A critique of the BBC1 programme “Death Row Dogs” from The Company of Animals (broadcast 24th January 2012 10.35pm)

On Tuesday the 24th of January BBC1 aired a programme called “Death Row Dogs”. It was billed as asking “whether the laws work? Why dangerous dogs like the fearsome pit bulls are such an issue? And what can be done to stop the problem getting worse?” (as taken from the BBC1 website).

The film was intended, perhaps, to show the danger of bull breeds in general and of the Pit Bull terrier in particular, as well as to illustrate the bravery of the West Midlands Police in the handling of such potentially difficult operations. It was also used to portray the currently flawed legislation and defend the police for to their seeming inability to protect the public from so-called dangerous dogs.

Dr Mugford and his Company of Animals feel that this film did none of the above. Rather, it misrepresented the pitfalls of the current legislation and showed the Police at their most brutal and their most incompetent when dealing with dogs and their owners.

The major problem with this Section of the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act is:

1)    It is breed specific legislation which deems an innocent dog to be guilty dangerous simply by its physical characteristics. This is reminiscent of the 1876, now laughable, Caesar Lombroso theories (which stated that a criminal could be identified by key physical characteristics). All dogs are potentially dangerous and all breeds have different behavioural traits which need to be managed.

2)    The Pit Bull type is so often misidentified and there is so much overlap between the APBT standard used by courts, and the other bull breed conformation standards. The police, therefore, will seize any bull breed looking dog – and could convict any bull breed owner of owning an illegal dog, and they do.

3)    The irresponsible way that many major police “Status” and “Dangerous” Dog Units use this poor piece of legislation to convict innocent people, and innocent dogs without using provisions such as transfer of ownership or application to the Index of Exempt Dogs (DEFRA) without seizure or control notices, which could save the lives of innocent dogs and well intentioned owners from receiving an undeserved criminal conviction.

These are the issues that could have informed the public about the problems of this Section 1 of the legislation, while helping to enhance and protect the reputation of bull breeds and their owners. They were not covered in Death Row Dogs.

Significantly, none of the dogs depicted presented any significant danger to the public, nor to their owners or, at the time of seizure, to the police. Unsurprisingly the dogs were terrified at having their homes invaded by a crowd of heavily armed and uniformed police.

 We saw dogs lassoed and incompetently handled by brutish policemen. No attempt was made to make friends with the dogs, offer them a treat or involve the owners in their being carted off to waiting police vans. We have been carefully and respectfully studying the behaviour of dogs for many years yet it seems that the West Midlands Police in these instances ignore the current, more successful and humane methodologies of how to manage frightened dogs, in favour of using brutal and outdated approaches. The policemen’s commentary only emphasised their ignorance; it was naïve and self-justifying.  

Just at the moment when one thought that the programme had stooped as low as it possibly could, we saw the outrageous image of a very nice- tempered and healthy young dog being euthanized. The implication was that the officers had no choice but to carry out a death sentence. In fact, they have ample discretion to behave in a civilised way and to ensure the ultimate welfare of the dogs involved. Other police forces handle dogs and themselves in a  more correct and humane fashion; witness our experiences with the police in Surrey, Devon and Cornwall, East Sussex and indeed many of the provincial forces. This sort of over-zealous, violent treatment of dogs mostly seems to be a feature of police behaviour in the London Metropolitan Police, the West Midlands and on Merseyside.

It is very evident that the West Midlands Police have a major problem by being distant, even disconnected from the community that they should be serving. There is no more vulnerable feature of family life than the love which people have for their pet dogs. It is a delicate strand of human nature which we saw was smashed and insulted by the police.

The BBC should not have screened this programme because it did not inform, entertain or meet any of the other accepted objectives for public broadcast television. Rather, it mislead the viewer into believing that bull breeds and owners of bull breeds were in some sense inferior to the rest of society. Some of the cases they showed had welfare implications and were not your “average” bull breed owner. They chose not to depict any of the ordinary or more affluent Midlanders who take pride in their Staffordshire Bull Terriers and its numerous cross-bred combinations. Significantly, no dangerous dogs (i.e. Section 3) featured in this BBC film, and this was a massively biased defence of the ill-conceived Section 1 breed specific legislation.

This was the work of policemen behaving as brutal tyrants. Their pretence to have been doing so in the interest of public safety or animal welfare does not, in my considerable experience, warrant close examination. The officers concerned in this so-called “Dangerous Dogs” section of West Midlands Police should be disciplined for their part in this programme, and maybe the team disbanded.

Meanwhile, we should be contacting the West Midlands Chief Constable and offering their force an educational course on dog and dog owner psychology, and of practical techniques whereby dogs may be examined and if necessary, removed from their owners in a quiet, calm and respectful way.

Dr Roger Mugford makes frequent Court appearances as an expert witness, instructed by both defence and prosecuting authorities. The total commitment of Dr Mugford and his Company of Animals is to public safety and animal welfare. It is the belief of Dr Mugford and his team of behaviourists that muzzle and leash orders combined with compulsory training courses, are the obvious and kind alternatives to judicial killing of dogs.

For more information contact: jorosie.haffenden@companyofanimals.co.uk / Roger.mugford@companyofanimals.co.uk