Petition To End Bsl In Australia

[chrisjc]

how many filas have you been around? i was lucky enough to be around two pure and three crossbred filas used primarily for hunting years ago. they are an extremely sound breed like any in the right hands.

banning a dog because its simply "too much dog" for some people is how we got into this mess.

it should be about banning owners not breeds.

the person who owned the filas was actually a brazilian fellow who imported them when it was legal, so obviously the dogs are long gone now, but the law stops him from owning a breed he has experience with and loves.

all because some misinformed idiot thinks they are a fighting breed, when infact they are what you stated a protection dog.

i would like someone to at least name one negative incident in our country involving any banned breed we have on the besides the APBT.

you cant because they simply havent happened, why? because the other breeds are not here.

we just banned them all because "mother england" told us too.

that makes perfect sense.

[chrisjc]

and im sorry , but i find it very hard to beleive that in the filas breed standard they have to be DA. ive read alot about them and ive never seen it anywhere. i would like to see that standard.

[sandgrubber]

how many filas have you been around? i was lucky enough to be around two pure and three crossbred filas used primarily for hunting years ago. they are an extremely sound breed like any in the right hands.

banning a dog because its simply "too much dog" for some people is how we got into this mess.

it should be about banning owners not breeds.

the person who owned the filas was actually a brazilian fellow who imported them when it was legal, so obviously the dogs are long gone now, but the law stops him from owning a breed he has experience with and loves.

all because some misinformed idiot thinks they are a fighting breed, when infact they are what you stated a protection dog.

i would like someone to at least name one negative incident in our country involving any banned breed we have on the besides the APBT.

you cant because they simply havent happened, why? because the other breeds are not here.

we just banned them all because "mother england" told us too.

that makes perfect sense.

The point is that you can breed dogs to be vicious. Government is correct in recognising this and prohibiting imports in cases where the breed standard overtly encourages this.

I have no problem with the fila breed per se. They are lovely looking dogs, and have some noble traits. I do have problems with any breed standard that not merely tolerates, but openly encourages HA and DA tendencies, and expects them to be shown by 12 weeks of age (try some google work on the fila if you don't know what I'm talking about --and make sure to turn on the features that allow translation of Portuguese). I think it is correct to prohibit imports of anything that is designed branded to inflict damage on people and/or other animals . . . whether it's a switchblade knife or a guard dog. The idiots among the Australian population who shouldn't have dogs at all and get APBT's because they are 'tough' would find the fila one step above the APBT from fighting lines. I can see them branded as the pit bull of mastif size. If safeguards were in place to ensure that filas stayed in the hands of people capable of keeping them from doing what they were bred to do, or to see that the only imports were of dogs who failed to show sufficient courage and aggression as pups, I could change my mind. I see no such safeguards, nor would I trust the relevant authorities to enforce behavioural/temperament safeguards if they were put into writing.

The time I spent in Brasil (~8 months 1n the 1980s, mostly in Para and Amazonas provinces, with time in Sao Paulo, Rondonia and Minas Gerias) left me thinking that the powers that be in most of Brasil wouldn't care much if a poor person was killed by a guard dog. This may be changing. [Now-President] Lula was seen as a hopeless case when I was in Brasil. I understand that in his reign there is a genuine move toward social equality in progress. But the murder of street children in past decades is well documented, and undocumented killings in frontier regions have clearly happened. I associate the fila with an attitude that arises when the rich need to protect their families and property from the poor (or to catch their runaway slaves). . . . a breed, unfortunately, developed as a tool in class welfare. I see it as reasonable to ban imports of such breeds . . . unless some credible filter is put in place to ensure that the dog or pup in question is not DA or HA.

Edited February 8, 2010 by sandgrubber

[chrisjc]

I see were your coming from, but i would have to say i dont agree, there are tons of legal dogs over here already that would fit the bill for those types of owners. and most of those owners would not be able to afford a pure bred Fila unless they won lotto.

i dont agree with bsl in general i dont like the idea that someone can tell me what breed of dog i can or cant have.

anyways sorry to hijack the thread!

[NoKillAustralia]

Signed, however I don't think it will make much difference as he is a member of the AVA, NCCAW and RSPCA all of which oppose BSL, the RSPCA schizophrenically so, and nothing is done to rein him in. The only way to make a difference I believe is to stop donating to organisations that support BSL such as the Labor Party and RSPCA and vote for their opponents. Dog owners have the power to change every government in this country if they act in unison but are too busy bickering amongst themselves. The first cab off the rank is appropriately the South Australian government this year, the first State government to introduce BSL. If dog owners could dump the government, and be seen to do so, other states would end bsl pronto. Labor or liberal it's tweedle dum and tweedle dee anyway.

As for Filas, there are tens of thousands around the world living as happy family pets or show dogs, just like every other breed. Another example of the idiocy of definingg a breed as dangerous on looks.

[Kreed]

hey,

Thanks everyone, for the good discussion, and the signatures.

I agree, petitions alone aren't enough. But every little bit of positive protest/standing up to be counted helps, and adds to other more practical measures. I think it's important to stick at things, no matter how discouraging-- it's the only way to progress...

With everyone's help, I've gotten my 1,000 signatures now (woot!) and will be sending this on early next week to the targets. I'm also going to follow up w/ phone calls, email, etc. to make sure it's arrived safely and being addressed.

Keep the signatures coming... :-)

Thanks,

Kirsten

[Lhok]

One question

If BSL is ended in Australia, and some how someone (who won't treat the animal right and did make the dog aggressive towards humans and other animals) got their hands on one and the dog attacked someone or heaven help it killed someone. Isn't that only going to prove the government right? and the second time round cause them to be even more aggressive in their approach? I mean I can't help but think they will be watching and waiting for the first little thing to go wrong to bring in even tougher laws.

--Lhok

[Jed]

One question

If BSL is ended in Australia, and some how someone (who won't treat the animal right and did make the dog aggressive towards humans and other animals) got their hands on one and the dog attacked someone or heaven help it killed someone. Isn't that only going to prove the government right? and the second time round cause them to be even more aggressive in their approach? I mean I can't help but think they will be watching and waiting for the first little thing to go wrong to bring in even tougher laws.

--Lhok

A rottweiler killed someone, a mastiffx killed someone. Gov hasn't banned them. I don't believe that the APBT is more likely to kill someone that the dogs which have already killed people. Don't forget, a purebred APBT has never been responsible for a fatal attack on a person in Aust.

Why should that change if the bans were lifted. They didn't kill anyone pre-bans.

APBT are the same as other dogs. Not worse, not better. they are not generally HA.

[Jed]

Signed, however I don't think it will make much difference as he is a member of the AVA, NCCAW and RSPCA all of which oppose BSL, the RSPCA schizophrenically so, and nothing is done to rein him in. The only way to make a difference I believe is to stop donating to organisations that support BSL such as the Labor Party and RSPCA and vote for their opponents. Dog owners have the power to change every government in this country if they act in unison but are too busy bickering amongst themselves. The first cab off the rank is appropriately the South Australian government this year, the first State government to introduce BSL. If dog owners could dump the government, and be seen to do so, other states would end bsl pronto. Labor or liberal it's tweedle dum and tweedle dee anyway.

As for Filas, there are tens of thousands around the world living as happy family pets or show dogs, just like every other breed. Another example of the idiocy of definingg a breed as dangerous on looks.

I agree with this, if we could stick together and threaten to vote elsewhere, the gov would take notice, particularly in marginal seats. The labour party has been and is responsible for BSL, and for other bans affecting dogs.

Incidentally, I believe the Qld govt under the labour party, was the first state government to introduce BSL. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[goldchow]

I thought so too Jed, with the support of the Queensland Canine Control Council.

[APBT Club of Aust Inc.]

I believe Labor is the party responsible for BSL being introdued in every state that has it here in Australia.

I have never voted for them since.

[Jed]

I believe Labor is the party responsible for BSL being introdued in every state that has it here in Australia.

I have never voted for them since.

Yes it is.

[Kelly_Louise]

Signed, Facebooked, emailed and also Facebooked on as many BSL pages as I could manage for today ;)

[Lhok]

One question

If BSL is ended in Australia, and some how someone (who won't treat the animal right and did make the dog aggressive towards humans and other animals) got their hands on one and the dog attacked someone or heaven help it killed someone. Isn't that only going to prove the government right? and the second time round cause them to be even more aggressive in their approach? I mean I can't help but think they will be watching and waiting for the first little thing to go wrong to bring in even tougher laws.

--Lhok

A rottweiler killed someone, a mastiffx killed someone. Gov hasn't banned them. I don't believe that the APBT is more likely to kill someone that the dogs which have already killed people. Don't forget, a purebred APBT has never been responsible for a fatal attack on a person in Aust.

Why should that change if the bans were lifted. They didn't kill anyone pre-bans.

APBT are the same as other dogs. Not worse, not better. they are not generally HA.

Hmm maybe I should have been a tad bit clearer..

All I was meaning to ask about is if BSL is ended, just say hypothetically a dog attacked and was labeled as a dog from the previous dangerous dog act list for whatever reason.

I was wondering about the governments reaction to such a thing, assuming the worst it will make them feel that BSL was justified and could make it worst for everyone.

Do you see this as a potential problem?

I am no supporter of BSL even though some of my questions and comments may be taken that way, I'm just not very good at putting my thoughts and ideas across, so my apologies about this.

--Lhok

[RottnBullies]

One question

If BSL is ended in Australia, and some how someone (who won't treat the animal right and did make the dog aggressive towards humans and other animals) got their hands on one and the dog attacked someone or heaven help it killed someone. Isn't that only going to prove the government right? and the second time round cause them to be even more aggressive in their approach? I mean I can't help but think they will be watching and waiting for the first little thing to go wrong to bring in even tougher laws.

--Lhok

A rottweiler killed someone, a mastiffx killed someone. Gov hasn't banned them. I don't believe that the APBT is more likely to kill someone that the dogs which have already killed people. Don't forget, a purebred APBT has never been responsible for a fatal attack on a person in Aust.

Why should that change if the bans were lifted. They didn't kill anyone pre-bans.

APBT are the same as other dogs. Not worse, not better. they are not generally HA.

Hmm maybe I should have been a tad bit clearer..

All I was meaning to ask about is if BSL is ended, just say hypothetically a dog attacked and was labeled as a dog from the previous dangerous dog act list for whatever reason.

I was wondering about the governments reaction to such a thing, assuming the worst it will make them feel that BSL was justified and could make it worst for everyone.

Do you see this as a potential problem?

I am no supporter of BSL even though some of my questions and comments may be taken that way, I'm just not very good at putting my thoughts and ideas across, so my apologies about this.

--Lhok

No, I certainly don't.

This can also be reversed as while BSL Is In, dog attacks are still on the Increase covering all sorts of breeds that are not covered In BSL. So how Is BSL helping In this case?

[Lhok]

Thanks for the reply

I don't know how BSL is helping because to be honest it doesn't sound like it is. I asked the question as I don't know a lot about BSL and one concern of mine was what would happen after BSL is gone if one of the dogs the government is trying to prevent people owning certain breeds what the potential backlash could be if they were involved in an attack.

--Lhok

[shel]

Thanks for the reply

I don't know how BSL is helping because to be honest it doesn't sound like it is. I asked the question as I don't know a lot about BSL and one concern of mine was what would happen after BSL is gone if one of the dogs the government is trying to prevent people owning certain breeds what the potential backlash could be if they were involved in an attack.

--Lhok

In order to get BSL repealed, a large section of the community would have to understand why it fails to make the community safer. Some would have to experience first hand the huge loss associated with it, by losing their own pet, or one that they know that was seized who'd done nothing wrong. The media would need to stop beating up attacks by 'pit bulls' (especially where the breed is misidentified) and start reporting the true nature of the risks associated with interacting with any breed of dog.

So it's a process. We don't just 'change the law' and then hope with crossed fingers nothing happens. We educate the next generation of dog owners on dog safety. We increase support services to owners, focusing on 'at risk' pets. We work with the media to try and make them more aware of the problems their sensational approach is causing. We work with our local politicians to try and educate them on the services they could be providing to the community to reduce dog attacks.

While we do all of this, unfortunately, we will watch really damaging laws take hold and hundreds of thousands of innocent pets die. But it's a flare up of action that eventually has to come back to a baseline. The laws are being repealed in other countries because they are really, really, really, really, really, really expensive to enforce and defend, and then the public start asking why other dogs are still hurting people and musing that maybe, just maybe all that money could be spent on things that actually work.

It's a process. But educating people is getting easier every day. If you want to see how these things play out, spend some time reading the BSL section of KC Dog blog

Edited April 9, 2010 by shel

[Sharna3]

I know you've hit target but I signed anyway. Something I agree with wholeheartedly - the OWNER, not the breed, should be under scrutiny

[ClutchHappy]

Signed and facebooked, I too live in QLD and have a decent number of friends that would be willing to meet in person for the cause!

Do you have a QLD face book page so i can join and get up to date info on whats going on in regards to the LAWS in Queensland regarding BSL?

Thanks

Matt

[justin19801]

Signed, however I don't think it will make much difference as he is a member of the AVA, NCCAW and RSPCA all of which oppose BSL, the RSPCA schizophrenically so, and nothing is done to rein him in. The only way to make a difference I believe is to stop donating to organisations that support BSL such as the Labor Party and RSPCA and vote for their opponents. Dog owners have the power to change every government in this country if they act in unison but are too busy bickering amongst themselves. The first cab off the rank is appropriately the South Australian government this year, the first State government to introduce BSL. If dog owners could dump the government, and be seen to do so, other states would end bsl pronto. Labor or liberal it's tweedle dum and tweedle dee anyway.

As for Filas, there are tens of thousands around the world living as happy family pets or show dogs, just like every other breed. Another example of the idiocy of definingg a breed as dangerous on looks.

I agree with this, if we could stick together and threaten to vote elsewhere, the gov would take notice, particularly in marginal seats. The labour party has been and is responsible for BSL, and for other bans affecting dogs.

Incidentally, I believe the Qld govt under the labour party, was the first state government to introduce BSL. Please correct me if I am wrong.

From memory the first BSL was introduced by federal ALP then SA followed by Carr in NSW (Muzzling dogs only). As BSL didn't work other more stringent laws ended up being passed. BSL distracted from the incompetence of the state governments, gave the R$PCA free publicity on how they were saving society from the APBT and the ANKC gave it's full support as it didn't include their breeds until now.

In my considered political opinion Carr used it as a distraction to cover 10 years of mismanaging NSW and his retirement as a consultant to a company benefitting from govt contracts. The issue of BSL is a good example of distraction, wedge politics and triangulation for those interested in politics; which of course is very few.

Qld actually allows warrantless searches which strikes at the heart of our democratic system. Once in your house the police can then find probable cause for anything they like, whether you have a dog or not.