Dangerous dogs and Dangerous Humans

We own two big dogs. Ok they're greyhounds. In reality this translates into them being two of the laziest, gentlest canines known.

This said, they're definitely not small. While walking Lottie and bomber we often see smaller dogs being walked across the road, as their owners wrongly assuming that they're two big dangerous dogs.
It is funny seeing how these assumptions are made about Lottie and Bomber - they're harmless. Trouble is other people don't know that.

Ironically we used to own a miniature Dachshund called Monty. He was about the size of a largish tabby cat and looked a lot like a puppy. We loved him to bits. He was tiny and kids adored him. Sadly he didn't like kids at all. We lost count of the amount of times we'd shout "don't pat him!" as he lunged snarling at the kids trying to give him a cuddle. You see he looked small and cute, but he wasn't harmless

Assumptions can be dangerous.

This seems strangely salient. New "dangerous" breed laws are about to be passed that'll require dog breeds deemed as "dangerous" be neutered and kept locked up with restricted access to a properties entrance. They'll also have to wear a specific collar to signal that they are dangerous.

This law is at best nonsense, and in reality will solve nothing. In other countries similar laws have been repealed because they've failed to make one iota of difference.

In Australia, the state of Victoria passed breed specific dog laws. These were recently dismantled as it was found that most dog control officers couldn't correctly identify dangerous breeds with enough certainty for the laws to be effective. Meanwhile dog attacks continued.

There are a lot of assumptions and other baggage that comes with owning dogs, big or small. Most assumptions are usually based on poorly informed stereo types.

These stereotypes come from many sources, with one of the more prominent sources being the media. As a journalist I've lost count of the number of times I have seen a dog attack misreported. Be it through journalists who are unfamiliar with dogs or editors hellbent on upping readership, the fact remains that the media has a hell of a lot to answer for when it comes to reporting on canine issues.

Then there's laziness. Punishing dogs (who lets face it can be killed with little or no recourse) is easier than policing people. The bottom line is this:  It is also far cheaper too.

These new laws are a typical example of a band-aid applied to a gaping stab wound and are at best a vote catching move from a politician wanting to be seen to be doing something, regardless of how poorly thought through it may be.

While the numbers show a correlation between certain dog breeds and attacks, they're only half the story. Behind these statistics lurks detail that has clearly been overlooked by law makers and will almost certainly render the new laws ineffectual.

A lot of dog attacks go un-reported and many of these are from smaller breeds that are usually thought of, much like Monty, as not being dangerous. Most of the time a nip from a smaller dog isnt much of an injury compared to that inflicted by a larger breed, but still....

What is also most crucially missing from the stats is the human element. Many people fall in love with the idea of owning a dog. They adopt a small bull of fluffy pup and things are great - at least for the first few months.

Then they realise that owning a dog comes with a lot of responsibilities and requires some hard work. Dogs have to be trained, walked twice a day, groomed and fed. Sadly many people just give up and end up doing the minimum required to keep their dog alive.  Many dog owners forego dog obedience classes and often lack the basic knowledge that can mean the difference between a safe happy dog and a stressed dog with aggression/fear issues.

Sadly some dogs are left roaming the streets or barely cared for. A dog - any dog is like a loaded gun. Given the wrong set of circumstances great harm can happen.

Surely it would be a smarter move to recognise that ALL dog breeds are potentially dangerous and focus on putting the legislative fence at the top of the cliff instead of doing the bare minimum and putting a largely ineffectual ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

If a human wants to drive a car or own a gun, they must first pass some strict controls. Sadly this is not the case with owning a dog.

Make dog obedience classes mandatory. Humans learn as much as the dog at these classes. Simple things such as how to restrain, recall and tell what sort of state your dog is in are all fairly standard fare and can often mean the difference between a good and a bad outcome when it comes to dog safety.

Set up a genetic datatbase of dogs that is linked back to breeders. Fine, and shut down puppy mills. Too many dogs are re-homed to unsuitable owners which in turn acts as a root cause for so many other problems. If it isnt so easy to make a fast buck out of breeding only those who are genuinely interested in the welfare of their animals will do it.

Penalise humans first and dogs second. Most attacks happen because of lax and ignorant dog owners. Make the penalities harsh - if people face huge fines, chances are that they'll be more be more responsible about owning a dog.

Providing education for kids on how to approach a dog (e.g. ask its owner if they can pat it etc), and how to read some basic canine body language to tell if a dog is friendly or agressive etc. This alone could greatly reduce the number of dog attacks and it'd cost peanuts to put in place.

Sadly all of the above will never happen. These options would most likely sit poorly with voters and cost a lot of money.

The other thing is we need to be realistic - No dog laws are going offer a perfect solution. Even the most conscientious dog owners can slip up. Lax owners are also unlikely to comply. No laws can be 100% enforced.

Meanwhile we'll have to make do with the existing poorly thought out laws crafted by lawmakers who know next to nothing about dogs.

Stoopid humians....

A few days back I found out that Animates, a national pet store chain are selling shock collars.

This is despite them saying in their ""about us blurb that" it is our belief that life is better with pets, they are selling hardware that has been proven to cause significant psychological and physical injury to dogs. 

I am curious as to how life is better for the dog when it is terrified and has entered a state of what trainers call "learned helplessness". Remember that Animates are suppossedly the professionals and should know about all this stuff.

More than a little disgusted, I emailed Animates to ask a) why they're selling these horrible things and b) if they'd consider removing them from sale. I do have to hand it to Animates, they promptly came back, saying they’d investigate. Their next email however proved that any investigation was really a sham and read as little more than a weakly worded justification for selling shock collars.

Here’s what they said:

 “Thank you for getting back in contact with us.

Animates are very passionate about the welfare of pets and do not sell products that we deem inhumane. We are aware of some concerns around electronic collars and their usage.

However, we do stand behind Petsafe Anti-Bark Collars for the reasons outlined below, and provide ongoing training for our team members to ensure that the right collar is recommended as appropriate for the dogs' behaviour/size/age and importantly, that the collars are used correctly.

Also, many of our team members have personally experienced the sensation that a static collar emits, which is unpleasant, but not painful.”

Here's the thing, there's a growing body of evidence credible from studies conducted by scientists, dog trainers and canine behaviourists that highlight the negatives of shock collars, the fact that they are generally not good for a dogs mental state and that shock collars can also cause burn injuries. Needless to say, a common theme of these studies is that the negative outweigh the positives of shock collars by a huge margin.  

That a pet store that claims to be passionate about animal welfare sells a product that has a proven track record of causing harm to animals tells me pretty much everything I need to know.

Animates also said that they'd administered shocks from the collars to their staff. I say so bloody what. the reality is that Animates employees are sentient human beings. They’re know that there is a jolt coming and what it is. For an unsuspecting dog with no idea what this pain is and when it'll next happen it’s terrifying.

It gets better though - The next part of their response was titled “WHY DO WE NEED THEM?”. 

“Inappropriate animal behaviour is a significant issue for the public and in many cases, it can cause a threat to public safety. Electronic collars can be used to correct many nuisance behaviours, which could otherwise result in the euthanasia of animals.In fact, Petsafe has received many testimonials from users claiming that the collar they purchased had shock collar effectiveness"

You'll have to forgive my cynicism but these hollow blanket statements are often parroted by shock collar advocates. They also puzzle me. If On one hand Animates claim shock collars don’t hurt a dog why do they say it’s a last resort to prevent the “euthanasia of animals”. Surely that one statement contradicts the other. 

Stunned by Animates response, I penned a reponse to the issue in a bid to raise public awareness of this issue. Here's what I wrote 

I was pleasantly surprised to find that a stuff.co.nz had also picked up on the issue. It seemed like a great move - at least until I read the comments attached to story. 

Many read like they had been lifted out of a shock collar marketing brochure. Other pro shock collar comments submitted were written by people who either didn't have a clue about dog training or were too lazy to try them and wanted a quick fix.

One commenter said they lived on a lifestyle block and that the collars kept her dogs off a busy road. (they were obviosuly too lazy to install fencing). The same person then mentioned in a later comment that their dog had been run over and was now a tripaw. 

This highlights several things to me:

1) Shock collars are seen as a "quick fix""

In fact they're not. As the commenter found out at their dogs expense. Too many people don't do the research that is needed when buying a dog. Too many people are too lazy to invest time regularly attending dog obedience classes and learning about how their dog works. Instead they throw a shock collar around their dogs necks and go for a quick fix. It doesnt usually work well longer term. 

2) The story rattled someone

The comments section in that story had been astroturfed - this is marketing slang for vested interests using comments sections to push their own agenda. That there were so many comments that'd obviously been written by the same group of people using multiple logins tell me that the story has rattled someone.

3) Shock collars should be restricted NOT banned

Selling a shock collar to any member of the general public is a terrible idea. Too many people want a quick fix and really have little to no dog obedience experience. Talk to any trainer and they'll agree that shock collars are a bad thing but will also say that shock collars have a use as a last resort for training.

On the basis of this, I'd be happy to see shock sales limited to professional trainers rather than being sold willy-nilly to members of the public who will misuse them.

The Greyhound Collective

Sometimes I almost have to pinch myself just to confirm that I'm not dreaming. Not only do I own two of the most gentle, cutest and loveable dogs in the known universe, but I also get to spend time on one of the best Facebook pages Mark Zuckerberg has probably never heard of.

Im talking about the Greyhound collective.

It is where greyhound owners from New Zealand, Australia and a growing number of other overseas locations hang out to share silly pictures of their hounds , giving advice, support and having a giggle.

Its a non political forum. No one talks about racing - or the anti-racing lobby. The hounds are front and centre and it works like a charm.

A while back an adorable hound call Will was seriously ill and needed a series of life saving operations. His owners were hit massive vet bills. The greyhound collective swung into action.

Raffles, fund raisers, donations and a hep of other bits and bobs saw a huge number of people helping Wills owners who they'd never met.

It was a truly heart warming sight and is something that happens with startling regularity on the collective.

Last year I wrote about Tiny and how he'd gone missing. What I didn't say was that of the huge number of people out looking for him, most were drawn from the Greyhound collective.

You see, the Collective just that sort of place.

If you own a greyhound, you can ask to join. The only rules involve no politics and treating other members with respect and politeness.