "The bite accidents that occurred at home concemed children with a median age of 5 years, who were without adult supervision at the time ofthe accident The children who were bitten by dogs in public places had a median age of 9 years. For 77 bites, the dog was not familiar to the child. Based on the history, it appeared that 56 out of 65 accidents at home and 11 out of 35 in public places resulted mainly from the children's or adult's behavior. CONCLUSION: To reduce the frequency of dog bites both at home and in public places, education could be the preventive measure with the highest pnority. Out of 100 accidents, 67 children might not have been bitten had they and their parents been adequately educated on safe conduct towards dogs." In the instances where children are not under adult supervision and sustain a dog bite, the adult responsible for that child at the time of the incident should be held accountable, unless the person in charge of the dog at the time of the incident did not have the dog on a lead or under their full control, in which case that person is held accountable. Education should also include correct behaviour in the event of a potential dog attack. Parents should also ensure that they educate their children in the correct behaviour around dogs. Simple things such as Instructing their child never to approach a strange dog without first asking the owners permission - not hugging, tugging at or sitting on a dog. This can also be covered in schools. The concerns of dog attacks in the USA have prompted the development of Bite Prevention Programmes. There Is already some evidence that such programmes can influence the behaviour and beliefs of children. Responsible rehoming of Stray dogs I Whilst it is preferable that stray dogs should go to a reputable rescue centre for assessment, neutering, vaccinating and microchipping prior to being rehomed, I am aware that rescue centres are at capacity with abandoned and abused dogs. Stray pounds rehoming direct to the public Is not ideal but It does happen and quite often, successfully. However, to give these stray dogs the best chance of a rehoming being successful, I would strongly advise that stray pounds carry out homechecking of prospective homes and neutering at the very least.

25 Homechecking prospective homes would lessen the likelihood of a dog ending up in the wrong hands and follow up homechecks would go some way to ensure that the dog is being properiy cared for and has not been passed from pillar to post. Councils and stray kennels may not have the manpower or resources to carry out the relevant homechecks, however, independent rescue centres use a network of experienced volunteers to carry out the homechecks on their behalf. This networi< could easily be utilised by councils and stray kennels. Neutering animals prior to rehoming is essential to avoid the possibility of them being bred from. Advertising Restrictions The current trend of offering dogs for sale or "free to good home" on social media sites, such as Facebook, free ads sites, such as Gumtree, Preloved must be banned. It is essential that this anonymous advertising be brought to an end. Dogs and puppies risk ending up in the wrong hands. There is no control over who Is taking these dogs and quite often, owners will tell potential buyers anything in an attempt to offload the dog onto them. This can potentially have disastrous consequences when unknown dogs are placed into inappropriate homes - with young children, other dogs or other pets. Very often these types of free advertising sites are targeted by the criminal element to enable them to get dogs and cats to be used for bait in dog fighting. i Restrictions on advertising need to be brought Into force. Any online advertising needs to be traceable. This can be achieved by online sites charging a nominal fee to place an advert, which Is payable only by credit or debit card. This would ensure that correct contact details for the advertiser are available and traceable. When completing adverts for litters of puppies, the inclusion of a breeder's license number would also ensure that breeders could be tracked to ensure that they are licensed breeders and not so called "back yard" or "hobby" breeders. Anyone trying to advertise a litter for sale and not able to provide a license number would then be traced and the penalties for unlicensed breeding can be implemented. Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 The Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) is probably one of the worst pieces of legislation ever put in place. This Is proven by the number of countries who have already repealed their Breed Specific Legislation. The introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) has not shown a decrease in dog attacks. In

26 fact, dog attacks have increased. In 1990, a year before the Dangerous Dogs Act came into force, there were approximately 1,150 hospital admissions due to dog bites. However, this figure has steadily increased over the years with approximately 6,447 hospital admissions reported by I also believe that there will have been many more dog bites, by more "socially acceptable" breeds that have never been reported. When a dog attack is reported in the media, there Is more concentration on whether the attacking dog was a banned breed instead of examining the cause of such dog attacks. Very rarely do dogs attack for no reason. Breed specific legislation falls for several reasons. 1, Breed Is not the sole predictor for aggression In dogs. 2. J BSL does not take Into account the human factor involved with dog attacks. S. Hi II. Since the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act, there are many hundreds of dogs that have been seized and euthanised for no reason other than how they look. It is most definitely "trial by tape measure". Innocent family pets have died and responsible families affected by this law, yet still dog attacks are on the rise. i There is no exact science to detennining a dog breed. DNA testing is ineffective because the "pit bull type" dog is a combination of several breeds. There is no database of purebred American Pit Bull Terriers to use for DNA profiling. Without reliable DNA tests, most people Identify "pit bull types" based on individual visual assessments. These assessments are subjective - meaning that they are influenced by a person's preconceived notion about what a particular type of dog should look like. The American Dog Breeders Association American Pit Bull Terrier conformation that Is used by dog legislation officers to Identify "pit bull type" dogs actually has a disclaimer saying that it should not be used as a breed identifier. What does not get taken Into consideration during the examination of a dog are the many physical characteristics that it may share with a legal breed compared to those of the American Pit Bull Terrier. This means that a dog can be wrongly deemed as "pit bull type" because the assessor will view the dog with the preconceived notion of what he believes to be a "pit bull type", without considering the similarities and conformation ofthe similar legal breed. Since the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act, there has been an Increase in general irresponsible dog ownership, dog bites, dog attacks and the reprehensible activity of dog fighting.

27 Even though four dog breeds have been banned, there is no reduction of the number of "pit bull type" dogs. All the Dangerous Dogs Act has done is make the certain breeds deemed illegal more attractive to the wrong people. Undesirables are crossing breeds of dogs to give them larger, stronger, more powerful dogs. If these dogs are seized, all that will happen Is that attention will then be directed at large, strong, powerful dog breeds that are not covered by the Dangerous Dogs Act. Efforts should be concentrated on responsible dog ownership and not breeds ofdog. t All dogs have the potential to bite, Irrespective of breed. Obviously bites from large breeds of dogs can do more damage than those from smaller breeds, however, a small dog can still inflict dreadful injuries and even cause death in the young or the elderly. Following any dog attack, the circumstances of that attack should be examined. Quite often there is a human contributory factor to a dog attack. The following article cites studies carried out on whether Breed Specific Legislation has been effective in reducing the number of dog bites. It is clear that it does not wori^ and Breed Specific Legislation has been repealed in many countries. I would suggest that Scotiand also campaigns to repeal Breed Specific Legislation in order to remove the Ihrlll" of having a banned dog. Also, education about what is responsible dog ownership would be a valuable preventer of attacks. Children In particular should be taught how to behave around dogs, and children should never be left unattended with dogs. I have covered this area further Into my proposals. Mandatory Muzzling v Mandatory muzzling of all dogs quite simply would not work. Most dog attacks (particularly recent attacks) have occun^ed In the home where mandatory muzzling would not apply. It is likely to have the detrimental effect of people not bothering to address behavioural issues with their dogs because they would be relying on the muzzle to deal with any problems or issues. Muzzling will affect a dog's ability to pant and drink in hot weather, which could have a detrimental effect on a dog's health. Muzzling dogs would prevent normal behaviour and the stress caused to a dog by wearing a muzzle could potentially lead to more behavioural issues.

28 If a dog became unwell whilst out and started vomiting, removing the muzzle to prevent the dog from potentially choking would result In the owner breaking the law. i Whilst responsible dog owners would follow the law and muzzle their dogs, there is still an element of the general public who will not do this, which means that an unmuzzled dog could still attack a muzzled dog, potentially inflicting serious injuries and the muzzled dog would have no chance of defending itself. Dog Registration/Licensing The reintroduction of dog licences/registration Is theoretically a good Idea and could be done in such a way as it is seen as a benefit to responsible dog owners. You need a licence to drive a car or own a shotgun, so why shouldn't people have to have a licence to own a dog? However, I feel that the reintroduction of dog licensing might not work because the public would feel that they were having to pay for something twice - licensing along with the compulsory microchipping. Licensing on a local authority level could also be difficult to Implement for people who move out of the area. Compulsory microchipping alone would be effective, as long as changes were made to microchipping laws. I have discussed these changes in section 1. Summary Companion animals play a vital role In our lives, however there Is still a gaping chasm between responsible and irresponsible dog owners. As a nation, it is vital that we recognise the problems and address them accordingly. Many dog attacks occur through the sheer Ignorance of humans and It is our duty to ensure that the population is educated. Microchipping alone will not achieve responsible dog ownership - responsible dog ownership and prevention of dog attacks can only be done with a combination of education and legislation. Whilst many of these proposals will command initial financial outiays, through time, they would become self-funding through registration charges, fixed penalty fines and local authority rehoming fees. Microchipping alone would not generate any funding to enforce new laws, however, Implementation of fixed penalty fines would generate the necessary income to enforce the new laws.

29 Acknowledgments American Dog Breeders Association, American Pitbull Terrier Breed Conformation Beaver et al A community approach to dog bite prevention hlips://wyyvy.3vma,0i:cj^^^ BSL Studies, Defending Dog Dogs Trust Stray Dog Sun/ey 2013 Kahn, A., Bauche, P., Lamoureux, J., Child victims of dog bites treated in emergency departments: a prospective survey. Eur. J. Pedlatr. 162, KC Dog Blog, Failure of breed specific policy In the UK IWIRCVS Online, Puppy Farming calls on the rise h se.,--jiirar:ns-'cbartty The Science Dog. The Kids are all right, 2014 h',., ,:;s?age-alnght/ Wisdom Panel DNA Testing - Does Wisdom Panel test for "Pit-bull" littp:/i' test vomr..ciq{ /faqs/^7d3; * :