From Australia (the land of Terry Holt): Dog attack data reflects success of controls
Tim Dick bemoans what he sees as the stringency of dog laws ("Selfish dog-hating nimbies shouldn't own open spaces", May 11). He advances the curious argument that one is more likely to be hurt by another person than by a dog. The inference is that the dog laws could be loosened because it would not matter if their attack rate rose a little. Apart from its illogicality, this ignores the fact that dog attack rates are kept to their present level by the very laws he criticises.
About two people a year are killed by dogs in Australia. The majority of attacks are on children. On that basis there is a case to further tighten dog control. Dog fanciers will not accept that certain breeds are more prone to attack than others, notwithstanding that these breeds are over-represented in attack statistics. They say it is poor training by owners. If that is so then ban the the owners. Trouble is one can only identify them after their dog has attacked someone. Easier to ban the over-represented breeds, working dogs excepted. Then it might be feasible to open more public space for dogs.
No comments:
Post a Comment