Zhou Xuanyao

In terms of councils enforcing the law, they do have a choice - reject it. This is what, in my opinion and experience, they have widely been doing, at least in NSW. CO's are human beings too, a lot of them cannot bring themselves to enforce BSL. Ultimately, despite legislature, how effectual any law is comes down to the people on the ground. If no body is enforcing it then state governments are just pissing in the wind (which in another sense remains the case whether the laws are enforced or not).

I'v heard of this sort of thing before. When I got my old dog from a rescue group, the rescuer advised me of the circumstances surrounding the surrender of a Staffy pair that were also there. Typical Staffy's with the temperament you might expect, surrendered as a response to some attack that happened at the time allegedly involving the breed.

Nice article good to see.

The men were not wearing tuxedo's, that's the dubious part.

Let us ban hoodies, cheering, and dog toys, all too sinister. As you say donatella, you are allowed to feel safe in her own neighbourhood. What are your thoughts on laughter ?

Well done Leema.

Very impressive ! eta - Re Aidan's former post

Anne http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/49/Files/IS38_RoadDeathsB.pdf

While I agree with tapferhund, I also think that despite people's obvious concerns about dog attacks, it remains a fringe political issue. I don't see the outcomes of elections being decided on dog control policy. Therefore, the majority of people do not necessarily need to be convinced, only the right people. I think it is better to focus on a "top down" approach.

People have been making appeals to emotion for years, it is not effective. The way I see it, it is countering "their" emotive crap with "our" emotive crap. "They" comprise 90% of the population, who's going to win ? Logical, holistic arguments are what will stand the test of time. I used to have a great quote in my signature, taken from a New Scientist editorial. "Using bad science can never be justified, even in the pursuit of noble causes. It only give ammunition to those seeking to undermine your case". Followed shortly thereafter by - "When anti-smoking groups want to make their point they should stick to the solid facts, there are plenty of them". Of course in this case he is talking about anti smoking groups making up furphie's, cherry picking facts, etc in an effort to further their cause, when it is completely unnecessary and in fact only undermines them. Similarly in our case, withholding or denying facts (for example, the capabilities of game bred, conditioned APBT's) is setting oneself up to be undermined and ending up looking like a jack arse, which does not help our cause.

You said it. Unfortunately, ramping up the emotive dial a few notches does not transform an unsound premise into a sound one.

Unreal video. 1982 to 2008 ? This is in a country with a population of over 300 million, an innumerable number of APBT's, and those statistics, like the Australian one, probably only include a fraction of genuine APBT's. Let us recall a few other "periphery" details too 1. Both professional and amateur dog fighting is endemic in the USA - not so here. 2. Australia's social challenges are kindergarten compared to the USA. We have practically no gangs, a minimum number of street toughs, etc. Of course most of them prefer dogs with the biggest rep, this includes, perhaps primarily, the APBT or at least dogs that resembles APBT's, that are commonly conditioned to be savage. These are fundamental factors in this discussion. I ask that people are a little bit sensible in their estimations. It seems that most people (about 90%, according to a recent news poll) who are apparently concerned about dog attacks are not willing to look at the problem critically. People are stifling their own cause and do not realize they are part of the problem.

What bull breeds were originally bred for has some relevance to temperament sometimes, but it is limited. Let's keep in mind that fighting dogs are working dogs. Professional dog fighters select dogs that have been bred from established fighting lines and tested parents. Even of them, only a fraction are suitable. Why do they go to this trouble and expense ? Because they know very well that the fact that a particular dog's distant ancestors may have been used as fighters is worthless. The fact that bull breeds have a fighting history is largely (though not completely) irrelevant in it's capacity as a meaningful point in discussions about dog attacks.

More babble, the same babble we have been hearing for years. It does not suddenly become sensible because a child has been killed by a dog that allegedly resembles a pitbull.

What a lot of people do is they make concessions at the wrong places in clumsy attempts at diplomacy. I think that either this is true of Delucchi as well, or he really believes what he has said. Either way, his capacity as a spokesperson for the breed leaves something to be desired.

It is not necessarily a criticism of police, as I said I do not oppose the use of police dogs, it's just pragmatism. It is not logical to suggest that the police are not responsible when their dogs are injured, that's the point I am putting forward. Although, as I said in this particular case, I have criticized the police for attempting to use the K9 at this particular property given that the chance of it even getting through the front door was nil from the outset.

Exactly. Although I would go a little further and say that any time the police use a dog for the purpose of intimidating, chasing, or attacking a suspect, it is obviously their own fault when the dog sustains injuries. They are the ones putting the dog in danger, they deploy the dog because they deem the situation too dangerous for themselves. As I have said before, a police officer is compelled to abide by arrest guidelines and a duty of care, the dog understands none of that. If the police sic their dog on someone, anyone, but especially a dangerous suspect, it does not take a genius to work out that the suspect is likely to try and defend him or herself, therefore the police in these cases have wilfully endangered the dog. Defending oneself against an attacking dog might be animal cruelty by the strict definition of cruelty, but is also self defence. That's not to say I am opposed to the use of police dogs, I'm not, but I am opposed to people suggesting that the police are blameless when the dogs are inevitably injured. As for this particular case, as others have pointed out, if the police were aware that the suspect had large dogs loose on the property yet still chose to attempt to use the K9 they either have a frightful lack of common sense for people in their position or they wilfully endangered their dog.

I don't know about the others, but there are Dogo's in Australia.

They are right about using the breaking stick on dogs that bite and hold obviously - but clearly they are wrong in suggesting that they should only be used on Pibtulls, that's a silly comment.

The little mate likes being in the thick of the action. He seems to sympathize with the protesters, he only seems to bark at the police

Good posts woof.

If it wasn't for the kids circulating the video the incident would never have come to light the way it has.

What an odd story ... and a tremendously cute pup !

Why not ?

For those interest in learning more about the Chinese fur industry, here is a report by Swiss Animal Protection. http://www.careforthewild.com/files/Furreport05.pdf