top of page


We are so happy you’re interested in getting involved with our work here at Save Our Seized Dogs. By lending your support to our campaigns you can help us make a difference.


 Early Day Motion: we are asking you all to email or write to your MP, MLA in Northern Ireland, MSP in Scotland

If you need help finding out who your MP/MLA/MSP is, you can use this link:

Here is the suggested letter:

EDM (Early Day Motion)1159: tabled on 11 May 2023

As a member of your constituency, I wanted to let you know why I am asking for changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991). 


[insert personal reasons here]​​

I am writing to you to ask that you add your name to the Early Day Motion sponsored by Wayne David MP


There is currently yet another e-petition (624876) in action, "Repeal Breed Specific Legislation", launched October 2022, yet to be debated.


Point One:

Breed-specific legislation (BSL) happens when dog breed restrictions become law. These laws are ineffective at keeping communities safe because they target the wrong thing and ignore the real issue — the behaviour of the individual dog and owner.


"The Metropolitan police tell us that nearly 20% of the dogs found to be dangerously out of control in the area that they police were pit bull types." 


Yet the numbers from a recent FOI response received from the Met Police do not back this statement, with two of the three most recent years demonstrating that the percentage of dangerous-dog cases that had been Pitbull types was actually sub-10% and, in the case of 2020, less than 15% (and certainly not "nearly 20%"): in fact the average is 10.3%

Year                   Percentage of dangerous dog cases involving Pit Bull Type dogs

2018                   9%

2019                   8%

2020                   14%

Source: FOI received from the Met Police 26th August 2021, Met Police ref: 01/FOI/020663


Point Two:

At the petition debate on July 5th 2021, Victoria Prentis stated:


"We have a very small pit bull population that contributes disproportionately to sometimes tragic incidents."

No banned breed has been involved in a fatality since 2015, yet just last year we saw 10 tragic deaths from dog attacks, the focus on breed detracts from the real issue of responsible ownership of dogs, the resources used in seizing and holding dogs based on appearance would be better directed at complaints from the public of dogs in the community displaying concerning behaviours.


The recent research conducted by Middlesex University in collaboration with DEFRA also overwhelmingly supports the idea of responsible dog ownership, it shows that the current Breed Specific Legislation does not lead to decreased injuries from dog bites. It is obvious that whilst the authorities concentrate on removing dogs from homes due to their appearance it leaves little resources to tackle the problem of lack of responsibility in owning a dog.

Point Three:

When Calgary, Alberta, enacted and enforced a new aggressive-dog ordinance, the city experienced a 56% decline in aggressive-dog incidents and a 21% decline in biting incidents in just two years. Calgary does not restrict particular breeds of dogs, focusing instead on protecting the public from all aggressive dogs, regardless of breed. The city’s animal-control wardens have a problem-solving approach when dealing with members of the public. For example, wardens are encouraged to get out of their vehicles and talk with community members. This act alone can help build trust between law enforcement and the public.

A study involving the U.K.’s Dangerous Dog Act (which banned pit bull terriers, among other breeds, in 1991) concluded that the ban had no effect whatsoever on stopping dog attacks. In other words, nearly three decades of enforcing an ineffective law has impacted countless dogs and dog lovers in a devastating way. Klaassen B., Buckley J.R., Esmail A. Does the Dangerous Dogs Act Protect Against Animal Attacks?


Thank you for your time, I look forward to receiving your considered response.


Kind regards,

bottom of page