by Perry McCarney

Created on: January 19, 2011   Last Updated: March 22, 2011

Far too often, the answer to this question with regard to an individual case, is extrapolated into general terms. Often resulting in such legislation as “dangerous breed” laws and regulations. People and legislators with no personal experience of having canine family members making fear-based judgments without any factual validity. Or politicians making extreme demands against specific dogs or breeds purely for their own personal, political advancement.

While law-makers of whatever degree might desire to enact legislature of a general nature to encompass the interaction of domestic dogs within human society, few if any, advocate constraints on those who are the legitimate offenders in those cases where dogs attack humans. They prefer to blame the dogs, rather than the owners of the actual animals involved in any incident, or the humans who, in fact, insight the dogs to attack them.

Almost all dogs are essentially loyal and devoted companion animals, primarily concerned with supporting the integrity of their specific human/canine pack and following the demands of their alpha leader. Those likely to attack people will do so because of the effective direction of their human packleader or because of a lack of direction or dominance within their human/canine pack causing them to have a confused, fear-based reaction.

While working as a volunteer in the dog ward of an SPCA (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) veterinary hospital in Auckland, New Zealand, I met a mature pitbull dog with significant wounds, maggot infested, indicative of a dog fighting background. While his cage had a “do not enter” warning attached, after I had shown him my care and response to and from the other dogs within the ward, I opened his cage and sat with him for a time in mutual appreciation and acceptance. Despite the appalling nature of his wounds, and that humans were no doubt the ultimate source of them, we sat together as fellow beings, mutually accepting. He was stoic in his pain and dignified in his attitude.

That some dogs will attack humans in todays society is a foregone conclusion, because a significant number of humans are ready and willing to do so themselves, and our social structure readily permits them to own and raise dogs to do so on their commands as well. Making the decision to execute such dogs without significant legitimate punishment for those who so warped their natures is appallingly unjust on our parts.

The reality is that no individual dog is beyond retraining. Dogs are social animals that can learn to adapt and meet the requirements of the human/canine pack they are switched too. The time and effort required to make that change for some dogs can be extensive, beyond the funds available for such a program, despite the desires of those providing them with care.

Killing (putting down) dogs that it is too costly to retrain may be a political or economical necessity sometimes, allowing the people that made them that way to get of Scot-free, shouldn't be!

Learn more about this author, Perry McCarney.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.