Dangerous Dogs

Some days it seems as though dangerous dogs are never out of the media. We're bombarded with dramatic images and emotive stories of how vicious dogs have attacked and injured or killed an innocent individual that is often a child. Of course any normal human being with any kind of feelings at all cannot help but be moved by the story of a young child killed by a savage dog. The media often portrays these attacks as being due to the breed of the animal and for this reason the concept of dangerous dog breeds has been born.

Is this portrayal of the reasons behind these attacks accurate?

Humans are quite remarkable in the animal kingdom because we have an opposable thumb and the ability to manipulate objects with ease. This ability is let us to create a wide variety of tools and objects that have become a part of our everyday life. Dogs do not possess an opposable thumb and because of this they have to find other ways to manipulate objects in their environment. One of the ways in which they achieve this is by holding onto objects with their teeth.

Anyone who has ever spent any time around puppies will know that puppies have poor control over their bite strength. The process by which a dog learns to inhibit the frequency and power behind its bite is called bite inhibition. Usually puppies learn to not use their teeth, or to use them very gently, from other dogs and most particularly from their mother. It is for this reason that it is a bad idea to remove puppies from their mother when they are still very young -- they fail to learn the necessary skills to help them avoid trouble both in canine and human society.

Once a dog has learned bite inhibition properly, it will be extremely unlikely to bite and cause an injury unless it is placed in a situation where it feels its life is under threat.

While it is highly socially desirable to have a fully bite inhibited dog, unfortunately many irresponsible owners today desire exactly the opposite.

Many foolish dog owners today train their animals in a manner designed to increase their aggression and urge to bite.  Sometimes this is done innocently by persons lacking in understanding of how a dog learns, but frequently this kind of dog training is conducted for macho reasons.  Dogs trained in this manner are often subjected to a daily schedule of physical abuse and starvation in order to increase their aggression.  Aside from the obvious animal welfare issues here, this process often results in a psychologically unstable dog that is likely to behave in an unpredictable fashion.  When a dog like this is brought into a family environment and left unsupervised it is an accident waiting to happen, but is this the fault of the animal?

Irresponsible dog owners that think that a dog having "a hair trigger" is a desirable trait are often drawn to breeds that are large and muscular.  Most recently the dogs in the press are usually pitbulls but in reality any large powerful dog will be sought out by these kinds of insecure thugs.  The problem here is not the breed of the dog, or even its physical size and capabilities, but rather the irresponsible and antisocial attitudes present in its owner.

All dogs can bite.  I will not insult anyone's intelligence and say otherwise. 

It is common sense that a large dog with big teeth will give you a more severe bite than a small dog with a smaller mouth.  Although I say this is common sense, it is an idea that is clearly escaped many who call for a ban on so-called dangerous breeds. 

It is an open secret, known to many dog behaviourist's and other canine professionals that the propensity of a dog to bite is not dictated solely by its breed.  The simple reason why so many pitbulls make the news is that they are a large breed dog and so when they bite it is often a serious matter.  Add to this fact that the breed often attracts irresponsible owners and you see quite quickly the real reason why they are often in the press.  If the same irresponsible owners kept Jack Russell's, Pekinese or any other small breed dog no doubt there would be a press campaign to ban these obviously "dangerous dogs."  Small breed dogs bite often, but as these bites seldom require medical attention they are under reported. 

At the time of writing this article pitbull dogs are at the top of the media agenda and various people are attempting to scapegoat them rather than deal with the real problem, which is of course the irresponsible owner at the other end of the lead.  Banning pitbulls makes little sense, as all that will happen if a ban is ever fully successful is that the thugs who desire a vicious dog will merely move onto another breed, or cross breed existing dogs to create a large dog that can give a more severe bite. 

Are we really going to ban all large breed dogs?  Surely it would be more appropriate to deal with the irresponsible dog owners who allow, or encourage, these attacks to occur in the first place?