Federal Government Agrees To National Ban On Dangerous Dogs

[mita]

There was an excellent article in the Sydney Morning Herald (last weekend's edition).

Heading was: The Pitbull. Sub-heading: Banning breeds may not prevent dog attacks.

The Federal Gov's Attorney-General was quoted as saying there should be 'national registration laws' (???) and 'tougher penalties' to govern the 'management of dangerous dogs'.

But the article went up-hill from there. Pointing out that labelling a dog ' a restricted breed' is not the same as labelling a dog 'a dangerous dog'. It was said that 'a dangerous' dog is 'one that has killed or repeatedly threatened a person or animal, of has displayed unreasonable aggression'.

The article goes on that preventing dog attacks by restricting breeds such as pitbulls is more difficult than it might seem. It's bluntly stated that the RSPCA, the Australian Veterinary Association and academic researchers have all criticised this approach.

The Association said the Victorian laws would lull the public into a false sense of security and do little to address the problem of dog bites

"It's important to recognise that most dogs don't bite and only a tiny proportion of dogs are aggressive," said Susan Maastrich, the Victorian executive director of the Association. "Just declaring that some breeds are dangerous and others aren't, is misleading."

The article goes on to quote Linda Watson from Monash University who provides statistics to illustrate this. And finishes,

'She and others argue that banning dogs based on breed is not fair, and is less effective than targeting owners who raise aggressive dogs, no matter what the breed.'

It's so good to see such a well-reasoned article, as opposed to the usual reactionary and badly-informed stuff. May reason prevail that the key lies in what people do, not simply what dogs are. It may help to point this out to local Federal members of Parliament.

[Keira&Phoenix]

Someone needs to tell the Australian Federal Government about Calgary, Canada.

They are at their lowest bite rate in 25 years with only 137 reported dog bites in 2007 (compared to Brisbane's 1175 in 2010/11 and Bris only has twice the population of Calgary) and they are dropping even though many many APBTs and crosses of are being bought into the Province and fostered or rehomed from other BSL affected cities.

They legislate towards owners, they do not have BSL.

What they are doing is so far ahead of any other State, Province, County, Council in any other Country in the world.

The Calgary Model

Attacks fall to lowest in 25 years

I wish we could take a leaf out of their book and bring in laws that will work.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Keira&Phoenix

[cybergenesis]

Someone needs to tell the Australian Federal Government about Calgary, Canada.

They are at their lowest bite rate in 25 years with only 137 reported dog bites in 2007 (compared to Brisbane's 1175 in 2010/11 and Bris only has twice the population of Calgary) and they are dropping even though many many APBTs and crosses of are being bought into the Province and fostered or rehomed from other BSL affected cities.

They legislate towards owners, they do not have BSL.

What they are doing is so far ahead of any other State, Province, County, Council in any other Country in the world.

The Calgary Model

Attacks fall to lowest in 25 years

I wish we could take a leaf out of their book and bring in laws that will work.

+1

Very interesting stuff... I fully agree with that approach. Had never heard of it before, thank you for informing me.

[lokelani]

I just feel sad and scared for my dog and scared for all the poor innocent dogs who are going to die. This is disgusting. I don't know how much longer I will stay in Australia if these laws are bought into place.

Might move to Calgary.

Canberra's closer. I'm pretty confident the ACT won't get on this bandwagon.

I hope you're right PF - I don't like to think what may happen to Bosco if they do decide to follow suit.

I just saw this link on facebook, and my stomach turned.... I feel sick at what is happening. So many families are going to lose beloved family pets who have done nothing wrong, and so many innocent dogs who are going to lose their lives. I really am just speechless.

[mita]

The funny thing is that the stock photo of a pitbull which accompanied the SMH article, is the spitting image of Gypsy.

Gypsy was the pitbull X owned by my mother's neighbours. They'd raised her as a well-socialised, sensibly trained family dog, from the time she was a puppy.

Far from being a 'dangerous dog', Gypsy was the complete softie. She was terrorised by my mother's white Persian cat, Colette.

Colette could reduce Gypsy to a faint by just staring at her with evil, light-blue eyes. Gypsy coped by pretending she couldn't see Colette, whenever the cat was nearby. 'Cat? What cat?'. A few times, Gypsy mistook something white for Colette. Like when her owner was carrying a white mop up the steps....or when the neighbour's white-haired mother also came up the steps.

Gypsy would be reduced to a trembling wreck. If Gypsy had her way, white Persian cats should be banned.

[Crisovar]

Someone needs to tell the Australian Federal Government about Calgary, Canada.

They are at their lowest bite rate in 25 years with only 137 reported dog bites in 2007 (compared to Brisbane's 1175 in 2010/11 and Bris only has twice the population of Calgary) and they are dropping even though many many APBTs and crosses of are being bought into the Province and fostered or rehomed from other BSL affected cities.

They legislate towards owners, they do not have BSL.

What they are doing is so far ahead of any other State, Province, County, Council in any other Country in the world.

The Calgary Model

Attacks fall to lowest in 25 years

I wish we could take a leaf out of their book and bring in laws that will work.

I agree, it will take some work though to convince them, I have a feeling most of our pollies are as ignorant as our friend MB when it comes to dog attacks.

[bulldogz4eva]

THE family of the four-year-old savaged to death by a pit bull wants a national ban on dangerous dogs - and the Federal Government has agreed.

http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/federal-government-to-unify-dangerous-dog-laws/story-e6frfkp9-1226132051447#ixzz1XKkyIvTg

OMG this is awful news and draconian.

What are peoples opinions?

I wouldnt get too carried away just yet.He has said he will raise it with oither states.That doesnt mean they will automatically pick it up.What they are proposing is what has been in place in WA for some time.I do admit that innocent dogs will get caught up in it just as they did in QLD.However before getting hysterical read what is written.If there dog is registered in the first place they dont have to worry and if they are cross breeds should they just be allowed to breed them anyway?There are too many dogs being bred fullstop and that is part of the problem.I am not saying just crossbreeds but if some are caught up in it and have to be sterilised is that all bad.Dogs will only be seized and destroyed if they arent registered and dont comply.They still have to prove what is and isnt.

Its not the end of the world just yet.

Also I think someone should educate the author of the article.American pitbull terriers and the other restricted breeds ahve been restricted in Tasmania for a number of years.Its only the Territories that they arent but that wont last forever.

http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/lgd/dog_control/restricted_breed_faqs

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2011/08/19/254351_tasmania-news.html

[Henrietta]

A little OT, but has anyone managed recently to get their hands on Karen Delise's Fatal Dog Attacks? I think that's the book you are referring to in your comment PF? I would love to get a copy, but Amazon is listed them at around the $400 mark.

[bulldogz4eva]

Sadly I think the same as you Danni. How long will the ACT hold up under National pressure to ban/restrict the breed.

I think we'll hold up just fine. Watch this space.

I agree this time round but it wont last forever they will put more pressure on the NT and considering there waqs an alleged pitbull attack there not long ago it will be fresh in their minds.Once the NT folds the ACT wont hold out that long on its own but I guess we will wait and see.

[poodlefan]

A little OT, but has anyone managed recently to get their hands on Karen Delise's Fatal Dog Attacks? I think that's the book you are referring to in your comment PF? I would love to get a copy, but Amazon is listed them at around the $400 mark.

I have it but its out on loan.... somewhere.

[Henrietta]

A little OT, but has anyone managed recently to get their hands on Karen Delise's Fatal Dog Attacks? I think that's the book you are referring to in your comment PF? I would love to get a copy, but Amazon is listed them at around the $400 mark.

I have it but its out on loan.... somewhere.

I'm getting the impression that it is very popular and out of print!

[korbin13]

Sounds like a government trying to deflect :rolleyes:

Just had a quick look at the comments (in the PerthNow section, not sure if they are the same comments in each section?) and most are pretty much against banning a breed, there are some saying about time but I would guess the majority are against such laws.

Edited September 8, 2011 by korbin13

[cybergenesis]

THE family of the four-year-old savaged to death by a pit bull wants a national ban on dangerous dogs - and the Federal Government has agreed.

http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/federal-government-to-unify-dangerous-dog-laws/story-e6frfkp9-1226132051447#ixzz1XKkyIvTg

OMG this is awful news and draconian.

What are peoples opinions?

I wouldnt get too carried away just yet.He has said he will raise it with oither states.That doesnt mean they will automatically pick it up.What they are proposing is what has been in place in WA for some time.I do admit that innocent dogs will get caught up in it just as they did in QLD.However before getting hysterical read what is written.If there dog is registered in the first place they dont have to worry and if they are cross breeds should they just be allowed to breed them anyway?There are too many dogs being bred fullstop and that is part of the problem.I am not saying just crossbreeds but if some are caught up in it and have to be sterilised is that all bad.Dogs will only be seized and destroyed if they arent registered and dont comply.They still have to prove what is and isnt.

Its not the end of the world just yet.

Also I think someone should educate the author of the article.American pitbull terriers and the other restricted breeds ahve been restricted in Tasmania for a number of years.Its only the Territories that they arent but that wont last forever.

http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/lgd/dog_control/restricted_breed_faqs

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2011/08/19/254351_tasmania-news.html

What gets me is registered dangerous dogs must be desexed. Tough luck if your one of the minority responsible dog owners that simply prefers their dog non-desexed. All my dogs my whole life has been non-desexed- I was raised with them like this, it is simply how I prefer my male dogs. Never have my dogs ever caused an unwanted pregnancy. I've never had any problems with my dogs. I like them how they are.

I don't own a "dangerous breed" at this time, but in the future I would like the possibility open to me to choose any breed of dog I wish. I do not know what my future feelings will be, but who knows whether I may want another breed of dog.

It gets me that the government is assuming its the genetics of the breed which is bad, rather than understanding that surely in the vast majority of circumstances dog attacks are due to negligence, seriously inappropriate socialization of the animal or lack of socialization, and a poor understanding of dog behavior as animals. Surely the solution is to ensure quality breeding programs by reputable people for such dogs, and to increase education to the public about dogs. I mean combine this with significant penalties for inappropriate management of dogs by the public, such as allowing them to escape, or inappropriate aggressive behavior. Just how I feel the issue should be handled, without all the hysterics.

[cybergenesis]

A little OT, but has anyone managed recently to get their hands on Karen Delise's Fatal Dog Attacks? I think that's the book you are referring to in your comment PF? I would love to get a copy, but Amazon is listed them at around the $400 mark.

I have it but its out on loan.... somewhere.

I'm getting the impression that it is very popular and out of print!

Here is the free .pdf of Karen Delise's book The Pitbull Placebo, a very interesting and relevant read:

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/publications/ncrc-publications/

[Tapferhund]

I feel sick can't believe how far they are taking this

Me too

the whole thing is ridiculous. Our politicians are not thinking clearly......just over reacting to media hype...which is TYPICAL of their species . They have no concept of just how many millions of innocent poeple (and dogs) this is going to affect.......nor do they care.

It shits me !!!!!!!!!!!!

[TessiesTracey]

See now this is the worry I have that this is gonna snowball into ridiculous-ness, as i mentioned on another thread. My two Staffords came with me from the UK, but I never got export pedigrees for them (didn't know i had to, to register them with cccq). It's gonna cost me at least $80 per dog to get them sent out from the UK Kennel Club, and then the rego with cccq. Happy to do this, MORE than happy to do it, and think I should be getting on with it just in case eh...

Sorry if it sounds like hysteria, but I guess I am getting caught up in it...

Like I said, ridiculous-ness!!!!!!!

[sandgrubber]

Interesting mix of comments.

Wonder who "Poodle owner of Canberra" is. ;)

Signature picking on Labradors blows your cover.

[sandgrubber]

If these laws come into effect, it could mean a massive underground network of pitbull and pitbull breeders. If it works anything like drug prohibition, then these breeds could become even more popular and desirable among the undesirable elements of society.

Instead of seeing just marijuana busts and stuff on TV, we could see "Police Have Busted a Major Illicit Pitbull Breeding Ring in blah blah blah"

Who says the laws couldn't be expanded in the future anyway. Who says German Shepards or Rottweilers aren't dangerous? What about Neapolitan Mastiffs? What about many other dogs?"

If laws are modeled after the Vic law, the 'new dog' will be a pit bull X that doesn't look like a pit bull. Eg, pit bull x mastiff or pit bull x akita or pit bull x English bulldog. I haven't seen any pictures of the dog who killed Ayen Chol, but it wouldn't surprise me if he would have survived the 'standard'.

APPEARANCE DOES NOT PREDICT BEHAVIOUR!

Are any of the breed clubs getting active? The SBT is probably the most common breed in Australia (most puppy registrations in 2010), and there must be as many unregistered SBT's as registered. I'd think there is some potential political clout there.

Edited September 8, 2011 by sandgrubber

[Greytmate]

It gets me that the government is assuming its the genetics of the breed which is bad, rather than understanding that surely in the vast majority of circumstances dog attacks are due to negligence, seriously inappropriate socialization of the animal or lack of socialization, and a poor understanding of dog behavior as animals.

I think you are the one with the poor understanding of dog behaviour. Some dogs, like most pugs or whippets, will never be aggressive, no matter how badly they are neglected, under socialised, abused or untrained. It is their genetics that makes them that way. Other breeds of dog will be aggressive despite anything the owner does or doesn't do. Genetics is the strongest influence of a dog's temperament.

Surely the solution is to ensure quality breeding programs by reputable people for such dogs, and to increase education to the public about dogs. I mean combine this with significant penalties for inappropriate management of dogs by the public, such as allowing them to escape, or inappropriate aggressive behavior. Just how I feel the issue should be handled, without all the hysterics.

It is the solution. Many years ago, a group of responsible pitbull owners got together and decided to start a quality breeding program. The result is the American Staffordshire Terrier.

But if you don't believe that genetics in a breed can be 'bad', why exactly are you asking for a quality breeding program? What do you think it would achieve?

[melzawelza]

It is the solution. Many years ago, a group of responsible pitbull owners got together and decided to start a quality breeding program. The result is the American Staffordshire Terrier.

I'm perplexed Greytmate. Are you implying that there are no ethical breeders of APBT, and if they were they would be Amstaff breeders. That's a pretty silly stance to take and you know it. There are plenty of shitty Amstaff breeders and plenty of great APBT breeders (although those great APBT breeders have likely been stamped out in this country due to the ridiculous laws, just leaving the shitty ones behind). Ever heard of Dianne Jessup? Last I saw she had a quality breeding program and she wasn't breeding Amstaffs.