Following the recent death of Ellie Lawrenson and other dog attack victims, there have understandably been concerned calls for more to be done to prevent these tragic situations. I am a mother, and nothing in the world comes before the well-being of my child, so I join in the chorus calling for change. I am dismayed, however, by many of the 'solutions' being considered by local and national authorities which are being encouraged by the media.
As has been proven by recent events, the Dangerous Dogs Act is not an effective piece of legislation. It was a hastily written, ill-conceived, kneejerk reaction to a similar spate of dog attacks in the early 1990s, and is misguided in its well-intended efforts to curb dog aggression towards humans. Most aggressive dogs are aggressive because either their owners want them to be aggressive, or because their owners haven't provided the environment, training and tools necessary to raise and care for a well-adjusted family pet. Therefore, any government legislation regarding dangerous dogs should first target the true root of almost all dog behaviour problems - irresponsible owners.
I'm not a lawmaker, nor do I profess to be familiar with the intricacies of governance, but I do know that certain general aspects of the Dangerous Dogs Act should be drastically revised. The most important change I think needs to be made is that owners of aggressive dogs should be forced to take far greater responsibility for their dogs' actions, both in public and private. Imposing stiff monetary penalties, mandatory behaviour modification regimens with accredited trainers, and ultimately removing the dog (without euthanasia) from the delinquent owners are just some of the owner-targeted revisions that should be considered. These types of changes would not only serve to modify the behaviour of already aggressive dogs, they would prevent future dogs from becoming aggressive by forcing more responsible dog ownership. More must be done to severely punish those owners responsible by giving any new dog-related legislation 'teeth', unlike the Dangerous Dogs Act.
Another major flaw in the Act is that it focuses on breed specific legislation, altogether outlawing four 'types' of dogs in Britain. Any breed of dog can bite. Any breed of dog can be a good pet. It is true that over the years certain breeds have been bred for fighting, herding, and hunting, and unfortunately, certain groups of people seek out these dogs as 'pets' specifically for this purpose. For a small, sad, and dangerous sliver of society, it has become 'macho' to own one of these dogs, as they consider the animals a status symbol and celebrate and encourage the dogs' aggression. These people should be the target of the Dangerous Dogs Act, not entire breeds of dog. Having dealt with a large number of drug dealers in the South Bronx who owned pit bulls and other 'fighting' dogs, I am aware of how big a challenge it is tackling this issue. Therefore, however, I am also firmly of the belief that if you ban certain breeds, these people will simply move further underground and/or choose yet another breed to glorify, rendering breed-specific legislation useless as it spirals towards outlawing more and more breeds. I've fostered and trained countless rottweilers and pit bulls in America (where they are not illegal), and have found them to make very good pets, provided (as with any dog) that their owners are responsible. To continue to support breed-specific legislation is not only unfair to owners and dogs who happen to look like a certain breed, it encourages legislation that ultimately does very little towards achieving the goal of reducing the number of dog attacks in our society.
Several local authorities throughout the country are considering an amnesty, allowing owners of potentially banned dogs to voluntarily turn in their pets to be euthanised. While I assume these authorities believe they would be serving the public's best interest, I adamantly oppose such amnesties. The Dangerous Dogs Act itself has a difficult time defining which 'types' of dog should be banned (the American Pit Bull Terrier is not even a recognized breed in the UK), so what level of competence to correctly determine a dog's breed can be expected of those local officials overseeing these amnesties? Since news of the tragic death of Ellie Lawrenson, vets are reporting a surge in the number of requests they've had from the public to put family pets to sleep, afraid that their dog might suddenly become aggressive as well. An amnesty would undoubtedly accelerate this practice and lead to the death of many well-adjusted, non-aggressive pets. Further, do those proposing these amnesties really believe that those who celebrate the aggression in their truly dangerous dogs will come forward? Common sense tells us that the only ones who will surrender their dogs to the amnesty are those whose dogs have probably shown little or no aggression. I also call on the UK media to begin to frame their coverage of this and other similar stories in a balanced manner, allowing for all viewpoints to be heard and read. Too often, only the loudest, most inflammatory opinions are the ones the media chooses to cover, leaving their audience with misinformation and bias. More care should be taken by news editors and producers to ensure that the 'experts' they invite as guests to debate dog-related issues are truly experts, and that all sides of an argument are represented.
Another major problem that we have in this country is puppy farming. Medically and behaviourally unsound dogs are being sold to unsuspecting owners through this despicable practice. Classified ads in the back of newspapers and magazines, some major department stores, pet shops and a few disreputable 'rescue shelters' are selling puppies that have been bred from bad lines and have been kept in unclean, isolating conditions which negatively affect the dog for the rest of its life. Like children, puppies need to be socialized, nurtured and prepared for adult life, and if this doesn't happen, major problems can arise. Puppy farmers have no interest in their puppies - they are merely a vehicle for making money - and the breeding bitches are kept in an environment of filth with little human contact. Local authorities must do more to prosecute these puppy farmers.
While dog licensing and/or registration would be a step in the right direction, it's not the final answer. Difficult and expensive to coordinate, dog licensing is a process easily circumvented by those owners unconcerned with their dogs' best interest. Further, dog licensing would not deter one of the primary ingredients of this problem - those who breed and encourage aggression in dogs.
There are indeed dogs in our society that are dangerous. But the vast majority of these dogs are dangerous either because their owners are irresponsible or because their owners don't have the tools necessary to modify their dog's behaviour. When trainers like myself say that it's the owner's fault when a dog is aggressive in public, it's not always because of something the owner is doing wrong at the moment of aggression. More often, that aggression is a byproduct of an owner's irresponsibility or ignorance in general as a dog owner (i.e. at home).
All dog attacks are upsetting, especially when they are include children, and we as a society need to do far more to prevent further tragedies from occurring. Hopefully we can avoid the pitfalls which affected those responsible for the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act and find the courage to target and attack those truly responsible, leading to healthier dogs and safer environments everywhere.
Victoria Stilwell
Dog Trainer (taken from another website), Lisa
Facebook
Twitter