|
|
 |
|||
 |
||||
|
|
||||
|
What? You don't believe that leash laws actually cause dog bites? To find out what we mean by that, read on... (click a link to jump to that paragraph)
Leash laws cause dog bites, it's as simple as that.
To quickly summarize, it is clear to us that leashes cause aggressive behaviours, when used inappropriately. All the evidence shows that tethering dogs is unethical. Most experts equate the "fight" response in dogs to this sense of being unable to flee, whether tied to a fixed object or the dog's owner via a leash. Dogs who know they can't flee will often feel the need to fight, it's as simple as that. Since leash laws were enacted, many people now seem to believe that since dogs must be leashed, they don't have to "train" their dogs...they simply physically control them with a leash. Clearly, those who use leashes in an attempt to control their dogs are the ones with the dogs that must be physically restrained. These kinds of dogs are not the ones you'd want to meet walking down the street or living next door. Properly raised dogs have no need for a leash. They're trained. They respond to verbal commands, with no "need" for a physical restraint of any kind. Again, now that leashes are mandatory in most communities, many dog owners don't even attempt to properly train their dogs. Instead, they simply use leashes to attempt to control them. ...Bad idea... Now, certainly it is possible to teach a dog to pretty much ignore a leash. Hundreds of thousands of North American dogs walk obediently beside their owners with or without leashes. More importantly, they don't feel threatened by non-threatening situations, thus negating the desire to either fight or flee. That is just one of the benefits of proper socialization. But ethical dog trainers sometimes wonder aloud why it is not only acceptable but mandatory to affix a rope around the delicate neck of a dog in order to leave the owners' property? Afterall, the overwhelming majority of aggression incidents occur on private property, not out in public where leash laws apply, and involve people who know the dog and are voluntarily interacting with it at the time, not strangers passing by on sidewalks or in public parks. Sure, irresponsible dog owners might let their dogs run amok without leash laws. That's why leash laws were created. But shouldn't those individuals be the ones penalized, and not the rest of us who find it abhorrent to strap a rope around the necks of our perfectly behaved and well-mannered dogs? To better understand the issue, let's look back at how leash laws impact dog owners.
So, because some dog owners continued to allow their dogs to behave inappropriately, leash laws were enacted. With laws in place, irresponsible owners could now face fines for allowing their dogs to disturb the peace. Responsible dog owners were somewhat displeased with these new restrictions because it affected them too, even though they'd done nothing wrong. In a civilized society, we expect to be held accountable for our own actions, NOT the actions of others. <back to top>
With the advent of leash laws, we begin to see the two paths diverge. Responsible dog owners continue trying to do the right things for their dogs and their neighbours, while irresponsible dog owners continue selfishly doing whatever they want. "Good" dog owners raise their dogs with similar expectations to that of children. After all, we all live in the same houses, and with the same community expectations for conduct. "Bad" dog owners relegate their dogs to backyards, or treat them as disposable novelties, completely ignoring the basic needs of their dogs and excusing all manner of inappropriate behaviour. <back to top> As dog ownership grew in popularity, dog-related issues grew in magnitude. Now, it was no longer a single dog barking 'til all hours or digging a hole here and there. With many more dogs came many more problems. Still, the "good" dog owners got better at their craft, while the "bad" dog owners continued their selfish ways. Fast forward to today. More dogs + more restriction = more problems. Dog ownership is more popular than ever. The reasons people have dogs are equally as diverse. There is no single way to train every dog. Dogs have personalities as individual as humans. Each person or dog learns differently. What works in teaching one may not work on another. This fact makes dog training anything but a guarantee. Since the same principles apply to child rearing, dog owners are about as successful at developing good canine citizens as parents are in raising good human citizens. On the plus side for society, no dog has ever lied, parked illegally, robbed a bank, or spread false rumours. With more and more people interacting with more and more dogs, there's bound to be an increase in complaints. With those complaints come proposed "solutions". Unfortunately, those "solutions" are usually poorly thought out. More often than not they're inexpertly devised and ineptly aimed. <back to top> Leash laws, the most common restriction, may be the most fundamentally problematic kind of by-law. Dogs are social beings. They have an absolute need, a biological imperative, to interact with others. This basic fact must never be underestimated. The simple solution to roaming dogs seemed easy enough. Leash laws meant that dog owners could be observed and therefore punished if they allowed their dogs to roam unsupervised. What the law didn't take into consideration was how much positive and effective training needs to be done off-leash with the owner. Leash laws absurdly lump together unsupervised dogs roaming loose at all hours of the day and night, with responsible dog owners conducting vital off-leash training and socialization. Seems kind of silly that the two opposite ends of the dog ownership spectrum could be confused, yet leash laws do just that. Regardless, all this meant that responsible dog owners had to scramble to find other ways to properly train their dogs to behave appropriately in society. (Trying to train a dog to behave 'appropriately' in human society, without ever having the opportunity to do the actual training 'in human society' makes the task that much more difficult...to say the least.) Still, responsible dog owners pressed on. Dogs benefit humans so much that that the extra effort is still worthwhile. Not only do some dogs perform extremely useful tasks, numerous studies prove less tangible benefits, such as improved health and life expectancy for dog owners, as well as better health, fewer auto-immune disorders, better manners, greater responsibility, and better grades for their children. Responsible dog owners found themselves networking, in an effort to find like-minded people who could assist them in their training efforts...after all, it's impossible to teach a dog the correct way to interact with others without actually allowing it to interact with others. <back to top> This usually meant forming dog clubs and/or creating off-leash areas for dogs. The problem with dog clubs is that all the members soon get to know each other, and the necessary 'socialization with strangers' element ceases. The problem with having only one or two off-leash parks is they're usually too inaccessible for most dog owners. Many responsible dog owners feel they have no choice but to disobey ridiculous leash laws in favour of much more vital off-leash socialization and exercise in neighbourhood parks. To their credit, most dog owners do this clandestine off-leash exercise at times when very few other citizens are using the parks. In fact, some studies show that at any time of the day or night approximately 75% of park users are there for the sole purpose of exercising their dogs. Shouldn't 75% of daily, year-round park users have some say in how that park is managed??? Still, leash laws are in effect in most cities. The most responsible dog owners sacrifice a great deal of their time not only to properly train and care for their dogs, but to drive great distances to the handful of off-leash areas in most cities. This has the negative consequence of ensuring many dogs are never properly socialized because their owners have neither access to local off-leash areas, nor the time to drive great distances to the few leash-free areas that do exist. The two paths diverge even more. <back to top> Those dogs that get out for daily off-leash socialization are the very safest dogs to be around, in particular when on the owner's property, where most dog bites occur. They learn what is and isn't appropriate behaviour, and they learn how to control their own behaviour without a need for physical restraint. (As Gillian Ridgeway, of Who's Walking Who, aptly pointed out, dogs are the only creature that we constantly physically restrain. We don't expect this of cats, horses, people, or any other animal.) We think it's obvious that constant physical restraint is not only inhumane, but just basically a bad idea. Every piece of evidence suggests that strict physical restraint is the cause for numerous inappropriate dog behaviours. So, what are we left with? If we look at the dogs actually involved in serious biting incidents, we find a few common elements, as they relate to leashing. <back to top>
Without mandatory leashing requirements, responsible dog owners would be free to train their dogs properly, and without abuse. This would result in many more well-behaved dogs living among us. If we punished only those dog owners who actually cause problems, we'd also create an environment that discourages irresponsible dog ownership. Not only that, by basing our laws on factual information, rather than theories concocted by less-than-expert individuals, we would have a more accurate view of companion dogs, with higher expectations for the conduct of both dogs and their owners. Statistics prove that most dogs never bite anyone, and are the greatest danger to those who interact with them while they're on their owners' property when they're inadequately supervised. Imagine the day when dog ownership is protected from discrimination. When that day arrives, we won't be able to ban or restrict the movements of lawful citizens simply because they have dogs at their sides. We'll actually have to provide evidence that an individual has actually done something wrong before we can punish him/her. What a glorious day that will be for responsible dog owners and freedom-loving citizens alike. And isn't that really the cornerstone of a free and democratic society? In Canada, we're supposed to hold people accountable for their own actions, not the actions of their neighbours, their relatives, or people who happen to own similar-looking dogs. <back to top> Punish the guilty. Protect the innocent. But most importantly, laws shouldn't be passed based on myth, hysteria, or hyperbole. Leash laws have caused the development of all sorts of anti-social behaviours that wouldn't exist if dog owners were allowed to provide their dogs with opportunities to learn how to control their own behaviour, without a need for physical restraint; otherwise known as "socialization". Proper socialization REQUIRES regular off-leash exercise and positive interaction with strangers. Failure to do so guarantees a poorly socialized dog. And these are the dogs involved in most unprovoked bites. However, it is important to remember that very few dog bites occur at a time when the dog is being walked in public with its owner (on-leash or off). This makes all public restraint by-laws totally misguided and unjust. Overwhelmingly, dog bites occur at a time when the dog is left unsupervised. The dog you want living next door is one whose owner regularly takes it for off-leash socialization, and one that is capable of obediently walking off-leash, alongside its owner. This kind of dog is extremely unlikely to bite a stranger walking down the street, or anyone else, for that matter, because it has learned how to control its own behaviour through distraction. Not only that, it's probably taken many more places than dogs that require physical restraint. This further enhances the level of socialization of that dog. The dog you DON'T want living next door is one that is always physically restrained, is rarely taken out in public, and is incapable of controlling its behaviour without a physical restraint of some kind. In short, the dog you don't want to encounter is one that is rarely outside its fenced yard, but when it is, is usually walked on a tight leash and rarely allowed to interact with strange people and dogs. While this describes the ideal kind of dog care proposed by many municipal governments, it is diametrically opposed to guidelines of truly responsible dog ownership. A dog kept in that manner is likely to bite its owner or visitors to its property, one day. <back to top> How we treat dog owners, especially those who bend over backwards to do the right things for both their dogs and society, will determine what kinds of dogs that live among us. Leash laws cause dog bites. Proper socialization and supervision reduces dog bites. One is a simple solution to a complex, dog owner-related problem; one that is not directed at the problem of inappropriate dog behaviour, but the easily recognizable symptom of being "off-leash". The other is a less 'feel good' approach that is difficult to enforce, yet is factually sound and a proven method for reducing unprovoked dog bites. However, GoodPooch.com does not recommend abandoning leash laws entirely. We simply suggest that dog owners be afforded the opportunity to raise and train their dogs in a manner that not only has the greatest likelihood of developing a well-adjusted canine citizen, but that also doesn't infringe on the rights of other citizens in the community. For example, what "crime" has been committed when a responsible dog owner walks his/her perfectly behaved dog off-leash? We suggest the "crime" is allowing the dog to interfere with the personal freedoms of others. If a dog owner allows his or her dog to be a nuisance, then it is that individual dog owner who should be penalized. Responsible dog owners shouldn't be punished for the misdeeds of others. In fact, no one should. If we want to reduce the number of dog bites, we can only do so through education, and not legislation. The factors that lead to dog bites are completely out of the jurisdiction of municipal by-laws. Leash laws incorrectly restrict all dogs, rather than just those who cause problems. Because of this interference with the normal socialization process, leash laws are responsible for causing restriction-related behaviour problems, such as aggression. To put it more plainly, reliance on leashes tends to cause dog bites.
|
||||
| © 2004-2007 GoodPooch.com | ||||
Around
the world, responsible dog owners are facing breed bans, strict leash laws, and
brutal restrictions that make properly socializing their dogs nearly impossible.
What happened to the concept of "man's best friend"? When did the world
start hating dogs? 
To
figure out how this anti-dog sentiment has grown to absurd
In
the first half of the 20th century, dogs were seen as little more than possessions.
They lived half as long as they do today (in many cases), and they were allowed
to roam loose in their neighbourhoods. Back in those days, serious dog
attacks were rare. But when dogs are not properly supervised, they
behave...well...like dogs. They dig and bark and chase; all behaviours
that are frowned upon by most citizens.
So
now, even perfectly law-abiding owners had to leash their perfectly behaved dogs
in public. The very best dog owners consider leashing dogs as abhorrent
and unnecessary as leashing children, but they went along with the new
restrictions anyway.