Hi Guys, Right we,well most of us are against BSL/DDA,so i propose we get together and write letters to our local MP's,stating why the current legislation is not working. I have done a draft letter using other stuff on the net i have found. What do you think? Is there anything else that could be added in? Dear ???????? You will probably be aware of the recent media coverage of dog attacks on children,including the tragic events of January 2007,where by a beautiful little girl lost her life to an attack by alledgly a pitbull type dog.It is similar in many repects to that experienced in the months leading up to the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Current Policies are achieving very little to prevent further attacks. Unfortunately, much of the media appears to again be pursuing the simplistic route of blaming the “breed” involved in each incident rather than trying to understand and deal with the real cause of such attacks. There is an increasing danger that the current Government and parliamentarians will be similarly drawn into a response which has surely now been shown to be ineffective in protecting the public and particularly children. The problem with the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, despite the hard won amendment in 1997, continues to be the emphasis placed on the idea that a dog is dangerous because of its breed rather than its behaviour. It may not be palatable to some people, and certainly not the politicians like Kenneth Baker who rushed to introduce his conscience salving nonsense, that the breeds that have actually killed people in the UK over the past 50 years include a West Highland White Terrier, Golden Retriever and “Jack Russell”. The popular press might have you believe that those breeds should therefore be banned and condemn the many thousands of healthy and well-adjusted examples of each of these breeds that live contentedly with children, the elderly and the lonely bringing comfort and companionship. The reaction to any incident where a child is badly mauled seems set in stone. Kill the dogs involved, cremate them as quickly as possible and call for a ban on the “breed” involved. What is learned from such actions? The answer is “absolutely nothing”. The benefit for the public is zero. The rewards for all the politicians and newspaper editors is substantial. After all, they are “protecting the public” ……… I do not agree! Scientific evidence from around the world conclusively demonstrates that factors such as the criminal or social background of the owner is far more significant than the type of dog involved. Of course the newspapers will frequently cite the Pitbull, Rottweilers or other powerful dog but this is increasingly being proven, after the event, to be something else entirely. Why is this? Simply that the general public’s knowledge of “breeds” is substantially based on what they read in the newspapers. If the papers have been full of stories about German Shepherds then the public will report anything from a Rough Collie to a Briard/Dobermann cross as a “German Shepherd”. It is unfortunately true that a certain “type” of person can be attracted to the bull breeds. The cycle is obvious. The media inadvertently glorifies the worst aspects of a breed’s history. The inconsiderate or delinquent thug decides to get a dog that will enhance his image and then goes on to intentionally train the animal to be extra aggressive, perhaps cross breeding to combine the very worst examples of aggression and power. Rumour says that some dogs are even treated with hallucinogenic drugs to increase their maladjustment. Of course not every attack can be tracked back to criminal ownership. Equally dangerous is the stupidity of selling pups produced from selectively bred working guard dogs to the general public as pets. Whilst accepting that nurture is at least as influential as nature in such cases, never the less dogs intentionally bred through several generations for their nervousness, aggression and excitability are likely to carry at least some of those characteristics into their progeny. Targeting a specific breed is not appropriate. The main problems relate to irresponsible ownership and lack of education. Yet governments, local and national, continue to act like sheep and merely follow the old, failing policy of “ban the breed”. The Kennel Club’s Domino Campaign has been prominent in making the dog owning public aware of the risks inherent in the political clamour to introduce ever more restrictions on dog ownership. The law introduced in the UK in 1991 was quickly followed by a muzzling order affecting nearly 40 breeds in Eire. In 1992 came the critically important decision in Bavaria to also ban several breeds. With a fragmented opposition from Bull Terrier owners and only 2 Staffordshire Bull Terriers in the area there was little that could be done to prevent their inclusion. 9 years later, it was the Bavarian “model” that was taken up by the German Federal Government and no amount of opposition could make them consider the fact that there had never been a single SBT attack reported in the entire country. Other countries are now trying to follow the German lead and other breeds are gradually being introduced to the “list”. Although not responsible for any of the recent attacks that have in the media, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and its cousin the Bull Terrier have once again been pilloried by certain sections of the press. I believe that we can learn to prevent most of the severe attacks. This is also the expressed view of veterinary and animal welfare organisations across the World and including The Kennel Club, NCDL and BVA. What we desperately need is for some rules to be created for the investigation of serious dog bite incidents that will enable us to understand the causes of attacks and begin to educate the “breeders”, owners and the general public to prevent escalation in an increasingly crowded world. In my opinion this includes containing the dogs involved rather than immediately killing them if at all possible. In most cases, the dogs are actually captured alive and can easily be caged and made safe without killing them immediately. I am not pleading for their lives – I agree that this “crime” should carry the death penalty for these dogs – but not immediately! · Allow the animal behaviourists to test the animals involved. · Check their system for drugs. · Check their responses to various stimuli and check for attack training. Surely a post-mortem is an absolute must in such cases. We need to know what really causes dogs to attack people and we cannot do that by just killing them. If we are to prevent repeated recurrences of such incidents we have two choices. We can either ban ALL dogs (ignoring the many scientifically proven health, social and educational benefits of such pet ownership to the lonely, elderly and children) or we can instigate informed research to determine just how the misbehaviour of humans leads to such attacks and legislate to prevent such actions.
Wow, Sal, you have certainly done your homework,That is a very very good letter outlining some outstanding points.There isn't anything i can add to that,brilliant work.
Thanks Steve, I wish i could say it was all mine but i've copied bits in and added bits from the net, getting it the the right order was the hardest. But that's what it's there for,so hopefully if it's copied and sent out to MP's etc we may get the message accross. So please feel free to use it in our fight against BSL/DDA.
Exactly Sal,that what the information is out there for.I will be printing off several copies of that and posting them out first thing monday.
I will get that printed and sent off too as soon as i get back from my driving lesson. Well done sal :smt023
Can I just say that instead of just copying the letter to write one in your own words. Time and again I have heard of campaigns where letter writing is a part of it and they take no notice of letters that are all the same from people, they will skip over it. It's always best to put it in your own words for greater impact. Becky
Becky can i just say i think your trying to wind everyone, just stay out of it if you have nothing good to say
Becky not everyone is that good at writing letters that's why i used stuff i found on the net,that's what it's there for,plus they will be going to MP's etc around the country,not all in the same area.
I don't think it should be automatically assumed someone is trying to wind people up when they try to offer constructive advice.... While I applaud Nissanmads enthusiasm and willingness to actually do something Becky has got a point. I have been involved in various campaigns and the usual advice is to keep letters of protest short/factual/relevant . Perhaps the best answer is for everyone to decide which type of letter they prefer to send. If you wish to write a letter of complaint about the recent dog amnesty which was held on Merseyside don't forget to include John Reid, the Home Secretary on your mailing list. As the department in charge of policing The Home Office would have had to approve the amnesty .
I think offering advice to ensure your campaign is successful is something good to say but the choice is up to you. It was a suggestion to help you. I appreciate not everyone is good at writing letters but Nissanmad has written a good letter which can easily be edited to put it more in your own words and make sure that it is actually read by the people who you are writing to. Becky
