Vic's Breed Ban - 'good Dog, Bad Dog' - Article In Today&#

[Alkhe]

A balanced and rational article in The Age this morning about Victoria's recent breed bans. This kind of reporting is what this issue really needs, rather than hysterical 'BAN THE DEED NOT THE BREED' slogan jamming at every opportunity. I'm so glad that a mainstream media journalist has published an article like this. My comment is currently being moderated, but I'm hoping there are more supportive and rational comments made over the course of the day! I do wish they'd stop using that picture whenever they do a 'dangerous dog' article though!

Good dog, bad dog

Are some dogs inherently dangerous or is it their owners that make them so? Stathi Paxinos reports on why the Baillieu government's crackdown on specific breeds could ultimately be more bark than bite.

WHEN Lord Redesdale is told about Victoria's crackdown on restricted breed dogs, in particular American pit bull terriers, his reply is swift and to the point: ''I wish they wouldn't do that.'' The member of Britain's House of Lords believes that singling out certain breeds and types of dogs - which in Victoria was begun by the previous government with the introduction of breed-specific legislation in the early 2000s - does not reduce dog attacks or bites.

Britain introduced the Dangerous Dogs Act in 1991, outlawing several breeds of dogs including types of pit bull, and thousands were impounded and put down. The law was changed in 1997 to give the courts discretion to allow a dog with a good temperament and that posed no danger to the public to be kept subject to tight restrictions.

However, with dog attacks still a significant problem there and countries such as the Netherlands and Italy having repealed their breed-specific legislation, there is now a debate about what should be done in Britain.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Lord Redesdale, who spoke to The Age from London, introduced a private member's bill proposing to remove the emphasis on selected breeds and introducing greater punishments for irresponsible owners. However, without the support of the British government the bill is doomed to failure, but Lord Redesdale believes the publicity would encourage a rethink of the legislation.

''Everyone knows it's a mess,'' he says.

The Victorian government could face a similar problem after declaring the targeted eradication of an entire type of dog would make the state safer. Three months after Agriculture Minister Peter Walsh proclaimed dangerous dogs had ''lost their right to exist'' the attacks continue.

The government's crackdown on restricted breeds began under intense public and media pressure after the death of four-year-old Ayen Chol, who was mauled to death by a pit bull mastiff that ran into her St Albans home in August.

It declared the amnesty for unregistered restricted breed dogs would be stopped a year early and any unregistered dogs of that type found after September 30 could be seized and put down. A dangerous dog hotline was introduced and visual guidelines for dogs developed that gave indications of physical traits such as height, weight and appearance to help animal control officers identify them. Penalties were also increased, with an owner of a dog that kills a person now facing up to 10 years in jail.

Breed-specific legislation has been introduced in many countries, including Ireland, Germany and many US states. There are five types of dogs prohibited from being imported into Australia, of which only pit bulls and the Perro de Presa Canario are known to be in the country.

The current debate revolves around those who believe pit bulls and similar types of dogs are inherently dangerous, and must be removed from society, and those who believe dogs of any breed can be dangerous depending on how they have been reared, and whether they have been trained to be aggressive.

Those who argue the latter say targeting certain types of dogs does not reduce dog attacks because those who want an aggressive or ''status'' dog will simply train another large breed.

''I think it's important that we don't allow it to become simplistically about an animal that has an appearance of being a pit bull terrier and if we get rid of them we're going to make the community safer,'' says Susan Maastricht, the Victorian branch president of the Australian Veterinary Association. ''Because that would be giving everyone very much a false sense of security.''

Those arguing against banning selective breeds, and that comprises many animal welfare associations including the RSPCA, say a more effective and humane approach is to implement a system of education and training of dogs enforced by policing with fines and jail for irresponsible owners. They say a dog should be deemed irredeemably dangerous on the basis of its temperament not the way it looks.

This system used in the Canadian city of Calgary is being held up as a successful way to effectively reduce dog attacks.

Bill Bruce, Calgary's director of animal and bylaw services, oversees the program. ''If you come to Calgary you rarely see a dog roaming loose in the street, you don't see a lot of aggressive dogs, you don't see dogs left tied up outside a bar while someone goes in for hours on end, and you don't see dogs in open-back pick-up trucks. You don't see a lot of animal issues a lot of other people are facing because it's taken us 25 years to get to this point.''

Bruce says the city investigated breed-specific legislation but found it didn't work. ''As we've learnt from our study, if [irresponsible owners] have pit bulls and we ban them, then they'll get German shepherds or they'll get mastiffs or they'll get rottweilers, any number of dogs they can create a monster out of,'' Bruce says.

The city then decided to create a culture of responsible pet ownership. Bruce believes it is the owner who must be trained to recognise early signs of aggression and to properly handle their pets.

He says cases of dog aggression had dropped from more than 2000 in 1985 to 300 last year, of which 102 were bites, most of which were minor. He concedes bite numbers last year almost doubled from 2009's figure of 58, but he attributes this to a public awareness campaign run by the city about reporting incidents that occur within the home.

In 2001, an American Veterinary Medical Association taskforce investigating canine aggression reported it had found no statistical, biological or behavioural evidence that any breed of dog was more vicious or more dangerous than others.

There are no comprehensive statistics about the number of dog attacks and bites in Victoria because many injuries are not treated or reported by doctors.

Statistics provided by Monash University's Victorian Injury Surveillance Unit show the number of hospital admissions because of dog-related injuries - not just bites - almost doubled from 451 in 2000-01 to 717 last year. This is despite the introduction of breed-specific legislation a decade ago. There were 5180 reported injuries over the past 10 years.

But Agriculture Minister Peter Walsh and Graeme Smith, who is managing director of the Lost Dogs' Home - Victoria's biggest animal shelter - maintain that targeting certain breeds and types of dogs is the best way to address the problem.

SUPPORTERS of this approach believe pit bulls to be violent and unpredictable, capable of attacking without, or with very subtle, warning signs. They argue that pit bulls also cause more damage because of their ''hold-and-shake'' style of biting and their focus when attacking. These arguments are disputed by some dog trainers and veterinarians who lobby against breed-specific legislation.

''We believe that what we did in the circumstances that followed the death of Ayen Chol was appropriate,'' Walsh says. ''My view would be there has been overwhelming support for what we've done with the restricted-breed dogs.

''This is about making sure people are safe in their community, particularly children, and we don't want to see another death because people are not registering their dogs appropriately, housing them appropriately, having them on a leash and a muzzle in a public place appropriately and this is what this is about and let's not lose sight of that.''

However, Walsh admits he is frustrated that the measures have not stopped dog attacks. ''We've seen attacks where they should not have happened if people have controlled their dogs appropriately,'' he says.

''I think the majority of Victorians are very disappointed that with the publicity around the recent attacks and the tragic death of Ayen Chol that there are still people out there who are irresponsible in their dog ownership.

''Some people obviously are not doing the right thing when it comes to how they control their dog in public places and they will be held to account.''

He says there will be no change to the present approach, which he says was praised last month by the Federal government.

Smith says some people make ''a living out of trying to avoid these sorts of laws''.

''I'm saying categorically that I fully support the government's position and I'm one of the few that's doing so,'' he says.

But Lord Redesdale, who says he dislikes pit-bull-type dogs, believes Victoria's approach will end in disaster with large amounts of money being spent on court cases.

''It sounds great, but you're going to end up in a legal minefield,'' he says.

Brett Melke, a Melbourne lawyer whose practice specialises in dog-related issues, agrees there would be a rush of cases to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal next year as people appeal against decisions that their dogs fitted the government's controversial visual guidelines.

The guidelines have been criticised for being subjective and lacking scientific basis, and they are set to be challenged in VCAT next year. Those who argue against breed-specific legislation say DNA testing should be used to help determine a dog's breed, if its breed is in doubt.

''A number of the councils are being responsible about it and if they're faced with a pedigree certificate they'll back off even though originally they thought it met the standard, so that is pleasing,'' Melke says.

''However, the problem will be when we have a case that comes up to VCAT and it's a Labrador or some kind of cross and it meets the standard but we've got really good proof that it is in fact not a pit bull or not a restricted breed, what is VCAT going to do in that situation?''

Colleen Lynn, an American website designer, became a vocal advocate against pit-bull types after she was attacked by a pit bull while she was out running. Surgery on her broken arm cost her nearly $25,000. She started a website, Dogsbite.org.

''We don't know which one is going to go off … nice pit bulls kill their owners. We do not say that every pit bull is born vicious. We do say every pit bull is born with a dangerous tool set. If they decide to go off they're going to inflict serious damage,'' Lynn says.

''It's not a simple problem … we want to stop people getting attacked and having hundreds and thousands of dollars of medical bills that pit bull owner is never ever going to be able to afford because of that specific damage that dog breed inflicts. We've got to take some preventative measures.

''Who it impacts and what it takes to enforce is complex, there's no question about that, but we're trying to prevent humans from being maimed. There's way too much of that going on and we know which dog breed is doing the vast majority of it.''

The state government's policies have also created fear among owners of Staffordshire bull terriers - which are related to pit bulls and share similar traits - and American Staffordshire terriers which, if they do not have pedigree papers or a supporting letter from a veterinarian, will be classified as a restricted breed.

Owners whose dogs face a restricted breed declaration can appeal to VCAT, surrender the animal to be put down or comply with the restrictions, which include confining the dog to a fenced enclosure if the backyard is not secure, muzzling it in public and the dog not being allowed off a lead at dog parks.

One owner told The Age her dog, which she rescued from a shelter 18 months ago, had been registered as a Staffordshire bull terrier but could meet some of the visual guidelines and she feared it could be declared a restricted breed.

''He's an absolute gorgeous dog and very sweet,'' she says. ''The breed-specific legislation makes you feel very nervous and worried that someone could potentially take my dog off me or class him as a dangerous dog even though he has never menaced anyone or anything.

''The council rangers aren't breed-identification experts by a long shot and they're the ones deciding the fates of these amazing dogs.''

Karen Davies, a veterinarian in Point Cook, became heavily involved in the campaign to save pit bulls after being forced by law to put down a young male dog that she describes as a ''magnificent'' pet. She says the crackdown has led to people with dogs that looked similar to pit bulls being abused in public.

''In the three instances where I have physically been present when that's happened, not one of those dogs was actually of pit bull or American staffy type; one was in fact a black Labrador,'' she says.

Susan Maastricht says the debate about the best way to reduce dog attacks will continue for some time .

''I'd love to tell you that we could go out there and fix this tomorrow,'' she says. ''[but] we're talking at least a generation of change.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/good-dog-bad-dog-20111206-1oh1q.html#ixzz1fnPfwNUy

[Sticky]

Hugh Wirth has also changed his tune:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/changing-perceptions-in-the-hugh-and-cry-over-pit-bulls-20111206-1oh81.html

S

[Sticky]

And this as well:

VCAT to rule on death sentence for 'restricted breed' dogs

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/vcat-to-rule-on-death-sentence-for-restricted-breed-dogs-20111206-1oh83.html

S

[Talien]

''We don't know which one is going to go off … nice pit bulls kill their owners. We do not say that every pit bull is born vicious. We do say every pit bull is born with a dangerous tool set. If they decide to go off they're going to inflict serious damage,'' Lynn says.

Every dog is born with teeth.

[Mum to Emma]

In the comments section attached to The Age article, this one best sums it up:

Every dog has the ability to attack children and vulnerable adults if it is provoked or trained in a certain way- sure, but, physically, certain breeds have specific and particular jaw structures, builds, behavioural traits and strengths that mean the wounds inflicted differ drastically from one breed to the next.

This situation has gotten ridiculous and is now at a point where the public is sick of relying on certain owners doing the 'right thing'. There are just reckless, self-indulgent idiots out there who do not keep these dogs for the reasons the rest of us keep a pet, and they cannot be trusted, and for that reason, unfortunately, for the safety of everyone else, these breeds have to go.

There are other dogs, you'll get over it. Ayen Chol's parents and family will never get over her senseless and needless death.

Kate | North Melbourne - December 07, 2011, 10:15AM

[melzawelza]

Mum to Emma, in that case I guess we need to get rid of every dog above knee height?

Both German Shepherds and Rottweilers have higher PSI bite strength than Pit Bulls. Ban them too? The comment is brainless and so is your support of it.

[Erny]

If 'they' stopped thinking about breed and instead made all people responsible for the actions of their dogs (regardless of breed) as they were going to in the first place, we'd be better off. Whilst people keep thinking 'breed', it draws the focus away from owner responsibility and education, IMO.

[Blonde_Phoenix]

I enjoyed this article, one of the first evenhanded accounts I’ve read.

Though it’s a moot argument because in six years no one will be attacked or killed by a dog in Victoria (my calculations Pit Bull life expectance 12 year, in 2005 all Pit Bulls desexed and no new ones brought into the state ) I can’t help but be deliberately facetious. Oh if only it was that simple.

Unfortunately as a breed the American Pit Bull really no longer exist (there may be a couple remaining, neutered and housed appropriately, darn responsible ownership) the legislation has seen to that. Only the ‘Pit Bull’ of media and political dreams remains.

Yes lets ban it! But ban what? Dogs which meet some point score? Sadly legislation for the most part only punishes the responsible. When that breed is not enough who next?

[frufru]

I don't think it is acceptable to say that Mum to Emma is brainless :mad She is entitled to express her view without ridicule.

Edited December 7, 2011 by frufru

[melzawelza]

I don't think it is acceptable to say that Mum to Emma is brainless :mad She is entitled to express her view without ridicule.

I didn't say she was brainless, I said that to support such a comment was brainless act. Reason being that all evidence, science and studies says otherwise. Supporting that comment is based on nothing but emotion and personal opinion, ignoring studies and evidence to the contrary.

[frufru]

If only it was that simple :laugh:

[mr.mister]

Fascinating, balanced article. Wish there were more like it.

Sadly, I can't see Victoria following Calgary's suit anytime soon.

[melzawelza]

If only it was that simple :laugh:

It is that simple I would think? Rottweilers and GSD both have higher PSI bite strength than Pit Bulls, and any breed the same size or larger could do the same amount of damage. The comment singled out pit bulls as doing more damage than other breeds when they attack and therefore they should be eliminated. It is not a valid or truthful viewpoint.

[Blonde_Phoenix]

In the comments section attached to The Age article, this one best sums it up:

Every dog has the ability to attack children and vulnerable adults if it is provoked or trained in a certain way- sure, but, physically, certain breeds have specific and particular jaw structures, builds, behavioural traits and strengths that mean the wounds inflicted differ drastically from one breed to the next.

This situation has gotten ridiculous and is now at a point where the public is sick of relying on certain owners doing the 'right thing'. There are just reckless, self-indulgent idiots out there who do not keep these dogs for the reasons the rest of us keep a pet, and they cannot be trusted, and for that reason, unfortunately, for the safety of everyone else, these breeds have to go.

There are other dogs, you'll get over it. Ayen Chol's parents and family will never get over her senseless and needless death.

Kate | North Melbourne - December 07, 2011, 10:15AM

I think it’s far too easy to dismiss views such as these as the rantings of the ill-informed, but I believe this does the debate a disservice. It needs to acknowledged that many in the community hold this view whether we agree with it or not (don’t believe me ask around).

Yes we can go and ban all ‘breeds’ who meet certain arbitrary criteria (appearance, height, weight, ‘jaw structure?’, temperament) which make them potential ‘killing machines’, but is/should that be the goal of the legislation? While perhaps if we all own small dogs an attack resulting in death will become unlikely (thankfully fatal dog attacks are a very rare occurrence, despite what some would like you to believe) but it will not prevent/eliminate dogs attacking, injuring, maiming, frightening and menacing human beings. So what then ban all dogs?

There are more factors than ‘breed’ to consider if we really want a solution not just a ‘feel good’ knee jerk reaction.

[german_shep_fan]

In the comments section attached to The Age article, this one best sums it up:

Every dog has the ability to attack children and vulnerable adults if it is provoked or trained in a certain way- sure, but, physically, certain breeds have specific and particular jaw structures, builds, behavioural traits and strengths that mean the wounds inflicted differ drastically from one breed to the next.

This situation has gotten ridiculous and is now at a point where the public is sick of relying on certain owners doing the 'right thing'. There are just reckless, self-indulgent idiots out there who do not keep these dogs for the reasons the rest of us keep a pet, and they cannot be trusted, and for that reason, unfortunately, for the safety of everyone else, these breeds have to go.

There are other dogs, you'll get over it. Ayen Chol's parents and family will never get over her senseless and needless death.

Kate | North Melbourne - December 07, 2011, 10:15AM

It is obvious from your numerous posts on this issue that you have issues with all dogs above knee height? I suppose if your small/toy breed of dog ever came under BSL for whatever reason you would change your tune and say that your dog is different from all the others in that breed of dog? There are good and bad in every breed and i WILL stand up to own the breed i have loved for 26 years whether you like them or not. The post you copied in which the person states "There are other dogs, you'll get over it" Im sure you wouldn't be so vindictive if it was your breed the public wanted banned. My dogs have never done anything wrong and they should not be punished or branded against purely for being born the breed they are.

Sorry everyone, just sick of feeling attacked everywhere lately, DOL is the one place where i used to feel ppl accepted ALL breeds of dog and didn't buy into media hype.

[Bug]

In the comments section attached to The Age article, this one best sums it up:

Every dog has the ability to attack children and vulnerable adults if it is provoked or trained in a certain way- sure, but, physically, certain breeds have specific and particular jaw structures, builds, behavioural traits and strengths that mean the wounds inflicted differ drastically from one breed to the next.

This situation has gotten ridiculous and is now at a point where the public is sick of relying on certain owners doing the 'right thing'. There are just reckless, self-indulgent idiots out there who do not keep these dogs for the reasons the rest of us keep a pet, and they cannot be trusted, and for that reason, unfortunately, for the safety of everyone else, these breeds have to go.

There are other dogs, you'll get over it. Ayen Chol's parents and family will never get over her senseless and needless death.

Kate | North Melbourne - December 07, 2011, 10:15AM

It is obvious from your numerous posts on this issue that you have issues with all dogs above knee height? I suppose if your small/toy breed of dog ever came under BSL for whatever reason you would change your tune and say that your dog is different from all the others in that breed of dog? There are good and bad in every breed and i WILL stand up to own the breed i have loved for 26 years whether you like them or not. The post you copied in which the person states "There are other dogs, you'll get over it" Im sure you wouldn't be so vindictive if it was your breed the public wanted banned. My dogs have never done anything wrong and they should not be punished or branded against purely for being born the breed they are.

Sorry everyone, just sick of feeling attacked everywhere lately, DOL is the one place where i used to feel ppl accepted ALL breeds of dog and didn't buy into media hype.

[Bug]

Breed specific legislation is not new in Australia. German Shepherds were banned from importation to Australia from the 1920s to the early 1970s. In some States it was illegal to own one. In others they had to be desexed. The hysteria began with them supposedly breeding with dingoes to breed super sheep killers but built up to them being the 'pitbull' of those times where everything that bit a person was a GSD according to the media. I recall one report where the police admitted that anything that was black and tan and over 22 inches high was a GSD! It was the persistent work of the GSD Council with the support of the late Don Chipp that got the legislation abolished.

Not so many years back Hugh Wirth advocated the banning of any breed over 22 inches (56cms) yet dogs under that height have been involved in fatal attacks in Victoria.

The death of Ayen Choi was horrific, as is the death of the other dozen or so victims of fatal dog bites over the years - inflicted by a variety of breeds/types and sizes.

Breed identification has ALWAYS been an issue, media influence has ALWAYS been an issue.Today the media has so many ways to continually influence public views - tv, talkback radio, print. It was the GSD, now it is the pitbull, tomorrow it may be your breed.

In most cases of fatal dogbites in Australia the dog/s did not kill their owner but a child or a visitor to the property or someone on the street. If the dogs were managed correctly by their owners these attacks may not have happened.

The only answer is to make people more accountable as owners and perhaps the threat of jail on manslaughter charges goes someway towards this. Make them more accountable and perhaps responsibility will follow.

[Sticky]

Sort of related, but a good read anyway (you can read Chap 1 for free).

Panic by David Marr

http://ebooks.readings.com.au/product/9781921870477

S

There is also an extract here:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/the-great-debate-that-no-ones-talking-about-20111203-1ocag.html

where he writes:

Lloyd replied: "Take News Limited out of the equation and you probably can talk about it fairly." He accused News Limited newspapers of being "the driving force behind moral panic in this country. Join with them commercial television: Channel Seven, Channel Nine and Channel Ten. I've worked at two of those places. They drive moral panic and the agenda they have is set by The Daily Telegraph and The Herald Sun in Melbourne. Take them out of the equation or stop listening to them – if politicians would stop listening to them – then we wouldn't have the moral panic we're talking about."

Edited December 9, 2011 by Sticky

[jacqui835]

In the comments section attached to The Age article, this one best sums it up:

Every dog has the ability to attack children and vulnerable adults if it is provoked or trained in a certain way- sure, but, physically, certain breeds have specific and particular jaw structures, builds, behavioural traits and strengths that mean the wounds inflicted differ drastically from one breed to the next.

This situation has gotten ridiculous and is now at a point where the public is sick of relying on certain owners doing the 'right thing'. There are just reckless, self-indulgent idiots out there who do not keep these dogs for the reasons the rest of us keep a pet, and they cannot be trusted, and for that reason, unfortunately, for the safety of everyone else, these breeds have to go.

There are other dogs, you'll get over it. Ayen Chol's parents and family will never get over her senseless and needless death.

Kate | North Melbourne - December 07, 2011, 10:15AM

So these breeds go. What's the stop these people (because you're acknowledging it's the people creating these weapons) from going out and buying another breed and raising it tough? My dog is known as the happy dog, who always has love to spare. But I know that raised differently he could have been trouble, and at 40+kg's, able to run at over 50km/hr and the biggest teeth we've seen on a dog (at my schutzhund dog club it's something they often talk about), well he could easily seriously injure if not kill someone. So what do we do? Ban each breed as they're chosen by irresponsible people who shouldn't own dogs? Or to be safer, just ban every dog that under any circumstances could be capable of seriously injuring a human? Like other people have said - every dog above knee height? But don't forget the lovely little daschund that castrated a newborn baby... And there was a case of a papillon managing to kill a doberman so really, what would we have left?

When everyone knows the problem is the people and not the dogs - (how else could we have therapy pitbulls etc), the only way that banning dog breeds could prevent all dog bites would be to ban all dog breeds.

[german_shep_fan]

Breed specific legislation is not new in Australia. German Shepherds were banned from importation to Australia from the 1920s to the early 1970s. In some States it was illegal to own one. In others they had to be desexed. The hysteria began with them supposedly breeding with dingoes to breed super sheep killers but built up to them being the 'pitbull' of those times where everything that bit a person was a GSD according to the media. I recall one report where the police admitted that anything that was black and tan and over 22 inches high was a GSD! It was the persistent work of the GSD Council with the support of the late Don Chipp that got the legislation abolished.

Not so many years back Hugh Wirth advocated the banning of any breed over 22 inches (56cms) yet dogs under that height have been involved in fatal attacks in Victoria.

The death of Ayen Choi was horrific, as is the death of the other dozen or so victims of fatal dog bites over the years - inflicted by a variety of breeds/types and sizes.

Breed identification has ALWAYS been an issue, media influence has ALWAYS been an issue.Today the media has so many ways to continually influence public views - tv, talkback radio, print. It was the GSD, now it is the pitbull, tomorrow it may be your breed.

In most cases of fatal dogbites in Australia the dog/s did not kill their owner but a child or a visitor to the property or someone on the street. If the dogs were managed correctly by their owners these attacks may not have happened.

The only answer is to make people more accountable as owners and perhaps the threat of jail on manslaughter charges goes someway towards this. Make them more accountable and perhaps responsibility will follow.

Yes i know the history of the GSD in Australia, thats why ppl like mum to emma don't help the cause, it is all too easy to just ban them again. I will not pay for someone else mistakes!