melzawelza

In what way? The AVA have released their paper on Dangerous dog policy and legislative framework just this week based on intensive research on effective animal management. It is science-based and the outcomes proposed are proven to be effective. You can read it here if you wish: http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/dangerous-dogs-%E2%80%93-sensible-solution We will never know of course, hence why I used the word 'may', but if legislation and education like this had been in place in VIC, maybe these dogs would have been adequately socialised, or adequately contained, or adequately trained. Maybe they wouldn't have become dangerous in the first place or maybe they would have but legislation would have picked it up early and prevented this from happening. At the end of the day, legislation such as described in this paper DOES reduce dog attacks, whereas BSL doesn't. This case is a prime example of that. Melzawelza I just want to thank you for drawing my attention to this article (link quoted in post above). It wasn't really the 48 pages you mentioned - more like 26 and it was fairly easy to read. I recommend it to others who are interested in this topic. The more I think about it the more sense it all makes. In what way? The AVA have released their paper on Dangerous dog policy and legislative framework just this week based on intensive research on effective animal management. It is science-based and the outcomes proposed are proven to be effective. You can read it here if you wish: http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/dangerous-dogs-%E2%80%93-sensible-solution We will never know of course, hence why I used the word 'may', but if legislation and education like this had been in place in VIC, maybe these dogs would have been adequately socialised, or adequately contained, or adequately trained. Maybe they wouldn't have become dangerous in the first place or maybe they would have but legislation would have picked it up early and prevented this from happening. At the end of the day, legislation such as described in this paper DOES reduce dog attacks, whereas BSL doesn't. This case is a prime example of that. Melzawelza I just want to thank you for drawing my attention to this article (link quoted in post above). It wasn't really the 48 pages you mentioned - more like 26 and it was fairly easy to read. I recommend it to others who are interested in this topic. The more I think about it the more sense it all makes. I think it would make a good thread to discuss. No problems guys, I might start a new thread in General so more people can discuss in detail.

Not at all. Well, in that case I have NFI what you're talking about. You stated you don't like the scheme because dogs have to attack to be declared dangerous. Under the proposed scheme dogs do not have to severely attack someone to be declared dangerous. They can be declared 'potentially dangerous' based on threatening behaviour. I don't understand what more you want, other than dogs being declared dangerous because they look a particular way.

The decisions as to whether to declare dogs dangerous is already happening and being made by authorised officers in local councils, some who know a hell of a lot about dogs and others who know nothing. However here in NSW (and I think other states too) we don't have the option of 'potentially dangerous dog', only dangerous, therefore a lot of dogs are being declared dangerous while something like potentially dangerous would be much more appropriate. Officers use their discretion currently and are obligated to investigate the incident and the history of the dog before taking action. You would hope that those who know dogs would uncover that the dog was not being aggressive and therefore not declare the dog to be potentially dangerous. Re: the temp tests I do understand what you're saying. A standardised test could/should be made by using some of the top behaviourists in the country. Well, that was helpful I tend to agree with Pockets - I too would always say blame the deed not the breed, but in nearly every case of a dog attack it is a bully type dog - the general public does not care on iota if it is a pure bred or not, as far as they are concerned, the dog(s) involved are bully breeds or crosses of such. I also agree, in the right home and environment, they make wonderful pets. This is absolutely incorrect. Nearly every attack IN THE MEDIA is a bully type dog. I am a Companion Animal Officer for a local Sydney Council and I am telling you now, even if you combined ALL of the bull breeds together they still only make up maybe about 20% of the attacks I investigate. And no, all their attacks aren't severe, and all severe attacks are not by the bullies. The most recent one I had which resulted in a woman being in surgery for over an hour and almost needing a skin graft was by a small poodle X. Just have a look at the NSW attack statistics and see how many attacks happen and how many are actually by bull breeds. You are completely incorrect that they are the only breeds attacking. At the end of the day though, even if you were right, banning them still isn't the solution as it as been proven to be ineffective all over the world and in our own country. Just to clarify, dangerous dogs and restricted breeds are two entirely different things. You can't stop people owning dangerous dogs unless you ban every dog. And to put it into a bit of perspective, Australia has approximately 4 million dogs (majority of those would be cross bred mutts). Most of them live without ever harming a single person or thing. If the current laws we have were monitored and obeyed, the chances of anything like this happening would be slim. I am all for stronger penalties for people who do the wrong thing and leave the people who do the right thing alone. RIP Matilda Ok, I'll rephrase it and say restricted breeds instead of dangerous dogs. I don't know how else to describe breeds that tough guys want to own and use to intimidate others with. It's not rephrasing, it's getting the terminology correct. Now I can understand your earlier comment that under the proposed framework I linked 'dangerous dogs have to attack before being declared dangerous' and this was a problem. In response to that, I'm assuming you are meaning that you believe all bull breeds should be automatically be declared dangerous, and you are ignoring all the data in that report that shows that this approach is useless.

So my dogs don't have a right to live in your eyes because some other idiots can't look after their animals properly? What a silly comment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yes - because thats pretty well how our society works. Laws are made to cater for the lowest common denominator and the rest of us have to wear the results. RIP Matilda -a horrid way to go. But you can see that comments like "they should be wiped out" aren't useful, don't impart any knowledge and don't constructively help anyone. ANY head strong dog (all breeds) with a high prey drive can be an issue in the wrong hands, regardless of size. FYI twice this week I've had an off lead GR run at me and my dogs, sure i wasn't worried but they came over to my dogs (on lead) to ponce around them and posture... Oblivious owner couldn't care that my 2 though not DA do not like other dogs putting their heads over them.. SO here's why nothing occurred: I have years of knowing my dogs, other breeds, triggers etc.. and this is what it takes to be an owner of any breed. Education for me started with my parents teaching me dogs behaviors, training classes etc.. which i'm now teaching my daughters. Could something have occurred..?? you bet and without training my dogs, myself and knowing a little about dogs in general helps. BSL doesn't. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dog-breaks-collar-attacks-woman/story-e6frea83-1226422663719 How do you educate morons like this? How do you stop morons like him owning strong powerful breeds? Some people don't wish to be educated. You can never stop it, but you can drastically reduce it. The AVA draft legislative framework sets out clearly how to do it and is based on models that are proven to work. Calgary, Canada used to have BSL. They got rid of it and implemented policy that the above is based on. There are a hell of a lot more bull breeds around than ever before, the population has doubled yet he bites have halved. Severity of those bites left is also generally much less. So essentially bites are a quarter of what they would have been, even with a hell of a lot of bull breeds in the area. Incidents like this make us despair, and we should despair that the legislative framework in Vic is so draconian and costs so much money yet it is doing nothing to reduce the likelihood of these attacks. But instead of despairing we should be supporting papers like this and the other evidence that shows that the outcome we all want is achievable. Ok, I've read the whole thing and I find a lot of holes in it. The biggest hole being......A dog has to have done something first, only thereafter will it be considered as being dangerous. Too bad if someone dies in the process. There is an entire section on the classification of a 'potentially dangerous dog', for dogs that may not have actually physically attacked someone badly, but has shown aggressive behaviour. This kind of preventative action for even more minor events is widely considered as being instrumental in reducing dog attacks. The dog must have behavioural retraining and after three years can be considered for review after proven progress and a favourable temperament assessment. If your complaint is that the dog has to have done even something minor before any action, then I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Punishing dogs that have done nothing wrong based on appearance? (the current model which is failing miserably). You would have also read that this kind of enforcement action on it's own is not enough, there is an entire education plan to go along with this which will actually reduce the dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. I'm not complaining, I am merely pointing out the biggest hole. There are plenty of other holes in it as well. Sorry but for me, it's not complete and does not prevent the wrong people from owning dangerous dogs. And it does not prevent moron breeders selling dangerous dogs to undesirables. What is the hole? Potentially dangerous dogs are defined and able to be regulated. You know this is based off models that have been proven to work?

So my dogs don't have a right to live in your eyes because some other idiots can't look after their animals properly? What a silly comment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yes - because thats pretty well how our society works. Laws are made to cater for the lowest common denominator and the rest of us have to wear the results. RIP Matilda -a horrid way to go. But you can see that comments like "they should be wiped out" aren't useful, don't impart any knowledge and don't constructively help anyone. ANY head strong dog (all breeds) with a high prey drive can be an issue in the wrong hands, regardless of size. FYI twice this week I've had an off lead GR run at me and my dogs, sure i wasn't worried but they came over to my dogs (on lead) to ponce around them and posture... Oblivious owner couldn't care that my 2 though not DA do not like other dogs putting their heads over them.. SO here's why nothing occurred: I have years of knowing my dogs, other breeds, triggers etc.. and this is what it takes to be an owner of any breed. Education for me started with my parents teaching me dogs behaviors, training classes etc.. which i'm now teaching my daughters. Could something have occurred..?? you bet and without training my dogs, myself and knowing a little about dogs in general helps. BSL doesn't. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dog-breaks-collar-attacks-woman/story-e6frea83-1226422663719 How do you educate morons like this? How do you stop morons like him owning strong powerful breeds? Some people don't wish to be educated. You can never stop it, but you can drastically reduce it. The AVA draft legislative framework sets out clearly how to do it and is based on models that are proven to work. Calgary, Canada used to have BSL. They got rid of it and implemented policy that the above is based on. There are a hell of a lot more bull breeds around than ever before, the population has doubled yet he bites have halved. Severity of those bites left is also generally much less. So essentially bites are a quarter of what they would have been, even with a hell of a lot of bull breeds in the area. Incidents like this make us despair, and we should despair that the legislative framework in Vic is so draconian and costs so much money yet it is doing nothing to reduce the likelihood of these attacks. But instead of despairing we should be supporting papers like this and the other evidence that shows that the outcome we all want is achievable. Ok, I've read the whole thing and I find a lot of holes in it. The biggest hole being......A dog has to have done something first, only thereafter will it be considered as being dangerous. Too bad if someone dies in the process. There is an entire section on the classification of a 'potentially dangerous dog', for dogs that may not have actually physically attacked someone badly, but has shown aggressive behaviour. This kind of preventative action for even more minor events is widely considered as being instrumental in reducing dog attacks. The dog must have behavioural retraining and after three years can be considered for review after proven progress and a favourable temperament assessment. If your complaint is that the dog has to have done even something minor before any action, then I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Punishing dogs that have done nothing wrong based on appearance? (the current model which is failing miserably). You would have also read that this kind of enforcement action on it's own is not enough, there is an entire education plan to go along with this which will actually reduce the dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs.

Looooooove Tret! He is awesome!

^^ Oh my god, that is incredible.

So my dogs don't have a right to live in your eyes because some other idiots can't look after their animals properly? What a silly comment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yes - because thats pretty well how our society works. Laws are made to cater for the lowest common denominator and the rest of us have to wear the results. RIP Matilda -a horrid way to go. But you can see that comments like "they should be wiped out" aren't useful, don't impart any knowledge and don't constructively help anyone. ANY head strong dog (all breeds) with a high prey drive can be an issue in the wrong hands, regardless of size. FYI twice this week I've had an off lead GR run at me and my dogs, sure i wasn't worried but they came over to my dogs (on lead) to ponce around them and posture... Oblivious owner couldn't care that my 2 though not DA do not like other dogs putting their heads over them.. SO here's why nothing occurred: I have years of knowing my dogs, other breeds, triggers etc.. and this is what it takes to be an owner of any breed. Education for me started with my parents teaching me dogs behaviors, training classes etc.. which i'm now teaching my daughters. Could something have occurred..?? you bet and without training my dogs, myself and knowing a little about dogs in general helps. BSL doesn't. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dog-breaks-collar-attacks-woman/story-e6frea83-1226422663719 How do you educate morons like this? How do you stop morons like him owning strong powerful breeds? Some people don't wish to be educated. You can never stop it, but you can drastically reduce it. The AVA draft legislative framework sets out clearly how to do it and is based on models that are proven to work. Calgary, Canada used to have BSL. They got rid of it and implemented policy that the above is based on. There are a hell of a lot more bull breeds around than ever before, the population has doubled yet he bites have halved. Severity of those bites left is also generally much less. So essentially bites are a quarter of what they would have been, even with a hell of a lot of bull breeds in the area. Incidents like this make us despair, and we should despair that the legislative framework in Vic is so draconian and costs so much money yet it is doing nothing to reduce the likelihood of these attacks. But instead of despairing we should be supporting papers like this and the other evidence that shows that the outcome we all want is achievable.

You can't just say this. For the sake of the vulnerable in our society a solution must be found. I agree, and also will stress that is has been found. Our Governments just ignore it as it won't be popular and will take work to implement. An absolute crime. I have just read the article you recommended and I have problems with some of it Quote Effective identification and registration of all dogs A national reporting system to track dog bite incidents consistently with mandatory reporting of dog bite incidents to the national database Temperament testing encouraged by reduced registration costs, and able to be mandated by animal control authorities Education of the whole community including pet owners, breeders, parents and children Adequate enforcement and resourcing to ensure compliance. Number 2 - Is a playful nip a reportable incident Number 3 - Temperament testing is still in its developmental stage and I would hate to see a dog's life hanging on the outcome I'm assuming you just read the briefing? If you can take the time to read the actual report (it's 47 pages, I know) then it elaborates hugely on this and your concerns are addressed. Sorry I don't have time at the moment. A summary might be useful if you want the article discussed on this thread Well, the summary is what you read. If you're concerned by those points maybe have a skim and a read of just those areas, do a search of the PDF for the terms used. I can't really summarise in-depth statistical analysis and model legislative framework.

You can't just say this. For the sake of the vulnerable in our society a solution must be found. I agree, and also will stress that is has been found. Our Governments just ignore it as it won't be popular and will take work to implement. An absolute crime. I have just read the article you recommended and I have problems with some of it Quote Effective identification and registration of all dogs A national reporting system to track dog bite incidents consistently with mandatory reporting of dog bite incidents to the national database Temperament testing encouraged by reduced registration costs, and able to be mandated by animal control authorities Education of the whole community including pet owners, breeders, parents and children Adequate enforcement and resourcing to ensure compliance. Number 2 - Is a playful nip a reportable incident Number 3 - Temperament testing is still in its developmental stage and I would hate to see a dog's life hanging on the outcome I'm assuming you just read the briefing? If you can take the time to read the actual report (it's 47 pages, I know) then it elaborates hugely on this and your concerns are addressed.

You can't just say this. For the sake of the vulnerable in our society a solution must be found. I agree, and also will stress that is has been found. Our Governments just ignore it as it won't be popular and will take work to implement. An absolute crime.

No.

But that's the thing... there is! It's been done and is successful elsewhere. There will never be a solution in Australia while we cling to outdated ideas and policy that is not based on facts and science.

Those events sound horrible, and inexcusable, and I don't blame you for feeling the way you do after all that. Not one bit. But the paper isn't based on media reports (and I dare say if it was things would look a lot MORE dire for the breed), it's based on actual reported attacks to the authorities and also accounts for non reported attacks. It also covers the areas of the world who have implemented legislation based on the other factors that are much more consistent than breed in attacks. These areas have seen a marked increase in bull breeds but because of the great legislation and education they have seen a drastic reduction in attacks. Like I said, I don't blame you for feeling the way you do emotionally, but do you really think we should make policy based on emotion as opposed to facts? Breed specific ordinances are 100% proven to be a complete failure in reducing dog attacks. They don't even reduce them a little bit. Non-breed specific legislation aimed at education, enforcement and targeting both dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous dogs is 100% proven to work. If you truly want to see these incidents reduce you need to focus on head over heart in this one, as that's the only way to get the outcome you (and all of us) desire.

You're absolutely correct Persephone, and there's no 'would' about it. It's already happening and in enormous numbers.

Pockets, you are entitled to your views in regards to the breed but if you read the paper I have linked above you will find that all attempts to ever wipe them out have resulted in no improvements in dog attacks - in Australia or the whole world. Areas that have used legislative framework such as proposed in the paper have seen a marked decrease in incidents like this one without focusing on breed. We are all entitled to our opinions and we all have breeds that we like and don't like, and the most important thing is we all despair when we hear about these incidents happening. Our hearts break for all the victims, human and canine. Because our hearts break and we want to see this end, we need to look to what is PROVEN to work, not continue to push what is PROVEN ineffective. If we want to see these sorts of attacks on the decrease we need to all support documents such as this paper and bring it to the attention of the policy makers in our areas. Incidents like this should NEVER happen, and it is sickening that our policy makers ignore proven solutions and pursue 'popular' legislation that doesn't work. They'll never wipe them out mate, regardless if what you say is 100% true. It just doesn't work. So lets push the real solutions and move towards a day where these sorts of incidents are few and far between.

In what way? The AVA have released their paper on Dangerous dog policy and legislative framework just this week based on intensive research on effective animal management. It is science-based and the outcomes proposed are proven to be effective. You can read it here if you wish: http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/dangerous-dogs-%E2%80%93-sensible-solution We will never know of course, hence why I used the word 'may', but if legislation and education like this had been in place in VIC, maybe these dogs would have been adequately socialised, or adequately contained, or adequately trained. Maybe they wouldn't have become dangerous in the first place or maybe they would have but legislation would have picked it up early and prevented this from happening. At the end of the day, legislation such as described in this paper DOES reduce dog attacks, whereas BSL doesn't. This case is a prime example of that.

I'd just like to say as a pit bull advocate and enthusiast that I am disgusted by the attitudes of those trivialising this incident. There are those of us fighting against BSL and for effective animal control that do not feel this way and do not excuse this kind of incident. It should NEVER have happened and is completely unacceptable. Poor Matilda. How devastating All I'll say in regards to breed (whether they are or they aren't), is this is just further evidence of the complete fail of BSL. Melbourne has had BSL for ten years, yet all the worst supposed 'pit bull' attacks are coming out of there. When will they protect the public and actually implement effective legislation that is PROVEN to work rather than sinking hundreds of thousands of dollars into what is proven NOT to work?! Effective legislation may have prevented Matilda's death.

A dog isn't automatically a dangerous dog simply because it has performed the behaviour, it has to be declared as such by the Council. A 'proposed dangerous dog' would be the equivalent of a dog with a Notice of Intent to declare it dangerous. There are provisions while the dog has a notice on it (leashed/muzzled) and the owners have time to submit representations as to why the oppose the proposed order. So does this mean that even if the dog is presented with a verbal report of "he killed a sheep" the dog could still be rehomed responsibly - for example, to an inner suburban setting ? SSM- Ams post is a good one. A dog is only legally unable to be rehomed if it has been declared dangerous by a Council or is the subject of an NOI. If the Council is unaware of the incident or has chosen not to declare the dog, then it is like any other dog as far as the Act/Council is concerned. Councils have discretion when it comes to attacks. They are not obligated to declare any dog. So while one type of attack may result in a declaration in once Council area, another may choose a different path of action. So basically, unless the dog is actually a declared dangerous dog (or is subject of a notice of intent to declare dangerous) you are not breaking the law by changing ownership.

A dog isn't automatically a dangerous dog simply because it has performed the behaviour, it has to be declared as such by the Council. A 'proposed dangerous dog' would be the equivalent of a dog with a Notice of Intent to declare it dangerous. There are provisions while the dog has a notice on it (leashed/muzzled) and the owners have time to submit representations as to why the oppose the proposed order.

"Birdseed exclusions extist so that people get insurance early." ????? meaning????? Maybe I'm a grumpy old woman, but I don't see why people no longer save 'for a rainy day'. If you kept a buffer fund of, say, $10k -- this can cover car break downs and a hundred other little mishaps, so long as you replenish it after you draw on it -- you'd still be better off self insuring. How much do you pay for pet insurance premiums each year? How much over the life of your two dogs? How much did your premiums go up after the two claims you described? I don't know if pet insurance companies presently class people as a 'bad risk' after they submit a few large claims, but if they don't now, it's only a matter of time before they do so. btw, If a moldy lunch cost you $1000, I would question whether your dogs are healthy. A dog with a healthy immune system can eat quite a bit of garbage without worse consequences than bad farts and irregular bowel movements. Yes, but what happens in the time it takes you to save up that 10k? My dog's insurance is about $500 per year. So I wouldn't save up that much before she dies. I pay $10 per week. What happens if she ends up with hip dysplasia and needs surgery in a couple of years? I'll have barely saved up anything by then. Why bother with car insurance? House insurance? Public liability? Surely it's also just a rip off as it's unlikely you'll make a claim?

What a ridiculous, frustrating article. I really don't have the energy to go into detail about why except to pick out these quotes: Sorry, what? Just because someone isn't dogmatic about EITHER side doesn't mean they lack a set of principles. It means they wholeheartedly understand operant conditioning and ALL FOUR QUADRANTS that come with it, and can and will use all of them if needed. Again, WHAT?! OPERANT CONDITIONING - it IS science! This argument perplexes me SO much, the notion that anyone who uses punishment does not understand or use science in their methods. The science SUPPORTS the use of punishment as a training tool. It is all there. It is just the extremists who have chosen to completely disregard that part of the science and shut out two quadrants. I can't be bothered writing anymore, I'm too annoyed by the article.

So, the child is killed, the dog is killed, and hundreds of other bull breeds are killed all throughout Victoria and he gets a fine? Just appalling.

Think of it like different types of people. Some people if some stranger started abusing them in the street would just ignore, or would try to appease them etc. Other people would tell them to go away, or defend themselves. Same in dogs!

Oh she is sooo cute!