Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Matthew Vandart

Having read the amendments to the dangerous dogs act I have to say I am very disappointed. Breed specific legislation does nothing to prevent dog attacks. For instance the recent tragic cases of fatal dog attacks were carried out by the exceptions within the breed population rather than the rule. If this were not the case there would be quite literally thousands of fatal dog attacks every year.

What has been the common theme with all these attacks? The same breeds? No there have been a number of breeds involved.

The common denominator in ALL dog attacks is the human both victim and owner.

Education is required not prosecution.

The amendments are not well thought out, badly presented and will not be effective.

Of particular concern is the parts about trespassers entering gardens and what is outlined as aggressive behaviour.

My knowledge of dog behaviour is very comprehensive; I understand drives, temperaments, good breeding practices, good dog training/behaviour modification knowledge, canine management practices etc.

Unfortunately the general public does not.

I’m pretty sure that what you are proposing infringes upon my inalienable and certainly infringes upon the animal rights of the dog “to behave naturally at all times”.

Your intention is to decrease the number of fatal and non fatal dog attacks, which is a right a just crusade, sadly this legislation will not address the problem to any significant degree.

Your focus simply should be on:

Irresponsible breeding programs.

Irresponsible ownership.

Public education (other than the sensationalist media).

The original dangerous dogs act was flawed in that it’s emphasis was to much weighted towards the breed type and not on the individual dog, therefore I would suggest the idea of adding MORE breeds to the list is pointless and flawed also. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that temperament differences vary greater between individuals of one breed, even litter, than between different breed averages.

I am very concerned with the line being drawn at the threshold of the actual dwelling excluding the garden. This is an extremely aggressive reduction of the natural rights of the human involved as is the removal of a dog without the consent of the human. As you are no doubt aware legislation hinges upon consent of the governed so how do you explain this omission of the need for consent?

Removal without consent is theft under COMMON LAW which is not subservient to acts and legislation.

This part also infringes upon the animal rights of the dog to act in a free and natural manner, dogs bark to alert of intrusion, that is one of the main reasons humans domesticated them. Latest studies have suggested that without canines humans may not have advanced as much as we have. This relationship is 35,000 years old and in one day this could be undone, shame on anyone that ruins that relationship.

“Feeling threatened” is a far too subjective basis for action to be taken. An uninformed human could easily mistake “play barking” for serious aggression, I see it everyday.

If you really feel you must legislate to include gardens in an offence I suggest you include it only in the part of the garden that is the main access ie the front approach to the house.

How will this legislation account for puppies?

Puppies need to learn how to behave in the human accepted manner, this takes time, they don’t come out of the box fully socialized and trained.

Where will Police/military/security dogs fit into this legislation?

A big fuss is being made over “dogs trained to bite/be aggressive”, but what these people are doing is not training, it’s uneducated abuse and should be treated as such. There are thousands of police/military/security dogs which are trained to bite/be aggressive yet these dogs are not randomly attacking people everywhere.

An irresponsible media is to blame for this panic situation just as it was back in 1991 and 1997.

I fully understand the pressure you are under to do something about this outcry but please act responsibly yourselves and amend the act or legislate to improve the situation for the public, not just hastily react to keep the public ignorantly appeased.

This is not a dog control issue, it is a human education issue, both of the general public and the irresponsible owner.

It is an issue of dealing with crime in general so these people don’t feel the need to train their dogs in an irresponsible manner.

On that point I would like to ask you is there any evidence that any of the dogs that have killed people have actually been “trained to be aggressive”, or is this just media speculation?

April 2013