A Fife woman’s Pitbull terrier-type dog faces being euthanised because she cannot afford £1,500 to have him identity tattooed.
Alicia Tang’s beloved pet, two-year-old Mico, is classed as a banned dog type under the Dangerous Dogs Act.
After being prosecuted for letting him stray in the Cowdenbeath area last September, Ms Tang has fulfilled all other requirements to put Mico on the index of exempted dogs by having him neutered, microchipped, insured and kept muzzled and on a lead in public places.
However, at Dunfermline Sheriff Court on Monday, Ms Tang’s defence lawyer, Aime Allan, said: “Unfortunately, for reasons not clear, Defra will refuse to put a dog on the list of exemptions in Scotland only, if the dog is not tattooed.
“It’s not a requirement anywhere else in the UK.
“It appears to be in government guidance from the Scottish Government.
“Ms Tang is not in a financial position… it’s almost £1,500 to have the dog tattooed.
“People prepared to tattoo dogs are few and far between.
“The only person she could find has to travel from England and it’s about £1,500, and Ms Tang can not afford that and as a result, will not be able to satisfy the requirements of Defra.
“Unfortunately for Ms Tang and the dog, it only leaves one option – to put the dog in to be put to sleep tomorrow”.
Ms Allan said her client, who was excused from attending the latest court hearing, has complied with the other requirements, including having the dog neutered and having the correct insurance policies in place.
Ms Tang, 24, told The Courier the situation is “cruel”.
A GoFundMe appeal was launched this week to help with costs.
What the legislation says
Dog types banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 include Pitbull terrier, Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and Fila Brazilirio.
The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, says a court can, as an alternative to ordering the destruction of a dog, place the dog on the Index of Exempted Dogs.
It says if placed on the index, a dog is required to be kept in compliance with the strict requirements of the legislation, meaning the owner has to: obtain a certificate enabling them to retain such a dog; have it neutered; ensure it is permanently identified with a tattoo and microchip; maintain insurance against their dog injuring third parties; keep the dog muzzled and on a lead in public places; ensure the dog is not left in charge of a person under 16.
Law change plea
Ms Tang says she only found out about the tattoo necessity in late August after she had paid more than £300 to meet all the other requirements – including over £200 for neutering and £92 for the certificate of exemption itself – following a contingent dog destruction order being made by the court at the end of June.
She told how she receives Universal Credit and has very little left each month after bills and living costs.
She said a “good report” was sent to the court after an expert carried out an assessment on Mico’s temperament and her fitness to look after him.
Ms Tang said: “He (Mico) is brilliant.
“He is not everyone’s cup of tea – he is big but he is a sweetheart.
“It jut goes to show it’s not down to the breed of the dog.
“What I would like to see happen is that Scotland just scraps the tattoo, it’s unnecessary.
“I cannot get it done up here so why are they stating it as a requirement? A microchip is as good as ID.
“Why do I need the tattoo with index number when I could have a certificate which says ‘this is the dog, I am the owner and I am on the index of exempted dogs?’
“How can they say it’s a requirement in Scotland to be tattooed but don’t have the facility up here to be reliant on that?”
Spells in kennels
Ms Tang said she bought Mico over two years ago through a pet website on the understanding he was a cross between a Mastiff and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
When her pet was spooked by a banging noise on a walk last year, he ran off and was taken into kennels before being released back to her hours later.
She says a dog warden expressed concerns to her at the time about Mico’s Pitbull characteristics.
On November 8 last year the dog was taken away from her again by police and the SSPCA and kept in kennels.
It was only after the contingent destruction order was made at the end of June – over seven months later – she was able to get Mico back home.
Ms Tang, who has grown up with dogs, says she has never had any issue with 25kg Mico and his recall and response to other commands are very good.
She said he had never been aggressive to other people and is neutral with other dogs.
Since the court order was made, she takes him to local “run free” parks three times a week to let him exercise off lead.
Ms Tang says she keeps him on a lead and muzzled all times in public.
Court appearance
At an earlier court hearing in March, Tang pled guilty to being the owner of a Pitbull terrier type under the Dangerous Dogs Act and allowing it to stray at Donibristle, Cowdenbeath, on September 16 2022.
Sheriff Lindsay Foulis deferred sentence until November 9 and Ms Tang is ordained to appear.
The sheriff said he would need some confirmation the dog has been euthanised before revoking the contingent destruction order.
For more local court content visit our dedicated page, or join us on Facebook.
