Comment Made By Rspca Chief Executive Mr. Michael Link

[Moselle]

"RSPCA ACT Chief executive, Michael Linke, who owns an american pit bull terrier, said it was a much maligned breed and that the dogs which attacked Harry could have been mastiffs, staffordshire bull terriers or cross breeds. He said ACT Legislation requiring people to hold a licence in order to keep a dog that had been declared dangerous by the DAS registrar was better than a blanket ban on any particular breed.

Any dog is capable of any act, irrespective of its breed and that type of legislation (as exists in the ACT) doesn't single out any one breed as being more dangerous than any other, he said.

We are 100 per cent opposed to vicious dogs in our community...

Pit bulls are subject to ownership restrictions in NSW, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria"

I have taken this thread to this section of DOL (from the NEWS section) as it seems to generate more attention. I have maintained that Mr. Linke was wrong in making the above statement. IMO, all that his statement serves to accomplish is in confusing people even further and planting the seed of doubt that attacks from perceived "pitbulls" could instead be from staffies or mastiffs. This is not a fair statement and a totally selfish one. I can respect the fact that he dotes on his pet pitbull but he should have remained neutral and not be so liberal in pointing the finger on other breeds, namely the staffie or the mastiff.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Moselle

[WreckitWhippet]

Quite likely that the dogs involved were not APBT's. I think it would be a pretty safe bet that they were some mongrel cross or the generic "staffie".

[poodlefan]

"RSPCA ACT Chief executive, Michael Linke, who owns an american pit bull terrier, said it was a much maligned breed and that the dogs which attacked Harry could have been mastiffs, staffordshire bull terriers or cross breeds. He said ACT Legislation requiring people to hold a licence in order to keep a dog that had been declared dangerous by the DAS registrar was better than a blanket ban on any particular breed.

Any dog is capable of any act, irrespective of its breed and that type of legislation (as exists in the ACT) doesn't single out any one breed as being more dangerous than any other, he said.

We are 100 per cent opposed to vicious dogs in our community...

Pit bulls are subject to ownership restrictions in NSW, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria"

I have taken this thread to this section of DOL (from the NEWS section) as it seems to generate more attention. I have maintained that Mr. Linke was wrong in making the above statement. IMO, all that his statement serves to accomplish is in confusing people even further and planting the seed of doubt that attacks from perceived "pitbulls" could instead be from staffies or mastiffs. This is not a fair statement and a totally selfish one. I can respect the fact that he dotes on his pet pitbull but he should have remained neutral and not be so liberal in pointing the finger on other breeds, namely the staffie or the mastiff.

He also pointed the finger at crossbreeds Moselle but you seem to have forgotten that.

He did not say what the breed was, he said what they might have been.

I think you need to build a bridge. Try getting YOUR state RSPCA CEO to say something positive about APBTs.. now there's a mission.

[casowner]

Another arena to slam what was more than likely an innocent comment from someone in the RSPCA who actually doesn't support BSL. Moselle, have you contacted Mr Linke regarding your feelings so that he may explain or respond or are they just for public airings only?

[Sandra777]

I read that to mean that most people couldn't tell the difference between a Staffordshire Bull Terrier and a Mastiff and a mutt - which is probably true, yet most people would happily malign a breed by stating such-and-such dog was a "pit bull".

Edited July 21, 2010 by Sandra777

[WreckitWhippet]

Love your work, so when 8 people said they agreed with his comments, you decided to take the poll down LOL

[Moselle]

Love your work, so when 8 people said they agreed with his comments, you decided to take the poll down LOL

No, not at all. I don't know what the heck is going on; I have been trying to rectify the problem and am not having any luck! Heck, I want people's opinion just as much as you do, no matter if they agree with me or not. I was, in fact, trying to reword the question to this poll as I worded it wrong the 1st time around. Looks as though the poll is back on and lest we forget that, as you said BST, 8 people do agree with Mr. Linke's statement.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Moselle

[Bjelkier]

"RSPCA ACT Chief executive, Michael Linke, who owns an american pit bull terrier, said it was a much maligned breed and that the dogs which attacked Harry could have been mastiffs, staffordshire bull terriers or cross breeds. He said ACT Legislation requiring people to hold a licence in order to keep a dog that had been declared dangerous by the DAS registrar was better than a blanket ban on any particular breed.

Any dog is capable of any act, irrespective of its breed and that type of legislation (as exists in the ACT) doesn't single out any one breed as being more dangerous than any other, he said.

We are 100 per cent opposed to vicious dogs in our community...

Pit bulls are subject to ownership restrictions in NSW, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria"

I have taken this thread to this section of DOL (from the NEWS section) as it seems to generate more attention. I have maintained that Mr. Linke was wrong in making the above statement. IMO, all that his statement serves to accomplish is in confusing people even further and planting the seed of doubt that attacks from perceived "pitbulls" could instead be from staffies or mastiffs. This is not a fair statement and a totally selfish one. I can respect the fact that he dotes on his pet pitbull but he should have remained neutral and not be so liberal in pointing the finger on other breeds, namely the staffie or the mastiff.

I fail to see the issue here.

He is basically saying it could have been anything and to stop pointing the finger at APBT, what's the problem?

[Dogs4Fun]

It doesn't seem like and unreasonable comment, although I am not sure of the context.

It would be preferable that he didn't name other breeds, but I think he is at lesat aware that public (or indeed "expert") identification of breed by visuals only is unrelible, especially so when "Jo Public" is involved.

[MolassesLass]

I think what he's said is wonderful really.

By my reading, he said:

- Breed is usually not established fact in news reports of attacks

- Punish those who have been shown to do the wrong thing (dog and owner) rather than having BSL

The only possible thing I could have an issue with is using "Mastiff" when he means the general catch-all term for a block headed dog rather than the actual Mastiff breed. But that's being a picky, dog elitist.

He didn't mention those breeds (along with "crossbreeds") because he was saying they are viscous breeds but because they are breeds that look similar to what a Pitbull looks like.

[WreckitWhippet]

So you just changed the poll question when people didn't agree with you. You went in and emended it at 2.50 and took some of the options away and then back in again at 2.59 to put up your new question.

[Tassie]

Agree with you molasseslass - that's how I read it.

Rather than attacking Mr Linke, I think we should be applauding people in his position who, from a position of knowledge, are opposing BSL and saying "punish the deed, not the breed".

[FHRP]

There are two different questions on your poll now, which are we answering??

DO YOU AGREE WITH MR. LINKE'S STATEMENT IMPLYING THAT THE CULPRITS FOR DOG ATTACKS COULD BE CARRIED OUT BY STAFFIES OR MASTIFFS INSTEAD OF PITBULLS?

which I think was your original question??

or

Do you believe that Mr. Linke's statement could prove to be of detriment to the staffy or mastiff?

which is below the other question and a different question.

Edited July 21, 2010 by FHRP

[Moselle]

So you just changed the poll question when people didn't agree with you. You went in and emended it at 2.50 and took some of the options away and then back in again at 2.59 to put up your new question.

SBT, I have been trying to rectify the problem for a while now and kept stuffing up. Every time I thought I had it right the poll was not showing up. Oh, BTW, in between trying to fix this problem, I have visited the loo also. Is that okay? Yes, I did make a mistake in asking the question in the first place and decided to make the appropriate changes. The original question was whether people agreed with Mr. Linke's comment which was not what I was after hence the reason why I changed it to the current question which is my main concern.

[WreckitWhippet]

There are two different questions on your poll now, which are we answering??

the first 8 people answered yes to the top question and then got nuked

who knows which one you are supposed to answer this time round

[Curlybert]

So you just changed the poll question when people didn't agree with you. You went in and emended it at 2.50 and took some of the options away and then back in again at 2.59 to put up your new question.

Yup. Sure looks that way to me!

[Moselle]

There are two different questions on your poll now, which are we answering??

DO YOU AGREE WITH MR. LINKE'S STATEMENT IMPLYING THAT THE CULPRITS FOR DOG ATTACKS COULD BE CARRIED OUT BY STAFFIES OR MASTIFFS INSTEAD OF PITBULLS?

which I think was your original question??

or

Do you believe that Mr. Linke's statement could prove to be of detriment to the staffy or mastiff?

which is below the other question and a different question.

Here goes again! This is really starting to annoy me. I have never done this before hence the mistakes!

[StaceyB]

I read that to mean that most people couldn't tell the difference between a Staffordshire Bull Terrier and a Mastiff and a mutt - which is probably true, yet most people would happily malign a breed by stating such-and-such dog was a "pit bull".

In my experience most people can't tell the difference between a Pit Bull and a number of other breeds. A lot of people have no idea what a Pit Bull actually looks like.

I agree with Micheal Links comments quoted in this thread.

ETA - No, I don't think that saying it might have been XYZ breed is detremenntal to that breed. Any dog can attack and the general public don't usually have the knowledge or experience to ID every dog they come accross

Edited July 21, 2010 by StaceyB

[Moselle]

Agree with you molasseslass - that's how I read it.

Rather than attacking Mr Linke, I think we should be applauding people in his position who, from a position of knowledge, are opposing BSL and saying "punish the deed, not the breed".

Yes, lets indeed punish the deed and not the breed and please let us not point the finger at other breeds of dogs likely to have been responsible for this attack.

[WreckitWhippet]

Please stop amending the poll. The first 8 people answered one question, then got deleted, the second 8 could have answered to question a or b and now another two have voted.