Firstly the banning of certain dog breeds does not help to overcome the issue of increasing dog attacks. A recent independent report by veterinary expert Dr. Kersti Sekel commissioned by the Victorian Government claims that banning specific breeds of dogs has failed in other countries such as US, UK, Canada or Germany and found that the number of dog a

Secondly, breed alone cannot determine if a dog is ‘dangerous’ as there are many other contributing factors. In the above-mentioned report, Dr Sekel also found that breed alone was a poor indicator of whether or not a dog was going to be aggressive towards a human. Although some breeds of dogs are more likely to be involved in violent attacks than others there is no guarantee that dogs considered less dangerous will never be provoked to anger. Therefore, to outlaw breeds according to their alleged risk is discriminatory because it makes no consideration of the fact that all dog breeds may attack under onerous circumstances. It makes more sense to consider dogs individually rather than to condemn all of a breed as genetic offenders.

Victims of dog attacks may argue that specific breeds are more inclined to be violent than other breeds and, therefore, should have strict regulations imposed to control their freedom and opportunities to attack. Although this is a convenient line of argument it is insubstantial because of its failure to consider the motivation for dog attacks. All dogs require some provocation before they will react violently. No dog strikes another living being just for the enjoyment. There is a serious reason for any attack, whether it is someone crossing its ‘boundary’, being provoked or even for self-defence. If common sense prevailed in our society, it would seem fair to presume that a dog will only attack if stirred. Consequently, the cause rather than the result needs to be addressed.

The issue about whether dangerous dog breeds should be banned is one that emerges quite frequently in the media after a particularly severe attack or after a series of smaller ones occur. Despite this, the complexity of the issue is well demonstrated by the inability of policy makers to devise an appropriate and effective response. While indecision remains about effective criteria against which to judge the character of a dog and, indeed, what constitutes ‘dangerous’, it will remain difficult to solve the problem. Furthermore, because a combination of factors contributes to the dog attacks including the quality of ownership, the environment of its upbringing and the provocation for the attack, it is unfair to dismiss a dog on simplistic criteria as undesirable. The lesson learnt from other countries’ experiences should be considered before the enforcement of regulations on Australian life. Instead, a more practical approch would be withdrawing the privilege of pet ownership from irresponsible owners or even imposing more hefty fines. Before targeting the problem we must consider the cause of these attacks. As a conscious soci

Some topics in this essay:
Harry Woods, Dr Sekel, Johnston Victoria, Canada Germany, , Australia Secondly, Victorian Government, dog attacks, dog breeds, breeds dogs, dangerous dog, dangerous dog breeds, Kersti Sekel, privilege pet ownership, breeds dogs banned, increasing dog, victims dog, privilege pet, increasing dog attacks, irresponsible owners, dogs banned, dog breeds banned, pet ownership, Federal Minister, Minister Harry,