Unban All Restricted Breeds?

[GABBA]

I have done a bit of reading on this forum regarding BSL, and have found a lot of people are of the opinion to ban the practice of dog fighting, etc not the specific breed itself. These posts however mainly have the APBT in mind, I am wondering if people are also for the un-banning of the other breeds such as the Tosa, Fila, Presa, etc?

Your thoughts?

[RottnBullies]

I guess when BSL Is talked about the main breed would be the APBT as

the 'others' on the restricted list are either not here at all or are In very small

numbers.

I don't believe In BSL for ANY breed and that the punishing and restricting should be targeted at the other end of the leash

[BMAK]

I guess when BSL Is talked about the main breed would be the APBT as

the 'others' on the restricted list are either not here at all or are In very small

numbers.

I don't believe In BSL for ANY breed and that the punishing and restricting should be targeted at the other end of the leash

yeah agreed totally

its not the dogs its the "stupid irrisponsible owners"

and people that breed already unsocial dogs its just very unfortunate they they end up in the wrong hands

any dog from any certain breed can fight if lead into that path its just unfortunate that these APBT and Staffy's etc that have this bad reputation and misconception because of irrisponsible breeders and owners and the dog gets the blame in every situation i think its totally unfair on the dog

[halfthewords]

I am for the unbanning of all restricted breeds.

[chriswiddler]

I am for the unbanning of all restricted breeds.

Ditto. Regulate dangerous dogs and their owners, not breeds as there is no such thing.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Yes the reason we tend to sound APBT centric is because that is by far the most prominent of the restricted breeds in Australia. I am against breed specific legislation of any kind, all forms of federal, state and local BSL should be binned.

[Staranais]

I'm against restricting any breed without very good evidence to show they are inherently dangerous.

If they could show that any breed had a greatly increased chance of injuring humans, even if it was raised correctly & owned responsibly, I'd have no issue with the government restricting ownership or placing special regulations on that breed (e.g. must be muzzled in public).

I don't believe in banning breeds simply because they have a bad reputation, or might be dangerous, or are often owned by morons. That's what has happened so far in Aussie & NZ. No one has shown that the APBT is any more dangerous to humans than any other dog is, if owned by responsible people.

[Adnil444]

Agree to a point. What about the dogs that are DA - I don't think BSL is just for attacks on humans, it's also for the attacks on other dogs/animals. I regularly get dog magazines from the US and the breeders (of fightging breed dogs) that are featured in these magazines always state that they generally are not good with other dogs. Often breeders of Amstaffs etc suggest that if you want a dog to take to dog parks, then don't get an Amstaff etc, look at another breed.

Agree with what the others have said too, the APBT is the one that cops it because it is already here in numbers, the other breeds on the BSL list would be very small, if at all. I really don't want to see some of these breeds in the wrong hands, and unfortunately that is what will happen if they are allowed in here. I agree that it's not always the breed, but the upbringing and breeding these dogs get, but how can you stop the irresponsible people breeders/owners out there from getting there hands on these dogs? You won't ever be able to stop that. How can you ban certain people from owning a certain breed of dog? I'm sure many of the dogs on the BSL list are great dogs with the right handling and upbringing and breeding - these are not the people or dogs that are being targetted.

You can guarantee that if these dogs were allowed, they would be in the wrong hands and that is something that no one can stop. The govt and councils have only one recourse, stop them before they come in and try and limit the ones that are already here. It's all very well to say it's the deed not the breed, but unfortunately you will never be able to stamp out the "deed".

If these dogs on the BSL list were already here, you can guess the types of people that would have them and be breeding them! Not only would the APBT be on the condemned list but the other breeds as well. We would be having exactly the same hysteria that surrounds the APBT with the filo, etc etc. The newspapers would be swapping APBT and writing "Another Filo attack"; "Presa killed innocent child/dog" etc. Is it fair to allow these other dogs in and then have them subjected the same way as the APBT - I don't know the answer.

I know we all say teach people, education etc, but the people that need targetting are not going to respond to education, or go onto DOL and learn etc. The BYBs are only in it to make a quick dollar, they don't care what happens to their dogs once sold. If all these people were responsible and educated in the first place, we would never have this situation.

[corvus]

I don't think just anyone should be allowed to own a Fila or Tosa Inu, but it's hard to draw a line.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

The line could be drawn based on individual proven track record, and it should be breed irrelevant.

[Adnil444]

The line could be drawn based on individual proven track record, and it should be breed irrelevant.

I agree, but how do you go about doing that? How can you stop a particular person or group of people from owning/breeding these types of dogs? Law enforcement has been trying to stamp out drugs and it hasn't happened, even with the huge amounts of education etc that goes into the community.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Not breed specific, no "types of dogs". Just a ban on dog ownership for a given period of time. So for example, if your dog attacks and you are found to have been negligent, you could be looking at a 2 year ban, 5 year ban, ect.

I think they could set up something like that. Would it work ? To some extent. Sure drugs continue, people always have free choice, whether or not they obey the law is upto them.

People have to weigh up their will to break the law against the possible consequences, all laws are alike in that respect and this prospective scenario would be no different. The devil is in the detail, setting it up so that it will would be organized and effective, a national database, ect.

[malsrock]

I guess when BSL Is talked about the main breed would be the APBT as

the 'others' on the restricted list are either not here at all or are In very small

numbers.

I don't believe In BSL for ANY breed and that the punishing and restricting should be targeted at the other end of the leash

yeah agreed totally

its not the dogs its the "stupid irrisponsible owners"

and people that breed already unsocial dogs its just very unfortunate they they end up in the wrong hands

any dog from any certain breed can fight if lead into that path its just unfortunate that these APBT and Staffy's etc that have this bad reputation and misconception because of irrisponsible breeders and owners and the dog gets the blame in every situation i think its totally unfair on the dog

Dogs need to have the genetic ability to fight and not every dog has that. The GSD is a good example taken down the path purposely trained in protection, some possess the genetic ability and others would rather run away than fight. It's a total myth in my experience with working breeds that "any" dog can be taken down a fighting path IMHO

I had an interesting conversation with a guy one day quite a few years ago now who had this lovely browny coloured dog that gave me big sloppy kisses and rolled over for a belly rub. I didn't know what breed she was until he told me she was a Pit Bull (APBT). He went on to tell me how he and his wife had bred Pit Bull's for many years and how nice his dog was, but he also told me about others he had bred that in his words were "mongrels of things" meaning highly aggressive and difficult to handle. He told me that aggression in the APBT depended on the lines and the individual dog, but he made no aplologies telling me that some APBT's are highly dangerous and unless going to an experienced home, are best PTS???.

Fiona

Edited September 11, 2010 by malsrock

[Adnil444]

Not breed specific, no "types of dogs". Just a ban on dog ownership for a given period of time. So for example, if your dog attacks and you are found to have been negligent, you could be looking at a 2 year ban, 5 year ban, ect.

I think they could set up something like that. Would it work ? To some extent. Sure drugs continue, people always have free choice, whether or not they obey the law is upto them.

People have to weigh up their will to break the law against the possible consequences, all laws are alike in that respect and this prospective scenario would be no different. The devil is in the detail, setting it up so that it will would be organized and effective, a national database, ect.

Yes this could work, but, isn't this like shutting the door after the horse has bolted?? Meaning for example - it's Child Protection Week - many kids could be saved from abuse but the authorities will do something after the abuse has happened, rather than ensure the abuse doesn't happen beforehand. i.e. stop the dogs coming in that are known fighting breeds or dangerous dogs etc, before they become a problem (and they will as they will end up in the wrong hands). I don't like BSL, DOL has been a great eye opener for me, however I can't see a system like you are suggesting being accepted (though I think it could work, but it would open up a legal minefield - freedom of choice, discrimination etc).

Just a quick question for you - who do you think will be attracted to these other breeds on the BSL list if they were available? Personally I see a certain type of person wanting them, and breeding them for not the right reasons. I doubt that you will see many families wanting a Filo or Presa to take down to the local dog park on a Sunday afternoon. To many people, these dogs will be a lawsuit waiting to happen.

[Staranais]

My old stafford was an absolute gentleman with people, and a complete mongrel with other dogs. From the many, many bull breed owners & rescuers I've talked to over the years, this isn't uncommon in the bull breeds. Depends somewhat on the lines & on the individual dog, of course. But even people who say that their bull breed isn't aggressive will often say they "won't back down in a fight" or "won't back down if challenged" which IMO is just a euphemism for a dog that is more likely to get in a fight than many other dogs.

Most rescuers I've talked too also have recommended that any bull breed showing HA should be culled. The pitbull rescues I've talked to have been particularly insistent on that fact, with many having a zero tolerance policy towards HA, while being very accepting of the need to manage DA. Although sadly, I have met several HA pitbulls in my time, all owned or trained by (IMO) morons.

Like Lo Pan, I'd prefer to judge people on their deeds, & let anyone responsible own what they like, with irresponsible people being allowed to own nothing. But I don't think that will happen - city councils & government do not have a great track record on enforcing the current dog laws. Lots of people around here have unregistered dogs, for example. I've seen pitbulls walked unmuzzled in the city. I've talked to people who breed Dogos & use them for off leash hunting, and to many people have not neutered their pitbulls or dogos as required by law. Whether or not you agree with these dogs laws (for the most part, I don't - I'd jump at the chance to own a pitbull if they weren't a restricted breed), my point is that the government & council simply won't or can't enforce the laws they already have. Seems to me that irresponsible owners already just do as they please, and only the good owners (who aren't the issue!) will obey any new rules.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Yes someone has to break the law before they can be punished.

One of the the idea's behind laws and consequences is to deter people, so if authorities can show that they are ontop of this thing and are justly prosecuting, it might make dog owners feel a little more accountable - So this is the prevention.

I don't think it would open up a legal mind field. They already impose these kinds of sentences on the odd occasion, they just do not have the details sorted out.

Just a quick question for you - who do you think will be attracted to these other breeds on the BSL list if they were available? Personally I see a certain type of person wanting them, and breeding them for not the right reasons. I doubt that you will see many families wanting a Filo or Presa to take down to the local dog park on a Sunday afternoon.

All dog people will potentially take an interest in them.

Some people view the world through the glasses the media and the government has painted for them, and some just get on with their lives and judge life and everything in it on its merits. Sure you will see families wanting all kinds of breeds.

edited for clarity

Edited September 12, 2010 by Lo Pan

[Adnil444]

Yes someone has to break the law before they can be punished.

One of the the idea's behind laws and consequences is to deter people, so if authorities can show that they are ontop of this thing and are justly prosecuting, it might make dog owners feel a little more accountable - So this is the prevention.

I don't think it would open up a legal mind field. They already impose these kinds of sentences on the odd occasion, they just do not have the details sorted out.

Just a quick question for you - who do you think will be attracted to these other breeds on the BSL list if they were available? Personally I see a certain type of person wanting them, and breeding them for not the right reasons. I doubt that you will see many families wanting a Filo or Presa to take down to the local dog park on a Sunday afternoon.

All dog people will potentially take an interest in them.

Some people view the world through the glasses the media and the government has painted for them, and some just get on with their lives and judge life and everything in it on its merits. Sure you will see families wanting all kinds of breeds.

edited for clarity

I see what you are saying, but I don't agree that all dog people will take an interest in these breeds. Can you imagine if they allowed these other breeds in now, and they caused problems (which they will as they will end up in the wrong hands). The public outcry will be enormous - people will be up in arms about how can the govt/councils allow these dogs in, when they knew what "could" happen - not only will the owners/breeders be sued, but the people that changed the laws will also be liable - the legal ramifications here would be enormous. I certainly wouldn't want to be the person to tick the box to say they were allowed in, knowing full well that the undesirables of society will get their hands on them. If you could guarantee that only certain people (responsible etc etc) were allowed these dogs, then that is a different matter, but this is where the whole situation starts - how do you control who owns/breeds them and who doesn't.

I also don't think it is fair to subject these other dogs to the same public reaction as the pitbull gets now. Isn't this breed alone proof that people don't understand, don't want to understand, read and believe everything in the media, see everything on tv (Bondi Vet last week a classic example - how many people do you think will be like that owner and the vet himself should have known better). The general public are the ones that do view the world through the glasses the media and govt have painted for them. I don't think they really care that the Pitbull can be and is a lovely dog in the right hands, they just hear Pitbull and want it gone. Do we not have already enough breeds of great dogs to choose from (and cross breeds) that can meet everyones needs?

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Look yes we do I agree.

Most breeds are largely alike. Sure contrasts exist to some extent but you do not need 101 different breeds just to run them around a show ring. Most of them were intended for use as WORKING dogs. Now, few are bred along working lines much less tested for so whats the point. Whats the difference between a Bull Terrier, Stafford, and APBT ? Not a great deal. What about the all the different gun dogs ? All the Mastiffs ? And so forth. No we do not NEED half a dozen more breeds.

But ......

The complication is people do not want pets because they are being pragmatic, they want them because they like them not because they need them.

People still have their preferences. On logical grounds, BSL should be unacceptable from anyone's perspective, whether your passion is the preservation of the breed, civil liberty, equity, animal welfare, or ofcourse community safety, it fails on all counts.

The attitude is wrong, we have to move on positively and we cannot do that if we are still stuck on the banning breeds mentality.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Lo Pan

[baykinz]

It is not possible to stop irresponsible people from owning dogs. People with a dog ownership ban would just not register a new puppy, the same way so many people with a revoked license keep on driving without it. It is not possible to police dog ownership so closely and so effectively as to prevent anyone from raising a dog incorrectly, or owning a dog when they shouldn't.

I agree with Adnil. I think there are two places interest in these breeds is majority generated and neither of them are the average responsible-but-not-particularly-'doggy' pet owner. There is interest from 'dog people' like those on this site, certainly, but there will also be interest from the same people who call and email breeders of staffies, rotties and gsds asking if they can 'pick the most aggressive of the litter'; the kind of people who hear 'dangerous dog' or 'fighting dog' and prick up their ears for all the wrong reasons; people who think it's funny to throw empty beer cans at their chained up dog and watch him go nuts barking and snapping and pulling at the end of his chain. And you can't stop these people from owning dogs. Even with 'dog bans' you couldn't stop them unless they had been formally charged with abuse/neglect or had a dog harm a human in the past (and that would only stop them from registering the animal, not from picking a pup out of the paper, or getting one off a friend).

BSL rubs me the wrong way, but one of the functions it serves in application -- trying to prevent the wrong sort of person gaining access to a type of dog which is attractive to them and also very easily mishandled -- is important and nobody has ever offered up any other foolproof way of preventing idiots from owning these dogs. BSL seems pretty much a terrible way to go about managing these dogs, for a number of reasons including the fact that many dogs of other breeds can become dangerous in the wrong hands and that it prevents responsible owners from enjoying the breeds, but there isn't much by way of viable alternatives in terms of regulating ownership of dogs that can be very problematic in the wrong homes. How WOULD you effectively police who can own a Fila or a Tosa?

I don't think many people would agree anybody who wants one should own one, regardless of experience or aptitude, but once they're around you can guarantee that eventually somebody irresponsible is going to get a hold of some and start churning them out to wildly inappropriate homes, no matter how vigilant registered breeders were with their placement or how hard authorities worked to police their care, and before long every example of the breed, no matter how sweet-natured, gets the 'cross to the other side of the street to avoid the scary dog' treatment when out for a walk and the tv talks about how savage they are (which in turn further puts off the average responsible and hard-working but not overly well-informed owner). In an ideal world every potential dog owner could be officially assessed on their merits, nobody who shouldn't own a dog would have a way of getting one and everybody would understand that aggression and danger isn't just about breed, but that isn't the case.

I'd like to see a great alternative to BSL which would address poor ownership leading to aggression in less controversial breeds and allow responsible owners to enjoy fine examples of these banned breeds, but what is it? BSL isn't going to go away unless somebody comes up with viable alternative legislation to prevent the inevitable backlash if the breeds were allowed and there were an attack due to irresponsible ownership.

[Staranais]

On logical grounds, BSL should be unacceptable from anyone's perspective, whether your passion is the preservation of the breed, civil liberty, equity, animal welfare, or ofcourse community safety, it fails on all counts.

Hmmm, I'm not sure. If someone could prove that one breed was significantly more likely to cause injury or harm to humans, even if trained, socialised correctly, & owned by a responsible owner, I'd be happy to see restrictions on people owning it.

Of course, like all legislation, this would do nothing if the council & government did not actually enforce it.

But my issue with BSL is that people have not proven anything of the sort, and they're still banning breeds just because they look nasty or because everyone just "knows" they are dangerous.