 | อุทธาหรณ์หมากัดเด็กตาย |
|
ความผิดของหมาหรือความผิดของคน ผู้คิดจะเลี้ยงบางแก้วหรือสุนัขพันธุ์ดุพึงสังวรณ์ ศึกษาให้ดี ก่อนจะเป็นข่าวใหญ่เหมือนในออสเตรเลีย A killer instinct? Shane Green and Farah Farouque August 19, 2011 Four-year-old Ayen Chol was mauled to death by a neighbour's pit bull cross. Is it in their nature to kill or are humans to blame?  WEDNESDAY night in the quiet suburban streets of St Albans had a reassuring ordinariness about it. In Lahy Street, just before 8pm, four-year-old Ayen Chol was watching television with several other children when the horrific few moments that would end her short life unfolded. In the mayhem that followed, Ayen's terrified cousin would run from the street into the house chased by a pit bull terrier cross that had escaped from a neighbour's yard. The dog set upon Ayen as she clung to her mother's leg, frantically trying to fight off the dog as it continued its frenzied attack. Desperate efforts to save the child's life were futile. Advertisement: Story continues below Questions remain over whether it is in a pit bull's nature to kill. ''She was a loving child, and a very clever child,'' her distraught mother Jackline Anchito said as she recalled the terrible events. As a city came to terms with the tragedy, it was also confronting the disturbing question: how could this happen? Yet again, a pit bull terrier had apparently shown its ferocious aggression, despite concerted efforts in Victoria and around the nation to contain and restrain the breed that RSPCA state president Hugh Wirth has described as killing machines. For a quarter of a century, policy-makers here have grappled with how to deal with a dog bred in the United States in the 19th century as a fighting animal and guard dog, and that has been transported into contemporary Australian suburban backyards and streets. In essence, the debate has divided into those who want the dogs banned, and others who argue that the problem is not the breed, but individual dogs and their owners. The tragic events in St Albans have sharpened that divide and, in the case of dog trainer Basil Theofanides, caused him to change his thinking. For many years, the vice-president of the Australian Association of Professional Dog Trainers believed that it was the deed - not the breed - that should be blamed. ''I thought give every dog a chance,'' he says. ''But to be honest, there's been an increasing number of pit bull cross or pit bull-related attacks, and I guess you've got to turn around and say, what were these dogs bred for in the first place? ''That is purely and simply to fight. I don't think these dogs have a place in society.'' He knows there will be pit bull owners who will testify to them being great family dogs. ''That's fine, maybe they are the responsible few,'' says Theofanides. ''But the majority, they're the ones who have got these dogs for particular reasons, and usually it's because they want to guard their backyard.'' In St Albans, Theofanides says the dog initiated an attack without a reason. ''This dog must have had an inherent desire to attack a human,'' he says. Dr Stephen Tate, a veterinarian and director of the Bureau of Animal Welfare at the Department of Primary Industries, says more than any other breed of dogs, pit bulls have sparked public outrage in Australia and overseas. But is it deserved? ''No more than any other large dog breeds,'' he says. ''But there is a community fear about the breed - and quite reasonably governments are seeking to manage the situation. The reason for public concern is legitimate from the point of view that these are very powerful dogs and when they attack they can cause a lot of damage.'' Facing growing public alarm over dog attacks, particularly those involving pit bulls, successive state governments have attempted to find answers and introduce controls. Pit bull terriers, alongside the overseas bred Presa Canario, Dogo Argentino, the Japanese Tosa and the Fila Brasileiro, are among the five dog types presently deemed ''restricted breed dogs'' in Victoria. ''They're all dogs that were bred to be dangerous when they fight; only the pit bull is known to be present in Australia,'' says Tate. None of the five can be imported into Australia under separate federal law. But under current state legislation, owners can have their pit bulls registered, provided the dogs were born before September 2010. The dogs are then subject to tough restrictions, including wearing muzzles in public and being held in secure enclosures. The previous government introduced an amnesty to encourage pit bull owners to come forward - an amnesty which yesterday the Baillieu government signalled it would end in response to the St Albans incident. Dogs not registered will then be seized, under the proposed changes to the Domestic Animals Act. The government is also considering changes to the Crimes Act, with Agriculture Minister Peter Walsh comparing a proposed new offence similar to culpable driving charges if a dangerous dog kills someone. ''I've spoken to the Attorney-General and we'll look at amendments to the Crimes Act so that people are responsible for whatever their dogs do,'' he says. A spokeswoman for the minister says under current laws pit bull crosses such as the one involved in the death of Ayen Chol pose problems for rangers and local councils because they fall under a grey area of law, and owners have been able to dispute the exact nature of the breed and argue their case in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. To counter that, the government is also proposing to reverse the onus of burden of proof so it is up to owners of part pit bulls to prove their dogs are not, in fact, pit bulls. Death by dog, meanwhile, remains a rare event in Australia where there are a detailed set of laws and regulations in each state and territory controlling domestic pets (day-to-day regulation is largely conducted by local councils ). In Victoria, between 1979 and 2010 there were 10 deaths from injuries inflicted by dogs, according to the Coroners Prevention Unit. Information relating to the age of the victims is only available for the period 1997-2008 when five deaths occurred - all involving children under the age of 12. While no information is available from the coroner on the breeds involved in any of the deaths, according to the Department of Primary Industries the last three cases of human deaths after dog attacks have involved two rottweilers and a part dingo. While deaths are highly unusual, experts say a more telling - and complete - picture about the threat posed by dogs in the community can be gleaned from the number of people presenting to hospital emergency departments after being hurt by dogs. Between 2005 and 2007, 4885 people presented at hospital emergency departments with dog-inflicted injuries across the state. Of that number, more than a fifth of the patients - or 1445 - were eventually admitted to hospital, according to the Coroners Prevention Unit. The Victorian Injury Surveillance Unit says there were 5180 hospital admissions in Victoria for dog-related injuries between July 2000 and June 2010, with children up to 14 years old accounting for almost a third of those admissions. After Wednesday's tragedy, the outright banning of pit bulls seems an obvious answer. But Graeme Smith, managing director of the Lost Dogs Home, argues a ban is too simplistic. ''All that does is force them underground,'' he says, with owners likely to become less specific about their dog's breed. Under the present system, 242 American pit bulls and pit bull terriers are registered. But Smith believes that based on the number of dogs seized by councils and brought to the Lost Dogs Home, there are at least 5000 of the breed in Victoria. ''I would rather have them registered and contained and known about than not known about,'' he says. ''I want owners of these dogs to come forward and be responsible about registering them and containing them. They should all be desexed, they should all be microchipped, they should all be under tight restrictions.'' He believes the controls should be similar to those laws that govern swimming pool security - contained to the property, under lock and key in safe enclosures. ''I don't want to have them banned, I don't want to have them killed. I want them contained and controlled,'' he says. Smith, who as a father says he can't imagine anything worse than the St Albans fatal attack, firmly believes pit bulls are not family pets. ''I just think they are totally unsuitable as pets. The reason I say that is they are very dangerous. You talk to people who own them, some of them have turned on the owner. They are unpredictable, and when they attack they cause serious injury or death.'' On the other side of the debate are those who believe pit bulls aren't inherently aggressive, and that it is the training of the dog that is critical. Brad Griggs, from the National Dog Trainers Federation, warns against a ban. ''Because I am six foot two and a half, and have freckles, it's like banning every six foot two-plus, freckled person because 10 of them did something wrong over a period of five years,'' he says. ''It is the equivalent of racism.'' Griggs is concerned that a ban would push owners of pit bulls away. ''If these people are likely to have these dogs seized or be discriminated against, it's hardly going to bring them into the dog training community fold, and encourage them to train their dogs and raise them properly,'' he says. Griggs says that, internationally, educated dog trainers don't have a bias against the breed. Genetics are only part of the picture. ''Genetics are the potential a dog has to live into,'' he says, arguing that nurture, as opposed to nature, is extremely important. ''I don't think these dogs are for everyone. There are a lot of dogs in a lot of homes that don't fit,'' he says. ''All dogs should be heavily socialised and habituated and that is the key point. The majority of dogs that have these issues to attack like this have had a poor critical socialisation period, up to about 16 or 20 weeks of age.'' While outspoken RSPCA state president Hugh Wirth has taken a tough line against pit bulls, the group's Allie Jalbert says dogs should be judged on their actions, not specifically on their breed. The key to prevent tragedies is through education, she says. Owners need to be responsible for their animals, making sure they understand the breeds they are bringing into their homes, and dogs need to be properly trained and socialised. Owners need to understand their dog's behaviour and the risks associated with it. ''There is a responsibility to keep your animal contained and keep the community safe,'' she says. Jalbert says that any dog is capable of attacking and biting, noting the recent attack in NSW in which a golden retriever turned on its family. Larger dogs are capable of doing more damage, and certain breeds - not just pit bulls - genetically have a higher propensity for aggression. ''It is really important that anybody who keeps a dog, especially a larger breed dog, makes sure that if they want to prevent an incident like this … it is about the training, the socialisation, the understanding the breed and keeping your breed responsibly.'' Graeme Smith, from the Lost Dogs Home, says there are questions to be asked about the people who choose to own a potentially dangerous dog such as a pit bull. ''It's for their own ego,'' he says. ''They think that if they have a dangerous dog, it increases their own self-esteem as a person. Some people might use them as guard dogs. There are some people who have them as pets. But I think they are absolutely too risky altogether.'' Smith raises the prospect of compelling potential owners of the dogs to prove they can handle them. ''Our position is that all pet owners sit a test before they can own a pet,'' he says ''But most importantly, people who get these animals definitely need to have a greater understanding of their behaviour.'' Shane Green is a senior writer. Farah Farouque is law and justice editor. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/a-killer-instinct-20110818-1j04c.html |