Dog World

16/10/2026

"DANGEROUS DOGS " AN INDEPENDENT REPORT ON HOW WE CAN IMPROVE OUR CURRENT APPROACH

This report was commissioned by the government and published on 24 September 2026.

Its reassuring that its findings seem pretty much what most people we speak to were thinking in the first place.

Its purpose was to consider ways to reduce dog attacks and improve responsible dog ownership, focusing on four main areas: enforcement of existing legislation, education, training, and improving the collection of dog-attack statistics.

Though incredibly, Defra specifically excluded examination of breed-specific legislation, even though the Act is based heavily on banning particular dog types.

The report has been shortened for this post, and is still only for serious readers.
This is what the government were told, it is not the new or current laws.

1. BACKGROUND, WHY THE REPORT WAS COMMISSIONED.

The government has become increasingly concerned about dog attacks and irresponsible ownership.
The report acknowledges that hospital admissions involving dog bites or strikes have increased faster than dog ownership, but also identifies serious weaknesses in how dog attacks are recorded nationally.

2. WHO PRODUCED THE REPORT, AND WHAT WAS EXCLUDED.

The Responsible Dog Ownership Taskforce, established in 2022, was made up of representatives of animal welfare organisations, veterinary bodies, police forces, local authorities and government officials.

What was excluded ?

Although the investigation examined ways of reducing dog attacks, incredibly, it did not evaluate whether banning particular dog types was an effective approach.

This was not the taskforce's decision. Defra had specifically excluded consideration of breed-specific legislation from its remit.

3. WHAT THE REPORT DISCOVERED ABOUT DOG-ATTACK STATISTICS.

The report found that there is no central national database recording dog attacks in the UK.
Police forces, local authorities and the NHS collect different information, but there is no consistent system for recording or sharing it.

There is not even an agreed definition of what constitutes a dog attack, bite or strike.
This means we do not fully understand how many attacks occur, how serious they are, or the circumstances that caused them.

The report made six recommendations to improve this:

1. Make recording dog-control incidents a legal duty for enforcement authorities.
2. Explore creating a central dog-control database.
3. Improve NHS recording of dog bites and the circumstances surrounding them.
4. Improve access to existing healthcare statistics.
5. Investigate how enforcement authorities record incidents and share information.
6. Commission further research into the causes of dog attacks and which preventative measures actually work.
Without reliable statistics, it is difficult to establish whether existing dog laws and preventative measures are effective.

4. ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING DOG LAWS.

Existing dog-control laws are not always used consistently or effectively by police forces and local authorities.

The report recommends placing greater emphasis on preventing dangerous behaviour before a serious attack occurs.

Seven recommendations:

1. Examine possible new legal requirements for dog ownership, including measures intended to improve responsibility and accountability.
2. Consider introducing legal requirements for professional dog walkers.
3. Make it a legal duty for local authorities to provide a dog-control service to deal with lower-level problems.
4. Encourage greater use of preventative enforcement measures, allowing authorities to intervene before behaviour escalates.
5. Bring existing enforcement guidance together into one clear, accessible document.
6. Provide webinars and training for police and local authority officers.
7. Introduce Fixed Penalty Notices for offences under Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. (introduced in law in 2024, but practical implementation has faced problems)

5. EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS.

The report identifies education as important, particularly by helping children and adults understand dog behaviour and how to interact safely with dogs.

It recommends improving public awareness alongside legislation and enforcement.

Four recommendations:

1. Develop and support a childhood education plan to teach children how to interact safely with dogs.
2. Conduct targeted public awareness campaigns to promote safe interactions between dogs and people of all ages.
3. Bring existing educational resources together into one easily accessible source, rather than having information scattered across different organisations.
4. Commission further research to establish whether existing dog-safety education programmes actually change people’s behaviour over the long term.

6. DOG TRAINING AND BEHAVIOUR.

The report identifies appropriate training and behavioural support as important ways to prevent dog attacks and encourage responsible ownership.

It raises concerns that dog training and behaviour services are not currently subject to mandatory professional regulation.

Three recommendations:

1. Explore options for regulating dog trainers and behaviourists.
2. Improve public awareness of what constitutes good-quality dog training and behavioural support, helping owners find suitably qualified professionals.
3. Encourage greater participation in dog training and responsible ownership courses.

7. PROBLEMS WITH DOG OWNERSHIP.

The report also discusses wider issues surrounding responsible dog ownership, including how dogs are bred, acquired, socialised and managed.

Preventing dog attacks requires more than enforcement after an incident. It also involves responsible ownership, appropriate training, education and better understanding of the circumstances in which attacks occur.

8. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS.

The report recommends improving the prevention of dog attacks through better enforcement of existing laws, education, training and more reliable national statistics.

It emphasises the importance of taking action before serious incidents occur, rather than relying mainly on punishment afterwards.

The government is meant to now consider the taskforce’s recommendations and decide which measures, if any, to introduce.

The report did not assess whether banning particular dog types has been effective in reducing dog attacks.

DOG WORLD'S OPINION

Most of the report's recommendations seem like basic common sense. It's difficult to understand 35 years after the Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced, we're still identifying such fundamental shortcomings.

Most concerning is that we still lack reliable national statistics to judge whether the legislation is actually working, and that Defra specifically excluded examination of breed-specific legislation, even though breed is a central feature of the Dangerous Dogs Act.

DOG WORLD Station Road St Blazey
☎️ 07383 003 077

Please see more awareness post on our website Dog-world.uk

Please share 🙏

Every little wag helps !

15/10/2026

UK'S WATCHDOG REPORT FINDINGS OF OUR VETERINARY INDUSTRY 2026

This post is continuing awareness of details that all dog guardians in the UK should be aware of.

Please note we have condensed the report to fit into one lengthy post here.

Having access to professional veterinary care is essential for the health and welfare of our dogs.

But there is a difference between the veterinary professionals who care for our animals and the businesses that operate the practices they work in.

And that difference is becoming increasingly awkward.

On 24th March 2026, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published its findings following an extensive investigation into the UK veterinary industry.

The CMA is the UK's independent competition watchdog, with legal powers to investigate businesses and how markets operate.

Unlike a survey asking pet owners for their opinions, this was a formal investigation examining evidence from veterinary businesses, their financial records, pricing practices and the experiences of customers.

Here are some of its findings that I think dog owners may find interesting.

1. VETERINARY PRICES HAVE RISEN CONSIDERABLY

Between 2016 and 2023, veterinary prices increased by approximately 63%, when general inflation rose by around 32%.

The CMA found that rising costs alone did not explain the increases.

It identified weaknesses in competition that allowed veterinary businesses to charge more than they otherwise could.

2. CORPORATE VETERINARY PRACTICES GENERALLY CHARGE MORE

The CMA found that prices at practices owned by five major veterinary groups were, on average, 18.3% higher than at independent practices for the services examined.

It doesn't mean every corporate practice is more expensive than every independent vet, but it did reveal significant differences across the industry.

3. YOU MAY NOT KNOW WHO ACTUALLY OWNS YOUR VET

A familiar local veterinary practice may still operate under the same name it had for decades, despite having been purchased by a major corporate group.

The CMA found that fewer than half of customers knew their veterinary practice was owned by a major group.

This makes it more difficult for customers who wish to choose an independent practice.

4. VETERINARY PRICES ARE OFTEN DIFFICULT TO COMPARE

Fewer than 40% of veterinary practices published prices on their websites, and where prices were published, the information was often limited.

This makes it difficult to appreciate the costs before agreeing to treatment.

5. PAYING CONSIDERABLY MORE FOR MEDICATION

The CMA found that medicines purchased through veterinary practices could cost substantially more than the same medicines supplied by online pharmacies.

For owners of dogs requiring regular medication, the potential savings could be substantial.

6. COMMERCIAL PRESSURES ON VETERINARY PROFESSIONALS

The CMA identified concerns about commercial pressures within veterinary businesses, pressures relating to the sale of treatments and services.

This does not mean individual vets are deliberately recommending unnecessary treatment.

But it does raise questions about how commercial objectives and professional veterinary judgement are kept separate.

7. THE REGULATION OF VETERINARY BUSINESSES IS OUTDATED

Veterinary surgeons are professionally regulated.

Yet the CMA identified significant weaknesses in the regulation of the businesses that own and operate veterinary practices.

There's a difference between the regulation of the individual professional and the regulation of the company employing them.

The investigation did not simply end with a report, it has introduced legally binding measures intended to improve price transparency, ownership information, prescription arrangements and the ability of pet owners to make informed choices.

The first requirements for larger veterinary businesses are due to take effect in December 2026.

Our vets are the people we turn to when our dogs are sick, injured or in need of professional care.

But the veterinary industry is also a commercial market, increasingly involving large corporate businesses.

And the CMA's investigation has identified genuine problems with how that market has been operating.

This is not simply somebody's opinion on Facebook, or speculation about what large corporations might be doing.

These are findings from an independent regulator following a formal investigation.

Our Veterinary Clarity service is not about telling dog owners which vets to use, which treatments to accept or which businesses to avoid.

It is about providing information to put dog owners in a better informed position to make their own decisions.

And the CMA's findings are something every dog owner deserves to know.

14/10/2026

DO OUR DOGS LITERALLY LIVE ON MARS ?

Before I explain that title, this post is in no way intended to accuse Mars Incorporated, or our veterinary system, of any wrongdoing.

I highly value being registered with our local vets for my dog, who incidentally are independent, our vets are essential.

It's merely an interesting observation about the extent of one company's involvement in our dogs, and in our total dog health system.

Something we suspect many dog owners are completely unaware of.

I personally was gobsmacked to learn of the influence and overall power that Mars has over our dogs, from pretty much every angle.

Here are some interesting facts that lots of dog owners probably don't know.

1. Mars are the largest pet food manufacturer in the world. They own Pedigree, Royal Canin, Cesar, and James Wellbeloved. (Interesting the 2nd largest pet food manufacturer is Nestlé)

2. Veterinary Practices and Hospitals.
Mars owns Linnaeus, a major UK veterinary group, alongside international veterinary businesses including AniCura, VCA, Banfield and BluePearl. Its network approaches 3,000 clinics.

3. Veterinary medicines and vaccines.
Mars owns Heska who manufactures canine heartworm prevention medication, allergy treatments, pharmaceuticals and vaccines.

4. Veterinary prescription diets.
Mars manufactures specialised diets for dogs with particular medical conditions, through Royal Canin, including products recommended through veterinary practices.

5. Veterinary diagnostic testing.
Mars owns Antech, which provides laboratory testing, diagnostic equipment, imaging and related technology.

6. DNA testing and genetic research.
Mars owns Wisdom Panel, which provides dog DNA testing and genetic health screening. It also operates the Mars Petcare Biobank, collecting information for animal health research.

7. Canine nutrition and health research. Mars operates the Waltham Petcare Science Institute in Leicestershire. The Waltham Foundation also provides external research grants investigating animal nutrition, health, behaviour and welfare.

8. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Alison Price, a senior manager employed by Mars Veterinary Health Europe, is an elected member of the RCVS Council and sits on its Education Committee, which sets policy for veterinary education and training.

9. The Royal Kennel Club and dog breeders. In March 2024, Mars announced a five-year partnership with the Kennel Club, including nutrition education, breeder support and recommendations for new puppy owners involving Royal Canin and James Wellbeloved.

10. The Royal Veterinary College.
The Mars-associated Waltham Foundation co-funded RVC canine research, and Mars-owned Royal Canin is funding a veterinary nutrition PhD at the RVC.

11. Dog treats and dental products.
Mars also owns Greenies, and produces Pedigree Dentastix.

I hope they are doing a great job🤞

DOG WORLD Station Road St Blazey
☎️ 07383 003 077
Dog-world.uk

Please share 🙏

Every little wag helps !

13/10/2026

Please note this weeks service was unavailable, as our trainer Heimke is away.

We now have a different system, all future sessions can be easily booked online at your convenience.

We recommend reserving your spot early to avoid disappointment or delays, especially for time-sensitive matters.

Please go to Dog-world.uk to book a session if you would like some help.

This service is free, though we are now introducing a £5 deposit system to book, which you recieve back once you attend.

DOG WORLD Station Road St Blazey
☎️ 07383 003 077
Dog-world.uk

Please share 🙏

Every little wag helps !

Our approach considers the whole dog — not just obedience commands. Of course, we can help with: Lead pulling Jumping up Recall Foundations

13/10/2026

HAS YOUR DOG EVER BEEN ATTACKED ?

● Were you disappointed by the level of police interest ?

● Or you didn't even report the attack because you believed effective police action was unlikely ?

Dog World gets to hear of numerous dog-on-dog attacks. And it's common that either the attack was attempted to be reported but had a disappointing response, "It's not a police matter", or it's said, "What's the point in reporting it? They don't do anything."

It's true that in the Dangerous Dogs Act, dog-on-dog attacks are not specifically listed as an offence, though it has more chance of progressing if the victim can be shown to be an assistance dog.

That might be why only around 14 police forces out of 43 in England and Wales routinely record reports of dog-on-dog attacks, because of the wording of the Act.

However, we are suggesting a different approach for you to consider in the future that may have more effect.

In the Act, it does say that if an owner, and/or the person who is meant to be in control (hopefully whoever is walking the dog), is allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control, is an offence.

And your dog being attacked, together with you fearing for your safety, can both be evidence of that offence.

It's a common misconception that a dog actually needs to physically wound a person before an offence has been committed.
It's an offence if there are reasonable grounds to fear that a person might be injured. Injury doesn't actually have to have physically occurred.

Our point is, if you had the approach of
"I want to report a crime, a dog attacked my dog, and I have a vet's report of injury to my dog by another dog", isn't a huge help to a police station to even try to be effective.

Whereas...
"I want to report a crime, a person who I presume was in charge of a dog, allowed the dog to be dangerously out of control, that dog attacked my dog, causing physical injuries, I have vets records, and I had reasonable grounds to fear I was going to be injured myself", gives the police more opotunity to act on it, or at least far more chance to be recorded.

It is giving police a clearer basis to consider a specific criminal offence under Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, rather than simply reporting a dog-on-dog attack.

It helps the police to try act on it by having as much evidence as possible.

For example, "reasonable grounds to fear you were going to recieve injury ?" The police asked...

"Yes, I tried to protect my dog, and the other dog was at one point snarling and snapping and growling at me", is in itself an eyewitness account of a possible criminal offence. Obviously as long as that statement was true.

And other witnesses are also further evidence, remember, a witness who says "yes I did see that dog attack the other dog", may be less useful than, "yes I did see that dog attack the other dog, and I also was concerened the other dog was going to injure the victim dogs owner, from how it was behaving"

As in the act, the dog appearing dangerous and possibly could hurt someone, is unfortunately more powerful than the dog did injure your dog.

If possible, always try think of getting a photo or 2 on your phone, anything to help, the aggressor dog, the person with that dog, or maybe a car they get into, even if its after, as they are walking or driving away. That is further evidence.

Even if, lets say the attack was outside someone elses house, and you knock on the door, and that person says," I didnt see the attack, but I heard a noise, and I did see the persons face, and I know roughly what time it happened ", that can be further evidence.

The more evidence you can provide will help the police to be effective.

Also, another misconception, I have heard of people whos dog was a victim of attack, but were reluctant to report it because they didnt like feeling responsible for another dog being destroyed. They felt it more the owners fault than the dog.

The answer to that is, even if there is a conviction of "allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control", which is by no means guaranteed, but if there is, the likely outcome is, the owner or/and the person in charge, could recieve a criminal conviction, the dog could recieve some restrictions, ie on a lead and muzzled in public places, but it is unlikely the dog would be destroyed.

A specialist dog solicitor has previously told me that he personally is not aware of any dog being destroyed when a person wasnt injured.

And lastly, if you are wondering what is the point in reporting it, probably nothing will happen... the answer to that is, you dont know that, what if its not the first time its been reported ? Your new report could then become better evidence to the previous reports, and visa versa.

DOG WORLD Station Road St Blazey
☎️ 07383 003 077
Dog-world.uk

Please share 🙏

Every little wag helps !

12/10/2026

NEW DOG RULES FROM NOVEMBER 1ST
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THEM CORRECTLY ?

(Please note, this is a replacement of a post also published today, that has now been removed, as Facebook wouldn't allow it to be promoted, it sounded political to them, fingers crossed this time🤞)

If you have an exempt dog type, are you sure of these new requirements' finer details ?

It's an update to Dogs exemption conditions, aiming to protect children from dog attacks whilst at home.

This post is for your information, and serious consideration.

Research shows many dog attacks on children happen in a home environment, a private place, not a public place.
And these updated requirements are trying to address that specifically.

It basically says any child under the age of 12, in your own home or any other private place, cannot be left in close contact with an exempted dog type without supervision by someone over 18.

This post is trying to understand the exact wording of these important new conditions, as it can appear unclear, or at least open to interpretation.

And you need to be aware of the implications if you don't follow them correctly.

Your dog doesn't have to do anything wrong, but could still lose their legal exemption, and you could possibly then face legal proceedings for possessing a prohibited dog without a valid exemption, which you will probably already know could amount to a criminal offence.

The confusing bit is, there's how the new requirements are officially written, and there's the guidance from Defra explaining how those requirements are intended to work, and they are not worded identically.

The written requirements basically say the dog cannot come into close contact with a child under the age of 12 in any private place unless the dog or child is supervised by a person over 18.

And Defra describes this point as, a child under the age of 12 must only be near a banned breed dog if an adult is there to watch them closely, adding that the adult should be able to intervene if needed.

So, first, what is "near" and "not near" ?
or what is "close contact" and "not close contact" ?

Can you imagine someone explaining
"yes I went from the living room into the adjoining kitchen, I left the door open, and my child and my dog were about 15 feet apart, I didn't consider that was "near" or "close contact".

Let's assume, to be on the safe side, for the purpose of this, you decide... "I will never under any circumstances leave my dog and my child unattended in the same room together, not even for a second".

Next, what does "supervised" mean ?, from the official guidance, Defra says you should keep them "under observation", which means in the dictionary, watching and seeing, and "keep" suggests continuously.

Can you imagine someone explaining
"yes, I didn't leave the room, I was with them. My child, my dog, we were all sitting on the same sofa, but I was reading a book".

Is that acceptable ? Are you sure ?

Because Defra specifically says "keep them under observation" and "pay attention to their interaction"

What about if you are all in the same room but you are composing an email on your laptop 8 feet away ?

Is that keeping them under observation and paying attention to their interaction ?

Remember, why this is important to understand, these new requirements mean, even when nothing has happened between your dog and a child, you could be failing to meet the conditions of your dog's exemption if you, or whoever is the supervising adult, don't satisfy the legal meaning of "supervision".

Also, it specifically mentions if the supervising adult needs to go to the toilet, or answer the door, or recieve a phone call. And it talks about a secure division between the dog and child before you leave.

Presumably a secure division that an 11 year old child cant open the door ? Does that mean a locked door and you take the key with you ?

We have highlighted a couple of examples for you to consider if these new requirements apply to you, please feel free to comment if you have a clearer understanding for others, or if you have other points you are unsure about.

Lastly, here are some interesting related statistics we found, for your general information...

● In 2025 researchers at Blackpool Victoria Hospital examined 172 dog-bite injuries involving children under 16, recorded between September 2021 and September 2023.

● 76.7% of those incidents happened in a home environment, this is the type of information that contributed to the thinking behind these new requirements.

● However, of the 115 incidents where a dog's breed was recorded, only 4 were identified as XL Bullies.

● Remarkably, in 89% of those incidents the child was already in the presence of an adult !

It does raise the question, when it comes to child safety, are we barking up the right tree ?

09/10/2026

ARE WE WHAT OUR DOGS EAT ?

The saying "we are what we eat" is even more appropriate to our dogs than to us, and obviously, we need to choose for them.

Convenience is human nature. That's why supermarkets thrive, and it's no surprise that approximately 60% of dog food bought is dry, as It's bought cheaply by the sack, and you can keep it sitting there for anything up to 18 months.

Truth be told, dogs would probably choose convenience over anything else too. "Ah, what's that been put in front of me? Let's just eat it to find out !"

Kibble is by far the most commonly bought complete dry dog food, so we looked at the ingredients of a selection of familiar, commonly bought kibble brands sold in supermarkets, which you could describe as this great dog-loving nation's chosen favourite food for our dogs.

Here's what you can see for yourself if you ever read the ingredients...

Bakers – Beef & Vegetables
4% beef, 0.6% dried vegetables, 59% wholegrains.
The remaining 36.4% includes other animal and vegetable derivatives which aren't individually named, as well as oils, fats, glycerol and other ingredients whose individual quantities aren't disclosed either.

Pedigree – Beef & Vegetables
4% beef, 0.7% dried vegetables.
The remaining 95.3% includes cereals, other unspecified meat and animal derivatives, oils, fats and other ingredients.

Harringtons – Turkey & Vegetables
7% dried turkey, 4% peas.
The remaining 89% includes other meat, maize, barley, oats, rice, fats, oils and other ingredients that are not specified in volume.

Wagg – Chicken & Veg
Minimum 5% chicken, 2.3% dried peas and beet pulp.
Up to 92.7% consists of other ingredients, including meat meal and gravy, (unnamed) wheat, barley, maize, vegetable fibre, oils and fats.

Sainsbury's – Chicken & Vegetables
4% chicken, 0.5% dried peas.
The remaining 95.5% includes cereals, other unspecified meat and animal derivatives, oils, fats, minerals and other ingredients.

Legally, when food ingredients are mentioned in the title, the manufacturer has to state what percentage of those ingredients is included, but they dont need to specifically name the ingredients not in the tittle.

Notice how little there is of what it says on the tin ?

All of these ingredient lists contain other meats or animal derivatives that aren't specifically identified, which could mean there's considerably more meat from other animals than from the meat in the description.

Meaning, if you buy Beef & Vegetables because your dog is allergic to chicken, it's very possible there's actually considerably more chicken than beef in that food.

A couple of weeks ago, I bought a chicken biryani ready meal. When I got it home, it turned out to be literally a large portion of rice, with six small cubes of chicken to put on top, and no gravy. I was highly disappointed.

The next time I visited the store, I politely asked, "Be honest, if you went to an Indian sit-down restaurant and were served what I've just described, would you send it back, or at least question it ?"

And he agreed with me. He wouldn't think it acceptable to be served that in a restaurant.

However, the legality of it was that it did say on the packaging 17% of the weight of the dish was chicken, and as rice is much lighter than meat, it looked more like 5% by volume.

And that particular rule applies to dog food also.

Another point is, all of these "meat and vegetables" foods are actually grain or cereal-based foods, with some small amount of meat and vegetables added.

So the question should be, is cereal or grain-based food ideal for our dogs as a staple diet ?

Kibble is described as:
Grain-based, heavily processed at high temperatures, fortified with added vitamins and minerals, designed for convenience and a long shelf life.

Want to guess which human food is also accurately described like that ?

Cheerios !

Would you like to eat Cheerios every day as your staple diet ? what about cheerios bought 18 months ago ?

Manufacturers of kibble would quite rightly say, "That's not really fair. It's not exactly the same, and unlike Cheerios, we add other important nutrients also."
(Although Nestlé say they add vitamins and minerals to Cheerios too.)

So let's rephrase the question.
Would you be happy to eat something similar to only Cheerios every day, even if, instead of sugar sprinkled on top, you sprinkled man-made powdered chemicals ?

We know it's obvious for our own food you can't beat fresh, variety, and a well-balanced diet.

Shouldn't we be doing the same for our dogs ?

Why not ?

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people would agree its because of cost and convenience only, if they were being honest.

All dogs are different, to some, raw foods can be the most heathy choice.

Personally, I choose fresh cooked mince and vegetables for my dog, I dont find it inconvenient at all. And importantly I've done some research on what a well ballanced home made diet looks like.

Some dogs are doing just fine on a mix of wet and dry food.

And im sure some will say theres nothing wrong with my dog and I only feed them kibble.

I guess the point im getting at, the moral of this long story is, dont just jump on the band wagon, at least wonder, could you ever say cheerio to kibble ?

DOG WORLD
Station Road St Blazey
☎️ 07383 003 077
Dog-world.uk

Please share 🙏

Every little wag helps !