Fighting Breeds

By this point there will undoubtedly be people reading this that are thinking “Yes, that is all very well but what about XXXX breed?  They are bred to be vicious and fight”.  Most likely these people will be considering so called “dangerous dogs” type breeds such as American Pitbulls,  or other pit bull “types”, Rottweiler’s, Doberman’s, German Shepherds or perhaps smaller dogs such as Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

My reply to this will need to be separated into a number of parts.

Firstly, the breed plays no significant role in the propensity of the dog to attack and is key reason why breed specific legislation is always misguided.  This fact has been established by responsible government bodies such as the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in the United States of America.  There are a number of good books on this subject and my suggestion would be to buy and read one.

Secondly, although fighting dog breeds have been bred for certain physical characteristics they are no more dangerous than any other dog of similar physical capabilities.

To be more explicit, a fighting breed is often bred to have a large head and powerful jaws.  The jaws of the dog possess a bite strength in direct relationship to the size of the muscles powering them.  If a dog has large head and powerful jaws, when compared to its size, it will give a more powerful bite than an equivalent dog of the same physical stature.  In dog fighting this would give such a large headed dog an advantage and this is the reason why this physical characteristic has historically been bred for.

(Incidentally, locking jaws and other such impossible physiology on fighting breeds is an urban myth and such rubbish will be dealt with in a separate article exposing dangerous dog myths.)

This information about jaws and biting must be taken in context.  Any large, physically powerful dog can give a nasty bite, especially if it lacks a responsible owner and proper training and socialisation.  Larger teeth simply mean a deeper penetration of the bite; they do not signify an increased likelihood of the dog administering such a bite.  Again, this is backed up by the facts, rather than media driven hysteria.

Main Contributory Factors to Making a Dog “Dangerous”

There are a large number of contributory factors that will come together to increase the likelihood that a dog can be considered to be dangerous.  Perhaps the single most important factor amongst these is irresponsible dog ownership.

Irresponsible and cowardly individuals seeking a large or fighting breed dog to buoy up their manhood will often encourage a dog to show aggressive tendencies.  Over time the dog will learn that showing aggression is an activity that earns it a reward and true to the style of Pavlov’s dogs that aggression will become an ever larger part of the dog’s life.  Dogs kept for such purposes are often kennelled and kept out of the home which results in a dog that is even more poorly socialised otherwise might be the case.

When dogs such as these are left unsupervised with young children it is a recipe for disaster.  The child, who will likely be used to well-socialised animals, will not understand the danger that it is in and so will not withdraw when the dog started to issue threat signals (growling or similar).  The dog on the other hand will only understand that aggression gets it whatever it wants and so when the child fails to withdraw the threat display will only increase, eventually resulting in a full blown attack.

Who is at fault here?

Clearly it is not the child who does not understand the danger that they are in.  Similarly it is difficult to blame the animal who is behaving in a manner that is has been taught by its owner is the way in which it should behave.  I suggest that the fault lies with the irresponsible owner who failed to train the animal in a socially responsible manner.

Leaving any animal alone with children is a risk.  Animal behaviour is never 100% predictable and where a dog has been taught to be aggressive and behave in a vicious manner the risks increase exponentially.  Banning the so-called dangerous dogs breeds will not solve this problem.  The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 clearly did not solve this problem.

What is needed is a law that addresses the problems created by irresponsible dog ownership and which does not place a placebo responsibility upon the breed of the dog.  Apart from the obvious considerations of sheer physical size there are no truly dangerous dogs, merely dangerous and irresponsible owners.

The post Dangerous Dogs – Part Two appeared first on Dangerous Dogs Act.

If you pay any attention to the media today you cannot fail but notice the many stories about vicious, aggressive, or dangerous dogs that have attacked or killed innocent people.  The Dangerous Dogs Act appears to be no answer.  More often than not the victim of these dog attacks will be young child that has been severely mauled or bitten on the face.  These stories will often be accompanied by horrifying graphic images of the after effects of the attack and a call for all dogs of a particular type to be destroyed (breed specific legislation).

The stories tend to follow a similar pattern in that they will often assert that the dog was normally quiet and peaceable and that the owner kept the dog in a responsible manner, yet was somehow at another location at the time of the attack.  The implication of stories like these are that certain breeds of dog cannot be trusted no matter how loyal or dependable they may have been for any number of years previous to the attack.  Also no mention will be made of the number of persons already owning a similar breed of dog, often for many years and having had no incident with them whatsoever and how remote the chances are of a similar event occurring if the dog was responsibly owned.

Are these stories a true picture of events?  It is true that some breeds of dog will spontaneously attack without any provocation?  Is it true that some dog breeds are inherently more dangerous than others?  Will banning dog breeds reduce the number of dog attacks on members of the public?

Defining “Dangerous Dogs”

What do we mean when we say that a dog is dangerous?  All dogs can bite.  Being bitten is a danger to human health.  Therefore if we accept that any dog can bite and that receiving a dog bite is a danger to human health then by definition every single dog is a dangerous dog.  Is this really what we mean by the term dangerous dogs?

Most balanced individuals would accept that not all dogs are dangerous and that the above definition is absurd.  If we accept that the above definition is wrong we must seek to define under what conditions a dog can truly be considered to be a danger to the public.

Mankind has been living in harmony with canine companions for several thousand years.  Humanity has employed dogs to assist them with a wide variety of tasks from hunting and war, guarding hearth, home and possessions and assisting in all kinds of tracking and detection work.  This list barely scratches the surface.

As humanity has had such a long and fruitful relationship with the dog something but surely have changed in recent times for a long-time companion to now almost routinely be considered a threat.  The identification of the reasons behind this change must surely be of paramount importance, both to protect individuals from unnecessary harm resulting from dog bites, but also to protect animals innocent of any attack from being destroyed merely on the basis of their breed.

Why Dogs Attack

Most mammals in the animal kingdom have a type of behaviour designed to resolve conflicts without risking unnecessary injury to themselves or others.  This behaviour is often called “threat behaviour“.  In some respects the terminology here is wrong, although the behaviour may be considered threatening; its real objective is to get a rival to back down without a fight.  For this reason it could just as easily have been called “defence behaviour”.

An example of this type of behaviour is when a gorilla beats his chest and rattles the branches in the forest.  He is effectively saying “I am big and tough, do not mess with me!”   For the most part other gorillas observing this behaviour will heed the warning and conflict will be avoided.  When conflict does occur it happens because the hierarchy of the group is changing, or an individual feels threatened by some circumstance to such an extent that it is worth their while to risk serious injury and possibly death by engaging in physical conflict.

Dogs are mammals too and their reasons for attacking are similar.

The process of training a dog is something that occurs over a long period of time and never really comes to an end.  How a dog is trained will have a huge impact in its behaviour and how it deals with the world.  The effect of the training a dog receives throughout its life is far more important in determining whether that dog will be a danger to the public than any consideration as to its breed.

One of the big secrets of dog training is the dogs do not actually desire to be leaders.  There is no such thing as a naturally alpha dog.  Dogs are actually happiest when they are in a follower role.  Contrary to public opinion dogs are not pack animals, but it is a convenient fiction to refer to them in these terms and for this reason I will do so here but please understand that dogs are not wolves even though they look superficially similar.  Dog are no more wolves than we are monkeys – both parties shared a common ancestor in the distant past but evolution has taken us down very different paths.

Taking a leadership role of a group of dogs, or if you prefer a pack, is a stressful position for an animal to occupy.  In the wild environment this would mean taking responsibility for providing access to food and water, shelter and ensuring that the pack avoids danger and that pups are kept safe.  This is a large list of responsibilities and places huge demands on the animal in question.  If we compare this situation to a domesticated dog then we see quite easily why the follower role makes for a happy animal.

A domestic pet is provided with shelter, warmth, food and water, exercise and every other natural need by its owner.  To a dog’s mind, a responsible human owner is the best pack leader they could possibly imagine.  Faced with such an impossibly high standard, dogs naturally submit to their owners and try their best to please them.  There is no need for any kind of cruel or unusual physical punishments.  Problems only arise when human leadership is lacking.  In the absence of any effective guidance the dog will begin to grow nervous about its future.  It is this fear that causes many dog attacks.

Effective Dog Training Is the Answer to Dangerous Dogs

When a human being fails to be an effective leader for a dog this forces the dog to try and take over the leaders role.  We have already seen that carrying out this role effectively is extremely stressful to the animal.  The only thing that can make this worse is when an ineffectual human leader constantly changes the rules and tries to regain leadership after having proven themselves to be untrustworthy.  By the time events have deteriorated to this level the dog will be considering that its life may be under real threat and will act to defend itself.  Would you follow someone who was totally unreliable?  Well, neither will a dog.

Caesar Milan is a well-known and world famous dog trainer.  He is often heard to say “I train humans and rehabilitate dogs”.  Many people take this as a joke but I believe him to be totally serious.  90% of the problems people experience with their dogs are related to a lack of exercise and all but the tiniest proportion of the remaining 10% are due to a lack of leadership on behalf of the human owners.  The small number of remaining cases where dogs have behavioural problems or aggression issues can usually be traced to some underlying medical condition which is causing the dogs constant pain or are upsetting the balance of their mind.  No domesticated dog breed is inherently vicious.  The single biggest factor that makes a dog aggressive is the training it receives.

Dangerous Dogs – Part Two

The post Dangerous Dogs appeared first on Dangerous Dogs Act.

Control of Dogs Act (Scotland)

For once, it is a dog law that addresses the issues of dog behaviour inside the home as well as out.  MSP Christine Grahame quipped “Postmen and post-women of Scotland, rejoice!” when she announced the unanimous passing of her Control of Dogs Act through the Scottish parliament.   The problem of poorly trained or out of control dogs in the home has long been one that has needed to be dealt with in law.  One of the many flaws in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is that it does not apply inside the home.  This has left anyone who during the course of their employment is required to enter homes in a position where the law did not protect them.  At least now this flaw in the Dangerous Dogs Act has been corrected in Scotland.

Breed Specific Legislation is Wrong

Breed specific legislation is clearly the wrong path to take as it criminalises those that have done no wrong, but law makers often ignore this fact in the quest for a quick fix.  Another piece of good news about this Scottish law is that the Control of Dogs Act (Scotland) is based upon deed and not breed, thus avoiding adding to the controversy surrounding breed specific legislation.  This truly is a great piece of news for responsible pet owners that have put hours of effort into training well behaved and reliable dogs.  The Scottish law now stands in sharp contrast to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (UK) which punishes all owners of a specific breed or type of dog based upon ownership of that breed, despite the fact that the animal has done nothing wrong other than being born.

It was nice to see publicly recognised experts applauding this new law too.  “This a fantastic step forward in our campaign against breed-specific legislation and we are grateful to Christine Grahame and Patricia Ferguson for enshrining the important principle of ‘deed not breed’ ” said Bill Reilly, who is the President of the British Veterinary Society.

He went on to say “The key message is that any dog can show aggression, particularly if it is not handled and trained properly, so legislation that targets irresponsible ownership before it becomes a problem is very welcome.”

I really couldn’t agree more.

My only reservation about this new law is with regard to householders protecting their properties and the fact that when questioned about why the bill should cover dogs inside an owners residence Christine Grahame replied “The horror reports of children and infants savaged to death have more often than not occurred in a private dwelling where the dog was permitted to be – a relative’s house for example.”  So yet again a bill has arrived in parliament, driven by a media agenda rather than data on what is actually happening in the real world.

My respect for the good lady would have been greatly increased if she has said something like “It is necessary to prevent attacks on postal workers and other persons who have legitimate reasons to enter a property.  We also wish to prevent attacks upon children by out of control dogs, following recent recorded increases in attacks upon them.  The law will not apply in cases where the person so attacked was committing a crime, such as burglary.”  (In fact, recent NHS dog attack statistics show that attacks on very young children [0-9 years] have actually declined, although attacks on children overall have increased.  You can read more about this in my last post about UK Dog Injury Statistics)

The reasons that I take this stance about the law are as follows:

• Persons with a legitimate reason to enter a property need to be protected.  Here I am looking at delivery people such as milkmen and postmen, but also police officers and other emergency workers.
• People that enter a property illegally should never be allowed to claim against a property owner if an animal attacks them.  I am hesitant to say it in this current climate of political correctness gone wrong, but if you enter a property illegally then you deserve all that you get.  Householders should have an inalienable right to defend themselves and their properties from marauding thugs.  If the defence that they choose to employ is a guard dog, then so be it.
• My final point is that law should ideally be founded on the facts of the matter and not on media hype.  Dog attacks against children aged 0-9 have actually declined according to recent figures and so protecting children from “horror reports” seems a bit strange.  Why wasn’t the law enacted when the attacks were increasing and not now when they seem to be dropping?  Was the decision to act at all driven by the press or by the facts?

Despite all of this the new law must be applauded as a huge step forward.  Hopefully the day is soon approaching where we will see the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 repealed and a sensible law to protect people from dog attacks in its place.

Resources:

Original Proposal for the Bill:  http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/membersbills/documents/StatementofReasonsFINAL.pdf

Media Comment:

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Dog-Asbos-get-goahead-to.6248400.jp

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/156566-dog-asbo-bill-comes-before-msps/

The post Control of Dogs Act (Scotland) appeared first on Dangerous Dogs Act.

You might, if you have been on the receiving end of a dog attack by a vicious or overly aggressive dog.  Pursuing irresponsible individuals for personal injury compensation following a dog bite is one way in which we can improve the situation for all responsible pet owners.

Although this site is campaigning for the repeal of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, I want to make something very clear:

I am totally against people having to endure dog attacks by poorly trained or aggressive dogs under any circumstances.  I do believe that we need laws to protect people from dog attacks, it is just that the Dangerous Dogs Act is not that law.

Pursuing a Personal Injury Compensation Claim due to a Dog Bite

If you are attacked by a dog that is out of control, through no fault of your own, then I feel that you definitely should make a legal claim if it is possible to do so.  It is the threat of such claims that makes people act responsibly and in very many cases the reason people are bitten by dogs is due to poor training or irresponsible owners.  When thugs feel that there is a chance of comeback against them personally for the actions of their “fashion accessories” (vicious dogs, trained to be that way) perhaps the situation will improve for all of us.

In many countries lawyers are allowed to pursue a claim on a no win, no fee basis – so making a personal injury claim need not cost you a penny.  Injury claims against individuals are frequently paid by household insurance policies so it doesn’t matter a great deal if the person that owns the dog claims they cannot afford to pay.  You cannot afford to be bitten either!

As with all the advice on this page, or this site, please consult a legal professional in your area about making a personal injury claim.  Laws vary widely.

What to Do If You are Bitten

This webpage is viewed across the world and in various legal jurisdictions.  It is therefore impossible to give comprehensive legal advice, but some general principles should hold true.  This information is provided for educational purposes only as I am not a personal injury specialist.

1. The first priority is to seek medical attention.  Protecting your life and health come before any consideration of who is to blame or compensation due to you.  If the injury is severe, call the emergency services promptly.  You may go into shock and be unable to do so later.  In most jurisdictions a hospital Accident and Emergency (A+E) department will be able to document your injuries and take a photographic record of them.  This kind of professionally recorded evidence is extremely useful, make sure you get it if possible.
2. Establish who owns the dog and their place of residence.  The owner of the dog will usually be the person that is liable for the dogs actions, but this may vary if the dog is under the control of a legally responsible person for example.  In many jurisdictions with dangerous dogs type laws, a dog is not considered to be under control if it is being walked by a child for example.  Find out who the head of the household is in the home where the dog resides.  Get an address for them.  Ideally, get this address verified by the police at the time of the incident.  Although many irresponsible owners will likely fail to do this, most countries have laws to ensure that a dog wears a tag to identify who the owner is – see if the dog has one.  If it does not, then most likely the owner of the dog is guilty of a crime just for this fact.  Pursue it.  Proving ownership of dogs is one way in which their use as personal weapons will be decreased.
3. If you are able to do so, gather evidence.  Pictures from a camera-phone are unlikely to be admissible in many places, but are better than nothing.  They are definitely better than trying to remember what the dog or owner looked like on your own.  If you do not have a camera, or even if you do, write notes shortly after the event.  Written notes will only complement any pictures available.  The reason for doing this is that memories change over time, especially if the events being recalled were traumatic.  Don’t let some thug get away with having his dog attack you because of a poor memory of the events.  Also, make sure you do not dispose of torn or blood stained clothing.  Do not wash these items.  You may need to prove that it was a particular dog that caused the injuries at a later point, DNA evidence can be gathered from dog DNA just like a humans.

This concludes my personal advice on what to do if you are the victim of a dog attack.  If you feel that I have made any errors or omissions in this document please feel free to contact me via the contact form on this website (comments will close automatically after a period of time).

Please remember that despite what the media may say the chance of being the victim of a fatal dog attack is extremely low.  The majority of victims of dog attacks make a full recovery.

While personal injury compensation won’t make your injury’s go away they will help in other ways.  Also remember that most owners of truly vicious dogs are cowards that have trained them to be that way as they cannot stand up for themselves.  Any action to discourage this kind of activity must surely be a good thing.  By using a specialist dog bite lawyer to pursue a personal injury claim following a dog bite you will be making things safer for everyone.

The post Dog Bite Lawyer appeared first on Dangerous Dogs Act.

A fact that has been bandied about in the British media recently is that the attacks by dangerous dogs in the UK have increased by 12 fold.  Over the years I have seen evidence of the inaccuracy of the media, along with a willingness to edit so-called facts on the fly.  It was for this reason that I decided to check the veracity, or otherwise, of this supposed 12 fold increase in dog attacks.  Unfortunately, I quoted this 12 fold increase in my previous post without checking to see if the facts were indeed true.  I really should have known better.

This website is a one-man operation, accordingly I cannot afford to pay full-time researchers to do my research for me.  Some of the information I present on this site is anecdotal in nature as I have kept dogs as pets for as long as I can remember.  Where possible, I will provide online links to source articles and material relevant to my posts but sometimes this material is just not available online.  Trying to find the original basis upon which journalists decided that attacks by dangerous dogs had increased 12 fold has at least temporarily, proved to be beyond my means.  This does not of course mean that I’ve given up!

UK Dog Attack Statistics

What I did find however was an interesting website that has been placed upon the web by the NHS.  The site is called HESonline.nhs.co.uk.  HES stands for Hospital Episode Statistics.  This website provides information upon the admission of and treatment of patients within the NHS in England.  One of the statistics of this page will provide is the incidence of hospital admissions due to dog bites, or collisions with dogs.  While I of course understand that it is relevant to provide information about injuries that relate to dogs I do not feel that it is fair to call a collision with a dog a dog attack.  This practice, at seems to fly in the face of good sense.  There is a world of difference between being attacked by a dog, teeth bared and being knocked over and injured while playing with an animal or engaged in some other harmless pursuit.  Despite my reservations over the statistics some interesting facts can nevertheless be gleaned from the information provided on this site.

One of the most interesting facts that is disclosed on this website relates to an event called an FCE, this is shorthand for finished consultant episode.  These statistics relate directly to hospital admissions relating to dog bites and dog collisions over a given year.  Although based upon these statistics dog bites and dog collisions have increased over the last 10 years the increase is nowhere near the levels to which the media portray it as being.  It seems that when data supplied the years 97 to 98 and 2007 to 2008 are compared the number of attacks have indeed increased, but this increase is overall only equivalent to a doubling of the number of dog related hospital admissions.

Document images courtesy of HESonline.nhs.co.uk.

Another interesting statistic that can be gleaned from these figures occurs in the age group 0 to 9 years.  The media has consistently given maximum attention to the attacks of vicious dogs against innocent and defenceless children.  This has always struck me as an attempt to create an unnecessary panic in the populace.  I was therefore somewhat gratified when the statistics show quite clearly that dog attacks and collisions involving children in this age range have actually declined by approximately 18% over the last 10 years.

Now I am fully aware that some may argue that this decline in incidents involving children in this age range may signify that the awareness generated by the press has indeed made the environment safer for children.  If this can be proven to be the case, I would of course welcome this news.

The problem, at least for me, is that it seems that there is an almost inverse relationship between the amount of coverage the press have given to this topic and the amount of children affected by it.  That is to say the media coverage of attacks by dangerous dogs has increased, while the actual incidence of attacks by vicious dogs against children in this age range has declined.

This is not the end of the story.  I provide this data as I believe it is in the public interest to do so, it is of course also freely available from the website linked under the graphs.  I will continue to look into the statistics quoted in the media of the 12 fold increase and try to ascertain its original source.  When I successful in achieving this I will post back here. (edit: I never found it. My guess is that it was a made up statistic to suit the story.)

Aggressive Dogs and Dog Attacks – We need to Understand Why

While these statistics may provide interesting reading, (at least to some!) they do not really solve anything.  Even if we take it at face value that the frequency of dog attacks has indeed increased this says nothing about the reasons why.  Until we fully understand the reasons why vicious dogs continue to attack children we will remain powerless to stop it.

What is clear however is that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is not achieving the aim of protecting the public.  Britain continues to need a new dog law that deals effectively with irresponsible owners, dangerous and vicious dogs and injuries caused by dog bites from these aggressive dogs.

The post UK Dog Attack Statistics appeared first on Dangerous Dogs Act.

Ideally the first step in achieving this would be to repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, followed by a proper consultation period with dog behaviour experts, human psychologists and other relevant professionals.  Then once proper consultation has taken place the new law could be formed during a true democratic debate in parliament.  Who knows what might happen?

We might just get a law that will actually lower the incidence of attacks by vicious dogs, trained into this behaviour by equally vicious and irresponsible owners.  Clearly this objective is not being achieved by the present dog legislation: it is estimated that dog attacks have increased by twelve times in recent years.   We need a new dangerous dog act type law that does not follow the errors of current breed specific legislation and worse.

While we are campaigning for a better law, there are things that we can do as individual dog owners.

Dog Training to Stop Dangerous Dog Attacks

Of course not all dangerous dog attacks are a product of thugs mistreating their dogs.  Most dangerous dogs incidents reported in the press these days involve a child that is bitten while adults are not present.  Unfortunately pitbull dogs figure large in these reports, which is a shame as pit bull type dogs can be exceptionally friendly and loyal companions if given proper dog training.

The exact nature of these various dog bite incidents is extremely hard to divine.  Adults that were present in a building, but not supervising a child and dog properly are most unlikely to admit this fact in interview.  A small amount of human education about dogs would most likely reduce the already low risk of fatal dog bite incidents to a number that would hardly be statistically measurable.

Many of the current incidents could be avoided with minimal dog awareness education and use of basic dog training methods.  When all is said, a dog is an animal that is not capable of reasoning like a human.  It is therefore up to us to avoid situations in which others could come to harm.

Not leaving small children and babies alone with any animal might also be a good starting point.  Cats kill babies by suffocation when they sit in a babies crib to get warm.

Early dog socialisation classes, or puppy training classes, if you prefer, would significantly reduce the incidence of dog attacks if more people would take them.  Proper dog socialisation means that the animal will be less nervous in common situations.  Dogs often attack from fear, rather than because they are “aggressive dogs”.  Helping the dog to reduce its stress in new and unusual situations would actually save lives.

Unfortunately, many owners lack basic dog awareness and dog training skills.

When their bully breed pitbull starts chewing their hands as a pup they remark about what a cute puppy he is.  (Dog’s mouthing like this is totally normal, but it is a trait best trained out as soon as possible, especially in large, muscular dogs.)  People often forget that a trait that is cute in a puppy can be a real threat to safety in an adult dog that weighs in at over 100lbs.

Also, training any breed to respond with aggression is what has caused a large portion of our current problem with aggressive dogs.  The problem here is not dangerous dog breeds, but rather that certain breeds are chosen by owners who want an aggressive dog and reward this behaviour.  The dog in its desire to please its owner becomes ever more vicious and then one day that dog has a tragic encounter with a young child.

Perhaps compulsory dog training and owner education would improve the current situation.  Yet it may well be resisted by the majority of responsible owners who would view it as a dog tax.

The question becomes: how far are we prepared to go financially and politically to secure the populace from the effects of dog attacks from hyper aggressive dogs that have been taught to behave like this by irresponsible owners who seek the most dangerous dogs to boost their social status?

The post Dangerous Dogs – Stopping Dog Attacks appeared first on Dangerous Dogs Act.

While genetics and breeding play a large role in determining behaviour they are not the whole story.  Even though Collies are bred to herd sheep and have been for generations there are many Collies that are still rejected by trainers as being temperamentally unsuitable for herding.  Similarly the police train German Shepherds for crowd control and other duties, yet the police reject hundreds of dogs throughout the year as being unsuitable for police training.  These dogs are rejected despite the fact that the police employ their own dog breeding program.  If genetics is the whole story then why should we see so many “failed” dogs in the specialist area that they were bred for?

What if the dog in question was bred to fight other dogs?  Would you expect the results to be any different than those previously described?  Would you expect every single dog of a given breed to be a vicious, dangerous dog that needed to be euthanized at the earliest opportunity in order to protect the public from its salivating, drool covered, jaws?  Clearly I am exaggerating for dramatic effect, I admit it.  Unfortunately when the media does the same thing they are not so candid.

Dangerous Dog Attacks in the Media

The media is in the business of creating interest.  At its most fundamental this is a marketing job.  Anything, literally anything, that you didn’t know before is “news” to you.  A dog attack is a dramatic event.  This can help explain why, in the absence of a real story the media will hype up even a minor event into a larger story.  If enough people seem interested, then of course there will be more of the same and to be honest, even if they aren’t interested…sometimes.

The public has a natural desire to protect children.  If, as human beings, we did not have this urge we would have died out already.  As birth rates are so low in the UK children have become increasingly scarce and so the urge to protect them has become heightened.  This explains part of the reason why there is such a moral panic about paedophiles, overweight children and of course…dangerous dogs.

The people that prey on children are hard to spot and so we tend to treat anyone and everyone as a criminal in a paranoid effort to protect the children.  Please note that I am not saying the children should not be protected, rather I am saying that the efforts to protect them are overblown and out of proportion to the size of the actual problem.  Shielding our children to such an extent may actually be stunting their emotional growth, but that is a topic that I will not be exploring here.

Instead, I want to ask a few questions:  Where does our fear come from?  How many paedophiles do you know personally?  How many children or adults do you know personally that have ever been affected by one?

Similarly we are constantly told to be in fear that our children are becoming ever more obese.  If we keep them indoors to keep them away from predatory adults then how can we expect them to get the normal exercise that a child would get from being outdoors?  Exercise that they could easily get by playing with their pet dog in the local park…if only dogs were not so, well, dangerous.

Of course if we really believe all that we hear in the media then we would not allow our children to ever be alone with a dog, let alone out in a public place walking one.  If there is a public report of a dog attack we are understandably concerned.  We know rationally that dogs have teeth that can severely injure or kill.  We fear for ourselves and our family.  These fears are normal.

What is unhealthy is our estimation of the scale of the risks involved.  Our estimation of these risks is largely formed by the media reports we expose ourselves too.  The reason I asked the questions before about how many people do you know personally that have experienced “X” was that for the majority of the population the answer will be “none” or possibly one person.  Our knowledge of risks in the modern world is largely media driven and so if they are inaccurate in their reporting we are inaccurate in our risk assessments.

Dog Attack Reports are Often Biased

To give you an idea of the scale of the media exaggeration, in the USA the chances you will die from a dog attack and the chances you will die by being struck by lightning are about the same.  Assuming my memory serves me well about the relative risks, you would expect that the media would be full of stories trying to save people’s lives from the evil thunder God!

I admit that I forget the exact actuarial statistical chance of dying from a dog attack, but in 2007 there were 33 fatalities involving dog bites in the USA (according to the CDC).  33 dog bite fatalities, in a country of over 300 million people and 75 million dogs!  This is a chance of death per annum of roughly 1 chance in nine million.  The chances of being killed by a fatal dog bite are roughly the same in the UK too, that is to say they are miniscule.

If the media really wanted to save lives it could do so by brainwashing educating people none-stop about the dangers of roads and car travel.  Thousands die and tens of thousands die on Britain’s roads every year and yet we have one of the best road safety records in Europe.

So why the silence?

Why does the media demonise dogs and not car drivers?  Well, auto manufacturers pay huge amounts to advertise their products and these advertising budgets pay salaries.  Would you pay to advertise on a TV channel that was telling people how a product you sell was killing people on a daily basis?  No, and neither would any executive from an auto company.

The profitability of a television channel can quickly evaporate with the loss of just a few key advertising clients.  If you were the producer on a news program would you run almost daily reports on how many people cars had killed or injured today?  If you would, then most likely you would be looking for a new job shortly thereafter.

But, I hear you saying, dog food manufacturers have advertising budgets too!  Don’t they affect the media too?  Well, let’s look at this for a minute.  If a dog breed is banned as a “dangerous dog” and destroyed you have lost a customer, right?  Well, only sort of.  Most likely the innocent dog owner that had his dog destroyed as it was a “dangerous dog”, despite it never having actually attacked anyone, will most likely get another dog to replace their loss.

So what is the loss to the pet company in the long term?  Effectively zero.

The issue of lack of political power amongst dog owners makes them an easy target for unscrupulous journalists looking to make err I mean report a good story.  The dogs themselves cannot speak of their good character.  The owners individually rising to their pets defence can be written off as “overly emotional” or “tree huggers” or some other buzz word used to stop rational thought.

Similarly, the media has no interest in accusing dog owners of being irresponsible, cruel, idiots – even if they are and it is relatively easy to find that out from eye witnesses.  The problem here is that if you make assertions against an individual that cast them in a negative light they might sue.  The cost of defending these claims against people who cannot actually repay your defence costs should they lose is more than many media companies will risk.  Fighting a court battle with a celebrity is good business, as even if you lose you sell more copy.  Fighting a similar court battle against some drug dealing bum, who beat his dog daily in order to turn it into a vicious dog is simply not profitable.

Therefore the media often reports vicious dog owners as blameless.  The increase in dog attacks must therefore be due to the dogs breed and not the owners irresponsibility, even though dog DNA hasn’t changed at all in the last few decades.  No one asks the obvious questions.

We ban dog breeds because they are considered to be dangerous dogs, but dog DNA has hardly changed at all.  Something else is contributing to any increase in dog attacks.  The elephant in the room that no one is talking about is simply that the contributory factor is people themselves.  Any law aimed at protecting the citizenry must first of all deal with the owners, not these *ahem* vicious dogs.  I would laugh if it wasn’t so sad.

The Dangerous Dogs Act can be Repealed Through Political Action

The only way pet owners will ever be able to stop their pets being merely a political plaything is if they organise and make their voice heard.  The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 came into existence in obedience to the call of the UK press for political action.  If pet owners had been politically organised then most likely the press would not have made that call and almost definitely the government would not have acted so hastily and without public consultation if they had a real fear of a political backlash.

In 1991 owners of pitbulls numbered very few indeed, the same was true of Japanese Tosa owners, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro etc.  As there were relatively few owners and they were politically disorganised it held relatively little political risk to issue a banning order against these breeds.

Many people recognise that perhaps the real reason Staffordshire Bull Terriers (SBT’s) were not included on the dangerous dogs banned breeds list was that there are well over ten million Staffies in the UK and the political fallout would have been unacceptably high.  I also need to point out that the Dangerous Dogs Act included “dogs bred for fighting” in the ban, but did not include Staffies as a named breed.  Why was that?

Anyone who knows anything at all about Staffordshire Bull Terriers will tell you that they were originally bred for dog fighting sports that have long since been outlawed in the UK.  So, as Staffordshires were originally “bred for fighting” and this is covered by the act; why are they still on our streets and not euthanized like the rest?

Perhaps the government realised that taking dogs off thugs is different than taking them off ordinary members of society.  When the police arrive at the homes of several million law abiding dog owners homes to seize and destroy a beloved family pet, it is likely to have negative implications for the next election.

Despite this the battle to save SBT’s is not over.  The Dangerous Dogs Act has a provision within it that allows for the list of banned dogs to be added to at any time.  The Home Secretary can choose to add to the list without discussion, debate or a vote in the House of Commons.  In short, the Act allows for a Home Secretary to curry favour with the press and ban any and all dog breeds as suits political expediency.  I am certain that many dog owners are unaware of this fact.

As the thugs move to the latest macho breed of dog and the media gets a hold of the stories of another “brutal dog attack”, then another breed can be added dangerous dogs ban list at any time.  Will it be Staffordshire Bull Terriers or another breed?  Only time will tell.

If you don’t want your breed to be the next one banned and destroyed through no fault of yours, or that of your dog, you need to organise and make your voice heard in opposition to this absurd piece of legislation.  Force the government to deal with the irresponsible idiots that think of a dog only as a weapon and repeal breed specific legislation for the racist rubbish it is.  Write to your MP, as it is currently election time they might even listen.

Consider this quote from RSPCA chief veterinary surgeon Mark Evans:

“Staffies have had a terrible press, but this is not of their own making, in fact they are wonderful dogs. If people think that Staffies have problems, they are looking at the wrong end of the dog lead! When well cared for and properly trained they can make brilliant companions. Our experience suggests that problems occur when bad owners exploit the Staffie’s desire to please by training them to show aggression.”

This quote clearly identifies the root problem in dog attacks and banning so called dangerous dog breeds is not going to help it.

The problem of dangerous dogs remains with the irresponsible dog owners and not the dogs themselves, but will the law ever reflect this fact?  Together we can make it happen.

Click here to read more about dangerous dogs

The post Dangerous Dogs – In the Media appeared first on Dangerous Dogs Act.

Picture by: Dante Alighieri

Many people come to this site looking for information about dog breeds that were banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.  So here is a list of banned breeds under UK law along with a short history of when the law was amended or added to.  (And of course some personal political commentary about why this Act needs to be repealed and replaced with some decent dog legislation.)

Under the original 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act the list of banned breeds or so called dangerous breeds was quite short and is as follows:

• Any Dog known as a Pitbull type
• Japanese Tosa
• Any dog known to be bred for fighting, or having the appearance of having been bred for fighting.

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was amended in August 1991 to include additional breeds of “dangerous dogs”.  Under the amendment the following dog breeds were added:

• Dogo Argentino
• Fila Brasileiro

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Banned Breeds List

Thus the full list of banned breeds under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is as follows:

• Any dog known as a pitbull type (eg American Pitbulls, Blue Nose Pitbulls, Red Nose Pitbulls)
• Japanese Tosa
• Fila Brasileiro
• Dogo Argentino
• And any dog who in the opinion of the Secretary of State was bred for fighting, or has the appearance of a dog bred for fighting

The problem of course, apart from the idea of breed specific legislation itself, is that addition of breeds to this list is at the sole option of the Secretary of State.  There doesn’t need to be any parliamentary debate or vote.  New breeds can be added at any time.  Thus the Act removes any idea of democratic representation of the views of the many involved parties.

A Home Secretary chasing votes in a General Election might therefore feel the need to add to the list of banned breeds to curry favour with a media that seems determined to fuel a moral panic about the issue.  Thus he can be seen as a man of action, while potentially tens of millions of dogs could be heading for destruction.  Definitely not the kind of legislation I want to see in a democratic country.

The Act was later amended again in 1997 to allow judges some leeway in interpreting the law and to clarify and expand some of the sections of the 1991 Act.

Dangerous Dogs Act 1997 Amendment

Under the original 1991 Act a judge had no option but to order the destruction of a dog if there were grounds to do so.  This kind of straightjacket legislation does not go down well with the judiciary.  Hence in 1997 the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 (its official title) was brought into law.

The amendment mainly centres on dog destruction orders.  A major feature of this amendment was that it handed some power of interpretation back to the judiciary.  While this may be an improvement in one area, it does not address the weaknesses in the act as a whole.

Reducing Dog Attacks

A better idea would have been to repeal the original act and construct a better law, not based upon breed specific legislation, but rather based upon actions of dogs and owners.  Had this new law been formed with due consultation of dog behaviourist experts, veterinary surgeons and other interested parties parliament would have been far better informed about the real issues surrounding dog attacks and the laws necessary to reduce them.  If this process had occurred we might now have a sensible law that assists in the protection of the public and is easily enforceable instead of the continuing mess that is the current act.

Under the current legislation your dog only has to appear to be of a given type.  That is to say, if your dog looks like a pitbull it may be liable to be destroyed under the Dangerous Dogs Act.  It doesn’t matter if you have papers from the breeder to show the dog’s heritage.  The law is based upon appearance as determined by a court.  If your dog looks like a dangerous dog breed, then you may have to go to court to avoid having it taken from you and destroyed.

The problem here is that if you read the descriptions of the various descriptions of dangerous dogs it will quickly become apparent that they are extremely wide in nature.  (If you wish to read the governments description they are available by following the links in the sidebar.)

Although a dog may receive exemption from destruction by a court, it is not possible for an owner to apply for this exemption.  Owners are placed in the unenviable position of having to wait and see if they will arrive in court as the accused, rather than being able to deal with the situation in a sensible and proactive manner.

What is needed is the repeal of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, along with the 1997 amendment and the introduction of a realistic and sensible law that will protect the public from dog attacks and irresponsible owners.  This law should be based upon deed and not breed and should be only be formulated after true consultation with the necessary experts in animal behaviour.  The British people need to vote for a government that passes laws in the best interests of the population as a whole and not for a government whose agenda is driven by media whipped up hysteria over “dangerous dogs”.

Responsible dog owners need to unite and avoid any more breeds being added to the register of dangerous breeds.  If we do not then we will most likely see Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Rottweillers, Doberman Pinschers, German Shepherds and most other large breed dogs eventually being classed as dangerous dogs and outlawed in this country.  The thugs can easily move their activities to another breed of dog and trash its reputation with the assistance of poor journalism.

Can you so easily replace a beloved pet that has done no wrong?

This information came from the Dangerous Dogs Act, 25^th July 1991 as provided by HM Government:  http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910065_en_1.htm

The post Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Banned Breeds List appeared first on Dangerous Dogs Act.

There is no doubt that dogs bite if poorly trained, abused by their owners and then put under undue pressure from whatever source.  All dogs may bite if abused, from a Jack Russel to Great Dane.

The problem as ever is that when the media report a “Staffy Attack” they rarely, if ever, report the background to the attack.  Blaming a dog for reacting badly to human cruelty is not looking at the problem correctly.

Staffordshire Bull Terriers have been renowned for years for their gentle temperament with children.  Their behaviour with toddlers was previously held in such high esteem that it earned them the nickname of “the nanny dog”.  Reconciling the description of a”Nanny Dog” with the modern media’s interpretation of them as “dangerous dogs”, or worse, as “savage killers” is beyond my capabilities. Nanny dog is certainly closer to the truth if the owner is remotely responsible.

Even given that the breed was originally bred for dog fighting one must realise that the people breeding the dogs would not tolerate a human vicious dog.  Any dog attacking a human would not be bred from and would be destroyed.

What appears to be going wrong today is that the people who have the various dogs today that are being classified as “dangerous” are actually irresponsible dog owners.  They breed bad dog to bad dog looking to increase viciousness.

This factor is not a problem of Staffordshire Bull Terriers, it could just as well be any dog.  If we allow the government to add Staffys to the dangerous dogs act then all that will happen is that the thugs will breed for vicious traits in another breed.  Eventually this new breed will be added to the dangerous dogs act and the whole cycle will begin again.  What is needed is a law that deals with the thuggish owners and does not punish the breed, 99.5% of which are great family pets.

After my recent feeble attempt at a publicity video I went to search for better offerings.  I think the video in the link below does a good job of making the case for keeping Staffordshire Bull Terriers off the Dangerous Dogs Act.

Perhaps what we really need is a Dangerous Owners Act?



The post Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Under Attack appeared first on Dangerous Dogs Act.

Video posts seem to be the fad of the moment and so in aid of publicising www.dangerousdogsact.com I thought I would try to make a dangerous dogs video presentation.

This is a first attempt at this kind of thing.  It is adapted from a Powerpoint file that was converted into video and is very basic.

The idea is to get the message about Dangerous Dogs out there.  No doubt the videos will improve over time and with experience.

Any Future Video Suggestions?

Please let us know if there is something you think we should deal with in future dangerous dogs act videos that is relevant to fighting the current wave of absurd anti-dog legislation.

With more dog breeds being proposed to be added to the list of banned breeds the time to act is now.  Act before your favourite dog breed is banned. We thought it couldn’t happen before, but it did.  The government will continue to punish breeds and not owners unless your voice is heard.

A general election is approaching in the UK soon, now really is the time to make sure politicians are listening to sensible pet owners.  Make it clear that the problem of irresponsible dog owners needs to be dealt with, without punishing the 99.5% of dogs and owners that are sensible and responsible.

Anyway, here is the video.

The post Dangerous Dogs Act – First Video Release appeared first on Dangerous Dogs Act.