Today’s society is constantly bombarded with images of dangerous dogs, which 'maul' the vulnerable, yet is this a fair, unbiased portrait of our pet pooches in modern times?
There are 24 Acts of parliament relating entirely to dogs. The most commonly known is probably the Dangerous Dogs act 1991 (amended 1997). This act was introduced as knee jerk legislation due to public outcry after the media reported on a spate of dog attacks, gaining a high profile.
Some may argue the problem with this act is that it clearly introduces Breed Specific Legislation. Section 1,1, straight out bans certain breeds of dogs (Pit Bull Terriers, Dogo Argentino, Fila Braziliero and The Japanese Tosa, if you were wondering), or a dog whose characteristics give you the presumption that it was breed for fighting. However the most provoking part of this legislation is noted in subsection three. This gives the state a right to seize and destroy the dog. Of course the Act sensitively approaches the situation by using words such as "destruction".
1,146 dogs were seized in London in 2009. A vast quantity of legal breeds and crossbreeds can result in an “illegal” dog; this highlights the issue that the Act can never achieve its aim of wiping out dangerous dogs. The owners of the seized dogs are faced with lengthy court costs and a great deal of emotional pain as they try to save their pets lives. However if the police want to act upon The Dangerous Dogs Act Section1,3, b –destruction of the dog- they will have to gain permission from it’s owners first. Why? Simply, because dogs are the property of their owners and it would be a criminal offence if they did seize it without permission.
Fair enough you may say, “these dogs are dangerous!” Let me put it in a different light for you: You get accused of looking like you are going to start a fight. However the sole reason for this presumption is your height, muscle build, and the size and positioning of your ears. Nothing else. Now does it seem quite as fair?
A recent survey was carried out on 6,000 dogs owners, taking into account their dogs temperaments towards different aspects, such as other dogs and strangers. Which dog came out as the number one most aggressive…(Drum roll please)… The humble Dachshund, or ‘sausages dogs’ as I know my cousins like to call them. Much to media surprise the Pitbull terrier came number 8, behind Chihuahuas, Jack Russells and Border Collies.
So I ask, is public opinion merely based on media spin? I remember as a child the media warning against unruly Rottweiler’s (which came number 15 in the survey if you were curious) and before little old me came along my parents remember a public anxiety against German Shepherds (number 17).
Canine and animal welfare organisations largely believe that no type of dog is inherently dangerous and that it is through responsible ownership that, as a society, we can reduce incidents involving dogs. Statistics show that the number of finished consultant episodes attributed to being bitten or struck by a dog have risen quite dramatically over the past 10 years. Hospital episode statistics show in 2007-08, nearly 700 of those aged between 10-19 had to have finished consultant episodes after being ‘bitten or struck by a dog’. Yet, if you look to the 1997-98 statistics, the same age group drops to around 350 people. These statistics do not name the breeds of dogs; yet they do clearly show that after the amended Act came in, the figures of dog bites has risen sharply. Surely this visibly shows that it is not the type of dog that is the issue but that as a society we are being less responsible owners?
Therefore, next time you pick up a paper and see the shocking headlines about the latest victim to be mauled by a vicious dog, it might be worth thinking about the responsibility of the owner, not the type of dog which attacked. After all, once the media is finished persecuting ‘type’ dogs and continues to ignore owner responsibility, why not try and guess which breed will come next? My bet is on the toy poodle.
......So there you have it; Sorry for it being rather 'law' based, it was for the Law Society newsletter, as you may already know. If you wish for further information, please contact the relevant charities, for example DDA Watch does some excellent work (and they also have some adorable dogs looking for their forever homes too!) Please feel free to leave your comments also, I am greatly interested in your views.
Thank you for taking the time to read this post,
Kind Regards,
The Learned Rose x
