Pet owners in the UK could face a tough road if they own a certain breed of dog, thanks to a new ban proposed by government officials.
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced on friday a plan to exclude what he calls the “American XL Bully” dog from the UK, following a series of attacks that have been attributed to the breed. This law would not only make it a crime to own, breed, give away or sell an XL bully, but it could also give authorities permission to confiscate animals, even if they have no history of aggression.
While homeowners would have the opportunity to apply for a court-ordered exemption, they could also be subject to hefty fines and possible jail time.
Sunak called dogs “a danger to our communities” during the announcement, where he also shared that the rule will come into force at the end of the year.
The bill would add the American XL Bully breed to an existing list under the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991, which currently prohibits the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro.
However, the “American XL Bully” is not a recognized breed by the UK Kennel Club and has not been otherwise defined, meaning officials must first determine in certain terms which dogs qualify as part of the breed. .
According to a statement issued According to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Thérèse Coffey, the government plans to “convene experts to define the type of ‘American XL bully’ breed. This group will include police, canine experts and veterinarians, as well as agents interested in animal welfare.”
In another statement, He referred to a series of recent attacks, including a deadly attack on thursday and one at the beginning of the month that involves an 11 year old girl. “Dog attacks are devastating for victims and their families and it is clear that more needs to be done now to stop them and protect the public,” the statement read. “That’s why we’re taking decisive action to ban the American XL Bully.”
Dr Christine Middlemiss, UK Chief Veterinary Officer he told the BBC Over the weekend there will be an “amnesty” scheme, which will require owners who already have dogs to follow strict guidelines. Keeping your family pet will involve registering it with the government, muzzling it and leashing it when outside at all times, and purchasing insurance.
“But if you follow through with these actions, and that means we will know where these dogs are, which will be a huge benefit, then yes, you will absolutely be able to keep your dog,” he told the outlet.
Stores implement dog bans:Publix-style dog bans make it safer for service dogs and people who need them, advocates say
Experts and citizens respond to the ban proposal
While several groups have advocated for the ban to be implemented, especially after the series of alleged attacks, experts, including veterinary groups and international animal welfare organizations, have spoken out against it. a request called “Bad owners are not to blame for the breed; do not ban the bully XL” It has also garnered widespread support, receiving more than half a million signatures in just a few days.
A spokesperson for the Dog Control Coalition, made up of the RSPCA, Blue Cross, Battersea, Dogs Trust, Hope Rescue, Scottish SPCA, The Kennel Club and the British Veterinary Association, said in an emailed statement: “The recent incidents are deeply distressing and our thoughts are with everyone. those involved”. and affected. “The highest priority for everyone involved is to protect the public, but unfortunately banning the breed will not prevent these types of incidents from happening again.”
The organization criticized the proposed legislation for what it called a lack of data and evidence. According to the organization, in the more than 30 years since the Dangerous Dog Law was implemented, dog bites and attacks have only increased. This is because banning certain breeds does not address the root problems, which they say are unscrupulous breeders and irresponsible owners.
“The coalition urges the Prime Minister to work with them to fully understand the far-reaching consequences of their decision to ban American Bully XLs, which will have significant impacts on owners, the animal welfare sector, veterinarians, law enforcement order and the public”.
Student Loans Could Mean Pet Surrenders:Pet shelters fill up during difficult times. Student loan payments could leave many with difficult decisions.
Could a similar bully breed ban happen in the United States?
Breed restrictions are not entirely uncommon in the US and are sometimes written into housing contracts, insurance plans, and municipal ordinances. Sometimes restrictions reach the state level, something that organizations like the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) are actively fighting against it.
According to ALDF Strategic Legislative Affairs Manager Alicia Prygoski, The reason experts fight these blanket bans is that they are ineffective and ignore other, more successful techniques.
“Restricting dogs based on their appearance or perceived breed is a drastic reactionary political measure that is ineffective and has the potential to break up families and put countless dogs and responsible guardians at risk,” he told USA TODAY. “There are safe alternatives, there are alternatives that will help facilitate safer communities and protect both dogs and humans.”
Prygosk shared that instead of a restrictive breed policy, lawmakers should focus on education, guardian accountability, and breed-neutral laws on dangerous dogs. This would involve things like enforcing leash laws, targeting reckless dog owners and breeders, protecting animals from abuse and fighting, and strengthening community education and sources about proper and responsible dog ownership.
“Studies have shown that when these alternatives are prioritized instead of implementing an instinctive breed-based restriction, the incidence of aggression and biting decreases,” Prygosk shared.
While he called the news from the United Kingdom disappointing, he said trends here in the United States have been more encouraging. In recent years, governments at all levels of the country have made the decision to repeal what Prygosk called “outdated” ordinances that restrict or outright prohibit breeds.
Several states such as Florida, Illinois, and Colorado have also implemented laws to prohibit local governments from establishing policies that restrict race in the first place and prohibit the same restrictions within insurance coverage and public housing.
At the federal level, the Family Pet Law was reintroduced to Congress in June, which would ban restrictions on pets in public housing based on breed.
“It’s really clear that there is momentum to eliminate these antiquated race-based restrictions and there is significant recognition that alternatives to these policies are more effective in keeping communities safe,” Prygosk said. “It’s a really encouraging trend we’re seeing across the country and we’re going to keep fighting to ensure it continues.”
While there are still some municipalities in the U.S. that have these restrictions, Prygosk said the overall trend is moving in the opposite direction. A ban similar to the one proposed in the UK is highly unlikely to come into effect here, she shared, as more and more existing laws targeting dog breeds are being squashed.
“Our hope is that as we try to end these unjust policies at all levels of government, those municipalities will see that shifting the focus from dog breeds toward responsible dog guardianship and common-sense breed-neutral laws actually keep communities safer,” Prygosk said.