Vets Latest to Hit Out at Government’s Dog Law Plans

Veterinary associations have described the Government’s package on dangerous dogs as a missed opportunity to prevent future dog attacks.

The package (for England) includes an extension of dangerous dogs law to cover private property, the removal of the requirement for all dogs to be held in police ‘custody’ and a range of options to introduce the compulsory microchipping of all dogs.

The announcement follows the 2010 Defra consultation on a wide range of dangerous dog and dog control issues.

Although the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) broadly welcome the individual measures announced, the proposals do not include any of the preventive measures that the BVA, BSAVA and many other organisations and individuals have called for since the introduction of the failed Dangerous Dogs Act in 1991.

Commenting, Harvey Locke, Past President of the BVA, said:

“In the 2010 consultation the Government received the message loud and clear that the Dangerous Dogs Act has failed to protect both the public and dog welfare. Unfortunately, today’s announcement has missed this once in a generation opportunity to overhaul the legislation.

“Dog welfare charities, veterinary organisations, trade unions, and enforcement bodies have been united in the call for a complete overhaul of the legislation and a new, consolidated Bill to focus on prevention. There will be a huge amount of frustration and disappointment with today’s announcement.”

Mark Johnston, President of BSAVA, said:

“Although we welcome the individual proposals they only tinker with the inadequate existing laws. The move to cover incidents on private property is a positive step but it will do little or nothing to actually prevent attacks happening in the first place.

See also  McDonald's Pulls 'Insensitive' Pit Bull Ad

“We are pleased that the Government has recognised the problems associated with breed-specific legislation and has proposed steps to ensure the welfare of dogs that have become the subject of court proceedings. This type of ‘bail’ for dogs is a welcome move to improve welfare, but we hope we can make the case for it to go further.”

On compulsory microchipping, Mr Locke added:

“The BVA strongly supports the introduction of compulsory microchipping and will be making the case for all dogs to be microchipped from a certain date, rather than a phased-in approach that would be very difficult to enforce.

“However, microchipping is primarily a welfare measure. It is not the answer to the serious problem of dangerous dogs and shouldn’t be promoted as such.”

Get Our Best Dog Magazine Articles
Enter your email address below and never miss out on our very best dog content

Jasmine Kleine

Jasmine Kleine

Jasmine Kleine is the the online editor at She is an experienced dog owner and professional writer who lives with her two beloved dogs, Mabel and Charlie.


  1. I welcome the new proposal re dog bail as you call it. I am not sure I feel its for the animal welfare though and feel it could be just to save money.
    I am happy however, although we still dont know how this will be enforced. Will the public register their own dogs via the courts under section one, or will the police take the dog in ‘custody’ a day or so before the court hearing ?
    Personally if they really were concerned about deed not breed, then there should have been a complete repeal. Dog discrimination is what BSL is about and its about time the Government woke up and listedned to the BVA.
    I welcome compulsory micro chipping though
    Re private property, whilst I welcome this, I also feel it must be written carefully as we could have trespassers suing us because of a dog bite etc. Not sure how I feel about this being extended to back gardens etc.

  2. politicians, liberals around the world, are idiots. they do not know what reason is. i have broken up a couple of fights between my two bitches from time to time, and i have been bitten. my fault.
    so, does that make my dogs dangerous, No! each case should be separate, do not put all dog owners in the same category..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Don’t Miss Out

Get our very best dog articles direct to your inbox!