Strangely twisted logic in
choice of banned breeds

It began like a whisper and gathered strength as it visited the fearful, the belligerent, the busybodies, those in power and those who would do anything to keep power ... it was a hint that restricting `dangerous' dogs would be worth votes. And then came the inevitable question - which dogs are dangerous?

For most of us the answer to that question is `any dog that has been trained to be dangerous, or has been neglected or badly treated and has become dangerous out of necessity'.

But many government and local-body authorities in a number of countries decided that to appease the more vocal of their constituents and to appear to be taking a strong stand (and therefore worth votes), they should ban dog breeds that were traditionally accepted as `dangerous'.

That conclusion was reached because it would be too hard to prosecute those who actually did own dangerous dogs or had been guilty of neglect or cruelty ... too costly ... too hard to prove ... and too often the dog would be killed and the negligent owner would immediately get another dog!

Britain began in the early 1990s with restrictions on certain breeds, and New Zealand has recently put restrictions on pit bull terrier breeds (without much guidance as to what a pit bull terrier really is; whether crossbreeds, second, third or fourth crosses are included; or even how to prove a particular dog was or was not of a restricted breed) but federal Germany, true to form, banned all the bull terrier types and their crosses in every state. It was warned by the Economic Community commissioner that such a law may infringe on Community law as it would prevent the free movement of dogs within the Community. But the ban was put in place. And States were invited to join the game and add breeds as they saw fit. Even more Draconian was a ruling that anyone's home could be entered without any permission from any court and samples of skin, blood and fur taken if the dog in residence is suspected of having bull terrier connections, or authorities can seize the dog if the `bone has been pointed its way'.

Two regional states, Schleswig-Holstein and Niedersachsenlater, took advantage of the invitation and added some `fighting breeds' of their own to the list. However, they were taken to court by a group of breeders and the court ruling was that the states' lists of banned breeds are illegal. In layman's terms they said that no dog is born dangerous, it is only conditions and owners that make them dangerous.

However, the rest of the laws that are not breed-specific such as control and monitoring of temperament etc have stayed in place.

One part of the judgement stated that the states' claim that "size, muscle power and weight had been taken into consideration when imposing the bans" was obviously untrue, or the list would have included the German Shepherd, the German Dogue, the Rottweiler and Boxer.

And this is where the bans begin to be revealed for what they are. German Shepherds have attacked or bitten more people in Germany than any other breed! But they are left off the list because of being Germany's national breed and banning them would almost certainly create an outcry.

And I may be corrected on this but I am sure that I have read that the German Shepherd has the worst record in USA, as well as in New Zealand, for attacks. And in June there was another report of a fatal attack - an 11-year-old boy was killed in Slovakia by two Czechoslovakian Shepherds. So Slovakia also brought in a hastily drawn-up dangerous breeds law, but ... you guessed it ... the Czechoslovakian Shepherd is NOT on the list!

Pardon me if I seem to be rather cynical here, but it does seem to me that the German Shepherd and many similar dogs that have a similar right to be on the so-called dangerous dogs list are not there because they are popular, they are plentiful, they are used by police, rescue, guide dog and other organisations or work on farms and nobody could ban them without almost catastrophic repercussions.

However, the same could not be said of the unlucky ones on most of the lists ... they are not as plentiful, they do not have national utility purposes, and although most of their owners would be good owners, they do suffer from being the type of breeds that are often owned by people of `ill repute' which spoil it for the rest of the owners. I know in New Zealand the planters of pot patches (happy weed) often use pit bull breeds or Rottweilers to guard their plants.

This, of course, is not the dog's fault - it is the owner's fault. But it is the dog that acquires the reputation.

It is about time that cowardly government and state departments in all countries stopped hiding behind their `dangerous dog' lists and openly admitted that prosecuting `dangerous owners' has been relegated to their `too hard' basket.

What happens when there are no longer any `dangerous breeds' in these countries and people are still being bitten in the same numbers as always? Perhaps the breed that you own and love will be targeted next? Such stupidity can not continue. It is time that these government departments used their undoubted excess of energy to bring a whole bunch of unsuitable dog owners to justice. - EP