Draconian measures are unnecessary in the fight against dog attacks, survey suggests
A survey conducted by this website revealed a lukewarm reception to muzzling as a means of reducing dog attacks. 66 per cent of those participating strongly disagreed with the suggestion that all dogs should be muzzled in public, and over half were against muzzling of specific breeds.
Opinions on whether dogs should be kept on a lead in public were mixed. The 34 per cent who strongly disagreed with the suggestion that all dogs should be kept on a lead were negated by a similar amount who were in strong agreement with the proposed measure. Interestingly, fewer people supported the idea of targeting specific breeds, with only a quarter of participants strongly agreeing with this proposal.
Compensation claims made by victims of dog attacks are easier to pursue if the aggressor dog’s owner has appropriate insurance. With this in mind, the question of dog insurance was put forward. Over half of the survey’s participants agreed that all owners should have dog insurance, with a smaller figure agreeing that owners of certain breeds should.
The final issue broached by the survey was microchipping. This measure has been seen as an effective solution in the fight against dog attacks by some politicians and was thus put to our participants. Nearly 90 per cent agreed with this measure, suggesting that the public is more receptive to microchipping than more draconian measures to stop dog attacks. There appears to be a mandate for politicians to act in some way, with 52 per cent considering dog attacks and dangerous dogs to be a serious problem. According to our survey, compulsory microchipping appears the preferred means.
Our dangerous dogs survey is ongoing – please feel free to participate.