Dog control: questions begging for answers.

Abstract

AN ‘In Focus’ feature about dog control on pp 487–489 of this issue may strike some readers as simply a list of questions. We make no apologies for that, because questions far outnumber answers when it comes to this topic. According to Defra nine people died following dog attacks in the UK in 2022 – the highest annual figure ever. Several of the victims were children. As in the early 1990s when the Dangerous Dogs Act was created, media coverage has focused on ‘dangerous dogs’. Normally there are around four deaths per year attributed to dog attacks. As is often the case with statistics, questions immediately present themselves. For example, there is debate among experts about what constitutes a dog ‘attack’. Fatalities are often categorised as arising from being ‘bitten or struck’ by a dog, meaning incident characteristics can be hard to identify – for example, some deaths could arguably result from canine play behaviour, such as where a dog jumps up and knocks down a person who suffers a head injury from impact with a pavement. But such complexities aside, why was 2022 a record-breaking year? It has been suggested poor socialisation of puppies acquired by inexperienced owners during the Covid-19 lockdowns may have been a factor. Likewise, there has been an increase in recent years in the popularity of foreign rescue dogs, some of which may have behavioural problems. Attitudes towards dogs and what they are for may be changing too. There appears to be a trend for using muscular dogs, sometimes with cropped ears, as ‘protection dogs’. If interest is increasing in acquiring dogs more for the purpose of defence (which may inevitably include attack) than to be a ‘family dog’, what impact is that having? These are all areas worthy of research but there are also longstanding questions relating to bite risk that should not be ignored. “The issue of whether certain breeds are particularly predisposed towards displaying aggression arouses strong emotions In its position on dog control the BVA acknowledges that ‘some studies have identified particular breeds as having a higher risk of causing bite injury or displaying aggression’ – although it adds that there is a ‘lack of consistency in findings’ and that no studies suggest an increased incidence of aggression or biting in breeds currently banned in the UK. Vet Record understands that, in as-yet unpublished advice from a panel of experts, one continental European government investigating dog bite risk has been told that ‘family lineage’ ranks highly in a set of ‘dog-related factors’ correlating with risk. Defra is currently examining what can be done to make human-dog interactions safer. While breed-specific legislation does seem to lack an evidence base, there is perhaps mileage in considering ‘breeding-specific’ policies – namely, approaches intended to make the supply of dogs more geared towards providing the best-adjusted pets, with a concomitant crackdown on breeders of ‘protection dogs’ or those enabling the use of dogs to intimidate people. This, surely, is an approach most could get behind, regardless of their views on breed-specific legislation. There are risks in interactions with dogs. Some individual dogs pose a higher risk than others, as do some types of interaction. ‘Education’ is often deemed the solution. But schemes teaching children how to be safe around dogs already exist and yet dog bites are on the rise. Are such schemes failing? If so, why? BVA grants editorial freedom to the Editor of Vet Record. The views expressed in the journal are those of the authors and may not necessarily comply with BVA policy