Unban All Restricted Breeds?

[Staranais]

Oops double post.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Staranais

[malsrock]

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.

I think the breeds BSL listed are a fairly standard list for many countries around the world. I don't think Australia has actually formed a list on the basis of their own findings and experiences. Although people say that the listed breeds are fine and there should be no breeds banned, there must be something in the reasoning behind banning certain breeds given that it seems an action also adopted by many other countries I would think???. I can't imagine the same or similar breeds were pulled from a hat in so many different countries just for the hell of it I did read about one of the restricted breeds that scores points in a show for trying to bite the judge Do we really know the levels of genetic violence these breeds exhibit and the difficulty in containing and handling them???.

I was warned off purchasing a Dutch Shepherd with a high level of genetic civil drive considered not experienced enough to handle that type of dog although I had nearly 20 years experience owning, training and handling working line GSD's, so if some of these restricted breeds are said to make a highly driven working dog look like pussy cats in comparison, I would wonder the level of experience required for some one to safely own and handle them??? I am not referring to the APBT's which I don't think should be listed at all, but the other breeds we basically don't see in Australia I am referring to.

Fiona

Edited September 13, 2010 by malsrock

[Staranais]

I think the breeds BSL listed are a fairly standard list for many countries around the world. I don't think Australia has actually formed a list on the basis of their own findings and experiences. Although people say that the listed breeds are fine and there should be no breeds banned, there must be something in the reasoning behind banning certain breeds given that it seems an action also adopted by many other countries I would think???. I can't imagine the same or similar breeds were pulled from a hat in so many different countries just for the hell of it I did read about one of the restricted breeds that scores points in a show for trying to bite the judge Do we really know the levels of genetic violence these breeds exhibit and the difficulty in containing and handling them???.

I can only speak directly of the pitbull - it's the only one of the banned breeds I've had experience with - so I can't answer your questions as to the other breeds. But I would say that the pitbull is on the banned list, although we both agree it should not be. And did you know that the GSD went through a period of being banned in Aussie? And I think we could both agree that is silly. So to me those two cases are sufficient evidence to make me suspicious that the other breed bans are also not based on fact, but merely based on media & government panic over the lastest "bad" breed. I certainly haven't seen any real evidence that these other dogs are inherently more dangerous than other dogs, even if properly raised & handled - only hearsay & propaganda.

[malsrock]

I think the breeds BSL listed are a fairly standard list for many countries around the world. I don't think Australia has actually formed a list on the basis of their own findings and experiences. Although people say that the listed breeds are fine and there should be no breeds banned, there must be something in the reasoning behind banning certain breeds given that it seems an action also adopted by many other countries I would think???. I can't imagine the same or similar breeds were pulled from a hat in so many different countries just for the hell of it I did read about one of the restricted breeds that scores points in a show for trying to bite the judge Do we really know the levels of genetic violence these breeds exhibit and the difficulty in containing and handling them???.

I can only speak directly of the pitbull - it's the only one of the banned breeds I've had experience with - so I can't answer your questions as to the other breeds. But I would say that the pitbull is on the banned list, although we both agree it should not be. And did you know that the GSD went through a period of being banned in Aussie? And I think we could both agree that is silly. So to me those two cases are sufficient evidence to make me suspicious that the other breed bans are also not based on fact, but merely based on media & government panic over the lastest "bad" breed. I certainly haven't seen any real evidence that these other dogs are inherently more dangerous than other dogs, even if properly raised & handled - only hearsay & propaganda.

I am not sure about the other listed breeds and I think if the truth be known regarding the APBT, the majority featuring in bite statistics are likely Bull cross breeds of some description more so than genuine APBT's???

The GSD banning had a couple of stories attached to that mostly on a scare basis I remember. They were assumed to be part wolf was one version and the other was the assumption that people would cross them with dingos to breed a super dog that would kill livestock. I don't remember that GSD's actually did much to cause a banning, it was the perception of what they may do frrom the result of over-active imaginations.

Fiona

[Adnil444]

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.

Great post - I agree with you. Unless a positive alternative is positioned, BSL will be here to stay. I personally would like to see these dogs in great responsible hands - showing us what they are really like and what a responsible owner can do with these breeds. Let's hope that something can be done in a positive way, that ensures the safety and wellbeing for not only humans but for the breeds themselves.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Although people say that the listed breeds are fine and there should be no breeds banned, there must be something in the reasoning behind banning certain breeds given that it seems an action also adopted by many other countries I would think???

One guy followed the other guy, that is the reasoning. For example, Australia followed the UK, and it snow balled.

I don't know a great deal about all the breeds, but a theory I dare put forward for why they where chosen is that atleast some of the breeds involved are currently work bred in different parts of the world, and the type of work they do is considered displeasing. For example, the Tosa is widely fight bred in Japan and Korea, the APBT is widely fight bred in the USA, and to a lesser degree Asia and Europe, I also understand the Fila to be bred for use as a bold and aggressive guardian in South America.

These dogs are strictly selectively bred, and even then many dogs are killed as pups because they are deemed to lack the potential to fulfill their work requirements. As soon as they stop being tested and selectively bred, they begin to lose their abilities. Thats why Australia is full of essentially useless dogs, from GSD's, Dobermans, Staffords, Danes, ect you name it and most are of little use for their originally intended task. Why, because they are bred as pets generation after generation.

Does not matter what a fight bred APBT is capable of, a pet and a fighting dog are not nearly the same thing.

Further to that, i'm of the belief that even fight bred dogs are not NECESSARILY dog aggressive, rather they have all the right potential to be champions if they are conditioned to fight, in other words, the epitome of a great dog. Structurally sound, hard nerved, tenacious, willing to please, ect.

Unless a positive alternative is positioned, BSL will be here to stay.

I think I have done put one forward. If we enforce the dog control laws we already have properly (minus BSL), and introduce a system like the one I described, that is a positive alternative that will in fact reduce dogs attacks, imagine that.

[baykinz]

The solution I saw positioned by you, Lo Pan, was one of giving out bans on pet ownership. Forgive me if I missed something else, but I did mention this suggestion briefly in my other post I think. Giving people 'dog bans' on ownership will not protect the people or animals involved. All a dog ban would prevent in action is a person from registering a dog, not from owning it without declaring it to their council or relevant authorities in the case of a ban, and at any rate that sort of scheme requires a person to have already committed and been charged with some offence related to the neglecting or abusing of an animal or the owning of a declared dangerous dog. It's a punitive measure and not a preventative one.

The only way individual dog bans could work was if the government had an army of free volunteers going around to every banned home constantly checking for animals. From a political and administrative point of view it costs a lot more money to employ a whole bunch of people to enforce individual prohibitions than it does to prevent the animals from coming into the country in the first place, and from a legislative point of view it's a lot more legally clean-cut and concise, without opening up any opportunity for individuals to claim bias or discrimination against them in the handing out of penalties or for convictions and penalties to be misapplied in any way. I'm sure you know what a shambles the application of even our current animal cruelty laws can often be. Unless there were some extremely compelling evidence indicating the astonishing efficacy of a pet ban penalty system, there's little to no incentive for legislators to further complicate animal welfare laws.

In the eyes of most people who could have a hand in potentially changing this legislation BSL is an elegant, pre-emptive solution to both the real problem of inappropriate owners looking for 'fighting dogs' and the perceptual problem of the public reaction to these dogs and their possible introduction. Individual assessment of suitability for dog ownership is not an elegant solution, because it is unenforcable, potentially subjective and relies upon some infraction being committed before it can do any good.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

All a dog ban would prevent in action is a person from registering a dog, not from owning it without declaring it to their council or relevant authorities in the case of a ban, and at any rate that sort of scheme requires a person to have already committed and been charged with some offence related to the neglecting or abusing of an animal or the owning of a declared dangerous dog. It's a punitive measure and not a preventative one.

A punitive measure also serves as a preventative one.

It is a process, reduction in dog attacks cannot happen immediately.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Lo Pan

[baykinz]

I think it's pretty obvious I disagree with you about how effective your proposed measure would be as a preventative. Why do you think a dog ban would reduce much other than dog registration? I've outlined briefly why I think these kind of individual ownership bans won't be implemented over BSL. How do you propose your preferred measures are implemented effectively? If you have a great idea on how to make this kind of thing work I'd genuinely like to know.

[YOLO]

any dog from any certain breed can fight if lead into that path

Say WHAT?

Dogs are a product of the breeding. Whilst it might it might be the fault of the morons who have been doing the breeding, the fact remains that we now have entire breeds that simply have no place in society. They have been bred for “aggressive” temperaments, sharp teeth, and extremely powerful jaws.

It’s all very well to say “punish the deed,” but what if the misdeed is breeding the animals in the first place.

The problem is that some dogs, nomatter how well trained and socialised, are simply too dangerous. That’s why you should never leave a Rotti with children. Rotti’s are beautiful dogs, and those bred for temperament are affectionate and make great pets. We had a neighbour who had Rotti’s and he would bring them around to socialise with our kids. They were lovely big pups, but he always kept a choker on them, and he was a huge guy, more than capable of clean-lifting the digs if needed. BUT, if they do snap, they can do terrible damage with their powerful jaws. That’s why I believe that breeding should be regulated, and ownership of such dogs should be restricted to responsible owners.

Contrast that with something like a retriever. They have simply never been bred to behave aggressively, and with their soft mouth and round teeth they couldn’t hurt someone even if they wanted to.

It’s a bit like the argument with guns. I believe that I’M mature, intelligent, responsible and law-abiding enough to have ownership of a handgun. But if the laws allowed me to own one, then every crackhead in town would also have one.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Big D

[Staranais]

It may be plausible that retrievers cause fewer attacks than many other dog types, or that they on average do less damage when they attack than some dog types, but to assert they couldn't hurt someone even if they wanted to is incredibly naive.

Contrast that with something like a retriever. They have simply never been bred to behave aggressively, and with their soft mouth and round teeth they couldn’t hurt someone even if they wanted to.

Tell that to this poor lady:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/internat...ope/07face.html

And this child:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/...x-1111115594618

And this one:

http://www.veroliability.co.nz/dirvz/liabi...wing+Dog+Attack

[ravenau1]

I have to say that I was badly bitten by a Golden Retriever. He was scared and very badly injured (he had been attacked by a pack of dogs) at the time and I was helping lift him into a car to rush him to the vet, he may have generally been a very gentle dog but he did a fair bit of damage to me and his teeth didn't feel particularly round at the time! It all was ok in the end though, he recovered well and we were good mates again.

[Sandra777]

Dogs are a product of the breeding.

Big D - I would place my life in the paws and jaws of a PROPERLY bred Rottweiler, German Shepherd, American Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Brazilian Fila or Argentine Dogo miles before I would even enter the yard of a BADLY bred Golden Retriever, Labrador, Standard Poodle, Cocker Spaniel or any other "good" breed you care to mention.

As for Golden Retrievers having rounded teeth, sorry that's just not even worth answering. Learn some dog anatomy please!

[geo]

any dog from any certain breed can fight if lead into that path

Say WHAT?

Dogs are a product of the breeding. Whilst it might it might be the fault of the morons who have been doing the breeding, the fact remains that we now have entire breeds that simply have no place in society. They have been bred for “aggressive” temperaments, sharp teeth, and extremely powerful jaws.

It’s all very well to say “punish the deed,” but what if the misdeed is breeding the animals in the first place.

The problem is that some dogs, nomatter how well trained and socialised, are simply too dangerous. That’s why you should never leave a Rotti with children. Rotti’s are beautiful dogs, and those bred for temperament are affectionate and make great pets. We had a neighbour who had Rotti’s and he would bring them around to socialise with our kids. They were lovely big pups, but he always kept a choker on them, and he was a huge guy, more than capable of clean-lifting the digs if needed. BUT, if they do snap, they can do terrible damage with their powerful jaws. That’s why I believe that breeding should be regulated, and ownership of such dogs should be restricted to responsible owners.

Contrast that with something like a retriever. They have simply never been bred to behave aggressively, and with their soft mouth and round teeth they couldn’t hurt someone even if they wanted to.

The only sense this post made was ownership of dogs should be restricted to responsible owners... however this should be all dogs!!

As for breeding for sharp teeth? or retrievers and their soft mouth and round teeth!? better not give them a bone they'd only suck on it!!

You're completely wrong, saying entire breeds have no place in society, pitbulls for example have a definate place in society, besides wonderful pets they make great therapy dogs, police dogs and customs dogs so i think they certainly have a place.

How about there should be no place for Human aggressive animals, that sounds a bit fairer don't you think?

[RottnBullies]

Contrast that with something like a retriever. They have simply never been bred to behave aggressively, and with their soft mouth and round teeth they couldn't hurt someone even if they wanted to.

Thanks for the laugh!

[doit4thedogz]

Dogs are a product of the breeding.

Big D - I would place my life in the paws and jaws of a PROPERLY bred Rottweiler, German Shepherd, American Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Brazilian Fila or Argentine Dogo miles before I would even enter the yard of a BADLY bred Golden Retriever, Labrador, Standard Poodle, Cocker Spaniel or any other "good" breed you care to mention.

As for Golden Retrievers having rounded teeth, sorry that's just not even worth answering. Learn some dog anatomy please! :rolleyes:

You'd be crazy to step in to the yard of a well bred Fila, dogo , or Tosa.

[doit4thedogz]

Although people say that the listed breeds are fine and there should be no breeds banned, there must be something in the reasoning behind banning certain breeds given that it seems an action also adopted by many other countries I would think???

One guy followed the other guy, that is the reasoning. For example, Australia followed the UK, and it snow balled.

I don't know a great deal about all the breeds, but a theory I dare put forward for why they where chosen is that atleast some of the breeds involved are currently work bred in different parts of the world, and the type of work they do is considered displeasing. For example, the Tosa is widely fight bred in Japan and Korea, the APBT is widely fight bred in the USA, and to a lesser degree Asia and Europe, I also understand the Fila to be bred for use as a bold and aggressive guardian in South America.

These dogs are strictly selectively bred, and even then many dogs are killed as pups because they are deemed to lack the potential to fulfill their work requirements. As soon as they stop being tested and selectively bred, they begin to lose their abilities. Thats why Australia is full of essentially useless dogs, from GSD's, Dobermans, Staffords, Danes, ect you name it and most are of little use for their originally intended task. Why, because they are bred as pets generation after generation.

Does not matter what a fight bred APBT is capable of, a pet and a fighting dog are not nearly the same thing.

Further to that, i'm of the belief that even fight bred dogs are not NECESSARILY dog aggressive, rather they have all the right potential to be champions if they are conditioned to fight, in other words, the epitome of a great dog. Structurally sound, hard nerved, tenacious, willing to please, ect.

Unless a positive alternative is positioned, BSL will be here to stay.

I think I have done put one forward. If we enforce the dog control laws we already have properly (minus BSL), and introduce a system like the one I described, that is a positive alternative that will in fact reduce dogs attacks, imagine that.

That's excatly why the government has banned them. Now why should the government un-ban them?

[chrisjc]

doit4thedogs. haters gonna hate. and youve allways been a hater.

[Sandra777]

You'd be crazy to step in to the yard of a well bred Fila, dogo , or Tosa.

Never said I would step into their yard doit4thedogz - why can't people learn to read

[doit4thedogz]

You'd be crazy to step in to the yard of a well bred Fila, dogo , or Tosa.

Never said I would step into their yard doit4thedogz - why can't people learn to read

If you go to sth America I'll find you a well bred fila for you to stick your hand in. And if you make it, you can find me the baddest poodle you want and i'll step in it's yard.