Sbt Tops Bite List In Nsw

[WreckitWhippet]

The Pit Bull is a lost cause in the majority of states in this country. What the ANKC needs to worry about now is what happens to it's recognised breeds and look after it's members.

Of course distancing the pedigree ANKC dogs from the APBT, didn't help the Pit Bull, but getting as much space between our pedigree dogs and the generic brindle dog, could well make the difference when crunch time comes. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier, bred by the ANKC registered breeder, is not the same as the average brindle dog that people refer to and register as a "Staffy", why should we be dragged down with them.

I do not think the owners of SBT's in this state, who have pedigree papers and a matching chip, have anything to worry about. Those without papers, I think are a whole other kettle of fish.

[WoofnHoof]

The emphasis has to come off the dogs altogether and prosecution of owners has to become the focus. I grabbed a couple of dogs off the highway today and I couldn't tell what breed they were other than that there was obviously a bit of bully or staffy in them they seem to stamp the head shape but that could have been 10 generations away for all anyone knows that's why the bullies get the blame because they have a few easily identifiable features which seem to breed true no matter how many other breeds are in the mix.

I wonder if there have been any investigations into the trends in owners/type of owners in attack stats? As much as people like to whinge about ownership regulation (ie licenses and compulsory courses) I'd rather have that than continue to stuff around with this or that breed identification issue.

[RottnBullies]

The Pit Bull is a lost cause in the majority of states in this country.

Just because YOU have given up on them does not make them a lost cause. Thank god not everyone thinks as you do!...Just because they are not ANKC registered doesn't make them any less of a dog than any other breed out there either. There needs to be one voice for ALL dogs not just ANKC ones

I'm sure It's not just the generic cross breds that are causing problems either

[Jed]

WoofnHoof

I wonder if there have been any investigations into the trends in owners/type of owners in attack stats? As much as people like to whinge about ownership regulation (ie licenses and compulsory courses) I'd rather have that than continue to stuff around with this or that breed identification issue.

Yes, in US. Most do focus on triggers - ie, dog chained, male with female dog in heat, etc etc, but groups of owners are mentioned

[WoofnHoof]

WoofnHoof

I wonder if there have been any investigations into the trends in owners/type of owners in attack stats? As much as people like to whinge about ownership regulation (ie licenses and compulsory courses) I'd rather have that than continue to stuff around with this or that breed identification issue.

Yes, in US. Most do focus on triggers - ie, dog chained, male with female dog in heat, etc etc, but groups of owners are mentioned

Ah thanks.

I guess that leads to the next question, on the basis of that research where in the world have measures been taken to reduce incidences of dog bites/attacks and what where those measures?

Not suggesting that you need to go looking at all Jed just throwing the question out there in general

[Zhou Xuanyao]

I don't know, but i'd imagine that you might find examples of such things in countries which are more socially and politically advanced than we are, places like Holland, Sweden, and Canada.

[J.H.M]

Ooops

Edited May 4, 2010 by JRM75

[Jed]

I don't think so WoofnHoof - there is some educational advice about not letting children approach chained dogs, not leaving babies with dogs, not leaving children with new dogs, which is the result of studies on the reasons for dog attacks, but I don't know that it is in the public arena. And there is a lot of stuff about BSL being ineffective, as it is, from trainers, researchers etc.

I think it is basically too hard to implement effective measures - and the bans negate government responsibility. However, I haven't done much research lately. The information is there, but governments don't seem to use it, although they know about it. Maybe some are?

The answer in most European countries, Lo Pan, is more bans. Staffies are banned in some countries, GSD in others, large dogs must be muzzled in public in others. I've lose track of what the laws are where, and they have changed.

At UAM conferences, it was obvious they did know, but the attitude was cynicism.

I personally think that education about the right breed for the right owner would be a good beginning, and more educational material available to "the public" about how to handle and train dogs, and the importance of containment. People who buy dogs because they like the way they look, or take a pup from a neighbour without understanding the potential of the dog are part of the problem.

Backed by enforcing containment laws, behaviour in off leash parks etc, and collaring of dangerous dogs AT the first attack, not the 10th, would go a long way to reducing attacks.

However, and I'll be soundly howled down for this - dog bites are not terribly high, considering the number of dogs.

In US, more cattle kill people than dogs do, and I wouldn't be surprised if the figures were similar here.

However, attacks on dogs and people could be reduced, I think, if existing legislation was enforced.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Holland put BSL behind them a few years ago, I dont think Sweden ever had BSL, if they did its long gone. I also understand Italy has dropped BSL.

I know they have more powers in Sweden than we do here re banning people from owning dogs, early intervention, ect but unfortunately alot of it is written in Swedish so I lack details.

[Quickasyoucan]

I don't think so WoofnHoof - there is some educational advice about not letting children approach chained dogs, not leaving babies with dogs, not leaving children with new dogs, which is the result of studies on the reasons for dog attacks, but I don't know that it is in the public arena. And there is a lot of stuff about BSL being ineffective, as it is, from trainers, researchers etc.

I think it is basically too hard to implement effective measures - and the bans negate government responsibility. However, I haven't done much research lately. The information is there, but governments don't seem to use it, although they know about it. Maybe some are?

The answer in most European countries, Lo Pan, is more bans. Staffies are banned in some countries, GSD in others, large dogs must be muzzled in public in others. I've lose track of what the laws are where, and they have changed.

At UAM conferences, it was obvious they did know, but the attitude was cynicism.

I personally think that education about the right breed for the right owner would be a good beginning, and more educational material available to "the public" about how to handle and train dogs, and the importance of containment. People who buy dogs because they like the way they look, or take a pup from a neighbour without understanding the potential of the dog are part of the problem.

Backed by enforcing containment laws, behaviour in off leash parks etc, and collaring of dangerous dogs AT the first attack, not the 10th, would go a long way to reducing attacks.

However, and I'll be soundly howled down for this - dog bites are not terribly high, considering the number of dogs.In US, more cattle kill people than dogs do, and I wouldn't be surprised if the figures were similar here.

However, attacks on dogs and people could be reduced, I think, if existing legislation was enforced.

I agree with Jed on both the bolded points.

I also think it would be more useful to have stats on actual serious bites rather than generic "attacks" as defined by the law and for that to be separated out properly and clearly into human bites and other. The SMH headline said "Bite worse than Bark" but actually the 156 SBT's were listed for "attacks" which can include not inflicting any physical injury at all. there were also more attacks by dogs listed as "breed unascertainable" in total but that didn't make good headlines obviously.

SBT's papered or unpapered can be DA, I don't think there is an ethical breeder out there who wouldn't admit that. And it is not all down to training. So can other breeds obviously but we are talking about the SBT here.

I'd bet the majority of the list "attacks" by SBTs were against other animals not people.

And whilst that is terrible, what the general public cares most about, I am sure, is whether humans get attacked and DA most definitely does not automatically equate to HA.

Pitbull bans weren't brought in because the public was led to believe they were DA it was because the public was lead to believe they were human killing machines.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Quickasyoucan

[steve11]

I havn't read every post as i am working so sorry if some of what i have to say has already been stated, but i just had to reply.

I remember writing to the Daily Telegraph about 2 years ago regarding a similar article & their so called official list.

They had the no.1 dog in attacks listed as 'Staffordshire Terriers' & in the same list had Staffordshire Bull Terriers listed at no.19!!.

As i pointed out to them in my letter what exactly is classed as a Staffordshire Terrier as there is no such breed. I recieved no reply of course as these idiots have no knowledge on the subjuct at all.

As a SBT owner/exhibitor for the past 30 years i have had an absolute gutfull of any crossbred dog with a short coat & rose ears being referred to an a 'Staff'.

I love most breeds & this includes the APBT but it seems quite obvious to anyone who pays attention that as soon as the legislation regarding the APBT came into being almost overnight there was all of a sudden all these Staffs. Call me cynical but its a fact. It also seems that the majority of APBT & APBT crossbreeds owners are now happy to simply call their dogs 'Staffys'. Hell i even had a guy down the park tell me his 'rednose' APBT was a Staff last week & he was shocked that i didn't agree with him. A lot of these owners are also calling their dogs Amstaffs (the show version of the APBT) which i think is partly responsible for rulings such as that in QLD recently.

Its not the APBT owners fault as the stupid BSL has left them with no other choice but to lie about their breed if they want to own them.

In my opinion most of these 'attacks' are poorly bred crossbreeds owned by idiots.

If your dog doesn't have papers how can you say what breed it is?

Also what constitutes an attack? if we are talking about dogs fighting with other dogs thats a completely different problem to dogs attacking people & should be treated completely different. Ive known plenty of Staffords in my time that will happily fight back if your dog provokes it but never met a Stafford that was anything but loving towards people (thats why they are such a useless breed as a guard dog).

Ive also noticed that most of the toy breeds in my neighbourhood are the ones that try to provoke my dogs when im walking them, whether this an insecurity issue or simply that these owners just laugh it off & dont reprimand their dogs because they're 'just little dogs'.

The other problem dogs in my area are the ones that are behind a fence & never see the light of day, they are largely ignored by their owners to such a degree that they become bored & sometimes agressive.

The owner is the blame in attacks of any sort, not the breed & as such the owner should be the one punished & if necessary the dog/s concerned, not the breed that the said dog/s may happen to resemble. I can't see why that is so hard for people to understand.

Imagine if there was a certain type of car involved in more accidents, do we then ban that type of car or any car resembling it?

If a certain type of characteristic to humans meant they were to be banned would we allow that? oh wait we already did, anyone remember a certain Mr Hitler?

Ok i may be stretching the point but this whole BSL thing is absolute madness..

Edited May 5, 2010 by steve11

[Jed]

Probably would be handy if you read the thread before replying.

[steve11]

Thanks thats constructive

[Jed]

I don't know, but i'd imagine that you might find examples of such things in countries which are more socially and politically advanced than we are, places like Holland, Sweden, and Canada.

Ontario

Results of a new study showed “no significant drop in dog bite cases” since a ban on pit bull dogs was implemented five years ago in Ontario, Canada.

In 2005 the provincial government passed Breed Specific Legislation that required pit bull dogs and Staffordshire terriers to be muzzled in public. The law also resulted in death of “countless” dogs that were euthanized in animal shelters.

Michael Bryant, attorney general at the time, touted the ordinance would, “make our streets safer.”

Now five years later the Toronto Humane Society (THS) wanted to see if those words had translated into fewer dog bites. They conducted a survey with all of the municipalities affected by the law and found no slowing of dog bites to people.

“This survey shows that the pit bull ban has not resulted in a reduction in the number of dog bites in Ontario,” said the THS.

The organization is now calling for the government to amend its Breed Specific Legislation and “stop the punishment of innocent animals.”

The statistics revealed a nearly 10 percent drop in dog bites from 2004 to 2005, to just over 5,000. Then there was a slight drop again in 2006. But the years following showed an increase back to the original number of dog bites documented when the law began in 2005.

Ian McConachie of THS said in an interview with the Toronto Sun, “Dogs are not born violent. Instead, they are made that way by irresponsible owners who train them to be that way or neglect them and they develop behavioral problems.”

“If we want to reduce the number of dog bites we have to address the route causes of the problem, those irresponsible owners who do not appropriately care for their animals,” he continued.

Currently Garfield, New Jersey is considering BSL that would require pit bull dogs to be muzzled and their owners charged “excessive fees.” The ban would also endanger the lives of the pit bulls and pit bull mixes that make up 70 percent of the dogs in the town’s animal shelters.

from

http://www.care2.com/causes/animal-welfare...stop-dog-bites/

[mantis]

I have believed for some time that more breeds would be added to the bans. I have noticed that SBT are now being identified in newspaper reports as the No. 1 attack dog, and this has been for quite some time.

I believe this is to promote to the public that the SBT should be banned.

Exactly the same thing happened with the APBT. People were led to believe that APBT were extremely savage, and untrustworthy - an uncontrollable killer dog - so the public agreed with the ban.

The only disagreement came from APBT owners, and those who had some knowledge of the breed.

Even now, people on this forum have read what was in the media, and believed it, so think the bans are good, despite never having met an APBT and knowing nothing about them. People believe umpteen fatal attacks in Aust have been perpetrated by pitbulls, when there has never been one.

People believed that all those crossbred dogs which attacked were APBT, because the media so identified them. They will believe the same of the SBT.

Wont take much for the media to convince the public, over a few years, that the SBT is just as untrustworthy and dangerous as the APBT. The public will consequently favour bans.

Agree Jed. My Vet told me 4 years ago, that she heard rumblings that SBT's & all Mastiff breeds were next to be targetted by BSL.

Unfortunately all dogs over 20kgs are eventually going to be victims of BSL, unless we all unite & fight against it..