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

[Tapua]

'Take-away message: more control is required from owners . . . and breeders need to cull lines with temperament problems. There are some breed tendencies. But these are easily kept under control if owners and breeders were held to account.'Quote

Yep - totally agree - unfortunately its much easier to blame the dog than to hold the humans involved in creating the situation be they breeder or owner accountable.

[Guest donatella]

Er Donatella, I think you will find that Jacqui835 is being facetious. Maybe take a deep breath......

But thanks for choosing to bring up stats about another breed to take the 'spotlight' off yours :rolleyes: Very constructive.

Making a point that you could just about chose any breed that's attacked a person at some stage. Lets put them all on the dangerous list.

[Rebanne]

Er Donatella, I think you will find that Jacqui835 is being facetious. Maybe take a deep breath......

But thanks for choosing to bring up stats about another breed to take the 'spotlight' off yours :rolleyes: Very constructive.

[Keira&Phoenix]

Er Donatella, I think you will find that Jacqui835 is being facetious. Maybe take a deep breath......

But thanks for choosing to bring up stats about another breed to take the 'spotlight' off yours :rolleyes: Very constructive.

:thumbsup:

[Blonde_Phoenix]

Er Donatella, I think you will find that Jacqui835 is being facetious. Maybe take a deep breath......

But thanks for choosing to bring up stats about another breed to take the 'spotlight' off yours :rolleyes: Very constructive.

:thumbsup:

I’m feeling a little sorry for Donatella here, as factious as Jacqui835 comments were apparently intended to be, weren’t they just another example of breed mudslinging?

Yes pointing fingers at different breeds is not constructive and I’d even go as far as to say it’s counterproductive. Yet we continue to engage in it, despite the fact most of us believe ‘breed’ has very little influence on whether a dog will attack.

No wonder we are going backwards with regards to BSL.

[P.W.]

To me ban the deed not the breed would mean make legislation that is aimed at stoping certain deeds weather caused by owners or individual dogs not focusing on breeds. What it means to others may vary.

While rangers and council resources are focusing on dogs of a type, of which the very majority will never bite or attack any thing those who are truly the problem will be thumbing their nose at the laws or if need be changing breeds, lets hope it’s not yours or mine! What’s this law doing to protect us from all other attacks That’s right its only pit bulls that cause serious attacks we are all safe now? BSL has never worked in any country so why will it work here? Serious question my tax is paying for it, I want my kids safe too?

People state things like certain breeds are more likely to do damage when they attack then others, yes but there is no evidence linking it to a breed more to size of the dog, and its upbringing, aggression can be highlighted in all breeds weather it be intentional or otherwise.

It seems since the bans attacks have stoped how often do we see them on TV? Why are attacks that are very sever from one breed news worthy while when from another not? It seems many people here still take their knowledge base of this subject with a healthy slice of media brain washing instead of looking at actual facts from here and around the world.

The German approach to BSL has merit I must admit, and if we go that bit further and ban everything over 10kg it will certainly cut down on attack severity fact. Why not go for this approach if we are truly serious about using this method I believe it will work? However there have been fatal attacks twice in the USA by Pomeranians on infants, how is this possible that an owner would leave an infant alone with a dog, that’s right they weren’t pit bulls they were safe, maybe its lack of education, no parent you would hope would be so deliberately dumb, but some do make you wonder? Had these dogs shown signs of aggression before, who is at fault, why can that person get another dog, with the Australian system no one would ever know?

When people state pit bulls do more damage when they attack, what evidence are they relying on? Media brain washing, selective sensational reporting perhaps, which is totally misleading and with out any credible basis? If not please educate me?

In the USA government and other bodies have gathered unbiased evidence relating to bite severity and pit bulls are appear no less or more likely to cause serious injuries then other dogs of a similar size. Further more if any one here has evidence of any kind stating when a pit bull attacks it always does massive damage I would like to see it?

If the death of one person deserves the banning of an entire breed, why do we not hold the same standard to all breeds, or types involved in DBRFs? Why not ban all mastiff types too it was stated to be ½ mastiff? Or would it be better to look deeper into the incident and see how and why the attack happened, investigate it like it should be. What are we learning from this approach?

Why not licence all owners, set conditions, have rangers check fencing requirements, and make owners sit an exam to prove their knowledge and reasons for owning a dog, prior to registration, why not use the media to educate people about dogs and signs of aggression and what to do about them and thats its a serious issue and that its the right thing to PTS in some cases for the whole community, how to train a dog maybe? This could also help with people who think dogs are disposiable and clean up some welfair issues, Why not have hot lines to dob in all dangerous dogs not breeds? Have rangers looking at all dogs and if they appear aggressive, declare them dangerous regardless of breed? Why not remove the licence through a point system, then rangers could break the cycle? No rego no dog! Why not thoroughly investigate ALL serious attacks, looking to see what led to the attack, questioning neighbours and friends of the owners family about the dogs known behaviour, why not evaluate the temperament of the dog after the incident and if warranted charging the owner with serious consequences & removing their licence then reporting it in the media using them for education showing graphic pics to make people think? Ge we do it with smoking and the fatal 5?

Thats right i forgot this would not appear popular at first to many in the public, jumping on the hyped up band wagen gets votes for the short term, this period is ending, failed legislation should cost votes, as dog owners what side of the fence do you sit on?

Edited December 14, 2011 by P.W.

[sandgrubber]

While rangers and council resources are focusing on dogs of a type

Not all rangers, not all councils, some of them are just trying to weather the stupidity of state politicians.

The German approach to BSL has merit I must admit,

Huh? see http://www.staffordmall.com/bsl-germany.htm

Country: GERMANY

BSL: active and enforced.

BSL Details: various limits on state level, such strictly prohibiting several breeds (as in Bavaria) or muzzle and leash bans plus mandatory neutering and breeding prohibitions (Lower-Saxony and most others).

Country-wide: laws prohibiting the import, breeding and unlicensed ownership of 4 breeds (APBT, AST, SBT and BT); random searching of property of owners of said breeds without search warrants; threat of prison sentences for unlicensed ownership of these breeds; licensing process entirely undisclosed; dozens of lawsuits on state and federal level pending.

When people state pit bulls do more damage when they attack, what evidence are they relying on? Media brain washing, selective sensational reporting perhaps, which is totally misleading and with out any credible basis? If not please educate me?

It's hard to find objective data, but I don't think you can blame the media entirely.

Pitbulls do to have special problems in parts of the US, the worst of which seems to be attracting idiot owners . . . and being abandoned in huge numbers. If other breeds were subject to equal poor control, poor training, and deliberate breeding of the more macho dogs, I'm sure the data on other breeds would look as bad as that on pit bulls. http://www.muttshack.org/MuttShack_news-pitbull.htm. [an organization that promotes rehoming and desexing of pit bulls in LA] Quote from that source:

Owning a "Pit Bull" gives their guardians a badge of bravado. These dogs are considered to be "macho" and therefore many owners don't want to neuter and spay them resulting in many unplanned and accidental litters. Consequently, they are also the leading breed and breed mix in Los Angeles shelters.

According to the Villalobos Pit Bull Rescue, the fallout is devastating. According to them the pit bull population in the combined twelve shelters (six city shelters and six county shelters in Los Angeles) has now risen to 40% of all the dogs in shelters.

They say, "Approximately 10 pit bulls are brought in each day to each shelter. That's 120 pit bulls a day. Most are strays, tossed out like dirty laundry." They calculate, "At the end of a week the total comes to 840 pit bulls. Then, according to Animal Control records, only about 2 pit bulls a week get adopted. That means 838 pit bulls a week, die in local shelters." Villabos Pit Bull Rescue.

[klink]

To me ban the deed not the breed would mean make legislation that is aimed at stoping certain deeds weather caused by owners or individual dogs not focusing on breeds. What it means to others may vary.

While rangers and council resources are focusing on dogs of a type, of which the very majority will never bite or attack any thing those who are truly the problem will be thumbing their nose at the laws or if need be changing breeds, lets hope it’s not yours or mine! What’s this law doing to protect us from all other attacks That’s right its only pit bulls that cause serious attacks we are all safe now? BSL has never worked in any country so why will it work here? Serious question my tax is paying for it, I want my kids safe too?

People state things like certain breeds are more likely to do damage when they attack then others, yes but there is no evidence linking it to a breed more to size of the dog, and its upbringing, aggression can be highlighted in all breeds weather it be intentional or otherwise.

It seems since the bans attacks have stoped how often do we see them on TV? Why are attacks that are very sever from one breed news worthy while when from another not? It seems many people here still take their knowledge base of this subject with a healthy slice of media brain washing instead of looking at actual facts from here and around the world.

The German approach to BSL has merit I must admit, and if we go that bit further and ban everything over 10kg it will certainly cut down on attack severity fact. Why not go for this approach if we are truly serious about using this method I believe it will work? However there have been fatal attacks twice in the USA by Pomeranians on infants, how is this possible that an owner would leave an infant alone with a dog, that’s right they weren’t pit bulls they were safe, maybe its lack of education, no parent you would hope would be so deliberately dumb, but some do make you wonder? Had these dogs shown signs of aggression before, who is at fault, why can that person get another dog, with the Australian system no one would ever know?

When people state pit bulls do more damage when they attack, what evidence are they relying on? Media brain washing, selective sensational reporting perhaps, which is totally misleading and with out any credible basis? If not please educate me?

In the USA government and other bodies have gathered unbiased evidence relating to bite severity and pit bulls are appear no less or more likely to cause serious injuries then other dogs of a similar size. Further more if any one here has evidence of any kind stating when a pit bull attacks it always does massive damage I would like to see it?

If the death of one person deserves the banning of an entire breed, why do we not hold the same standard to all breeds, or types involved in DBRFs? Why not ban all mastiff types too it was stated to be ½ mastiff? Or would it be better to look deeper into the incident and see how and why the attack happened, investigate it like it should be. What are we learning from this approach?

Why not licence all owners, set conditions, have rangers check fencing requirements, and make owners sit an exam to prove their knowledge and reasons for owning a dog, prior to registration, why not use the media to educate people about dogs and signs of aggression and what to do about them and thats its a serious issue and that its the right thing to PTS in some cases for the whole community, how to train a dog maybe? This could also help with people who think dogs are disposiable and clean up some welfair issues, Why not have hot lines to dob in all dangerous dogs not breeds? Have rangers looking at all dogs and if they appear aggressive, declare them dangerous regardless of breed? Why not remove the licence through a point system, then rangers could break the cycle? No rego no dog! Why not thoroughly investigate ALL serious attacks, looking to see what led to the attack, questioning neighbours and friends of the owners family about the dogs known behaviour, why not evaluate the temperament of the dog after the incident and if warranted charging the owner with serious consequences & removing their licence then reporting it in the media using them for education showing graphic pics to make people think? Ge we do it with smoking and the fatal 5?

Thats right i forgot this would not appear popular at first to many in the public, jumping on the hyped up band wagen gets votes for the short term, this period is ending, failed legislation should cost votes, as dog owners what side of the fence do you sit on?

PW, I could not agree more with your comments, some time ago I posted the suggestion of the requirement to obtain a licence to own/purchase a dog. I also feel that like the current firearms laws we require a 14 day cooling off period prior to purchase during which time councils etc. carry out a property inspection to verify confinement arrangements. This in my view would certainly stop the impulse buying (for little johnnies sake ) and give some time to prepare for the dogs arrival if you proceed with the purchase. I think also that the licence is issued ONLY for the property declared to be the expected residence of the dog, and thus avoid phony addresses. I am aware that some of these proposals will raise a few eye brows but so be it if we are going to minimise the spate of incidences involving dogs.

[jacqui835]

Er Donatella, I think you will find that Jacqui835 is being facetious. Maybe take a deep breath......

But thanks for choosing to bring up stats about another breed to take the 'spotlight' off yours :rolleyes: Very constructive.

I certainly wasn't looking to make a warning list of breeds to watch out for, I was trying to make the point that any breed is capable of doing damage - and so to address the problem we would be better off trying to tackle the other factors involved - ie owner responsiblity and awareness.

I don't believe there's anything to be gained from targeting or banning any particular breed, not pomeranians, not dobermans and not pittbulls.

[jacqui835]

My original comment was in response to someone saying they supported the idea of banning pitbulls and just getting on with life, like just giving up and expecting no reprecussions: "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."

I then posted comments about other breeds causing problems to demonstrate that should they attract the wrong sort of owners, they too could end up the targets of BSL (ie there was nothing about their breed that would protect them and make them immune).

[P.W.]

Laws differ in Germany's 16 states, but in Hesse, Lower Saxony, and North Rhine - Westphalia, they contain some version of the following provisions:

Category I dogs- dangerous breeds that cannot be imported, bred, or sold - includes the American Staffordshire Terrier, Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, Neapolitan Mastiff, Spanish Mastiff, Dogue de Bordeaux, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasiliero, Roman Fighting Dog , Chinese Fighting Dog, Bandog, and Tosa Inu. These dogs must be registered and sterilized.

Category II dogs - potentially dangerous dogs that can be owned, imported, bred, and sold if they pass a temperament test and are free of aggressive actions for three years - include Akbash, Briard, Beauceron, Bullmastiff, Doberman, Komondor, Kuvasz, Maremma, Pyrenean Mountain Dog and more. There are also parts where there is weight restrictions putting dogs into this second category except the GSD.

It is only logical that if you ban and restrict enough breeds and heavily enforce this then there will be some reduction in attacks. It would though take the total removal of dogs from society to stop dog attacks. Like driving cars, while we have cars on the road people will be injured and killed every year, but we must work on reducing these through education, proper driver training and strict police enforcement. Also swimming pools, many more children are killed and severely injured from these every year then from dogs. People do not need high powered cars capable of going far in excess of the speed limit but choose to, most never drive them like a hoon, that’s why legislation is based to selectively punish hoons not all of us.

There are many states in the USA and other countries that have produced in depth articles relating to all attacks, with mandatory reporting in the likes we see here for child abuse in hospitals, relating to population numbers and severity of attacks. Some of this used to be on the EDBA website I also helped produce a CD containing a lot of this information, none stated any thing in line with the media about if a pit bull attacks it will always be a brutal attack and that they show no warnings and never involved in minor attacks, this is a media nonsense. The majority of reported pit bull attacks were very minor, like all the breeds, which draws one to wonder why such a few are so violent and their owners claiming it has never shown this behaviour before? Would this be to draw attention away from their own failings, who knows as here we have BSL and don’t look past the attack and blame the breed every time ANY breed is in the media.

Irresponsible owners choose breeds based on what they see in the media fact, in the 70s it was the bully the 80s the rottie the 90s the pit bull, now we are all safe if one uses the media as a place for such a knowledge base. In time the media and owners will change to another breed / type. The media have a lot to answer to for not following a code of conduct and reporting unbiased material in an informative manner, instead they have misled the public and hence the vote grabbing politicians into enacting flawed useless legislation, and drawn all attention away from irresponsible owners, then acting as if there are no serious attacks happening, problem fixed, nice one!

One would be naive or silly to believe that pro BSL anti dog people and groups and those in the media believe this, as they are obviously not morons, if one wants to get the ball rolling they must start somewhere and that’s with the easiest breeds to misrepresent, and ones with no proper organisation to represent them. Why isn’t the legislation limited to these breeds but left with scope so any breed can easily be added?

Over time with the current trend and public brainwashing, if nothing is done to change this mindset other breeds will be added fact. If you think this is impossible it mabe today, but in the 70s & 80s you said one day there will be a ban on guns and same sex marriage will happen you would have been laughed at! Time to start thinking out side the box dog people, and pop the ANKC bubble!

[sandgrubber]

Laws differ in Germany's 16 states, but in Hesse, Lower Saxony, and North Rhine - Westphalia, they contain some version of the following provisions:

. . .

Sorry . . . I hadn't realised you were saying multi-breed and multi-layered BSL had merit.

Regarding bites/fatalities, please provided sources. I have looked and I repeatedly find US stats say the APBT is responsible for a disproportionate number of fatal attacks. . . .most sources put the figures above 20% and come up with a majority of dog fatalities if you consider the top five or six breeds. Note, in many US statistics, 'pit bull' includes APBT, SBT, ASBT, and sometimes bulldog. Crosses generally get lumped in as well. Reports of pit bull fatalities go way back. See, eg., http://www.dogsbite....-historical.php .

The undeniable pitbull problem in the US is a problem of numbers. Do look at http://www.muttshack...ws-pitbull.htm... or other pit bull advocacy sites (eg,, http://www.pitbullad...om/NotBreed.php). All are saying 'shelters are full, pit bulls are being pts'd in huge numbers, please adopt, please neuter, please don't breed'. Here's from pitbulladvocate101.com

Did you know that "Pit Bulls" are currently the number one bred dog in the United States? Ironically, they are also one of the hardest breeds to find homes. It is estimated that there is a current average of 3 million "Pit Bulls" living in the United States and only 1 in 600 will successfully find a "forever" home. Sadly, for every 1 "Pit Bull" placed in a loving home there are 599 killed. Shockingly, that statistic unfortunately does not exclude puppies!

I have not been able to find any breed statistics for Australian pounds and shelters. It would be interesting to know if SBTs and various bull breed crosses are a dominant feature of shelters, especially the dogs who don't get rehomed.

Edited December 15, 2011 by sandgrubber