Compulsory dog insurance and microchipping; compulsory dog breeder licensing; neutering; whelping-box to grave registration; revocation of breed-specific legislation; any of the above it seems, is impossible to implement. Whenever they arise, the Government is never able to give a lead nor stand its ground against the disparate agenda of far-too-many pet industry lobbyists.

Since the 9th March launch of the Defra, Home Office consultation on the problems of dangerous dogs, the bandwagon that materialised, (and it's always the same magic bandwagon, stacked high with opinion), has taken just over a week to track down and trundle over, the bodies of the consultation's two public advocates, Hilary Benn and Alan Johnson. The sacrificial pair were unable to escape, having become caught in the ever-so-controversial jaws of the breed specific legislation of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

Recanting, under the weight of cartwheels, the possibility of even discussing compulsory dog insurance, Benn/Johnson last night fatally undermined this consultation before any formal public consulting had begun.

The 'all dogs' insurance proposal has been described variously as: 'unenforceable' - by the pet insurance industry; 'a dog tax on five million owners' - by the Conservatives; and as 'punishing responsible dog owners' - mainly by the right-wing press. The Right had it easy. No proposal, no matter how morally well-intentioned, which even hints at a reduction in the number of pets in circulation, will be well received within the pet industry. All it took was a bit of whipping-up, a bit of scaremongering, and hey presto, you're scraping Benn/Johnson off the ground, and looking for the nearest bin.

Truly responsible dog owners are really not about to complain about a blanket insurance. They see it as a sensible precaution against a worst-case scenario. Owners are legally responsible for the actions of their dogs. Any injury or damage leaves the owner liable to prosecution and claims for compensation. So truly responsible dog owners will already have the extra cover attached to their pet-health insurance.

There have been some seriously exaggerated estimations of the costs to dog owners of taking out 3rd party liability insurance on their dogs. Today, for example, the Daily Express described in its article, that an:

"..all-encompassing 'devil dog tax', [..] would have forced responsible owners to pay up to £600 a year in insurance."

Let's leave aside the implication by the Express that this is a tax when it is not. Even professional dog-walkers can insure themselves for decent 3rd party liability for one tenth of that alarming £600 price tag. The insurer Nationwide Associates of Registered Dog Sitters, (NARDS) sells a basic pet sitting insurance which starts at £60.00/year.

DDA

The Dangerous Dogs Act is, and until it is changed always will be, the badly formed keystone that prevents the development of any future holistic approach to improving our relationships with dogs. For as long as a dog is 'illegal' under breed specific legislation, a breeder will not register its birth, the dog is unlikely to be microchipped, it can never be insured. There is not the remotest hope of change.

The failings of the DDA thwart most measures to control the unwanted dog population. There is no hope of ending puppy-farms nor of curbing the anti-social behaviour of some owners, no hope of reducing the number of mouths to feed in rescue centres.

Success in almost any field of dog welfare can be expressed, at least by one measure, as a reduction in unwanted dog-ownership. The pet industry sees this as a potential fall in the dog population in general. Who in the pet industry wants that to happen? Those dog owners that don't insure their dogs don't want the extra expense. Pet food manufacturers don't want reduced sales. For the same reason, no producer or retailer of collars or beds or leads wants it either.

If, within a more effective legal framework, everyone who owned a dog was capable, of looking after them properly, (physically, intellectually, financially..), there would be far less need for dog walkers and dog-whisperers, a much smaller Dogs Trust, less domestic work for the RSPCA, no PDSA.

The weight of dislocated self-interest throughout the pet industry conspires in a most unlikely architecture to hold the DDA in place, which in its turn keeps the whole edifice from tumbling down. Everyone says they want change. Nobody wants change. No change. A reformation-resistant status-quo.

Meanwhile, pinned down there in the dirt, staring up at the rest of us packed onto a wagon high above the spokes of a large cartwheel, the Benn/Johnson bedfellowship could be forgiven for wondering.. just how on earth did I end up here?

Submitted by: Steve O'Malley      

---

Readers' Comments:       ..please LOG IN

no comments