Decided To Check Nsw Dog Attacks

[Nannas]

Sorry if this comes through twice. I had it already, bumped a key and everything disappeared. (don't know if it sent but couldn't see it on the boards, so am trying again) **I need new glasses for my glasses I think**

Anyway, Each quarter NSW Councils have to report to NSW Government (Companion Animals ACT) of ALL reported dog attacks.

A dog attack can include incident where a dog rushes at, attacks, bites , harasses or chases any person or animal (other than vermin), whether or not any injury is caused to the person or animal.

The reports for each quarter list the top 20 breeds involved in attacks.

From January 2009 to September 2009, the pit bull has NOT made the list even once!

The highest offender is UNKNOWN breed (muts) at 429 attacks.

Bull Terrier (Staffordshire)- 288 attacks.

Australian Cattle Dog- 158 attacks.

German Shepherd Dog- 137 attacks.

Bull Terrier (Staffordshire) X- 110 attacks.

American Staffordshire Terrier- 103 attacks.

Rottweiler- 91 attacks.

Australian Kelpie- 65 attacks.

Jack Russell Terrier- 63 attacks.

Labrador Retriever- 56 attacks.

Siberian Husky- 51 attacks.

Australian Cattle Dog X- 48 attacks.

Boxer- 47 attacks.

Mastiff X- 42 attacks.

Border Collie- 41 attacks.

Bull Mastiff- 28 attacks.

Alaskan Malamute- 27 attacks.

Australian Kelpie X- 26 attacks.

Rottweiler X- 14 attacks.

Mastiff- 14 attacks.

Bull Terrier- 12 attacks.

Bull Terrier X- 12 attacks.

Maltese- 12 attacks.

GSD X- 10 attacks.

Rhodesian Ridgeback- 10 attacks.

AST X- 9 attacks.

Great Dane- 9 attacks.

The dogs/breeds listed highest on the reports are mentioned on each quarter. These are the dogs/breeds attacking more often and regularly throughout the year.

I was thinking of checking each state (maybe someone from each state might like to check) and see what is reported on a state level.

If the pit cannot even make INTO the top 20 list (let alone to the TOP of the list) in three quarters of a year, then what is BSL based on???

Are they assuming that all the 'mut' unknown breeds that top the list might have some pit in them somwhere???

Believe me if they even had an OUNCE of 'thought' that one of those ''unknown breeds'' had even the slightest 'pit' in it,,it WOULD have been listed as a "APBT CROSS" on the list.

The FACT is, NOT ONE of any of the dogs listed above was shown/proven to have ANY APBT in it.

I know there ARE pit attacks in NSW,,,but not enough to warrant being on the "top 20 attacks list"

HOW will banning/killing/eliminating the APBT (types/crosses) have ANY effect on the "reported dog attacks' listed above??

HOW will the death/elimination of thousands of APBT stop the "unknown breed" attacking 429 times in 3/4 of a year???

Chicken noodle skooters people!!!! The Jack Russel and Maltese EVEN made the frigging list and the APBT didn't!!!!

Thinking time!!!

PS. I did recheck my adding up but my eyes are not the best. So if anyone wants to check my adding and/or just read up.

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_...;mi=9&ml=10

Hope links work in here.

[Janba]

The problem with statistics like this is that they don't take into account the number of each breed/cross. The dog at thep top of the list are some of the most popular. If you divide the number of attacks by the number of dogs of each breed that are registered it would give a totally different list. This is not saying that pit bulls would then be high on the list - I have no idea were they would be.

The statistics also only take into account the repoerted "attacks". If all cases of dogs rushing, harassing etc other dogs/people I am sure that a lot of the smaller breeds/crosses would definitely be high on the list.

[chrisjc]

Our bsl laws are simply based on what the commonwealth as a whole will ban. if another breed is added onto the commonwealths dangerous dog list it goes on ours.

Out of all the breeds on the list the Apbt is the only one known to have any real presence in Australia.

i am in no way surprised The Apbt is not on the list but you may see other people on here that will twist those stats around,

some people class the American Staff, as a show Apbt.[maybee viable 60 years ago but not now]

others may say that amoungst the staff x their wouldve been APBT.

others will say the crossbred dogs would have been some Apbts.

regardless, thanks for adding it up, nice to see it down in numbers instead of people just claiming without the proof!

[chrisjc]

Janba, your right but when it comes to crossbreeds it should only be classed as that, a crossbreed, not an assumption of what it is thought to look like or be. ninety % of mongrels are just that mongrels and have probly more breeds in them than what they look like. unless you can sit their and say" its sire was a purebred heeler and its dam was a purebred, kelpie" its really just speculation , or an educated guess at best, which would contribute to scattered results and untrue ones aswell.

[poodlefan]

Nannas

If the pit cannot even make INTO the top 20 list (let alone to the TOP of the list) in three quarters of a year, then what is BSL based on???

Are they assuming that all the 'mut' unknown breeds that top the list might have some pit in them somwhere???

Believe me if they even had an OUNCE of 'thought' that one of those ''unknown breeds'' had even the slightest 'pit' in it,,it WOULD have been listed as a "APBT CROSS" on the list.

The FACT is, NOT ONE of any of the dogs listed above was shown/proven to have ANY APBT in it.

I know there ARE pit attacks in NSW,,,but not enough to warrant being on the "top 20 attacks list"

BSL is based on nonsense.

As soon as people fall into the trap of discussing breeds in relation to dog attacks (just as has been done here) then they follow the same line of reasoning that led to the nonsense becoming law in the first place. Furthermore, its only when you examine the number of attacks vs the number of dogs of that breed in the population that breed stats mean anything anyway.

The solution to the issue is not to identify breeds that bite more than the currently banned ones but to focus on the owners that produce dangerous dogs.

Every time I see the argument "but other breeds are more dangerous" I see potential for breed bans to be extended, not repealled. The solution to the banning of the APBT does not lie in pointing the finger at other breeds.

Edited December 7, 2009 by poodlefan

[Nannas]

The problem with statistics like this is that they don't take into account the number of each breed/cross. The dog at thep top of the list are some of the most popular. If you divide the number of attacks by the number of dogs of each breed that are registered it would give a totally different list. This is not saying that pit bulls would then be high on the list - I have no idea were they would be.

The statistics also only take into account the repoerted "attacks". If all cases of dogs rushing, harassing etc other dogs/people I am sure that a lot of the smaller breeds/crosses would definitely be high on the list.

Hi,

Those were NOT statistics.

Those were actual reported attacks.

What more can people want than an actual reports of ATTACKS????

No matter what type of attack...

The breed at the TOP of the list is obviously the breed being in a POSITION where it is able to attack!!!

That IS the problem...

WHY euthanize someones APBT because an 'unknown breed' attacks 400 odd times????

This IS the issue!!!

The report covers ALL of NSW.

It doesn't matter IF there are less pits than muts,,,,the fact that pits don't MAKE the list is what matters.

BSL is supposed to be "stopping" dog attacks. HOW can banning PITS stop the mutt attacks???

The issue isn't how many pits are out there,,,the issue is 'banning pits' is NOT going to stop the attacks.

Killing 500 pits won't STOP the 400 odd mutt attcks. Those mutt attacks will keep on happening.

Why not place BSL on mutts or the dogs topping the list??? (I don't wish that on anyone and think BSL should be abolished)

Certainly placing BSL restrictions on the dogs topping the list would have more of an effect than having BSL on a dog that doesn't even make the list.

[poodlefan]

Nannas:

Certainly placing BSL restrictions on the dogs topping the list would have more of an effect than having BSL on a dog that doesn't even make the list.

I thought you said BSL was rubbish? Seems to me you're suggesting that BSL would be OK provided it didnt' affect the APBT.

Read my previous post carefully Nannas. You're following the same line of reasoning that got us BSL in the first place.

Edited December 7, 2009 by poodlefan

[WreckitWhippet]

Nannas

If the pit cannot even make INTO the top 20 list (let alone to the TOP of the list) in three quarters of a year, then what is BSL based on???

Are they assuming that all the 'mut' unknown breeds that top the list might have some pit in them somwhere???

Believe me if they even had an OUNCE of 'thought' that one of those ''unknown breeds'' had even the slightest 'pit' in it,,it WOULD have been listed as a "APBT CROSS" on the list.

The FACT is, NOT ONE of any of the dogs listed above was shown/proven to have ANY APBT in it.

I know there ARE pit attacks in NSW,,,but not enough to warrant being on the "top 20 attacks list"

BSL is based on nonsense.

As soon as people fall into the trap of discussing breeds in relation to dog attacks (just as has been done here) then they follow the same line of reasoning that led to the nonsense becoming law in the first place. Furthermore, its only when you examine the number of attacks vs the number of dogs of that breed in the population that breed stats mean anything anyway.

The solution to the issue is not to identify breeds that bite more than the currently banned ones but to focus on the owners that produce dangerous dogs.

Every time I see the argument "but other breeds are more dangerous" I see potential for breed bans to be extended, not repealled. The solution to the banning of the APBT does not lie in pointing the finger at other breeds.

When the Pit folk can get their head around that , they will be heading in the right direction. Until such time, BSL is here to stay and they will be going around in circles

[Sandra777]

Hi,

Those were NOT statistics.

Those were actual reported attacks.

That makes them statistics

What more can people want than an actual reports of ATTACKS????

No matter what type of attack...

Sorry I see an enormous difference between an "attack" which involves a dog, no matter what the breed, attacking another dog, no matter what the breed and an "attack" which involves a dog, no matter what the breed, taking the life of a child.

The breed at the TOP of the list is obviously the breed being in a POSITION where it is able to attack!!!

That IS the problem...

The "breed" at the top of the list is crossbred dog of unknown origin. So you think all dogs which do not have a certifiable pedigree should be PTS?

It doesn't matter IF there are less pits than muts,,,,the fact that pits don't MAKE the list is what matters.

BSL is supposed to be "stopping" dog attacks. HOW can banning PITS stop the mutt attacks???

Ah, now there you have got it wrong. BSL has never been about stopping dog attacks. BSL is about politicans being seen to do something about a problem they know nothing about to appease the masses and the idiot tabloid newspapers.

Certainly placing BSL restrictions on the dogs topping the list would have more of an effect than having BSL on a dog that doesn't even make the list.

No it wouldn't - because BSL hasn't stopped the breeding of APBTs so why do you think it would stop the breeding of other breeds? (or crossbreeds as the case may be)

I would like to know the provenance of those statistics - who identified the dogs? obviously someone who doesn't know that "Bull Terrier (Staffordshire)" is not a breed. What method was used to determine the dog in question was a "Bull Terrier (Staffordshire)" cross as opposed to an "American Pit Bull Terrier" Cross.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Sandra777

[rottiadora]

Combined total of 501 staffy/amstaff types. WOW!

Edited December 7, 2009 by rottiadora

[Nannas]

Nannas

If the pit cannot even make INTO the top 20 list (let alone to the TOP of the list) in three quarters of a year, then what is BSL based on???

Are they assuming that all the 'mut' unknown breeds that top the list might have some pit in them somwhere???

Believe me if they even had an OUNCE of 'thought' that one of those ''unknown breeds'' had even the slightest 'pit' in it,,it WOULD have been listed as a "APBT CROSS" on the list.

The FACT is, NOT ONE of any of the dogs listed above was shown/proven to have ANY APBT in it.

I know there ARE pit attacks in NSW,,,but not enough to warrant being on the "top 20 attacks list"

BSL is based on nonsense.

As soon as people fall into the trap of discussing breeds in relation to dog attacks (just as has been done here) then they follow the same line of reasoning that led to the nonsense becoming law in the first place. Furthermore, its only when you examine the number of attacks vs the number of dogs of that breed in the population that breed stats mean anything anyway.

The solution to the issue is not to identify breeds that bite more than the currently banned ones but to focus on the owners that produce dangerous dogs.

Every time I see the argument "but other breeds are more dangerous" I see potential for breed bans to be extended, not repealled. The solution to the banning of the APBT does not lie in pointing the finger at other breeds.

Hi,

I am not pointing fingers. I am just quoting facts. (something I see people in here, everyday asking for)

IF those facts don't point in a direction that people like, I really don't care.

It may be the fact there are not as many pit in the whole state of NSW, compared to mutts BUT why PTS the pits to lower the attack rate?

I would agree with you if at some point a pit or pit cross made any of the 3 lists.

There are a whole heap of pit crosses out there.

I would say more or equal numbers of pit and pit crosses in some areas than pure bred Siberian Huskies, or Alaskan Malamutes, Great Danes...Let alone a few others on the list. Those breeds made it to the list yet pit/crosses didn't.

I am not arguing that 'those breeds are more dangerous' I am saying that THOSE breeds are obviously in positions to attack. As they are!

I am saying to STOP pointing fingers at pits and start looking at what is really going on.

Funny how between all people there is no 'right' to defend.

IF pit owners say they are lovely dogs and not HA. Everyone says ""they have rose coloured glasses on"

IF pit owners deny the amount of attacks listed as pit attacks "yeah well where's your facts to prove it"

IF pit owners list the top attacking breeds "they are pointing fingers"

No matter what pit owners/supporters say, there are always a heap of people just waiting to 'have a go' about anything.

IF pit owners/supporters do not manage to do something about BSL it IS going to get worse.

It was only a Government 'slip up' that Am Staffs and Staffy's and other bully breeds were NOT included in BSL.

IF BSL stays, those breeds will probably be next.

When the ABPT and Pit Bull were listed in the BSL, the Government body actually thought it included Am Staffs etc. (That's why most places have "pit type breeds and crosses" listed.) Some Council areas thought it included Staffies, bull terriers, certain bully breeds. You think if BSL carries on they won't be placing those on the list too??

Me pointing a finger at ANY dog/breed is NOT going to change what the Government already thought it had set in stone. They slipped up.

Even if there are more mutts than anything else in NSW, banning pits is NOT going to stop the mutt attacks.

I am not sure what the stats are at now,,as with all the referencing the Government moved the lists and I have been unable to find them since, BUT last time I looked (probably early last year) pit attacks only ranked in the 3% of attacks in the whole of Australia, (here I go pointing fingers again) but GSD at 75% and Rotty at 75% (GSD southwards and Rotty north) with the list going down to Cattle dogs, Kelpies, bull terrier in some order. (That was for all attacks needing hospital attention and included crossbreeds)

I still believe if they want to stop the attacks, they must do something about the dogs that ARE attacking.

I wonder in how many of those attacks (or over any period) the same owner was involved in any attacks??

That might be something to look into...*notes to self*

[poodlefan]

Nannas:

I am not pointing fingers. I am just quoting facts. (something I see people in here, everyday asking for)

IF those facts don't point in a direction that people like, I really don't care.

Best you go read some USA dog attacks statistics then. APBTs are right up there in the stats. How terribly inconvenient for the oft quoted statement that the breed is less likely than others to do harm.

Nannas there's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Those statistics (facts if you prefer) don't tell us the proportion of the breeds represented in terms of their overall population.

They don't tell us if the owners of dogs that are banned breeds lied or misidentified them (as some APBT fanciers on this site have encouraged owners to do)

They don't tell us if the dogs were correctly identified (a problem all dog attack breed statistics note).

Most importantly, they don't tell us a thing about how severe these attacks were.

And they tell us nothing about how the dogs were raised, socialised and controlled. You've missed the point completely. Seems to me that you're sounding remarkably like an supporter of BSL, provided your preferred breed isn't affected.

[Paula-]

I still believe if they want to stop the attacks, they must do something about the dogs that ARE attacking.

Whatever happened to deed, not breed?

[Sandra777]

When the ABPT and Pit Bull were listed in the BSL, the Government body actually thought it included Am Staffs etc. (That's why most places have "pit type breeds and crosses" listed.) Some Council areas thought it included Staffies, bull terriers, certain bully breeds. You think if BSL carries on they won't be placing those on the list too??

I think you will find there has already been multiple attempts world wide to place all sorts of different breeds on "dangerous dog" lists - most overturned or blocked by reasoned debate in the correct arena - which doesn't include ranting and raving on a dog forum.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that "the Government body" (whatever that may be) did not have the information to know they were excluding "staffies" (which sort ) Bull Terriers etc by wording the legislation as they did. The people manning the front office may well be idiots - the guys in the back room writing the legislation generally aren't.

[chrisjc]

Sbt some of us have got our head around it, and have for quite some time.

Bsl is not and has never just been about Pit Bulls, there are many other wonderfull breeds that are on the hit list too.

there are countries where ,Staffords, AST, Rotties, GSD, are on the top of the hit list.

Bsl is about pretending to put a fix on a problem instead of hitting it head on.

And "the pit folk" have sweet FA too do with wheather bsl will be removed , it will never happen in this country and it will only get worse.

but when other dogs get added[which they will] as soon as "Mother England" decides it needs an update, will the people that are newly affected by it do anything? nope.

besides whinge and cry and go on about how its the "pit folks" who have made it happen for everyone they will do jack.

and if you think it wont get worse think again, it really wasnt that long ago , that the Presa[canary dog ] was added, and they dont even exist here.

Edited December 7, 2009 by chrisjc

[poodlefan]

Sbt some of us have got our head around it, and have for quite some time.

Bsl is and has never just been about Pit Bulls, there are many other wonderfull breeds that are on the hit list too.

there are countries where ,Staffords, AST, Rotties, GSD, are on the top of the hit list.

Bsl is about pretending to put a fix on a problem instead of hitting it head on.

And "the pit folk" have sweet FA too do with wheather bsl will be removed , it will never happen in this country and it will only get worse.

but when other dogs get added[which they will] as soon as "Mother England" decides it needs an update, will the people that are newly affected by it do anything? nope.

besides whinge and cry and go on about how its the "pit folks" who have made it happen for everyone they will do jack.

and if you think it wont get worse think again, it really wasnt that long ago , that the Presa[canary dog ] was added, and they dont even exist here.

I think you're wrong Chris. The RSPCA is changing its tune and what they think counts for a great deal.

If the breed can be kept out of the hands of morons and out of the headlines it stand a chance. That is entirely in the hands of current owners/breeders. GSD folk achieved it for their breed.

Edited December 7, 2009 by poodlefan

[Nannas]

Nannas:

Certainly placing BSL restrictions on the dogs topping the list would have more of an effect than having BSL on a dog that doesn't even make the list.

I thought you said BSL was rubbish? Seems to me you're suggesting that BSL would be OK provided it didnt' affect the APBT.

Read my previous post carefully Nannas. You're following the same line of reasoning that got us BSL in the first place.

Hi,

I do read carefully but so should You!!

I didn't say I thought any breed should have BSL..

I actually stated "Placing BSL RESTRICTIONS on the dogs TOPPING THE LIST WOULD HAVE MORE ON AN EFFECT THAN A DOG THAT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE THE LIST"

eg. Fining all drivers for Drink Driving isn't going to do much except p&ss people off. Booking the drunks driving would have an effect on the amount of drink drivers.

Another words IF they were deciding to bring in BSL to have some effect dog attacks, then placing the BSL on the dogs attacking the MOST would have more of an effect.

[poodlefan]

eg. Fining all drivers for Drink Driving isn't going to do much except p&ss people off. Booking the drunks driving would have an effect on the amount of drink drivers.

Another words IF they were deciding to bring in BSL to have some effect dog attacks, then placing the BSL on the dogs attacking the MOST would have more of an effect.

No, it wouldn't. Its been tried and failed.. this is what BSL is.

Which part of "breed alone doesn't make a dog dangerous" aren't you getting Nannas?

[Sandra777]

And "the pit folk" have sweet FA too do with wheather bsl will be removed , it will never happen in this country and it will only get worse.

but when other dogs get added[which they will] as soon as "Mother England" decides it needs an update, will the people that are newly affected by it do anything? nope.

besides whinge and cry and go on about how its the "pit folks" who have made it happen for everyone they will do jack.

I think you will find that Stafford people in the UK are not "doing jack" and whinging and crying. Many thousands of pounds have been raised from all over the world to prevent the inclusion of the Stafford in the UK BSL - because we all know full well that if the breed falls in the UK it will fall everywhere. There are trained and experienced breed people constantly in touch with political parties, the KC and with individual advisors who seem to be getting "bad ideas".

Stafford people in the UK have in fact been fighting the fight FOR the "pit bull" people since the law came in to force - mainly because the "pit bull" people by and large chose to ignore the law and go underground.

Yep - I can well understand that and when faced with the possibility of a similar situation in NZ made plans to get my dogs to a place where they would be safe (even though there it was "only" muzzling and neutering that was in the pipeline, not death)

In the UK it is estimated that the number of "pit bulls" has increased by four or five fold since the introduction of BSL - and many of them in the wrong hands, so how does that provide "proof" to the politicans that "pit bull" people as a whole are responsible and want to solve the perceived problem with their breed?

There has already been an attempt in Victoria to legislate against Staffordshire Bull Terriers - it was quashed by the concerted effort of people who care about the breed and who just got on with the job and rallied international support for the cause.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Sandra777

[WreckitWhippet]

One could argue that BSL is working, since there are no APBT's or PB's making up the current NSW stats.