Page 528 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
undertaken to teach children at an early age the skills they need when interacting with dogs. We must also develop effective ways to warn children of the presence of a potentially dangerous dog.
If all dog owners had a better understanding of how to properly train, care for and appropriately interact with their dogs, it is likely that attacks by dangerous dogs, or potentially dangerous dogs, would decrease. The early socialisation and training of puppies can make a big difference. The dog’s environment and treatment are major contributing factors to overall temperament.
The overarching issue here is the need for dog owners to be more responsible rather than the need for more punitive legislation. Dog owners should be the focus here rather than the dogs themselves. We know that the way dogs behave is, to quite a large extent, the product of their environment and training. Indeed, perhaps it would be more effective to have an irresponsible dog owner register as well as having a dangerous dog register.
We need to do something with chronically irresponsible dog owners. They need to be instructed how to be a responsible dog owner. That is the issue rather than punishing the owner and destroying the dog after an incident occurs. You could say that it is often not the dog’s fault. They were not properly looked after. How to do that is the question. We need to have a stronger system of measures to encourage responsible dog ownership.
For example, we could aim for early identification of individual dogs that may pose a risk and intervene to protect the community. But that intervention does not necessarily have to be euthanasia. Across Australia, legislation dealing with dogs tends to focus on dealing with the consequence of dog behaviour rather than to focus on the prevention of attacks.
I turn to what constitutes the category of dangerous dogs. Some jurisdictions, such as our own, have only one category. Most jurisdictions, however, have a range of classifications. South Australia, for example, has three categories. Queensland and Victoria each have two. These categories include dangerous, menacing and nuisance dogs.
Multnomah County in Oregon USA has had a “potentially dangerous” dog classification in existence since 1989. This classification program has successfully decreased incidents where dogs have a history of biting. The classification of “potentially dangerous” allows for a review after three years. If there have been no further incidents, and if the dog in question passes approved behavioural tests, it, and in effect its owner, is eligible for review. Perhaps we should implement a similar tiered system in the ACT as opposed to our current binary system.
Exhibiting aggression without biting or while under the control of a competent owner is a very different behavioural issue to a life-threatening attack. Just as with anti-social behaviour in humans, potential and actual dangerous behaviour of dogs exists on a continuum. If we were to have more than one category for dogs with
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video