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 In other countries similar laws have been repealed because they've failed to make one iota of difference.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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment