Dogs In The Community

[moosmum]

Because in most situations, a dog has been managed inappropriately so if that pit bull did not exist and the owner had a different breed, managed irresponsibly- who knows whether the attack would still have occurred?

BSL has never worked to reduce and prevent dog attacks. A few years ago i listened to a presentation by someone at an Animal Welfare conference. They said that because statistically, serious dog bites are so rare- there is no reliable way to identify the dogs prior to an incident. There are risk factors but many of those had to do with the owner, not the dog.

I totally agree that any attacks are owner mismanagement and the raising of dogs irresponsibly, but there are plenty of those owners with all different types of dogs and breeds which proves irresponsibility and owner mismanagement doesn't cause every dog and breed to be become prone to serious attacks and killings. What irresponsible ownership and mismanagement highlights are the type of dogs that are most likely to attack in irresponsible hands which seems to be the Pitbull type of dogs subject to the present target more so than anything else?

Pitbull type dogs are attractive to irresponsible people who like aggressive dogs which doesn't help the situation, but Rotties, GSD's etc and the various cross breed combinations of those type of dogs are also owned by irresponsible people too for the same reason but don't seem to cause the carnage of the same magnitude, like they are not the Rotty GSD type dogs ripping people apart, killing kids and other dogs on a regular basis is what I mean, the real serious one's seem to be the Pitbull Mastiff style of dog which is the reason they are clamping down on them from what I can see?

I don't think they single out the Pitbull Mastiff style of dog without good reason and I am sure it would be the same with any breed who featured regularly in serious attacks, so when the serious incidents keep featuring a particular style of dog, they really have no choice from public outcry to address the situation?

Because these types of dogs fit an image for those people.Remove the breed and they will find an alternative untill no dogs are left.Just as the banning of a car wont stop bad drivers being on the roads.

We educate road users to have duty of care.Not ban cars.

[sumosmum]

Zara, if you look up Calgary Model, a lot of this would be explained. It is a whole and complete package and does not include breed bans.

[melzawelza]

Hi Zara,

The subject is much deeper and more involved than you can imagine, much more than I can type here. If you are genuinely interested in learning why it isn't what it seems I highly recommend you read 'The Pit Bull Placebo' by Karen Delise.

On this page there is a link to where you can download a free copy of the book:

http://www.fataldogattacks.com/

The few comments I will make is that prior to the 1980s the Pit Bull was one of the most popular dog breeds owned, especially by families. In a 30 year time span leading up to the 80s there were something like (this is off the top of my head so is only a ball park figure) 40 fatal attacks by dogs.... ONE was attributed to a Pit Bull.

The 'super predator' dog of the time was the Dobermann, prior to that the GSD, and prior to that back in the 1800s it was the bloodhound. You may not be aware that the GSD was banned for importation into Australia for almost 40 years.

In the mid 70s dog fighting was made a crime and as such a few years later there were a lot of highly televised 'busts' of dogfighting rings and the brutality within. The media went wild showing footage of trained fighting dogs tearing each other to shreds and started spreading the message of these 'dangerous dogs'. This began to instill a primal fear of these types of dogs into people and also simultaneously made the breed very attractive to thugs and lowlifes who wanted a dog that people would be intimidated by.

More people bred them irresponsibly and more people bought them irresponsibly and they began to represent themselves higher in the fatality lists for this reason (and simultaneously the previous 'super predator' the Dobermann was represented less).

That is the briefest version I can give. I highly recommend you read the book. It is well written, compelling and fascinating.

[zara]

Because in most situations, a dog has been managed inappropriately so if that pit bull did not exist and the owner had a different breed, managed irresponsibly- who knows whether the attack would still have occurred?

BSL has never worked to reduce and prevent dog attacks. A few years ago i listened to a presentation by someone at an Animal Welfare conference. They said that because statistically, serious dog bites are so rare- there is no reliable way to identify the dogs prior to an incident. There are risk factors but many of those had to do with the owner, not the dog.

I totally agree that any attacks are owner mismanagement and the raising of dogs irresponsibly, but there are plenty of those owners with all different types of dogs and breeds which proves irresponsibility and owner mismanagement doesn't cause every dog and breed to be become prone to serious attacks and killings. What irresponsible ownership and mismanagement highlights are the type of dogs that are most likely to attack in irresponsible hands which seems to be the Pitbull type of dogs subject to the present target more so than anything else?

Pitbull type dogs are attractive to irresponsible people who like aggressive dogs which doesn't help the situation, but Rotties, GSD's etc and the various cross breed combinations of those type of dogs are also owned by irresponsible people too for the same reason but don't seem to cause the carnage of the same magnitude, like they are not the Rotty GSD type dogs ripping people apart, killing kids and other dogs on a regular basis is what I mean, the real serious one's seem to be the Pitbull Mastiff style of dog which is the reason they are clamping down on them from what I can see?

I don't think they single out the Pitbull Mastiff style of dog without good reason and I am sure it would be the same with any breed who featured regularly in serious attacks, so when the serious incidents keep featuring a particular style of dog, they really have no choice from public outcry to address the situation?

Because these types of dogs fit an image for those people.Remove the breed and they will find an alternative untill no dogs are left.Just as the banning of a car wont stop bad drivers being on the roads.

We educate road users to have duty of care.Not ban cars.

Yes, but so do Rotties and GSD's and other large breeds fit the image too which these people have now and have done so for years and they get out, bail people up, chase kids on bikes and bite people, fight other dogs, but they don't seem to feature in too many seriously savage attacks is what I mean as the Pitty type dogs have? There would be equally moronic owners with breeds other than Pitbull Mastiff types that are kept for aggression and image, but also the dog needs to have some natural anger to fulfill these roles too. Moving on to a dog that doesn't have the anger in the breed to work for these people won't create the monsters they are looking for, they are not great dogs made aggressive as many people believe I don't think, a lot of the aggression is already in the dog and possibly what they were bred for perhaps?

[Kirty]

Dogs aren't 'angry'. That is a human emotion.

How many people have Pitbulls killed in Australia zara? You are buying into the media's crap. The tragic death of the little girl in Melbourne is the first Pitbull related death and in fact, it wasn't even a purebred Pitbull. So should we ban Mastiffs too?

Any dog can be bred for aggression. Pitbulls have been regarded as THE dog to own if you are a yobbo for a looooong time. These yobbos have been breeding FOR aggression for a loooong time. Of course there are some examples of this breed which are born with unstable temperaments but that's because it has been selected for by idiots. There are many more LOVELY Pitbulls that have been bred to have wonderful temperaments. If we ban Pitbulls, the yobbos will move onto another breed and destroy that too.

[melzawelza]

Zara, science and every expert in the area disagrees with you.

If they naturally have more 'anger' in them explain why prior to the 80s they were one of the most popular breeds in the states and yet barely made a dent in the fatalities list (ONE dog in something like 30 years), but after the media started hyping them up as natural born killers they THEN started to represent more in the fatalities list. Prior to the 80s the Rotty and Dobe both featured highly in the fatality list. Contrary to what you say, the Rottweiler still features highly in the US fatality list. Again this is not due to the breed itself but due to the fact that idiots are attracted to them.

Don't believe that what you see in the media is unbiased and balanced. They don't report the attacks by other breeds, because it doesn't get such strong reactions from the public. They also completely fabricate scenarios. Remember the horrific attack in VIC 2009 where it was reported that a Pit Bull killed a man's two small dogs and then 'locked' onto his hand for 20 minutes. It was reported that it only let go after the paramedics euthanased it.. all while it was still holding on.

There is video footage of the man who's dogs were attacked relaying the story and he explicitly says that HE HELD ONTO THE DOG IN A HEADLOCK for 20 minutes until the paramedics arrived, as he didn't want it to go and injure someone else's dog.

No excuse that that poor man lost his dogs, however that is an example of the way the media twists these attacks to get an emotional response from the general public. It was as a result of that attack that these laws we are seeing now were rushed through. They were already there, the government has now just added the visual identification and the cross breeds, and shortened the amnesty.

[melzawelza]

I'm going to post here the unbelievable contrast between the media reporting on that attack and the actual interview given by the dog owner to try and encourage people to not blindly trust what is reported in the media. Can I just say first that this dogs behaviour was in no way acceptable or excusable and I am horrified that this man had to go through this ordeal and that his dogs lives were lost. But that is no excuse for the media to make up stories that incite fear in people and present a breed of dog as some kind of super predator with unbelievable strength and aggression.

First are just a few articles reported in the media at the time.

news.com.au

theage.com.au

Reported again by The Australian only this month - "In 2009, an American pit bull attacked a Melbourne man who was walking his two small dogs. It killed one of his dogs and latched on to the man's hand, maintaining a powerful grip until ambulance officers arrived and injected the dog with lethal drugs."

The Australian

Now the link to the man actually being interviewed and describing the attack. He says himself that the dog bit him but then let go, and that HE HELD THE DOG IN A HEADLOCK until the authorities turned up.

The fact that our media is not called to account for this kind of blatant lies and fear mongering is disgusting.

I just want to point out that all of this will not be a large focus in the rally at all, as all can see from our mission statement on the first page, but I felt it important to clarify this for people such as Zara and any others who may be reading.

[zara]

Hi Zara,

The subject is much deeper and more involved than you can imagine, much more than I can type here. If you are genuinely interested in learning why it isn't what it seems I highly recommend you read 'The Pit Bull Placebo' by Karen Delise.

On this page there is a link to where you can download a free copy of the book:

http://www.fataldogattacks.com/

The few comments I will make is that prior to the 1980s the Pit Bull was one of the most popular dog breeds owned, especially by families. In a 30 year time span leading up to the 80s there were something like (this is off the top of my head so is only a ball park figure) 40 fatal attacks by dogs.... ONE was attributed to a Pit Bull.

The 'super predator' dog of the time was the Dobermann, prior to that the GSD, and prior to that back in the 1800s it was the bloodhound. You may not be aware that the GSD was banned for importation into Australia for almost 40 years.

In the mid 70s dog fighting was made a crime and as such a few years later there were a lot of highly televised 'busts' of dogfighting rings and the brutality within. The media went wild showing footage of trained fighting dogs tearing each other to shreds and started spreading the message of these 'dangerous dogs'. This began to instill a primal fear of these types of dogs into people and also simultaneously made the breed very attractive to thugs and lowlifes who wanted a dog that people would be intimidated by.

More people bred them irresponsibly and more people bought them irresponsibly and they began to represent themselves higher in the fatality lists for this reason (and simultaneously the previous 'super predator' the Dobermann was represented less).

That is the briefest version I can give. I highly recommend you read the book. It is well written, compelling and fascinating.

Thanks for the link Melzawelza I will check it out.

[zara]

Dogs aren't 'angry'. That is a human emotion.

How many people have Pitbulls killed in Australia zara? You are buying into the media's crap. The tragic death of the little girl in Melbourne is the first Pitbull related death and in fact, it wasn't even a purebred Pitbull. So should we ban Mastiffs too?

Any dog can be bred for aggression. Pitbulls have been regarded as THE dog to own if you are a yobbo for a looooong time. These yobbos have been breeding FOR aggression for a loooong time. Of course there are some examples of this breed which are born with unstable temperaments but that's because it has been selected for by idiots. There are many more LOVELY Pitbulls that have been bred to have wonderful temperaments. If we ban Pitbulls, the yobbos will move onto another breed and destroy that too.

You are totally missing the point Kirty?

Nearly every viscious unprovoked attack causing serious injury and recently death has featured a Pitbull style of dog. Pitbull style I don't mean specifically a pure bred Pitbull but a dog of Pitbull/Mastiff type appearance, definitely not the type of dog that Border Collies, Standard Poodles or GSDs could be mistaken for, they are on the Bull breed platform and the facts are if BSL had eliminated these breeds and style of dog, the offending dogs could not have attacked when non existant. That's actually a fact, if the offending dogs had been eliminated via BSL prior to the attack, the attack from those particular dogs would have been prevented and without BSL the attacks did occur.

Whether or not the owners of the attacking dogs had a different breed and may still have attacked etc etc, is not fact, it's speculation and guess work. If Pitbull type dogs are eliminated by BSL, it's a fact that a Pitbull type dog will no longer attack anyone, and with no BSL regardless of what programs are in place to guarantee a Pitbull type dog whilst remaining in existance shouldn't re-offend, they can, but they can't re-offend if they are gone?

If the community makes a stance to say they no longer want to be subject to attacks from Pitbull type dogs, eliminating them from existance will fix it, fact!!. It won't stop dog attacks, it will stop Pitbull type attacks which people are most scared of.

So in the interests of public saftey the debate favouring to abolish BSL over tightening it up an anti BSL campaign can't win having no factual argument to present.

Edited October 1, 2011 by zara

[sandgrubber]

Another bump plus contact info. There are rallies in different places . . . all on same date.

Time Saturday, October 22 · 11:00am - 2:00pm

Location Please see Info for your states / locations

VIC- http://www.facebook....125666524199579 ...

Shepparton VIC - http://www.facebook....152592708165545

NSW - http://www.facebook....if_t=event_wall

QLD - TBA

TAS - Parliment House

SA - http://www.facebook....212241712171640

WA - http://www.facebook....252916974746646

(Copied from the Facebook announcement).

Edited October 2, 2011 by sandgrubber

[Erny]

So in the interests of public saftey the debate favouring to abolish BSL over tightening it up an anti BSL campaign can't win having no factual argument to present.

Huh?

Unless I completely misunderstand you ..... the "debate" and the "opposition" to BSL, both from its inception (2001, I think, as far as Australia is concerned) to now, is because people, including dog-lovers of the breeds which have been, both past and present, targeted under the terms of the legislation (the net for which is so much broader now) do NOT want people being injured by dogs and DO want bite stats to be reduced AND because they know, from WORLD-WIDE statistics who have already tried the BSL, that the legislation is doomed for failure. NOT ONLY doomed for failure, but deemed to make things worse, because it lulls people into false senses of security, gives the wrong impression and MIS-educates. Mind you, I don't know that anywhere in the world has gone so far as turning "Breed Specific Legislation" into "Physical Specific (loosely speaking) Legislation", so can't suggest the World, save for Australia, has gone that mad.

Zara - What "factual argument" can you provide a link to that shows BSL is overall successful?

Edited October 1, 2011 by Erny

[moosmum]

Dogs aren't 'angry'. That is a human emotion.

How many people have Pitbulls killed in Australia zara? You are buying into the media's crap. The tragic death of the little girl in Melbourne is the first Pitbull related death and in fact, it wasn't even a purebred Pitbull. So should we ban Mastiffs too?

Any dog can be bred for aggression. Pitbulls have been regarded as THE dog to own if you are a yobbo for a looooong time. These yobbos have been breeding FOR aggression for a loooong time. Of course there are some examples of this breed which are born with unstable temperaments but that's because it has been selected for by idiots. There are many more LOVELY Pitbulls that have been bred to have wonderful temperaments. If we ban Pitbulls, the yobbos will move onto another breed and destroy that too.

You are totally missing the point Kirty?

Nearly every viscious unprovoked attack causing serious injury and recently death has featured a Pitbull style of dog. Pitbull style I don't mean specifically a pure bred Pitbull but a dog of Pitbull/Mastiff type appearance, definitely not the type of dog that Border Collies, Standard Poodles or GSDs could be mistaken for, they are on the Bull breed platform and the facts are if BSL had eliminated these breeds and style of dog, the offending dogs could not have attacked when non existant. That's actually a fact, if the offending dogs had been eliminated via BSL prior to the attack, the attack from those particular dogs would have been prevented and without BSL the attacks did occur.

You mean WITH BSL the attack still occured.Its not working,its driving the breed underground,into the hands of those with no social responsibility.

Whether or not the owners of the attacking dogs had a different breed and may still have attacked etc etc, is not fact, it's speculation and guess work. If Pitbull type dogs are eliminated by BSL, it's a fact that a Pitbull type dog will no longer attack anyone, and with no BSL regardless of what programs are in place to guarantee a Pitbull type dog whilst remaining in existance shouldn't re-offend, they can, but they can't re-offend if they are gone?

If the community makes a stance to say they no longer want to be subject to attacks from Pitbull type dogs, eliminating them from existance will fix it, fact!!. It won't stop dog attacks, it will stop Pitbull type attacks which people are most scared of.

And then they will be most scared of??? Likely staffies,as the next most common breed of dog,followed by any other type that makes headlines.Maybe even Golden retrievers or labs.It only takes a couple of sensational headlines to turn the attention on to another breed.

So in the interests of public saftey the debate favouring to abolish BSL over tightening it up an anti BSL campaign can't win having no factual argument to present.

I have had several incidents myself with Pittbulls.Do I want to ban them? No,I would rather their owners be made to follow exsisting laws that require them to have their dogs under effective controll and not running loose.And for them to understand just what that means.

[Erny]

I have had several incidents myself with Pittbulls.Do I want to ban them? No,I would rather their owners be made to follow exsisting laws that require them to have their dogs under effective controll and not running loose.And for them to understand just what that means.

And everyone - we all collectively need to understand that the current situation should be regarded as one which can and will affect dogs outside of the breeds of which you speak. So my suggestion is that people stop thinking of it as a "breed" specific legislation (even though it remains titled as such) and think of it as a set of laws that give a loose discription and any dog fitting the criteria of that description is "IT" as far as targetting is concerned. This law could affect YOUR best canine friend, or at least one that you know that you least expected could possibly be held accountable just because it comprised of physical attributes the Government listed in its laws.

Click to enlarge :

Edited October 1, 2011 by Erny

[sandgrubber]

The Victorian abomination doesn't even qualify as 'breed' specific. It's pure, simple, overt discrimination based on appearance. I do believe that you can breed aggression up or down in dogs . . . and many breeders do so. Fortunately, most work to get aggression down. I'm in favour of putting pressure on those who want to up the aggression levels, particularly in suburbs/cities. Such people have many breeds they could work with . . . aggressive tendencies isn't unique to any breed. Victoria's stupid, stupid law doesn't focus on the guys who promote aggression. Instead it works on the patently false premise that appearance predicts behaviour. Absolutely whacko, crazy, nuts! Many bull-breed type dogs who are endangered by this law, are waggy little monsters, who may be a danger to your shoes, and who might knock a kid down trying to lick his/her face, but pose no real danger to anyone. To top it off, the new laws put little or no pressure on the guys who are legitimate targets. If you've already moved on from an APBT to some sort of molasser x APBT x meanest-dog-around pigdog, you're home free cause your dog won't look like the Vic 'standard'.

I have had several incidents myself with Pittbulls.Do I want to ban them? No,I would rather their owners be made to follow exsisting laws that require them to have their dogs under effective controll and not running loose.And for them to understand just what that means.

And everyone - we all collectively need to understand that the current situation should be regarded as one which can and will affect dogs outside of the breeds of which you speak. So my suggestion is that people stop thinking of it as a "breed" specific legislation (even though it remains titled as such) and think of it as a set of laws that give a loose discription and any dog fitting the criteria of that description is "IT" as far as targetting is concerned. This law could affect YOUR best canine friend, or at least one that you know that you least expected could possibly be held accountable just because it comprised of physical attributes the Government listed in its laws.

Click to enlarge :

Edited October 1, 2011 by sandgrubber

[zara]

So in the interests of public saftey the debate favouring to abolish BSL over tightening it up an anti BSL campaign can't win having no factual argument to present.

Huh?

Unless I completely misunderstand you ..... the "debate" and the "opposition" to BSL, both from its inception (2001, I think, as far as Australia is concerned) to now, is because people, including dog-lovers of the breeds which have been, both past and present, targeted under the terms of the legislation (the net for which is so much broader now) do NOT want people being injured by dogs and DO want bite stats to be reduced AND because they know, from WORLD-WIDE statistics who have already tried the BSL, that the legislation is doomed for failure. NOT ONLY doomed for failure, but deemed to make things worse, because it lulls people into false senses of security, gives the wrong impression and MIS-educates. Mind you, I don't know that anywhere in the world has gone so far as turning "Breed Specific Legislation" into "Physical Specific (loosely speaking) Legislation", so can't suggest the World, save for Australia, has gone that mad.

Zara - What "factual argument" can you provide a link to that shows BSL is overall successful?

I ask you this Erny:

Is it correct for me to say it's a fact that if the recent surge of attacks committed by Pitbull type dogs had fallen victim to a BSL, that those dogs including the culprit who took the little girl's life couldn't have done the deed if they didn't exist?

Is it also a fact if the owners of these offending dogs had dogs of a different breed and type, that it's impossible to prove an attack would have still occurred with the same outcome?

[zara]

We really only have to look as far as the case involving the American Bulldog cross Labrador Lennox to see how other breeds will get caught up in the seizure of "pitbull type" dogs. The Belfast council used the same standard the Victorian government will be using to identify dogs when they decided to seize Lennox based purely on appearance. Zara, please have a look at the terrible ordeal Lennox and his loving family have been going through as they fight to save his life. This is the sort of heartache and destruction breed specific legislation is going to bring to Victorian families. It is the people and families who love and care appropriately for their dogs who will suffer the most as those owners who mistreat their dogs or chain them in a back yard without stimulation, exercise or socialisation view dogs as disposable items anyway.

Personally, I don't think this rates with what the family of the little girl killed by one have suffered, although I agree it is a sad state of affairs all round but primarily they are trying to save human lives and serious maulings from those type of dogs and given that they can't control the people who own them, the only other option to satisfy community outcry is get rid of that type of dog unfortunately.

Sandgrubber:

People keep saying how you can make any dog aggressive, in certain circumstances you can, but the type of active preditory aggression that the dog killing the little girl displayed, you can't make the average dog do that, perhaps a high drive working dog trained extensively and set upon a child by command, but these dogs are not trained, they are nasty dogs who want to get everyone, we have all seen this type of dog in various breeds, the one's you hope the owner doesn't drop the leash as the dog lunges and snarls at everything?

Interestingly the report of this shocking incident claimed the owner just stood there watching the dog attack, he was probably scared of the dog and knew it was a fruitloop, my God, if one of mine attacked a child I would throw my entire body over the dog without even thinking of consequence not stand there like a stunned mullet, I can't believe that?

Edited October 1, 2011 by zara

[melzawelza]

Zara, like I said, we can NEVER know if a specific incident that happened to a specific child would have happened if the owner had a different breed of dog. However science shows us that ON A WHOLE it doesn't matter if you euthanise an entire breed or type of dog, because other countries have done it and the attacks have not reduced. Little Ayen may have lived if the neighbour owned a different breed of dog, or she might not have... we will never know. However we do know through studies that even if Ayen had lived, another child or adult somewhere would have likely died. BSL does not reduce attack rates.

As much as the debate is very interesting and I could go on discussing it forever, I don't think it is the right discussion for this thread. I really don't want information about the rally being bogged down in this argument that has happened many times before all over the forum. If you'd like to start another thread on the topic please feel free and I'll happily come over and continue discussing with you over there, but do you mind if we keep this thread for rally stuff?

[zara]

Zara, like I said, we can NEVER know if a specific incident that happened to a specific child would have happened if the owner had a different breed of dog. However science shows us that ON A WHOLE it doesn't matter if you euthanise an entire breed or type of dog, because other countries have done it and the attacks have not reduced. Little Ayen may have lived if the neighbour owned a different breed of dog, or she might not have... we will never know. However we do know through studies that even if Ayen had lived, another child or adult somewhere would have likely died. BSL does not reduce attack rates.

As much as the debate is very interesting and I could go on discussing it forever, I don't think it is the right discussion for this thread. I really don't want information about the rally being bogged down in this argument that has happened many times before all over the forum. If you'd like to start another thread on the topic please feel free and I'll happily come over and continue discussing with you over there, but do you mind if we keep this thread for rally stuff?

I am sorry, I didn't mean to mess up your thread, my apology, going to the BSL section

[melzawelza]

Not at all Zara, It's actually good to have some discussion on the topic! But I could see how deep we were going and that it has the potential to go for pages and pages, and that would be a worry LOL. Will check out your thread

[bslsux]

Nearly every viscious unprovoked attack causing serious injury and recently death has featured a Pitbull style of dog. Pitbull style I don't mean specifically a pure bred Pitbull but a dog of Pitbull/Mastiff type appearance, definitely not the type of dog that Border Collies, Standard Poodles or GSDs could be mistaken for.......

So Zara, what was your source of that amazing statement.... the media?