Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 - and similar (research paper)

Hi everyone,

I am a law student currently taking a module called ‘Animal Welfare & Wildlife Law’. Our marked assignment is an essay on a topic of our choice. I have chosen to look into the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 – more specifically how it’s current state is not satisfactory. Perhaps looking at other methods in other countries (so any information on how other countries successfully deal with the problem would be appreciated).

The essay is in its early stages and I am still researching this topic. But I am looking for sources, articles, opinions etc. on any of the points below.

• The situation before the DDA – what brought this legislation about? Any particular cases/media reports?

• Overall aims of the DDA

• Does the DDA achieve it’s aim? Pros/Cons

• The detrimental effect on certain breeds – e.g. the banned breeds, also Staffi’s as even though they are not a breed named in the Act they have been demonised
increasingly. Maybe this legislation actually encourages the wrong kind of owners to these dogs?

• Opinions, proposals etc. on compulsory micro chipping/licensing?

• The law elsewhere – where such issues have been successfully dealt with.

• Suggestions – what would help the situation? This can be purely opinion.

So if anyone has any articles, information, sources, and particular cases/media reports of attacks or otherwise or just opinions on any of the above points then I’d much appreciate it.

The general gist of the essay, whilst striking a balance, will be that the legislation is not satisfactory and more needs to be done to protect the dogs and hold owners more accountable.

Whilst I agree with your sentiments, it is unwise to reach a conclusion before objectively reviewing the research data available.

I'm pretty sure that that is the conclusion that will be reached, but if you approach a serious educational assignment with the conclusion basically already written, you will be seriously marked down

Oh I am looking at everything objectively, however from a purely legal perspective it is clear that the Act is rushed and unsatisfactory. That is just from critically looking over the Act on it's own.

Whilst the essay is in early stages, from the research I have done it's easy to see the way this essay will naturally head. I'm looking for more however because I want to ensure I have not missed something another may think of or anything of particular controversy or interest.

I'm not working from the 'gist' conclusion, I'm working from the question 'Is the DDA 1991 achieving it's aims?'. But as I look at the research thus far, it would appear this essay will take the turn that no - it is not. The bulk of the research so far definitely points towards that conclusion and I need something quite strong to shift it the other way.

The lecturer who is in charge of the mark scheme has approved the method so far so fingers crossed.

Statistic are, as always when it comes to dogs, lacking.

However, I don't know if you've checked here to get some background statistics in one area at least

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/az_index.htm

scroll down to 'D'

Here are some links of interest:

http://www.defendingdog.com/id38.html

Look into the Dog Legislation Counsel of Canada

http://www.dlcc.ca/