Puppy farmers breed dogs with the sole aim of lining their pockets. They don’t breed dogs with the sole aim of improving their breed and producing healthy, functional dogs – which should be the ONLY reason to EVER breed a single litter of dogs. Period.

Puppy farmers have been registering their dogs with the Kennel Club. The Kennel Club knows this.

Kennel Club registration, you see, adds ‘value’ and can raise the price a breeder may charge for their stock. It also leads the public in to thinking they are buying quality. That’s why they do it, see. The puppy farmer wants Kennel Club paperwork in order to present a credible façade or, believe you me, they would NOT be spending the extra money on doing it – profit margins are crucial to the commercial dog producers and dealers.

The Kennel Club has acknowledged that high volume breeders use its registry. Take a look:

Dr Sampson advised that Bill Lambert, the Accredited Breeder Scheme advisor, does inspect and completes around 50 visits per year. All breeders (mostly who own multiple breeds) who breed more than 10 litters per year have been visited and some removed from the list.

The above comes from a breed council meeting held just last year. Re-read it if you like.

All breeders – mostly who own multiple breeds – who breed more than 10 litters per year.

Let’s give the quote some context. The above response is cited in the minutes from the meeting in relation to the following:

The question was raised concerning checks on breeders premises and whether any Accredited Breeders had been taken off the list for non compliance.

Now, this is a nice hypothetical for you: If you heard about a breeder producing LESS than 10 litters per year, let’s say, oh I don’t know, maybe NINE litters? Who also owned ‘multiple breeds’ – what would you think they might be labelled as? A ‘high volume’ dog breeder?

Let’s move on. I have another hypothetical question for you.

You run a dog breed registry.

You don’t like puppy farmers. Oh no. You do NOT like puppy farmers. Or, for the benefit of clarity, let’s call them ‘high volume dog breeders’.

You don’t want these high volume dog breeders (OK, puppy farmers! Let’s call them what they are shall we?) to sully the name and reputation of your breed registry.

How do you prevent them from doing this?

A) You impose limits on individual breeders, dictating that  no more than 5 litters may be registered from the same breeder and/or premises in any given year.

B) You also insist that you will not accept a single registration without a veterinary certificate validating the health and condition of the dam along with appropriate breed health screening paperwork.

or

C) You don’t do any of that, but set up a SEPARATE scheme so you can still continue to take registrations from those high volume breeders who don’t health screen their stock…. but can act like you HAVE made a leap of progress by telling people to use your ‘accredited’ breeders instead?

We have an accredited breeder scheme, we have a breed registry – one contains puppy farmers and plenty of breeders that don’t adhere to basic health screening standards and one contains breeders who might be producing 9 litters or more per year but who fall under the category of being ‘accredited’. Both breeders can register their puppies with the Kennel Club. Both get Kennel Club registration paperwork and their registrations are endorsed with the Kennel Club seal of approval and, ultimately, the Kennel Club banks the cheques from both.

So, a simple question:

If you had that kind of a set up and you REALLY wanted to no longer allow a SINGLE puppy farmer to register their puppies with you and sully your name, cause damage by association to the GOOD breeders on your registry and PROFIT from the suffering of commercially bred dogs – why wouldn’t you make this simple move:

SHUT DOWN the registry and ONLY operate the accredited breeder scheme?

Seriously. Why would you not do that?

Yes, there’s a LOT of money in that breed registry. More money, in fact, than pours in to the accredited breeder scheme. But if YOU were going to stand on a soap box and lecture people about the horrors of puppy farming, wouldn’t YOU try to make DAMN sure you weren’t still cashing the cheques from some of the very people whom you are warning the public about? Wouldn’t you feel a bit ‘funny’ wagging your finger at the public preaching about puppy farmers when you’ve got some seriously high volume breeders using your own registry and sending their cash your way?

The Kennel Club have issued a press release today that states:

The Kennel Club and Thepet.net co-founders, TV vet Marc Abraham and social media guru Andrew Seel, want people to know the truth about where badly-bred puppies come from and help them choose a happy and healthy puppy bred by a reputable breeder, rather than a sick or diseased farmed one.

Kennel Club Veterinary Advisor and TV vet, Marc Abraham, said: “I am treating more and more puppies that have come from puppy farms than ever before.

“Puppy buyers often don’t know how to spot the signs of an irresponsible breeder and so continue to unwittingly line the puppy farmers’ pockets, fueling this cruel trade.

“It is imperative that prospective puppy buyers buy from a Kennel Club Accredited Breeder and that they sign the Kennel Club’s petition to get the principles and standards of this Scheme made mandatory for all breeders. These breeders love and care for their puppies, agree to follow certain standards and agree to allow a Kennel Club inspector access to their premises. Here are my top tips for choosing a puppy:

1.      For a pedigree puppy always contact the Kennel Club first for their list of reliable and reputable Kennel Club Accredited Breeders.
2.      Ask to see the puppy’s mother, who should always be with the pups.
3.      Always see the puppy in its breeding environment and ask to look at the kenneling conditions, particularly if they were not raised within the breeder’s house. If you suspect the conditions are not right, then do not buy the puppy.
4.      Be suspicious of any breeder selling more than one or at most two breeds.
5.      Be prepared to be put on a waiting list – a healthy puppy is well-worth waiting for.
6.      Ask if you can return the puppy if things don’t work out. Responsible breeders will always say yes.
7.      Never buy a puppy because you feel like you’re rescuing it. You’ll only be making space available for another poorly pup to fill.
8.      Consider alternatives to buying a pedigree puppy like getting a rescue dog or pup, and remember that every breed of dog has its own breed rescue society.”

People can sign the Kennel Club’s petition, which asks the government to enforce a mandatory set of standards for all breeders, based on those already followed by Kennel Club Accredited Breeders and that put the puppies’ health and welfare first and foremost.

OK.

Some sage words there. No doubt.

But let’s dig, shall we?

Be suspicious of any breeder selling more than one or at most two breeds.

Really?

30 seconds.

30 seconds is all it took me to find Kennel Club Accredited breeders who breed more than two breeds. I did a quick search on the Kennel Club website for Accredited Breeders and within just a few clicks I located accredited breeders who bred more than two different breeds.

So, I’m confused.

I should be “suspicious” of these (accredited) breeders yet….

“It is imperative that prospective puppy buyers buy from a Kennel Club Accredited Breeder”

I must reiterate, it took me less than 30 seconds to find Kennel Club accredited breeders who breed more than two breeds.

And here’s the thing, I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever in accepting that a quality breeder can happen to breed more than two different breeds and a horrendous breeder may produce just one litter in their entire lives. The point is that there is confusion, muddied communication/advice and, ultimately, rampant hypocrisy at play.

How can we be expected to listen to a lecture on the horrors of puppy farming when it is coming from an organisation that accepts the cheques of the very people it is seeking to warn us about?

Most right minded people want puppy farming to become a thing of the past. I am absolutely certain that the Kennel Club would like it that way too. But, fact is, the Kennel Club is running a two tiered system which means they ARE enabling puppy farmers to operate under a veil of implied credibility. If you cash the cheque yet have the means to set the standard rather than take a ‘do as we say, not as we do’ approach, then some questions need to be asked.

But let’s remember this. Let’s focus on it. Let’s draw attention to it. Let’s ask it, out loud:

If the Kennel Club believes in its Accredited Breeder Scheme so much. If the Kennel Club believes ALL breeders should comply to the standards of the Accredited Breeder Scheme, then why don’t they simply do away with their flawed registry and ONLY operate the Accredited Breeder Scheme?

Surely if they want to be taken seriously on an issue like puppy farming and their commitment to eradicating sub standard breeding practices, they could take a giant step toward that goal by NOT allowing those very breeders who they publicly condemn to register their puppies with the Kennel Club and tacitly give those breeders the credibility they so clearly crave?

Let’s wind the clock back to February of this year  when Caroline Kisko of the Kennel Club informed Dog World newspaper that they (The KC) would not insist on operating the standards of the Accredited Breeder Scheme on a wholesale basis across all of the breeders who register puppies with the Kennel Club unless it applied to ‘all dogs’.

The question was put to Ms Kisko that all breeding dogs be subject to compulsory health screening. Here is her (verbatim) response:

Well, that to us is, is one of those things that if everybody joins something like the Accredited Breeders’ Scheme, and I’m not saying it has to be a Kennel Club’s one, but if everybody follows the requirements of something like the breeders’ scheme, then you would have that in the palm of your hand, but we, the Kennel Club is not going to go down that route for every Kennel Club registered dog as long as it’s not a requirement for other dogs, because all that’ll happen is that you’ll have the bar set at one level for Kennel Club registered dogs and the bar set way down low, in other words probably non existent for all the other dogs, and that’s actually completely unfair on both Kennel Club registered dogs and people buying dogs because… ok, you can say, well, that way we’ll know that those are the crème de la crème. What about all the other dogs? Do we not care about how they’re bred? Of course we do, and because of that, the Kennel Club will hold out against this idea that you can set one set of criteria for Kennel Club registered dogs and a different set for other dogs.

This is bizarre thinking.

Imagine if The Telegraph newspaper informed its readers that it would not insist on strict, high quality editorial standards unless all other newspapers agreed to follow exactly the same, over and above those minimum requirements according to the laws of the land? “We’ll only adhere to the same editorial standards as The Beano unless we’re forced to do otherwise”. No. It doesn’t work that way. Why would an organisation not set its own standards as high as it possibly could rather than simply ask to be judged against the lowest common standards expected of every other Tom, Dick and Harry?

By worrying about ‘every other dog’ the Kennel Club continues to allow sub-par breeders to thrive. I believe they know it, too.

The Kennel Club knowingly operates its very own two tier system:

1) The Accredited Breeder scheme – which it implores you to acknowledge as the best, most foolproof method of buying a quality puppy

2) The Kennel Club registry, which contains puppies registered by commercial/high volume breeders (you know, PUPPY FARMERS!).

What lies at the heart of these obvious double standards?

You decide.

But please, focus on the issue of puppy farming and give your full, unequivocal support to Puppy Farm Awareness Day via these superb groups:

• Puppy Love
• Hope UK
• Puppy Alert

I guarantee this: NONE of those organisations are cashing cheques from puppy farmers. They don’t operate double standards and they are in a position to give you sound, clear advice on how you can help to fight the cruel trade of the commercial dog dealers.

What's that all about then? ]]> http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/6415/is-this-dog-even-real/feed/ 0 http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/6275/whats-the-point-of-the-kennel-club/ http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/6275/whats-the-point-of-the-kennel-club/#comments Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:18:08 +0000 Freelance Contributors http://www.dogmagazine.net/?p=6275
Continue Reading »]]> Yesterday, BBC Radio 4 aired a 30 minute item entitled ‘What’s The Point of The Kennel Club?‘. Here, Karen Clark-Stapleton provides her personal reaction to the radio documentary.

I found the topic interesting more-so as I was one of those people who contributed to APGAW in which I heavily criticised both the KC generally and also the Judging which has permitted and indeed created canine suffering for many years.

The KC like to blame everyone except themselves in relation to all that is known as dog, when in fact all most breeders want is for the registry to admit to that they got it wrong and they did in fact encourage canine ill health and far worse they caused many breeds to suffer agonising pain through mismanagement of the breeds through poorly conformed dogs judged to be wonderful examples by trained judges they employ either through private memberships or via their acceptability of judges that have come via breed clubs, those very same breed clubs that created much of the poor conformation in dogs.

Caroline Kisko is wrong in that she feels the appearance should entitle dogs to win , how very shortsighted is that for the advice for dogs for the future.

Health should be a priority BEFORE entering a show, I know there are many breeders of whom have dogs that regularly win at show but are ill, they are lame, they have eye disorders or heart disorders, yet because the KC do not make health testing mandatory the dog will be bred , tests are an important part of the future of dogs.

How can anyone justify 22 Siberian Huskies and then tell other breeders they are puppy farmers because they have 10 dogs from a variety of breeds?

To me this signifies the fact that the KC cannot be trusted to ‘police’ dogs.

The KC by self admission is class and ethnicity frigid, it is ultimately a very white middle class society that likes to Lord it over those who may well come from lower social or politically different classes . It is now time for them to be fully investigated by the Equalities Commission and also the Employment Boards to justify how they employ those in high positions and also how they justify wholly white judging.

—
Strong views there.

Did you hear the documentary?

What’s your view on the question: What’s the point of the Kennel Club?

Have your say below:

In Britain, however, as in Ireland (and a number of other countries where greyhound racing is held) the dogs run on an oval-like circuit that essentially comprises two straights leading into tight bends. This configuration can prove lethal for the greyhounds with the risk of injury rising significantly when dogs are pitted against each other.

At the time of writing there are 25 tracks regulated under the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) and 12 independent venues across England, Scotland and Wales.

Whilst all of the above are oval-like in configuration, variations exist from track to track in length of straights, banking and tightness of bends. There exists also huge disparity in the depth of sand (used for the surface and middle layers) and composition of base layer that in turn can affect the performance of a track.

Such variations impact on safety as does the maintenance of the track, operation of the mechanical hare, trap draw, grade, race distance and weather conditions. Research to date, however, would indicate that even where all factors relating to safety are judged ideal the frequency of injuries will never fall dramatically whilst dogs are competing on oval-like circuits.

Track ‘improvements’

In May 2008 the track at Owlerton (Sheffield) received both a new surface and drainage system costing in the region £125,000. General Manager Dave Perry was reported saying: “It is all about the welfare of our greyhounds here at Owlerton. The resurfacing of the track will improve our already high standards.”

Owlerton was a track that Perry apparently considered “one of the safest in the country” prior to the work carried out and with no change in its configuration was there ever likely to be a notable reduction in dogs injured?

On Greyhoundscene – the largest internet forum for UK members of the racing fraternity – the following posting was made in July 2008: “What’s going on at Sheffield – injury rates (have) nearly trebled since the track re-laid the surface at massive cost. All sorts of injuries being reported by all trainers – shoulders, wrists, gracilis, hocks… there’ll be no sound dogs left at this rate!”

Similarly, two months following ‘improvements’ at Yarmouth Stadium in June 2010 to include a new surface and drainage and costing £190,000, owners were reporting a notable increase in the frequency of injuries – many serious – in both trials and races.

Anomalies in injury rates are inevitable and looking long term I would not expect such rates at either Sheffield or Yarmouth to be higher. By the same token I would be very surprised if either were to fall significantly.

Yarmouth Racing Manager Bill Johnson, speaking in August, believed the level of injuries had changed little since the work carried out. Perry said the injury rate at Sheffield had fallen but refused to say by how much as he felt the information could be used by those who appose racing.

Of course it’s good PR to claim 6 figure sums are being spent in the name of welfare, and I have no doubt that welfare is a factor (injuries to greyhounds are costly for both the owner and the business of racing) but if changes to the track have at best only a marginal impact on safety what other motive could there be for the money invested?

A clue can be found on another internet posting, again concerning the work at Sheffield: “Hopefully (it will) make the conditions fairer and remove the bias when the rain comes.”

Both the promoters and GBGB are seeking to protect and strengthen the integrity of racing. A good track surface, properly maintained, is a prerequisite for a consistent racing environment. This in turn gives the betting public the assurance that race outcomes are based solely on the dog’s ability.

It is further hoped that money being invested in ‘welfare’ will reduce the number of meetings cancelled due to bad weather that again can be very costly for the business of racing.

Injuries, Perry Barr

In a thesis published 1992 and titled The Nature and Incidence of Greyhound Racing Injuries, Agnew BP examined a record of injuries across 953 race meetings at Perry Barr (Birmingham).

Perry Barr was converted from a grass/sand track to a modern all sand facility in 1978 and data was examined from both before and after the change in the running surface was made. It is data relating to the modern facility that of course carries particular weight and the statistics make for interesting reading.

1612 injuries were recorded across 748 meetings. This was broken down as follows: shoulder, 205; carpus, 475; metacarpus, 24; forefoot, 127; hindmuscle, 227; hock, 58; metatarsus, 5; hindfoot, 144; cramp, 234; combination, 54; miscellaneous, 59.

Career ending injuries are commonly hock related and out of the 58 listed above 2 greyhounds were recorded retired and 21 were recorded destroyed. This data, however, is based solely on the immediate post race decision.

Particularly notable is the injury rate as a percentage of runners rose from 4.6 for the year prior to conversion to an all sand facility to 6.6 for the year following conversion. The percentage rate for the all sand facility does later fall (3.9 being the lowest figure) but the difference is not as great as might be expected for the change made in the track surface.

Notable also is the figures for single limb injuries as a percentage of total injuries recorded that rose from 65.2 for the grass/sand track to 81.2 for the all sand facility.

The survey at Perry Barr is one of a number of similar studies both in Britain and abroad across which there exists a lack of uniformity in the recording of information and findings. Where consistency, however, does exist is in the analysis of data and the evident correlation between numerous injuries and track configuration.

Agnew concluded that the principal causal factor for injury patterns was the “definite and set task demanded of these athletes; the racing at speed on tight anti-clockwise tracks.”

Cornering

Sprinting into a bend increases effective body weight and a human will respond to this by extending the duration of contact each foot has with the ground. As a result, forces on the legs are said to remain constant.

A study, however, by Usherwood JR and Wilson AM and featured in Nature (Vol. 438), found that in greyhounds observed there was no notable change in foot contact timings when the dogs entered a tight bend. As such, forces on the limbs were calculated to increase by approximately 65%.

The use of banking will reduce horizontal loads and this in turn may see a reduction in injury rates. It has been calculated, however, that the degree of banking required to negate such forces would be so high as to generate additional hazards for the greyhounds as well proving almost impossible to maintain.

Indeed modern thinking with regard turn one is to keep the banking to a minimum so allowing the outside dogs to remain wide with the optimum level more a judgement than a science and not easy to ascertain.

At best the bends on a track can be made safer but not safe and injuries are inevitable with the site of injury frequently dictated by the direction of turn. World renowned veterinarian Alessandro Piras gives a figure of 96% for the incidence of central tarsal bone fractures occurring in the right leg.

Bergh MS, in a thesis examining this phenomenon, noted: “These fractures have been classified into five types; all of which usually contain a dorsal slab component. The cause of these fractures has not been rigorously investigated, but it is suspected that racing in a counter-clockwise direction on oval tracks produces cyclic overload of the medial compartment of the right tarsus.”

Dee JF and Dee LG further link track configuration with injury patterns: “The fact that the race is run on a circular track, in a counter-clockwise direction, exacerbates the stresses of racing. These increased stresses are substantiated by the locations of metacarpal/metatarsal injuries: they occur most frequently on the ‘rail’ side of the affected foot, specifically metacarpal V of the left foot, metacarpal II of the right foot and metatarsal III of the right foot.”

Dog interaction

Whilst many of the injuries greyhounds sustain are linked directly with the forces generated through cornering, many of the more serious that include long bone fractures are the result of a fall and/or collision with other dogs.

The potential to lose footing when negotiating the tight bends of a track at speeds of up to 40 mph is high for a greyhound running solo. Pitch six greyhounds against each other and there are an alarming number of incidents in which greyhounds collide and fall.

A survey by Greyhound Watch covering all tracks governed by the GBGB identified turn one as the point on the track where the greatest number of incidents occurs. In January 2010 alone, 109 dogs were recorded falling/brought down in turn one against dogs not finishing/finishing at distance, with the true figure likely much higher.

The above including 4 greyhounds that fell in the opening race at Mildenhall on 15 January, 3 falling in the penultimate race at Nottingham on 05 January and 3 falling in the second race of the evening meeting at Newcastle on 23 January.

As the dogs hurtle into turn one they are reaching a higher speed and are more tightly bunched than at any other point in the race. The result can be mayhem. Further compounding the situation can be wide runners allotted an inside trap (and vice versa) and pups running with seasoned dogs.

With the pressure to fill race cards it is inevitable that on occasion greyhounds are not ideally placed as Andrew Johnston posting on Greyhound Knowledge Forum is only too aware: “I had a pup run at Newcastle… it was bowled over 3 times out of 8 races at the first bend, a totally green pup thrown in with seasoned adult racers, the poor pup got so smashed up the third time it had to be put-to-sleep.”

The track bends create also a hazard for the greyhounds on the straights as all 4 turns (that make up one full circuit) influence the conflicting lines greyhounds will run on the straights. This again can result in dogs colliding, with potentially devastating consequences.

Injuries, scale

It is impossible to give an exact annual total for injuries sustained and greyhound’s euthanased as a result of injury. Such information is being collated by the GBGB but is not being made public (against a key recommendation within a Parliamentary Group report published May 2007).

Though it has to be said the industry themselves do not have precise figures. Data compiled is based on track veterinary reports and many injuries are diagnosed only the following day (for the same reason above data recorded for Perry Barr is not complete). It has further been claimed that certain trainers who, at the time of a meeting, suspect a dog to be lame are not always having the animal checked by the vet in attendance.

What information is available, however, gives animal welfare charities and the like a good indication of scale.

Before Walthamstow closed I spoke with the racing office who stated that about 25 greyhounds were put down as a result of injury at the track over a 12 month period. Yarmouth office has given a similar figure. The number of races held at Walthamstow across one full year represented 4.7% of the total for GBGB tracks alone (figure based on the last full year of racing). The same calculation for Yarmouth in 2009 is a disturbing 3.1%.

In August this year the Swindon Advertiser reported the deaths of 4 greyhounds in as many weeks at the local track, all the result of incidents described as “in-running collisions,” and during a particularly awful spate of injuries covering a 4 week period last year at Belle Vue (Manchester), 6 greyhounds had to be destroyed.

At a single meeting on 15 January at Sittingbourne, steward’s recorded 11 greyhounds lame and one greyhound having ‘brokedown’. A further 2 finished at distance after falling. The total for greyhounds recorded lame/brokedown across January-March 2010 at the above track is 75.

It should, however, be noted that steward’s comments only hint at the scale of injuries. Perhaps a better indication of scale is the fact that at any one time a professional trainer will likely have as many as half his/her greyhounds out through injury.

From a wealth of information such as above it is very evident that the number of injuries sustained annually on British tracks is a 5 figure sum, many of which are serious and result in hundreds of greyhounds losing their lives.

Conclusion

The GBGB state that a quarter of a million pounds was spent in 2008 “improving the safety of tracks across the country, reducing injuries and helping to extend racing careers.” The GBGB, however, have yet to publish any evidence that injury rates long-term at any track have fallen dramatically.

And with tracks that are seeing a spate of fatalities apparently already among the safest in the country such evidence is never likely to materialise.

The Swindon racing office, in response to the recent deaths detailed above, is reported saying: “No expense is spared ensuring that we have the finest sand and fixtures on the track, plus the best track preparation, veterinary and racing teams in the business.”

The “finest” didn’t save Rackethall Kenny, Swift Abel, Wots Er Name and Daytwo, nor will the “finest” prevent thousands of greyhounds getting ‘smashed-up’ across the country every year.

Oval tracks are perhaps the most dangerous environment in which to hold greyhound racing. To members of the racing fraternity, however, they are likely the most exciting environment. Will a greyhound get round in one piece and make the winning podium or will it be the greyhound’s last race?

Trainers are undoubtedly passionate about greyhound racing but I have yet to speak to a single trainer who is passionate about greyhounds. The dogs are nothing more than a commodity – essentially a betting medium – and for that reason I do not expect the industry to ever change, fundamentally, the nature of greyhound racing in Britain.

Well, ever the free thinkers (the type who don’t let media hype determine the laws of the land, but instead look toward REAL facts when legislating), the Netherlands no longer operates breed specific legislation and has instead pursued a more educational approach to canine laws. Now a new study has been carried out in the Netherlands which overwhelmingly concludes that a ban on dog breeds has zero effect as a means to reduce or eradicate dog bites.

Here’s an extract from the study.

As part of an evaluation of Dutch breed specific legislation, data were collected from dog bite victims (1078) and dog owners (6139) using Internet surveys.

The incidence rate of dog bites and details of incidents (victims, injuries, circumstances and aggressors) are reported and the justification for using breed specific measurements to deal with dog bites are considered. For aggressors, attack records for breed groups and popular breeds were established by calculating breed risk indices using a reference population.

Several breeds and breed groups were over- and under-represented in the biting population and there was a mismatch between risk indices and the then-current legislation.

Mitigation strategies should not be based on attack records (since this would lead to the rejection of a significant proportion of the canine population) but on the circumstances of the incidents. Preventative measures must focus on a better understanding of how to handle dogs.

Brent Toellner over at the excellent KC Dog Blog has seen a copy of the report and he shares some of the findings on his site (you really should have a look: link).

Of particular note, this passage:

“Our findings, like those from other groups, do not support the use of an attack record in developing mitigation strategies. We found that all dogs can bite and therefore one should always be careful when interacting with a dog, even a family dog and during play. if we were to use base mitigation strategies on attack records, this would not lead to the establishment of feasible actions to take.

Removing the most common biters would also imply removing the most common breeds; for example, we found that the Jack Russell terrier was responsible for approximately 10% fo the bites and 8/10 of the most popular breeds were the most common biters (including the highly polymorphic group of mixed breed/mongrel). Eliminating these breeds is neither practicable nor desirable.”

Neither practicable or desirable.

1) You CAN’T eliminate dog breeds (as so deftly proven by the UK for the past 19 years)

2) Eliminating breeds would NOT actually address the problem any way.

If you live and pay your taxes in the UK, YOU are currently contributing to the MILLIONS of pounds that are routinely WASTED by the Government as they persist with a law which study after study has shown to be folly.

At what point will Government’s recognise that a law based on a flawed concept is a monumental waste of tax payer’s money AND has actually shown itself to CONTRIBUTE to rather than eliminate the problems it seeks to address?

As DEFRA put out a call for proposals on changing the legislation on dangerous dogs, it did so with the caveat that it would be retaining breed specific legislation. It has NEVER been able to justify the retention of a law which has been an unmitigated failure (prior to 1991 no person in the UK was ever killed by a Pit Bull, since 1991 two people have died as a result of attacks by Pit Bulls….work THAT one out!) – yet there are those who will still try and have you believe that we can reduce serious and fatal dog attacks by simply wiping out certain dog breeds.

At some point, one would hope, we might just see the same sort of sense that the Netherlands has.

Don’t hold your breath though.

The Most Dangerous Dogs in the World

in reverse order:

5. Badly fed dog.

Badly fed dog is the animal who’s been fuelled up with a diet fit for an Olympic weight lifter, but who only ever gets to expend about 20% of the calories he takes in. He’s got lots of energy and his mismatched diet can manifest in bouts of sudden energetic rampaging. Badly fed dog would ask you to consider; how you would feel spending your day in an office when every inch of your body is throbbing and twitching as you crave the opportunity to actually use up some of those excess calories. Badly fed dog would be happier and safer if his diet reflected his lifestyle.

4. Never had any friends dog.

Otherwise known as ‘totally under socialised dog’.

He was a little naughty when he was a puppy, so his owner decided he’d be better off being kept away from all other forms of animal life. He now spends his days obsessing over what it would be like to chase other dogs around and, by George, one of these days he’s gonna actually do it!

Never had any friends dog is going to present his owner with a lifetime of problems, he has no social skills and has never had a chance to learn natural interaction through the teachings of his own kind. He’ll meet new dogs and will be about as socially adept as a 45-year old virgin at a Playboy mansion party. He’s going to blow it. Big time.

3. Shouty.

Shouty is the dog who has spent most of his life shouting at folks or being shouted at himself. He sees people on his street, he shouts at them. In turn, his owner shouts at him. Shouty presumes being shouted at is a recognition of his excellent work. In fact, hearing his owner shouting in response to his own shouting encourages his assumption that they’re just as upset, anxious, nervous, angry as HE is about the audacity of other people/dogs/pigeons to walk past his window. Shouty is relentlessly encouraged and endorsed in his shouty behaviour and, a bit like no friends dog, shouty spends his days imaging how good it will be when he FINALLY gets his chance to get face to face with the objects of his ire.

2. House proud.

House proud dog is SO touchy about people coming to his digs unannounced, he’ll happily maim you for your insolence in trying to visit his abode without obtaining the correct visitation paperwork.

House proud dog does a line in dishing out injuries to posties, meter readers and delivery people. Fortunately for house proud dog, his owners absolutely REFUSE to believe he is capable of violence, so leave him completely unattended to dish out his own brand of justice to anyone brash enough to consider entering his domain.

1. Spoilt dog.

“That’s mine and these are mine, those are mine, I’m entitled to that, I believe that I saw that first, I lay claim to those, I own all of these, I’m the rightful proprietor of this…”

Welcome to the world of spoilt dog. Quite simply, he believes everything he wants, he can have. Woe betide anyone to tell him differently. His timid owners have never had the heart to let him know that in the human world, simply showing your teeth and growling doesn’t constitute a legal contract on the ownership of goods. They let him off and, worse, they let him keep his spoils, which he’ll gather up and place in his own corner of the world.

Sadly, spoilt dog is, one day, going to meet someone who is unaware that he has previously laid claim to every possession on earth. Unfortunately, unlike spoilt dog’s owners, this person is going to have to find out the hard way just how deep spoilt dog’s sense of entitlement runs. Really hard luck if it happens to be a youngster, blissfully ignorant to the fact that the shiny ball on the floor is spoilt dog’s most prized possession (at that VERY moment). A few stitches and a spell in hospital ought to serve as a permanent reminder though.

[What? You didn't think there was a such a thing as a list of 'dangerous dog breeds' did you? Pffft.]

PS: End bsl.

You know it makes sense.

An interesting debate on the excellent Sunday Morning Live show, hosted by the equally excellent Susanna Reid (I say excellent because it seems a rare quality these days to watch a debate show that covers topics evoking great emotion to be moderated in a cool, fair and balanced way rather than playing ring leader to a bear pit atmosphere and a shouting match where all you ever learn is how much each side hates the other!)…I digress, it’s a good show and this was a particularly interesting topic to me.

Proposing the view that our current crop of youngsters would do better if trained in a manner similar to dogs, former Tory MP Edwina Curry showed off her, it has to be said, excellently behaved canine companions.

She had ‘proof’ that her method worked too, in the form of her own daughter who in turn had applied the same disciplines to her own children.

The main thrust of the argument is that children should be told, not asked and that parents didn’t have to answer questions from the young un’s, that they should just do as they’re told, when they’re told, end of debate.

Well, I have to admit it made me think.

I don’t have children, but I enjoy their company. With youngsters in my own extended family, I find myself really, genuinely, enjoying the marathon quiz sessions they put me through. They go something like this…

“What’s that on that book?”

“That’s an owl.”

“What’s a owl?”

“It’s a large bird of prey.”

“Why does it pray?”

“No. Not pray as in prayer, prey as in it hunts other animals to eat.”

“Why?”

“Well, in order for the owl to live and get by, it has to eat animals that are smaller.”

“Why?”

“Well, erm, it’s how nature works.”

“Do I need to eat animals that are smaller than me?”

“Well….(OK, now I’m worrying – is my niece being raised vegetarian? Am I about to inadvertently cause someone else’s small child to have nightmares about giant owls swooping down to eat her?) Erm, no. Not necessarily. Humans don’t HAVE to eat other animals.”

“I like to eat dinosaurs.”

“Do you? Hang on, sorry. What? You eat dinosaurs?”

“Yes. I like the green ones.”

“Dinosaurs?”

“Yep. They’re wobbly.”

“Dinosaurs?”

“Yeah. So would a owl eat your dog?”

“No. Owls aren’t really big enough to eat a dog.”

“Would a owl eat a pig?”

“No. Pigs are normally even bigger than dogs.”

“Would a owl eat a dinosaur?”

“Yes. Yes it would.”

“Oh.”

“Would your dog eat a owl?”

*and, on, and on, and on!

Fun. I genuinely enjoy these knowledge exchanges. My niece learns about what owls eat and I learn my niece enjoys green, wobbly dinosaurs. Mutually beneficial.

But then, as I say, I’m not a parent. I really don’t know how much fun it would be being subjected to a junior-Paxman session every five minutes.

But what I do know is this. Having worked with more than 2,000 dogs in a training capacity, there are a few key principles that tend to make up the core elements of successfully getting a dog to willingly comply with you:

1. Patience.
Lack patience and you fail. I’ve seen it, often.

2. Consistency.
If you’re hot and cold on a regular basis, think about another career because dog training is NOT for you. Dogs are 1,000,000 times better at reading mood and body language than humans. If you’re in a bad mood, don’t assume for a second you can fake it without your dog noticing. Dogs can ‘thin slice’ better than ANY poker player. (Note: you can read all about this in my forthcoming book Dogsperity: The science of canine achievement – END PLUG)

3. Calmness.
Dogs, by their very nature, do things that we don’t want them to. In some cases, they can cause us genuine stress. But if you lack calmness, you’ll make the sort of emotional mistakes that could take an age to correct.

It’s my experience that it can take a very long time to successfully perfect a desired behaviour in a dog…and about 5 ill-timed seconds to undo it all.

So, where do I stand on the ‘can we teach children the same way we train dogs’ debate?

Well, there’s one thing that really wasn’t touched on in the debate on Sunday and it’s this.

Of the 2,000 plus dogs I’ve personally worked with, I can honestly say no two were ever the same. In fact, the sheer range and variety in personalities is astonishing, EVEN in litter mates.

Which reminded me – if we’re going to suggest that there is a single ‘system’ or ‘method’ to training dogs or children, we’ll fail.

My own brother and I are massively different in the things that motivate us to do or stop doing.

Genetically we’re almost identical, we share the same parents and have enjoyed a virtually identical upbringing, but in terms of shaping our behaviour, my parents must have worked out very quickly what does and doesn’t work with both of us (for example, if my mum wanted to get my brother to do or stop doing something, all she needed to do was ignore him and within minutes he’d be appealing and promising to be good. Me, on the other hand, would consider being ignored the perfect opportunity to do something REALLY naughty. I’d think it was a great chance to do something outrageous – thus causing my mum to have to stop ignoring me, sharpish, and put the real frighteners on me (she’d threaten to tell my dad).

The moral of this little tale seems to be, dogs – just like children – are all wired very, very differently. The key in shaping behaviour is

a) Find out what motivates good behaviour
b) Find out what works as method to stopping undesirable behaviour
c) NEVER get to a point where they don’t want to ask you questions!

In January of 2007 I launched the dog adoption website DogsBlog.com.

Ruby: one of the many bull breed dogs to have found homes via DogsBlog.com

The aim was simple: to provide a completely free service that could be utilised by rescues and people who wanted to adopt a dog from a shelter.

Now, three years on, and (time of writing) 10,217 rehomed dogs later, DogsBlog.com has managed to assist in the rehoming of an average of 8 dogs per day.

It’s been a great joy to have found a way to help rescues and to help dogs. But it comes tinged with sadness. As the battle isn’t being won. In fact, as fast as 8 dogs find their way in to new homes, more than double that are going straight back in to the rescue system.

What is abundantly clear to me is that simply throwing lots of money at this problem is not only not going to help us fix it, it could actually be making things worse.

The smaller rescue charities are so hard hit. As, unlike the ‘big name’ animal rescues such as Battersea, The Dogs Trust, The RSPCA et al, they really have very little to work with in terms of financial support.

But, I have observed, they tend to work doubly hard to get the dogs in their care out of the door and in to new, loving homes at top speed.

They don’t have PR departments. Media buyers. Highly paid chief executives. But they DO make every single use of every promotional avenue available to them.

Let’s take Battersea, for example.

Battersea are listed as a rescue on DogsBlog.com. But, for 3 years, they haven’t added a single dog to the site.

Now, bear in mind – DogsBlog.com is 100% FREE for charities. We do ALL the work. We pay people to add the dogs, to promote the site and to keep it online under the heavy strain of more than 200,000 visitors per month, accessing millions of page views.

Battersea, who have conceded they are losing the battle to find homes quick enough for a number of dogs in their care, informed us three years ago that they were ‘reviewing their strategy’. Since then, they haven’t made use of the website that is no 1 in the UK for the term ‘dog adoption’ or ‘adopt a dog’. The site that has found homes for more than 10,000 dogs – at a cost of not one single penny to ANY of the rescues.

Why?

Obviously I can’t answer that myself. But it’s frustrating to then watch a documentary where the charity is clearly struggling under the sheer weight of numbers – as are MOST animal rescue organisation – knowing that they have simply opted NOT to make use of a free, successful avenue by which some of their dogs could have found new homes. Even if it’s ONE dog, it’s still ONE dog.

The issue, I fear, is that smaller rescues/charities don’t tend to spend too much time dwelling on ‘online strategy’. They see a gift horse offering them a free opportunity to find homes for their dogs and they say ‘Yes please!’.

We have to accept that we need a radical change of thinking if we are to fix the problem of record numbers of dogs going in to rescue centres.

The millions and millions of pounds that are donated are not actually addressing the route causes of the problems. Which are:

1) Why are people allowed to indiscriminately breed dogs, register dogs and sell dogs on a whim?

2) Why are people allowed to obtain dogs without being remotely competent to own them?

3) Why are people so quick to give their dogs up for increasingly trivial reasons?

4) Why are puppy farmers allowed to continue their vile trade in misery without legislation to prevent them?

5) Why do we have dog laws that demonise certain types of dogs and make them appealing to the exact sort of people who will exacerbate the problems?

Until we actually accept that we simply aren’t getting it right when it comes to dog abandonments, irresponsible supply and production of dogs and the legitimising of BAD breeders, we can expect more of the same, and worse.

We need a fresh approach and we need it fast.

It is now time for all owner exhibitors to make a stand and protest to the Kennel Club. Tell them what is wrong with dogs today in order to protect dogs for tomorrow. If the KC are oblivious to what is factually happening because we all keep quiet then nothing can ever be achieved. It is no longer acceptable for the annoyed to levitate the ignorant selfish breeder/exhibitor to podiums they do not deserve. Help re-structure breed clubs that operate a breed mafia winning system with those poor judges we have all met and continue to watch oscar winning performances whilst brown nosing with these old mafiosa.

Do not stand back doing nothing , if we careful ethical breeder/ exhibitors are to protect our breeds for the future generations to enjoy then surely we all have an obligation to make a protest and demand the KC take note. Lets be honest here, the KC need our money to survive, its by us doing nothing that allows this foul play to continue.

If this is a sport as most will stat e then lets have some real rules for ALL to abide by, lets start by having a judging committee that assesses every appointment and lets commence appointments from outside breed clubs, its a monopoly of deceit and corruption and this must not be allowed to continue.

Let us also have a fully fledged discipline committee of professional people who ARE qualified to assess all aspects of a hearing, with that comes an effective legal appeals system.

The KC is no longer an old boys network of the 1800′s its a financial company that is still operating by the rules of a bygone age which actually contravenes the rights of everyone of its users. Stand up and be counted, demand KC action NOW, because if we dont, dogs will never see a happy healthy fit for life function or role in society.

Start by requesting the minutes and accounts for the last 5 years of all your breed clubs, ask for the details of why some members have been refused admission or accepted or banned from the club, the m anner in which breeders are chosen to represent the whole club etc, why committee members are chosen, demand everything, if not satisfied call an extraordinary AGM and sack the breed club. It really is that easy if we are all serious about protecting our breeds for the next 100 years.

In Britain, in the year 2010 – people are DYING as a result of attacks from domestic pets. 6 children have died in the past 5 years. And the Government has STILL not had the foresight or inclination to understand that these 6 deaths will NOT be the last unless intelligent, preventative legislation replaces the current, utterly useless, flawed joke of a law we’re lumbered with – the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act.I was going to write  something on Monday appealing to anyone who was thinking of contributing to the DEFRA ‘public consultation’ process to think again.

The RSPCA has confirmed to K9 Magazine that the Government’s public ‘consultation’ actually comes with a rather large caveat – that being, the issue of BSL (breed specific legislation) is OFF the table as a discussion.

The Government wants you to have your say on dangerous dogs laws but it WON’T consider a repeal to the most bitterly complained about element of that law.

The RSPCA told us:

The RSPCA remains firmly opposed to breed specific legislation. The Society believes that dog control legislation should focus on the intentions of the owner rather than solely on the breed or type of dog involved. Any dog can be made dangerous if owned by an irresponsible owner.

As an animal welfare charity dedicated to preventing cruelty we feel strongly that it is completely wrong that types of dog should be persecuted simply on the basis of their appearance. These animals are often victims of cruelty themselves because of their irresponsible owners.

All high level politicians from all the major political parties, along with law enforcement bodies, have however made it clear they will not consider withdrawing the ban on types of dog currently outlawed.

Despite this we will be forwarding proposals to the law makers that would make it easier and quicker to exempt currently banned types if they are suitable, as well as rehome dogs that have been properly behaviourally assessed with suitable owners.

The RSPCA has been working with the police and local authorities to develop proposals that place the focus of legislation on the owner’s intentions. It does currently include an amended breed specific aspect as police and politicians felt public safety must be protected. However the RSPCA has ensured greater welfare considerations are at the core of this and the rest of the proposals.

The Society sees this as a step in right direction, but our opposition to breed specific legislation remains and we will hope these changes will lead to a day when section 1 can be repealed.

It is entirely flawed that the law should focus on the types of dog, rather than irresponsible owners who should always be the target of any dog control legislation.

The new draft Bill the Society has been working on places the focus on the actions and intentions of the owner, rather than the breed or type of dog. It should have a preventative effect much like the Animal Welfare Act which is ultimately what all animal charities want to achieve.

(My emphasis, above)

So, The RSPCA has confirmed what was a pretty open secret; the Government wants to look like it’s listening to public opinion on dangerous dogs laws, but it’s actually made it’s mind up already on one of the biggest, most fundamental flaws of the act.

As the RSPCA cites its opposition to BSL, it is joined by countless other organisations involved in dogs – the Kennel Club, The Dogs Trust, The BVA, The Mayhew Animal Home – I could go on, but don’t feel I need to say any more than this: The Government is PRETENDING to consult. In reality, it’s clearly already got terms and conditions in place, but just hasn’t had the courtesy or integrity to let people know.

I believe in consultation as a means to resolve problems and I believe we need new dangerous dog laws. But if I walked in to a meeting to discuss the issue and was immediately told “Sorry, we can discuss the DDA but BSL is not on the agenda”, I’d turn around walk away. Such a process lacks honesty and integrity if you happen to believe that BSL is one of the biggest problems within the law that’s being ‘consulted’ on.

We’d have nothing to consult over if one side isn’t prepared to listen to the collective voices of animal welfare and other canine organisations. Why, we must ask, do the Government think they know best with regard to dangerous dogs laws, in the face of overwhelming opposition to section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act from the organisations who work with dogs and dog owners day in day out? Why does the Government pretend to be ‘consulting’ when it hasn’t actually told people the real deal on the terms of that consultation? Does the Government think the police know more about this issue? With respect, or without – I’m not really fussed – but what do the police know about dogs? They know about crime, criminals and the law – they’re not animal behaviour experts.

So, if you were thinking of consulting with DEFRA, and BSL was one of your key points of opposition, you’re wasting your time it would seem. I’d suggest the process is a sham and I for one will have absolutely no part of it and will publicly question its legitimacy and findings, given what we now know thanks to the RSPCA.

And what we DO know should ALWAYS be a basis for what we do, rather than taking action based on what we THINK we know.

Here’s why.

What we *think* we know is that there are certain ‘types’ of dog owners who have certain *types* of dogs that are the source of the UK’s dangerous dogs problem.

Hoodies? Status dogs? Weapon dogs? Street gangs? Drug dealers?

Well, that’s what some – ill informed, misguided types – *think* we know. Are they a problem? Absolutely. But we can categorise them a lot easier if we just accept this – a bad dog owner is a bad dog owner not because of who they are, what they look like or what they do for a living, but because of how they treat, train and use their dogs. Nothing else.

If a dog is trained to protect a drug dealer, he’s a guard dog. So if all dogs that have been encouraged to guard their owners/families are now to be categorised as ‘weapon’ dogs then we have a lot of weapon dogs in the UK.

Here’s an idea. If someone is a drug dealer, they’re a criminal. Get them off the streets. If someone is out terrorising members of the public or fellow criminals with a ‘weapon’ dog, here’s an idea – they’re ALREADY breaking the law. Get them off the streets.

So, what DO we know?

Take a look:

Cadey-Lee Deacon: Killed at her grandparent’s home by two dogs (Rottweilers) when the dog’s owner was not present. The death took place at the home where the dog’s lived. The family home.

Ellie Lawrenson: Killed at her grandmother’s home while under the supervision of her grandmother. The dog’s (Pit Bull) owner was not present at the time of the attack. The attack took place at the place where the dog lived. The family home.

Archie-Lee Hirst: Killed at his grandparent’s home while under the supervision of someone who was not the dog’s (Rottweiler) owner. The attack took place at the dog’s home, the family home, in the yard outside but the dog’s owner was not present at the time of the fatal attack.

Jaden Mack: Killed at his grandmother’s home whilst his grandmother (the dog’s owner) fell asleep, giving the dogs (Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Jack Russell Terrier) unrestricted access to the child who himself had been left on a table. The fatal attack took place at the dog’s (family) home whilst, in the same building, the dog’s owner was not physically present at the time of the attack (as she was sleeping).

John Paul Massey was killed by his uncle’s dog (Pit Bull) whilst in the care of his grandmother. The attack took place at the family home, the place where the dog lived. The dog’s owner was not present at the time of the attack.

Yesterday, an 18-month old girl lost her life to a dog (thought at time of writing to be an American Bulldog) that belonged to her Uncle. The dog’s owner was not present at the time of the attack which took place in the family home where the dog lived.

Breeds involved:

Rottweiler (x2 in Cadey Lee Deacon’s case, 1 in Archie Lee Hirst)

Pit Bull – Ellie Lawrenson / John Paul Massey

Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Jack Russell Terrier – Jaden Mack

American Bulldog (yesterday, as yet not confirmed)

So, 6 fatal dog attacks and 6 remarkably similar circumstances – attacks ALL happened at the location where the dog lived (dog’s family home) and in ALL cases the owner of the dog was NOT present at the time of the attack taking place.

These are the facts.

It’s not ‘status dogs’ or ‘hoodies’ or any one particular breed of dog that is responsible for killing people. It’s a lack of awareness about how dogs behave, think and react in particular circumstances. Family dogs in family homes are responsible for these 6 fatal dog attacks.

I’ll briefly touch on something from personal experience.

I have two dogs. One of those dogs gets very stressed (and I use the word advisedly) when either myself or my wife leaves the house, even for a short time. If we both leave, she settles down quickly and understands the routine involved, but if ONE of us leaves, she gets agitated, runs from room to room, stares out of the windows, paws at the doors and gets herself in to a generally unhappy state. No amount of consoling or attempts to distract her will do the trick until the family is all back together as one unit. Interestingly, my other dog does not do this. She is calm and balanced and doesn’t seem to care when people come and go, whether it’s me or my wife.

All dogs have their own individual personalities.

Forget breed traits for a moment (and please don’t think for a second that I am ignoring the importance of genetics and breeding in what makes a particular dog tick) and think about this: regardless of who the dog’s parents and grandparents happen to be, their individual personality is shaped by a hugely diverse spectrum of other, environmental factors.

My Labrador and my Rottweiler have been given very, very (almost identical) upbringings – yet one of my dogs gets incredibly agitated when either myself or my wife leaves the home and the other doesn’t care. One of my dogs is particularly fond of meeting children, one is indifferent to them. One of my dogs welcomes people who visit my home wearing a uniform with a wagging tail, the other wants to send them packing.

If you were to ask me whether I thought it’d be OK for me (or my wife) to go out and leave my dogs in the care of someone who wasn’t their owner whilst children would be present, I’d say no. Conclusively no. No. No. Not happening. No.

I’m NOT being wise after the event. I’m not being a smart Alec.

Do I ‘trust’ my dogs?

No! Of course I don’t. They’re dogs. I especially don’t ‘trust’ my dogs if I’m not even there. Placing trust in one’s dog to not eat a sausage during a training exercise is fine. Trusting a dog to behave EXACTLY how you think it’ll behave when you’re not there, isn’t. There’s no real upside to such a bet. The upside, if there is one, is; nothing bad happens. The potential downside…doesn’t bear thinking about.

Think about this; have you ever been to someone’s home where there’s a dog and the dog’s owner is not there? The person who feeds the dog, trains the dog, can CONTROL the dog is away and the dog’s been left with someone who, whilst they may know the dog, doesn’t real have the same connection with it as the owner? I have. And it can be quite an interesting experience. A dog that spends a few hours ‘acting up’ or being naughty/aggressive/unruly/unpleasant to be around suddenly turns in to soppy, obedient puppy the minute they’re reunited with their master.

I’ll relate a true story about the most dangerous dog I’ve ever encountered.

My (now) wife worked at a quarantine kennels for a while. I worked at kennels in the next county as a dog trainer. We were both experienced working in kennels and, as anyone who’s worked in kennels will know, you get to see ALL elements of canine behaviour. Dogs are placed in a different setting and their owners removed from the environment and it’s then that you get to see which dogs are happy to be without their owners but perhaps get upset at being in a strange, funny smelling, noisy environment.

You get to see which dogs just pine and pine for their missing friends. You get to see which dogs have been well trained and, despite not being happy, will still comply with commands even from a stranger. You get to see which dogs are perfectly friendly but have clearly never been taught a basic command in their lives. You get to see which dogs absolutely LOVE being in such a dog-filled environment and don’t seem to give two hoots about their owners not being there. You get to see other people’s dogs behaving in all manners of ways.

In all of this, I can safely say the type of BREED happens to be utterly, utterly irrelevant in relation to how the dog reacts to this environment. No two Dobermans act the same, no two German Shepherds react the same way and you’ll find you’re just as likely to get a bite from a Labrador or a Border Collie as you are from a Rottweiler or a Bull breed.

The most dangerous dog I EVER encountered was, as it happens, a Border Collie.

My (now) wife called me to let me know that a dog had come in the quarantine kennels but he was actually a boarder rather than a quarantined dog.

She told me the dog was launching itself at kennel staff from his kennel and that nobody had been able to get close to entering his kennel. (Bear in mind, these are experienced kennel staff, used to working with many different dogs in a quarantine environment).

I was asked whether I could come over and take a look at the dog and see if I could get in to his kennel and calm him down and get him to be a bit happier and a little less bitey.

A Border Collie? I thought. How bad can it be?

Jumping at the chance to act the hero, I drove over and went to see the dog.

Firstly, this was the largest Border Collie I’ve ever seen. He was (intact male) easily bigger than the Rottweiler I currently own. He was big and he was very, very (VERY) hostile.

Just walking up to his kennel, he flung himself to the front, made himself big and gave a display that could not be mistaken for anything other than extreme territorial aggression.

He was in a confined space and he wanted everyone to know that, if you entered it, he’d be willing to bite. Not just nip and retreat, bite, bite and bite some more. To say he meant business would be an understatement.

I spent a lot of time trying all manner of approaches. I tried the friendly approach. The food through the kennel approach. The pick a ball up and see if that interested him approach. The submissive approach. The assertive approach. The downright hostile approach. I tried everything I knew – and I have worked with a number of rehabilitation case dogs who were very aggressive – but absolutely nothing worked. This was a dog that would not be subdued, at all.

I admitted I couldn’t really help in terms of getting close with the dog and advised that, for the duration of his short stay at the kennels, the staff would be best advised to use the built in, sliding kennel partition so as to ensure the dog was never allowed to come in to contact with a person.

I’ve worked with more than 2,000 dogs and would like to think I have a reasonably fair ability at calling a dog’s personality. I’ll confidently go on record and say that I believe this dog had the capacity to kill. He REALLY meant business.

But here’s where the story reaches its point.

When that dog’s owner came to collect him, he turned in to the soppiest, most playful, friendly dog you could ever wish to meet. He just melted. His tail wagged, his ears set back, his hostile “I’ll kill you if you so much as come within an inch of my kennel” personality just dissolved. As fast as that. The SECOND his owner came for him, he changed.

Was he a dangerous dog?

Well, I think I already called that. He WAS the most dangerous dog I ever met. Ever. UNTIL his owner turned up, whereupon he instantly became a different dog. His personality changed like the flick of a switch.

Did he have the capacity to attack and seriously injure (possibly kill) someone? I have absolutely NO doubt that he did. But again, there’s a caveat – he became a snarling, hostile dog when his owner was not there and he found himself confronted by people he didn’t know. WHEN his owner was there, he’d lie on his back to have his belly tickled by all. What a nice dog, you’d think. But a more accurate way of putting it would be; what a nice, friendly dog (when his owner’s around), what a completely unhinged, dangerous creature (when his owner wasn’t about).

We’ve lost 6 children in under 5 years to dog attack in the UK. We must all agree, that’s 6 too many.

In ALL cases, circumstance was far, far more pertinent than the ‘type’ of owner or even the ‘type’ of dog.

What is missing is education and awareness. A distinct lack of understanding as to the risks associated with unattended dogs, children and an owner not present.

Whilst we have constant debates about so-called ‘status dogs’ and trying to define a breed as being dangerous based entirely on what that breed happens to look like or who its parents were, we can – tragically – expect more of the same. More deaths, more ignorance – and that’s ignorance condoned by the Government.

As a nation, we must surely accept that we would ALL be better off if dog owners were more dog aware.

Not *some* owners. Not certain *types* of owners or owners of certain *types* of dogs, all dog owners. If all dog owners knew more about dogs and what makes dogs dogs, we’d benefit. All of us. Dog owner or not.

What we have here is a people problem, not a dog problem. People who are not fully aware of how dogs brains work.

Dogs CAN grow up with children and be an exceptionally positive influence on youngsters, but a simple lack of awareness about what circumstances can lead to tragedies as a result of dogs doing what dogs are capable of doing is what’s costing youngsters their very existence on this planet and it is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Our current law doesn’t work.

The question is, will the Government be intelligent enough to recognise that fiddling around the edges of a bad law will not provide the answers we need? That focussing on ‘types’ of owners or dogs won’t prevent deaths? Or that the problem of ‘killer’ dogs is by no means confined to the mean streets of the UK, but – in fact – is most likely to manifest itself in a family home with a family dog, being cared for by grandma whilst the dog owner happens to be somewhere else.

This isn’t what we *think* might be true. This is what we KNOW to be true.

It’s time for the Government to come clean on the DEFRA consultation and acknowledge what the RSPCA have confirmed; that they’ve already made their mind up regarding key aspects of dangerous dogs legislation.

No breed bans.
No BSL.
No BS!

Education is the answer.