Decided To Check Nsw Dog Attacks

[chrisjc]

Poodlefan, i realy do hope that you are right.

Sandra, i was talking about the people over here doing jack, not there but i do understand your point. There are plenty of Pitbull people doing lots of stuff out there but as the desirable type of owners are they are of the same %.

I just get sick of the same types of people going on about the same shit and it always comes back to "the pit people need to do this or that" its crap and its in no way constuctive and both parties end up hitting their heads against a wall, we are told to stop giving out the same argument, but then what is fired directly at us is no different either, just sounds like one party, is happy to sit on their side of the fence and give out advice but when it comes down to it they cant do anything constructive anyways.

Sbt, some could argue that if thats the case we should ban staffords aswell since they rate so high. Youd better change your bait and recast the fish dont seem to be biting.

Edited December 7, 2009 by chrisjc

[WreckitWhippet]

Poodlefan, i realy do hope that you are right.

Sandra, i was talking about the people over here doing jack, not there but i do understand your point. There are plenty of Pitbull people doing lots of stuff out there but as the desirable type of owners are they are of the same %.

I just get sick of the same types of people going on about the same shit and it always comes back to "the pit people need to do this or that" its crap and its in no way constuctive and both parties end up hitting their heads against a wall, we are told to stop giving out the same argument, but then what is fired directly at us is no different either, just sounds like one party, is happy to sit on their side of the fence and give out advice but when it comes down to it they cant do anything constructive anyways.

Sbt, some could argue that if thats the case we should ban staffords aswell since they rate so high. Youd better change your bait and recast the fish dont seem to be biting.

chris, that was exactly Poodlefans point if you focus on breed.

If people are going to use the stats, then be careful that they can't be used against you.

If you say that there are no APBT's or PB's in the current NSW stats, then it could be argued that BSL is working as they are not on there and why not add other breeds to the list seeing as though BSL was a success when it came to Pit Bulls.

I'm a bit of a cynic . Bite stats seem to come and go over the years and are made public when it's convenient. I doubt we'd be seeing any of these stats ( except for a leak to a newspaper ) if there were APBT's or PB's featuring in them.

[doit4thedogz]

Nanna, Chris:

" OH, Blame the deed not the breed "- Pull out some stats and blame other breeds.

[chrisjc]

Sbt , i know what the point was i was just firing a bit back at you! i have figured that your a bit of a cynic hence some of my answers sometimes, but its all in fun. I have pretty much the same opinion as you when t comes to the stats but i suppose with this they are not released these have been added up and posted by a member.

doesnt change my reasoning in any way.

[chrisjc]

i could just blame it on finger pointers like you.

watching in the background ready to pounce arnt you.

im actually pretty interested what are you doing for the dogs?

Edited December 7, 2009 by chrisjc

[WreckitWhippet]

Sbt , i know what the point was i was just firing a bit back at you! i have figured that your a bit of a cynic hence some of my answers sometimes, but its all in fun. I have pretty much the same opinion as you when t comes to the stats but i suppose with this they are not released these have been added up and posted by a member.

doesnt change my reasoning in any way.

I take those stats with a grain of salt and a shot of tequila, they are not worth the time it takes for your PC to upload them but they will however serve the NSW Government well.

So if you can see Poodlefans point ( and she's been making it for years now ) why can't others ?

[doit4thedogz]

i could just blame it on finger pointers like you.

watching in the background ready to pounce arnt you.

im actually pretty interested what are you doing for the dogs?

some of you guys need to make a stand and stick with it. So you do or you dont beleive in stats? or only blame the breed when its convininet.

[chrisjc]

i realy dont know why? i am sick of the whole thing and think that time could be better served in researching the situations around individual attacks and what factors contribute to those attacks happening, but at the same time i do get a bit sick of pointing fingers and some saying that stereotypes are not pc, but then stereotype us by saying stuff like"you guys" this and that, far from making headway imho.

dotit4the dogs i have never once changed my stance or opinions on the situation ever. as i have stated above twice now it was all in jest.

i mean how stupid do you think i am, all it would take is to look through and anyone could call me out on it, but they cant because you wont find it.

[rottiadora]

Poodlefan, i realy do hope that you are right.

Sandra, i was talking about the people over here doing jack, not there but i do understand your point. There are plenty of Pitbull people doing lots of stuff out there but as the desirable type of owners are they are of the same %.

I just get sick of the same types of people going on about the same shit and it always comes back to "the pit people need to do this or that" its crap and its in no way constuctive and both parties end up hitting their heads against a wall, we are told to stop giving out the same argument, but then what is fired directly at us is no different either, just sounds like one party, is happy to sit on their side of the fence and give out advice but when it comes down to it they cant do anything constructive anyways.

Sbt, some could argue that if thats the case we should ban staffords aswell since they rate so high. Youd better change your bait and recast the fish dont seem to be biting.

chris, that was exactly Poodlefans point if you focus on breed.

If people are going to use the stats, then be careful that they can't be used against you.

If you say that there are no APBT's or PB's in the current NSW stats, then it could be argued that BSL is working as they are not on there and why not add other breeds to the list seeing as though BSL was a success when it came to Pit Bulls.

I'm a bit of a cynic . Bite stats seem to come and go over the years and are made public when it's convenient. I doubt we'd be seeing any of these stats ( except for a leak to a newspaper ) if there were APBT's or PB's featuring in them.

Strange that they site 103 AmStaff attacks. To the average person they must surely look like any other Pit Bull (obviously).

Or is public awareness of what an AmStaff is growing??

A total of 501 Staffy/Amstaff and crosses. That's a lot of PB's dressed up as something else.

Edited December 7, 2009 by rottiadora

[chrisjc]

rotiadora, id hate to say it but there would probably be a mix of apbt's in there somewhere. we all know since the american staff has graced our shores that uneducated people see them as the same thing and some pitbull breeders are selling or at least advertising their pups as amstaffs. and then obviously registering them too.

which is really not helping either breed is it .

[rottiadora]

rotiadora, id hate to say it but there would probably be a mix of apbt's in there somewhere. we all know since the american staff has graced our shores that uneducated people see them as the same thing and some pitbull breeders are selling or at least advertising their pups as amstaffs. and then obviously registering them too.

which is really not helping either breed is it .

Agreed

We all know that registering them as AmStaff with the council means little to nothing without the ANKC papers to back it up. In the eyes of the law anyway. People need to be educated about this.

If people want a Pit Bull, get an AmStaff from a registered breeder.

Edited December 8, 2009 by rottiadora

[Nannas]

wow,

I haven't read ALL the posts in here yet but I'm going to.

For one, I am NOT going to read USA stuff as that just has no bearing on anything.

Now for those saying "those stats don't tell us anything about how severe, what type of attack, etc etc...YES those 'stats' DO list the types of attacks and severity,,,but I didn't think I needed to list 4 pages of information, I tried to post the LINK for you all to check that for yourselves but obviously LOOKING, READING and CHECKING for yourselves is way too much effort.

For the people who stated " difference between attacks on people to attacks on dogs"

During Jan to March out of the 591 attacks there were 367 attacks on people with 254 of them needing medical treatment. 75 of the attacks were on children 16yo and under and 1 attack resulted in the death of a child (from mix breeds)

Apr-Jun- out of the 774 attacks, 443 were on people with 333 needing medical treatment. 86 attacks were on children 16yo and under.

Jul- Sept- out of 823 attacks, 482 were on people with 341 needing medical treatment. 108 of those being children 16yo and under.

I am waiting on more detailed information but what I have already. During the Jan-Mar quarter from the 591 attacks, 493 were from the breeds in the top 20 lists. That leaves 98 attacks made by dogs who did NOT make the top 20 list. Out of those 98 attacks not any breed remaining made more than 8 attacks on people or animals.

Apr-Jun out of the 774 attacks, 697 of them were from the breeds in the top 20 list. The remaining 77 attacks were by breeds who didn't make the top 20 list. Out of those 77 attacks not any breed remaining made more than 11 attacks on people or animals.

Jul-Sept out of 823 attacks, 739 were from the breeds in the top 20 list. That leaves 84 attacks from breeds that did not make the top 20 list. Out of those 84 attacks not any breed remaining made more than 11 attacks.

I will go back through and read each post and try to reply to those that make sense (some of them just mention ridiculous stuff that I have no idea what those people are talking about)

Also, about pointing fingers. I have a GSDX and an Am Staff as well as my pit. SO if I was listing attacks to point fingers at anyone then I would be pointing them at MYSELF!! IF I was trying to palm BSL onto another breed I would be passing it onto MY other dogs.

If you care to look back at the lists the Am Staff and GSD (crosses) didn't fair very well. That would only put me in a position of owning 3 restricted breeds of dogs.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Nannas

[Nannas]

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?

Hi Paula,

In what part of what you quoted from me,,,is there a breed mentioned????

I can see where a 'deed' is mentioned.

[Nannas]

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.

Hi Sandra,

By Government body I meant the group of people in Government employ (either as employees or contactors/advisors) that were writing the drafts for BSL. The people who decide which breeds, what rules etc.

I did state (as you quoted) some Council areas. Yes, they would be the people manning the areas NOT the guys drafting the BSL.

I also do not consider my post a 'rant and rave'. I had made about 10 posts before this OP, and I would not consider ANY of them a 'rant and rave'.

The information I had posted here in the OP, was just a brief of information I have collected, that I use when writing letters and calling different departments.

I find that MOST dog forums often have some great ideas, good points and some valid reasonings that I do note and include in my information. Posting some of it here is hardly ranting and raving. It is actually called 'sharing' information.

Another thing is, although alot of people say 'dangerous dog' that isn't the issue. BSL has NO effect on 'dangerous dog' listings.

You can have a pit that is NOT on the DD register and you can have a fox terrier that IS on the DD register.

The Dangerous Dog register is completely different to the Restricted Register. They are 2 different lists.

So as for your statement ""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.""

Contacting any department anywhere and debating about Dangerous Dog Lists would get you nowhere.

There is no area in Australia which would "overturn" or "block" the Dangerous Dog List (as you call it)

The Dangerous Dog Register has been around many many years before BSL, and really has no bearing on BSL.

[Nannas]

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? :D

Hi,

In that quote above WHICH breed did I mention????????

Your reply seems to be a common one so I will make a point of it here.

Tell me,,,in the part you quoted from me,,,,mentions a breed?????

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

I AM getting it. It is you who is NOT getting it as I never mentioned a breed and dangerous dog registration has NOTHING to do with a ''breed' anyway.

Lets start talking about what is stated and what is known instead of making up stuff as we post.

BSL and 'dangerous dog' lists (registers) are two different lists.

Lets stop swapping them about as we see fit because they rarely have any effect on each other.

I am not sure where you come from but "dogs attacking" isn't a breed.

[Nannas]

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

Hi SBT,

Very good!!!!!

That IS the point.

BUT as you can see the attcks are still happening, and GROWING!!!! Not only that but as they grow, the number of attacks on children is growing.

591 attacks in Jan-March (75 children involved)

774 attacks in Apr-Jun (86 children involved)

823 attacks in Jul-Sept. (108 children involved)

So what do you think will happen now??

Do you think with Pits not making the list they will just leave BSL as it is and watch the attack rate rise each quarter OR do you think they will start adding MORE dogs to the restricted list?????????

At the end of the year when all data is collected and the attack rate has been slowly rising, what steps do we think they will take to try and lower the attack rate???

NSW has some of the strictest dog laws in the whole of Australia.

I wonder why NSW is one of the ONLY states that brought in a quarterly (compulsory) register to collect dog attack data on a state level?

Maybe NSW recognised that BSL was not working and thought the best way to confim or deny was to start a compulsory register on a state level to record dog attacks.

[Nannas]

Nanna, Chris:

" OH, Blame the deed not the breed "- Pull out some stats and blame other breeds.

How can people 'prove' the pit is not making the most attacks (in NSW) without listing the dogs that are?

You are the one always saying to people "prove it", "where's your facts" etc

Well, there you go.

If I just said pit's don't make the top 20 list you would have replied "well what dog did ", "prove it"

Now, I am not saying blame a breed. I am saying do something about the dogs that are attacking.

In my papers I also have the areas where most attacks occur.

Some Council areas (nearly always the same ones) go as high as almost 50 attacks in 3 months and most areas have 5 or less.

Maybe those Council areas need to have a good look at their dog laws and how they are enforcing them.

I'm not sure.

What do you suggest would be a good idea??

IF you were placed in charge of "lowering dog attacks' what would be your first move???

[chrisjc]

Nanna i wouldnt bother answering any of doit4thedogs posts, they are only here to stir the pot and will more than likely come on later and answer their own posts under another alias. i will leave it at that for now.

some would say that the fact that in nsw the apbt has not shown up on the list, would reflect that bsl is working , i think that considering that Nsw is renowned for being one of the places that has the highest population of them, and advertising shows, i could bet that i could find plenty for sale either on the net or in the trading post ect, as others have done before.

maybee because of recent exposure on the breed or just the fact that more owners are being a bit more carefull of their animals containment, less agressive dogs are on the loose or even out being walked. we all know nsw has turned into a witchhunt the last few years when it comes to the apbt.

of course both sides are viable arguments but is there any real way to find out?

[Nannas]

Poodlefan, i realy do hope that you are right.

Sandra, i was talking about the people over here doing jack, not there but i do understand your point. There are plenty of Pitbull people doing lots of stuff out there but as the desirable type of owners are they are of the same %.

I just get sick of the same types of people going on about the same shit and it always comes back to "the pit people need to do this or that" its crap and its in no way constuctive and both parties end up hitting their heads against a wall, we are told to stop giving out the same argument, but then what is fired directly at us is no different either, just sounds like one party, is happy to sit on their side of the fence and give out advice but when it comes down to it they cant do anything constructive anyways.

Sbt, some could argue that if thats the case we should ban staffords aswell since they rate so high. Youd better change your bait and recast the fish dont seem to be biting.

chris, that was exactly Poodlefans point if you focus on breed.

If people are going to use the stats, then be careful that they can't be used against you.

If you say that there are no APBT's or PB's in the current NSW stats, then it could be argued that BSL is working as they are not on there and why not add other breeds to the list seeing as though BSL was a success when it came to Pit Bulls.

I'm a bit of a cynic . Bite stats seem to come and go over the years and are made public when it's convenient. I doubt we'd be seeing any of these stats ( except for a leak to a newspaper ) if there were APBT's or PB's featuring in them.

SBT,

NSW has made it compulsory for all Councils to report quarterly ALL reported dog attacks.

Not only is the breed and number of attacks recorded, but also how many people, animals, how many needed medical attention etc etc.

The basics are public online and anyone can read them whenever they like.

Contacting the departments for more information is beneficial as it gives a better understanding of how everything fits in together.

These lists are on actual reports of attacks and not a ratio of attacks.

Normal bite stats are usually a ratio of dog attacks per percent of registered dogs of that breed, OR attacks per percent of dogs registered in an area. These reports are not a ratio of anything. They just list the number of attacks.

I agree that the more popular a breed, just due to larger numbers, will be more likely to be making the lists.

I just think the great difference in numbers should be taken into account.

I have noticed some people say "well who is doing the dog ID to state what breed it is?"

I agree there may be some mis-identifications BUT on a whole, when it comes to certain breeds (especially ones topping the list) they are pretty recognisable breeds. I doubt there would be many wrongful ID's there.

The unknown breeds (mutts) with just too much of everything for anyone to really be able to pin it on any breed, I can understand making the top of the list.

I know alot of people who love their mixed mutts (and have had a few myself over the years) but I find these are the dogs people usually get for free, and being a freebie don't always get the time, care and attention given to a dog someone has paid $500 for.

OH,

almost forgot.

I see your point and have already agreed with the point of "they might think BSL is working"

That is the point.

IF they think BSL is working as the pit doesn't make the list (as they are diminishing in numbers) BUT the attack rates are rising,,how many people think they will leave BSL the way it is,,,,,,how many think they will just add other dogs to the restricted list????

I am not pointing fingers at any breed.

I am stating that the State of NSW is collecting thier information and it really isn't going to have any effect on owners of ALREADY restricted dogs.

The ONLY effect the information collected can have is on breeds NOT already restricted.

Me listing the information in here that NSW is collecting is not going to have any effect on BSL.

Christ, if I had the power to change anything by posting in here then I would be making LOTS of posts (one including me winning the lottery)

Instead of some people being aggressive and some just ridiculous, it would be a whole heap better if people looked at the reasons WHY NSW is collecting information and WHAT NSW is planning to do with it.

Shooting the messenger is hardly going to win anyone anything, and people who PM me and warn me to 'shut up' and threaten me is hardly going to stop NSW from collecting their information and acting on it.

[Nannas]

Nanna i wouldnt bother answering any of doit4thedogs posts, they are only here to stir the pot and will more than likely come on later and answer their own posts under another alias. i will leave it at that for now.

some would say that the fact that in nsw the apbt has not shown up on the list, would reflect that bsl is working , i think that considering that Nsw is renowned for being one of the places that has the highest population of them, and advertising shows, i could bet that i could find plenty for sale either on the net or in the trading post ect, as others have done before.

maybee because of recent exposure on the breed or just the fact that more owners are being a bit more carefull of their animals containment, less agressive dogs are on the loose or even out being walked. we all know nsw has turned into a witchhunt the last few years when it comes to the apbt.

of course both sides are viable arguments but is there any real way to find out?

Hi Chris,

When they were first bringing BSL into my area in NSW they were actually going to place a BAN on APBT and Pit bull and just restrict cross breeds. All pure breds were to be PTS and just the cross breds restricted.

My kids were going crazy wanting to move. I once found my 18yo son hiding with our girl, in a 'secret' cubbyhole they had made under his bed. (one of those wooden based bed with the drawers under it. They had removed the sides of the drawer, made clips to lock the front of the drawer in place , from the inside, so it looked like a fake drawer, and were teaching our girl to run in there on command and hide quietly) This was incase the Rangers and Police came to get her...LOL she could hide.

We began looking into moving and nowhere seemed safe. Just as we were planning to move to ACT, we were informed BSL would be placed on us and not a ban. As we only have the one pit and never really intended to breed with her we decided to stay in NSW.

Apart from our girl looking like a large licorice allsort it's not really bothered us too much. (she is almost black and the red and yellow collar is disgusting)

As we are on the ACT and NSW border there are quite a few pits getting around here. People just go to ACT and buy them. I know of a few people illegally breeding them here but not alot you can do about it. So far as I know we haven't had a pit attack here (not a reported one). Although we fall low in the attacks category anyway.

The problem with dog numbers is that soooo many are unregistered/unmicrochipped. There would be no way to get an actual record of numbers of each breed as it would only include the registered dogs. Anything else would be a 'guess'.

In one way of thinking I am concerened BSL is working. Numbers of pits are falling (APBT and Pit Bull, not the crosses) BUT the attack rate is rising. That is my concern. If the Government gets to say "YES BSL is working there have been almost NO pits attacks in NSW" then all the Government will do to is place more breeds on BSL to "prove" they are acting to prevent the rising dog attacks.

That is what others seem to be missing. No breed is safe against BSL while the attack rate is rising. As long as the attacks keep happening at ridiculous numbers each year, there will be a need to keep placing other breeds on BSL.