A year has now passed since the death of Francis, a stray Pit Bull type dog who had found his way to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. Francis, by all accounts, was a friendly dog. Indeed, the Home itself released photographs of him, including one with a member of staff affectionately kissing his head, and also published an online video featuring Francis in order to bring the plight of all Pit Bull type dogs to the attention of the public. And it worked. According to newspaper reports, over 30,000 people signed a petition in the hope of giving Francis a reprieve. But there was no hope. On the 28th July 2016, Battersea announced that, in line with the current law, he had been euthanised. Francis, of course, was not the first victim, and definitely wasn’t the last. Within their statement, Battersea confirmed that 91 dogs within their care that were deemed by police to be of illegal ‘types’ were put down in 2015 alone. And those are the figures for just one rescue organisation.
August 12th will mark 26 years since the Dangerous Dogs Act was enforced in Britain, another sad milestone in the history of breed specific legislation. Despite tremendous evidence to show that targeting individual breeds of dog in this manner does not improve public safety, along with pressure from animal charities, welfare organisations, campaign groups and simply concerned dog lovers (including over 70k signatures on the RSPCA’s #EndBSL petition), DEFRA have recently refused to engage in a review of the law, as put forward by the Law Commission.
Quite frankly, the notion that a country which prides itself on its equality and intolerance of discrimination can continue to uphold such a disgusting piece of legislation is nothing short of absurd. Throw our supposed ‘nation of dog lovers’ tagline into the mix and it becomes almost laughable. Dogs throughout the UK are being put to sleep simply because they look a certain way. There is nothing to justify this. Recent research has confirmed that there were no differences found between legislated and non-legislated breeds in terms of the medical treatment required following a bite from an individual dog. Yes, the ‘locking jaw’ phenomenon is a myth – Pit Bull types are undoubtedly powerful, but so are hundreds of other legal dogs found in homes up and down the country. This particular study, published in Ireland, also found that the very nature of breed specific legislation is problematic in terms of the influence it has over our perceptions of dogs since it generates a ‘false sense of security’; labelling certain types of dog as inherently dangerous means that they are likely to be perceived very differently to legal breeds, when in reality any dog has the capability to cause harm. Indeed, research has demonstrated that hospital admissions for dog attacks are actually on the increase – not exactly the desired result of the Dangerous Dogs Act when it was enacted in 1991.
For those who still believe that breed specific legislation is necessary, due to the ‘hooded youth with Pit Bull’ image, consider the fact that these types of dog actually became considerably more attractive as a status symbol once they became illegal, and there are now more so-called Pit Bulls on the streets than ever before. It is also worth noting that for the most part it is innocent family pets who fall victim to the law in its current format, with owners left distraught as their dog is taken away. Born Innocent confirms that women in their thirties and forties are those who frequently ask for help following the seizure of their pet. It is not just those who fit the ‘criminal’ stereotype who find themselves on the wrong side of the law, simply because they own a dog whose body measurements classify them as a ‘Pit Bull’.
Francis was just one of thousands. This is happening on a daily basis. There are currently hundreds of seized dogs confined to a kennel, awaiting their fate. And yet, for the most part, nothing is done about it. Except for the dedicated campaigners who are on the frontline, battling to save the lives of these dogs, everyone else remains relatively quiet. Where are the people who generated a Twitter frenzy when Theresa May announced her plan to bring fox hunting back? Where are those who to this day still reference the death of a gorilla (#RIPHarambe)? Why do we always hear about the welfare implications of the badger cull on the news but not about the well-being of the family pets who have been dragged away from their homes? Although there have been some high-profile cases, such as Francis, Stella, and Lennox to name a few, it seems that any public hype surrounding the appalling nature of the Dangerous Dogs Act quietly fades away along with the last breath of the dog in question. Is this because, as a nation, we are all secretly turning a blind eye to the horrors of breed specific legislation? To the heartbroken owners who realise too late that they’ve just signed their pet’s death warrant? To the rescue centres forced to euthanise healthy dogs which would make perfect family pets? To the kennel assistants who cry at night over dogs they are forbidden to touch? To the dogs themselves, locked in a cramped kennel, lonely and distressed? Or the condemned dog lying on the vet’s table, giving one last pathetic attempt at a tail wag, oblivious to the fact that she’s just been given a lethal injection?
It’s time we stopped looking the other way.
Write to your MP. Write to DEFRA. If you can, attend an anti-BSL rally. Support the owners of seized dogs by making a donation. But most importantly, spread the word about our flawed Dangerous Dogs Act. Let’s get this barbaric piece of legislation consigned to history.
Channel 5’s ‘Dangerous Dog Owners and Proud’, broadcast last night (August 4th) was the latest in an increasingly long line of status dog documentaries – and none of them have been worthy of airtime on National Geographic. From the opening scenes of the programme, with its dramatic voiceover and footage of the stereotypical ‘youths with big dogs’, it became apparent that the programme was not going to deliver much in the way of insightful advice on how to tackle the problem of status dogs.
It seems that the trend amongst these ‘dangerous dog’ documentaries is to shock and repulse the viewer to the point of triggering a backlash, without including any helpful or professional pointers as to how the issue could be effectively dealt with. Interviews are laid bare, with viewers encouraged to come to their own conclusions. While 19 year old pit bull type owner Nick brags about the weapon-like nature of his dog Sergeant (pictured above), he lifts his T-shirt, revealing several scars received as the result of stabbings – one of the few moments of the programme to offer a true insight into the reasons behind status dog ownership. It is surely obvious to anyone, including our Government, that the problem with dog attacks goes far beyond the four-legged individuals. A friend of Nick’s, as an explanation as to why he has his own big dog, American Bulldog Roxy, says, “there’s people who try to rob ya, people who try to stab ya, people who try to mug ya, you’ve got burglars…” soon he runs out of alternative ways of saying ‘having things stolen’ and the camera once again returns to the main event of Sergeant the illegal pit bull, who is later shown being encouraged to attack branches, a ‘target’ consisting of clothing filled with stuffing, and even a friend of his owner. A 19 year old boy has been on the receiving end of a knife, perhaps during an attempt to take his material possessions, yet the media focuses on his dog rather than how our country has stooped this low. The self-proclaimed ‘dog haters’ claim that we should care less about dogs and more about people, and in this instance it seems that they are right – focusing on these teenagers and helping to prevent the situations they find themselves in would also ultimately help the dogs who find themselves caught up in the world of ‘status’ and violence.
Keen to show that it is not only lost teenagers who own pit bull types, the programme also introduced us to Jolie Reine, a model with a passion for dogs. Her own pit bulls appeared to be well-cared for, kindly trained and happy to play with the children. Just when it seems that – shock horror – a terrestrial television channel could be showing pit bulls in a positive light, it all goes pear-shaped when one of the dogs escapes from the garden and a fight ensues. When the police arrive to seize the dogs (their visitation had already been arranged as the result of Reine herself wishing to have her dogs exempted by the courts), the soft side of the breed again emerges as one of the dogs rolls over during the officer’s inspection. Here is a complete stranger freely examining a dog’s teeth with no threat of being bitten; many veterinarians would be able to tell stories of bites from legal breeds during similar examinations. The inherent characteristic of the Pit Bull Terrier to attack other dogs is sadly the result of artificial selection, but, if not encouraged, true fighting behaviour is unlikely to ever surface in an individual. Of course even responsibly owned pit bulls can exhibit aggressive behaviours, but their type itself does not mean that they are more likely to behave ‘dangerously’ than other breeds; thousands of pit bulls and Staffordshire Bull Terriers live happily alongside other dogs and pets. It is worth remembering that according to the programme the dog that started the fight had indeed been previously trained to do so with previous owners, although it’s not clear why Reine chose to take in an ex-fighting pit bull, putting her other dogs in danger. In any case, it is obvious that her dogs were not a threat to people, and happily they were returned as exempted dogs.
Conversely, Staffordshire Bull Terrier owner Tracy Dunn states that she wants her Staffie to behave aggressively, personifying the “it’s the owner not the dog” statement. Although Dunn has a ten year old son, she has no qualms with ‘training’ her dog to attack – and actually sees her child as the reason for doing so. Protecting the property and preventing her son’s possessions from being taken is something that Dunn seems to be obsessed about and she appears to have installed the need for a ‘guard staffie’ into her son too. It is a real frustration that while Jolie Reine had to go through the process of exemption for her pit bulls, Dunn is actively attempting to turn her dogs into weapons, yet they will not be dealt with unless an attack occurs. As well as showing the idiocy of such owners who are putting their own children’s lives in danger by reinforcing aggression, the programme highlights how breed specific legislation leaves irresponsibly owned dogs free to attack, simply because they are not a banned breed.
Battersea Dogs and Cats Home issued a statement last night in reaction to the programme: “The culture of ‘status dogs’ in society is a tragic example of animal cruelty, and owners who train their dogs to be aggressive are risking the lives of those around them and often condemning these animals to a death sentence. Battersea cares for nearly 6000 dogs a year, and this includes dogs that, in some cases, have been trained to attack. For some of the cruelty cases that turn up at our gates, it’s too late to help them as their traumatising experiences mean that they are unsafe to rehome. But Battersea carefully assesses each dog and always hopes to offer them the chance of living in a loving, responsible home. Education is key to driving down the incident rate of dog attacks to make sure that dogs and people can mutually enjoy each other’s company. Battersea works tirelessly to get vital messages out to thousands of often hard to reach young people by screening its ‘Bully breed’ short film to spell out the repercussions of training a dog to be aggressive. Anyone who suspects a dog is being trained to attack should report them to the police immediately.”
Plenty of people took to Twitter to voice their opinions using the hashtag #dangerousdogowners. Here’s a selection:
Although called ‘Dangerous Dog Owners and Proud’, the dogs featured throughout the programme are exclusively pit bull types and Staffies, implying that these are the only true dangerous breeds. When Anna, Tracy Dunn’s new Staffie, is tested to see her reaction to a potential intruder, the narrator sums it up perfectly:
“It seems that Anna is a typical Staffie – she hasn’t got an aggressive bone in her body.”
Dangerous Dog Owners and Proud is available on Demand 5. All screenshots copyright Channel 5.
Thanks to the media we are all aware of the murky world of gangs and weapon dogs, but few of us have had first-hand experience of life within London’s toughest and most violent areas. Here ex-gang leader turned poet and author Justin Rollins talks to Not So Dangerous Dogs about pit bulls, dog fighting and gangster rap…
What made you want to write a book on the issues surrounding status dogs?
Justin: The main reason for my writing of the status dogs part of the book [Status Dogs & Gangs] is because I was sick of reading the negative headlines about ‘pit bull type’ dogs. There is so much more that goes on behind the scenes of the status dogs issue; people are so quick to judge the ‘Bully breeds’ and as a dog lover I wanted to try to rebuild a positive image of them – especially the Pit Bull Terrier which many people don’t realise is the most poorly treated dog in the world as the result of ‘man’ using this strong breed for his own evil agenda.
In the book you mention the influence of rap music videos featuring pit bull type dogs. How much power do you think this has over the breed choice of ‘impressionable youth’?
Justin: As a mixed race youth growing up in London with no father figure, I looked to ‘gangster rappers’ as some sort of role model – not a great choice but I was too young to realise that at the time. Music videos from artists in the USA filled with anti-police messages, fast women, graffiti, gangs and of course ‘pit bull dogs’ were so appealing. The rappers looked threatening and having large muscular dogs at their side made them appear even more menacing – as an ex gang leader I know only too well the need to look tough, and having such a dog enhances that image.
I believe this mentality spread across the pond to the UK. You only have to watch the video for ‘Real Compton City Gs’ [a 1993 song by Californian rapper Easy E] with gangs on their block, tattoos on their necks and angry men pointing trigger fingers towards the camera, and compare it to any recent London-based gangster rap video and you will see how the image has spread. I believe that this is the reason the youths of today are walking about with pit bull type dogs.
Pit bull types and legal ‘bully breeds’ are often described as ‘devil dogs’ in dog attack articles. Do you think that the media is partly responsible for their notoriety and subsequent popularity amongst gangs?
Justin: The media always like to ‘hype up’ headlines to sell papers and create fear, although I am all too aware of dog attack stories and I’m still wary if I see a young kid with a large dog when I’m out walking with my own child. If people never watched the news or read the paper they would not have this inbuilt fear of these breeds or dogs in general. Just look at the photo that will be printed of the so-called ‘devil dog’: it will usually be a snarling beast. Where are the photos of the same breed in their family homes playing or sleeping with children? Yes, the media has played a major role in spreading the mistrust of these dogs, as well as impressing young, angry youths with the images they publish.
Illegal dog fighting features in your book and has hit the headlines recently following the airing of Channel 4’s ‘Going to the Dogs’ documentary. Why do you think the ‘sport’ still continues over a century after it was outlawed?
Justin: I think dog fighting is a disgusting thing. It angers me even thinking about it now and that is the reason I didn’t watch ‘Going to the Dogs’. I have had quite an insight into the world of dog fighting as a result of my interview with ‘Irish Frank’, published in my book. I believe it is still around purely due to nasty and evil people. You get angry men wanting to express their hatred towards each other through dog fighting, or to enhance their own ‘status’ amongst their friends and it sickens me. The most frustrating part is because the pit bull type is illegal in this country, once it is finally rescued by the authorities, sometimes after years of cruelty and abuse, 99% of the time it will be put to sleep. If another breed is rescued from the fighting scene it may get the chance of a fresh start.
Another reason this so-called sport still lingers around our streets is due to Asian gangs becoming heavily involved. In Pakistan it isn’t unusual for whole villages to come together to watch their version of a pit bull fight. The winners receive money, mobile phones and even televisions if their dog wins. The dog fighter will then lift his blood-soaked winning dog upon his shoulders and dance around as people play flutes. From this it isn’t hard to see why so many young Asian men living in the UK feel free to carry on with their ‘dog fighting’.
You also mention in Status Dogs & Gangs that you believe the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 should be rewritten, including the abolishment of breed specific legislation (BSL). What effect do you think this would have on irresponsible pit bull ownership – would their tough reputation suffer if they became popular family pets?
Justin: I would love to say that the pit bull’s bad image would fade away if the breed was legalised but in my lifetime it just won’t happen. Even in Hollywood films and cartoons the bull breed always plays the dopey, less intelligent dog or the ‘tough’ dog. Close-minded people will always judge and look down their noses at something, whether it’s a hooded kid lost on the streets that clearly just needs love and guidance or a large bully breed dog. Kids growing up in some parts of inner cities or estates feel isolated and often alienated from society – the reason they choose a breed whose own reputation mirrors how they feel.
Our current Dangerous Dogs Act does not appear to be effectively dealing with the status/weapon dog issue. What would you like to see in its place? Should legislators examine the wider context beyond the dogs themselves?
Justin: It’s not the dog, it’s the owner. What is going on in the owner’s life? The bigger picture is a social issue. Throughout history many young men in this country have wanted to fight back ‘against the system’ – we’ve had punks and the like fighting all over the UK’s streets, football hooligans venting their built up anger against each other and now you have another ‘urban menace’ – hoodies with weapon dogs. Legislators should look beyond the dog and at society in general. If you want to stop the young hoodie walking these dogs, introduce a minimum age of ownership: that would immediately stamp out teenagers parading their large dogs as some sort of status symbol.
For more information on Justin’s work, visit his website or follow him on twitter @JustinRollins7z
Two dog related programmes were shown on both BBC (‘Louis Theroux’s LA Stories: City of Dogs’) and ITV (in the two episodes of ‘Dangerous Dogs’) in the past couple of weeks, with the latter in particular attracting a lot of attention amongst dog loving viewers, perhaps not for the reasons that ITV had originally been hoping for. Neglect and irresponsible ownership featured heavily in both programmes.
The first episode of Dangerous Dogs surrounded the working lives of Birmingham City Council’s dog wardens and the situations that they face on a daily basis. Two wardens in particular caused controversy with their handling of an abandoned Akita who refused to come quietly, leading many viewers to brand the programme ‘Dangerous Dog Wardens’. With cameras following their every move, the women were shown shouting at the frightened animal before struggling to drag it out of the property with the use of two catch poles, leaving the dog visibly distressed and physically exhausted. When dealing with potentially dangerous dogs it is always important to put human safety first, and the use of such equipment is certainly justified, however, seemingly due to the nerves of the wardens, the event took longer than perhaps it should have done, with one of the wardens initially panicking at the sight of a spider in the doorway. The constant opening and closing of the door, together with the shouting (and sometimes screaming) from the dog warden, surely must have heightened the dog’s fear, making his capture even more difficult. Perhaps this quote on how to approach dogs, taken from this RSPCA International publication on dog control guidance, should have been noted;
“Remember that any action from the catcher(s) will provoke the dog(s)… A catcher should adopt a non-aggressive body posture by presenting a low-profile on approach. Their movements should remain calm and slow.”
Louis Theroux’s programme, City of Dogs, also demonstrated the effects of animal abandonment with one animal control officer reluctantly collecting a Pit Bull Terrier to be euthanised. According to those interviewed, many dogs in Los Angeles are simply thrown out when they are no longer of any use for breeding or other money making activities. Without anyone coming forward to claim the Pit Bull, and hundreds more stray dogs requiring kennel space, there was simply nowhere for the dog to go. Unlike the Akita back in Birmingham, the Pit Bull did not show any signs of aggression as a result of its treatment, showing that an abandoned dog doesn’t always mean ‘dangerous dog’ (indeed, once the Akita was nursed back to health at Birmingham Dogs Home, it passed all temperament tests and was rehomed). What was obvious from both programmes was that irresponsible ownership is a leading factor of aggression issues within our dog populations.
In Dangerous Dogs, an owner with apparent alcohol issues had lost count of how many Staffie cross puppies he had in his flat, and, despite the advice from the warden, sold many of the puppies as early as four weeks old to “anyone who wanted them”. It is clear that anyone who would even consider buying a tiny puppy from a man down the pub would not be the sort of person to raise a well-balanced family pet, and the future is bleak for the puppies who are likely to become victims both to their poor early upbringing and their unscrupulous owners. In Episode two, a family living in squalor had numerous Staffies which were never given access to the garden nor walked, together with a litter of young puppies covered in their own excrement, cats and kittens locked in a filthy bathroom and various small animals in tiny cages, a murky substance in their water bottle their only source of liquid. It made for very upsetting viewing, and the frustration on the dog wardens’ faces was obvious. The dogs could not be seized under the Animal Welfare Act as they were physically healthy and were not deprived of food and water. Just as with the litter of puppies who were sold at four weeks, the wardens were powerless. The ‘owners’ agreed to hand over the rest of the animals, but the dogs stayed. These dogs may indeed become the next attack headlines, a result of the simple fact that they are unexercised, untrained and unsocialised. But because they are fed and watered, they can not be seized or rehomed to a suitable environment, and the owners are able to continue producing endless litters of dogs.
It seemed very wrong that the family, who could barely take care of themselves, were allowed to keep the dogs, particularly after witnessing the terrible conditions in which their other animals had been living (and the fact that one member of the family had previously received a five year ban from keeping animals). This was only made worse when the cameras showed Gunner, a friendly, well-cared for Pit Bull, being taken away to secure police kennels. Gunner, like many other family pets declared to be ‘type’, had presumably never shown any signs of aggression, and he was allowed to return to his owners as an exempted dog. Another Pit Bull type featured in the programme had been found straying, and was clearly not a danger to those handling it since it was not muzzled and there were no catch poles in sight. Yet because it matched the identification measurements, the dog was humanely euthanised – under the Dangerous Dogs Act it is illegal to rehome Pit Bull types.
While mistreated or ill-socialised dogs have the capability to become dangerous, many dogs in both America and here in the UK are actively trained to show aggression. In City of Dogs, a group of men demonstrated their protection training with a Dutch Herder. The dog had been trained to bite a padded sleeve in a display similar to police dog work but without the control that is achieved through the intense police training course. When the trainer gave the release command, the dog held on. If this apparent lack of control in a semi-professional environment seems worrying, consider the fact that ‘weapon dogs’ are now relatively common in the UK, with many dogs receiving ‘training’ involving physical violence in an attempt to cause aggressive responses. This results in a certain unpredictability, making so-called status dogs a danger to the public. Breed specific legislation has little impact on this trend as Pit Bull types are often used alongside legal breeds to convey status and intimidate others. In the first episode of Dangerous Dogs, a male with a severe attitude problem threatened the dog warden with violence as she was in the process of attempting to issue a fixed penalty notice after witnessing his partner let their Staffordshire Bull Terrier foul. The man, who heard the commotion outside his flat, came downstairs and threatened to “punch the face off” the warden before shouting a stream of profanities at the cameraman. Not, then, the actions of a responsible Staffie owner – the dog was clearly just another status symbol.
“If I rode around every day with a gun, I take the chance of going to jail if the police stop me. I can ride around with my dog all day long. He’s just like my pistol at my side.” – LA protection dog trainer
In both programmes we have seen dogs starved, thrown out on to the streets, deprived of exercise, forced to produce numerous litters and actively trained to bite or intimidate. The chance of any legal breed owned as a ‘weapon’ biting a member of the public is far greater than that of a Pit Bull type owned responsibly causing harm, yet dogs declared to be Pit Bull type are routinely destroyed even if they present no threat to public safety while dogs that are likely to cause problems in the future are not dealt with until after they attack. With no incentive to take care of their animals, and money to be made from the breeding of status dogs, at present there is no reason for irresponsible owners to change their attitude. Since punishments rarely equal their crimes, it is usually the dog that pays the highest price. Future laws need to concentrate on ownership, not breeds. The Dangerous Dogs narrator closed the programme by saying that as a nation we are falling far short of being able to call ourselves dog lovers. Until our laws are improved, this sadly remains all too true.
The two episodes of ‘Dangerous Dogs’ are currently available on ITV Player.
‘LA: City of Dogs’ is also available online and can be viewed via BBC iplayer until April 13.
“This name is not often bestowed seriously but rather in jest. Perfect for the dog who leads burglars to the family silver and runs from the neighbourhood cat”.
The above description, taken from a ‘Choosing Dog Names’ book, is for the name ‘Killer’. The recent tragedy involving a pit bull type of this name demonstrates that there are dog owners out there incapable of understanding that the name is best used ironically. Far from running, ‘Killer’ had reportedly attacked the neighbourhood cat in 2012. Full details of the incident, in which 11 month old Ava-Jayne Corless died as a result of her injuries inflicted by the dog, are as yet unknown, however it appears that the dog was one of at least two kept at the property and had also previously intimidated neighbours. Clearly the dog should not have been housed with small children, let alone allowed to enter a room with a baby on its own. It is another case of how the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 does not protect the public, since when an attack does happen it is too late – both for the child and the dog – while hundreds of dogs with wonderful temperaments are needlessly euthanised.
Back to the name itself. Whilst ‘Killer’ would be an amusing name for a Chihuahua, the larger the dog is the more important it becomes to choose a name without any negative connotations. Bully breeds are already viewed with enough (usually unfounded) suspicion without a tough nickname added to the mix. Of course, owners of dogs such as Killer already know this, which is exactly why they give such a title to their dog. ‘Killer’ was probably never intended to be a family pet and was instead made into an aggressive status dog. But how much influence does a dog’s name really have on its behaviour?
An experiment devised by Professor Stanley Coren aimed to answer this question. 291 university students were given a brief description of a dog, along with its name, and were shown a short video clip of various scenes involving a German Shepherd barking and jumping up at a person before being pushed away. The students were then asked to select adjectives from a list which best described the dog’s behaviour from what they had seen; both positive and negative attributes were listed. The important part of the experiment, of which the students were unaware, was that the name of the dog within the descriptions differed. Half of the group had been informed that the dog’s name was tough sounding, such as Killer, Ripper, Butcher or even Assassin, while the other half thought that the dog’s name was a popular pet name such as Buddy or Lucky. Interestingly, the results showed that the students who were under the impression that the dog had a violent name were three times more likely to view the dog as aggressive than the students who had received a positive sounding name on their description. The students were also asked to describe the video clip in their own words, and descriptions from the group with tough names went along the lines of “The dog saw a man and didn’t like him. The dog barked at him and tried to jump on him to make him go away, but the man pushed him off before he could be bitten”. In contrast, the positive name group thought that the dog was barking to greet the man and that the jumping up was playful rather than intimidating.
If a name can have such an impact on our perception of a dog, then reactions to the dog will also be influenced by it. If the students in the experiment were interacting with the German Shepherd rather than watching a video, it is likely that their actions would correspond with their words; those who thought ‘Assassin’ was about to bite their arm off would probably run a mile. The way that people react to dogs plays a significant role in their behaviour since dogs communicate mostly via body language. ‘Assassin’ may be the friendliest dog in the world, yet when faced with a terrified, screaming student with waving arms he could become stressed and may bark or even lunge if he felt threatened and unable to escape. Or, if the student did indeed run away, the dog may have given chase, reinforcing the student’s view that the dog was dangerous.
The name that you choose for your dog not only reflects yourself but also creates an impression of your dog, which could result in harmless behaviours being misinterpreted– potentially leading to behavioural issues around people.
By the way, this is my new puppy. His name? Dave.
See Dr Coren’s original article on the name experiment here.