It has been thirty-two years now since politicians in Great Britain implemented the Dangerous Dogs Act, which was supposed to solve the issue of dog attacks “once and for all” through the prohibition and “eradication” of selected breeds. Thirty-two years later, Britain still has 10 deaths per year due to dog attacks. Throughout the country, there is an abundance of banned dogs cleverly disguised as “mixed breeds with boxers” and the like. And over the course of these thirty-two years, numerous owners of genuine mixed breeds with boxers and similar dogs, who innocently faced draconian sanctions, have come to realize that “sieving and weighing dogs’ blood” to see “bloodlines” and assigning dogs “breeds,” as if it were a provable fact, except in the narrow context of show dogs and show rings, is as much a charlatan endeavor as determining the race of a human individual by measuring their skull.

There is no line

Plenty real-life experiences with such laws may well speak against them. And veterinary associations, dog trainers and owners’ associations, public health organizations, etc., may indeed oppose them on many occasions. But it’s true. It’s just about lobbying. That’s all it is. Dog haters will always hate, dog fearers will always fear. And politicians will always capitalize on both. The news media will always pour oil on the fire and monetize. And, of course, dog lovers will always try to advocate for their dogs. And dogs will bite. Breed bans then seem reasonable; we just have to draw some line then? Well, the bitter truth is: there is no line!

Know about Britain? What about Denmark? Ban one breed, then to keep the thing effective, you have to ban some more. Since “breed” is, as it turns out, quite a vague concept, you soon start to talk about “types”. “Type” soon becomes any dog with four legs and a muzzle and without enough owners to lobby for (remember it’s all about lobbying?). Since teeth are inherent part of any dog, dogs continue to bite. Some countries then eventually repeal such laws and attempt to draft something more reasonable. Others, like Britain, seem reluctant to admit failure and opt to push for more. Till the next thirty-two years, when they figure they still have 10 deaths per year.

The solution to the problem exists. It is much less popular, draws fewer headlines, and is much more boring: Everyone should acquire competence and get to know dogs—understand their behavior, nature, and their needs—before getting one. Dog and people abusers should be prevented from owning any animal. People should be responsible and know how to be responsible. Any owner, any dog. And at first glance, ironically, this may sound a bit drastic and require significant effort to enforce. Yet, it is still less drastic and easier than enforcing breed bans on the grounds of any science!

Dangerous dogs and laws are indeed rarely a matter of reason and common sense. But we should start asking ourselves why we have let ourselves go so astray.