What's your view on the ethics of breed restrictions?
One way to resolve the debate about dog bite dangers would be to conduct a thorough scientific assessment of the risks.
Several studies have addressed this. For example, in a German study by the Institute for Animal Welfare and Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hanover, Germany, seventy golden retrievers were compared to dogs of other breeds that would have been restricted under laws of
the German state of Lower Saxony. No significant difference was found along a number of behavioral dimensions related to aggressiveness. As a result, the legislation in Lower Saxony was changed, and breed lists were withdrawn. (See Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 2, No 3, May/June 2007)
An Australian Study (Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 1, No 1. July 2006) found that attacks involving pit bulls were exceeded by those from several other breeds, and moreover that in Australia, as in the United States, reliable data do not exist for the number of attacks relative to breed population. None of 19 human fatalities in Australia since the 1980s have involved an American pit bull terrier.
In a broader sense, the overall risk from dog bites is much less than the prevalence of campaigns to ban specific breeds would suggest. In the book Dogs Bite: But Balloons and Slippers Are More Dangerous
, Janis Bradley shows in a convincing and entertaining manner that dogs are in fact much safer than many common household objects and activities.
What's your view on the ethics of breed restrictions? Given the data above, are bans a legitimate response?
Jim's views (I hope he doesn't mind me posting this... but he says it so nicely)
Specialists on risk perception note that there are several factors that affect individual assessments of the possibility for death, injury or other dire consequences. According to Victor Asal, a professor at the State University of New York at Albany, and an instructor in programs on crisis leadership for the U. S. Office of Personnel Management, these include characteristics of the population and of the perceived threat. For example, experts tend to underestimate risk, while lay people tend to overestimate.
Individuals who have suffered in the past may see life generally as more hostile and thus tend to overestimate risk. Risks are considered to be higher when the threat is perceived as catastrophic, exotic or unfamiliar and especially when it involves children. Risk perception
is heightened when people dwell on a potential threat over a long period of time. It is only lessened by dialogue when the counter- arguments come from a trusted, neutral source.
We can see these factors at work in the area of breed-specific legislation. Canine professionals are almost uniformly against them, while the general population sees a greater threat. This perception may be particularly severe in urban areas. Widely publicized attacks, sometimes reported using harsh rhetoric and dramatic photos, increase the concern, particularly if there is any mention of risk to children. The concern about dangerous breeds has been percolating for some time, and the counter-arguments are sometimes dismissed as biased or self-serving.
Cheryl says: "I do not think BSL makes any difference, as the problem is ultimately
irresponsible owners and almost always involves a loose, unconfined dog. Simply enforcing leash laws would make a huge difference, in my opinion."
Several studies have addressed this. For example, in a German study by the Institute for Animal Welfare and Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hanover, Germany, seventy golden retrievers were compared to dogs of other breeds that would have been restricted under laws of
the German state of Lower Saxony. No significant difference was found along a number of behavioral dimensions related to aggressiveness. As a result, the legislation in Lower Saxony was changed, and breed lists were withdrawn. (See Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 2, No 3, May/June 2007)
An Australian Study (Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 1, No 1. July 2006) found that attacks involving pit bulls were exceeded by those from several other breeds, and moreover that in Australia, as in the United States, reliable data do not exist for the number of attacks relative to breed population. None of 19 human fatalities in Australia since the 1980s have involved an American pit bull terrier.
In a broader sense, the overall risk from dog bites is much less than the prevalence of campaigns to ban specific breeds would suggest. In the book Dogs Bite: But Balloons and Slippers Are More Dangerous
, Janis Bradley shows in a convincing and entertaining manner that dogs are in fact much safer than many common household objects and activities.What's your view on the ethics of breed restrictions? Given the data above, are bans a legitimate response?
Jim's views (I hope he doesn't mind me posting this... but he says it so nicely)
Specialists on risk perception note that there are several factors that affect individual assessments of the possibility for death, injury or other dire consequences. According to Victor Asal, a professor at the State University of New York at Albany, and an instructor in programs on crisis leadership for the U. S. Office of Personnel Management, these include characteristics of the population and of the perceived threat. For example, experts tend to underestimate risk, while lay people tend to overestimate.
Individuals who have suffered in the past may see life generally as more hostile and thus tend to overestimate risk. Risks are considered to be higher when the threat is perceived as catastrophic, exotic or unfamiliar and especially when it involves children. Risk perception
is heightened when people dwell on a potential threat over a long period of time. It is only lessened by dialogue when the counter- arguments come from a trusted, neutral source.
We can see these factors at work in the area of breed-specific legislation. Canine professionals are almost uniformly against them, while the general population sees a greater threat. This perception may be particularly severe in urban areas. Widely publicized attacks, sometimes reported using harsh rhetoric and dramatic photos, increase the concern, particularly if there is any mention of risk to children. The concern about dangerous breeds has been percolating for some time, and the counter-arguments are sometimes dismissed as biased or self-serving.
Cheryl says: "I do not think BSL makes any difference, as the problem is ultimately
irresponsible owners and almost always involves a loose, unconfined dog. Simply enforcing leash laws would make a huge difference, in my opinion."
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home