Domestication of Dangerous Dog Breeds Essay Example for Free

tameness of Dangerous Dog Breeds EssaySince the beginning of earliest civilisation, man has relied on and surrounded himself with carnals, for both assistance with labour and companionship. The phrase mans best friends is often used to described one of the close loyal and popular of these animals, the cut across. Yet, in recent years, nether the continued influence of rising chase fervor depends and societal pressure, b atomic number 18-assed legislation has been introduced, collectively known as Breed-Specific Legislation. Under these new laws, certain breeds of animal ar curtail or deemed dangerous, simply because of stereotypes associated with temperament and aggression. While m both an(prenominal) rely that this legislation is the most suitable response to a rapidly accelerating concern, further anaylsis into both the legal and sociable aspects of the going reveal that Breed-Specific Legislation whitethorn not be the most effective solution to the issues skirt the ownership and domestication of restricted dog breeds. The relevant legal proceedings for this issue is directly link up to the structural legislative balance between the rights of the single and the rights of the collective.Under Australias actual laws, our views on this take lean more favourably towards the rights of the collective community, preferring to cater for golf-club as a whole, rather than to a select number of individuals. Under the QLD Animal Management (Cats Dog) Act 2008, a prohibited dog is specify as A restricted dog is a dog of a breed prohibited from implication into Australia under the Customs Act 1901, which is then further defined as the following breeds. The American Pit-Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino (The Argentine Mastiff), the Fila Brasileiro, the Japanese Tosa and the Presa Canario.Under this Act, allone who is found to be in self-denial of, or decl atomic number 18d the owner of, a dog compulsive by an authorised official to be of a restric ted breed, is liable to punishing legal implications and as a matter of course the dog is destroyed. However, there atomic number 18 no laws or recommendations in place, at least none accessible to the public, to de calline what legal implications should occur. Any consequences are intractable by precedent and circumstance, and often require mandatory legal representation in order to be settled effectively.This is predominately due to the provision under the Customs Act 1901, stating that it is the duty of the local g overnments to dictate the obstacle of certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions. These decisions are at the discretion of each local governments law, and spiriteder hierarchical authorities, such as the state government, have limited powers to intervene with these laws. This ambiguity core that there is no definitive response to be taken under crook law, in the suit of a breach.The responsibility falls to the local government to conduct th e judicial proceedings and execute the consequences. As such, it is im realizable to fairly and equally apply the current laws, when major decisions are left to the discretion of many individual stakeholders. The current breed- special(prenominal) legislation also proves a difficult task to enforce. While there are set guidelines in determining a dogs breed based on corporeal characteristics, according to the Australian Veterinarian Association it is not possible to precisely determine the breed of the types of dogs targeted by breed-specific legislation by appearance or by DNA analysis. As such, while an animal may contain genetic traces of restricted breeds, it can often be indistinguishable from other traits. In the afore express(prenominal) manner, however, animals completely free of restricted heritage traits may be mistaken for an illegal breed and destroyed, without reason. In the recent case, CHIVERS Vs Gold sea-coast metropolis Council, 2010, the softness to definitive ly determine the difference between an American Staffordshire terrier and an American Pit Bull terrier, led to the erroneous decision stating they were one and the same breed.However, in folk 2010, after further investigation into the matter, it was revealed that the deuce breeds can be distinguished and therefore, the Staffordshire terrier was not restricted under the legislation. This case study clearly highlights the ambiguity surrounding the defining of certain dog breeds, and explicitly emphasizes the inability of the legislation to make clear and accurate judging. Therefore, the current legislation cannot be considered an effective law, as it has been deemed ambiguous, unevenly applied and incorrectly enforced.However, while the owner is liable to the majority of the consequences in the event of a breach, the current breed specific legislation only places restrictions on the certain dog breeds, rather than on the owners. A study conducted in Germany in 2008 investigating the concept of inherent aggression showed that 95% of test subjects had no evidence to show that agression was a result of ingrained breed-specific characteristics. It also proved that the inherent temperament of the restricted dog breeds, was similar and in some cases identical to the unrestrcited breeds.It then went on to summarise that the treatment and bringing up of an animal in the early years of its life, far outways any ingrained tenacity for aggression. In the perspective of The American Kennel Club a national canine club dedicated to furthering the study, breeding and exhibiting of dogs. If specific breeds are banned, owners of these breeds intent on using their dogs for malicious or illegal purposes result simply diverseness to another breed of dog and continue to jeopardize public safety. As such, a qualified and sufficient owner cannot, under the legislaiton, own a restricted dog breed, heedless of their ability to control, train and recompense any behavioural insti ncts or tendencies. Whereas an owner, with no recognised skill or qualification in animal care or ownership may purchase an unrestricted dog, and either through lack of care, or deliberate conditioning, train it to exhibit behaviour and attitudes that are classifed dangerous.Upon analysis of Figure 1 (see appendix) , it can be seen that after the introduction of breed-specific legislation in 2005, while the number of attacks immediately fell approximately 40%, after less than a year the percentage of dog attacks had doubled and continued to rise over the next five years until attacks were occuring 6-7 times more frequently than before the legislation was introduced.While these statistics do not confirm that the legislation caused the increase in attacks, it does prove that breed-specific laws have had no long term positive effect on the total number of dog attacks since being introduced. There are two prominent stakeholders within the issue of animal restrictions. The owners, who sh ould have the right to own a dog of their choosing, regardless of breed stereotypes, providing they can care for it properly, and the civic society, who have the right to live and interact within the community, without venerate of attacks from dangerous animals.The main conflict of interest between these two stakeholders is the issue of legal balance whether the rights of the individual are balanced with the rights of the collective community. If an animal of any kind escapes control and is loose within the community, it is no longer only an individual concern. If the animal then attacks or frightens a member of the community, it becomes a brat to the collective society as a whole and therefore the issue of dangerous animals is both an individual and collective dispute and and must be dealt with as such.However, while it is conceded that dangerous dogs do pose a potential threat to community members, the restricted dogs highlighted in the Animal Management (Cats Dog) Act, as exp lained above, have been turn out by both scientific and survey evidence, to not be dangerous or aggressive by nature. As such, they should no longer be separated from other canine species based solely on the breed-specific legislation. Therefore, until such a time as they are deemed individually dangerous, restricted dogs should remain an individuals concern. Upon closer review many minor stakeholders also come to light.Dog breeders face limitations on the number of restricted animals they are allowed to breed, which causes a lose of income. Those specialising in the breeding and training of these restricted animals are unable(p) to employ their qualifications to the best of their ability due to stereotypical restrictions. Also, if at anytime, the heritage of a litter is determined to contain traces, whether intentionally or unknowingly, of any of these restricted breeds, no matter how small, all animals from the lineage are seized and most often destroyed, tarnishing the good rep utation of the breeders concerned.The local councils responsible for the regulation and specific restrictions surrounding this issue are also heavily involved stakeholders. The council, while considering the effectiveness of any agenda, will be chiefly looking for the solution executed with the most ease, as animal management is not a high priority in comparison to other issues. While employing the idea that segregation is better than rehabilitation may be the easiest solution, as discussed above, it is certainly not the most effective.Another group of stakeholders, though often overlooked, are the animal activists and veterinarians involved in these issues. They have conducted experiments and collected survey data and are in possession of scientifically provable and viable evidence, such as the information presented above, to explictly show that breed specific tendancies of animals are only one of many factors that make up an animals characteristics and behaviour. These lobby grou ps and experts could dedicate their time to more urgent scientific or social issues, but are instead having to fight legislation which has no stand in scientific or civic fact.If the restrictions are revoked and breed-specific regulations are reviewed, then viable alternatives must be proposed and considered in order to effectively control what would still be a delicate situation. One possible alternative is categorizing animals based on individual character and aggression tests. It is already mandated that animals are checked by a certified veterinarian before registration and during regular points throughout the animals life, so, if introduced, these aptitiude tests could be amalgamated into this border and thereby, introduced effectively and without additional labour or due process.Another possible alternative is to direct the responsibility onto the potential owners themselves. Regardless of whether or not a breed is considered dangerous, it falls to the owner of the dog to e ducate and train it in such a way that it acts in an acceptable manner. Restriction is thereby determined not by the ownership of certain dog breeds, but by the behaviour or potential behaviour of both the owner and the individual animal in question.A legislative amendment, stating that any attack by a domesticated animal, specifically dog/s, would incur both a criminal and civil liabilty to fall upon the owner, will add a significant amount of risk to the purchase of said animal breeds. In this way, with the legislation focusing primarily on irresponsible or unqualified dog owners, the element of risk would ensure that only animal owners who are proficient in the training and retentiveness of dangerous dogs would consider the purchase, thereby reducing the number of dogs becoming conditioned to attack others.If we want to maintain all bites, there is only one sure way and that is to ban all dogs. That is of course as unrealistic as trying to prevent bites by enacting breed-specif ic legislation. (Bandow, 1996) It is the authors opinion, that this statement is the most effective summary of the current breed-specific legislation laws. As long as society continues to accept and welcome dogs as companions, there will continue to be issues regarding, what is in essence, a wild animal.However, the studies and analysis continue to show that there is little, if any proof that the breeds currently listed as restricted have any inherent tendacies affecting aggression or behaviour, and thereby distinguishing them from other breeds. As such they have no place being banned from our society simply due to the ill-informed stereotypes, generated by breed-specific legislation. Therefore, based on the evidence and analysis at hand, the proposed alternatives would prove a far more effective solution in the effort to solve the issues surrounding the ownership and domestication of restricted dog breeds.APPENDIX BIBLIOGRAPHY Bibliography 2008 Act No. 74. (2008). Animal Managemen t (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008, 142. QLD, Australia. CHIVERS Vs Gold Coast City Council (The Supreme Court March 2010). American Kennel Club. (2011). Brisbane City Council. (2013, January 17). Dangerous, Menacing and Restricted dogs. Retrieved January 17, 2013, from Brisbane City Council http//www. brisbane. qld. gov. au/laws-permits/laws-and-permits-for-residents/animals-and-pets/cats-dogs/dangerous-menacing-restricted-dogs/index.htm Hall, A. (2012, August 15). Vets call to end dangerous dog breed bans. ABC NEWS. Marinucci, E. (2012 . 2013, September 12). Aritcles Examples of representative Situations of Injuries Caused by Dogs. Beger Co. Lawyers. The Australian Veterinary Association Ltd. (2012, August). Dangerous Dogs A Sensible Solution Policy and mould Legislative Framework. Australia. Van den Burg, L. (2011, December 12). Dangerous Dog Breed Bans Wont Stop Bites imagine Health Professionals. Herald Sun.