Blame The Breeder Not The Breed

The problems with the Deed Not Breed mantra, being variously: punish the deed, blame the deed or deal with the deed, but not the breed, are: firstly that we can only punish/blame/deal with the deed after the fact, and secondly whenever an horrific attack occurs, such as has just happened in Wakefield, we immediately want to know the breed of dog involved.

Contrary to the Deed Not Breed argument - which says that fatal and maiming attacks on people are the result of maladjusted, poorly understood dogs; the painful truth for breeders to face is that such incidents can only occur where the breed is physically capable of inflicting such horrific damage and has been placed into the wrong environment.

An animal is dangerous because it is physically capable of so being, not because of its environment. A maiming attack by a dog however, is the result of three contributing factors:

the dog's history - its treatment, training and nature;

the situation it was put in to trigger the attack;

and finally, the factor that Deed Not Breed tries to ignore, the physical make-up of the dog.

A Dog Is For Life

It is about time that breeders took a closer look at another well rehearsed mantra from the canine world. The phrase 'A Dog Is For Life' is generally taken to apply to prospective new dog owners, implying that theirs is a responsibility that should not be entered into lightly. But how much more responsibility lies with the person who brought the animal into the world in the first place?

We are told that yesterday afternoon one-year-old Archie-Lee Hirst was attacked by the family's Rottweiler. The toddler's sixteen year old aunt was looking after him as well as two young girls, aged six and seven. The teenager was upstairs when the seven-year-old carried the baby outside to show him the dog. Without warning, the dog snatched the baby from the youngster's arms and carried him into the yard, inflicting fatal injuries.

Reacting to the news Kennel Club Secretary, Caroline Kisko this morning registered our collective shock and sorrow for the family. Nevertheless she lays the blame for the attack firmly at the feet of the family. She said today:

"The key is in taking preventative measures, so these types of attacks don't arise in the first place. These measures include awareness, education and training – the onus being on the owner. A responsible dog owner knows that you never leave a dog and a child, especially an infant, alone and unattended. It is the responsibility of parents, teachers, and the government to educate dog owners and children with what to do and what not to do when they are in the company of a dog."

This is wrong. The key is in fact that a dog, capable of inflicting such harm, ended up in the keeping of somebody who, by Caroline's definition, was not a responsible dog owner. So where now, does the onus lie?

The fault lies not with a devastated, grieving family and a teenager who is likely be traumatised for a very, very long time. It lies with a system so lacking in control that it conspired to place a one-year-old child in such a perilous situation.

This two-and-a-half year-old dog had been with this family for six months. So it had been re-homed - at least once. When dogs are moved from home to home their history and the circumstances of the re-homing are often lost, and very often even deliberately concealed.

There is currently no systematic compulsory method of tracing the roots of an animal. Despite the good practices of responsible breeders - those who properly interview prospective new dog owners and who stress that the dog should be returned to them for re-homing should things not work out, there is no compulsion on either the breeder or the new owner to do so.

The irresponsible 'sold as seen' attitude that pervades the darker side of this industry continues to put us all, but most especially our children, at risk. Rather than repeatedly calling for a ban on breeds, the homing and subsequent re-homing of a dangerous dog - a dog that is physically capable of maiming and killing, needs to be better controlled.

For as long as the current situation exists there is little, beyond drafting guidance and encouraging education, that the Kennel Club or any other canine welfare or policing organisation can do to ensure that a dangerous dog, does not end up in an inappropriate environment, maiming or killing once again. And once again, after the fact some of us will be blaming the deed, and the rest will be blaming the breed.