poodlefan

I rather fancy the idea that they might find some comfort in seeing procedures put in place to prevent similar tragedies occuring in other families. Fat chance of that.

LISTEN AND OBEY DOLERS.. you are all under my control.. or is it Troy's control Seriously, lots of folk disagree with me.. lots of the time. Most manage to keep playing the ball though.. and don't make it personal. I never insult them or accuse them of ganging up on me though.. perhaps I should try that. If only controlling my legions of minions wasn't so exhausting. Oh Aidan.. a pic for you..

All the results prove to me is that your average Australian knows bugger all about dog behaviour and even less about APBTs. A majority vote isn't an indication of the merit of a proposal.

Do countries who do not have pitbulls through BSL have fewer dog bite related fatalities than countries who do not? No. And in Canada cities with BSL have seen attacks remain steady where other approaches have seen them fall.

I'd love to see us move to the FCI group system. Then I'd not have to wait for all the Dachies to be judged. ;)

I"ll be very interested to see if and how the RSPCA weigh in to this debate. While the Victorian Pres is rabidly anti APBT, that is not the attitude of the National Pres, nor of a number of other State/Territory CEOs.

Fixed. Thanks PF! I was wondering if I would get some interesting PM's if that was left in my name Doubt it.. in these discussions I seem to be on the receiving end of those. ;)

Fixed.

I've heard a 15kg limit be discussed.

MathewB You honestly think banning guns has made Australia safe from gun related violence? And banning alcohol in the 20's made Americans stop drinking. Tell you what Matthew, if you can stop needling me with personal insults long enough to go do a bit of research, come up with an example of where prohibition ALONE has resulted in the end of a practice and I'll start paying heed to your argument. If I get attacked by a dog that's been banned I'll be happy that the owner gets charged... is that your argument for the effectiveness of breed bans?? Riiiight. Its been illegal to breed pitbulls in most Australian states for years... you think its working or making us safer? A banned dog cannot be socialised, cannot be taken to dog training, cannot be walked.. yep, a good recipe for a well adjusted canine citizen that one. In the meantime, be thankful I'm not reporting your petty pot shots at me. I prefer to see them here so people can judge your attitude for themselves. And as for pitbulls "attacking anything" - just laughable really. :rolleyes:

I deliberately didn't say "high-risk breed". Doubt you would have Aidan.. but others are.

I can tell you for a fact that it pales into insignificance compared with deaths and injuries caused by bicycles. Lets ban those too shall we? ;)

True Aidan but its also fair to say that many "high risk" dogs never harm anyone due to careful management. And I don't think its fair to say that breed alone makes ANY dog "high risk".

Wouldn't Curly Coated Retrievers be too big? The two that I have met were both bigger than a GSD. I must have missed the "not to be too big" criteria. I certainly wouldnt' think there'd be many MRCCR's in the UK.

I wish people could grasp that BSL logic is fundamentally flawed. Its the same as saying that "red cars are statisically more involved in high speed collisions so lets ban red cars". It doesn't take into account the fact that its drivers that cause collisions. The idea that a dog born dangerous by virtue of its genetics just simply isn't borne out in reality. Yes, some breeds of dogs ARE more likely to be involved in serious dog attacks. But that simply doesn't translate into: * A dog is Breed X therefore it is dangerous, OR * A dog is Breed Y therefore it is 'safe'. Grasp that and we start to get somewhere.

Depends entirely on the details of what happened. Look, its not beyond the realms of possiblity (not I'd argue not likely) that this dog did something completely unpredictable, given its genetics, socialisation and training. If that's the case, this is a horrific "accident". But if this dog was raised in a manner that made this more likely, had a history of aggression etc, then the owner is clearly responsible for failing to contain it.. or was reckless as to the danger is presented to the community. Owners of such dogs have served time before.

The response to the issue of large dogs and aggression has been dealt with in some places by banning all dogs over 30kg. Same principle..big dogs kill the most so lets ban all big dogs. How do folk feel about that one?

No, I'm not. Dogs bred for certain functions, bought for certain functions and possessing certain behaviours DO feature more prominently in serious dog attacks. But you can't generalise that out to individual dogs.

No, they're not. I'm guessing that was a big consolation to the parents of this child. Resource guarding.. very common in retrievers.. but not a universal attribute by any means. Its generalising individual dog behaviours to breeds that leads to tragedy.. for dogs or people. Either way, its inaccurate and unsafe.

Why, no one's bothering on the breed attribution issue. ;)

Clearly. It's a pity that your focus can't be on what makes a dangerous dog because the answer than that is a hell of a lot more complex than "breed". Hey, avoid the personal attacks and bullying please. I've given my opinion and time, have a nice day. Seems to me that I'm the only person so far to be called "stupid" in this thread. Someone disagreeing with you is not "bullying". Where's the personal attack I'm alleged to have made on you. The dog wasnt' a pitbull. Where does that leave your argument? I wonder if this was a part time pigging dog??????

Ok, so the dog is not a pitbull. Where does that leave us?

Actually I'm a poodle and whippet owning female who's never owned and will never own an APBT and I live in one of the only places in Australia where it is still legal to own one. Matthew, you show me ONE place anywhere in the world where banning breeds has lead to a decrease in dog fatalities. I can tell you now that you won't find one. How is that a "futile" argument? Breed bans don't work. There are no simple solutions to the questions of what makes dangerous dogs. Until we as humans accept our responsiblity for creating such animals, children will continue to die.

Clearly. It's a pity that your focus can't be on what makes a dangerous dog because the answer than that is a hell of a lot more complex than "breed".

You need to see K9 Pro and sooner rather than later.