iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Replies

KD Smith @kd-smith.bsky.social · 01/06/2026

Yes. May have been before your time. I DO remember lurid descriptions of attacks in the tabloids, how an ineffective law was sped through so the Government could claim to be "doing something," and the 100s of healthy, well-behaved pets PTS after subjective assessments. www.bcu.ac.uk/news-events/...

The public revolt against the controversial Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 [DDA) has been solidly simmering through UK society since the inception of the act. The recent suggestion from PETA to add the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as the latest and fifth banned breed has brought this long standing contempt to boiling point. Often cited
as one of the most flawed pieces of UK legislation (House of Commons, 2018), the public are calling for more responsibility to be placed on dog owners/handlers and less prejudice to be placed on
specific breeds of dog.

Hood et al (2000) claimed that "it is a truth universally acknowledged that the UK's Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is a cardinal example of poor, ill-thought-out regulation". One might ask how such a widely criticised law could be enacted in the UK. The DDA was drafted in the early 1990's in response to a supposed 'moral panic' that was reportedly sweeping the UK over a spate of dog attacks on
humans, particularly children. It is important to note here that the authors do not agree with this notion of a 'moral panic', but given the scope of this piece we suggest reading Horsley (2017) for a
nuanced and critical analysis of this concept.

The DDA was rushed through in a bid to limit dog attacks, earning it the name 'knee-jerk' legislation. The act aimed to limit dog attacks in two predominant ways: Section 3 places a responsibility on dog owners/handlers...However, the disagreement is in relation to the more draconian Section 1 of the act which restricts and prohibits, amongst other things, the ownership of certain breeds of dogs, namely: Pit Bull Terriers, Japanese Tosas, Dogo Argentinas and Fila Brazilerios. At the time of drafting the legislation, these breeds were considered the most dangerous and likely to attack despite critics of the act pointing out the lack of any robust evidence absent from the literature surrounding the introduction of the act. It is Section 1 that is referred to as 'Breed Specific Legislation' (BSL).

100 0

KD Smith @kd-smith.bsky.social · 01/06/2026

See also this from British Veterinary Association in response to plans to amend the Act. And instead of listening to organisations with expertise in dog behaviour and wellbeing, the Government didn't repeal the act, but just added another "breed type" to it in 2024... www.bva.co.uk/news-and-blo...

bva.co.uk

Charities and vets demand dangerous dog law overhaul | British Veterinary Association

100 0

KD Smith @kd-smith.bsky.social · 01/06/2026

...And dog attacks have risen steadily since DDA 1991, which shows how pointless the Act has been. www.bva.co.uk/media/4115/f... onlinecpdacademy.co.uk/blog/dog-bit...

Logos of British Veterinary Association and British Small Animal Veterinary Association at the top.

Policy Statement: BVA and BSAVA position on the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) and dog control.

Executive Summary

The Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) was introduced in the UK following a series of serious, and in some cases fatal, dog attacks on humans. Its stated aim is to:

"prohibit persons from having in their possession or custody dogs belonging to types bred for fighting [ ... ]to enable restrictions to be imposed in relation to other types of dog which present a serious
danger to the public; to make further provision for securing that dogs are kept under proper control; and for connected purposes."1

However, the breed-specific legislation contained within the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) does not represent an evidence-based approach to dog control and we consider that the Act more widely has been ineffective in delivering its stated aims.

A review five years after the implementation of the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) found no significant reduction in dog bites.2 In fact, a study published in 2021 found that adult hospital admission rates for
dog bites tripled in England between 1998-2018, and the incidence of dog bites in children had remained consistently high.3 The same study found that between the financial years 2009/2010 and
2017/2018 the total estimated direct costs of dog bite admissions to hospitals were £174,188,443.4 Further, ONS data shows that dog attack fatalities have in fact increased since the introduction of the
Act.5

A Public Safety Problem That Has Nearly Doubled in 15
Years

Dog bite injuries in England have nearly doubled in a generation. In 2022/23, there were 9,336 hospital admissions for dog bites in England - up from 4,699 in 2007/08, a 98% increase in 15 years. The trend is driven not by children (as is commonly assumed) but by a tripling of incidence in adults. And the consequences are increasingly severe: 16 people were killed by dogs in 2023 - compared to just 2 in 2019, an 800% increase in fatal attacks over four years.

Key Facts & Figures (Overview)

- 9,336 hospital admissions for dog bites in England in 2022/23 - a 98% increase from 4,699 in 2007/08 (NHS Digital)
- An estimated 207,000 A&E attendances per year in England for dog bites (calculated from admission data)
- 16 fatalities from dog attacks in 2023 - up from just 2 in 2019, an 800% increase in four years
- 1 in 4 people are bitten by a dog during their lifetime
- 42 postal workers are attacked by dogs every week in the UK; an estimated 200 per year have a finger bitten off or severely injured
- NHS costs peaked at £25.1 million for hospital admissions and £45.7 million for A&E attendances in 2017/18

- Dog ownership increased from 9 million in 2019/20 to 13.5 million in 2021/22 - a surge in ownership directly correlated with the rise in attacks.
- The incidence of dog bite admissions rose from 6.34 per 100,000 (1998) to 14.99 per 100,000 (2018) - more than doubling
- 70% of attacks occur in home environments - usually involving the family dog or a dog familiar to the victim
- 80% of attacks on children are by dogs known to the child - typically a family pet
- The highest incidence of dog bite injuries is in Merseyside, North West England (32.2 admissions per 100,000); the lowest is in Kent and Medway (7.3 per 100,000)
- Admission rates are 2.6 times higher in the most deprived neighbourhoods compared to the least deprived
- XL Bully ban introduced in England and Wales in February 2024 - owners required to have exemption certificates, with mandatory muzzling, neutering, and microchipping
- Scotland banned XL Bullies from July 2024

Who Is Most at Risk?

Contrary to common assumptions, the rise in dog bite hospital admissions is primarily driven by adults, not children. The Scientific Reports analysis of NHS Hospital Episode Statistics (1998-2018) found that the increase in dog bite admissions was caused by a tripling of incidence in adults, with all age groups over 15 years showing an Incidence Rate Ratio of 1.040-1.065 per year. Children aged 0-9 still have the highest admission rate per 100,000 within paediatric age groups, and children under 5 bitten on the head and neck represent the most clinically severe paediatric injuries. But the headline trend is adult attacks.

100 0