The debate on dangerous dogs is in full swing after Sakurako Uehara was attacked. Photo/Thinkstock
The debate on dangerous dogs is in full swing after Sakurako Uehara was attacked. Photo/Thinkstock
Three days after four dogs attacked Murupara 7-year-old Sakurako Uehara, the debate on dangerous dogs has barely progressed.
I've never been a fan of kneejerk political responses anyway - why should it take personal tragedy to prompt worthy social change? - but surely this horrific incident cannot pass without adecent national conversation.
Many have said it's not the breed, it's always the owners. But by many accounts this incident involved a very responsible owner. And dangerous breeds aren't classified as such for no reason.
In Tuesday's editorial I drew a comparison between the dangerous dogs issue and the United States' hopeless gun control debate. Every time there's a shooting tragedy, especially something on the scale of Sandy Hook where 26 people died, including 20 elementary school children, you hope that finally, something will be done to seriously limit people's access to weapons of crass destruction.
Inevitably though, the debate turns to shifting the blame, to Hollywood, to the media, to anything other than guns.
A debate needs to be had on dangerous dogs, but we can't get so caught up in it that we end up nowhere - it's vital that something changes. Questions should be asked. Should certain breeds of dangerous dogs be a part of our communities? Should penalties for owners who don't comply with the rules be greater? Are our animal control systems sufficient? How many lives need to be ruined before tough decisions that need to be made are made?
Confession: I'm not a canine behaviour expert. There are many people, without vested interest, far more qualified to provide answers. But every one of us is entitled to ask the questions.
