Dramatic Rise in ‘Dangerous’ Dog Seizures: Just When Are We Going To Learn?




April 13, 2009 by Ryan O'Meara
Today we learn from a national newspaper that there has been an
astonishing rise in the number of dogs seized under the Dangerous Dogs
Act. The slant is - as usual - focused on so-called ‘yob
dogs’ or more to the point yobs with dogs, or yobs with yob dogs,
whichever way you want to look at it. But we’re barking up the
wrong tree AGAIN! It is NOT yobs with dogs or even yob dogs who are
killing people. It’s time to get real.
From today’s Sun newspaper:

DOG attacks have soared to record levels after criminal gangs began using fighting breeds to scare off rivals.
Hospital consultants treated 4,699 people mauled by dogs last year, up 50 per cent since 1999.
The rise comes despite the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act, which bans breeds including pit bulls and Japanese tosas.
Police in London seized 608 dogs last year, up from just 40 in 2006.
Experts believe part of the rise in the figures is due to gangs using fighting dogs as “weapons”.
Full story.

Right, so 40 seizures in 2006 to 608 in 08. Are we seriously
expected to believe that this is due to a sudden and dramatic rise in
the number of dangerous dogs in Britain? Did all the evil puppies
suddenly reach maturity in 2008? Did the yob generation suddenly decide
around 2007/2008 that NOW was the time to invest in a hooligan dog?
Such a rise is staggering. Not a 3-fold increase, not even a 10-fold
increase, from 40 seizures to 608 - and yet, even with such a massive
crackdown in full effect, the police weren’t able to prevent ANOTHER death by dog attack in February of THIS year. Why not?
Are we really expected to believe that since 06 up until now we have
seen a dramatic rise in dog problems or is it more likely the police
have been given instructions, following the high profile deaths by dog
attack of Cadey-Lee Deacon, Archie-Lee Hirst and Ellie Lawrenson, to
‘make the seizure figures go up’ by way of a dangerous dog
‘crackdown’?. And yet despite these massive rises in
seizures, Jaden Mack was killed by a family dog in February of this
year.
Let’s take a look at some cold, hard, tragic facts:
Ellie Lawrenson: Killed at her grandmother’s home while under
the supervision of someone who was not the dog’s owner.
Cadey-Lee Deacon: Killed at her grandparent’s home while under
the supervision of someone who was not the dog’s owner.
Archie-Lee Hirst: Killed at his grandparent’s home while under
the supervision of someone who was not the dog’s owner.
Jaden Mack: Killed at his grandparent’s home while left to sleep on a table by a grandmother who fell asleep.
4 human deaths by dog attack, THE most serious type of dog attack,
where is the ‘yob’ element please? How are the increased
seizures going to affect this trend - and my word, it IS a trend?
No matter how easy it may be to point to the yobs or point to the
so-called yob dogs, it is NOT these dogs who are killing people. It is
FAMILY dogs under the care of people who simply haven’t factored
in the risks and dangers that dogs can present.
The UK has singularly failed to make ANY inroads in reducing dog
attacks or death by dogs. Since Lord Baker’s pathetically
misjudged 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced, dog attacks have
risen and - as we’ve seen - deaths by dog attack have not been
stemmed. So now we move on to a new system of profiling, ignoring as
usual the actual reality of which ‘type’ of dog owner is
presenting the biggest risk. We can profile the hoodies, the
‘yobs’, the ‘yob-dogs’ until the cows come home
but it won’t work. It won’t have an effect. We ought to be
able to learn our lessons but we steadfastly refuse to do so and as a
result, mark my words on this, more people will die as a result of
attack by dogs, most likely family dogs.How and why are people just letting this happen?
Your police and your government is failing you. Not only that,
it’s doing it repeatedly. It hasn’t understood yet where
the problems lie with regard to dog attacks. It’s not with
certain breeds, it’s not even with certain people, it’s
with DOG OWNERS of ALL profiles. So whilst it may be uncomfortable to
look at Grandma or Grandpa and suggest that THEY pose a greater risk of
being the owner of a dog which might kill, the facts tend to suggest
that this is indeed the case.
We don’t need a ‘crackdown’. Since when did that
ever have an effect? Think about it, if you confiscate my dog today
because I’m a ‘yob’ with a ‘yob-dog’ then
I’ll have another dog in my hands by this evening - and what
happens to my original dog? Someone, somewhere will be responsible for
killing it. If I’m behaving in a threatening manner, then
prosecute me by all means - but don’t for a single second assume
you are protecting the public from dog attack with this juvenile level
of mindless profiling, because the weight of history says that you are
not.
If we truly want a change, we need to make a change - NOT carry on
doing the same things over and over again and expecting results to be
different.
A national level of compulsory dog owner education. A system of
regulating the supply of dogs. A system which IMPLORES EVERY dog owner
to a minimum level of understanding about their responsibilities to
their dog and to society. That proposal does exist - www.dogownershiptest.co.uk -

hmmmmm again