In September 2011, the Victorian government determined that the current legislation pertaining to dangerous dogs was inadequate after a deadly attack by Ayon Chol. As stated on the official government website, certain breeds including American pit bulls, Fila Brasileiro, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Presa Canario are classified as dangerous breeds; nevertheless, only pit bull terriers and one Dogo Argentino currently reside in Victoria. These discriminatory laws targeting these “dangerous dogs” represent an ineffective attempt by the government to prevent dog attacks involving these particular breeds.
However, these laws can also be seen as making aggression issues worse in certain breeds. The rules state that animals must stay in a secure enclosure on the owner’s property and should be leashed and muzzled when outside of it. This means that the animal’s freedom is limited as they are confined for most of the day. Just imagine how you would feel if you had to stay in the same area every day, and even when given outdoor access, your movements were restricted and you were denied the freedoms others enjoy.
Keeping a dog locked up without reason can lead to problems as it takes away the animal’s freedom and subjects it to constant limitations, which may result in agitation and aggression. The Victorian government is not the first to enact laws regarding ‘restricted breeds’. Other nations like England, Holland, Belgium, and Italy have already put similar regulations in place. Nevertheless, these measures have been ineffective in reducing the number of dog attacks. It is important to highlight that these incidents are not solely caused by restricted breeds or dangerous dogs.
Although laws aimed at preventing attacks by ‘dangerous dogs’ may reduce the frequency of such incidents, they cannot completely eliminate them. It is important to recognize that any breed of dog has the potential to be a threat, regardless of these regulations. I have a personal memory from my youth involving an incident with a chihuahua: while riding my bike, I was unexpectedly approached by a small chihuahua, similar to those often seen in handbags. It emerged from its owner’s gate and attempted to bite me. Furthermore, even when the gate was closed, this particular chihuahua would consistently bark and growl at people passing by.
The RSPCA’s policy highlights that every breed of dog can display aggression and promotes the evaluation of a dog’s behavior rather than its breed. It proposes that laws should concentrate on the actions of a dog, just as individuals are treated equally regardless of race or socioeconomic status. Dogs, like humans, are capable of aggression and attack.
Owners are responsible for both the behavior and care of their dogs. It is crucial for owners to have knowledge about effectively nurturing and training their pets. A dog’s behavior should not only be attributed to the dog itself, but also to its care and discipline, similar to children. As responsible dog owners, we must be knowledgeable about appropriate care and discipline techniques, especially when dealing with dangerous breeds. Individuals who do not know how to properly care for a dangerous dog should not be permitted to own one.
Despite the ineffectiveness of laws targeting ‘dangerous dogs’ in reducing dog attacks, Calgary in Canada has achieved positive outcomes by focusing on education. In contrast to these laws that only apply after a dog attack occurs, Calgary has experienced a significant decrease in dog aggression cases from over 2000 incidents in 1985 to just 300 last year. Additionally, most of these cases involved minor bites. To effectively prevent dog attacks, instead of reacting after the fact, the Victorian government should prioritize educating both owners of ‘dangerous dogs’ and individuals who are not qualified to own such pets.
There are proponents of legislation who argue for banning “dangerous dogs” and removing them from society in Australia. However, this viewpoint is misguided as it assumes that all dogs labeled as “dangerous” are inherently dangerous and likely to be aggressive. By applying the same reasoning, it would be unfair to suggest that white/Caucasian men aged 25-40, with moderate to high intelligence, should be unwelcome in Australia based on a statement on the Australian government website associating these traits with serial killers.
The argument against breed-specific laws, such as those targeting pit bulls, is based on the misconception that these restrictions are effective. Even Maria Mercurio, the Victorian RSPCA chief executive, agrees that “the statistics just aren’t there” to support the idea that certain breeds are more prone to attack. She also acknowledges that any dog breed can exhibit aggression and violence if they are trained and kept in a certain way. The new legislation aimed at “dangerous dogs” is both discriminatory and ineffective since it has been proven not to work globally. Educating dog owners is considered one of the best methods for preventing dog attacks and aggression. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence to back the notion that specific breeds are more likely to attack. Ultimately, all breeds of dogs have the potential for aggression and attacking.
