 |
Campaigners against the DDA define it as breed-specific legislation
(BSL), and summarise their main objection to it in those terms.
The campaign is world-wide, and is already well under way
in the USA, where a group of vets have lent their support
to it by way of a paper summarising the breeds of dog involved
in fatal human attacks over a period of 20 years. They identify
the Pit Bull type as the most prominent, being responsible
for 66 fatalities, followed by the Rottweiler at 39. The German
Shepherd Dog at 17 comes third. They point out that fatalities
represent only a small proportion of dog bite injuries to
humans, and argue that they should not be the primary factor
in determining public policy concerning dangerous dogs. They
touch on some of the difficulties in administering ordinances
related to breed, but avoid relating the fatalities data to
the size of the various breed populations. Surprisingly for
veterinarians, they do not give even approximate estimates
—the reader is left to infer that this omission is an
inhibition to making laws that are breed-specific.
The anti-DDA campaigners also assert that there is a multitude
of factors determining the number of attacks by a particular
breed of dog. They would argue that a properly trained and
kept Rottweiler is no more likely to bite than is a Corgi;
but the fact is that a bite from the former is likely to be
much more severe. The more horrendous reports feature Rottweilers
and certain other breeds time and time again. It is a fanciful
idea that all dogs strong enough to slip their constraints
and with strong jaws and big teeth will only be owned by people
who will ensure that 'accidents' never happen. All the while
there are dangerous dogs, then people will be bitten. Some
enthusiasts take the view that being bitten by a dog is some
kind of natural hazard —one of the risks of living in society.
But the presence of dogs in human society is not a natural
phenomenon, any more than are the differences between breeds.
|
