DEFEND-A-BULL Blog: Dog Owners Suitability Test and Training

In K9 News Magazine are these two articles. They want what we want in Canada and in the U.S.

Dog Attacks: Dog Owner Suitability Tests are the Obvious Answer

We're off again. The News of the World (Britain's top selling Sunday newspaper) has joined its sister title, The Sun in calling for a change to dog legislation.
They are calling for owners of dogs who attack people, whether on their own property or not to be liable for criminal prosecution.

Whilts this is not exactly the same stance as The Sun, who are calling specifically for the muzzling of Rottweilers at home and in public, at least it appears that this is what they were calling for (you can read it here.), both newspapers are keen to see 'devil dogs' and their owners legislated against.

Both newspapers are calling for something to happen in the style of we want change, we want it now and we want children protected. We agree, change is needed. But change for change's sake won't prevent a single death or future dog attack. There is a solution, both newspapers have missed it.

The thing is, this whole debate is rapidly turning into a 'them and us' situation when in reality the dog owning community want the same thing. Nobody wants to see people injured as a result of a dog attack but surely prevention has got to be better than cure.

The News of The World's campaign is supported by the views of Clare Carey and Mark Lawrence, the parents of little Harvey Lawrence the boy who received horrendous injuries when he was attacked by a Rottweiler last week.

Clare stormed:

"Dangerous animals in zoos are kept behind bars. Dogs like Rottweilers have the same kind of characteristics so even putting them on a lead is not enough. They're stronger than a person. "We've seen the damage this dog's teeth did to Harvey's skull and his face and I wouldn't want any other parent to have to go through this. "Children shouldn't have to live in fear of animals. We must do something to protect them. "The law needs to be changed. People who own dogs need to take responsibility."

Comparing "dogs like Rottweilers" as having similar characteristics to dangerous zoo animals is understandable in part. In many ways, they do. They are capable of delivering fatal attacks, physically they can indeed be stronger than many people and yes, they are animals. They are not wild animals though and belong to a group of animals who are collectively known as our best friend, the Rottweiler is not an exmption from that description. There are many reasons for this.

The main difference between animals in zoos and dogs is that canines were domesticated and are absolutely predisposed to accept training and psychological conditioning delivered by humans. Punishing the people who chose to ignore their responsibility to train their dogs is fine (see how much we're still agreeing here).

But at what point does the punishment actually prevent the attack in the first place? Surely this has to be the aim because unlike 99.9% of crimes, it's rare that the owner of an attacking dog actually wanted the crime to happen, they didn't chose for it to happen and they certainly don't profit from it when it occurs. Negligence is the issue and the way to combat negligence is by demanding that owners are aware of their responsibilities.

A dog ownership suitability test would ensure that dog owners knew of their legal and social responsibilities. A dog ownership suitability test would make certain that would-be dog owners were required to understand dog law, learn how the dangerous dogs act relates to them, understand how dog body language works, realise how powerful certain breeds are and what makes them tick. A dog ownership suitability test WOULD prevent dog attacks, WOULD go a long way toward stopping the wrong people owning dogs that were unsuitable for their level of experience or lifestyle and WOULD guarantee that all dog owners were equipped with at the very least, a basic level of understanding of what their responsibilities were to their dog and to society.

The dangerous dogs act is quite unique in that it is a piece of legislation, a much criticised piece of legislation at that, where the group of people it's aimed at (dog owners) widely don't know what's in it and the specific group it legislates against (dogs) can't actually read it. The truth is, the dangerous dogs act could be the finest piece of law making in British legal history but would still be rendered next to useless if the people it's meant for don't know what's in it and the section of society it was brought in for can't read the thing.

Given that we have taken dogs to new levels of achievement over the past 100 years - think guide dogs, cancer detection dogs, Police dogs, drug detection dogs, bomb detection dogs (Rottweilers playing a role in many of these disciplines), it still remains unlikely that we'll ever be able to teach man's best friend to read and understand the complexities of the British legal system. With that in mind the only sensible way to ensure that the dangerous dogs act offers a benefit to society is to try and think of a system that obligates dog owners to understand it. How can we do that? A dog ownership suitability test or, 'Doggie Driving Licence' would do exactly that.

A dog ownership suitability test would take care of this and then some. If dog owners still don't understand their responsibilities after that and their dogs are attacking people, fouling the streets or causing a nuisance to innocent members of society then yes, let's see them prosecuted as criminals.

If we didn't have driving tests, theory exams and laws of the road legislating for speeding, dangerous driving, understanding traffic signals etc, laws which are understood by the vast majority of the people they were designed to apply to, drivers, and are there not just to protect the people behind the wheel but other members of society who inevitably come into contact with them, would we honestly be surprised if accidents occur as a result of sheer ignorance/negligence? Seems illogical that we don't seek to apply the same theory to dog owners.

Breed specific legislation will not stop people dying and being injured as a result of dog attacks. Muzzling orders will not stop people dying and being injured as a result of dog attacks. Prosecuting negligent dog owners whose dogs injure or kill is fine in theory but it's still retrospective, somebody has still been killed or attacked. Let's try and prevent dog attacks, prevent abuse of dogs as a result of owner negligence and let's make something positive come out of a tragic week. Dog ownership suitability tests are the prevention, criminalisation is only the cure.

From the K9 Magazine The Dog Lovers Blog

Muzzle Them, Ban Them, Destroy Them - Why Not Just Train Them?

September 28th, 2006 by Ryan

When they get it right on animals (and they often do) we’re the first inline to pat them on the back and pay credit to Britain’s largest selling daily newspaper. But just lately they’ve got it so wrong something needs to be said.

The Sun’s campaign to highlight animal cruelty was noble. They dedicated entire front pages to the issue of animal neglect and campaigned to stamp out cruelty. They are a largely influential newspaper.

In the wake of the two tragic Rottweiler attacks over the past week The Sun have been slavishly sticking to the good old tabloid principle of using language such as ‘devil dogs’, ‘raging beasts’ and so on. Today especially, The Sun have got it totally and utterly wrong. Their stance will achieve nothing for the victims of dog attacks and certainly nothing for dogs.

Today The Sun tells us their position on ‘devil dogs’. “Muzzle Them”, they bellow. Reading further it seems the “them” in this case are Rottweilers.

But even those who love their pets more than their fellow humans must accept there is a limit to the risk society can tolerate.

The shocking death of tragic tot Cadey-Lee Deacon, mauled to death by two raging rottweilers, makes the blood run cold.

Such deaths are mercifully rare. Attacks are not.

In the last few weeks alone rottweilers have savaged a two-year-old toddler and a girl aged 12.

These powerful guard dogs have jaws like a steel trap. They are highly-intelligent, territorial — and domineering when inadequately trained. Like a car in the hands of an inexperienced or incompetent owner, they can be lethal.

To make matters worse, some unscrupulous breeders deliberately produce aggressive “devil dogs”, favoured by saddos to project a macho image.
Rottweilers are exempt from the list of breeds banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act.

This loophole-riddled law also fails to cover dog attacks on private property.

For Cadey-Lee, any action is too late. But the government cannot sit back and allow another child — or adult — to be torn apart by these eight-stone beasts.

It must follow the example of countries like Germany — and order them to be muzzled”

So, given that both of these attacks happened on their owner’s private property are we to assume The Sun wants all Rottweilers muzzled all of the time rather than just in public?

What is The Sun’s view on Rottweiler crosses? How do they want to legislate against dogs who are ‘a bit’ Rottweilerish?

What about the dogs of a similar size, all of whom are equally capable of causing serious damage to people, the Doberman, the Anatolian Shepherd, the Leonberger, the GSD, the Belgian Shepherd, the Japanese Akita and what about the nation’s favourite dog, the Labrador - you know - the one responsible for a fully grown, adult woman who had to receive the world’s first face transplant this year? What about them?

Should ALL dogs simply be muzzled at all times, surely that’s the logic at play here?

No, this is the EXACT type of kneejerk response that would solve absolutely NOTHING.

Pit Bulls were banned - whether you believe rightly or wrongly - so surely we should be safer from dog attack, yes? Well no actually, Home Office statistics reveal dog attacks on the up and the reason dangerous dogs are on the agenda again is because a child has died.

So let’s muzzle the Rottweiler. What happens then?

Well, apart from subjecting the many thousands of Rottweilers who haven’t done a damn thing to a single person and have been found guilty by association , condemned to a life of misery, walking around with their muzzles on 24/7, they would inevitably become a less popular breed. Owners who want a large, sturdy, reliable dog to share their home with and yes, offer a degree of home security, would find themselves opting for a dog who they didn’t have to witness living in misery thanks to a muzzling order and who wouldn’t be the cause of abuse from misguided non dog owners, convinced that Rottweiler ownership is only one notch worse than paedophillia. Other breeds will take their place in the popularity stakes.

Let’s take ourselves forward 20 years. No more Rottweilers, no more Pit Bulls. We’re all completely safe from dog attacks now surely? Of course we’re not and it’s ridiculous, incompetent and downright opportunistic to think otherwise. Where the Rottweiler once sat will be the Mastiff, the American Bulldog, the Ridgeback or other dog of similar size and stature. Take your pick, which is the one who’ll be responsible for the next title of ‘devil dog’?

We need education not legislation. We need to ensure that this vicious cycle of the wrong dogs getting into the hands of the wrong owners stops. We need to ensure people not only fully understand their obligations as a dog owner (of ANY type) we need to ensure people ARE DUTY BOUND to comply with their responsibilities. We need a dog ownership screening test.

We can legislate to high heaven. We can get down to a situation where we’re only allowed to keep dogs of a certain size. We can all just decide that the risk of keeping dogs is to high. Afterall one death, as absolutely tragic, appaling and stomach churning as it is, is an isolated incident.

If dogs were killing people week in week out, we’d be in a different position. The fact is, they’re not. Electricity is though, cars are, smoking is, drinking is - should we ban it all or should we take the view that, by and large, these things co-exist with us in normal society and in many cases they enance people’s lives. Yes, there are dangers. Yes, lack of care can cause accidents to happen. But simply banning or imposing ill though out restrictions won’t cure the problem and we’ll have learned nothing. Let’s get this one right. There is an opportunity to make something positive happen from a truly tragic week. Dog ownership tests WILL have a positive effect. Banning orders, muzzling and breed legislation wont. We’ve already proved that haven’t we?