The Kennel Club condemns Galloway

[faceless]

The Kennel Club condemns MP’s views on so-called Dangerous Dogs
14-Aug-07
www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1348/23/5/3


The Kennel Club has condemned the comments of George Galloway MP, who has called for all dogs to be muzzled in public places. Mr Galloway’s colourful and provocative language, which included a call to ban “several more” breeds of dog, is an affront to the overwhelming majority of dog owners in the UK, who understand the responsibility that dog ownership brings.

In an interview with TalkSport on 6th August, Caroline Kisko, the Kennel Club Secretary, was invited to join programme presenter and Respect MP, George Galloway in his discussion on Staffordshire Bull Terriers and his call for an outright ban on the breed. The interview was prompted by the shocking attack on a girl in Plymouth by a dog last weekend.

Numerous listeners called in to support the Kennel Club’s stance, which is that a dog’s behaviour is the responsibility of the owner, and a whole breed cannot be blamed, judged, or condemned for the action of one dog. Caroline advised Mr Galloway that a dog’s behaviour, in any breed, can be good or bad, but that it is down to the way it is treated, arguing that the fault lies with the owner and their irresponsible treatment of the dog. However, Mr Galloway suggested that the only ‘sensible’ way to tackle the problem of attacks on children is to outlaw all terriers, ban all dogs from cities and for all dogs to be muzzled in public places.

None of these unenforceable suggestions would make society a better or safer place with dogs, as Mr Galloway was reminded during the interview. The Dangerous Dogs Act has done very little to protect the public from attacks by pit bull terriers, and is currently under review between the government, the Kennel Club and the major dog welfare organisations

Said Caroline Kisko: “Mr Galloway’s suggestions are ill-considered and would do very little to prevent further attacks. The only issue here is that of irresponsible dog ownership, something of which the Kennel Club is more than aware. We run two active schemes, the Good Citizen Dog Scheme and the Safe and Sound Scheme, both of which are aimed at combating any potential danger for people around dogs, and encouraging responsible dog ownership.”

-----------------

To listen to the call click this. thanks to Major tom for the original show as I'd missed the first hour that day...

LISTEN

[Mandy]

They didn't mention the talkSPORT poll which put Galloway ahead of Gaunt's view (I think around 60 - 40)

[faceless]

Good point Mandy, but then - this picture says it all about the level of their argument.

[luke]

[popinjay]

[major.tom]

Muzzled, yes. Put down? That's pretty extreme. Dogs have rights. Not more than people, but certainly enough that breeds should not be rendered extinct.

There should also be stiff penalties for people who don't muzzle or who are seen abusing their dogs (laws for which exist already).

GG he may have taken it up to shift gears. But I'm not swayed by the ad above. Ad hominem attacks lose the argument. (GG was pretty short with the kennel lady, I think because she likened his position to an argument for ethnic genocide.)

[Mandy]

regarding "but certainly enough that breeds should not be rendered extinct" I am sure that George would never advocate extinction of a breed. An analogy is "lions" : Fine in zoos, in safari parks, but not in the home.

The idea of "putting down" might occur for some dogs if there is no place to put them (like what happens in an animal home for dogs which can't be found a home) .. but there is always an assumption that the breed isn't in danger (else it would be on some endangered species list and given special protection).

Also, the talkSPORT vote had George propose muzzling for dogs above a certain size (to be agreed) so not all dogs. This was a refinement after considering tiny dogs.

[major.tom]

I'm pretty sure I recall him saying something to the effect of, better all dogs be put down than one girl be mauled. I don't remember the exact wording, though it was painted with quite a wide brush.

[luke]

[Mandy]

[popinjay]

[Mandy]

[nekokate]

How about, instead of killing all staffordshire terriers, just make it illegal to breed or sell them anymore? That way the ones that currently exist will eventually die of old age and there'll be none left in 20 years. And if they're muzzled in public, then the remaining ones won't bite any more kids. Surely that's the less radical way to go.

I don't want to see some barbaric mass cull, but I'd rather massive beasts that have a habit of occasionally going insane without warning weren't around. Seems pretty sensible to me.

Someone on the show last week made the point that most of the people ringing in to disagree were dog owners themselves who said things like "my terrier is huge but wouldn't hurt anyone", and he said "don't you think that the owner of the dog that attacked the little girl would have said exactly the same thing the day before it happened?"

It's a pretty good point, isn't it? I mean, how many dog owners are like "yea, my dog's mental, it's probably going to kill someone any day now"?? They all kid themselves that their dog is harmless.

[popinjay]

[faceless]

I once got into a situation with a flatmate of mine because I thought he was being an arse to say I was wrong to say that I told his dog to get off a chair so I could sit down. I used to have a dog and saw him through 13 years of fun and enjoyment, but I'd never have let him have a seat while a person sat on the floor.

My point is that dogs are not on the same level as humans and the minute they are allowed to think so is the minute they can become dangerous (especially if they are pre-disposed, through breeding, to aggression). There was a clip in the recent 'Top Gear Polar Special' where the owner of a group of huskies was seen beating them with a stick - and I challenge anyone to say that she didn't control them and stop the problem becoming larger. Dogs are animals and they can be great, but I'm 100% behind the idea of not allowing people to have one that isn't controllable by them.