Problem Identified, Solution will be Interesting

Interesting article by the BBC on Friday.  It appears that many dog wardens in England are wondering if the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 is really working to improve public safety.

The Dangerous Dogs Act places a ban on four breeds of dogs: Fila Brasileira, Japanese Tosas, Dogo Argentinos and American Pit Bull Terriers. 

However, at least one dog warden in Belfast City, Nigel Cardwell doesn't think the Dangerous Dogs Act is working.

"Some of the things that are still not illegal to own in the UK are truly terrifying and would make your average pitbull look like a complete wimp yet you can have those because they're not a proscribed breed.  It's utter nonsense and it doesn't make the public safe."

Another dog warden agrees that banned dogs aren't the problem.

"We receive four or five complaints a month about dogs attacking people," he said.  "As far as I can recall none of those incidents have involved a pitbull terrier or other banned breed."

It looks like the UK is at a crossroads.  After having many major attacks there in the past 6 months, it is obvious the Dangerous Dogs Act needs help.  The attack numbers are pretty staggering.  There are really only two options for them to explore:

1) Add more dog breeds, including Akitas, Boxers, Rottweilers, Staffordshire Terriers, etc to their banned breeds list.

2) Repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act, allow ownership rights and put in place a breed neutral dog ordinance that would allow them to eradicate a dangerous dog, regardless of what breed it is.

Typically speaking, European Countries have tended toward the first option....like Italy and its 90 breeds of dog that are banned.  Sad.

England provides actually the best case study for the types of laws that cities throughout the United States are passing to make people safer.  A little research, or actually listening to dog experts, would tell them that it won't work.  And ten or 20 years from now, they'll be still trying to figure out what next steps will be to make people safe.  It doesn't work.  Hasn't work.  And will never work.  The case studies prove that. 

Comments

[Marjorie Darby]

Well, I've pointed out countless times that, five years after pit bulls were banned in England, the BBC reported hospitalisations due to dog bites had RISEN 25%.

That's nothing compared with the recent announcement by the National Health Service, that hospitalisations due to dog bites have DOUBLED (a 100% increase) since 1996.

And these are hospitalisations, mind you. Using U.S. survey data as a guide, at least 11 out of every 12 dog bites don't warrant any medical attention at all. Of the 8% or so of dog bites that are medically treated, 99% are less serious than a skinned knee, according to hospital injury reporting criteria. They would not require "hospitalisation".

Less than 0.1% of dog bites are anything remotely damaging enough for one to consider them "serious". ...Not exactly epidemic numbers, given that more American children are injured by sports, and more children are killed by 5 gallon buckets.

Around the world, the injuries and fatalties caused by dogs will never come close to comparing with the number caused by parents, relatives, friends, cars, swimming pools, etc.

The pit bull ban is not working in England. It has never worked. Non-aggressive dogs are killed because of myths an ignorant populace and legislators associate with their shape. In the mean time, owners of actually aggressive dogs get off scott-free.

Brits are being bitten, mauled, and killed in unprecedented numbers now that the Dangerous Dogs Act is beyond its 15th year of enforcement.

There's nothing more to say. The facts speak for themselves. Banning or restricting dogs based on appearance is a failed social experiment that should be scrapped in favour of the kinds of measures experts have been calling for all along.