Nick Mays examines the breed specific laws which are becoming
the vogue down under.
THE
BREED specific dog control laws due to be ushered in by the
New Zealand Government are, as reported previously, closely
based on the UK’s own flawed and draconian 1991 Dangerous
Dogs Act.
Although the new law does not outlaw any breeds, it does target
four ‘dangerous’ breeds American Pit Bull Terriers,
Dogo Argentinos, Japanese Tosas and Filas Brasiliero will
be required to be muzzled in public.
However, the Government’s own guidelines relating to
the new law leaves the door wide open for the same kind of
abuses against family pets as was perpetrated – and is
still perpetrated – against dogs in the UK under the
DDA.
The guideline states:
It will initially be up to local councils, or their dog control
officers, to determine whether a dog belongs to one of these
breeds to any significant extent. The owner of the dog will
have a right of objection to the council against the classification
with the opportunity to prove that the dog is not one of the
restricted breeds.
At once it is clear that not only is the burden of proof reversed
– as in the DDA – and the dog is pronounced guilty
until proven innocent, with the owner being given the so-called
‘opportunity’ to prove that the dog is not of a
restricted breed. Also, the definition of whether or not a
dog is "of the breed" (in the UK "of the type")
rests with the subjective knowledge and opinion of local authority
employees.
New Zealand based anti-BSL campaigner Marion Harding fears
that Staffordshire Bull Terriers – already erroneously
slammed by the media in their anti-dog campaign over the past
two months – will be routinely mis-identified as American
Pit Bull Terriers.
"What’s equally worrying is that I’ve heard
Stafford owners saying that the new law won’t affect
them and it’s not down to us to fight for Pit Bulls,"
says Marion, "But from what I’ve heard of how the
DDA worked in the UK, Staffords and Stafford crosses will
be fair game for seizure and then it’s down to the owners
to prove that their dog is not a Pit Bull."
Decisive
Marion’s fears are well grounded. In the early days of
the DDA, some enlightened individuals within the Staffordshire
Bull Terrier Breed fraternity saw the writing on the wall
and urged that decisive action against the DDA be taken. But
the prevailing mood amongst many Staffordshire Bull terrier
owners was "it won’t affect us, our dogs aren’t
Pit Bulls."
It soon became clear that SBTs were "fair game"
and not only were many Stafford crosses seized as Pit Bull
‘types’, a number of pedigree Staffordshire Bull
Terriers were seized and actually found ‘guilty’
in court of being Pit Bull ‘types’ – even though
they had Kennel Club pedigrees to prove their ancestry.
Gizmo, although a purebred, KC-registered
Staffordshire Bull Terrier, albeit a slightly taller than
usual specimen was, in the eyes of the law, a Pit Bull ‘type’
One
infamous case from September 1997 concerned ‘Gizmo’,
a pedigree SBT owned by Patrick McGrath. The dog was seized
by Metropolitan Police Officers as an unregistered, illegal
Pit Bull ‘type’ and it was down to Mr McGrath to
prove that his dog was not of the type. Many would have thought
that the dog’s official KC pedigree showing that it was
a purebred SBT from generations of SBTs would have seen the
case thrown out of court. This was not so.
During the court hearing, the police officer ‘expert’
faced cross-examination relating to his assessment of the
dog being a Pit Bull ‘type’ when it was, in fact,
a KC-registered Stafford.
The transcript makes worrying reading:
DEFENCE: Do you dispute the (dog’s) registration?
OFFICER: In my experience of Kennel Club registration, it
means very little.
DEFENCE: Do you not trust KC records?
OFFICER: No. I would not.
The officer then went on to make the outrageous assertion
that a KC pedigree could "be bought from a pet shop."
The judge in the case ruled that Gizmo, although a purebred,
KC-registered Staffordshire Bull Terrier, albeit a slightly
taller than usual specimen was, in law, a Pit Bull ‘type’.
A similar case concerned that of ‘Bruno’, another
rangy, but purebred Stafford, seized by police from its owner
Sharon Kerr in March 2000. By clever legal footwork, the prosecution
managed to debunk the expert evidence of Staffordshire Bull
Terrier judge Alec Walters by suggesting that he did not ‘score’
the dog against the American Dog Breeder’s Association
standard for the Pit Bull Terrier and had therefore been subjective
in declaring the dog to be a Stafford.
Denounced
The court accepted this and ruled that, once again, a purebred,
KC registered, pedigree SBT was, in law, a Pit Bull ‘type’.
Alec Walters furiously denounced the ruling afterwards saying
that if he used the ADBA standard on other breeds, a Great
Dane would score 79% ‘Pit Bull’ characteristics.
Marion Harding has compiled a wealth of information to show
that Staffords are not a dangerous breed, but have been unfairly
demonised in New Zealand.
"There have been many dangerous dog surveys taken throughout
the world in recent years. They attempt to identify the most
dangerous breeds. Massey University undertook such a survey
in 1996. The reported results in the NZ Veterinary Journal
44,138-141, 1996 show that out of 108 breeds and 6 crosses
ranked there were 10 who were identified as extremely aggressive
and none of these were American Pit Bull Terriers, Bull Terriers,
Staffordshire Bull Terriers or American Staffordshire Terriers.
Other surveys show a range of differing results and some of
the breeds that top the lists are indeed surprising.
The Internal Affairs Interim report (April 2003) regarding
dog bites statistics, appears to have been compiled without
due regard for basic scientific statistical principles. It
is seriously flawed and has grossly misrepresented the Staffordshire
Bull Terrier breed and quite possibly other breeds as well.
"The media has repeatedly misnamed the "breed"
of dogs that attacked Carolina Anderson and Angel Daniels.
In both cases, the authorities identified the attack dogs
as crossbreeds.
Even after the media has been asked to print corrections they
have continued to misname the breeds. On March 22nd, 'The
Press' newspaper reported that Carolina Anderson had been
attacked by a Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The description
had changed from a Labrador type dog with a Mastiff head on
February 2nd, through the range to a Staffordshire Bull Terrier
many weeks later.
"Who identifies the biters at the time of attack? How
accurately do the media report the description? The National
Dog Wardens Association in Great Britain has written that
once a particular breed is highlighted by the media in respect
of dog attacks, virtually all subsequent incidents are then
reported by the public as that same breed even where this
is palpably not true. In the UK this was an effect seen in
the early ‘90s following media coverage of Pit Bull Terriers."
Dave Levy, KC spokesman for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier
Breed Council was quite upbeat about the proposed laws and
commented: "My feelings are that there are some issues
in the proposed laws that raise concerns, but it could have
been a lot worse, given the media furore. I think the Government
should be congratulated on taking note of the great volume
of scientific evidence provided to their inquiry by various
agencies around the world. Thanks must go particularly to
the British Kennel Club and the BVA, both of whom have been
extremely active and helpful in providing information against
BSL in general and to demonstrate why Staffordshire Bull Terriers
in particular should not be considered a dangerous breed."
On
remand and on parade; dogs were measured and photographed
In
many ways, Mr Levy’s sentiments are sound – the
New Zealand law is far less draconian than the UK’s DDA
ever was, but once again, the onus of a dog’s identification
is stacked in favour of enforcement officials, whilst the
owner I forced to prove otherwise. It is clear then that New
Zealand’s Staffordshire Bull Terrier breeders and owners
should not rest on their laurels; mis-identification is the
prime tenet of BSL and, as British law has shown, a Staffordshire
Bull Terrier may have an ‘N’th generation KC pedigree,
but in law it is also a Pit Bull.
In fact, if it has four legs, a head, and a tail and says
"Woof" it’s a Pit Bull – it’s the
owner who has to prove otherwise.
