In September 2011 the Victorian government decided that the legislation on dangerous dogs were not tough enough after the fatal attack of ayon chol. Dogs considered dangerous are American pit bulls, Fila Brasileiro, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Presa Canario as listed on the government website although only the pit bull terriers and one Dogo Argentino are actually living in Victoria. These laws are discriminatory and futile. The laws that target the ‘dangerous dogs’ are the governments fruitless attempt to stop all the dog attacks made by the target breeds.
But these laws also could contribute to the supposed problem of aggression in the targeted breeds. The laws require the animals to ‘be in a secure enclosure on the persons premies and when out of the enclosure they are to be on a leashed and muzzled’, this means that the animal is basically going to be trapped in some way all day without much freedom. How would you feel if you had stay in the same area every day and even when being let out you still are restricted and denied of the freedoms that others have?
Being sentenced to jail even before even committing a crime.
The problem with this is that the lack of freedom and the pretty much constant restraint could cause the dog to become easily agitated and aggressive. The Victorian government aren’t the first government to come up with the idea of laws against ‘restricted breeds’ already in england , holland, belgium and italy have enforced these laws and the laws have been unsuccessful to stopping a lot of the dog attacks. The dog attacks still happen as not only the ‘restriced breeds’ or ‘dangerous dogs’ that attack.
The new laws might reduce attacks by the ‘dangerous dogs’ but that doesn’t eliminate dog attacks completely. Dog attacks still happen even with the laws against the ‘dangerous dogs’ as all breeds of dogs can be dangerous. When I was younger I remember riding my bike when a chiaua, yes the miniture dog often seen in handbags, came out of its owners front gate and attempted to bite me, not only did the chiaua do that but when the gate was closed it would bark and growl at passers by.
This proves that all dogs despite breed have the ability to be aggressive. The RSPCA have a policy stating that it should be ‘deed not breed’. The laws should be focusing on the crime the dog has committed and not what breed it is from. The government treats all people the same in the eyes of the law despite the race and social economic status of the person so why should it be any different for dogs, just like people they all have they ability to be aggressive and attack.
But it’s not only the dogs fault owners should be educated on how to care for and discipline their pet. *The way a dog acts is usually not only the dogs fault the way a dog has been cared for and disipined has an impact on the dogs behavior much like children. As the owner of a dog the owner should know how to take care of it properly and know how to discipline it. Owners of dangerous dogs especially should know how to do this. If owners of a ‘dangerous dog’ don’t know how to care for it properly they should not be allowed to have it.
It has been shown that having laws against ‘dangerous dogs’ doesn’t have much of an affect on dog attacks as the laws only really take on effect after the crime has been committed, however in the city of Cagary in Canada education has proved to be key, cases in dog aggression there have dropped from over 2000 in 1985 to 300 last year, and even then 102 of them were minor bites. If the Victorian government wanted to prevent dog attacks instead of acting after the crime has been committed they should educate people who own ‘dangerous dogs’ and people who are unqualified to own a ‘dangerous dog’ they should not be ale to own one.
People in favor of the laws might say that ‘dangerous dogs’ have lost their right to be in Australia and are not welcome in communities, well that is witless assumption made on the generalization that every dog that is considered to be a ‘dangerous dog’ is dangerous and will attack but based on that is it fair to say that because “serial murder is predominately committed by white/caucasian males of moderate to high intelligence aged in their mid 20s with a mean age of 30, and have the typical age range between 25 and 40” that white/Caucasian men that have moderate to high intelligence aged between 25 and 40 are not welcome in Australia because they could be serial killers because of the statement on the Australian government website.
People who think that the laws are right to restrict the targeted breeds such as pit bulls as they are more prone to attack are mistaken as even the Victorian RSPCA chief executive Maria Mercurio states that ” the statistics just aren’t there, most breeds of dogs can be aggressive and violent if they are trained and kept that way” The new legeslation on ‘dangerous dogs’ is discriminatory and futile. They have been proven not to work around the world and that education of owners is one of the best ways to prevent dog attacks and aggression, that there aren’t enough statistics to prove that the breeds of dogs considered to be dangerous are more prone to attack and that all breeds of dog can be aggressive and attack.
Cite this Legislation of Dangerous Dogs: Good or Bad?
Legislation of Dangerous Dogs: Good or Bad?. (2016, Sep 18). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/dangerous-dogs/