Dangerous Dog Legislation Is Not The Whole Answer

[tybrax]

http://www.spec.com.au/?sp=2&id=12452

[RottnBullies]

Dangerous dog legislation is not the whole answer

6 September 2011

LISA CAMERON

THE State Government's new legislation to crack down on dangerous and restricted dogs has been met with some apprehension by south-west veterinarians.

Representatives from both Hamilton Animal Health and Hamilton Vetcare said while a definite solution was needed, this alternative might not have a strong effect on such a complex problem.

The tragic death of a four-year old girl in Melbourne, after she was mauled by a pit bull cross, has heightened the debate on what to do with dangerous and restricted breed dogs.

The State Government introduced new legislation to Parliament this week to better police restricted breed dogs and create a massive incentive for owners to register their animals.

Minister for Agriculture and Food Security, Peter Walsh said the legislation was the first of several measures to get rid of restricted breed dogs including pit bulls.

"The legislation…ends the amnesty to register restricted breeds on September 29, meaning any dog identified as a pit bull not registered after that time can be seized and destroyed," he said.

"The changes will close legal loopholes to ensure pit bull crosses become a restricted breed and a visual standard for identifying pit bull terriers will be gazetted tomorrow to prevent some of these dogs escaping regulation because of uncertainty over their breed."

Both Hamilton Animal Health's Dr Kristabel Lewis and Hamilton Vetcare's Dr Lauren Alexander –Shrive said just focusing on pit bulls was no way to fix the serious problem of dangerous dogs.

Dr Lewis said the new planned legislation was focusing on pit bull cross breeds, but it was sometimes very difficult to determine the breed of an animal based on appearance alone.

She said all dogs, no matter what breed, could present a danger depending on the situation and how that dog had been raised.

"You can't predict it and you can't tell which dog it is going to be; it is such a risk particularly to children.

"I do worry that if you get rid of one breed then you are going to possibly find that another breed, maybe in ten years or so, will come forward that have been bred to be aggressive. Getting rid of one breed is not going to fix the problem; people have to take more responsibility."

Dr Lewis said it was the responsibility of the owner to ensure their dog was restrained and housed correctly and that it was trained and behaved in a safe matter.

She said not just restricted breed dogs could be dangerous with dogs known to attack if their territory was invaded, or if they were panicked or scared.

Dr Alexander-Shrive urged all south-west residents to register their dog ahead of September 29 so there would be no chance that their animal would be seized by council.

She said the restricted breed issue was serious and unfortunately there was no easy solution that would fix the problem.

"Some cross bred dogs look like a dog on the restricted breeds list but they are not. It is really important that people register their dogs so they are not seized by mistake.

"This new legislation is a good thing because it will encourage people to register their animals. However a lot more is needed and owners need to ensure they take responsibility of the housing and behavioural training of their animal."

The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) has described the new legislation as a short-term solution with the risk of lulling the community into a false sense of security that the danger is over.

AVA Victorian president, Susan Maastricht said the new legislation would do little to address the overall problem of dog bites and attacks.

"It's important to recognise that most dogs don't bite, and only a tiny proportion of dogs are aggressive," she said.

"However, effective control and management of these aggressive dogs is absolutely necessary through regulation that works. Owners must be held responsible for the education, control and actions of their dogs."

Dr Maastricht said declaring that some breeds were dangerous and others were not was misleading.

The AVA was asked, by the Bureau of Animal Welfare, if Victorian veterinarians would be willing or not to examine a seized animal to decide if it was a restricted breed and should be euthanised.

The AVA advised the bureau that AVA members would not be willing to provide certification of unknown breeds based on a physical examination alone and more evidence would be required before that decision was made.

Southern Grampians Shire local laws co-ordinator, Brain Urwin said the new legislation and any improvement regarding dangerous dogs would be welcomed by the shire.

He said council advised people against owning a dangerous dog and welcomed another plan by the State Government to employ more Animal Control officers for Victorian shires.

"Council welcomes any initiatives regarding more employment of Animal Control officers in the shire," Mr Urwin said.

"Council does not have a dedicated animal control officer, but has two full-time Local Laws officers and part of their roles/ duties it to attend to animal control issues on an as needed basis."

[tybrax]

Something dosen't seem right here..

[cybergenesis]

Something dosen't seem right here..

Wow that's a really informative comment... NOT. What are you talking about? What exactly doesn't seem right?

I know we all like complaining about the fact pitbull and subjective "crosses" are being outlawed, but seriously nothing is going to stop it... These dogs are going to be wiped out in this country, its just a matter of time.

I am just thankful that they haven't yet targeted my favorite breeds of dogs, which BTW are every bit as subjectively dangerous as pitbulls if raised inappropriately.

The government loves banning stuff based on knee jerk reactions not grounded in balanced reasoning. Its not going to change any time soon.

I have given up. The government will make whatever stupid laws it likes based on exaggerated media stances.

What really scares me is if we get a few well publicized attacks by rottweilers, bullmastiffs and other breeds owned by irresponsible owners, then the government may massively expand the banned dogs list. Maybe they may outlaw all dogs altogether.

Just because dogs have been man's oldest domesticated animal companions, going back around 20,000 years, before even cattle and livestock, hell let this know it all government ban them.

[sumosmum]

In this article, this,

The AVA was asked, by the Bureau of Animal Welfare, if Victorian veterinarians would be willing or not to examine a seized animal to decide if it was a restricted breed and should be euthanised.

Then straight after it, this,

The AVA advised the bureau that AVA members would not be willing to provide certification of unknown breeds based on a physical examination alone and more evidence would be required before that decision was made.

If the BAW already knew that AVA could not certify the breed/s of a seized dog by physical exam, it must stand to reason that they can not certify the breed/s of a dog who is taken to the vet for the same reason.

If the Gov already knew this, why did they put this in the Act as an exception, acceptable way to prove a dog was not a Restricted Breed. It is giving an option that does not exist.

It would be misleading and deceiving.

I am trying to contact AVA to find out what the story is here.

Edited September 15, 2011 by sumosmum

[RottnBullies]

What really scares me is if we get a few well publicized attacks by rottweilers, bullmastiffs and other breeds owned by irresponsible owners, then the government may massively expand the banned dogs list. Maybe they may outlaw all dogs altogether.

I have given up. The government will make whatever stupid laws it likes based on exaggerated media stances.

Not exactly the kind of thing we need people doing right now! Just remember how long some have actually been fighting this, but then It was only limited to mostly supporters of the APBT breed, now I think It's hit home for a lot more people and their breeds

Good point SM I hope that can be clarified by the AVA

[sumosmum]

The lady on the phone for AVA said they have advised their vets to proceed with caution. She said it isn't possible to judge a breed on visual exam. She has told me to ring DPI for clarification.

So I still don't know if this was told to BAW prior to the Act going through.

[tybrax]

Something dosen't seem right here..

Wow that's a really informative comment... NOT. What are you talking about? What exactly doesn't seem right?

I know we all like complaining about the fact pitbull and subjective "crosses" are being outlawed, but seriously nothing is going to stop it... These dogs are going to be wiped out in this country, its just a matter of time.

I am just thankful that they haven't yet targeted my favorite breeds of dogs, which BTW are every bit as subjectively dangerous as pitbulls if raised inappropriately.

The government loves banning stuff based on knee jerk reactions not grounded in balanced reasoning. Its not going to change any time soon.

I have given up. The government will make whatever stupid laws it likes based on exaggerated media stances.

What really scares me is if we get a few well publicized attacks by rottweilers, bullmastiffs and other breeds owned by irresponsible owners, then the government may massively expand the banned dogs list. Maybe they may outlaw all dogs altogether.

Just because dogs have been man's oldest domesticated animal companions, going back around 20,000 years, before even cattle and livestock, hell let this know it all government ban them.

Wow that's a really informative comment... NOT. What are you talking about? What exactly doesn't seem right?

Well if you had read they article you would of known what i was talking about hey "ATTITUDE"

[sumosmum]

Rang DPI and was told that a vet can certify that a dog isn't a restricted breed and not have to state the breed.

Also was told that an APBT can't get its tail above its back, and they can also tell by the dogs teeth.

I asked well what about cross restricted and didn't get any answer.

She said that they have not been told that AVA will not certify that dogs are of a certain breed. And they can tell cause of the tail and teeth.

[RottnBullies]

Rang DPI and was told that a vet can certify that a dog isn't a restricted breed and not have to state the breed.

Also was told that an APBT can't get its tail above its back, and they can also tell by the dogs teeth.

I asked well what about cross restricted and didn't get any answer.

She said that they have not been told that AVA will not certify that dogs are of a certain breed. And they can tell cause of the tail and teeth.

Absolutely speechless!!!

[tybrax]

They havent got a clue.. shocking!!

[Jumabaar]

I am just guessing but what the AVA is doing might help a law suit? I mean if a Vet who has spent 5 years studying dogs says they can not say if a dog is a restricted breed then surely a lawyer can use this when a ranger ID's a dog?

I am guessing they are just trying to make it clear as an Association they do not support the legislation in any way and will not help the govt. I do however think individual vets will still sign these certs to say that the dog is not a restricted breed- honestly they will want to keep their clients alive!!

What are the repercussions of a vet who says it is not a restricted breed, then the animal does attack someone and someone else identifies it differently AKA another vet?? Its just a mess!

Edited September 15, 2011 by ~Woofen~

[sumosmum]

I am just guessing but what the AVA is doing might help a law suit? I mean if a Vet who has spent 5 years studying dogs says they can not say if a dog is a restricted breed then surely a lawyer can use this when a ranger ID's a dog?

I am guessing they are just trying to make it clear as an Association they do not support the legislation in any way and will not help the govt. I do however think individual vets will still sign these certs to say that the dog is not a restricted breed- honestly they will want to keep their clients alive!!

What are the repercussions of a vet who says it is not a restricted breed, then the animal does attack someone and someone else identifies it differently AKA another vet?? Its just a mess!

The vet isn't certifying that the dog is not a Dangerous Dog, they would only be commenting on the breed. So that should not be a problem.

I have always thought along your lines. If a council worker is accepted as being able to pick a breed or cross, why would the word of a vet not be taken! Same idea, just the other way around.

It is actually very honest of AVA to say that they can't pick a breed as we know. They seem to be the ones telling the facts here I think.

[mita]

I am just guessing but what the AVA is doing might help a law suit? I mean if a Vet who has spent 5 years studying dogs says they can not say if a dog is a restricted breed then surely a lawyer can use this when a ranger ID's a dog?

I am guessing they are just trying to make it clear as an Association they do not support the legislation in any way and will not help the govt. I do however think individual vets will still sign these certs to say that the dog is not a restricted breed- honestly they will want to keep their clients alive!!

What are the repercussions of a vet who says it is not a restricted breed, then the animal does attack someone and someone else identifies it differently AKA another vet?? Its just a mess!

Good points.

This has always been the case. There's no scientific standing to anyone being able to identify a breed type by visual examination only. No matter how many visual 'checkpoints' are drawn up. Vets work from a scientific base, so understandably they'd be 'out of here!' to any such request which had some legal consequence.

Also there's no direct scientific connection between a dog's conformation and predicting how it will behave. Once again, vets would be expected to go outside their base in science to make any claim that a dog's appearance predicts how it will behave.

All of which show what a tangled mess follows when legislation tries to go the 'breed' only route when managing for public safety. it's so like the drunk searching under the streetlight for his lost keys.....because it's easier than looking where he actually lost them. As others keep pointing out, why don't they look for government systems which have followed the evidence & come up with better stats re dog management safety. Like Calgary.

Edited September 15, 2011 by mita

[GeckoTree]

Something dosen't seem right here..

Wow that's a really informative comment... NOT. What are you talking about? What exactly doesn't seem right?

I know we all like complaining about the fact pitbull and subjective "crosses" are being outlawed, but seriously nothing is going to stop it... These dogs are going to be wiped out in this country, its just a matter of time.

I am just thankful that they haven't yet targeted my favorite breeds of dogs, which BTW are every bit as subjectively dangerous as pitbulls if raised inappropriately.

The government loves banning stuff based on knee jerk reactions not grounded in balanced reasoning. Its not going to change any time soon.

I have given up. The government will make whatever stupid laws it likes based on exaggerated media stances.

What really scares me is if we get a few well publicized attacks by rottweilers, bullmastiffs and other breeds owned by irresponsible owners, then the government may massively expand the banned dogs list. Maybe they may outlaw all dogs altogether.

Just because dogs have been man's oldest domesticated animal companions, going back around 20,000 years, before even cattle and livestock, hell let this know it all government ban them.

Wow Tybrax has been more informative than ever of your entire 39 posts of doling. If you cant see the Forrest for the trees piss off stop taking cracks at people with a massive background at a grass root level of BSL fighting.. You could only dream of having the stamina of fighting BSL she has. Talk all ..

[rep628]

Rang DPI and was told that a vet can certify that a dog isn't a restricted breed and not have to state the breed.

Also was told that an APBT can't get its tail above its back, and they can also tell by the dogs teeth.

I asked well what about cross restricted and didn't get any answer.

She said that they have not been told that AVA will not certify that dogs are of a certain breed. And they can tell cause of the tail and teeth.

Way to go SM for digging around. You're being such a proactive trooper.

PLEEEEEASE tell me you got that Teeth/Tail comment on record or at least the name of the person who said that. Invaluable for proving they are nothing but ignorant, amateurs on a Power Trip

[Jumabaar]

I am just guessing but what the AVA is doing might help a law suit? I mean if a Vet who has spent 5 years studying dogs says they can not say if a dog is a restricted breed then surely a lawyer can use this when a ranger ID's a dog?

I am guessing they are just trying to make it clear as an Association they do not support the legislation in any way and will not help the govt. I do however think individual vets will still sign these certs to say that the dog is not a restricted breed- honestly they will want to keep their clients alive!!

What are the repercussions of a vet who says it is not a restricted breed, then the animal does attack someone and someone else identifies it differently AKA another vet?? Its just a mess!

The vet isn't certifying that the dog is not a Dangerous Dog, they would only be commenting on the breed. So that should not be a problem.

I have always thought along your lines. If a council worker is accepted as being able to pick a breed or cross, why would the word of a vet not be taken! Same idea, just the other way around.

It is actually very honest of AVA to say that they can't pick a breed as we know. They seem to be the ones telling the facts here I think.

I was more thinking if a victim suing a vet for incorrect identification if there was a dog attack if they could get another witness to say it should not have been identified as a non-restircted breed. It has nothing to do with it being dangerous.

I agree about the AVA being honest. Its a shame when so many animal bodies- AVA, individual vets and trainers all saying the same thing but no one appears to be listening!!

[sandgrubber]

The tendency of dog lovers to jump on one another is a large factor in the dog community's ineffectiveness. Hang together or we'll all hang separately (Nathan Hale).

[Steve]

What really scares me is if we get a few well publicized attacks by rottweilers, bullmastiffs and other breeds owned by irresponsible owners, then the government may massively expand the banned dogs list. Maybe they may outlaw all dogs altogether.

I have given up. The government will make whatever stupid laws it likes based on exaggerated media stances.

Not exactly the kind of thing we need people doing right now! Just remember how long some have actually been fighting this, but then It was only limited to mostly supporters of the APBT breed, now I think It's hit home for a lot more people and their breeds

Good point SM I hope that can be clarified by the AVA

Actually thats not quite right. From day one many of us have been fighting against breed specific legislation not for pitbulls. The original committee of the EDBA had people who had never even seen a pit bull. Most bred purebred dogs which are unlikely to ever be under the pump. Mini poodles, chi's,cavs,boxers,chows,beagles etc - some also had pitties and worked with the APBT. No one could deny how much of her soul Val who owned mini poodles put into this until she could go on no longer. But you are right it has been a long time and what we saw in Queensland broke our hearts. I stepped back from it because I felt and still do that fighting it in court in the hope that laws would be over turned was too slow if it were ever going to work . I felt it may save one dog at a time and eventually may make em consider changing the laws and that some needed to come at it that way but being bogged into that hasnt shown much progress.

The community want to be protected from dog attacks and they want to feel safe and anything the government can do to make em feel they are having a go at that equates to votes. Part of the problem is that they seem to bogged into one course of action. They Know its not going to make any difference and its going to be a bit of a pain along the way but the reward they get outweighs that as everyone cheers that they are acknowledging the problem and attempting to make the people and their kids safer. There is little point in us trying to educate them and beat our drum to tell them any dog can bite and that what they do wont stop dog attacks while ever they dont ensure owners are being responsible because they cant see any other way to be seen to be taking action and ensuring their towns are safe without upsetting all dog owners and risking votes.

That in my opinion is where we need to fight from and show them the role they play in dog attacks and how it is their neglect at preventative measures and lack of enforecement of laws they already had which has put their communities at risk.

We need to show them alternatives to breed specific legislation which will to do more than BSL can ever do to keep people feeling they can be protected from idiot owners and their dogs.

We need to show how to fix it and a part of that is in explaining why BSL actually puts the community more at risk of dog attacks than it ever has been. Fighting for restricted breeds is for me the wrong way to go because as soon as you do you are seen to be a redneck etc and the public dont get it. In fact if we could stop talking about pitties altogether that would be even better and instead fight for responsible dog ownership regardless of breed.

If anyone is interested in giving us a hand at having a go at this we could use your help.

[Steve]

The tendency of dog lovers to jump on one another is a large factor in the dog community's ineffectiveness. Hang together or we'll all hang separately (Nathan Hale).

Yep.