IT is 25 years this week since the Dangerous Dogs Act came into being and a number of animal charities, including the RSPCA are now calling for an inquiry into its effectiveness.

The act was instigated following an attack on a little girl while she was playing in a park near her home in Bradford. Rukhsana Khan was just six when she was savagely mauled by a pit bull terrier. Her injuries were horrific, more than 30 bites and understandably the country was up in arms. Something had to be done and quickly to protect the public from the rising number of dog bites and hence, what has often been referred to as a knee jerk piece of legislation, the Dangerous Dogs Act was rushed through parliament.

The act made it a criminal offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place, or in a non-public place where the dog was not permitted to be.

Four breeds of dogs deemed to be dangerous were also outlawed, namely dogs of the type known as the pit bull terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Braziliero.

The penalty for possessing one of these dogs included the mandatory destruction of the animal, but if you already happened to own a dog belonging to one of these types, it could be exempted providing that it was registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs and also complied with a number of specified conditions.

Sadly, statistics show that at the present time, despite the act the number of dog bites in this country is still on the increase and as a result of this breed specific legislation, hundreds of innocent animals have been euthanised, simply because they "looked" like a pit bull type and I do stress the word "looked".

No genetic evidence needs to be produced in order to identify a dog as one of the specified breed types and there doesn’t even need to be any suggestion of a flawed temperament; their death warrant is signed purely on the basis of appearance.

As part of the act, ownership of a banned breed cannot be transferred except in very limited circumstances. In reality this means that since 1991, hundreds of perfectly friendly, re-homable dogs have been destroyed in accordance with the law.

Recently, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home conducted a survey of 215 professional canine behaviourists and trainers to provide an informed view as to the causes of dog bites to people, and it was deemed that socialisation is by far the most critical factor in shaping a dog’s character and not the breed type to which it belongs

In the Battersea report, 86 per cent of experts surveyed said that the way a dog is brought up by its owner, and 73 per cent said its upbringing by the breeder before it is sold, are the most important reasons as to why some dogs are more aggressive towards people.

Seventy-four per cent went on to say that breed was either not important at all or only slightly important in determining dog aggression level, while 87 per cent said that educating owners and others on how to read dog body language is crucial for preventing dog bites.

So, in conclusion, if breed type is not significant in determining levels of aggression in a dog, but early experiences in life could be, which includes the time spent with its dam before being sold, might it not be an idea for legislation to be directed more specifically towards the breeder rather than the breed?

Only this week, a lady has contacted me with details of some puppies that are being advertised on an online selling page. When she went to view the litter, they were housed in a rabbit hutch on rank, heavily soiled newspaper, the smell of which clung to her clothes even after leaving.

Dangerous breeds? Dangerous breeders more like, in fact for the past 25 years I think we could very well have been barking up the wrong tree.