# It's about irresponsible owners, not 'dangerous' dogs



## testmg80 (Jul 28, 2008)

Instead of demonising dogs, we should have a debate on licensing and training them, say Chris Flood and Liz Whimperley-Dixon

Chris Flood and Liz Whimperley-Dixon The Guardian, Friday October 3 2008 
Article history

As owners of four well-behaved, socialised dogs, we were disappointed by Andy Beckett's negative portrayal of mastiffs and staffordshire bull terriers, and his numerous references to the Dangerous Dogs Act (The wolf at the door, September 27). The implication here, that certain breeds are automatically "dangerous", smacks of scaremongering.

"As the number of rough-looking mutts on Britain's streets has risen, so has their involvement in crime. Has man's best friend become more weapon than pet?" the headline asks. We are the first to agree that there is a small proportion of owners who fall short of their dog ownership responsibilities, but in places the article is too simplistic.

Beckett observes: "A woman in her 30s talks on her mobile phone while her lean mastiff cross, off the lead, gallops back and forth. In another play area, another youngish woman stands smoking, a heavy black staffordshire beside her, also off the lead." Both these examples imply that a "good" dog owner simply keeps their dog on the lead. In reality a responsible dog owner ensures they have control of their dog at all times - on the lead or otherwise. An ill-disciplined dog on a lead can still be a liability.

Beckett refers to "other breeds with bodybuilders' necks and jaws like wheel clamps - French mastiffs, Japanese fighting dogs, South American hunting dogs". Mentioning French mastiffs in the same sentence as the latter two breeds - which are banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act - implies that they are also illegal, when in fact the mastiffs are not.

He cites banned breeds again - "obscure Japanese and South American breeds" (presumably the latter being the banned Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro) - and then argues that "there are almost certainly far more of them than in the early 90s". Is Beckett really asserting that these particular banned breeds are readily available on the streets of Britain? Where is the evidence for this claim?

However, we do agree that there are pit-bull-type dogs in ownership in the UK. Often these are described by their owners as "staffy crosses". Here in south-east London this is not unusual. In fact sometimes these are even nice dogs with decent owners. We suspect that the authorities are often not sufficiently knowledgable to act in these cases and do not have the necessary resources to investigate. Possibly the more important thing here would be ascertaining whether the owner was being responsible or not.

A discussion on ways of tackling the problems caused by dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners would have been refreshing. Beckett cites Wandsworth council's proposal to microchip dogs on its estates. But why not have a national debate on the merits of a law requiring all pet dogs to be licensed, microchipped, neutered and adequately trained?

Why not have a written test that owners would have to pass, similar to the driving theory test? Or a system where only registered breeders could apply for a licence to breed dogs, thus reducing the number of unwanted dogs and unethical breeders? These are only ideas, of course, but we need to have a debate if we really want to tackle the problems.

 Chris Flood and Liz Whimperley-Dixon are responsible owners of neutered, microchipped, vaccinated, trained, family-friendly and socialised mastiffs and staffordshire bull terriers
[email protected]

Response: It's about irresponsible owners, not 'dangerous' dogs | Comment is free | The Guardian


----------

