Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on June 15, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports BVA congress
Dangerous dogs: culprits or victims? Dangerous dogs and dog bite incidents are rarely out of the news and are a matter of great public interest, but what can be done to tackle this issue and are the dogs really to blame? A debate at the BVA Congress at the London Vet Show discussed the complexities surrounding dog bites and dog behaviour, and looked at possible ways of preventing future incidents. Georgina Mills reports ‘Treat dog bites as a pathogen; the dog is just the transmitter,’ said Kendal Shepherd, a veterinary behaviourist, speaking during a key issues debate at the BVA Congress in London on November 21. In Ms Shepherd’s opinion, dog bites were a behavioural issue and should be dealt with accordingly. ‘Aggression is a behaviour, and the result of this behaviour is a bite,’ she said. Behaviour was led by genetics, the dog’s life experience and the environment that the dog was in at the time of the incident. Should a dog bite occur, there needed to be an understanding of the natural behaviour of the species, the social history and the context of the incident. It was, she said, essential to discuss these to help prevent that dog biting again. However, currently, none was considered after a dog bite incident. As a result, she said, ‘we can legislate as much as we like, but we will not prevent dog bites’. Ms Shepherd explained that, in the context of the law, a dog was regarded as dangerous if it had frightened, injured or bitten someone, or if it was a banned breed. But, she asked, was biting behaviour the same as being dangerous? There was a confused attitude to dangerous dogs, she remarked, citing the cases of two separate rottweiler cross dogs which had done the same thing: they had both run away from their owner and chased and frightened someone. However, one dog had chased a sex attacker and was awarded a bravery award; the other had chased someone who was not a sex attacker and had therefore been classed as a dangerous dog. These dogs had demonstrated exactly the same behaviour, so, she asked, ‘What do we want from dogs?’. She continued: ‘I would implore everyone to avoid the word “attack”, so that we can get this word out of the public conscience’. ‘Attack’ implied premeditation or a sense of ‘it meant to bite’, she said, and this was not right. Irresponsible dog ownership was another term used frequently in relation to dog bites, but this was rarely the case. Aggression cases predominated in dog behaviour counselling figures, with owners trying to find methods to control this behaviour; this was not the action of an irresponsible owner, she said. The majority of legal cases concerned first-time bites, and there was also very little evidence of people deliberately training dogs to bite. Ms 554 | Veterinary Record | December 6, 2014
Kendal Shepherd: dog bites are a complex issue, and the behaviour, emotions and motivations of the dog must be considered
Peter Madden: the police are dealing with the outcomes of a dog bite to ensure safety for the dog, the owner and the public
Shepherd discussed reasons why a dog might be aggressive or bite; for example, it had been shown that dogs might bite in times when their owners were in conflict, because they were not comfortable with the situation that they were in. ‘Dog bite injury is a matter of extreme public health concern, it needs to be looked at as a public health issue,’ she said. However, it was currently only considered as a crime. There needed to be a clearer picture of the epidemiology of dog bites, which required a thorough investigation when dealing with a case – this included focusing on the dog’s behaviour, something that could not be done if the dog was destroyed at the scene. Ms Shepherd also considered the importance of education, and understanding the natural behaviour of the domestic dog. In her view, only then would dog bite incidents start to reduce. Many things must be considered, she said; ‘the dog is simply one factor in this story’.
investigate the case. They were not looking to criminalise owners, he said; instead they were looking to ensure that when an issue arose, it was dealt with sufficiently and that, ideally, the dog was returned home. When a dog was destroyed at a scene, he said, this was very often the choice of the owner. He went on to explain that one new option available to the police was the Community Protection Notice. These could be used to, for example, require a dog to be muzzled and kept on a lead when out of the home. They could also require something as simple as putting the dog in another room before answering the front door, he said. The notices could also be used to direct dog owners to training and education programmes. However, the difficulty, he said, was knowing who to direct them to and knowing the quality of the training programmes available. ‘We would love to see a national education programme for dog owners, but where is it going to come from?’ he asked. There was simply no budget for such a scheme. In addition, in London, each borough had a different method of dealing with dangerous dogs; some were very successful, and some barely met their statutory requirements. Accidents happened, Sergeant Madden said, and every case was looked at individually. But, he concluded, while the police were happy for behaviourists like Ms Shepherd to come and assess seized dogs, the police services themselves ‘do not have the facilities, or the expertise, in terms of behaviour, to say why that [dog bite] occurred’. doi: 10.1136/vr.g7258
Practicalities
‘We are dealing with the situation that is presented to us’, said Peter Madden from the Metropolitan Police Dog Unit, giving a police perspective on the issue. ‘We have a duty to ensure the safety of the public, so, typically, we will seize these dogs’. He explained that, in London, the cost of handling dogs that came into police custody was £1.5 million each year, and 50 per cent of these dogs were alleged to have been dangerous. ‘I fight for our budget so we can ensure that these dogs are looked after properly,’ he said. The police would always set out to secure the dog, put it in kennels and
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on June 15, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Dangerous dogs: culprits or victims?
Veterinary Record 2014 175: 554
doi: 10.1136/vr.g7258 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/175/22/554
These include:
Email alerting service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
News & Reports BVA congress
Dangerous dogs: culprits or victims? Dangerous dogs and dog bite incidents are rarely out of the news and are a matter of great public interest, but what can be done to tackle this issue and are the dogs really to blame? A debate at the BVA Congress at the London Vet Show discussed the complexities surrounding dog bites and dog behaviour, and looked at possible ways of preventing future incidents. Georgina Mills reports ‘Treat dog bites as a pathogen; the dog is just the transmitter,’ said Kendal Shepherd, a veterinary behaviourist, speaking during a key issues debate at the BVA Congress in London on November 21. In Ms Shepherd’s opinion, dog bites were a behavioural issue and should be dealt with accordingly. ‘Aggression is a behaviour, and the result of this behaviour is a bite,’ she said. Behaviour was led by genetics, the dog’s life experience and the environment that the dog was in at the time of the incident. Should a dog bite occur, there needed to be an understanding of the natural behaviour of the species, the social history and the context of the incident. It was, she said, essential to discuss these to help prevent that dog biting again. However, currently, none was considered after a dog bite incident. As a result, she said, ‘we can legislate as much as we like, but we will not prevent dog bites’. Ms Shepherd explained that, in the context of the law, a dog was regarded as dangerous if it had frightened, injured or bitten someone, or if it was a banned breed. But, she asked, was biting behaviour the same as being dangerous? There was a confused attitude to dangerous dogs, she remarked, citing the cases of two separate rottweiler cross dogs which had done the same thing: they had both run away from their owner and chased and frightened someone. However, one dog had chased a sex attacker and was awarded a bravery award; the other had chased someone who was not a sex attacker and had therefore been classed as a dangerous dog. These dogs had demonstrated exactly the same behaviour, so, she asked, ‘What do we want from dogs?’. She continued: ‘I would implore everyone to avoid the word “attack”, so that we can get this word out of the public conscience’. ‘Attack’ implied premeditation or a sense of ‘it meant to bite’, she said, and this was not right. Irresponsible dog ownership was another term used frequently in relation to dog bites, but this was rarely the case. Aggression cases predominated in dog behaviour counselling figures, with owners trying to find methods to control this behaviour; this was not the action of an irresponsible owner, she said. The majority of legal cases concerned first-time bites, and there was also very little evidence of people deliberately training dogs to bite. Ms 554 | Veterinary Record | December 6, 2014
Kendal Shepherd: dog bites are a complex issue, and the behaviour, emotions and motivations of the dog must be considered
Peter Madden: the police are dealing with the outcomes of a dog bite to ensure safety for the dog, the owner and the public
Shepherd discussed reasons why a dog might be aggressive or bite; for example, it had been shown that dogs might bite in times when their owners were in conflict, because they were not comfortable with the situation that they were in. ‘Dog bite injury is a matter of extreme public health concern, it needs to be looked at as a public health issue,’ she said. However, it was currently only considered as a crime. There needed to be a clearer picture of the epidemiology of dog bites, which required a thorough investigation when dealing with a case – this included focusing on the dog’s behaviour, something that could not be done if the dog was destroyed at the scene. Ms Shepherd also considered the importance of education, and understanding the natural behaviour of the domestic dog. In her view, only then would dog bite incidents start to reduce. Many things must be considered, she said; ‘the dog is simply one factor in this story’.
investigate the case. They were not looking to criminalise owners, he said; instead they were looking to ensure that when an issue arose, it was dealt with sufficiently and that, ideally, the dog was returned home. When a dog was destroyed at a scene, he said, this was very often the choice of the owner. He went on to explain that one new option available to the police was the Community Protection Notice. These could be used to, for example, require a dog to be muzzled and kept on a lead when out of the home. They could also require something as simple as putting the dog in another room before answering the front door, he said. The notices could also be used to direct dog owners to training and education programmes. However, the difficulty, he said, was knowing who to direct them to and knowing the quality of the training programmes available. ‘We would love to see a national education programme for dog owners, but where is it going to come from?’ he asked. There was simply no budget for such a scheme. In addition, in London, each borough had a different method of dealing with dangerous dogs; some were very successful, and some barely met their statutory requirements. Accidents happened, Sergeant Madden said, and every case was looked at individually. But, he concluded, while the police were happy for behaviourists like Ms Shepherd to come and assess seized dogs, the police services themselves ‘do not have the facilities, or the expertise, in terms of behaviour, to say why that [dog bite] occurred’. doi: 10.1136/vr.g7258
Practicalities
‘We are dealing with the situation that is presented to us’, said Peter Madden from the Metropolitan Police Dog Unit, giving a police perspective on the issue. ‘We have a duty to ensure the safety of the public, so, typically, we will seize these dogs’. He explained that, in London, the cost of handling dogs that came into police custody was £1.5 million each year, and 50 per cent of these dogs were alleged to have been dangerous. ‘I fight for our budget so we can ensure that these dogs are looked after properly,’ he said. The police would always set out to secure the dog, put it in kennels and
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on June 15, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Dangerous dogs: culprits or victims?
Veterinary Record 2014 175: 554
doi: 10.1136/vr.g7258 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/175/22/554
These include:
Email alerting service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
