It's time to protect the public

[Guest Anonymous]

The early summer months have seen a sudden upsurge in reports in the media of dog attacks, especially on children. Following the very serious attack on 5 year-old Leah Preston by two reported cross-breeds in Wolverhampton nearly every newspaper, television and radio station began reporting further incidents involving a wide variety of breeds. In virtually every case, the articles dwelt on the 'breed' involved and implied that the Dangerous Dogs Act was insufficient to protect the public. I agree!

The problem with the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, despite the hard won amendment in 1997, continues to be the emphasis placed on the idea that a dog is dangerous because of its breed rather than its behaviour. It may not be palatable to some people, and certainly not the politicians like Kenneth Baker who rushed to introduce his conscience salving nonsense, that the breeds that have actually killed people in the UK over the past 50 years include a West Highland White Terrier, Golden Retriever and 'Jack Russell'.

The popular press might have you believe that those breeds should therefore be banned and condemn the many thousands of healthy and well-adjusted examples of each of these breeds that live contentedly with children, the elderly and the lonely bringing comfort and companionship.

The reaction to any incident where a child is badly mauled seems set in stone. Kill the dogs involved, cremate them as quickly as possible and call for a ban on the 'breed' involved. What is learned from such actions? The answer is absolutely nothing. The benefit for the public is zero. The kudos for all the politicians and newspaper editors is substantial.

Scientific evidence from around the world conclusively demonstrates that factors such as the criminal or social background of the owner is far more significant than the type of dog involved. Of course the newspapers will frequently cite the Pitbull, the Rottweilor or other powerful breed of dog but this is increasingly being proven, after the event, to be something else entirely. Why is this? Simply that the general public's knowledge of 'breeds' is substantially based on what they read in the newspapers. If the papers have been full of stories about German Shepherds then the public will report anything from a Rough Collie to a Briard/Dobermann cross as a 'German Shepherd'.

In 1993 or so, the National Dog Wardens Association printed a list in their newsletter of what the public described and what they found when they attended to collect a stray or deal with a 'dangerous' dog incident. I always loved the description of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as "it had a head like a coal scuttle". Perhaps more telling, given the media furore over them at the time, was when the public described a 'Pitbull' and the wardens, on attending the incident, found "almost any breed under the sun".

It is unfortunately true that a certain 'type' of person can be attracted to the bull breeds. The cycle is obvious. The media inadvertently glorifies the worst aspects of a breed's history. The inconsiderate or delinquent thug decides to get a dog that will enhance his image and then goes on to intentionally train the animal to be extra aggressive, perhaps cross breeding to combine the very worst examples of aggression and power. Rumour says that some dogs are even treated with hallucinogenic drugs to increase their maladjustment.

Of course not every attack can be tracked back to criminal ownership. Equally dangerous is the stupidity of selling pups produced from selectively bred working guard dogs to the general public as pets. Whilst accepting that nurture is at least as influential as nature in such cases, never the less dogs intentionally bred through several generations for their nervousness, aggression and excitability are likely to carry at least some of those characteristics into their progeny.

Other factors that are now believed to significantly affect behaviour in the adult dog include experience between 5 and 8 weeks of age and in particular, the age at which they 'suffer' removal from the nest. Another factor is the life conditions of the dog, the training, type and extent of exercise and perhaps diet.

Occasionally articles are published in scientific or medical journals relating the statistics of dog bites to particular breeds or groups of dogs. The usual culprits are identified and the article, complete with carefully selected references and quotations from previous articles and research appears to demonstrate the point the author set out to make. Inevitably, just a little questioning will highlight inconsistencies and demonstrate the inadequacy of the research. I am grateful to Dr Archie Bryden (who also produced several early challenges to the common misconceptions relating to Toxicara) for reviewing such articles and challenging the science.

After one such challenge, the British Medical Journal withdrew its support for a study claiming that Staffordshire Bull Terriers were most dangerous to children, and published a disclaimer.

Fortunately the scientists are beginning to research the situation properly where circumstances allow. The conclusions are that the genetics or the 'breed' of a dog are only a small part of determining how it will behave. The same enlightened attitude is being demonstrated all over the world. In Austria, Spain and the UK we have seen similar views being expressed by veterinary bodies.

Yet governments, local and national, continue to act like sheep and merely follow the old, failing policy of 'ban the breed'. The Kennel Club's Domino Campaign has been prominent in making the dog owning public aware of the risks inherent in the political clamour to introduce ever more restrictions on dog ownership.

The law introduced in the UK in 1991 was quickly followed by a muzzling order affecting nearly 40 breeds in Eire. In 1992 came the critically important decision in Bavaria to also ban several breeds. With a fragmented opposition from Bull Terrier owners and only two Staffordshire Bull Terriers in the area there was little that could be done to prevent their inclusion. Nine years later, it was the Bavarian model that was taken up by the German Federal Government. No amount of opposition could make them consider the fact that there had never been a single SBT attack reported in the entire country. Other countries are now trying to follow the German lead and other breeds are gradually being introduced to the 'list'.

In 2002 so far we have already had to deal with attempts to ban various breeds, including some perhaps unexpected examples such as Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Maremma Sheepdogs, Akitas, Dogue de Bordeaux, various Mastiffs as well as the usual Bull breeds in Austria, Brazil, Canada, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Victoria (Aust). In America, several cities and states have introduced laws banning or restricting American Pitbull Terriers. They then go on to explain that by 'Pitbull Terrier' they also include 3 different breeds, the Amstaff (American Staffordshire Terrier), Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier!

I believe that we can learn to prevent most of the severe attacks. This is also the expressed view of veterinary and animal welfare organisations across the World and including The Kennel Club, NCDL and BVA. What we desperately need is for some rules to be created for the investigation of serious dog bite incidents that will enable us to understand the causes of attacks and begin to educate the 'breeders', owners and the general public to prevent escalation in an increasingly crowded world.

In my opinion this includes containing the dogs involved rather than immediately killing them if at all possible. In most cases, the dogs are actually captured alive and can easily be caged and made safe without killing them immediately. I am not pleading for their lives

[Guest Anonymous]

This is another point the law makers have on their side to invoke the Dangerous Dog Act.
We have alot of people here(me included) that are recomending the Large and potentially agressive dogs to people that have no idea what kind of dog they are getting. I know we all love our dogs and feel that the public is uninformed about the breed, but we must always error on the side or caution when we are in public or any place with strangers(most of all childern).
I have alot more to say but I'm a little more than flustered at the moment, reading about this subject.

[Guest Anonymous]

I feel that it is time that some kind of license to own a powerful dog should be introduced, like a car licence. You cannot judge all breeds on the actions of a small number of dogs, but we have to be honest with ourselves, some types of dog are deadly if they are raised inncorrectly.

I have met many owners of guardian breeds who I wouldn't trust to raise a hamster properly, let alone a powerful animal such as a Rottweiler, Bullmastiff or Dobermann. These are the same people who don't know the first thing about training, socialisation etc.. then go out and buy a poorly bred example of a breed as a status symbol. This dog then becomes a danger to children, other dogs and to the whole breeds reputation.

We've had the DDA here in the UK since 1991, and what good was it for that little girl in Wolverhampton. If the Police or RSCPA were willing to put recources into regulating it, then a license may be an answer.

Chris

[Guest Anonymous]

I agree underdog, it has at times been the case for uniformed to be recomended large dogs, but I also think such recomendations have gone with "research breed, owner, and breeder". I have an aussie, she's a smallish dog, with out a biting bone in her body. I still watch her with young children that are not my own (I even watch her with my own), and strangers that walk the road by our house. She has never barked or growled at anyone (once she growled to say, "hey the street is off limits!" but it was a very frusterated sound... herders!)
With the dog comes responsibitlity, most people, for whatever reason, don't get that. They go to the pound and adopt a pooch for the kid. Never mind the dog is big and the kid small, never mind the dog may be neglected during the kids social life... it belongs to the kid and it's not my problem.... I have seen this alot! :o And you know what happens... the dogs get frusterated, board, agressive... and sent back to the pound as a problem.
It's a world of materialisim, I own it and will do with it as I wish. If I want protection, well a pit or a dobi is definatly the dog... right..... :cry:

[Guest Anonymous]

Guest, I agree with some of what you've stated. However, any enactment of the Dangerous Dog Act anywhere serves as no solution. Until the media and politicians can report accurately that most of these attacks occur from dogs who are owned by morons, improperly bred, unsocialized, untrained and until these same people (poiticians/media) report on and emphasize the facts the usual leash laws, proper care, strong punishment for abuse, neglect, etc. are enforced, any type of breed ban legislation is useless. I don't believe in it, to begin with, but my point is strictly enforce laws that are already in effect. When dangerous dog acts/breed ban legislation is enforced, any breed can be included at anytime.


Licensing owners of powerful breeds, in my opinion, serves no purpose, as those peabrained people who want to own a vicious dog and train a dog to be vicious will be the ones included in getting a license and continue w/the abuse of their dogs.

[deepseasnake]

yes let them get one but make having the license a partial responsibility contract so that the owner will be punished to an almost rediculous extent of the law, then let the gun toting peabrains get themselves locked up along with the dogs they polluted.

you know its funny these things (message boards) can really change your opinion on stuff. By hearing all you guys I think now I would favor a militaristic law governing the ownership of "dangerous dogs" if your dog kills while walking in the park the owner should be punished (I'm still up in the air about what should happen to the dog) and dont make it a fine make them do time, REAL time. I guess accidents do happen though right?

how many of you out there have ever had your dog attack someone? that you could not control.

[Guest Anonymous]

Deep accidents like that should never happen! :o
But I agree that people who own these dogs should do time, and perhaps the dog could be evaluated, escept I can't think of too many people who would want a former, possible, killer... sad for the dog! :cry:

[deepseasnake]

I have never had a dog that ever bit anyone
I was attacked by a german shepard when I was young though and I will always carry a scar on my right arm from it. It took me awhile till I could trust dogs again.
I have had a dog defend me from another dog and that also was a very scary thing.
ut I cant see myself with a dog that would ever bite a person