What Constitutes A "pit Bull Terrier"

[GABBA]

Hi I am not one to often talk about BSL and restricted breeds but after doing some reading I do have a question. I have read that "Pit bull terriers and American Pit Bull Terriers" are prohibited in Australia.

I'd like to know, what is a "Pit bull terrier"? I types it into Google and got a whole range of dogs, including the American Pit Bull, AMSTAFF (not banned), Bull Terrier (not banned).

So what are they actually banning? Just the APBT or...?

Thanks.

[Dame Aussie]

They are banning the American Pit Bull Terrier, and now have extended that to Pit Bull types, which means if you have an Amstaff without papers and they decide it's a pit bull type, you're in trouble.

[ruthless]

They are banning the American Pit Bull Terrier, and now have extended that to Pit Bull types, which means if you have an Amstaff without papers and they decide it's a pit bull type, you're in trouble.

In VIC

[Jade~Harley~Bella]

Hi I am not one to often talk about BSL and restricted breeds but after doing some reading I do have a question. I have read that "Pit bull terriers and American Pit Bull Terriers" are prohibited in Australia.

I'd like to know, what is a "Pit bull terrier"? I types it into Google and got a whole range of dogs, including the American Pit Bull, AMSTAFF (not banned), Bull Terrier (not banned).

So what are they actually banning? Just the APBT or...?

Thanks.

They aren't prohibited in Australia, they are just a restricted breed. You are still allowed to own one in the NT and ACT and depending on what council you live in they are either banned or not... meaning they won't register it and if you are found to have one you can either fight them in court to prove it is not one or the dog gets PTS regardless of whether its the friendliest dog in the world or an aggressive one.

Pit Bull is a blanket term used to describe any muscular looking dog generally by people that have no idea what a American Pit Bull Terrier actually looks like. Could be anything an APBT, AmStaff, Boxer x lab... really you are screwed unless you have papers proving its pedigree - in there eyes if it looks the part it is.

In QLD there are laws stating an AmStaff can not be an APBT and vice versa so the laws aren't as harsh as they are in other states like Victoria. Considering the APBT isn't actually an official breed in Australia they are really just condemning every dog that fits the "standard".

Edited March 8, 2012 by Jade~Harley~Bella

[WreckitWhippet]

They are banning the American Pit Bull Terrier, and now have extended that to Pit Bull types, which means if you have an Amstaff without papers and they decide it's a pit bull type, you're in trouble.

In VIC

and NSW

any dog without ANKC papers, that comes under scrutiny, can be declared a restricted breed, unless the owner can satisfactorily prove otherwise.

[Keira&Phoenix]

Hi I am not one to often talk about BSL and restricted breeds but after doing some reading I do have a question. I have read that "Pit bull terriers and American Pit Bull Terriers" are prohibited in Australia.

I'd like to know, what is a "Pit bull terrier"? I types it into Google and got a whole range of dogs, including the American Pit Bull, AMSTAFF (not banned), Bull Terrier (not banned).

So what are they actually banning? Just the APBT or...?

Thanks.

They aren't prohibited in Australia, they are just a restricted breed. You are still allowed to own one in the NT and ACT and depending on what council you live in they are either banned or not... meaning they won't register it and if you are found to have one you can either fight them in court to prove it is not one or the dog gets PTS regardless of whether its the friendliest dog in the world or an aggressive one.

Pit Bull is a blanket term used to describe any muscular looking dog generally by people that have no idea what a American Pit Bull Terrier actually looks like. Could be anything an APBT, AmStaff, Boxer x lab... really you are screwed unless you have papers proving its pedigree - in there eyes if it looks the part it is.

In QLD there are laws stating an AmStaff can not be an APBT and vice versa so the laws aren't as harsh as they are in other states like Victoria. Considering the APBT isn't actually an official breed in Australia they are really just condemning every dog that fits the "standard".

Just to add to this.

In Qld our legislation also states a xbreed is not included in a breed. So if you have a PB x officially it is legal, and seeing as we dont recognise APBT in Australia all APBT are xbreeds.bur councils try to take a harsher approach even though I dont think its legal for them too and we have had enough court cases in Qld now thatcouncils think twice before doing anything.

There is a customs ban on them ie: you cant import them into the country but that is not a blanket ban on having them.

Essentially each State is a little different and you would need to look at Legislation in each state. Bull terriers and Amstaffs (papered) are fine.

[PooMother]

Where can I find this information for qld please? Daughter has a Dane x and council visited her to tell her they are investigating her pitbull wandering the street attacking people.....no prizes that the neighbor complained as she has done for the previous 3 tenants dogs. Mind oh she has 3 dogs herself that how the,selves at the fence when my grandies are outside playing but that's a whole other story

[YOLO]

The stupid thing is that the term “pit bull” originally referred to any dogs (of a variety of breeds) that were bred (or crossbred) and trained explicitly for the purpose of dog-fighting or similar abominations.

The abolition of such horrors and therefore of dogs bred and trained for that purpose is long overdue.

Unfortunately the name also attached to dogs from the same lineage that were recognised for their other qualities, and the so now the vast majority of “pit bulls” are not bred or trained for such horrific purposes.

There are some that are working dogs, and many that are loyal loving family pets. (Not a good choice for small children, but fine for responsible adults.)

Are they inherently more dangerous than other breeds? Well yes, in the way a carving knife is inherently more dangerous than a butter knife.

You can breed and train a variety of dogs to be nasty and vicious, so again the control needs to be on the people not on the dogs.

And putting the determination in the hands of council rangers is nonsense.

[ricey]

The stupid thing is that the term “pit bull” originally referred to any dogs (of a variety of breeds) that were bred (or crossbred) and trained explicitly for the purpose of dog-fighting or similar abominations.

The abolition of such horrors and therefore of dogs bred and trained for that purpose is long overdue.

Unfortunately the name also attached to dogs from the same lineage that were recognised for their other qualities, and the so now the vast majority of “pit bulls” are not bred or trained for such horrific purposes.

There are some that are working dogs, and many that are loyal loving family pets. (Not a good choice for small children, but fine for responsible adults.)

Are they inherently more dangerous than other breeds? Well yes, in the way a carving knife is inherently more dangerous than a butter knife.

You can breed and train a variety of dogs to be nasty and vicious, so again the control needs to be on the people not on the dogs.

And putting the determination in the hands of council rangers is nonsense.

Yes, but even at the height of dog fighting in the late 19th and early 20th century in the United States, it was estimated that around 1% or less of American Pit Bull Terriers were actively matched and fought in the pits.

So, the overwhelming majority were never used as fighting dogs, but this is what they are remembered for. Similarly, a tiny percentage of Dobermanns were used as concentration camp guard dogs but this is what they are remembered for.

The thing is, you can train any intelligent dog to do what the human wants it to do. Is this a problem with the dog, or a problem with the human?

I'd make a strong case for the problem with any problem dog being actually a problem with the human involved.

However, going back to the questions posted by the original poster (Gabba; what is a pit bull terrier, and what are they actually banning?), here's my response:

A pit bull terrier should really mean an American Pit Bull Terrier as the APBT was the most successful breed of dog in pit fights. However, as Big D points out there was a variety of different dog breeds and mongrels used as fighting dogs in the dog pits. In the US of A, the term 'pit bull' can mean any of these breeds- APBT, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, Boston Terrier (I kid you not!), Miniature Bull Terrier (again, no kidding!) or any dog with a big head and a solid build. Even the asthmatic and physically challenged "British Bull Dog" can be considered a 'pit bull type' dog in the US.

So, the definition of what constitutes a 'pit bull' in the US is both broad and vague. Here in Australia, the story is similar but has some major differences. The American Staffordshire Terrier which is directly and solely descended from pure bred American Pit Bull Terriers (no other breed has ever contributed to the AST's gene pool) is not considered to be a pit bull legally. So, the AST has been bred solely from APBTs but somehow it is not an APBT? How can that be? All AST's are APBT's (but not all APBT's are AST's). The AST is a sub-set of the APBT.

As to the question 'what are they banning?;, well, that depends on what state or territory you live in, and whether the ranger you are dealing with is a nice person or a nazi gestapo sh*t bag.

In those states that allow council rangers to determine the breed of your dog just by looking at it (i.e. Queensland, Victoria, & New South Wales) you are stuffed if the ranger does not like you or your dog. In more enlightened territories such as the ACT or the NT you won't have these problems and can happily own American Pit Bull Terriers. Even here in WA, you are safe because council rangers do not have the power to determine the breed of your dog. Only the Chief Veterinary Officer of WA has that power, and he has stated categorically that he will never exercise that power. So you could register your great dane as a chinese crested here in WA and no one will be legally allowed to dispute that.

Here in WA you could safely and legally register your red nose red boy APBT as a lab/staffy cross and you'd be safe.

I do not want dangerous dogs in my neighbourhood and I don't want anyone to think that I am condoning ownership of dangerous dogs. I do not think that the overwhelming majority of American Pit Bull Terriers are dangerous dogs. A few individual APBT's are dangerous and should be put down. The same can be said of a few Labs and a few kelpies or any other dog breed. Continuing to define dangerous dogs by their breed will not actually do anything to reduce the problems caused by individual dogs that actually are dangerous.

I have three dogs; a shih tsu/maltese/silky cross, a cream kelpie/corgi/lab/dingo/ferret cross (I'm not kidding; I'll post a photo and you'll be able to see all that in her), and Hobbes, my 12 year old gentleman giant of an American Pit Bull Terrier. Hobbes the pit bull is the only one of my dogs that I'll let my 7 year old old grandson play with. The APBT was once referred to as the 'nanny dog'; the dog that it was safe to let your children play with. Me, I am not about to let any child play unsupervised with any of my dogs (you never know what the nasty little child will do to your dog), but at least I am relatively certain that Hobbes won't bite your little darling if they poke him in the eye.

Really, the APBT is the most versatile and best of dogs. The APBT has excelled at search and rescue, drug detection, service, agility, weight pull, obediance and has an exemplary record for its temperament. It is sad that this champion breed has been vilified and denigrated by the tabloid press. It does not deserve this; all the APBT has done is exactly what its sometimes questionable owners have asked it to do.

Cheers,

ricey

[Santo66]

you can train any intelligent dog to do what the human wants it to do.

People continally say this in regard to training dogs to be aggressive and bite which really couldn't be further from the truth. Unless an individual dog is genetically equipped to do so, at best you may get most dogs to bite if cornered and abused perhaps, but the ability to be actively aggressive is in the dogs genetics.

Where professional training of biting/attacking dogs is active, police, security, armed forces etc, a large proportion of individual dogs of breeds renowned for successfully training in these disciplines will not attack/bite people and consequently fail in that role, even dogs who are trained to bite sleeves and suits worn by people, many are biting/attacking in prey drive for reward of the equipment (tug toy) and will not bite/attack people without the equipment being worn regardless of the training to do otherwise. The German Shepherd is the most commonly used breed globally for professional biting/attacking working roles which is said to be only aorund 1% of the breed in general is genetically capable of being trained in such a role?

With that said in relation to Pit Bulls, yobbo's are often blamed for Pit Bull aggression by raising/training dogs to show aggression and ultimately bite, but the question is: Why are the yobbo's using Pit Bulls and not GSD and Rottweillers etc to create dangerous dogs? It's often said by anti BSL activists that the yobbos at breed ban will move onto something else on the basis that "any" dog can be trained to be dangerous?. The next question: How are the yobbos going to train just any dog or breed to fullfil a role that professional trainers can't achieve with the wrong dogs and breeds?

Is the Pit Bull type of dog easier genetically for the yobbo to extract aggression from, than other breeds, are they an easier dog to make dangerous? I don't know the answer to that from a BSL perspective, but is it to do with genetic capability to attack/bite being greater than other breeds being a reason for restriction?

Edited March 6, 2013 by Santo66

[korbin13]

you can train any intelligent dog to do what the human wants it to do.

People continally say this in regard to training dogs to be aggressive and bite which really couldn't be further from the truth. Unless an individual dog is genetically equipped to do so, at best you may get most dogs to bite if cornered and abused perhaps, but the ability to be actively aggressive is in the dogs genetics.

Where professional training of biting/attacking dogs is active, police, security, armed forces etc, a large proportion of individual dogs of breeds renowned for successfully training in these disciplines will not attack/bite people and consequently fail in that role, even dogs who are trained to bite sleeves and suits worn by people, many are biting/attacking in prey drive for reward of the equipment (tug toy) and will not bite/attack people without the equipment being worn regardless of the training to do otherwise. The German Shepherd is the most commonly used breed globally for professional biting/attacking working roles which is said to be only aorund 1% of the breed in general is genetically capable of being trained in such a role?

With that said in relation to Pit Bulls, yobbo's are often blamed for Pit Bull aggression by raising/training dogs to show aggression and ultimately bite, but the question is: Why are the yobbo's using Pit Bulls and not GSD and Rottweillers etc to create dangerous dogs? It's often said by anti BSL activists that the yobbos at breed ban will move onto something else on the basis that "any" dog can be trained to be dangerous?. The next question: How are the yobbos going to train just any dog or breed to fullfil a role that professional trainers can't achieve with the wrong dogs and breeds?

Is the Pit Bull type of dog easier genetically for the yobbo to extract aggression from, than other breeds, are they an easier dog to make dangerous? I don't know the answer to that from a BSL perspective, but is it to do with genetic capability to attack/bite being greater than other breeds being a reason for restriction?

Professional dog trainers aren't training for uncontrolled aggression. And personally I don't think many 'yobbos' go out of their way to train their dogs to be aggressive and most of the dogs aren't. And most of them are heinz variety mutts.

I was a teenager in the 80's, Rottweilers, GSD's and Bull Terriers were very popular dogs and with that went all the same 'issues' we have today with 'pitbulls'. Nothing changes if people don't follow the laws (containment, leash and registration laws).

[melzawelza]

you can train any intelligent dog to do what the human wants it to do.

People continally say this in regard to training dogs to be aggressive and bite which really couldn't be further from the truth. Unless an individual dog is genetically equipped to do so, at best you may get most dogs to bite if cornered and abused perhaps, but the ability to be actively aggressive is in the dogs genetics.

Where professional training of biting/attacking dogs is active, police, security, armed forces etc, a large proportion of individual dogs of breeds renowned for successfully training in these disciplines will not attack/bite people and consequently fail in that role, even dogs who are trained to bite sleeves and suits worn by people, many are biting/attacking in prey drive for reward of the equipment (tug toy) and will not bite/attack people without the equipment being worn regardless of the training to do otherwise. The German Shepherd is the most commonly used breed globally for professional biting/attacking working roles which is said to be only aorund 1% of the breed in general is genetically capable of being trained in such a role?

With that said in relation to Pit Bulls, yobbo's are often blamed for Pit Bull aggression by raising/training dogs to show aggression and ultimately bite, but the question is: Why are the yobbo's using Pit Bulls and not GSD and Rottweillers etc to create dangerous dogs? It's often said by anti BSL activists that the yobbos at breed ban will move onto something else on the basis that "any" dog can be trained to be dangerous?. The next question: How are the yobbos going to train just any dog or breed to fullfil a role that professional trainers can't achieve with the wrong dogs and breeds?

Is the Pit Bull type of dog easier genetically for the yobbo to extract aggression from, than other breeds, are they an easier dog to make dangerous? I don't know the answer to that from a BSL perspective, but is it to do with genetic capability to attack/bite being greater than other breeds being a reason for restriction?

M-sass

[YOLO]

Is the Pit Bull type of dog easier genetically for the yobbo to extract aggression from, than other breeds, are they an easier dog to make dangerous? I don't know the answer to that from a BSL perspective, but is it to do with genetic capability to attack/bite being greater than other breeds being a reason for restriction?

Dogs can be (and some are) bred to promote aggressive tendencies. Let’s not forget that many cute white fluffies were originally bred as ratters and with irresponsible breeding some of those aggressive tendencies can re-emerge. Failure to properly socialise and train dogs can also reinforce these negative tendencies.

Unfortunately, what most responsible owners don’t want to acknowledge, is that there are far too many morons out there who actively seek dangerous and aggressive dogs. Just do a Google search and you will find plenty of nuts asking questions like “I want to get a dog that will rip the nuts of anyone that comes through my front door, and won’t be put down by a few gunshots, should I get a pit-bull or a Rottweiler or what?”

As usual it is these jerks and their dogs that give the breed a bad name.

The difference I suppose is this:

If an irresponsible owner buys a “white fluffy” from a bad BYB, and doesn’t train and socialise the dog properly, they may end up with a psychotic little nutter that will bite someone, and which they will end up dumping at the pound.

If an irresponsible owner buys a “pit bull” from a bad BYB, and doesn’t train and socialise the dog properly, they may end up with a psychotic nutter that will savage someone, possibly fatally.

[GeckoTree]

Far out if the morons seeking the little pities get over the hype thats been built on them, and actually seek out man stoppers something far worse than the BSL will come about.

[melzawelza]

Is the Pit Bull type of dog easier genetically for the yobbo to extract aggression from, than other breeds, are they an easier dog to make dangerous? I don't know the answer to that from a BSL perspective, but is it to do with genetic capability to attack/bite being greater than other breeds being a reason for restriction?

Dogs can be (and some are) bred to promote aggressive tendencies. Let’s not forget that many cute white fluffies were originally bred as ratters and with irresponsible breeding some of those aggressive tendencies can re-emerge. Failure to properly socialise and train dogs can also reinforce these negative tendencies.

Unfortunately, what most responsible owners don’t want to acknowledge, is that there are far too many morons out there who actively seek dangerous and aggressive dogs. Just do a Google search and you will find plenty of nuts asking questions like “I want to get a dog that will rip the nuts of anyone that comes through my front door, and won’t be put down by a few gunshots, should I get a pit-bull or a Rottweiler or what?”

As usual it is these jerks and their dogs that give the breed a bad name.

The difference I suppose is this:

If an irresponsible owner buys a “white fluffy” from a bad BYB, and doesn’t train and socialise the dog properly, they may end up with a psychotic little nutter that will bite someone, and which they will end up dumping at the pound.

If an irresponsible owner buys a “pit bull” from a bad BYB, and doesn’t train and socialise the dog properly, they may end up with a psychotic nutter that will savage someone, possibly fatally.

So the solution to your problem is to ban every dog over about 10kg right? Because any dog over 10kg that hasn't been trained or socialised properly has the potential to savage someone, possibly fatally.

The other point you are forgetting is that banning breeds doesn't eliminate them, it creates a DEMAND on the black market for that specific demographic you mention, making the problem much worse. Anecdotally it seems that in NSW there are more pit bull type dogs around now than there were prior to the legislation coming in, and certainly pups of unknown heritage are fetching $1000+ when prior to the legislation they would have been worth a few hundred bucks at most.

[YOLO]

Is the Pit Bull type of dog easier genetically for the yobbo to extract aggression from, than other breeds, are they an easier dog to make dangerous? I don't know the answer to that from a BSL perspective, but is it to do with genetic capability to attack/bite being greater than other breeds being a reason for restriction?

Dogs can be (and some are) bred to promote aggressive tendencies. Let’s not forget that many cute white fluffies were originally bred as ratters and with irresponsible breeding some of those aggressive tendencies can re-emerge. Failure to properly socialise and train dogs can also reinforce these negative tendencies.

Unfortunately, what most responsible owners don’t want to acknowledge, is that there are far too many morons out there who actively seek dangerous and aggressive dogs. Just do a Google search and you will find plenty of nuts asking questions like “I want to get a dog that will rip the nuts of anyone that comes through my front door, and won’t be put down by a few gunshots, should I get a pit-bull or a Rottweiler or what?”

As usual it is these jerks and their dogs that give the breed a bad name.

The difference I suppose is this:

If an irresponsible owner buys a “white fluffy” from a bad BYB, and doesn’t train and socialise the dog properly, they may end up with a psychotic little nutter that will bite someone, and which they will end up dumping at the pound.

If an irresponsible owner buys a “pit bull” from a bad BYB, and doesn’t train and socialise the dog properly, they may end up with a psychotic nutter that will savage someone, possibly fatally.

So the solution to your problem is to ban every dog over about 10kg right? Because any dog over 10kg that hasn't been trained or socialised properly has the potential to savage someone, possibly fatally.

Not at all, and I'm not sure how you get that from my posts? I have been quite clear that the problem lies with people/ breeders/ owners not with specific breeds or “types” of dogs. I was simply answering the question on whether “pot bulls” were regarded as inherently more dangerous. As I said in one post “in the way a carving knife is inherently more dangerous than a butter knife.”

(I could also add that ALL dogs are inherently more dangerous than a goldfish.)

If we want to win the argument, it needs to be based in truth, and there is no point resorting to outlandish claims, especially when trying to convince “non dog people.” Owners who go around proclaiming that their Rotti is no more dangerous than a Dachshund are missing the point, and consequently not really helping.

Most problems with dogs can be traced back to irresponsible breeding and irresponsible ownership. The problem with BSL is that it targets RESPONSIBLE owners. (As you alluded to, BSL has spawned a black market in those dogs.) And the next time there is an incident involving a Rotti-cross, they will be added to the list, and so on. (As readers might have gleaned from some of my posts I have a big SOFT spot for Rotties.)

Potentially any medium to large dog that was developed for hunting or killing can be mis-bred to bring back those aggressive tendencies and with poor training/socialisation and/or abuse it can be made into a dangerous animal. I see no need for SUCH dogs (of any breed) but we need regulation targeting improper breeding and irresponsible ownership, not more laws that can only be applied to responsible law-abiding owners.

[ricey]

you can train any intelligent dog to do what the human wants it to do.

People continally say this in regard to training dogs to be aggressive and bite which really couldn't be further from the truth. Unless an individual dog is genetically equipped to do so, at best you may get most dogs to bite if cornered and abused perhaps, but the ability to be actively aggressive is in the dogs genetics.

Where professional training of biting/attacking dogs is active, police, security, armed forces etc, a large proportion of individual dogs of breeds renowned for successfully training in these disciplines will not attack/bite people and consequently fail in that role, even dogs who are trained to bite sleeves and suits worn by people, many are biting/attacking in prey drive for reward of the equipment (tug toy) and will not bite/attack people without the equipment being worn regardless of the training to do otherwise. The German Shepherd is the most commonly used breed globally for professional biting/attacking working roles which is said to be only aorund 1% of the breed in general is genetically capable of being trained in such a role?

With that said in relation to Pit Bulls, yobbo's are often blamed for Pit Bull aggression by raising/training dogs to show aggression and ultimately bite, but the question is: Why are the yobbo's using Pit Bulls and not GSD and Rottweillers etc to create dangerous dogs? It's often said by anti BSL activists that the yobbos at breed ban will move onto something else on the basis that "any" dog can be trained to be dangerous?. The next question: How are the yobbos going to train just any dog or breed to fullfil a role that professional trainers can't achieve with the wrong dogs and breeds?

Is the Pit Bull type of dog easier genetically for the yobbo to extract aggression from, than other breeds, are they an easier dog to make dangerous? I don't know the answer to that from a BSL perspective, but is it to do with genetic capability to attack/bite being greater than other breeds being a reason for restriction?

Hi Santo,

I have to disagree with you here; a good dog trainer is able to train an individual dog to exhibit the behaviours that the trainer wants the dog to do. You can train a poodle to round up sheep; it won't be as good at this as most border collies but it can be done. You can train an American Pit Bull Terrier to round up sheep as well; if you search back through DOL's archives you will find a thread with pictures from a pit bull owner in (I think) Victoria detailing just how good a sheep dog their pit bull was.

I have been around dogs for a very long time; I remember how back in the 1960's in Australia, German Shepherds (or Alsatians as they were called then) were considered to be the 'devil dog'. Back then, German Shepherds were the dog that the popular press identified as the breed you needed to be scared of. Australia had the world's longest 'breed specific legislation' that targeted the German Shepherd. As the German Shepherd was feared by the ignorant public, meat heads who wanted a dog to make themselves look tough chose to own a German Shepherd. Later, the 'cool dog' to own if you were a young thug who wanted a 'tough' dog became the Dobermann, and then the Rottweiler. So, yobbos/thugs have used the GSD and the Rottweiler as their weapon of choice historically. Your point about

Why are the yobbo's using Pit Bulls and not GSD and Rottweillers etc to create dangerous dogs?

is erroneous; these people have used the GSD and the Rottweiler for their purposes before, and when they can no longer access pit bulls they will revert to using GSD's and Rottweilers again. Or some other dog breed........

All dogs are genetically equipped with a set of carpet knives in their mouths called teeth. People have died by being bitten by dachshunds and pomeranians. All dogs can (and some do) bite humans. Basically, the bigger the dog, the bigger the potential damage. Well bred American Pit Bull Terriers really should not be a lot bigger than 28 to 30 kg, so they are just medium sized dogs. Ask Cordy (long term DOL member) what it is like to be bitten by a really big dog (in her case a Great Dane).

So, should Australia ban Great Danes because an individual GD nearly killed Cordy? Likewise, should Australia ban GSD's or American Pit Bull Terriers on mass because a couple of individual dogs have proven to be dangerous?

The problem faced by the American Pit Bull Terrier is that it is an easily trained and intelligent dog breed. Everyone accepts how good the Labrador is as a seeing eye guide dog, but the first seeing eye dog in Canada was an American Pit Bull Terrier and it did a fine job. Likewise, American Pit Bull Terriers have been the best ever 'Search and Rescue' dogs in the US of A. Oh, yes and statistically the best ever drug detection dog in the US of A is an American Pit Bull Terrier. These dogs are versatile; that is both their best attribute and their worst. Any dog trainer with half a brain can train an APBT to do whatever they want it to do. If these meat heads train the APBT to be an attack dog, is that a probem with the breed, or a problem with the meat head?

Cheers,

ricey

Edited March 13, 2013 by ricey

[Sabbath]

Ricey I wish your words could be heard beyond the limits of this forum. Spot on!

[Dory the Doted One]

As far as Victoria goes, this is what they use to determine whether or not you own a Pitbull Type Breed.

Standard for Restricted Breed Dogs in Victoria

[ricey]

Ricey I wish your words could be heard beyond the limits of this forum. Spot on!

Hi Sabbath,

I think you have pointed out the limitations of forum posts. Here, most of us are on the same page and what to us seems obvious is not what the general public perceives.

Me, I just keep chipping away at the general public's ignorance about dog issues and if I have managed to change one person's views about dog legislation in a week, I consider that to be a good week.

Good weeks are rare.

Cheers,

ricey