Finally It’s Here – the Most LOL Dangerous Dogs ‘Report’ EVER!

Published on October 16, 2008 by Ryan O'Meara   ·   4 Comments

Well, no need to skirt around the edges any more tabloid contributors. You’ve had your chance with your ‘devil dog’ articles, attribution of the wrong breed images to depict dogs described in news reports of dog attacks, no need to go even so far as to accuse a dog of killing its owner only to discover the gentleman died of natural causes. No, your battle for the crown of most laugh out loud hyperbole on the subject of ‘dangerous’ dogs is over. You’ve been beaten.

Step forward the Hendon & Finchley, Barnet & Potters Bar, Edgeware and Mill Hill Times, which today reports:

“Dawn raid on ‘status symbol’ dogs”

Let us examine what is laid before us.

We open today’s weekly serving of a status dog story with the following:

The number of dangerous dogs in the borough is on the rise as owners flaunt aggressive breeds as “status symbols”, police have warned.

They believe a fashion for having agressive-looking breeds has led to an increased number of dogs banned by the Government on Barnet’s streets.

OK. Line one we are informed that the dogs in question are ‘dangerous’ ‘aggressive breeds’.

In line two however the tone jumps quite quickly to ‘aggressive-looking’ breeds.

Is there a Kennel Club definition for an ‘aggressive-looking’ breed yet? No? We do know there is almost a legal definition for an ‘aggressive looking’ breed. It’s called a pit bull ‘type’. OK, let’s move on any way.

After raiding an East Finchley flat early on Wednesday morning, Sergeant Lee Benham, of East Finchley Safer Neighbourhoods Team, said Barnet police will crack down on owners.

“We want to send a message out that if people have dangerous dogs they will be targeted,” he said.

A ‘crack down’ on owners’. Just so we’re clear, we’re not ‘cracking down’ on aggressive-looking breeds are we? Because, you know, that would be somewhat difficult and also highly illegal and I, as a reader, am already a bit confused about who or what the crack down is hitting.

Fortunately the Sergeant qualifies his statement: (owners of) ‘dangerous dogs’ will be targeted. Well good. That’s kind of the law. That’s kind of what the police are meant to do. That’s kind of saying ‘we will target people who break the law’. This is good, right? That our police are going to target law breakers? I kind of hoped they would be doing this, oh you know, as part of what they are paid to do.

The ground-floor flat in Strawberry Vale, East Finchley, was raided by dozens of officers with dog handlers, after reports there could be as many as five dangerous dogs living there.

Three pit bull-Stafford-shire terrier cross-breeds and one American bulldog were found, but they are not prohibited by the Dangerous Dogs Act and were returned to the owner.

The owner admitted to police she had one illegal dog until last week but would not say what she had done with it.

OK. Now we’re in to some slightly confusing territory.

We’re told the owner in question has three pit bull-Staffordshire-terrier-cross breeds and an American Bulldog but that they are not illegal and were returned to the owner.

This raises some questions.

1) If they were returned to the owner does that mean they were seized in the first place? If so, were they seized based on what they look like or were seized because they were ‘acting dangerously’? The report does not tell us but it certainly raises the question. If they were seized and not deemed to be actually dangerous (which would seem to be the case otherwise why hand them back?) then they must have been seized for being ‘dangerous looking’ breeds? It’d be one hell of a long day at the office if the police were under instruction to arrest ‘dangerous looking’ people, would it not?

2) Hate to tell the Police or indeed the reporters how to suck eggs (or indeed how to implement Lord Baker’s ingenious 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act) but if the dogs were, as reported, ‘pit bull-Staffordshire-terrier-cross breeds’ then it would be most likely that they were prohibited actually. The law proscribes ‘pit bull types’ – if you are in any confusion about what a pit bull ‘type’ is, please read Alison Green’s article on this very subject.

The Times Series reported in September that animal charities said the number of abandoned dogs had reached a record high in the borough over the summer — believed to be because of the trend in status symbol pets.

This is a claim I hear made regularly. I have little doubt at all that it is founded in some element of truth. However, the reasons why MANY people buy dogs is as status symbols. I mean, take a look around. Middle class people have ‘status symbol’ dogs, working dog owners have ‘status symbol’ dogs, competition dog owners have ‘status symbol’ dogs, show dog owners certainly have ‘status symbol’ dogs, from as far back as history will allow us to report ‘status symbol’ dogs have ALWAYS been around. The Royal families of Europe and Asia pioneered ‘status symbol’ dogs – and yes, ALL types of people who own status symbol dogs are probably best placed in the category of being the types of people more likely than most to give up their dog when their ‘status symbol’ novelty wears off. But owning a dog as a status symbol is not against the law. In fact there are, in my book, only two types of dog owner; Good ones and bad ones. Their motive for owning a dog is not mutually exclusive to their ability to be either a good, responsible dog owner or a bad, irresponsible dog owner. Let’s face the reality, we all choose dogs based on a wide variety of factors. We choose the dogs whom we believe will best reflect our lifestyle, personality and personal preference.

Please, let us consider a personal theory of my own for a second.

What many people actually mean when they say ‘status symbol’ dogs is bull breeds.

Staffies and all of their many family members.

It’s an inescapable fact that rescue shelters are bursting with unwanted Staffies (and greyhounds, lurchers, whippets and others).

But are we really, truly to believe that all of those many THOUSANDS of Staffies and Staffie variants in rescue are abandoned status symbols? Because I for one do NOT believe that theory.

And so could it be, maybe, perhaps the case that people are abandoning Staffies in ever growing numbers because of the sheer volume of hyperbole and rubbish which is constantly being spread about ‘dangerous status symbol dogs’? Is that not also a perfectly good theory? Rescues know better than most what happens when the media whips up a frenzy about ‘dangerous-looking’ dogs ‘status symbol’ dogs or ‘thug-life’ dogs – what happens is that ‘ordinary’, perhaps misguided dog owners end up ditching their own perfectly good dogs as a result of pressure put on them from friends and family as a result of the hype whipped up by the media and people who, frankly, just don’t know any better than to believe everything they read on the subject of ‘devil dogs’.

Here’s a stone cold fact. The thousands of bull breeds in rescue were not all status symbol dogs. So the challenge I would issue to the media is to try and explain how and why so many of these wonderful, fantastically even-tempered, child friendly dogs ended up without a home.

Could it be, perhaps, that they ended up homeless as a DIRECT RESULT of YOU and your misinformed messages about ‘dangerous-looking’ dogs?

The Dangerous Dogs Act bans four breeds, including pit bull terriers, and those with certain physical characteristics which indicate they might be aggressive.

OK. One question. Just a quickie. What physical characteristics, exactly, indicate that a dog ‘might be aggressive’? Could it be, oh I don’t know, a leg on each corner and a mouth at the front? If so, we’re all doomed. Absolutely doomed!

Prohibited dogs can be seized by police and put down.

“There’s been an increase in these kind of dogs on the estate,” said Sgt Benham. “There haven’t been any bites reported but it is a concern.

“It’s not a problem we’ve had in the past but it is becoming one, not just in our area, because these dogs are being seen as status symbols.

“Any dog with a bad owner can be dangerous and these are fighting dogs, so the consequences are much more serious.”

Here’s a lesson in ‘myth spreading 101′ – a so-called ‘fighting’ dog, as far as I know – and feel free to call me naive – is bred with a propensity to be more adaptable to be trained to fight OTHER DOGS! ‘Fighting dog breeds’ are also bred to be exceptionally human friendly. As much as I’d hate to promote any virtue in the world of organised, professional dog fighting but if any of the people who wish to make these claims about ‘fighting breeds’ being more of a threat to people would like to investigate the world of the really bad, really serious, underground trained fighting dogs – they will discover that aggression toward humans is just about the biggest sin a fighting dog can possess.

A physically powerful dog with four legs and a mouth is potentially dangerous. Fact.

If it was originally bred to be susceptible to be trained to fight other dogs then, in fact, it is no more or less ‘dangerous’ to people than any other dog of a similar size and weight that has not been properly trained, socialised or environmentally conditioned.

Can we please stop spreading misinformed garbage about the dangers of the so-called ‘fighting breeds’.

You know, just because a Labrador was bred to be more inclined to pick things up and bring them back to its owner does NOT mean we are likely to see a spate of Labrador related ‘baby retrievings’ or Labradors attempting to pick up and retrieve small trees. That is a frankly ludicrous notion and nobody would ever put it forward – but we seem happy to extend the same logic about the dog breeds who have a heritage founded in being susceptible to human-induced dog fighting.

Oh yes, by the way, it was US who did that. Not them. It was us who bred in those instincts for our own perverse ‘enjoyment’. So before we really stick the boot in to these ‘dangerous-looking’ breeds, let’s take a second to remember exactly who set out to create them. Do you see a theme developing? Could it/should it be, perhaps, that it is people/owners who should be on the receiving end of the law NOT the dogs!

Sgt Benham transferred to Barnet Police after working with Merseyside Police in St Helens, where five-year old Ellie Lawrenson was mauled to death in her grandmother’s home by a pit bull terrier last year.

He added: “I’m very aware of what these kind of dogs can do and it’s scary. So we’re taking this very seriously.”

Police have recorded a steady increase in dangerous dog offences over the last three years, with 29 reported since April this year. There were 44 in the last financial year, 39 in 2006/7 and 32 in 2005/6.

The Sgt is very aware of what ‘these kind of dogs can do’. Really. Well we’ve seen two other children lose their lives to Rottweilers (a breed of which I own myself) so ‘those type of dogs’ are also capable of being ‘scary’. And do you know what? I’d be prepared to make a little bet. If the UK ‘banned’ ALL bull breeds, Rottweilers and oh, let’s throw in Akitas, Great Danes, German Shepherds, St Bernards and Doberman’s too – does ANYONE in the media or in the law-makers department of the Govt truly, honestly believe that we’d be living in an era of no dog attacks and no human fatalities? Because I certainly don’t. In fact, I’m pretty damn sure of it.

Whilst we continue to spout absolute guff about ‘dangerous-looking’ breeds and continue to talk out of the back of our necks about the breeds who are and are not ‘dangerous’ we’ll continue to miss the point, we’ll continue to see dog attacks and fatalities and we’ll do the general public absolutely NO good at all.

People are the problem. Not dogs. Always have been, always will be. You tackle that issue, you will win. Fail to tackle it and we’ll just keep on doing what we’ve always done, people will die, people will be injured and we’ll make a hell of a good job in creating generation after generation of ‘devil dogs’ for the media and misinformed to vilifiy.

END BSL
Dog Ownership Test

Highly Recommended: This could be the most important link you EVER click as far as your dog’s life is concerned – see why….!

Tags:  Animal Welfare, Breed Specific Legislation, Dangerous Dogs