People are already handing in XL bully dogs, with some requesting that their pet be put down, after the announcement of an impending ban, MPs have been told.
At a parliamentary evidence session before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Efra) select committee, witnesses said vets and animal rehoming centres could become inundated by people seeking to offload the dogs before a ban.
Dr David Martin, group head of animal welfare for IVC Evidensia, a global veterinary care provider, said: “We are already getting clients presenting dogs asking for them to be euthanised because they’re concerned about the effects of a ban.”
He said that in many cases, people were concerned about how owning a prohibited dog may affect a housing contract or tenancy agreement. “There is a risk these dogs will be dropped off or abandoned outside veterinary practices,” he said.
Martin also said a number of vets would be uncomfortable destroying healthy animals at the request of their owners. “We are allowed to refuse to euthanise a healthy animal under our code of conduct and as a business, we support all our vets who refuse to euthanise a healthy animal. So I think we’re going to have significant problems,” he said.
An expert from the RSPCA, which opposes a ban, said they had concerns about the emotional impact on staff caring for dogs that could be killed after being outlawed – the organisation estimates it has 110 dogs in its care that could be affected.
“If we end up in a situation where we have to assess and take dogs and then euthanise them, that is going to come at a huge cost to the emotional wellbeing of our staff, and we do expect to lose staff over this,” said Dr Samantha Gaines, head of companion animals at the RSPCA.
Rishi Sunak has announced XL bullies would be banned by the end of the year after a spate of serious attacks involving the dog type.
The government has yet to present details of exactly how a ban would be implemented, but has confirmed an amnesty until 2025. This would allow owners of XL bullies to apply for an exemption for their pet, allowing them to keep the dog as long as it was neutered, kept on a lead and muzzled in public, and was not thought to display any dangerous behaviour.
Dr Lawrence Newport, from the Campaign for Evidence-Based Regulation of Dangerous Dogs, warned that any amnesty period would increase the likelihood of “severe attacks, including hospitalisations and deaths” from the dogs.
Witnesses said a number of the attacks reported in the media in recent months had been carried out by dogs in private homes, or those that had escaped from private gardens.
“An amnesty period does provide an administrative and practical means [of introducing a ban] but there is still a cost to that period, and that is the cost of people and other dogs. That shouldn’t be minimised or forgotten in this,” said Newport.
A number of witnesses said the challenges of correctly identifying XL bully dogs – which are not classified as a breed but a type – would make implementing the ban difficult.
Gaines said the RSPCA had left a government breed confirmation working group over concerns “about its approach and the potential for a large number of dogs to be involved than was actually originally intended.
“I think we have to accept that there are going to be a lot of dogs that are captured within the standard that defines what this dog looks likes whose behaviour does not pose risk to public safety,” she said.
