|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Role of
Research and Behavior in Legislation and Community Attitudes (Australia) G.W. JENNENS Abstract
Introduction Several recent studies have detailed the frequency and seriousness of problems caused by aggressive and/or uncontrolled dogs in Australia, and have stressed the need for effective animal management strategies (Podberscek & Blackshaw 1990, Thompson 1991, Jennens 1992, Murray 1992). In the popular press many articles have reported dog issues: attacks on both children and adults; calls for action by the public; suggestions by welfare, community and dog interest groups; and promises by local and state politicians to address, or at least look at the issues of concern. But as Alan Beck, a leading authority on animal management, said in May 1974 at the National Conference on the Ecology of the Surplus Dog and Cat Problem in Chicago, "In 1919 controlling authorities were discussing registration, differential fees and leash laws, today we are here to do the same. Little has changed in 55 years." (Beck 1974). His words are equally applicable in 1992, 18 years later. Historically the animal management debate has been fraught with issues requiring solutions that are politically, socially and financially unacceptable. Committee meetings and conferences in different locations over the last two to three decades have discussed these same issues, arrived at similar conclusions, and put forward the same recommendations. Frequently the input from special interest groups, and not objective research has "doggedly" provided the submissions for the debate. This has resulted in legislators having to grapple with compromises which do not offend or upset, but which also don't work. Animal management is only acceptable to most people in the community if it does not restrict their right to own and dispose of animals, does not curtail breeding activities and is inexpensive to administer. Criticism of the Victorian Companion Animals Act as being anti-dog, setting a dangerous precedent and merely revenue gathering, are examples of these prevailing attitudes by some members of special interest groups. These community attitudes, and the nonacceptance of legislation, have arisen partly because of the following reasons:
PREVIOUS RESEARCH During the 1960s and 70s researchers in the United States and Britain recognized the increasing seriousness of problems associated with uncontrolled dogs (Carding 1969, Beck 1973, Hummer 1973, Feldmann 1974). Studies of dog owner attitudes (Wilber 1976), the behavioral ecology of stray dogs (Beck 1973, Rubin & Beck 1982), pet population characteristics (Franti & Kraus 1974) and clinical evaluations of problem behaviors (Campbell 1974) soon identified the cause; too many dog owners were not willing or able to manage their pets. Broad and specific management strategies were recommended by these and other researchers. Responsible pet ownership was to be encouraged (Schneider 1975, Loew 1979), along with appropriate pet selection (Joshua 1975) and sterilization on adoption from a shelter (Phillips 1974). Dog obedience, and training people to manage their dog's behavior was necessary (O'Donnell 1979, Robertson & Iverson 1979). The dog supply/demand imbalance had to be corrected, (Schneider 1975), the costs of control defrayed through registration (Phillips 1974), leash laws enforced (Carding 1975), and education programs developed (Pope 1974). However for effective animal management strategies to have been developed from these recommendations, it was crucial that this research should have continued into the 1980s and been empirically tested and applied to address problems associated with uncontrolled dogs. Instead studies into animal management issues other than surveys of relevant groups virtually ceased from this period onwards. As a result it is no accident that today, in 1992, both the irresponsible owner and the type of education needed still have not been clearly defined. Nor is it fully understood why companion animals are abandoned and surrendered, where stray dogs come from, and under what circumstances dogs are dangerous. It has taken until the 1990's for research to reject subsidized sterilization schemes and multi-discount registration as costly and ineffective (Arkow 1991, Murray 1992). If this same research-free process is repeated in attempts to reduce dog attacks on people and other animals, then it will not only be costly and ineffective, but also potentially dangerous for future victims. Legislation to Reduce Dog Attacks IDENTIFYING A DANGEROUS DOG Every year in metropolitan Perth 5-6 000 people report to authorities that they have been threatened, bitten or chased by dogs in a public place. Several thousand more are attacked in private homes. Over 5 000 sheep and goats were killed by domestic dogs in seven outer metropolitan Perth councils between 1989 and 1991. Horses, cattle, poultry, wildlife, cats and small dogs also died after being attacked. More than 2 000 dogs caused serious injury to people or death to animals in these attacks during this period. Of those dogs caught attacking livestock, approximately 70% are now dead; they were surrendered to councils, destroyed by veterinarians or shot or baited by livestock owners (Jennens 1992). Dogs that caused serious injury to people were usually destroyed as well. Most attacks were caused by dogs that, by their history, would not have been considered dangerous until after the serious incident had occurred. Any attack has the potential to cause serious injury and if such attacks are to be minimized then the possibility of an attack occurring must be reduced. But without a behavioral profile and history of the dogs involved, an understanding of why they attacked and under what circumstances, this cannot be achieved. Preventive legislation must address these issues and not be only concerned with banning or confining dogs considered the most dangerous. BREEDS SPECIFIC LEGISLATION Breed specific legislation provides for a restriction on breeds of dogs considered dangerous to the public and other animals. Experiences in Britain and the United States show that there will always be major administrative problems with this type of legislation (Abend 1987):
DANGEROUS BREED LISTS The rank ordering of dog breeds into lists based on the frequency of involvement in attacks can be misleading, especially if crossbred dogs are included with the pedigree breed they are most similar to genetically or in appearance. Recent research in Perth shows that a crossbred dog can behave like either of its parents, or like neither when attacking livestock. For example a German Shepherd/Kelpie cross could look like a Kelpie, be registered as a Kelpie, but may attack in a pattern characteristic of the German Shepherd breed. Different breeds, when attacking people, could also have a characteristic pattern of attack. A preoccupation with describing the breed of dog involved in an attack may overlook the necessity of evaluating the dog's behavior and history, and the circumstances of the incident, to find out why the attack occurred. GUARD DOGS Overt aggression has rarely been a problem with professionally attack-trained dogs when strict controls are placed on the dogs, owners and trainers. Any dangerous dog legislation should contain an exemption for such dogs. It is the dogs owned by people who do not realize the effect of their actions on the dog, dogs poorly trained by non-professional trainers and dogs deliberately made vicious for security work that are involved in most attacks. Many owners cause their dogs to be protective, territorial or dominant by simply failing to adequately socialize the dog and manage its behavior. All breeds, sizes, and sexes of dogs have bitten because of these reasons, including some with the best pedigrees and with obedience titles. Differences between attacks on people and attacks on other animals Dogs that attack animals and those that attack people are usually considered in legislation to be equally dangerous to non-target species. Yet very few dogs that attack livestock are dangerous to people. The two behaviors, although having a similar expression, have different causes and require different correction procedures. For example relocating a dog from a semi rural area into the suburbs is a viable alternative for a dog that has attacked livestock. Most make perfectly good pets in every other way. DOG ATTACKS ON PEOPLE Dog attacks on people result from many interacting factors. Dogs are not born aggressive, although some may be more likely to bite because of their breeding or sex. Most dogs bite people because they are frightened, dominant, protective or possessive. These behaviors can be prevented or controlled by responsible breeding, adequate socialization, obedience training and careful management of the dog. Other causes of attacks on people include mishandling or abuse of the dog, a medical or physical condition and the victim's behavior. PREDATORY AGGRESSION The domestic dog's predatory behavior can be better understood by comparing it with the wild canid hunting sequence. This involves: Orienting > Tracking > Trailing > Stalking > Chasing > Driving > Herding > Attacking > Killing > Consuming > Retrieving (Fox 1975) All domestic dogs are able to perform some, if not all, of these behaviors. Several breeds have been specially bred for herding and retrieving, but this does not mean they are incapable of carrying out other parts of the sequence. Dogs are often unable to stop at herding, or fail to skip attacking and killing because stalking, chasing and driving facilitates the remainder of the sequence. Treatment for a dog that chases and attacks livestock requires the dog to be caught whilst attacking, and punished immediately. This ensures that it forms the correct association with the behavior. The dog must not be given the opportunity to attack again in the future. When used properly, the electronic dog training collar is the only effective means of training a dog not to attack another animal, or to correct a dog that has done so. Unfortunately its importation into Australia is banned. LOCATION OF ATTACKS Most dog attacks on people occur in the dog owner's home or in close proximity to it (Wright 1985, Podberscek & Blackshaw 1990). Attacks on private property frequently happen when a dominant, protective or injured dog is not adequately supervised with children and visitors. Appropriate management by parents of both children and dogs can prevent many attacks because the dog posing the most danger to a family is often they're own or a neighbor's. Attacks in public places usually occur when a dog rushes out at passers-by. Many of these incidences could be prevented if fencing by-laws were adhered to. Western Australian legislation requires all dog owners to have an adequate means of confining the dog to their property, and they must sign a declaration to this effect when the dog is licensed. If dog owners do not comply, then the council may deregister or fail to register a dog, and seize it. Very few councils exercise this legislative right. If authorities are serious about preventing attacks then they must ensure that a "no fence no dog" rule is vigorously enforced with the onus on the property owner to ensure there is adequate fencing if a dog is kept. CONTAINMENT Sometimes dangerous dog legislation provides an exemption to the building of an escape-proof enclosure if a dangerous dog is kept indoors. Many owners of such dogs would opt for this inexpensive alternative, which still allows the dog to interact with family members and visitors. Many attacks also occur when a child opens the front door to a visitor and the dog rushes outside. Adequate confinement and enforcement is essential, but when any dog bites or attacks, the dog owner should also be required to take further precautions such as:
RESEARCH AND LEGISLATION It is important, and also safer for potential victims, that the information used when drafting legislation and designing education programs has been obtained from independent research. Special interest groups provide only selected information that may not always be sufficiently objective for these purposes. Longitudinal field research using investigative methods in additional to survey and incident report data is necessary to understand the complexities of animal-human interactions. Animal-human Relationship and Animal Management PROMOTING A POSITIVE VIEW OF THE RELATIONSHIP By the early 1980s animal management research had been replaced by studies into the positive animal-human relationship and the benefits of pets to the welfare and health of people. Salmon and Salmon (1983) in a review of companion animal literature showed that only 12% of the 253 studies reviewed related to ecological or environmental pet control problems. Most related to the psychosocial role of pets in society (54%), and to pets in psychotherapy (19%). The community was told that pets were good companions and helped people to cope with stress and physical illness (Brodie 1981, Faircloth 1981, Katcher 1983). Subsidised sterilization schemes and pet facilitated therapy were part of this movement to assist people with their pets. However promoting the joys, benefits and usefulness of pets, without making people aware of the causes and consequences of the relationship breaking down, only created further problems for those involved in animal management. Phillips (1974) suggested that the surplus cat and dog problem was created by humane organizations encouraging the ownership of animals. Jones and Beck (1984) implied that positive attitudes towards dogs might lead to inadequate precautions being taken to prevent bites. This could be why parents often assume that children and dogs will always get along with each other, and are surprised when their own, a neighbor's or friend's dog bites a child. SEIZURE OF DOGS Promoting pets as an integral and necessary part of family life has also made it very difficult for authorities to remove a nuisance dog from its owner. Despite legislation in Western Australia to deregister and seize a dog if it is dangerous, if the owner has no means to contain the dog, or if a person repeatedly offends, the few attempts by councils to enforce this section of the Act have usually resulted in community outrage. The community will accept breeders culling dogs, owners voluntarily surrendering their pets and thousands of dogs being abandoned and destroyed in shelters, but will not accept dogs being seized from unsuitable owners. As a result magistrates are reluctant to order the destruction of a dog, and most councils rarely deregister and seize dogs, often forbidding their staff to shoot a stray dog in a public place. This means that a minority of persistent offenders takes up a disproportionate amount of enforcement resources and still continues to escape penalty. PROMOTING A BALANCED VIEW Animal management authorities must ensure that the public has a balanced, objective and realistic view of the animal/human relationship. The community must be made aware that there are many deviants, people with personality disorders, and some old and infirm people who are not able mentally, physically or socially to look after a pet. It is sometimes in the best interest of the pet and/or society that the animal is removed from them, and that they are prevented from obtaining another one. Disqualification from ownership must be an integral part of companion animal legislation in order to protect dogs "at risk" from their owners, and the community from nuisance and dangerous dogs that are not controlled. At least part of the funding for this type of community awareness program should come from pet food companies and breed clubs who presently spend thousands of dollars per year on promotions like "pet of the year", and on trophies for beautiful dogs. This helps to fuel the demand for pets by exclusively promoting their positive roles in people's lives. Co-operation by groups such as "professional" breeders in animal management issues is an important prerequisite to an active and collective campaign to reduce the supply of pets from other sources such as backyard breeders, pet shops and poorly managed shelters. Education of Dog Owners and Animal Management IRRESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS "Irresponsible owners" is a vague and meaningless term as it never clearly defines just whom an irresponsible dog owner is. As a result few pet owners are able to identify themselves as being one. Persistent and totally irresponsible offenders are a minority. Most dog owners are careless, apathetic or uninformed, and are able to manage most other aspects of their daily lives within legislative constraints. They don't see themselves as irresponsible, but as being unfortunate to own a bad or stupid dog or unlucky or victimized if they are cautioned or fined (Jennens 1992). They hold this view because responsibility has been traditionally equated with health, welfare, housing, grooming and formal obedience training, and not with socialization, behavioral management and control. Most owners will carry out their care and welfare responsibilities by feeding, watering, exercising and housing their dog, and taking it regularly to the veterinarian. They do not neglect or abuse the dog, and many genuinely believe it is beneficial for a dog to be able to carry out all its natural behaviors. However it is the social and behavioral responsibilities that are of concern to animal management strategists, and there is an urgent need for the dog owner to be made aware of what these are and how to carry them out. DEFINING EDUCATION "Dog owners must be educated" is the catch cry of many people debating animal management issues. But authorities have been able to avoid implementing education programs because the type of education dog owners and the community need is also not always clearly defined. Dog owner education may include creating an awareness of:
These are all important components of education programs, but if dogs were not permitted to engage inappropriately in normal behaviors such as wandering, biting, copulating and barking there would be no need for animal management strategies. BEHAVIORAL MANAGEMENT Most legislation assumes that people are able to manage their dog's behavior within the constraints of the law, and as a result there are few requirements on dog owners to demonstrate that they are able to do so. If an owner cannot put the dog on a leash and walk it down the street, leash laws will be difficult to enforce. Or if a habitual wandering dog is unable to be restrained by its owner or is restrained in a manner likely to cause a barking problem, then nuisance complaints will not be reduced. In the private home biting problems may develop when a new baby arrives or if a spouse leaves home, because people do not realize that problems such as these may develop when the dog's routine changes or it receives less attention. Therefore it is crucial to include a behavioral management program in all animal management strategies. Such a program is currently being trialed in Nedlands City Council, Perth. A similar concept is being evaluated in Tee Tree Gully Shire, Adelaide with the support of the Department of Environment and Planning. THE NEDLANDS CITY BEHAVIORAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM This program has several interrelated components:
Living with Your Dog Week 1 Introduction, Selecting your dog, Socialization A similar program for cat owners is being developed.
Nedlands is an example of a council providing a balance between education and assistance for those who are prepared to learn or rectify a problem, and enforcement action against those who are not. The council will readily prosecute offences in court if warranted, and implement deregistration and seizure procedures if necessary. Although co-operation with outside expertise is actively sought, the program has been made possible by councilors and senior administrative staff supporting new initiatives demonstrated by the council's senior ranger. Five similar programs are now being proposed in 1993 for implementation in other council districts. ADVANTAGES OF THE BEHAVIORAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ARE:
The benefits to Nedlands Council from the program are already apparent by the positive reaction from ratepayers who now have a local support network to deal with their dog-associated problems. Nedlands Council has assisted with administrative and financial support for the pilot program. Its future now depends on other councils and special interest groups promoting and supporting similar programs. To date the response has been varied. The handbook is available in 80 councils, 50 veterinary clinics and through the RSPCA. It is regrettable however, that dog training groups, breed clubs and animal shelters have shown little interest in this and other aspects of the program. Perhaps it may be necessary to offer financial incentives to encourage these groups to participate. TRAINING OF SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS A behavioral management program must also include training in dog behavior for those groups involved in handling dogs and advising dog owners. Currently no expertise is required to become a "professional" breeder. People do so by merely joining the Canine Control Council or a breed club, yet they control the type and temperament of many dogs entering into the community. Shelter workers usually volunteer for positions out of a love and concern for animals, yet they are responsible for assessing which dogs are suitable for recycling. Animal Control Officers are trained to enforce the legal constraints on a dog's behavior, but receive little or no training on how the dog owner should do this. Trainers in dog obedience clubs do not always have the experience and expertise to deal with common problems their members have outside of club grounds. Veterinarians are competent in animal health and care but receive little training in dog behavior, yet dog owners seek and expect expert advice on training and behavioral problems from them. Given the relevance of behavior to animal management problems, it is crucial that local and state politicians and administrators gain an appreciation of its importance independently, before designing and implementing legislation. Submissions from the controlling bodies of the above mentioned groups are usually unfortunately limited to their own areas of concern: producing, welfare, recycling, legal responsibilities, training and health. COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY All groups involved with dogs and their owners have a collective responsibility for behavioral management, because poor management by dog owners will negatively affect the areas they are primarily concerned with. If suitable training cannot or will not be provided to staff or members, then dog owners these groups have contact with should be supplied with relevant information on dog behavior or be referred to an appropriate specialist if a problem is serious. For example "professional" breeders should provide to buyers of their pups informative educational material on the training and management of their dog breed. Veterinarians should be involving their nursing staff in advising clients on how to recognize the early signs of problem behaviors. Early intervention can prevent later and more serious problems from occurring. QUALITY OF EDUCATION MATERIAL It is equally important that the education material provided is accurate, informative and relevant to behavioral management. Those groups supplying misleading or inaccurate information must be singled out, and the information discredited. Special Interest Groups and Animal Management CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANIMAL MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS Two serious problems that animal management strategists need to address are:
LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND COURTS Calls for tougher legislation and heavier penalties are academic unless the current milder legislation is being enforced to the degree that it was intended, and appropriate penalties are given to offenders. A survey of 121 local authority officers responsible for dog control found that there are several internal and external constraints that make it difficult for them to carry out some of their duties. INTERNAL CONSTRAINTS
EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS
REGISTRATION AND IDENTIFICATION OFFENCES Without concise legislation and the support of the courts and complainants, councils cannot always carry out their legal and administrative duties. As already outlined, failure to enforce the legislation is not always the fault of councils, but a soft approach to administrative offences such as registration and identification is difficult to understand. Both are fundamental to obtaining and owning a dog. Fees should be sufficient to fund dog control and a compulsory permanent means of identification introduced. Appropriate penal action should be taken, without a warning given, against those who do not comply. Too much debate and time has been taken up with registration and identification, how many owners should pay and whether discs, tattoos or the microchip should be used. Not enough debate and action has been afforded to the more serious animal management problems such as wandering or the constraints to enforcement. In Western Australia dog registration fees are $20 per year for an unsterilised dog and $5 for a sterilized dog. These fees are far too low to adequately fund dog control, or to be economically collected if not paid when due. Fees are unlikely to be increased significantly in the near future. As a consequence, registration is as low as 30%-40% in some councils. Yet despite the high administrative costs incurred as a result of unregistered and unidentified dogs, most councils issue a seven day warning for having an unregistered dog, and fail to infringe a dog owner whose dog is not wearing a collar and tag. Other Special Interest Groups CANINE CONTROL COUNCIL MEMBERS As a result of the dog's role in society or their owners' circumstances, many categories of dog owners apply for and receive reduced registration fees. Canine Control Councils have repeatedly sought and sometimes gained reduced fees for their members, based on a belief that being a member of that organization equates with being a more responsible dog owner than other dog owners in the community. However, an analysis of any council complaint or behavioral clinic records will show that Canine Control Council members are generally no better at managing their dogs' behavior, nor is having a pedigree dog any reason to believe it is less likely to bite than a crossbred. "PROFESSIONAL BREEDERS" Reduced registration fees should not be given to "professional breeders" in an organization whose preferred practices are counter-productive to reducing serious animal management problems, such as dog attacks on people. Questionable breeding and management practices that perpetuate animal management problems include:
Many authors have questioned the dubious genetic manipulations of breeders and the proliferation of hereditary diseases in pedigree dogs (Wolfensohn 1981, Willis 1991). The public should also be made aware of the negative behavioral consequences of some of these practices. Although crossbred dogs are prominent in public bite statistics, this reflects their numbers in the population and the level of care and supervision they are given, and not the typical behavioral profile of the crossbreed. In private homes pedigree dogs are responsible for as many attacks on people as crossbreeds (Wright 1991). It could be that this is caused by promoting dominant characteristics in such dogs as a result of standards set for the show ring. CONSTRAINTS ON BREEDING Although poorly supervised pets have been identified as the main cause of animal management problems, a preoccupation with this cause and with sterilization has overlooked the contribution made by those who supply dogs into the community. The number of dogs entering the community needs to be reduced as part of an overall management strategy. This will not be achieved until it is made more difficult and expensive for breeders to produce and supply dogs; both backyard and "professional" breeders. Currently any person in Western Australia can breed as many dogs as they like, as often as they like and whatever type of dog they like, and take no responsibility for the social and legal problems resulting from their actions. The pending Victorian Companion Animals Act provides some constraints on breeding, but as outlined in the previous section there are serious behavioral concerns with allowing favorable breeding rights to registered pedigree breeders. All breeders should be treated equally in legislation. No person should be allowed to keep more than two dogs including the young of those dogs, nor breed from any dog without suitable premises for breeding and a license to do so. A levy should be imposed on every pup produced, and this revenue used to partially fund animal management and education programs, and the euthanasia of surplus dogs. But it is not only "professional breeders" whose actions may be at cross-purposes with animal management strategies. THE WELFARE DILEMMA When domestic dogs attack farm and companion animals, most welfare groups have difficulty in deciding whether to protect the dogs from the control techniques used by man, or the animals from being attacked by the dogs. More livestock owners are warned or prosecuted by welfare authorities for wounding a dog than dog owners are for owning dogs that attack livestock. As a result perdition by domestic dogs on farm animals rarely brings a strong public condemnation or invites active participation by welfare groups, despite the suffering caused to the animals attacked. If animal welfare groups continue to oppose and/or deny access to many of the methods available to prevent and control livestock attacks, such as the electronic dog training collar and leg traps/snares, then they must become more actively involved in preventing the attacks from occurring. RECYCLING OF DOGS There must be more controls put on the recycling of dogs into the community, and animal shelters should be required to meet high standards, such as those attained by the Lost Dogs Home in Melbourne. Unfortunately much of the recycling in Western Australia is still controlled by well meaning people who feel sorry for the dog that has been abandoned or neglected. They do not always consider the effects of this trauma on the dog's later behavior. Major upheavals and multiple homes during a dog's first 12 months of life can lay the foundation for many later behavioral problems that are not present at time of purchase. Simply giving the dog a new home and identity will not always correct a problem. Some shelters are more concerned with the suitability of a prospective owner than the effect the dog's behavior will have on the relationship.
DOG OBEDIENCE CLUBS Dog obedience clubs must become more flexible in their training programs and work towards reducing their trainer/pupil ratios. Many clubs are, unfortunately, more concerned with the rules and regulations of trialing than basic dog training and behavioral management. FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS Federal and state governments need to ensure that the drafting of any legislation to address animal management issues is done after the problems of concern have been adequately researched. In addition, the legislation must be able to be clearly understood by all of those to whom it is directed, and can be enforced by those who have to enforce it. It is hoped that the same administrative and enforcement problems will not be repeated with cat legislation. Before cat legislation is drafted, research must be carried out into the predatory and exploratory behavior of the cat, and education programs implemented to ensure that cat owners can re-educate their cats to confinement, or a diurnal lifestyle. MEDIA RESPONSIBILITY Animal management issues need to be accurately and responsibly reported by the media. For example not every sheep is killed by "packs of wild and savage dogs", nor are all Pit Bull Terriers "mobile fighting machines". By describing dogs in these terms the media makes it very difficult to convince dog owners that the family pet can attack livestock, or convince people that a neighbor's Pit Bull Terrier is not a danger to them just because it is a Pit Bull Terrier. AN OVERALL PROFESSIONAL STANDARDIf community problems associated with dogs are to be reduced, special interest groups must maintain a professional standard of practice and service compatible with animal management strategy. Without a minimum professional standard that can be used as an example, the community will have difficulty accepting selective sanctions against backyard breeders, dogs recycled from private homes, and unprofessional trainers. VICTIM MANAGEMENT Adequate provisions for victims should be incorporated into animal management and education programs. For example, potential victims of dog attacks should be taught bite avoidance techniques. Information on the appropriate human behavior towards dogs should be a part of all pet education in schools (Borchelt, Lockwood, Beck & Voith 1983, Wright 1991), and be included in the training of those in occupations where the risk of receiving a dog bite is high. Parents also need to be informed of situations and circumstances where children are likely to be bitten, and be given advice on how to avoid them. Counseling should be made available to victims of dog bites through hospitals and medical practitioners. The psychological trauma resulting from a dog bite is often underestimated. People can remain frightened of dogs for the rest of there lives, and pass these fears on to their children. Victims and witnesses must be encouraged to report any incident of concern involving a dog to the relevant authority, so that the dog owner can be advised and requested to take appropriate action. In many dog attacks and nuisance complaints there has been a previous unreported minor incident. A reliable dog bite reporting system that is inclusive of local authorities, doctors, veterinarians, hospitals and police, need to be established. Currently statistics collected by these groups are collated and published independently. Summary Four of the many constraints to effective animal management have been identified in this paper:
The consequences of each as it relates to different animal management issues has been discussed, with possible solutions suggested. More longitudinal field research, a more balanced view of the animal-human relationship, behavioral management programs, and the monitoring of special interest groups are some of these suggestions. Independent and objective research is a necessary prerequisite to reducing the seriousness and frequency of animal management problems. For example research has shown that measures introduced to prevent dog attacks and overpopulation aimed at the dog alone, such as banning breeds, declaring a few dogs dangerous and sterilization are likely to be ineffective on their own. This is because to control population numbers it is necessary to have an understanding of the dog's sexual behavior and to reduce biting an understanding the dog's aggression is needed. Behavioral research provides this knowledge and also the techniques to manage these behaviors. Animal management problems could be substantially reduced if dog owners were made aware of these and motivated or coerced to apply them. Training, management and supervision of the dog owner and special interest groups is also necessary to ensure their activities are compatible with animal management strategies. Why councils won't enforce, or breeders won't stop breeding can be explained by political, financial and emotional reasons, but not always excused. These reasons are preventing many solutions from being implemented. Irresponsible owners, unsupervised pets and an overpopulation of dogs have been identified as the main causes of animal management problems. Yet authorities continue to allow repeat offenders to keep their dogs, dogs to be kept on properties without fences, and the unrestricted breeding and recycling of dogs. The community still tolerates people involved with dogs denying that the animal-human relationship can be negative, when thousands of people are being bitten each year. This attitude has resulted in many difficulties for enforcement authorities, and has caused many owners to be surprised by behaviors in their dog they were not informed were possible. Animal management is a shared responsibility, and it must be ensured that all dog interest and community groups are sharing in it and resolving areas of conflict. Reluctance by the community to address these human factors is evident by arguments put forward against economically viable and practicable solutions to animal management problems; license fees should not be increased because people won't license their dog; too many constraints on dog ownership would result in more animals being abandoned and affect a person's right to have a dog; or education programs would not be effective because only responsible owners would participate. Yet none of these arguments has ever been adequately researched to support or refute these opinions. Research that identifies the human contributions to animal management problems should not be discouraged or ignored. There will always be issues needing decisions that are difficult for many in the community to accept. Research can provide a scientific base upon which the community can decide whether the solutions are less acceptable than the problem itself. |
|
|
|
Copyright © 2001 Bob Christiansen's CLC Publishing |
|
|
