Pamela Lawson | Dog critics barking up wrong tree
I immediately knew that the beginning of this week was going to prove to be a challenge when from early Monday morning I received call after call from colleagues, pet owners and animal lovers alike, all referring to the Observer's front-page article with the heading 'Vicious reality'.
In this fascinating article, Dr Guyan Arscott demonstrated such erudition regarding breed-specific animal behaviour and the ability of the nation's already-overwhelmed health service to meet the demands for dog-incurred injuries. The sheer ability for a physician to identify the breed of a dog based on bite wounds left me impressed, and I must presume that this was apparently how Dr Arscott could present such impressive data and statistics to support his line of reasoning.
I fully endorse Dr Arscott's call that the Government must do all in its power to address this preventable social issue and stem the needless loss of life, limb - and suffering. As always, it is our children and the elderly who suffer the brunt from these traumatic incidents. Our archaic animal laws desperately require amending and would greatly benefit having even a fraction of the teeth sported by the large number of dogs that walk the streets.
As for Dr Arscott's opinion about the temperament of Rottweilers, pit bulls and (I quote) that "even in the hands of responsible owners, they are prone to dangerous behaviour ... . Even the owners are prone to the attack of these dangerous animals, and so we have concluded that nature cannot be overcome by nurture," my first question is, Sir, who is we?
What scientific article or journal did he use to arrive at the following conclusion? "Seventy-five per cent of global figures for dog attacks in 2009 was by pit bulls or Rottweilers, with 60 per cent of these being children." ... These statistics were generated by who?
Last, who is going to protect and safeguard our homes and family from the two-footed animal that creates murder and mayhem in Jamaica every day if it is not to be our dogs, many of which are Rottweilers, pit bulls and mixes?
Allow me, Dr Arscott, to present research results conducted by a United States-based organisation, the National Canine Research Council (https://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/injurious-dog-bites/dog-bi... ). This comprehensive review was derived from research and data gathered from a multitude of agencies. The findings were:
- Dog-related fatalities or serious injury invoke strong emotional response because they are largely preventable and predominantly affect children.
- Visual breed identification is no longer accepted as a responsible and reliable source to identify animals as studies have proven that people often inaccurately assign a breed to identify a dog.
- Children and the elderly are more at risk.
- Risk is higher of fatal dog bites when the dog is a sexually unaltered male.
- There is a lack of supervision, positive human interaction, owner control and a failure by owners to spay and neuter their animals.
Based on a 16-year study (2000-2015), the family dogs were rarely involved, as 70.4 per cent were not pets (so pet owners, do not give up your pet Rottweilers and pit bulls just yet), 80 per cent of dogs involved in fatalities could not be reliably identified, and in 2016, the CDC fatality count for the entire USA was 31 persons - a far cry from this pandemic that is overtaking our nation because of the tremendous stray population on our streets and irresponsible pet ownership.
The conclusion was that public education is vital, as is owner accountability. I urge Jamaicans, the media and well-meaning individuals to temper the sensationalism. Let not the many injuries and lives that have been lost over the years by dog attacks be in vain. Let us come together and responsibly learn from the mistakes of other nations, implement a national strategy, and amend our legislation to address this scourge on our society.
Blame the deed, not the breed!