Is it me or does there seem to be more of an anti dog agenda in the media and in society in general?

I was out walking with my two last Saturday when a lady asked if her young child could stroke Molly.

I said that would be fine as she's generally not bothered about other people and I knew she would probably just ignore this girl at best.

Anyway, I got talking to this lady and she said how it was nice to meet someone with a 'normal' dog. So many people walking around with 'dangerous' dogs she said.

I asked he what she meant.

"I see people with those Alsatians, German Shepherds, Rottweilers and those Bull Terrier dogs all the time" she said. "Sometimes they are even off the lead and I worry. Why do people even need those dangerous dogs?"

I didn't want to really get into a debate with the lady but it hit home to me just how much of an impact reporting of dangerous dogs can have.

Turns out, she's never met any of these dogs she's already condemned as 'dangerous'. In fact, she had taken her position based on media coverage alone. And so I was thinking, is she alone with this view?

I spoke to a few people who I know and who I would describe as 'dog neutrals'. Seems they too have got their own little 'lists' of dangerous dogs. I asked them how they'd arrived at their list. Had they met dogs of these breeds which were unpleasant? Had they been exposed to dangerous dogs who matched the breeds they revealed to me?

No and no. Again, when they questioned themselves on why they had picked out certain dogs as dangerous or not very good as pets, they'd done so purely based on things they'd read or subsconciously absorbed via media reports.

I don't know what the answer is to trying to educate people about dogs and their social behaviour but I do know this. Things are changing. People, normal people, are starting to build up pictures of certain breeds which is not good.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed