Five
month old Cadey-Lee Deacon died on 23rd September 2006 after being
attacked by two Rottweilers at a pub in Leicester. The Rottweillers
belonged to family members and were kept as guard dogs at the pub.
Neighbours state that the dogs were aggressive and were kept on
the roof of the pub during the day. Newspaper reports say a door
was left open, allowing the two dogs to enter the pub living quarters.
|
|
Just
a few days later another story hitting the headlines was
that of two year old Harvey Lawrence, who required countless
stitches following an attack by a Rottweiler.
Are we experiencing an increase in dog attacks or an increase
in the reporting of dog attacks? Have the media picked up
on injury stories that wouldn’t otherwise have been
reported?
Since the attacks, all three dogs have been put to sleep
but there appears to be a public outcry against the Rottweiler
as a breed. |
Harvey
Lawrence - Injured |
Everyone is understandably horrified by these dog attacks. However,
many animal experts would agree that no child should be left alone
with a dog - any dog. The police are currently investigating how
the dogs came to attack Cadey-Lee Deacon.
Should we blame the breed or the deed and does breed specific legislation
solve anything? Is a call to ban the Rottweiler a knee-jerk reaction?
Is it right to punish the entire breed based upon the actions of
three dogs in very specific circumstances?
The Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) is a UK law introduced in 1991, laying
down strict rules for owners and their dog’s behaviour in
public. The Dangerous Dog Act applies to ALL dogs. If any dog is
dangerously out of control in a public place, the owner or person
in charge of the dog is guilty of an offence.
However, specific regulations apply to breeds deemed to be fighting
dogs. The dangerous dog list already includes the Pit Bull Terrier,
Japanese Tosa, Fila Brasileiro and Dogo Argentino. The Act was introduced
after a number of reported incidents of dogs attacking children.
These incidents received much media attention, causing massive public
concern over the keeping of dogs perceived to be dangerous.
The hastily drawn up, and many believe poorly thought out, Dangerous
Dogs Act 1991 prohibits the importing, breeding, sale and exchange
of the four breeds listed. You cannot own one of the listed breeds
without a certificate of exemption. The listed dogs also have to
be muzzled in public, kept on a lead, microchipped, registered and
insured. The dogs must be neutered, with the aim of the breed becoming
extinct in the UK. Any dog not seen to fulfil all of the requirements
of the DDA 1991 by November 1991 became illegal. Owners were also
given the option of accepting a token compensation from the government
for having their dogs voluntarily destroyed.
Apart from the four breeds listed, the Act includes any dog that
appears to be "bred for fighting or to have the characteristics
of a type bred for that purpose".
The 1991 Act was amended by the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997.
The 1997 Act removed the mandatory destruction order provisions
of the 1991 Act by giving the courts discretion on sentencing.
If the aim of these laws is to ban all vicious and dangerous dogs,
is such breed specific legislation a successful way to achieve this
aim?
The Rottweiler was originally bred as a guard dog. Does that make
the Rottweiler a dangerous breed? What about the Doberman or the
German Shepherd? And what about breeds not initially bred as guard
dogs but which possess above average guarding instincts such as
the Giant Schnauzer? If the Rottweiler is to be added to the dangerous
dogs list then should these breeds be added too?
How do we define a dangerous dog? Are certain breeds dangerous or
are all dogs in fact dangerous in the wrong hands? Are attacks by
Rottweilers fairly common or just well publicised? No one collates
statistics on dog bites by breed, so we lack the evidence to prove
that one breed is more likely to cause injury than another.
Another factor in increased incidents of dog attacks by certain
breeds is breed popularity. When German Shepherd Dogs were one of
the most popular breeds in the UK, attacks by German Shepherds also
increased.
David Millard, RSPCA North Regional Superintendent, says "The
Dangerous Dogs Act goes against our belief that the focus should
be on the deed, not the breed. Rottweilers are not one of the breeds
listed on the DDA and we do not think they should be – this
criminalises individual breeds. All dogs have the potential to be
dangerous. Powerful dogs can be trained to attack, but it is the
training that should be questioned, not the type of dog."
Like
all dogs, the Rottweiler needs to be trained properly and
controlled at all times. No-one should own any dog that they
cannot control, Rottweiler or not. Likewise, no-one should
own a dog if they are not willing or able to devote time and
effort to socialising the dog and teaching it good basic manners.
Dogs Trust says "It is not specifically in the nature
of Rottweilers nor any breed of dog to attack in this way;
any dog could attack if provoked." |
|
"If
a dog does attack it is highly unlikely to have anything to do with
the breed itself, but is much more likely to be associated with
the way in which the dog has been trained. Every dog owner must
respect their dogs’ nature but it is not inherent within the
Rottweiler breed to attack; and many Rottweilers make fantastic
family pets."
Some question the law enforced muzzling of so called “dangerous”
dogs. Indeed, law enforced public muzzling wouldn’t have saved
Cadey-Lee. In fact, many dog attack cases actually involve the pets
of friends or family, often at home.
In the Cadey-Lee case, the two dogs involved were reported to be
the pub guard dogs. The Guard Dogs Act 1975 states "A person
shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless
a person ('the handler') who is capable of controlling the dog is
present on the premises and the dog is under the control of the
handler at all times while it is secured so that it is not at liberty
to go freely about the premises."
The owner of a guard dog should have his dogs under proper control
at all times and is therefore presumably liable for any injury caused
by his dogs.
What constitutes a guard dog and what constitutes a family pet used
for guarding purposes? If the dogs in the Cadey-Lee case were to
all intents and purposes treated as guard dogs, possibly isolated
on the pub roof for much of the time, performing guard dog duties,
lacking in company, contact and socialisation, their life experiences
would have been very different to those of family pets, brought
up around different situations and in a loving environment. Rather
than pointing the finger at certain breeds of dog, should laws be
looking at who owns certain breeds of dog and why? Does the treatment
that certain dogs receive tell us more about their likely behaviour
than the breed of the actual dog?
Annie Colbourne from the Rottweiler Welfare Association says Rottweilers
are "beautiful, faithful and intelligent", and
make good pets as well as guard dogs - in the right circumstances.
She adds that "you cannot have a dog indoors, 24 hours
a day, doing nothing, it will go stir-crazy. They are very, very
intelligent and very eager to learn, and if you don't channel that
then you're going to have a problem."
Online poll
Is there such a thing as a bad breed of dog or is it down to bad
owners and irresponsible behaviour? In the wrong hands, could any
breed of dog be capable of maiming or even killing? Are Rottweilers
a loyal and gentle breed or born killers? Have your say on our online
poll.
Dog
Attacks: Blame the breed or the deed? |
