Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Stephan Toth
This is just my opinion on the subject of dangerous dog legislation.
Listening to your debate, I believe that it skirted around the problem and addressed numerous issues that was totally irrelevant to the core issue being discussed.
Logic and common sense dictates that the only real solution is to have stringent and punitive legislation that addresses dog on dog, dog on other animals and dog on human attacks. This legislation should include both financial and custodial punishment that is uni-formally applied across the country regardless of the persons means. The legislation should be broadly advertised so that everyone knows about its conditions and more importantly its consequences.
Mircochipping and personal liability insurance should be a key element of the legislation especially when it comes to the monitoring and control of dogs.
Local authorities should run responsible dog ownership and training courses that also educated the owners about the laws that apply.
Where the dog is not proved to be directly protecting its owner from an unprovoked attack, the rule should be that the dog must undergo a full obedience assessment and training course at the owners expense.
If the dog is formally assessed as being dangerously out of control (nervous bite and spook dogs) and cannot be re-trained then it should be put down.
With reference to dog on dog attacks. Most dog owners who know that their dog can become aggressive towards other dogs and therefore put the other dog owner in danger take the responsible action of crossing the road. However, in my experience, owners of dogs that have been conditioned to be aggressive against other dogs do not. This situation is made worse from my experience whereby the irresponsible dog owner has often faked a trip and let the dog go or pretended to be pulled out of control allowing their dog to come into close proximity of the victim dog and its owner. In this case many owners of well behaved dogs are themselves forced to cross the road in order to avoid the confrontation and to protect their dogs.
I believe that at the point of attack the dog becomes a lethal weapon and as such should be considered to be exactly that, with appropriate punishments that send a clear message to irresponsible owners that it is their responsibility to ensure that their dog is under control. Note, I did not say under restraint because having a dog on a lead is a restraint. However, if that dog is a 35 to 40 kilo bull mastiff and the owner is a seven stone child or woman that cannot through physical weight and strength restrain it, any physical restraining device cannot be considered a method of control.
At this point I would like to mention that in my fifty years experience of owning dogs and studying dog training, I have found that almost all dogs that have the word “bull” in their name to be of a schizophrenic nature. To explain this, imagine two boxers sparring in a ring and both know that this is practise, then one boxer begins to lose and in doing so loses his temper and starts boxing for real with the intention of hurting the other boxer. Dogs with the word “bull” in their name is just like this boxer, they like to play but if in that playing they sense that they are losing they lose their temper and very quickly become more competitive to the point of an all out attack. I personally, avoid all dogs with “bull” in their name and never let my highly trained and very placid Belgian Shepherd play with them. Unfortunately, the above also applies to the dog with “bull” in its name playing with children and this is a major cause of dog on child attacks. This situation with dogs with “bull” in its name and children is made many times worse when the dog has been conditioned to be aggressive or to fight other dogs.
At this point I would like to explain the four physiological types of dogs, confident, flight, bite and spook. Confident dogs are usually an alpha male or female, they psychologically well rounded and trustworthy. Flight dogs are nervous dogs who’s innate disposition is to run away from all situations involving any form of confrontation. Flight dogs make ideal pets where small children are present because they will almost never become aggressive or bite. Bite dogs as with flight dogs have a nervous disposition with the difference that their first instinctive reaction is to snap or bite when confronted or when they feel threatened. After the initial display of aggression, these dogs will either run away or will settle down and become placid once they are confident that they are not going to be harmed. The spook dog is again a nervous dog that is totally unpredictable, when confronted or threatened it may on some occasions run away or on others react very aggressively with snapping and biting. These dogs are not suitable for households where young children are present. Obviously, the selection of the psychological type of dog becomes more important when choosing larger more powerful breeds and the condition in bite and spook dogs is made worse by aggression conditioning and attack training.
Unfortunately there has become a whole industry surrounding the issue of dog behaviour corrective training especially by dog charities. In my experience, this is a very dangerous illusion. Dogs that have been conditions over a great deal of time to be aggressive or to attack other dogs cannot be successfully and reliably reconditioned to be placid and compliant. These dogs are mentally damaged and the original conditioning will come evident when the circumstances surrounding their original conditioning occurs. In my opinion, charities that irresponsibly conduct this practise are sending very dangerous dogs out into the community, often to families with small children in them. Again in my opinion, there is no other solution to this problem other than to take the dog out of public circulation by putting the it down. When it comes to this type of dog the government should make it illegal to put a reconditioned dog back into society.
When it comes to dog licensing, this license was originally introduced to pay for a war, it was very unpopular and proved to be very hard to collect and enforce. I believe that it would not have any effect on the control of dangerous dogs in society and would in fact only penalise the poor people.
When it comes to compulsory dog insurance as provided by the canine trust, as long as the insurance companies did not exploit the legislation and make the premiums prohibitive then it would be a good piece of legislation. However, it would not make on iota difference to people who bred and owned dangerous dogs because they operate outside of the law and wouldn’t microchip or insure the dogs. The reason for this is because the dogs are nothing more than a money making tool which is readily discarded once it cannot function and these people are also prepared to dispose of the dog once it becomes a legal liability.
September 2012