More on the UK Dangerous Dogs Act

While I'm on the topic of the UK, there are a couple of other stories this week from out of the UK that highlight the continued failure of the Dangerous Dogs Act.

The first is an article from out of Yorkshire.  Yorkshire just came off of a year with a huge number of dog attacks.  According to recent figures, for the 2006/2007 fiscal year, Yorkshire had 521 people treated for dog bites.  This compares to 2005/2006 which had 275, 2004/2005 featured 203 bites and 2003/2004 had 167 bites. 

2006/2007 had a 211% increase in dog bites over four years prior.

"At the moment, only 40 per cent of prosecutions are successful, partly because there is confusion over ownership of dogs and whether some cross breeds are covered by the act." 

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why a city/state/country would set themselves up where they were only able to deal with a percentage of their dangerous dogs based on determining the breed of the problem dog.  This is yet another reason why behavior based ordinances are far more successful public policy vs breed or appearance based laws.

The second acticle is from Rohdale.com...and it highlights an area that had 667 total dog bites in 2006/2007.  The year prior, the area had 210 (although the much larger number in 2006 came when the Manchester area merged into a larger area).  However, the number was 139 the year prior to that (2005/2006) showing that the number was trending upward prior to the merger.

"Last year, we consulted with police about adding new breeds, but they said there was not the evidence to support it."

The reason people feel like some breeds need to be added is because of the way the media has portrayed certain breeds of dogs.  Here's a great article from K9 Magazine that highlights several examples of how the media has inaccurately stirred up the public about dangers of certain breeds of dogs. 

The example theywalk through is of a man who was reportedly killed by his Rottweiler. However, later reports and eye witness testimony reported that the dog was actually trying to help the man and trying to wake him up.  That's a far cry from an attack.  The final story that actually detailed how the man died of natural causes only ran in one media source.  Does the media mis-reporting "the dogs did it"and then not following up with the facts  sound familiar?  This is a great, detailed article of the press reports about this attack that is well worth the read.  So go check it out.

We could learn a lot from watching our neighbors over seas.  If we pay close attention we'd realize that their breed ban has been a tremendous failure, and also notice how their media has stirred a frenzy that may push toward even more irresponsible legislation.  We could learn a lot from this, if we are willing to listen.

Comments

[Shelly Anne]

Hmm...could it be because even if it's not rational and even if it's not warranted,they all believe what the Colorado dog fancier's case said? http://whydogsbite.blogspot.com/

[Caveat]

In a Scottish study, researchers who actually counted dog bites and evaluated hospital records (how novel) found that there were as many bites by humans as by the most 'dangerous breed' during the period studied.

A recent Spanish study found that not only does BSL not work, it creates more problems than it solves (duh).

The evidence is in. Breed bans are false advertising. They compound the problems rather than address them.

But we knew that.

[Brent]

Alright Caveat, help me out here. Where's this Spanish study?

[Caveat]

Winging it's way to KCMO.

[Caveat]

Rats, now I'm doing it.

"Winging ITS way..."

[Becky]

I really want to see this study!!

[Brent]

Becky, check Meetup for more info on this.