And The Award for Best, Most Dog Friendly British Newspaper Is….
Posted By Ryan O'Meara Date: 18/03 Posted Under: Breed Specific Legislation, Canine ColumnsThank you to the Times newspaper.
Not only do they regularly uncover the shocking treatment of Greyhounds as well as recently exposing the dead dog organ donor scandal, but today they have published a very in-depth piece giving the ‘other’ side of the story on behalf of Rottweilers.
Recent attacks by rottweilers, including the death of a 13-month-old boy, have increased their vicious reputation. But is it the fault of the dogs - or the people who own them?
Read the full story here
It used be the Times’ stable mate the Sun who we loved for their regular coverage of animal welfare issues but given their non abating desire to constantly mis-report ‘devil dog’ stories alongside their red-top counterparts (and, unforgivably The BBC), The Times is now officially K9 Magazine’s most favouritist, bestest, pet friendliest newspaper on the market.
Go and buy a copy just to let them know you care!
Author DetailsRyan O'Meara is editor-in-chief of K9 Magazine, the lifestyle magazine for dog lovers. He lives in the East Midlands with his own two dogs, Mia and Chloe. - See this author's webpage
Popularity: 9% [?]
Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 at 10:01 am and is filed under Breed Specific Legislation, Canine Columns. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Hi Ryan O’Meara
I have to say that this article was one of the best written open minded reports I have seen for many years. It covered all aspects of bites, selecting the right breed for the family and most of all the need for socialization & obedience training. A big PLUS for the recognition of the wrong owner and wrong reason for buying a rottweiler.
Well done to all involved.
Regards
Eileen McGregor
Staratraxn Rollweilers (Australia)
Hi Ryan - the following expands a little on my extremely curt e-mail.
Unfortunately I disagree with the assessment made of the Times article for while I would agree that it is considerably more enlightening than the usual ‘devil dogs’ hysteria it presents a picture which I find dangerously oblivious to the real problems.
Part of this danger is to assume that when the blame for incidents is, properly, placed with the owners, there is some magic that can be worked to rehabilitate and re-introduce the dogs involved to society.
One reason for this is the cult of the behaviourist. The media gimmicks are almost as important as the substance from “the dog whisperer” and the “leather clad hound-tamer” to relative unknowns practicing their trade at animal sanctuaries.
You will recall that of the people approaching me for dog training (that’s what it used to be called) I trained just one dog and handler of hundreds to personal protection standards, all the rest failed in my estimation to progress their basic abilities to my satisfaction for them or their dog to embark on such work.
That remains true and the number of people available even to safely live with a dog in close proximity is limited. So what happens to all those dogs that the behaviourists rehabilitate?
Well last week we heard of one of the ‘Dog Borstal’ subjects attacking another dog during a re-visit. Why? Is it perhaps that the dog could only be reformed as long as the owner was reformed and owner ability hasn’t actually improved sufficiently – no matter how good the ‘behaviourist’ is?
So, while hundreds, possibly thousands of perfectly amenable inoffensive dogs are put to sleep for want of a home, numbers of others are re-habilitated to take up homes which may either not exist (“nine are deemed beyond help”) or are limited, or will lead to further problems over time.
Until such a time as the surplus (over-breeding) of dogs in the UK is stopped the very first dogs to be ‘disposed of’ by humane destruction should be those which have exhibited any behaviour pattern dangerous to people – the article panders to sensitivities by avoiding that (not to mention pandering to the egos of the ‘behaviourists’).
Then we come to the owners in the article. Are they the kind of ‘responsible’ owners we want to find in charge of large dogs? The owner of Tyler the dog that “lived in the garden on a long lead and in the breakfast room”; or of Soul the security guard who “takes a pace backwards” and lets the dog deal with “public order” incidents; or of Kain whose owner says “The dog gets stereotyped” and then later says “don’t get too close”; or Kaiser whose owner “follows all the principles of proper dog management but one”. Spotted one you would really want to spend time with yet?
What about the professionals? The first breeder tells us “even when a character test is imposed some breeders know how to get round it”. Reassured? But she wants to see more dog wardens checking where and how dogs are kept – but fails to mention exactly what her proposals are for when those wardens find dogs which they believe to be inappropriately kept: perhaps she would want the local council to pay for dog and owner rehabilitation by a behaviourist…Of course taking the dog off someone would be anathema…and…as all dog wardens know…dog wardens know nothing (and those ever so clever dog breeders know how to get round character tests anyway).
[Just a short note on ‘dog wardens’ as well; partly as a result of the National Dog Warden Association some respect has been granted to ‘dog wardens’ but I have to say that many of the officers who gained that respect have left the occupation and more and more Councils are adopting cheap options which actually involve completely inexperienced staff if the control of dogs and, sometimes but not always, calling them ‘dog wardens’. Many of the things the NDWA did do have now been completely undermined, often by people who should know better. You won’t get many quality ‘behaviourists’ working for the minimum wage that a great many ‘dog wardens’ (or equivalent post) are paid; so the skills are no longer there in many cases to “check on how dogs are being kept” and it would take a huge reversal of trends to make it happen.]
So to the book writer who takes her dog Dyl to “dog obedience classes in a village hall” paints a lovely picture doesn’t it all Women’s Institute and tweed…you get a lot of that on urban sink estates; of course “all owners should take their dogs to classes that help to socialise the animals and establish rules” but what happens when the people who turn up are more likely to ask how to get their dog to show aggression than sit for a choccy drop and some cheese? Will the classes (run I assume by ‘behaviourists’) be willing to tell people they shouldn’t have the dog that they have, and what will they do with the ones that don’t follow their instruction?
So we get to the three paragraphs of their “what to do and not to do”, revealing…
“Some rescue centres will insist that you have previous experience with larger breeds”. Some? And how exactly how then does someone who has never had a larger breed progress to have the credentials to own one? Utterly meaningless.
“Speak to the centre’s pet behaviourist”; Why? Are they going to change people’s ability to own the dog that they have so carefully rehabilitated – they are pet behaviourist not people psychologists – will a quick chat rehabilitate personal inadequacy? Utterly meaningless.
Finally ask to see Mum (and Dad) and know what to feed it – whoopi do – that’ll go a long way to making you a responsible owner, and of course remember; “Puppy training classes are essential to “socialise” your dog”; well I’ve known a few people come away from badly run puppy classes with extremely unsociable dogs. Utterly meaningless.
No, sorry to disagree K9, but while this article is at least not attacking dogs just for breed ‘type’ it does very little to progress anything likely to be effective in the reduction of ‘irresponsible’ ownership particularly because most people, especially those who ‘lurve’ dogs, are not really prepared to have acceptable bounds defined.
Hi Cuthbert,
Much of what you say here I agree with. I think the piece itself probably didn’t set out to provide answers to the problems of irresponsible dog ownership or the politics or logistics of increasing the number of dog wardens in reference to the suggestion that there is a need for more of them. Nor do I believe it set out to progress any agendas with regard to reforming legislation.
Overall I think the piece, which is published in a national publication with an audience made up of the general public rather than pet industry people or dog professionals (who read publications such as K9 Magazine or indeed this blog) who have increasingly over recent times been fed a media portrayal that the Rottweiler is an inherently dangerous dog breed. I am glad to see one newspaper attempt to put an alternative view over rather than take the easier option of putting the boot in to the breed itself.
In terms of the specifics of the content, all very open to discussion at a place like this blog. My blog posting wasn’t to endorse the content or views of those given in the Times’ piece but more to acknowledge the piece itself as a positive move.
I think the gist and intent of the piece is highly commendable and would like other media to try and give a platform to more people who can speak with some authority on the issues and problems affecting dogs in society rather than to paint a simplistic picture that some breeds are just, by nature, ‘bad’ or ‘dangerous’.
It is, as we are all aware, not as simple as saying some breeds are bad. Neither it is true to say that there is no such thing as a bad dog, only a bad owner. That is a statement I’ve never agreed with. The fact is, I’ve met and worked with ‘bad’ dogs and by bad I mean very, very difficult animals who need the guidance of experienced, skilled owners.
I still extend praise to the Times for dedicating a significant volume of column inches to an alternative view of a much maligned dog breed (and on that, I do declare an interest being an owner of this breed myself)
Hi Ryan
I’d like to support such positive feeling but can’t - didn’t see any of those in the article as people (or dogs) I would want to spend my time with. No working dogs, no PAT dogs and nothing really positive and no particularily knowlegable owners (except to hear from a breeder that she knows her fellow breeders could get around temperament tests - Great). OK the dogs didn’t savage anybody during the interviews and that was about as positive as it got for me. If this is as good as it gets in the mainstream media we’re heading for a fall.
Yes, we certainly do have a LONG way to go in terms of the mainstream media giving genuinely constructive, positive coverage regarding dogs of this type and the whole issue of dangerous dogs in general. Even neutral ground is at least one small step up from the gutter though, in my view.
As a Dog Warden I recently carried out some Kennel Club Good Dog Citizen testing at a local dog club. There was one person present with a Rottweiler taking the Bronze test. The lady dog owner was not a young person but she handled the dog confidently and competently and therefore passed the test. Although there is not currently any restriction on owning Rottweilers, this lady was not a ‘hoody’ type person and amazingly nobody was frightened as a Rottweiler did its return to handler! In true Rottweiler fashion however when it stopped on its return it slipped and fell over, but this is down to ‘Rottweiler Comic Clumsiness Syndrome’ which any Rottweiler owner will tell you is a daily occurrence. There is an undercurrent of anti-Rottweiler sentiment out there, some of it fuelled by newspapers and people who think they know best, but the real problem is untrained (as in, general dog owners knowing nothing about responsible dog ownership or probably even knowing there are dog training classes in their own town) dog owners who think they know best, it is not just rottweilers that cause incidents, it is any breed of dog and their owners who think they do not need to act responsibly. More Dog Wardens who are experienced in various canine related area are needed but with councils getting rid of experienced officers and replacing them with inexperienced and in some cases untrained replacements, as Cuthbert Jackson writes these councils undermine the promotion of responsible dog ownership for the benefit of community safety and the benefit of both the dog owning and non-dog owning public.
Until councils reverse the trend of using the dog warden equivalent of cheap and unqualified labour to carry out their statutory functions, then responsible dog ownership is currently going to continue in reverse. The Local Government Association needs to do something by taking a stand, but dogs are very low down on most councils priorities. What is needed are properly trained dog wardens and a combination of education and enforcement to promote responsible dog ownership, this is something that the National Dog Warden Association has advocated for years and the association has indeed managed to earn some respect for dog wardens, but only because of its constant ‘fighting of the dog warden corner’. What people and organisations need to be aware of is that Dog Wardens are not a whipping boy to be blamed for problems created by national and local government they operate to specific guidelines and legislation.
[...] on the heels of their stablemate The Times, earning our recognition for their Rottweiler feature, The Sun has got in on the act with a pictorial feature in [...]