Is it time to ban dogs as household pets?
BMJ 2005; 331 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7527.1278 (Published 24 November 2005) Cite this as: BMJ 2005;331:1278
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Firstly, I want to address a more important issue than "animal
sanitation" since humans are so far removed from their natural habitat and
not qualified to determine what is healthy for them(health in my
definition implies both physical and mental welfare).
Learning to coexist and communicate with the other animals with whom we
SHARE this planet is one of the most important issues that is never
addressed since we have imposed slavery on every species on earth
(including our own).
Living with other animals (indoors or outdoors) is the healthiest
environment one can create in such an unhealthy "man-made" world. Despite
the uncleanliness of other creatures, homo sapiens takes the prize when it
comes to being the most violent, dangerous, unclean, and outright filthy
animal on earth!
I have learned much concerning genuine love, trust and unconditional
friendship from other animals. In fact, very few people are capable of
these qualities.
Unfortunately, many humans are concerned with the quantity of life, not
quality.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
As a dog owner in the United States I felt the need to respond to
your article. I have never been to the UK so I cannot pretend to know
what the dog situation is like over there, but living in Texas with an
estimated 6 million dogs I'm sure I can relate.
You make some excellent points about dog ownership. Here in the
United States most cities require dog owners to obtain a license for their
animal and if the dog is caught roaming or causing problems owners can be
ticketed and fined.
Still I must disagree with your point on banning dogs as an issue of
public health. Yes, dogs do pose a minor threat to the well being of
humans but there are many other legal non-regulated items that pose an
even greater human health risk. How about fast food, bicycles, and most
importantly kids.
Children can become a major nuisance in public places: airplanes,
restaurants and movie theatres as well being a public health risk. The
amount of disease and germs spread throughout the schools and transmitted
to the general public is surely more of a threat than that from the common
canine.
Aside from being a general nuisance and being a reservoir for
disease, kids pose many other risks. They bite, their dirty diapers are
found on public streets and they can cause high blood pressure in any
number of adults.
Does the UK regulate ownership of kids? If there is a need for more
regulation than I believe we should start with biggest offenders first.
Let's initiate a household ban on children, or at least start licensing
parents before they start producing them.
Sincerely
Donald R. Shaffer
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Madam,
Jackson's Personal View(1) displays a level of bias which I regard as
unacceptable (but please note my conflicting interests) from a member of
the Journal's editorial staff, even for a Personal View. The use of
assertion, analogy and anecdote are, in my opinion, inappropriate if the
intention is to genuinely stimulate a reasoned debate.
The thrust of Jackson's assertions are that dogs inflict bites,
transmit zoonoses by the oro-faecal route and cause a public nuisance (he
has clearly missed the licencing hours debate!). We are discussing
domesticated (2) dogs, and as such they respond to inappropriate stimuli
with their teeth, as do cats and humans, whose bites carry a greater risk
of infection.
He fortunately acknowledges the role of training, but fails to
recognise the human analogy in the socialisation of young humans, both
positive and negative. Gang membership, car ownership and alcohol use
spring to mind as concerns in both societal and public health terms.
The old chestnut of toxocariasis is recycled. How many colleagues
have seen a case of this illness in the UK, never mind it as a cause of
blindness. The extent of the risks are rarely based on evidence (3). The
alleged level of population antibodies might reasonably be argued to
support the benefits of dog-owning in protecting us against this helminth.
I can accept that dogs can be a public nuisance in terms of noise and
urban faecal soiling. However to dismiss those owners who control their
pets as a contradiction in terms is both a gratuitous insult and
undermines a rational debate and potential solutions to these
environmental problems.
However, my greatest concern is Jackson's attempt to drive public
health policy-making in this flawed manner. He blatantly ignores any
attempt at proportionality and demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of
public health practice by not attempting any health economic analysis. The
benefits of dog ownership range from well-being in its widest sense to
exercise (unless Jackson is proposing we exchange our dogs for
dolphins(4), in which case I suggest he reviews the health & safety
implications). The costs are (in my estimation) considerably less than
those due to inappropriate car and/or alcohol use.
I too would welcome a balanced (and informed) debate; you have in the
past carried papers presenting two sides on issues - perhaps it would be
opportune to revisit this approach.
Dr Clive St J Buxton
Public Health Physician
Ripon HG4 5HW
1. Jackson T. Is it time to ban dogs as household pets? BMJ 2005;331:
1278 (26 November)
2. Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary. W & R Chambers Ltd.
Edinburgh. 1972 Edition. "domesticated - adapted to or content with home
life and activities".
3. Taylor MR. The epidemiology of toxocariasis. J Helminth
2001;75(2):109-118
4. Antonioli C, Reveley MA. Randomised controlled trial of animal-
facilitated therapy with dolphins in the treatment of depression. BMJ
2005;331: 1231-4
Competing interests:
Dog owner and occasional breeder (currently two Bearded Collies and two Italian Spinoni); financial contributions over the years to The Dogs' Home, Battersea, Hearing Dogs for the Deaf, The Dogs' Trust, Breed Clubs and associated dog rescue organisations.
Competing interests: No competing interests
In Germany, the problem with irresponsible dog owners is well known,
too.
And I agree with the above statement - we do have a dog
overpopulation.
Cuddly puppies and beautiful, well behaved adult dogs are seen on TV-
advertising for commercial dog food all day long. It makes believe that
there is remaining little responsibility for the dog owner. Companion dogs
seem to be just funny for the kids, easy to care, and they educate
themselves.
That`s business, right, but a harmful one.
Millions of people feel attracted to get dog owners, because it seems
to be that easy. Besides processed dog food can never be the way to a
healthy dog life, they often don`t even think about the physical needs of
their dog - far away caring about the rights of their fellow human beings.
The research association I am working for is related with parasitic
diseases in dogs, especially with Leishmaniasis. Hundreds of thousands,
may be millions of dogs are infected in Europe. Guess what: A comercial
"Leishmaniasis-diet" was rapidly available. Nothing is new from the
recipe, and it is expensive, but many dog owners think that it would
substitute certain remedies like allopurinol, and stop their treatment or
won`t even start it.
I know, comercial dog food and its advertising is not the only reason
for dog problems, but it is an important one.
Our Governments should take care of it.
Competing interests:
Research of parasitic diseases in dogs
Competing interests: No competing interests
Trevor Jackson’s proposal to ban dogs as pets could be seen as
disproportionate but does raise the whole vexed issue of dog regulation in
modern government. Do we need a new body, the Dogs Control Agency to
undertake this task? Such an Agency could licence owners, breeders and
food manufacturers, and be advised by a Committee on Safety of Dogs.
Owners might be required to attend courses on Good Canine Practice,
collect data on walks and outputs, and be subjected to regular
inspections. Dog food manufacturers could be required to put instructions
on tins and provide information leaflets detailing the ingredients.
Inevitably, mishaps would still occur and an adverse incident reporting
system – perhaps using “Brown Cards” – would be needed. Then, when a dog
****s on your front lawn, the matter would doubtless be cleared up
promptly.
New legislation and guidelines would be required, and we must not
forget that the UK is part of the Europe. Given that it is currently
president of the EU, there is no time to lose. Putting this issue on the
agenda would deflect attention from difficult budgetary issues.
Back in the UK, there is a need to consider where a national dog
agency would sit. Cutting, as it does, right through a wide range of
government policies, the Department of Adminstrative Affairs would seem
the obvious place. Strong leadership would be needed and, if he could be
persuaded out of retirement, who better to head it up than ex-Prime
Minister Lord Hacker?
Competing interests:
I am a dog owner and former employee of Her Majesty’s Government. I deny being paid £100 in a brown envelope by a man in a suit called Humphrey to put my name to this piece.
Competing interests: No competing interests
We now see that dysfunctional dog-culture is not only limited to a
country or continent but is probably a worldwide culture. In countries like
mine, whereas years ago the possession of pets was a luxury, now we can
see thousands of homeless dogs and cats wandering everywhere. Does this
problem have a connection with so called globalization?
I think yes,
pet food manufacturer advertisements encourage people to have pets. Do
they realize about the damage that it implicates for dogs, cats, humans
and society?
Reforms are required not only in UK but for all countries where there are dogs
or cats.
Euclides Flores
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I can respect Ann Sheridan's concern for the medical and welfare
issues of her male dogs, but suggest that these concerns are not
universally held. The Ontario Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA) and
the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA) both
recommend neutering dogs of both sexes and indicate the benefits are
greater than the drawbacks. I am encouraged to see that she has neutered
her female dogs. In Ontario there is a serious problem with dog and cat
overpopulation. This may not be the case in Keasden specifically, but I
suspect many parts of England suffer from this problem.
The population problem has already resulted in the exact issues that
Ms Sheridan has indicated would result from my suggestion. The animal
shelters are overloaded, the rescue agencies are overburdened and many
animals are already being destroyed. My suggestion is really to move the
burden of the outcome of irresponsible pet ownership to the prevention of
irresponsible pet ownership.
I believe that all dog owners do not start off intending to be
irresponsible but many get there nevertheless through apathy, ignorance,
inattention or neglect. Many become owners because a friend's or
neighbor's dog has had an un-planned litter and it would be a shame to
have to destroy them. Then, through circumstances that could have been
controlled but didn't, another litter is born. And the system perpetuates
itself. Eventually there are not enough friends and neighbors to take in
the excess and the destruction has to begin.
The OVMA and OSPCA do their best to promote reproductive control but
it seems to fall largely on deaf ears. If our friends and neighbors were
to understand that taking a puppy and not having it neutered would mean a
license fee three or four times the cost of the operation I'm sure they
would have second thoughts, and would thereby be already on the way to
responsible pet ownership.
I don't disagree with Ms Sheridan in the short term, there may be an
increase in pets coming to shelters as the new regulations come into
force. However, I believe in the long term it will be a highly effective
means of reducing the population problem. And I suggest to Ms Sheridan
that she might actually be pleased to pay a higher license fee for her un-
neutered male dogs if she had confidence that it contributed to the
welfare of all dogs in general.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
The neutering of dogs will have no impact whatsoever on the problem.
For medical and welfare reasons I will not neuter my male dogs. I do
however, neuter my female dogs.
My male dogs are never out of my sight long enough to impregnate an in
season bitch. Therefore, why should I damage the health and temperament of
my dogs because of the actions of an irresponsible minority.
The minority in question is more than likely to completely ignore any
legal requirement for neutering and indeed licensing.
The policy will be extremely costly and probably impossible to enforce
causing more expense to taxpayers such as myself for no good purpose.
The only method of enforcement would be confiscation of unneutered
unlicensed dogs.
What happens to the dogs in question?
Are they to be destroyed?
Or returned to their owners with the state paying for neutering?
Or are they to be rehomed?
The first would cause an outcry but would be cheap. The second would be
prohibitively expensive. The third is impractical given that rehoming
centres are already over-stretched.
People really should think through the practical implications of any
policies before advocating them. Often the results will be far worse than
the situation they were intended to remedy.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Discussion in responsible pet ownership has not yet mentioned the
benefits of neutering dogs. There seems to be no real value in having a
dog capable of breeding except to breed it. I have owned both and see no
drawback to having a dog neutered that is not intended for breeding. In
fact there are some advantages, as anyone who owns a female dog in heat
who doesn't want it pregnant will probably attest to.
I'd like to see license requirements take this into consideration.
Licenses for neutered dogs should be kept to a nominal fee and possibly
even eliminated as long as there is some form of inspection to ensure the
dog (dog-owner) complies with the rules. On the other hand, the cost of
licensing a breeding dog should be multiples higher than the cost of the
operation. This way only those who really do have a desire to breed the
dogs, i.e. there is a business/professional interest, will need to make
the financial decision not to neuter.
Those who are legitimately breeding dogs professionally will see this
as nothing more than a business expense which gets recouped through the
price charged. This form of regulation may also give the police and animal
cruelty authorities a better tool to control puppy mills and persistent
offenders.
This form of control may not have a direct impact on the concerns
brought forward by the author, but, over time, the more rigourous control
of breeding may result in improvements to the quality of pet ownership
overall. There would not be floods of mongerels of dubious lineage on the
market at bargain prices (puppies - free to a good home!) Dogs would be
acquired from legitimate breeders who could take the purchase opportunity
to counsel the new owners about responsible pet ownership. Vets would
also have a captive audience at the time of the neutering operation to
counsel responsible pet ownership.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
angered pit owner
Hi,
MY name is melissa and I have owned quite a few pits in my day and the have never harmed a hair on anyones head, nore have they ever tried too. My first pit chico was posioned by a neighbor, and my second dog chino was stolen. Why don't you people report stuff like that and instead of banning the dogs and wasting tax payers money, why don't you put a ban on people owning dogs who are abuseive,or they only want the dog to put them in fights. I don't think that its fair for us to be punished when we do nothing but love the animals
Competing interests:
pit and rott bans
Competing interests: No competing interests