Dog owners should paws for thought

[Crossfire Bulldogs]

By Helen Martin - The Scotsman - UK

After a series of incidents in the UK in which babies and children have been mauled by dogs, it's hardly surprising there are now calls for a review of legislation, particularly as if affects so called "dangerous dogs".

The image of slavering Rottweilers tearing a baby apart is guaranteed to horrify even the most ardent animal lover.

I am as shocked as anyone when I see gruesome pictures of little children scarred for life. And though I have always adhered to the theory that most animals are nicer than most humans, even I have to admit that sometimes the only reasonable action is that truly dangerous dogs have to be put down.

Such cases are mercifully rare, but they do serve to highlight the whole issue of dog ownership. And there can't be much doubt that for all but the rarest of cases, the owners are the problem, not the dogs.

We are all familiar with the concept of the tattooed thug bolstering his toughness by dragging a poor pit bull round on a lead. And we can all shake our heads at people who, with no justification, feel they need guard dogs which they intentionally train to be as aggressive as possible.

But what of the domestic pet? Can we all put hand on heart and say we're responsible and above reproach?

First in the dock for me are parents who take on a dog because "it'll be good for the kids to play with".

Dogs are not toys. They are sentient beings with sharp teeth and limited patience.

For every family who realises having a pet can teach children respect, responsibility and commitment, there is another who thinks children are incapable of improving their behaviour yet expects the poor dog to behave impeccably in the face of provocation.

Children who shriek around animals without warning, who pull tails, who insist on dragging a dog round under the forepaws as if it was a teddy bear, who tease it with food and otherwise harass it are simply not ready for a pet. Neither are their parents. A warning nip is the least a pestering kid can expect.

Next up are the breed selectors, those who think dogs come with mechanical specifications like a new car and that choosing a Labrador, for example, guarantees a good temperament.

Selecting a breed for its behaviour is like recruiting police by their height alone. It's a vague hint at suitability but nothing more. What counts is training, particularly in the first year.

And finally we have the legislation, or lack of it, on dog ownership. Rottweilers are big dogs with big brains.

They need talented, intelligent owners because merely being on guard and sitting or lying down on command isn't enough stimulation.

They go stir crazy, just as any human would under the same circumstances.

Yet we allow anyone who wants a yard guard dog to buy such a breed, often with disastrous results that say more about human stupidity than the inherent violence of the animal.

The dog licence was abolished in 1987.

High time it came back with a meaningful price tag in the hundreds (with exceptions for concessions) but let's get it right this time and make sure it is the owner we are vetting and licensing, not the dog.