Sir, – I have to disagree with parts of Finola Meredith's article, "The law about 'dangerous dogs' is worse than their bite" (Opinion, August 1st).
A Staffordshire bull terrier attacked my dog and then me when I intervened to prevent my dog from being killed. I have since discovered that Staffordshire bull terriers are classified as “attack dogs” which surely must mean a significant difference of character and nature to usual family pet dogs.
They have been involved in horrific attacks on children and adults.
I do not agree that such dogs have to be owned by hostile and aggressive owners to behave according to their inherent nature but I do agree that opportunities to express their inherent nature can be afforded to them by irresponsible owners who do not ensure that they are kept securely away from innocent passersby, do not walk them on a suitable short leash and do not muzzle them.
It is a facile conclusion to decide that “the existing laws are obviously not working” because the number of people hospitalised with dog bites has increased by 50 per cent since the restricted dogs list was introduced in 1998.
The increase may well be associated with an increase in the numbers of such dogs being kept as family “pets” and the fact that the law may not be as effective as it should be may be due to lack of enforcement.
– Yours, etc
ANN HARNETT
O’CONNOR
Rathcoole,
Dublin 24.