I’m also v interested in the bully ban campaign issue.
Some prominent EAs criticised the campaign because they thought that the lives saved (around 5 lives per year at current rates plus many more maulings, and more still if we expect that the bully population would have continued to grow as it was doing prior to the ban), while valuable, would not exceed the cost of effort involved. But the RSPCA actively campaigned against this life-saving policy and continues to argue for its reversal. Why?
nb I actually think the EA bully ban critics might have been “right for the wrong reasons”. While they vastly overestimated the effort involved in the campaign and therefore imagined more resources were spent per life than was actually the case (in fact the campaign had no external funding, just a few months part time work from Lawrence Newport which would make the anti-bully campaign about as effective as a GiveWell top charity in expenditure per life saved), it turns out that Dr Newport is a generational campaigning talent and if you value his time that way then a few months of effort actually does represent a significant commitment. Though if you count talent discovery as a campaign outcome it tips the balance the other way again!
Scientific evidence has shown that breed/type is not a robust indicator of bite risk. The causal factors of aggressive behaviour are a complex interaction between genetics and lifetime experiences. Research has also shown that legislation like the the Dangerous Dogs Act which bans types of dog based on how they look is ineffective in protecting the public. This policy position is consistent across Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, the British Veterinary Association, Hope Rescue, the Scottish SPCA, USPCA, Woodgreen, PDSA and The Kennel Club. There are more effective models for tackling dog-bite risk and keeping people and dogs safe. These are in operation in other parts of the world. Tackling irresponsible breeding, irresponsible ownership, the need for training, public education, licensing etc is all required to address this issue in a meaningful way.
From 1999-2019, the number of hospital admissions for the treatment of dog bites has increased by 154%, despite the prohibition of certain types of dogs. The UK Government must tackle the root issue by dealing with the unscrupulous breeders, who are putting profit before welfare, and the irresponsible owners whose dogs are dangerously out of control.
As well as being ineffective in protecting the public, these laws based on the appearance of the dog mean that many dogs whose behaviour has never been a concern are targeted.
I’m also v interested in the bully ban campaign issue.
Some prominent EAs criticised the campaign because they thought that the lives saved (around 5 lives per year at current rates plus many more maulings, and more still if we expect that the bully population would have continued to grow as it was doing prior to the ban), while valuable, would not exceed the cost of effort involved. But the RSPCA actively campaigned against this life-saving policy and continues to argue for its reversal. Why?
nb I actually think the EA bully ban critics might have been “right for the wrong reasons”. While they vastly overestimated the effort involved in the campaign and therefore imagined more resources were spent per life than was actually the case (in fact the campaign had no external funding, just a few months part time work from Lawrence Newport which would make the anti-bully campaign about as effective as a GiveWell top charity in expenditure per life saved), it turns out that Dr Newport is a generational campaigning talent and if you value his time that way then a few months of effort actually does represent a significant commitment. Though if you count talent discovery as a campaign outcome it tips the balance the other way again!
Scientific evidence has shown that breed/type is not a robust indicator of bite risk. The causal factors of aggressive behaviour are a complex interaction between genetics and lifetime experiences. Research has also shown that legislation like the the Dangerous Dogs Act which bans types of dog based on how they look is ineffective in protecting the public. This policy position is consistent across Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, the British Veterinary Association, Hope Rescue, the Scottish SPCA, USPCA, Woodgreen, PDSA and The Kennel Club. There are more effective models for tackling dog-bite risk and keeping people and dogs safe. These are in operation in other parts of the world. Tackling irresponsible breeding, irresponsible ownership, the need for training, public education, licensing etc is all required to address this issue in a meaningful way.
From 1999-2019, the number of hospital admissions for the treatment of dog bites has increased by 154%, despite the prohibition of certain types of dogs. The UK Government must tackle the root issue by dealing with the unscrupulous breeders, who are putting profit before welfare, and the irresponsible owners whose dogs are dangerously out of control.
As well as being ineffective in protecting the public, these laws based on the appearance of the dog mean that many dogs whose behaviour has never been a concern are targeted.