This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to theechidna.com.au
$0/
(min cost $0)
Login or signup to continue reading
When it comes to violent dogs, the most dangerous breed is easy to identify.
First, check the eyes. Note how they often smoulder with violence. Examine the lips, frequently curled into a snarl. Watch the muscles quiver. Observe the tension in the jaws. Marvel at how a small brain can drive such primitive bloodlust.
Yes, it's pretty simple stuff recognising the owners of vicious and highly dangerous dogs.
Don't bother complaining that a boofhead with a boxer at his side is nothing but a shallow stereotype. A growing body of scientific research now backs that cliché of how dog owners not only resemble their mutts but also drive their behaviour - relevant material at a time when vicious dog attacks are on the rise.
The NSW deputy state coroner is currently overseeing an inquiry into the recent deaths of seven people, including a two-year-old boy and a five-week-old baby, after being attacked by dogs.
Much of the evidence tabled so far has been horrific: victims mauled by dogs with histories of aggressive behaviour; animals left to roam that should have been securely leashed; vague council regulations that inhibit the ability of inspectors to act decisively and which often excuse a dog's aggression when "defending its territory".
The inquiry may recommend tighter controls around dog breeds known to be dangerous, but hopefully it won't stop there. We do our best to legally prevent guns being owned by people disposed toward violence. So why do we permit them to own savage animals?
Consider a classic American study of owners of "high-risk" dogs like pit bulls (these are banned in Australia but their closely-related cousin, the Staffy, is enormously popular). All 355 dog owners in the study had at least one criminal conviction or civil misdemeanour. Compared to owners of dogs regarded as low-risk, those with high-risk dogs were nine times as likely to have committed a crime involving children and three times more likely to have committed domestic violence.
Other studies have also found strong links between ownership of vicious dogs and the antisocial tendencies of their owners. One, in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, revealed vicious dog owners engaged more often in criminal behaviour, boasted significantly higher personality traits involving "impulsive sensation seeking" and tended to be more selfish, manipulative and careless.
Yet another found younger people with highly disagreeable personalities show a preference for owning aggressive dogs. Getting the picture?
All dogs are potentially dangerous and children remain by far their most common victims. In most states, a child is admitted to hospital with bite marks at least once a week, often by the trusted family pet.
I have two placid cavoodles whose sole reason for existing revolves around their need to be patted and held in human hands. Yet even they turn into snarling, snapping predators when the neighbours' cat strays into the backyard.
Now place a powerful rottweiler (one of the most common dogs regarded as dangerous) or a Staffy bulging with more brawn than a steroid-addicted weightlifter in the care of an idiot whose pleasures border on the sadistic, whose self-esteem depends on notions of machismo and strength and who, pathetically but all too commonly, finds validation through owning a 'tough' dog.
No background checks. No muzzling or leashing rules. No requirement to train a breed requiring careful and expert handling. It's a powerful mix with unlimited potential for carnage.
Queensland this year belatedly joined the rest of the country by introducing laws carrying hefty fines and potential jail time for owners whose dogs cause death or serious injury. But what about prevention? Given the science, shouldn't owners of dangerous breeds be required to pass some form of psychological evaluation?
Our passion for dogs reached unprecedented levels of infatuation during the pandemic. For good reason, too. Dogs provide valuable companionship for the lonely and we are all aware of the critical role they play in reducing stress and anxiety. There's even evidence they can extend the human lifespan.
Research has shown the same part of our brain lights up when looking at photographs of our children and our pets, while levels of hormones like oxytocin rise in humans and their pooches whenever they stare into one another's eyes.
Perhaps we've grown a little too comfortable with dogs after living alongside them for more than 15,000 years and have forgotten how savage they can be when provoked or trained to be aggressive.
This much is certain: we worry too much about the perils posed by certain dangerous dogs when the real threat lies with their owners.
HAVE YOUR SAY: Have you been attacked by a dog? Have you owned a dog that has attacked people or other dogs? Should breeds like pit bulls and rottweilers be completely banned? Email us: echidna@theechidna.com.au
SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
- The Coalition is ready to talk about the public service again, but public servants may not like the message. Peter Dutton spelled out his agenda on Tuesday when he appointed an assistant spokesperson to the role of "government waste reduction", specifically citing a boost of 10,000 federal public service roles in the last budget.
- Virgin Australia is set to allow pets to travel onboard with their owners in an Australian first. The service is expected to launch within 12 months subject to regulatory approval, Virgin Australia Group chief executive Jayne Hrdlicka announced on March 7.
- Paid parental leave is about to be supercharged for many thousands of Australian families in a bid to help close a substantial super gap between women and men as well as to strike a better balance between care and work. Minister for Women and ACT senator Katy Gallagher has announced that the Albanese government will move to legislate a 12 per cent super equivalent payment to a superannuation fund on behalf of parents receiving the payment.
THEY SAID IT: "The more I learn about people, the more I like my dog." - Mark Twain
YOU SAID IT: As human fertility rates and sperm counts tumble across the world, a stingray has found a way to reproduce without the help of a male.
Lee writes: "In 2018, a stingray in Manly called Freckle also had a baby by immaculate conception. In relation to the birth rate, it is dropping because people are worried about the environment and the impact of children on it, what they are leaving for their kids and mostly, the cost of living. Starting to have families later is also an impact, but I think that people who are choosing this will also have chosen to only have a few kids anyway."
"I love your contributions to Echidna and I open it with my first coffee in the morning," writes George. "I am an atheist and have been since I was allowed to stop going to Sunday school at age 10. However, religion has always fascinated me, none more so than catholicism and I cannot count the number of catholics who do not believe me when I say that the term 'immaculate conception' refers to the conception of Mary, not Jesus."
Old Donald writes: "Thanks, John. Nice pun too! Frankly any religion that could accept stuff such as the Lourdes story has a problem with me. To introduce yourself (given your background and education) as 'the immaculate conception' - in low French I assume - gives Hans Anderson and the Grimms enormous credibility and surely belongs in the same sub-genre. Brave New World indeed - Hamlet, speaking the words of the Master, gave Huxley that idea you refer to, and might ultimately render us males both irrelevant and superfluous. That, John, might not be a bad thing as we race to save our planet."
"Spaceship Earth cannot sustain eight billion people. A decline in world population will help solve the problem of climate change," writes Arthur.
Hilary writes: "As always I enjoy reading the Echidna each morning. Despite your excellent arguments in favour of women doing it all, there is a huge downside. Sexual reproduction gives a population genetic diversity and the ability to adapt to a changing world of evolving infectious diseases and chemical onslaughts."
"Art reflects life, or is it the other way around?," writes Sue. "I think I may have read too many sci-fi books. Aldous Huxley explored a society where consumerism extended to people, providing the number and type needed by creating them in test tubes. The detective writer, PD James, wrote a dystopian novel in which babies were no longer being born. IVF created a world where it was possible for women to completely take over. We only needed enough men to create a sperm base which would be broad enough to prevent problems of inbreeding, and we could always allow a few men into the new world, along Huxley lines, to fill the need. We didn't, or haven't yet! I wonder what such a world would be like."
Garry Linnell is one of Australia’s most experienced journalists. He has won several awards for his writing, including a Walkley for best feature writing. He writes a weekly column for ACM and the Echidna.
Garry Linnell is one of Australia’s most experienced journalists. He has won several awards for his writing, including a Walkley for best feature writing. He writes a weekly column for ACM and the Echidna.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
