Perhaps one of the most controversial issues today is the one that surrounds the issue of dangerous dogs. The media publish frequent stories highlighting horrific injuries and ferocious dog attacks. These attacks often involve children, and parents are legitimately concerned and want to protect their children. Responsible pet owners, on the other hand, want to protect their animals from destruction at the hands of even more draconian anti-dog legislation. Yet while all this is going on with underground dog fighters, drug dealers and general thugs are on their way to turning what should be a trusted family pet into a so-called “status dog.”
State dogs are dogs that have been specifically trained to be aggressive. As of this writing, in the UK the terms state dog, dangerous dog, fighting dog and “pitbull type” have become almost identical. While there is no doubt that there is a problem both in the London metropolitan area and in some inner-city areas across the country with young people training large breeds of dogs to be aggressive, it is not as common as the media might suggest. It is also not correct to suggest that the problem of dangerous dogs is based on breed.
The chances of being the victim of a fatal dog attack run into the millions, although estimates vary, making it difficult to come up with a precise figure. The problem with deriving accurate predictions of the probability of being a victim of a fatal dog attack arises from the fact that fatal dog attacks are in fact so rare and data so sparse that a realistic estimate is nearly impossible. Even in the United States of America with a large human population and several million dogs, the chance of being the victim of a fatal dog attack is one in 9 million per year. The paucity of data was a contributing factor in convincing the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that there really was no problem with dangerous dogs and that specific legislation should not be implemented to deal with dangerous dogs. what was considered a negligible risk. The CDC also concluded that no significant risk was incurred in relation to the dog’s breed compared to its training, treatment, or history in which it was maintained.
If individual breeds really aren’t more dangerous than each other; Why do certain breeds attract irresponsible owners? Street thugs and gang members appear to be participating in a canine arms race. When street fashion dictates that a particular dog is popular, there is a corresponding increase within a few years in dog attacks related to that breed. Over time, gang members seek out larger and more ferocious dogs with which to intimidate their peers and law enforcement along with the community at large. This has led to a situation where owning a watchdog or “status dog” is no longer enough on its own. Now it is necessary to have a dog that is as heavy as a man and is trained to be as vicious as possible.
In this context, it is perhaps not surprising that the incidence of dog attacks is on the rise. The problem does not appear to be the dogs themselves, but the insecure and fearful street thugs who employ them as a method of self-defense and intimidation of others similar to them. Breed-specific legislation, such as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (UK), has not been effective in protecting the public. The main reason for this is both a lack of adequate funding to allow law enforcement to have a significant impact, and the fact that when a dog breed is banned, irresponsible owners simply move on to another breed. If we ever hope to put an end to this problem, we must address it at its source. Any future dangerous dog legislation must address the real problem, no matter how politically unpopular it may be; the problem of dangerous and irresponsible owners.
