Last week, there were a whole host of stories from the UK that were about the pretty dramatic increase in dog bites over the past few years throughout the majority of the UK. I continue to think that the UK is an area for us to follow and learn from when creating legislation, because their Dangerous Dogs Act -- first enacting in 1991 and updated in 1997 and bans four different breeds of dogs - -continues to prove to have done nothing to improve public safety from dog attacks throughout the country. So in a special UK edition of the Weekly Roundup, here are the top stories:
Hospitals see rise in dog bites
This BBC report shows dog attacks having gone up 40% over the past 4 years throughout England -- from 2,700 dog attacks to 3,800. In London, the country's largest city, the number of attacks to children under the age of 18 rose 120% during the same 4 year period. It's also interesting here in their comments section that the two people who reported significant bites were one by a Chow Chow and another by a Cocker Spaniel on the face of their young child.
The city of Northhampton has seen a rise to 82 dog bite-related hospital visits over the past year.
Sunderland has also seen an "alarming" rise in dog bite incidences. Last year, figures showed that 290 adults received medical treatment for dog bites compared to 145 in 2002/2003 -- that's a 44% increase in only four years. For kids, the number rose 23% from 106 to 130. "With 128 dog bit patients in under a year, the number is alarming" said a Sunderland Royal Hospital spokesperson.
Health Secretary Norman Lamb said: "Dogs often only become violent as a result of mistreatment by owners or becaus e of a failure to train them properly. Irresponsible owners are more likely to makea dog dangerous than it being born of a particular breed." Lamb noted that there needs tobe a greater emphasis put on responsible dog ownership and warnign people of the risks ratehr than taking a purely enforcement-based approach.
The London Mirror places the blame on "hoodies" and that after the crackdown on guns and knives, villains were now turning to Rottweilers and Staffordshire Terriers and often do not care for them properly.
With this, I of course, have a couple of notes:
1) In spite of the claims by government officals in 1991 and again in 1997 that the Dangerous Dogs Act would protect the public from dog attacks, there is no evidence to support the success of this ordinance as bites continue to grow at an alarming rate.
2) The Health Secretary notes that problem owners appear to be the cause of the increased attacks and that it is not a breed-specific issue.
3) Others noted in the Mirror article, point to irresponsible owners turning to alternative breeds to the ones banned as their breeds of choice, showing an inclination to "switch" to different breeds after the original four were banned.
It certainly looks as if this is one major case study that would lead us to believe the BSL is not an answer to improving public safety and that dealing with the problem owners would likely be a more successful alternative.
Comments