A pet owner has accused the government of “dog racism” over a law that can see the animals placed in kennels or put down based on how dangerous they look.
Anita Mehdi has secured 55,000 backers for a parliamentary petition after her dog Lola, an American bulldog crossed with a Staffordshire bull terrier, was seized by police from her home in Middlesbrough in 2019.
The reason was because it resembled one of four types of dogs banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991): pit bull terriers, Japanese tosas, fila brasileiros and dogo Argentinos.
A court ruled that Lola posed no threat to the public and could therefore be placed on an exemption index and returned to its owner, but the dog must wear a lead and muzzle at all times when outside.
When Lola was returned she developed an infection that caused a loss of bladder control. Mehdi believed it arose from the stress caused by the seizure.
Advertisement
Mehdi said that her own mental health had also suffered.
Other dogs have been kept for months in kennels while waiting for exemptions. Any stray dogs resembling the banned breeds must be euthanised by vets because charities are not allowed to rehome them.
“This is dog racism — how can you determine a dog to be dangerous by its look?” Mehdi asked. “A dog should be judged on behaviour and nothing else. If a dog is brought up correctly there should be no issue.
“Lola was proven in court to be a well-balanced, lovely dog that was no risk to the public. There is no reason to have restrictions on her. I can’t tell you how important it is to get rid of this act. I never knew a Dangerous Dog Act existed — it’s been a pain in my life every since Lola was seized.”
Blue Cross, a pet charity, has called on the government to scrap the relevant section of the law before the 30th anniversary of the act on August 12.
Advertisement
Becky Thwaites, public affairs officer at the organisation, said the law was “ineffective” and had made no difference to the number of dog attacks over the past three decades.
“We still see a number of dog attacks each year, it’s meaning that healthy pets are being put to sleep due to the way they look,” she said. “This is a piece of legislation that does not protect the public and has a negative impact on dog welfare.”
The petition is unlikely to succeed. When an identical one reached 119,000 signatures and prompted a debate in parliament in July, the government responded: “The government considers that prohibition on the four types of fighting dog under Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 should remain in place. This is supported by police who are responsible for enforcing the act.”
A spokesman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “Dog attacks can have horrific consequences, which is why it is a criminal offence to allow any dog to be dangerously out of control ... therefore it is important that the police and the courts are able to employ a range of measures to limit the risks to public safety.
“We will be formally responding to this petition in due course.”
