Sarah Harte: Rather than ban certain breeds, can people just control their dogs?

In August, statistics released by the Department of Rural and Community Development showed 791 incidences of aggressive behaviour recorded in 2022, while the number of people physically injured, which includes damage to clothing, was 308.

Following a series of vicious attacks by Bully XL dogs in Britain, including a man mauled to death last week while defending his elderly mother, British prime minister Rishi Sunak said Bully XL dogs will be banned in Britain by the end of the year.

Unlike the UK, no dogs are banned in Ireland. Late last year, in Wexford, a Bully XL dog savaged nine-year-old Alejandro Mizsan requiring him to be airlifted to Crumlin Hospital, where he underwent two facial reconstruction surgeries for what were described as life-changing injuries. At the time of the attack Alejandro was outside playing, which is the right of every child to do so safely.

Bully XL dogs originated in America and are now being bred in Ireland, changing hands for significant sums of money. Although we have no banned dogs some are restricted, including the Bully XL, which is categorised as a ‘bandog’ meaning a crossbreed of any of the restricted dogs.

Restriction means certain conditions are attached to ownership including who owns the dogs, where they must be housed, and how they are controlled in public.

The regulations dictate that restricted dogs must always be on a lead in public, (no longer than two metres), be muzzled, micro-chipped, and wear a collar with the owner’s contact details.

An owner must be at least 16, too young to control such a dog. And the current restrictions don’t go far enough. People who own restricted breeds should have to get a special licence to own them, a condition of which ought to be passing a test to prove responsible dog ownership. Dog wardens and gardaí should have to consent to the permission. Switzerland has such a regime.

So, we should strengthen our laws, but as always it will come down to the enforcement of those laws. Earlier this year Agriculture Minister Charlie McConalogue said that dog owners who breach laws concerning control of their pets should be treated like “social pariahs”.

This seems unhelpful. More dog wardens might be a more practical solution. We have almost 200,000 licensed dogs in this country (excluding unlicensed dogs) with only 50 full-time and 21 part-time wardens employed by local authorities to ensure laws are enforced.

Although the Control of Dogs Act 1986 states every local authority must employ at least one dog warden, it’s up to each local authority to decide if they need more.

In reality, research shows that banning or restricting specific breeds of dogs won’t necessarily reduce dog bites. In studies carried out in countries with breed-specific legislation, there was no reduction in the number of dog bite incidents.

In the Netherlands, where they have a database of breeds and dog owners, the most commonly owned types of dogs were the most likely to have bitten, meaning the majority of dog bites come from unrestricted breeds.

According to an article last month from the Veterinary School of Science at the University of Liverpool, “there is little consistent scientific evidence that some breeds are inherently more aggressive than others”.

And yet activists seeking to ban the Bully XL in Britain claim 40% of all dog attacks arose with these dogs with an unignorable number ending in fatalities. When a restricted dog like a Bully XL attacks the consequences are potentially far more serious than say when a Maltese goes rogue.

Yet, it’s too easy to simply target the owners of restricted dogs. Many of us need to readjust how we move through the world as dog owners. The writer Milan Kundera said that “dogs are our link to paradise”, he should have added, “when they are controlled in public”.

There’s a breed of dog owner that reminds me of those delusional parents who assume the entire restaurant is delighted by their offspring’s antics —because they love their dogs, they assume everyone else does.

Not everyone thinks their life is empty if they’re not covered in dog hair. Some of us want to enjoy public spaces or go about our business without the risk of being attacked or even just jumped up on.

It’s been my too frequent experience, that the poorly socialised owners of poorly socialised dogs (often large) tend to blithely shout out as the dog knocks you to the ground something along the lines of ‘Don’t worry, they are really friendly. They’re harmless.’

If you fail to look pleased about this, you’re the maladjusted, unfeeling one. People who are nervous of dogs have the right not to have their space invaded, and often are people who have been bitten.

In August, statistics released by the Department of Rural and Community Development (DRCD) showed that there were 791 incidences of aggressive behaviour recorded in 2022, while the number of people physically injured, which includes damage to clothing, was 308.

If you think this is low, odds on it’s the tip of the iceberg because many bites go unreported.

In June, HSE data showed 460 hospitalisations following dog bites in 2022, with 144 cases involving children, an increase on the previous year’s figures.

Farmers have repeatedly highlighted the perils of dogs roaming the countryside, citing the need for greater awareness that pets are potentially dangerous animals.

The DRCD statistics also revealed a 24% increase in reports of dogs worrying livestock, with 268 incidents reported to local authorities. As reported in this newspaper, farmers have been pushing for stronger regulations.

Earlier this year the Minister for Agriculture brought an interim report to the cabinet with plans to double the fines under the Control of Dogs Act and establish a central database for dog microchips.

This database (a good idea) should correlate licences to microchipping (all dogs over 12 weeks are supposed to be microchipped.) It could also deal with dog bites which could be input by dog wardens, gardaí, vets, doctors, and hospitals with notes being taken of the breeds.

One possible barrier to dog control here is that policy responsibilities lie with separate departments. The Department of Rural and Community Development is responsible for dog control and dog breeding legislation.

However, the Department of Agriculture is responsible for the pet sales register, pet passports, the movement and trade of dogs internationally, and the microchipping of dogs.

Earlier this year, a dog control working group was set up between the two departments to coordinate policy, because there are almost certainly gaps in the system, but would it not make more sense to have one authority for dogs?

But it’s not all canine doom and gloom. University College Cork just became the first Irish university to introduce ‘therapy dogs’ on campus to support students who may be feeling stressed, and lonely.

When first reading about this practice being introduced at the Ivy League Stanford University, I sniffed, thinking that students ought to buck up. I was wrong. It’s a lovely idea. Evidence shows that spending time with therapy dogs lowers stress levels and helps forge social connections.

So, yes, dogs can be life-enhancing in a myriad of ways. They just need responsible owners with a modicum of cop-on and consideration for others.