Opinion: Public safety is paramount regardless of your cuddly dog

Dogging my freedom to walk

I used to enjoy waking up early before the madding crowd got up to do my walking exercise, during which time I had two hours to myself, did about 15,000 steps and went through two public parks in Salford with the occasional encounter with people I had made an acquaintance with over time.

I stopped just over a year ago for one simple reason, the fear of dogs. Dogs that are momentarily out of control or out of earshot of their owners suddenly run at me because they are not on a leash and for whatever animal instinct they have, decide to attack me.

I had had so many encounters that I even bought an ultrasonic dog repellent device with the hope that the unpleasantness would cause the dog to run from me, but there was no guarantee it would work when you needed it to.

The law on dogs in public

Against this backdrop was the inconsiderate dog owner who would first be oblivious to the law and then project a sense of entitled freedom for their dog. The law requires that dogs in public places such as parks and footpaths should always be on a leash. It is also the responsibility of the dog owner to ensure that the public does not feel threatened by their dog. [GOV.UK: Controlling your dog in public] [BlueCross: Dog laws UK]

One morning as I was walking through the park, the dog walking with its owner bolted towards me and jumped on my leg up to my thigh, if I did not have track bottoms on, I would have had scratches on my leg. The encounter was terrifying for the simple reason, I did not know the dog. The owner however thought I had overreacted to her gentle cuddly puppy just being friendly to strangers, I did not get as much as an apology.

A few other times, I encountered the same dog and as it ran at me, I shouted to the owner to call their dog to order. I began to change the times when I walked through the park, bought the dog repellent device, and eventually concluded, that it was just too much hassle for me, the relaxation I was getting from walking was becoming a stressful and foreboding experience that every dog I saw now looked like a threat to my safety.

Your loving dog, is a public threat

Much as I appreciate the dog owner’s perspective, it selfishly does not consider that the familiarity the dog has with its owner is not automatically transferred to strangers. To turn it around, it is like a stranger jumping out of the bush to pounce on someone unawares, you do not welcome that violation and fright by patting the stranger on the head and giving them a kiss, even if that stranger comes from a family and environment where they are loved, respected, and cherished. A stranger is a stranger whenever you get familiar with the person.

The same would apply to dogs, no assumption should be made of a dog being friendly to strangers in public when they are loving and cuddly at home. That is where the debate should be. For as long as the dogs are in their homes, the public is safe, but when the dogs are brought into a public space, they should be under control and instruction, they should not be menacing, and people should generally not feel terrified of your dog.

Human rights trump animal rights

My freedom to roam and walk at the time of my choosing was trammelled because of an irresponsible dog owner with a sweet dog that was recklessly out-of-control in a public park. Sadly, this is the case in the current issue about the attacks by the American XL Bully dogs reported in the news with many injured needing hospital care and one fatality, in the space of one week.

The counter-advocacy is against the banning of dogs, but if a dog can weigh as much as an average-sized being and is not strictly under control in public places, unfortunate dog attacks can be lethal and life-changing, what is the mitigation for the dog or the dog owner?

In my case, it was not any of the dogs on the banned list, it did not make the dog any less an animal as opposed to a person I could attempt to reason with, in a confrontation. A dog will always remain an animal whether tamed or wild, and much as I subscribe to animal rights and the treatment of animals with care and consideration, they cannot in the face of the law be equal to human beings in terms of the freedom to express themselves as animals with all the instincts that entails.

Public safety remains preeminent

The core responsibility is with the owner to have good control of their dog; however, the essential point is the public should not be fearful of either the dog being out of control or irresponsible dog owners not understanding the situation of their dog being a possible menacing threat in the public. Public safety is paramount, regardless of what relationship you have with your dog in your home setting.

For that reason, I am in support of banning the American XL Bully breed and any associated breeds that could represent a threat to public safety. In addition to that, any dog owner must know the law about dogs in public spaces, they do not have the same and equal rights as persons and examples of the law must be made of dog owners who have taken the right to walk roughshod on the law that requires, they are responsible owners of animals, including dogs. [Petitions: Make XL Bully a banned dog breed in the Dangerous Dogs Act]

Blog - Rottweilers are NOT pets (December 2007)

Blog - A note on "Rottweilers are NOT pets" (May 2010)

Rottweilers are NOT pets

Note (2nd May 2010): Dog lovers, I appreciate the strength of feeling you all have regarding your dogs, their temperaments and the castigation of breeds. Rottweiler can crudely translate to village rout which spells trouble rather than a sense of comfort and sadety.

Our lawmakers made a law banning those dogs and I am just reflecting the public outcry about dog-owners who train their dogs to be aggressive maulers or have allowed a naturally aggressive streak to arise in them - whilst rottweilers might be cuddly and lovable, you don't hear of anyone training a poodle to be aggressive, it just does not have the look and the fiercesomeness that is required even though there might be accidents.

I am taking no more comments on this blog, if you feel so strongly about your dogs, go and write about them somewhere else, more so, I wonder if some of the commenters really should have those dogs if their comments end up on other blog topics – cool-headedness no matter the outrage about views you have read can help one write an encouraging opinion about rottweilers.

So far, I am sorry to say, a majority of the comments have not persuaded me that the dogs are friendly or the owners are able to manage those dogs with a sense of societal and communal responsibility.

Pet kills child

I am saddened to read again that a child has been mauled to death by what is purportedly a family pet – the dog.

I have seen many a menacing dog, built like a brick house and almost as ugly as the owner who is straining on a lead where it is more or less the dog taking the human for a forced walk.

There have been too many instances of little children being caught in the jaws of dogs that are naturally wild, vicious fighting animals and as the case of Michael Vick in the States shows, these dogs have to be treated badly with menace, cruelty and brutality to take on the nasty fearful reputation we all know of these dogs.

Act to get them all

I remember the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 which came amidst the media frenzy after the mauling to death of a little girl, after that, we have seen pictures of people who have survived attacks and many more children mauled.

There were four breeds identified in the Act the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro. I have seen the pit bull terrier too many times in public, un-muzzled and ready to pounce – there are times I have thought sighting one was an emergency enough to alert the police.

There is many ways in which I feel this law has not been properly enforced and where it has, the penalties for infringement are not strict enough.

Many countries have banned the breeding of this dog, but one clear breed that should have had specific mention is the rottweiler, it was noted as the number two breed responsible for human fatalities between 1979 and 1998.

They are NOT pets

A pet rottweiler is responsible for the recent tragedy where a one-year old has met so horrific a death due to the irresponsible actions of family and relations.

Why anyone would want to keep such dogs amazes me and no doubt many are caught in the hubris that their dog is so well trained that it should pose no danger to children. The fact is, these dogs are wild and vicious, they are animals regardless of time they have spent in the company of human-beings.

One can say that the breed of dog is not the problem because naturally such dogs should not be domesticated; they have their roles in policing and maybe as guard dogs but not as cuddly pets.

Bringing such dogs into the close confines of a family setting sets off a lot of unintended situations and since the size of a child is hardly bigger than that of a dog, a shake around like a rag-doll is likely and once it has tasted blood you cannot be prepared for the worst that would definitely happen.

Literally a year ago, a bigger girl of five as mauled to death by her uncle’s rottweiler, she was in the care of her grandmother and though the case went to court the greater sentence would have been living with the fact that she was responsible for the horrific death of her grand-daughter.

Keep the dogs out of homes

But, we should not have to be regaled with such terrible tales of loss of life or mangled limbs – these dogs have no place in our communities as pets, like I said, they have their functions but they should be controlled just like arms.

They should be handled only by professionals in a service industry and taken completely out of homes – we cannot predict if any of these dogs would stay tame or go wild and there is no reason to run the risk of finding out and learning to great horror.