We need people who actually understand dog behaviour, genetics, training etc, to work with government - they are, but unfortunately in a way that the government can totally ignore them if they want to.
Banning Breeds
This doesn't work. It may appear logical to ban breeds but we have significant evidence over the last 30 years from the UK and other countries, that banning breeds does not reduce the number of dangerous dogs, it does not reduce the number of attacks/injuries/fatalities.
There are multiple reasons for this:
- You have to ban the type, we do not have reliable enough DNA to ban 'breeds'. This means we're banning dogs on appearance, not genetics. A crossbreed of two perfectly legal breeds/types can produce an illegal type. This then means it is possible to buy a legal puppy, and have it grow into an illegal type.
- Banning types increases desire for that type among the sorts of people who shouldn't be left in charge of a tin opener never mind a dog. It labels them 'dangerous' and some people desire that label.
- Trends change - there are a huge number of dogs who could easily be made dangerous - anything over around 20kg with a decent set of jaws, from labradors to gsds, malinois, huskies, giant schnauzers. Without addressing the human side of this, the desire to own a dog that intimidates, is a danger to others, we cannot resolve the issue.
We have got to address the human element here, because that is the common denominator in the vast majority of dog related incidents. I can guarantee you, almost every single dog involved in an attack in the last 20 years, will tick multiple of the following bullet points.
- Produced by a back yard/dodgy breeder
- Bought to intimidate/protect
- Multiple owners
- Trained using aversives
- Owners of low socio-economic status
- Living in poor accomodation
- Mental and physical needs not met
- Actively encouraged to be aggressive
- Known to be fearful/reactive
- Owners with poor/no education
- Owners involved in drugs
- Domestic violence/abusive relationships
- Left unsupervised/improperly supervised with children
- Handled/housed unsafely (off lead, poor fencing, chained up)
- Owners clueless about training or behaviour.
These factors are far more significant than breed, but of course the size of the dog, the genetics, the temperament, all play a part. Someone that fits a handful of the criteria above is much more likely to own a big breed that is poorly bred with genetics that predispose towards fear, aggression, lack of impulse control etc etc, but you could give them the nicest, most thoughtfully bred, healthiest dog in the world and they'd probably make it an aggressive mess.
We need to change other legislation - 'causing a dog to behave aggressively towards humans with intent to injure' - should be an offence. Many people who are responsible for a dangerous dog have bought that dog to use as a weapon. If they bought a machete and walked around the streets brandishing it and threatening people with it, they would be arrested.
We need to use the animal welfare act and recognise the link between poor handling, poor mangement, bad training that amounts to abuse, and attacks on people. There are people out there offering training to turn your dog into a weapon, and they are using shock collars, spiked prong collars, fear and intimidation to do this, and that is currently perfectly legal, despite the animal welfare act stating:
Owners and keepers have a duty of care to their animals and must make sure they meet their needs:
- for a suitable environment and place to live
- for a suitable diet
- to exhibit normal behaviour patterns
- to be housed with, or apart from, other animals (if applicable)
- to be protected from pain, injury, suffering and disease
It is not legal to cause unnecessary suffering, and there is sufficient data out there now to show that aversive training methods are unecessary (because positive reinforcement based methods are as effective or more effective).
We also need to properly evaluate dogs involved in incidents, wherever possible.
This means seizing dogs and holding them at an appropriate facility to be assessed and evaluated by dog behaviour experts.
This can tell us information on how that dog behaves normally, whether their behaviour is neurological in origin, is it pain based, is it trained/learned behaviour. That then leads us to 'who is responsible/is someone responsible for this'.
There have been cases where a dog is accused of something, and in fact the 'attack' is by another dog, or has been engineered to cover up some other crime. For example, a child dying of neglect/physical abuse - dog bites were used to cover up earlier injuries. Another example, a baby with addicted parents dies and later on their neglected, starved dog finds the childs body... Both these cases are from the US, where it is possible to seize dogs and evaluate them.
Who knows what crimes have gone uninvestigated because here, we shoot the evidence ASAP or euth it without assessment.
We need people to understand dog behaviour, manage and handle their dogs safely, train them appropriately.
We also need to be careful what we ask for - having all dogs muzzled, on tight leads, only off in dog parks is likely to result in a higher number of dogs with very poor social skills with both humans and other dogs.
Dog parks are a horrific concept in reality - small barren areas full of dogshit where dog fights are common. To create a useful, safe and beneficial dog park, we'd be asking local authorities to spend a lot of money, dedicate a lot of land, and do a lot of research - and that simply isn't going to happen.