Hounded Out: The Cross-Border Canine Crisis
Some XL Bullies are finding refuge in Scotland, The ban is terrible legislation, but the SNP's poor track record with Dogs suggests they will make a bad situation worse.
To some people's delight and others' dismay, some dogs, banned in England and Wales, are finding refuge in Scotland. This isn't just a matter of relocation—it's a complex interplay of legislation, animal behaviour, politics and public safety that highlights the flaws in both the SNP and Tory approach, and the public and our dogs will suffer.
While I am glad the ban is not taking place in Scotland, my cynical experience is the Scottish Government's approach to dogs will make a bad situation worse. I sympathise with the move to rehome dogs here rather than see them euthanised or stuck in kennels. I would do the same for my dog in a second, and there have been some heroic efforts, such as Sammy Wilkinson travelling hundreds of miles to save 33 dogs.
Still, the relocation of XL Bully dogs to Scotland presents a complex issue, which we should not shy away from addressing. The fact is - it will likely lead to a rise in both Scottish dog aggression incidents and the sensationalist reporting of them.
In this article, I will show this doesn't justify the existing ban or the introduction of similar measures in Scotland. Indeed, we should blame the poor implementation of the prohibition for these predictable, preventable incidents.
How would you increase dog attacks?
If you wanted to increase the likelihood of a dog biting, regardless of breed, how could you do that?
First, the dogs should be afraid and nervous - so taking them away from their family, transporting them for hours in potentially stressful positions with other nervous dogs, and putting them in a strange situation will all help set them on edge.
Secondly, you would want them to be with an inexperienced, unfamiliar, or untrained owner who does not have the suitable space or knowledge to read their body language, know their needs for space and decompression, and has not trained or trained with them, or does not have a suitable home environment to exercise and manage them, or is potentially introducing one or more reactive dogs together.
None of this is dependent on breed. If Labradors were banned in England and then put through the conditions above, we would see a rise in Labrador attacks in Scotland. Yet this predictable, preventable combination of circumstances is precisely what is sometimes being risked.
I’m describing a sub-optimal situation, but this isn’t the case with many of the dogs being rehomed - just a risk. Many hero Scots who do have the right experience and environment are stepping up, such as Angie Lukey in Edinburgh. English owners of XL Bullies are also considering relocating to Scotland to avoid the ban. We are seeing many people doing their best in impossible situations. There will also be bad owners and breeders not doing due diligence- the very people that good Breed Neutral Legislation would target.
BSL is Fundamentally Flawed
The crux of the argument against breed-specific legislation (BSL) lies in its fundamental flaws. A wealth of academic and behavioural research backs this up, as I've explored in more detail in earlier articles:
How Fearful Breed Specific Legislation Fails People, Pups and the Public
Academic research, analysing thousands of incidents over decades, in many locations and under different regulation schemes, consistently demonstrates the ineffectiveness of BSL in reducing dog-related incidents.
These laws fail to address the actual root causes of aggressive behaviour in dogs, which are more intricately linked to factors like environment, training and upbringing rather than breed alone. This misdirected focus on breed, neglecting the pivotal role of behaviour, has subsequently led to the ban's poor and counterproductive implementation in England and Wales. The bad-actor backyard breeders will simply move onto other breeds, and the problems will continue.
The ban is poorly Implemented.
As I discuss in this Spectator article, the ban's hasty implementation has inadvertently aggravated non-breed-related factors of aggression in dogs. This rushed process triggered a sudden surge in the rehoming of dogs, thrusting many into new, often stressful environments. Such rapid transitions, sometimes conducted without adequate due diligence, have unfortunately increased the likelihood of aggressive incidents. This scenario highlights the ban's counterproductive nature and inadvertently magnifies its shortcomings.
As we pivot from the faltering ban in England and Wales, it becomes apparent that the SNP's approach in Scotland, though distinct in its methodology, is similarly riddled with significant issues.
SNP Fail to Deliver Effective Dog Control
The SNP's proclaimed commitment to a 'deed not breed' stance in dog control is significantly undermined by their inadequate investment in effective dog control measures. This discrepancy is highlighted by the limited resources allocated to dog wardens in Scotland.
Scotland has its own system of dog control notices, which are used to ensure responsible ownership and could be considered a more breed-neutral approach. The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill introduced by Christine Grahame in 2009 had the stated objective of focussing on "Deed Not Breed."
However, the same benefits seen in Calgary are not apparent, as the scheme has not been similarly invested.
A parliamentary committee looking into this recently found only 83 Dog Wardens across 32 Councils. While official figures show they deal with around 3,500 investigations annually, data can be patchy.
Stirling Council reported 198 investigations in 2018/19 but only 1 in 2019/2020. - Were there really that many fewer incidents? Did they not have a dog warden, so they didn't respond to and record incidents? The best legislation is ineffective if it isn’t enforced.
The PUBLIC AUDIT AND POST-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE in 2019 heard that dog control enforcement in Scotland is like a 'Postcode Lottery' – Renfrewshire Council, with a population of 175,239, had two full-time dog wardens. In contrast, Glasgow City, with a population of 593,245, only had one, and even then - they were part-time.
Giving evidence to the committee about dog attacks on postal workers, the CWU stated that in Scotland -
"Local Authority enforcement is virtually non-existent and as a result, the tools provided by the legislation go unused."
Communication Workers Union
The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who are firmly against Breed Specific Legislation, had this to say about the situation in Scotland -
"In theory, this ( The Scottish System) process could prevent the majority of dog incidents every year, which alone would save the National Health Service a massive amount of money. However, in practice, The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 is not really effective as it is not robustly enforced. The Act is operated by the 32 Scottish local authorities, all of which have different criteria and priorities. Little or no training has been given to local authority staff that have been tasked to carry out this function, and there have been several incidents where the enforcer could not even properly identify the breed of dog or recognise simple dog behavioural traits."
The SSPCA
Such underinvestment leads to a lack of proper enforcement and support, a stark contrast to the successful implementation of similar policies in the Calgary model. This gap between policy and practice renders the SNP's approach largely ineffective, exposing dog owners and the public to potential risks.
Even the very organisation of those who should be employed to administer the legislation are scathing of the implementation:
"Local authorities under the legislation must have at least one person authorised to investigate and deal with dog control complaints. Section 1(7) Of the Act states-In appointing any person to be such an officer a local authority are to satisfy themselves that the person is skilled in the control of dogs and has the capacity to instruct and advise others in matters relating to the control of dogs. This requirement has largely been ignored by Local Authorities."
The National Dog Warden Association of Scotland
This situation in Scotland reflects the Scottish Government's habit of ruling by announcement without following through and also a significant, systemic issue: the UK's disjointed and inconsistent dog control policies.
A Better Approach
The necessity for a unified, expert-driven approach to dog control is becoming increasingly apparent.
Scotland currently has the worst of both worlds. Both UK and devolved legislation impact control of dogs in Scotland: it is "The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act of 1953” which makes it a criminal offence for the owner of a dog to allow it to 'worry livestock' on agricultural land. And Police Scotland does Enforce the Original "Dangerous Dogs Act” of 1991 and its pre-devolution amendments.
So Scotland does have breed-specific legislation while claiming the veneer of a breed-neutral approach, which they have utterly failed to fund or support.
A properly funded and supported breed-neutral approach, along the Calgary model, would be far more effective in addressing the root causes of dog aggression than the current breed-specific legislation and would be most efficiently and cost-effectively done across the whole of the UK with a proper multifaceted approach to licencing, animal welfare support and education.
This call for a unified, behaviour-focused strategy presents a more effective solution and highlights the shortcomings and failures of the current policies by both the SNP and Tory governments.
The focus of these parties has been more on political differentiation than on the formulation and implementation of effective, pragmatic policies. Unfortunately, This partisan approach has fallen short of ensuring public safety and upholding animal welfare. Once again, we see ineffective and ill-conceived policies from our Holyrood and Westminster governments, who would both rather score political points than work together.
The Tories and SNP are playing political football with our dogs' lives and our community's safety.
References
Calgary Calling. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://morewretchthansage.substack.com/p/calgary-calling
How Fearful Breed-Specific Legislation Is Misguided. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://morewretchthansage.substack.com/p/how-fearful-breed-specific-legislation
It's Not Rocket Surgery. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://morewretchthansage.substack.com/p/its-not-rocket-surgery
The case against the XL Bully ban. (2023). The Spectator. Retrieved from https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-case-against-the-xl-bully-ban/
Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/9/notes/division/4/1
Controlling your dog in Scotland. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.mygov.scot/controlling-your-dog
Dog control notice. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.mygov.scot/controlling-your-dog/dog-control-notice
Humza Yousaf says he does not think Scotland needs to ban XL Bully dogs. (2024). The Scotsman. Retrieved from https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/humza-yousaf-says-he-does-not-think-scotland-needs-to-ban-xl-bully-dogs-4468151
SNP minister complains 'killer' Bully dogs are 'demonised' in new Dangerous Dogs Act. (2023). Scottish Daily Express. Retrieved from https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/snp-minister-complains-killer-bully-31809008
XL Bullies in Scotland: Scottish SPCA issues new advice. (20224. Herald Scotland. Retrieved from https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24031850.xl-bullies-scotland-scottish-spca-issues-new-advice/
.