Man bites Dog. Oh wait. I mean the other one.

There hasn't been an emotional, irrational "dogs hate kids" story in the news for a while so the herald this morning came out with this. As an ex journalism student and an ex dog control officer, the way this story is written really chaps my ass. First of all, a non-factual and totally irrelevant assessment of the dogs breed is made, as usual, in the form of the line "believed to be a pit bull". From a journalistic perspective, this completely lacks credibility. WHO thought it was a pit bull? The little girl? Her parents? The owner? The dog control officer? The police?  This is about as credible as the much touted "according to a source" cliché. Additionally, it is also pretty irrelevant in terms of giving any weight to the story. I mean you didn't point out the supposed breeding of the family involved, though it might actually be a bit more informative (in terms of assessing which sectors of the community need education and assistance in dealing with their dogs). But you don't do it, because it may have been racist, non-factual and totally inappropriate to do so. 


Secondly, this story groups together several, unrelated incidences in order to make it appear as if there is some kind of dog attack epidemic going on. Like the dogs were in on it together. But, as the commentary from one Rodney Hide makes clear, this is just another emotive pre-election issue. (I wish they had made HIM go on "Make the politician Work" at the SPCA).


And as usual, the father of Carolina Anderson, a girl mauled by a dog in a park (a dog which, by the way, was NOT a pit bull, or any breed on the "dangerous dogs" list, but a Staffordshire Bull Terrier) is called in for comment. I'm sorry, but just cus some guy's kid got severely injured by a single dog almost a decade ago does NOT make him some kind of go-to expert on the subject. In fact, this article makes him appear quite ignorant. His comment: "If it's not the animal, why don't we have tigers and lions as pets?" shows complete lack of understanding for the process of domestication that has occurred over the past 14,000 years in our interactions with dogs. Even after successive generations of captive breeding, no one could ever suggest that lions and tigers have been domesticated. They are fucking wild animals. The fact you don't even understand the difference suggests you are not the man to ask about this. There are so many behaviourists and scientists and academics whose opinion the Herald could ask, but instead they choose a man whose interests in the subject are completely based in emotion having had ONE bad experience with ONE dog.


It is clear that this man was unsuccessful in protecting his daughter from a dog, and he expects the law to do it. If there is reform, I am sure that banning breeds is not the way to fix the problem. (The number of German Shepherds involved in dog attacks and bites worldwide confirms this). The best thing we could do, to prevent dog bites is make it a legal requirement that dog free access be granted to the front door of every home. That alone would have a great impact on the safety of people who have to go door to door to do their job. I also believe a dog is more relaxed and happy when they are not given the job of defending the territory from every single person/dog who walks past. 


I'm not sure what we can do about the number of people who are attacked in their own home, or the kids who get hurt. But as I've mentioned, I'm a bit of a libertarian and a fan of individual responsibility. Was anyone watching the kid and dog interact? Who are these parents/caregivers letting their kid, TWO and FOUR years old for fucks sake - interact closely with a pit bull terrier?! A dog bred for fighting and much maligned (fairly or not) by the media. How could they be so relaxed about that? And further more, how could the owners be cool with it? Like, I know my dogs are fine with kids, but  I would certainly not be comfortable with a two or four year old in their face.  


The problem here, as usual is a human one.