zara

Over the past couple of years, there has been some serious dog attacks involving Pitbull type dogs to the recent death of the poor little Melbourne girl which sparked community outcry to clamp down and potentially rid the community of these type of dogs?. We know that probably all of these serious attacks although reported in media hype as Pitbull culprits, were not genuine APBT's but cross breeds of various Bull/Mastiff styles etc of Pitbull type similarities appearance wise. Although people get bitten by dogs on a regular basis from all breeds, types and sizes, a trend appeared to develop where the seriously savage attacks, maulings with severe injury and a death were caused primarily by these cross breed dogs of Pitbull style and similarity clearly more of these type of dogs involved in attacks than anything else. These attacks for the most part were unprovoked active and predatory type aggression where they had chased people down, gone after and attacked other dogs where people were bitten trying to protect their own dog to the horrifying situation where the the dog chased some neighours kids into their home and killed the little girl in the lounge room. People in community outcry protested that getting rid of these types of dogs will make the community a safer place and reduce the incidence of dog attacks and severe injury and quite frankly I agree on the basis if these dogs had fallen victim to a BSL and no longer existed, the specific incidents wouldn't have happened? Ultimately if there were no dogs, dog attacks wouldn't occur at all and with that said, a BSL in the extreme would work. Some say that any form of BSL doesn't reduce attack rates, well we know a total BSL of no dogs will reduce attacks competely, so surely in that case a blend of BSL eliminating the types of dogs prone to active and predatory type aggression would have to reduce attack rates over no BSL at all, yes or no?

I am sorry, I didn't mean to mess up your thread, my apology, going to the BSL section

Personally, I don't think this rates with what the family of the little girl killed by one have suffered, although I agree it is a sad state of affairs all round but primarily they are trying to save human lives and serious maulings from those type of dogs and given that they can't control the people who own them, the only other option to satisfy community outcry is get rid of that type of dog unfortunately. Sandgrubber: People keep saying how you can make any dog aggressive, in certain circumstances you can, but the type of active preditory aggression that the dog killing the little girl displayed, you can't make the average dog do that, perhaps a high drive working dog trained extensively and set upon a child by command, but these dogs are not trained, they are nasty dogs who want to get everyone, we have all seen this type of dog in various breeds, the one's you hope the owner doesn't drop the leash as the dog lunges and snarls at everything? Interestingly the report of this shocking incident claimed the owner just stood there watching the dog attack, he was probably scared of the dog and knew it was a fruitloop, my God, if one of mine attacked a child I would throw my entire body over the dog without even thinking of consequence not stand there like a stunned mullet, I can't believe that?

Huh? Unless I completely misunderstand you ..... the "debate" and the "opposition" to BSL, both from its inception (2001, I think, as far as Australia is concerned) to now, is because people, including dog-lovers of the breeds which have been, both past and present, targeted under the terms of the legislation (the net for which is so much broader now) do NOT want people being injured by dogs and DO want bite stats to be reduced AND because they know, from WORLD-WIDE statistics who have already tried the BSL, that the legislation is doomed for failure. NOT ONLY doomed for failure, but deemed to make things worse, because it lulls people into false senses of security, gives the wrong impression and MIS-educates. Mind you, I don't know that anywhere in the world has gone so far as turning "Breed Specific Legislation" into "Physical Specific (loosely speaking) Legislation", so can't suggest the World, save for Australia, has gone that mad. Zara - What "factual argument" can you provide a link to that shows BSL is overall successful? I ask you this Erny: Is it correct for me to say it's a fact that if the recent surge of attacks committed by Pitbull type dogs had fallen victim to a BSL, that those dogs including the culprit who took the little girl's life couldn't have done the deed if they didn't exist? Is it also a fact if the owners of these offending dogs had dogs of a different breed and type, that it's impossible to prove an attack would have still occurred with the same outcome?

You are totally missing the point Kirty? Nearly every viscious unprovoked attack causing serious injury and recently death has featured a Pitbull style of dog. Pitbull style I don't mean specifically a pure bred Pitbull but a dog of Pitbull/Mastiff type appearance, definitely not the type of dog that Border Collies, Standard Poodles or GSDs could be mistaken for, they are on the Bull breed platform and the facts are if BSL had eliminated these breeds and style of dog, the offending dogs could not have attacked when non existant. That's actually a fact, if the offending dogs had been eliminated via BSL prior to the attack, the attack from those particular dogs would have been prevented and without BSL the attacks did occur. Whether or not the owners of the attacking dogs had a different breed and may still have attacked etc etc, is not fact, it's speculation and guess work. If Pitbull type dogs are eliminated by BSL, it's a fact that a Pitbull type dog will no longer attack anyone, and with no BSL regardless of what programs are in place to guarantee a Pitbull type dog whilst remaining in existance shouldn't re-offend, they can, but they can't re-offend if they are gone? If the community makes a stance to say they no longer want to be subject to attacks from Pitbull type dogs, eliminating them from existance will fix it, fact!!. It won't stop dog attacks, it will stop Pitbull type attacks which people are most scared of. So in the interests of public saftey the debate favouring to abolish BSL over tightening it up an anti BSL campaign can't win having no factual argument to present.

Thanks for the link Melzawelza I will check it out.

I totally agree that any attacks are owner mismanagement and the raising of dogs irresponsibly, but there are plenty of those owners with all different types of dogs and breeds which proves irresponsibility and owner mismanagement doesn't cause every dog and breed to be become prone to serious attacks and killings. What irresponsible ownership and mismanagement highlights are the type of dogs that are most likely to attack in irresponsible hands which seems to be the Pitbull type of dogs subject to the present target more so than anything else? Pitbull type dogs are attractive to irresponsible people who like aggressive dogs which doesn't help the situation, but Rotties, GSD's etc and the various cross breed combinations of those type of dogs are also owned by irresponsible people too for the same reason but don't seem to cause the carnage of the same magnitude, like they are not the Rotty GSD type dogs ripping people apart, killing kids and other dogs on a regular basis is what I mean, the real serious one's seem to be the Pitbull Mastiff style of dog which is the reason they are clamping down on them from what I can see? I don't think they single out the Pitbull Mastiff style of dog without good reason and I am sure it would be the same with any breed who featured regularly in serious attacks, so when the serious incidents keep featuring a particular style of dog, they really have no choice from public outcry to address the situation? Because these types of dogs fit an image for those people.Remove the breed and they will find an alternative untill no dogs are left.Just as the banning of a car wont stop bad drivers being on the roads. We educate road users to have duty of care.Not ban cars. Yes, but so do Rotties and GSD's and other large breeds fit the image too which these people have now and have done so for years and they get out, bail people up, chase kids on bikes and bite people, fight other dogs, but they don't seem to feature in too many seriously savage attacks is what I mean as the Pitty type dogs have? There would be equally moronic owners with breeds other than Pitbull Mastiff types that are kept for aggression and image, but also the dog needs to have some natural anger to fulfill these roles too. Moving on to a dog that doesn't have the anger in the breed to work for these people won't create the monsters they are looking for, they are not great dogs made aggressive as many people believe I don't think, a lot of the aggression is already in the dog and possibly what they were bred for perhaps?

I totally agree that any attacks are owner mismanagement and the raising of dogs irresponsibly, but there are plenty of those owners with all different types of dogs and breeds which proves irresponsibility and owner mismanagement doesn't cause every dog and breed to be become prone to serious attacks and killings. What irresponsible ownership and mismanagement highlights are the type of dogs that are most likely to attack in irresponsible hands which seems to be the Pitbull type of dogs subject to the present target more so than anything else? Pitbull type dogs are attractive to irresponsible people who like aggressive dogs which doesn't help the situation, but Rotties, GSD's etc and the various cross breed combinations of those type of dogs are also owned by irresponsible people too for the same reason but don't seem to cause the carnage of the same magnitude, like they are not the Rotty GSD type dogs ripping people apart, killing kids and other dogs on a regular basis is what I mean, the real serious one's seem to be the Pitbull Mastiff style of dog which is the reason they are clamping down on them from what I can see? I don't think they single out the Pitbull Mastiff style of dog without good reason and I am sure it would be the same with any breed who featured regularly in serious attacks, so when the serious incidents keep featuring a particular style of dog, they really have no choice from public outcry to address the situation?

But how do you convince someone who has been attacked or effected by a restricted breed attacked that BSL doesn't prevent attacks when it would have prevented the attack they suffered if the offending dog didn't exist?. You can't say to them "if it wasn't the Pitbull who got you another breed would have anyway so at the end of the day, BSL wouldn't have prevented you suffering a dog attack"?

• Is there any scientific literature that proves people victims of attacks from restricted breeds would still have suffered attacks if BSL had previously eliminated the dogs who attacked them? In other words, if the owners of the dog who killed the little girl had a Rottweiler instead of the Pitbull X they had, would the Rottweiler have chased the kids into the house and killed the little girl in the same fashion?

I meant dogs that are registered already as a Staffy X Labrador for example although may have the "look", if they catch someone walking a dog like this, would they accept what it's registered as and if it's a nice dog, leave it be, or seize it on the off chance it's breed was incorrectly nominated?

No doubt. There is a place in this world IMO for dogs prepared to do harm to humans who simply trespass. IMO Australia is not one of those places and a dog with the temperament of the Fila needs to be carefully placed in the right homes anywhere. A correctly temperamented Fila will do more than just guard.. so when little Timmy comes uninvited over the fence looking for his tennis ball, he won't be leaving in one piece. I'd say he wont' be leaving anyway but in a coffin. Anyone who could casually say that they wish to own such a dog in an urban setting in this country needs their head read. Place that argument in a place like Johannesburg and its a whole new ball game. I don't know why people want these types of dogs for protection, Pitbull's, Dogo's etc as the people training protection dogs in an urban setting don't use them anyway and the best breeds for that role we can have now?. From what I have ever read in terms of trainability, trustworthiness, predictability etc, the GSD, Malinois and Rottweiler are said run rings around the restricted types, Mastiff's etc being the reason they use them exclusively. If the police and security people can trust their lives on the breeds like the GSD etc, surely they are sufficient as protection against home invasion when properly trained?

Secretkei, what I meant was that I didn't perceive from your post that you had your name down on a litter and one popped up on offer suddenly and sometimes happens with surplus pups that lack the better traits although still need a good home. I was just saying that I would want to know how one popped up on offer as often really promising working litters are presold with deposits taken before the mating has occurred. You are correct in saying there are no home shortages for pups from promising litters which is usually the case and often hard to even buy one.

Isn't that strange?, my desexed boy was the same and we wondered if they missed some vital bits when he was castrated?. I have had a desexed female who was also a cronic humper far worse than any entire male?

She could be subject to a payout or something along those lines, insurance claim etc for her eyesight that isn't as bad as she claims. The dog may be used to justify her condition and look the part?. It sounds highly out of character for a legitimate guide dog to behave in that manner, bit sus in my opinion? Not to misjudge the poor woman if she is genuinely blind and has a dog with temperment issues, but people have been caught before trying on eye sight claims and go to great lengths in their charades?

Time will tell. Meanwhile, my heart goes out to those who have to worry about whether their much loved family members will be executed. I had the impression it was more directed towards dogs of Pitbull appearance who display aggressive behaviour is what they are after, like if someone had a Bull cross breed that barks and snarls at people on leash or tries to go after other dogs, that general obvious aggressive type behaviour. I didn't take the legislation to mean they would target dogs of a particular appearance for no reason?. A work collegue of mine has a cross breed dog of Rotty appearance which has that nasty temperament, although he is also a much loved pet, he is the type of dog strangers are not safe with and is quite a scary dog, like she has to lock him in the garage if they have friends over for a barbecue, I am sure we can picture the nature of dog I am talking about? This is the temperament type of a dog with Pitbull apperance I assumed is the primary target? The people owning this Rotty X would say he was a wonderful and loved pet too if he was seized, but he is one example I know of who could potentially be a dangerous dog if he wasn't controlled as responsibly as he is, no way could I imagine him passing a temperament test being such a cranky dog by nature?. Being a loved pet doesn't make a dog not a potential danger to others is what I mean?. I am trying to establish where the line is with seizure, appearance factor alone, or does an appearance + temperament factor play a part in a decision to warrant seizure?

I have had the most trouble with marking, humping and the typical entire male traits with a male desexed at 6 months old more so than my entire boys who have never displayed any of the typical traits to cause an issue. Personally I have never noticed much difference between an entire and desexed male to the point that desexing a male is not really something I would do anymore unless I had a legitimate reason. My males don't get out and I don't allow them to become involved in random matings from a reproduction point of view, that side of owning entire males is not a factor in my situation, but behaviour wise there is no appreciable difference that I have ever really noted to say a desexed male results in a better pet.

What Cosmolo said, I have met a fair few people with bull breed x's and the vast majority were rescues quite often via the RSPCA and AWL meaning they would also have been temp tested. A lot of us wanted to save a life and chose a crossbreed dog with a great temperament, 'breed' was not always the first consideration. A lot of us own dogs who have led a blameless life and been a loving family pet. Why should we be penalised for that and is their life worth less because they are not protected by a pedigree certificate. Honestly to take a harsh stance the Vic pounds should simply stop rehoming bull breed x's or anything likely to meet the standard as they are just lining people up for a whole heap of heartache. I don't think any dog who temperament tests well regardless of breed or appearance should be penalised and the criteria should be based on temperament and be safe if the temperament is good, the same if a good dog is purchased through the RSPCA or AWL, the owners have done the right thing and the dogs life is as valuable as any other, but I agree also with Poodlefan that in the present situation to buy a Bull cross breed is a choice that could end in tears for the owners and the dogs, personally a choice I would avoid at all costs and something people should seriously consider when choosing a dog, or if someone wants a Bull breed specifically, buy a papered dog from a registered breeder. I agree but that's not much good to people who have had (and loved) their dogs for years and years... I guess it depends on how gung ho an animal control officer or ranger is, but will they seize a nice dog that has a good and friendly temperament regardless or give the benefit of the doubt. I can understand the seizure of an obviously nasty dog of Pitbull appearance that the owner lacks control over and shows attack potential, but are they really going to seize a Bull cross breed walking on leash down the street that has a nice temperament and friendly nature? Are they really going to seize someone's pet on the basis of it being a potentially dangerous dog when the dog is friendly towards the ranger well controlled and is obviously no community threat?

What Cosmolo said, I have met a fair few people with bull breed x's and the vast majority were rescues quite often via the RSPCA and AWL meaning they would also have been temp tested. A lot of us wanted to save a life and chose a crossbreed dog with a great temperament, 'breed' was not always the first consideration. A lot of us own dogs who have led a blameless life and been a loving family pet. Why should we be penalised for that and is their life worth less because they are not protected by a pedigree certificate. Honestly to take a harsh stance the Vic pounds should simply stop rehoming bull breed x's or anything likely to meet the standard as they are just lining people up for a whole heap of heartache. I don't think any dog who temperament tests well regardless of breed or appearance should be penalised and the criteria should be based on temperament and be safe if the temperament is good, the same if a good dog is purchased through the RSPCA or AWL, the owners have done the right thing and the dogs life is as valuable as any other, but I agree also with Poodlefan that in the present situation to buy a Bull cross breed is a choice that could end in tears for the owners and the dogs, personally a choice I would avoid at all costs and something people should seriously consider when choosing a dog, or if someone wants a Bull breed specifically, buy a papered dog from a registered breeder.

But the only dog whose Pedigree Certificate will excuse it from the full strength of the laws (here in Victoria) is the AmStaff. Any other breed, even if ANKC registered .... if it fits the standard put out by the government, is caught up in the loop. So, all those who own other pure-breeds and have papers for them .... if your dog could by any stretch fit the said "standard", please don't be lulled into a false sense of security. You need to be out there working with the best of them in their efforts to plead the Government into a sense of procedural fairness and natural justice. Saff - I sent you a message. I disagree with this statement I am sorry. If a dog is presented with pedigree papers of ANKC registration would require to be proven otherwise and would be a very creative long shot in my opinion for a dog to be determined as a Pitbull when papered and microchiped as a permitted ANKC recognised breed. In fact, I don't think the targeting of such a dog would make it past first base in a prosecution case, neither would I imagine that a ranger would attempt a prosecution case when presented with papers for an unrestricted and recognised breed, and why would they bother when the correct boxes are ticked anyway?

Whilst I see what you are saying, there an already an abundance of unethical, puppy milling, AST breeders around, and this is just going to make the situation worse! I fear it will only be a matter of time before one of these dogs that is breed for money, without health or temperament in mind, and who is sold to the highest bidder will be the next thing splashed all over the newspaper. Do you think the irresponsible will pay the price though?. I have found a trend for the most irresponsible dog owners I know don't value their pets as a monetary investment, it's like the cheaper the better it's only a dog mentality and if they loose it from misadventure, they can easily and cheaply get another one to replace it. But if they have to pay good money for a puppy I am thinking people then start to look around at breeders and what they are producing or they don't get a dog which is probably a good thing if they are not prepared to put in the effort required to own a dog responsibly perhaps?

Although this legislation can unfairly effect owners and dogs of the type targeted, at least now they have recognised the dogs involved in savage attacks are actually cross breeds of Pitbull like appearance and are not genuine APBT's as the media sensationalise them all to be and does represent a more accurate account of the situation. The legislation also guides people towards registered breeders producing papered Bull breedings which I think is a step in the right direction for the improvement of temperament quality in the types of breeds targeted. BYB crossbreeds in comparison to the breeding of dogs by breed enthusiasts and specialst breeders has no comparison and if the trend becomes to own Bull breeds without the potential of having dogs seized and misidentified means buying papered dogs from registered breeders in the long term is a good thing?. The market is cluttered with Bull cross breeds either free or very cheap that attracts the irresponsible, although there will be irresponsible owners of all types and breeds, it's more prominent from anything I have seen that dogs easily and cheaply attained and in plentiful supply are taken care of less responsibly than papered breedings that people have waited for and saved the money to buy because they really want one. There is a big difference with a BYB popping up for someone who aquires a dog on impulse or takes on a dog falling into their lap they were never dedicated to look after properly in the first place and I think perhaps if getting a dog meant going to registered breeders, undergoing suitability tests and paying the required money for a well bred dog, many of the irresponsible who don't train their dogs, let them escape the yard and act aggressively without behaviourist intervention etc etc, may choose a cat instead. Buying a dog I think needs to be directed towards people who really want a dog and are prepared to do the right thing raising and training a dog and the harder it becomes for people to get a dog on a whim or having one fall into their laps cheap and easily the better?

I would be a little cautious being offered a fantastic working pup because promising working litters are usually well spoken for often sold before whelp and would question why the pup is available? It would also depend how easy it may be to find the particular working litters you like as to taking one now or waiting for other opportunities to arise.

Hi Kitkat. Well really all i wanted was opinions on the diets and what other people feed their babies. To basically reassure me what i was doing was the right thing for my girl. After reading all the posts and varying opinions, i have came to one conclusion. I am feeding my girl a varied diet. She gets fresh mince, vegies, bones, chicken necks, canned puppy food, dry puppy food, fish, milk and egg. Not all at once of course other wise i will be doing another post on how to get my dog to lose weight. Since starting on this diet i have found an extreme change in her. She not only looks healthier but is much better behaved. So my conclusion on this matter is as it says at the end of your post. To me this says it all and while my girl is doing so much better on this combination i will be continuing with it. Thanks all on your opinions, it is really appreciated.