For full disclosure: I am an animal lover. That "love" however has differing levels. I eat creatures as a fully paid-up carnivore, so I would not class myself in the animal love premier league.

On the other hand, I no longer wish to visit zoo’s as, despite their protestations to the contrary, I fail to see how the self-styled conservation argument that is trotted out trumps letting wild things of beauty run free among the plains of the Serengeti.

I own two cats called Kai and Nala who are seriously embedded into the fabric of family life. They take precedent: If it is a mealtime, the cats go first. If they are asleep on the end of my side of the bed, I have to move toward the middle so as not to disturb them. My love however does not demonstrate neurosis, as I have encountered before. I have never worn a "meat is murder" t shirt or been vegetarian. I once even ended a short term relationship as the girl I was courting stated that "if there was a cat in the road next to a person and I could only save one, I would save the cat", and she meant it, as did I before I gave her the Spanish archer and hid away in a self-styled witness protection programme to save her boiling my hypothetical bunnies.

Anyhow, back from my opening tangent: Today I read a headline about two women who had been mauled by two dogs, with one now on life support. Without even clicking on the story my immediate thought was ‘Liverpool’.

I then stopped and had a battle in my head as to why I though that. Good Brett: "The dog mauling… stories always seem to be Liverpool!". Bad Brett: "Surely that is ‘racist’ (despite Liverpudlians not being a race, per se), or maybe an ‘unconscious bias’ towards Scousers?"

And so, I clicked, and the subtitle read "Horror Merseyside attack leaves two women with severe injuries". The detail of the attack was horrific. "Ripped clothing and a pair of slippers" were cordoned off in the road, there was "blood everywhere" and one woman, at least, had serious injuries to her face and neck.

Still wondering if I was imagining these attacks being Liverpool centric, I undertook some research and felt justified in my initial assumption: A Liverpool Echo story from earlier this year entitled "Merseyside named as dangerous dog capital", shed more than a shaft of light on this unfortunate subject: official figures show that you are 10 times more likely to be admitted to hospital due to dog attacks there than anywhere else in the country.

Only last year poor Bella-Rae Birch, aged 17 months, died after being mauled by an American Bully XL, a dog not subject to any prohibitions under the 1999 Dangerous Dogs Act. This was followed by 65-year-old Ann Dunn who was mauled by multiple American bulldogs in the same area. As well as the deaths (and there are more), life changing injuries have been sustained numerous times as well as a rise in dog-on-dog attacks, with one dog recently having its "throat ripped out" and requiring 500 stitches in Stadt Moers Park, in, you guessed it, Liverpool.

So, I guess the only question that really demands an answer is why Liverpool? It seems from numerous reports that the police are "scared" of demonising a particular subset of society, instead choosing to blame "irresponsible owners" whilst missing the true cause. Acting reactively once again, they claim some kind of perverse victory by stating that their approach has been successful as there has been "a rise in reported cases", as if that will bring back poor souls like little Bella-Rae. Acting after the event is no good and proactivity is what is required.

The RSPCA however have shown some steel and claimed it is due to "machismo" and they are right. Young (mainly) men, in areas of social deprivation and high crime are scared and, not wanting to risk carrying a knife or gun, go for the next best legal option: A loyal protector who will fight to the death and give you a safety blanket as you walk the streets of the Wirral.

Urgent reform is needed to call this as it is: The dangerous dogs act needs to be reviewed and these "new" breeds of dog banned, even in certain areas only, if need be, and the government must take the mantle to ensure this happens. Oh, and having boots on the ground with bobbies on the beat would surely negate the need for such violent weapons being used for self-protection.

Only then will we see children playing safely in the Merseyside streets without the risk of having their faces ripped off by a dog whose aggression is as noticeable as its owners are desperate.

Brett Ellis is a local teacher