Richard Berry scrutinises dog-related policies, especially the effectiveness of UK breed-specific legislation, exemplified by the recent ban of the American XL Bully following media reports of fatal attacks. Drawing on his novel’s research, Berry notes parallels between fiction and reality, questioning breed identification accuracy and the correlation between breeds and human attacks. Advocating for responsible ownership, he challenges the statistical backing for breed bans.

In almost all human societies, we live in close proximity to dogs. In the United Kingdom (UK) our dogs are mostly kept as domestic pets, but they are also used in law enforcement, farming and mental health care. Many are used for sport and recreation, as in the case of hunting dogs, show dogs and racing greyhounds. Estimates for the UK’s canine population are around 10 to 13 million.

Given the sheer number of dogs, and the intimacy of our relationship with them, instances of violence seem inevitable. When humans began the long journey toward the domestication of grey wolves – the species from which all domestic dogs descend – around 30,000 to 40,000 years ago, we benefited from their abilities in defending us and hunting with us. Although humans probably selected the least aggressive individuals to live among them, wolves’ capacity for the effective use of violence was clearly key to their appeal as a companion species. Of the instances of violence that occur in present-day society, they are by no means all dog-on-human. Attacks on fellow dogs are common. Human-on-dog violence is depressingly frequent, with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) receiving 9,766 reports of intentional harm to dogs in 2022.

Legislation

Breed-specific legislation was introduced in the UK with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which enables the Government to ban certain breeds or types of dogs from being owned, sold, bred, given away or abandoned. Until recently, four breeds were subject to these bans: the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Braziliero. In late 2023, former Home Secretary Suella Braverman announced the Government would be adding the XL Bully as a fifth, following a series of media reports of fatal attacks in the preceding months. 

The ban on the American XL Bully in England and Wales takes effect on February 1, 2024. Owners must decide between euthanising their dogs or seeking an exemption, involving registration and compliance with restrictions such as microchipping, neutering, and leash and muzzle requirements. Since December 31, 2023, XL Bully presence in public without a muzzle and leash has been prohibited, along with the restriction of activities such as breeding, selling, advertising, rehoming, abandoning, and allowing straying in England and Wales. Scottish First Minister, Humza Yousaf, announced that the Scottish government plans to replicate the new restrictions implemented in England and Wales. The Government’s response to recent headlines concerning American XL Bully dogs, triggered by an attack on an 11-year-old girl in Birmingham – which led Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to label them “a danger to our communities, particularly our children” – reflects our muddled thinking about dogs. This perpetuates a policy that has failed to produce any noticeable benefits to public safety over three decades.

The central flaw of breed-specific legislation is the difficulty of being specific about dog breeds, including those we have already banned. None of the four types banned were defined as a breed by the UK Kennel Club. The same situation has arisen with the XL Bully.

My novel, Kill All The Dogs, the research for which informs this post, was written before the XL Bully gained notoriety, but real-world events have followed fictional predictions with an eerie accuracy. For instance, I imagined Parents Against Dog Attacks, a citizen-led lobby group formed following a high-profile dog attack on a young member of the Royal Family; in the real world, a similar group called Bully Watch sprang up to campaign for a breed ban. I posited a rush of emigration from the UK to Ireland to escape a coming cull; there has been a similar movement of dogs from England to Scotland to dodge the XL ban, foiled when the Scottish Government announced it would be implementing similar measures.

The central flaw of breed-specific legislation is the difficulty of being specific about dog breeds, including those we have already banned. None of the four types banned were defined as a breed by the UK Kennel Club. The same situation has arisen with the XL Bully. The Government’s guidance for enforcement officers therefore relies on superficial physical indicators that could apply to many other types of dogs, including its height, being muscly, having a glossy coat, rounded feet and a medium-length tail. Crucially, a suspected XL Bully doesn’t need to meet all the criteria, but can still be seized if it looks “more like XL Bully dogs than any other type of dog”.

Even assuming that we can reliably identify a dog breed, there is no strong evidence of a relationship between breed and attacks on humans, either in frequency or severity. Indeed, for all the fears about the large, muscular XL Bully, research at the University of Helsinki has found that smaller dogs are more likely to display aggressive behaviour toward humans. We don’t systematically record the breed or type of dogs involved in attacks in the UK, leading to inaccurate or skewed impressions of which dogs breeds tend more towards violence.

(In)effectiveness of breed bans

The statistics on dog attacks since breed bans were introduced indicate that it has not achieved its primary objective: to reduce deaths and injuries. It is difficult to be certain about the number of bites that occur, given variances in how these are recorded by police and health services, and the fact that many will not be reported. But what we know from Office for National Statistics data is that fatalities from dog bites jumped from 11 in the decade 1981-1990, to 17 between 1991-2000, rising again to 32 between 2001 to 2010. Hospital admissions for dog bites have risen steadily since the Dangerous Dogs Act, with one University of Liverpool study finding adult admissions tripled from 1998 to 2018.

Dogs of any breed are far less likely to attack if they are effectively socialised, trained and taken care of.

Probably the most important factor in whether dogs attack is the behaviour of their owners. The Helsinki study found that owners’ prior experience with dogs was an explanatory factor in dog aggression. Dogs of any breed are far less likely to attack if they are effectively socialised, trained and taken care of. We only need to consider the increase in bites during and since the Covid-19 pandemic, when a wave of “pandemic puppies” were bought by first-time owners who found themselves spending more time at home.

Beyond breeds and owner behaviour, the policy response to dog attacks has been shaped by socioeconomic factors. The research of Professor Claire Parkinson of Edge Hill University found that breed-specific bans are closely related to class perceptions in the UK. When the 1991 Act was introduced, certainly, the sense that Pit Bull Terriers were predominantly owned by irresponsible working class men was an important driving force behind the ban.

Healthy, safe dogs are killed in huge numbers as a result of breed bans.

The financial cost of enforcing breed-specific legislation is not known, but is likely to be significant, and is certain to rise following the XL Bully ban. In 2016-17 alone the Metropolitan Police spent over £1.3 million on the seizure of banned dogs. This is money that could be spent on enforcement against irresponsible owners of legal but equally dangerous dogs, on training and education, or taking action against puppy smuggling – the Government dropped planned legislation on this issue last year.

Healthy, safe dogs are killed in huge numbers as a result of breed bans. Given its impracticality, its lack of any tangible impact on public safety and the financial and opportunity costs, the policy is not fit for purpose. The animal welfare sector and the academic community publishing research on dog attacks have been near-united in their opposition to it since its inception. Yet over thirty years later, it remains the first choice policy option for governments looking for a “something must be done” response to negative – and often sensational – media coverage.

All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Image credit: BAUER Alexandre on Shutterstock.