So What's The Answer?

[mita]

Educate dog owners to socialise and train their dogs to be confident, stable, unbitey dogs.

*Educate dog breeders to not breed from aggressive dogs.

Ah, someone's mentioned socialisation. Puppies need to be socialised with humans....and eventually in a range of situations....from the earliest age. And they need to be bred from, and raised by, well-socialised mother dogs (who are the first models puppies have for doggie behaviours.)

That's not touchy-feely waffle. Scientific evidence exists.

Dogs, like humans, have to learn... and learning depends on neural pathways laid down by how they're dealt with in their earliest development. If that early base of socialisation is not laid down....puppies are more likely to show the range of aggressive behaviours later on.

But, when that base is laid down, there is something for training and further socialisation to build on.

Anyone who breeds and raises puppies with no attention to temperament and socialisation, is like a car manufacturer producing motor vehicles without brakes.

So full marks to the Rottweiler Club of Victoria for their guidelines on socialisation needs of their breed.

http://rottweilerclubofvictoria.com/site/index.php?id=34

Also, there's evidence re the most vulnerable for dog bites/attacks....and that's babies, toddlers & young children....as well as elderly people. So particular vigilance, including containment & management, is required with dogs around those groups. And education of children in interacting with dogs.

As others have said, many council regulations already provide some safety measures (like dogs being on-leash in public). So seriously enforcing them is also a way to go.

From left-field, an American study revealed that unregistered dogs tended to show up more in serious bites/attacks. Along with another curious statistic....owners of such dogs also tended to have higher than usual traffic violations. Sounds odd, until you see there's a common thread...

As others said....we don't just have a 'dog' problem, we have a 'people' problem.

Edited June 5, 2012 by mita

[Red Fox]

The last person killed in WA by dog attack was an elderly woman mauled to death by a couple of neighbours Rottweilers that were roaming.

Were the Rottweilers papered dogs bred by an experienced Rottweiler breeder who breeds to type or were they BYB's or perhaps crossbreeds??

Not sure what difference this would make?

Too many dodgy unregistered breeders around breeding 'massive/awesome protection and security' dogs from whatever they can get their hands on - Rotties, Mastiffs, GSDs...

And given the media's track record with identifying breeds, well....

[nawnim]

Here's my two bob's worth.

Large aggressive dogs are becoming more commonplace in Australia. Because of what happened to Ayen Chol the time has come when something needs to be done to make the suburbs safer for children to grow up in. It is not acceptable to throw up your arms and say there will always be irresponsible owners, or parents should be more accountable. Nor is more education the only answer. Education has its limits.

At the moment as the legislation stands your neighbour could purchase a purebred Komondor. According to the ANKC breed standards the following temperament is desirable in a Komondor.

"TEMPERAMENT This dog is not suitable for fondling and is tough by nature. He is distrustful. On guarding and protecting, he shows unshakeable courage, and his attack is silent and bold. The territory entrusted to him must not be entered by any stranger."

ANKC Breed Standards Utility Group 1994.

Anyone can acquire one of these dogs. They are about 70cms tall and weigh on an average 50 kgs. Purebred pups are available on the Internet. Would you like to have one living nextdoor? I know I wouldn't.

BSL was introduced to try to make the world a safer place. It is obviously not perfect and is difficult to enforce. (Some people even describe their pitbulls as lab boxer crosses and get away with it.) Seatbelts in cars and fencing of backyard pools were also introduced to make the world safer and I believe they have been successful. We do need some legislation and I am not sure what it should be.

Some thoughts:

Maybe it should be something to do with size. After all big dogs can maul, while small dogs nip. But what about labs? We don't really want to ban them.

Maybe it should be fencing. Fencing should be of a certain standard before anyone is allowed to own a dog. Perhaps childproof fencing similar to backyard pool fencing. This would still not prevent my neighbour purchasing a Komondor.

To get rid of the problem of repeat offenders it should be easier to declare dogs dangerous when they do bite someone. It should not be possible for an owner to claim it was not his dog. Today we have DNA and samples should be taken if there is a dog bite to prove which dog was responsible and then appropriate action taken.

Just my thoughts on a cold blustery winter's day in Canberra. Hope you find them interesting.

[Sheridan]

The last person killed in WA by dog attack was an elderly woman mauled to death by a couple of neighbours Rottweilers that were roaming.

Were the Rottweilers papered dogs bred by an experienced Rottweiler breeder who breeds to type or were they BYB's or perhaps crossbreeds??

Not sure what difference this would make?

Too many dodgy unregistered breeders around breeding 'massive/awesome protection and security' dogs from whatever they can get their hands on - Rotties, Mastiffs, GSDs...

And given the media's track record with identifying breeds, well....

And given the media propensity to misidentify breeds, what makes you think they wouldn't misidentify a pedigree dog?

[Alkhe]

I'm not trying to downplay the significance of dog attacks or take the issue lightly, but I do wonder exactly how big a problem we are dealing with here - have the incidences of dog attacks been increasing in recent years? I don't actually know, just putting it out there. The internet is brilliant for enabling greater understanding of events and goings on, but sometimes it can distort our understanding of what is "normal" or a normal amount of things happening. Things are easier to know about now, which means it's hard to compare current trends with those from the past. We might hear about more attacks around the country etc, but it doesn't mean there weren't just as many before, if not more. They're just easier to see, particularly in a community that's interested in dogs, and online.

It's always easy to look at the past as a golden age of.. *insert social norm*. It's the same with everything, and I'm not sure that dog owners are any better or worse at responsible dog ownership now.

And finally, with these discussions it's always worth considering that DOL is a unique community that in some ways has separate and more particular or nuanced concerns than the broader community. Sometimes I read threads or posts here about people and their dogs being "attacked" and rushed etc, and think.. if that happened to me I wouldn't even think twice.

If that happened to my mum out walking her dogs, or my boyfriend, or my friends from the park.. by and large, I can't think that any of them would care or think it a big deal. I'm not saying that there aren't real, serious and dangerous attacks and incidences that people witness and deal with. But sometimes I do wonder whether it's a bit of an overreaction, or a reaction from someone who is almost expecting and looking for something to happen. I don't often see roaming dogs around here, but I live in an inner-sh suburb - though there are some boisterous and untrained dogs that I frequently see, with pretty clueless owners. I guess my point is that if you're looking for a problem, you're going to see one.

Just some extra thoughts for discussion

[Dogsfevr]

Here's my two bob's worth.

Large aggressive dogs are becoming more commonplace in Australia. Because of what happened to Ayen Chol the time has come when something needs to be done to make the suburbs safer for children to grow up in. It is not acceptable to throw up your arms and say there will always be irresponsible owners, or parents should be more accountable. Nor is more education the only answer. Education has its limits.

At the moment as the legislation stands your neighbour could purchase a purebred Komondor. According to the ANKC breed standards the following temperament is desirable in a Komondor.

"TEMPERAMENT This dog is not suitable for fondling and is tough by nature. He is distrustful. On guarding and protecting, he shows unshakeable courage, and his attack is silent and bold. The territory entrusted to him must not be entered by any stranger."

ANKC Breed Standards Utility Group 1994.

Anyone can acquire one of these dogs. They are about 70cms tall and weigh on an average 50 kgs. Purebred pups are available on the Internet. Would you like to have one living nextdoor? I know I wouldn't.

BSL was introduced to try to make the world a safer place. It is obviously not perfect and is difficult to enforce. (Some people even describe their pitbulls as lab boxer crosses and get away with it.) Seatbelts in cars and fencing of backyard pools were also introduced to make the world safer and I believe they have been successful. We do need some legislation and I am not sure what it should be.

Some thoughts:

Maybe it should be something to do with size. After all big dogs can maul, while small dogs nip. But what about labs? We don't really want to ban them.

Maybe it should be fencing. Fencing should be of a certain standard before anyone is allowed to own a dog. Perhaps childproof fencing similar to backyard pool fencing. This would still not prevent my neighbour purchasing a Komondor.

To get rid of the problem of repeat offenders it should be easier to declare dogs dangerous when they do bite someone. It should not be possible for an owner to claim it was not his dog. Today we have DNA and samples should be taken if there is a dog bite to prove which dog was responsible and then appropriate action taken.

Just my thoughts on a cold blustery winter's day in Canberra. Hope you find them interesting.

Sorry to say but what a load of rubbish .

Have you ever meet a Komodor in person ?? I gather not & its statements like yours that create hysteria by people who are followers.

Komodors have been shown in Australia ,attended Royal Shows with no dramas.

There is more to understanding breed than cut & pasting a breed standard & then saying there dangerous .

People jump on the band wagon of ban this ban that & many have nevr meet one nor wish to because the hysteria tells them they are bad ,

[german_shep_fan]

Here's my two bob's worth.

Large aggressive dogs are becoming more commonplace in Australia. Because of what happened to Ayen Chol the time has come when something needs to be done to make the suburbs safer for children to grow up in. It is not acceptable to throw up your arms and say there will always be irresponsible owners, or parents should be more accountable. Nor is more education the only answer. Education has its limits.

At the moment as the legislation stands your neighbour could purchase a purebred Komondor. According to the ANKC breed standards the following temperament is desirable in a Komondor.

"TEMPERAMENT This dog is not suitable for fondling and is tough by nature. He is distrustful. On guarding and protecting, he shows unshakeable courage, and his attack is silent and bold. The territory entrusted to him must not be entered by any stranger."

ANKC Breed Standards Utility Group 1994.

Anyone can acquire one of these dogs. They are about 70cms tall and weigh on an average 50 kgs. Purebred pups are available on the Internet. Would you like to have one living nextdoor? I know I wouldn't.

BSL was introduced to try to make the world a safer place. It is obviously not perfect and is difficult to enforce. (Some people even describe their pitbulls as lab boxer crosses and get away with it.) Seatbelts in cars and fencing of backyard pools were also introduced to make the world safer and I believe they have been successful. We do need some legislation and I am not sure what it should be.

Some thoughts:

Maybe it should be something to do with size. After all big dogs can maul, while small dogs nip. But what about labs? We don't really want to ban them.

Maybe it should be fencing. Fencing should be of a certain standard before anyone is allowed to own a dog. Perhaps childproof fencing similar to backyard pool fencing. This would still not prevent my neighbour purchasing a Komondor.

To get rid of the problem of repeat offenders it should be easier to declare dogs dangerous when they do bite someone. It should not be possible for an owner to claim it was not his dog. Today we have DNA and samples should be taken if there is a dog bite to prove which dog was responsible and then appropriate action taken.

Just my thoughts on a cold blustery winter's day in Canberra. Hope you find them interesting.

BSL is not and never will be the answer. There are good dogs in every breed and bad dogs in EVERY breed. It is not fair to blindly ban or put restrictions on large breeds of dogs simply due to their size. For instance in one gov report i read online a few years back there were more then 38 000 registered GSDs and what percentage of them attacked? .02%. Is it fair to place restrictions on the other thousands of dog owners of the breed and similar breeds just because a handful of people cannot train, socialise or handle their dogs properly? The world's first face transplant was performed on a lady due to her Labrador attacking her if memory serves correctly. Due to that attack then should there be restictions placed on the other thousands of labs due to the actions of a minority?

You can have the most perfect fence in the world to keep the dogs in but if the owners are lazy or just generally don't give a damn they won't care if they leave the front gate open for said dog to wonder out. It comes down to individual responsibility, you can punish those who are already responsible and try to make those who are not comply, but if people are not going to be bothered containing their dog the best fences in the world won't help.

[Dame Aussie]

Here's my two bob's worth.

Large aggressive dogs are becoming more commonplace in Australia. Because of what happened to Ayen Chol the time has come when something needs to be done to make the suburbs safer for children to grow up in. It is not acceptable to throw up your arms and say there will always be irresponsible owners, or parents should be more accountable. Nor is more education the only answer. Education has its limits.

At the moment as the legislation stands your neighbour could purchase a purebred Komondor. According to the ANKC breed standards the following temperament is desirable in a Komondor.

"TEMPERAMENT This dog is not suitable for fondling and is tough by nature. He is distrustful. On guarding and protecting, he shows unshakeable courage, and his attack is silent and bold. The territory entrusted to him must not be entered by any stranger."

ANKC Breed Standards Utility Group 1994.

Anyone can acquire one of these dogs. They are about 70cms tall and weigh on an average 50 kgs. Purebred pups are available on the Internet. Would you like to have one living nextdoor? I know I wouldn't.

BSL was introduced to try to make the world a safer place. It is obviously not perfect and is difficult to enforce. (Some people even describe their pitbulls as lab boxer crosses and get away with it.) Seatbelts in cars and fencing of backyard pools were also introduced to make the world safer and I believe they have been successful. We do need some legislation and I am not sure what it should be.

Some thoughts:

Maybe it should be something to do with size. After all big dogs can maul, while small dogs nip. But what about labs? We don't really want to ban them.

Maybe it should be fencing. Fencing should be of a certain standard before anyone is allowed to own a dog. Perhaps childproof fencing similar to backyard pool fencing. This would still not prevent my neighbour purchasing a Komondor.

To get rid of the problem of repeat offenders it should be easier to declare dogs dangerous when they do bite someone. It should not be possible for an owner to claim it was not his dog. Today we have DNA and samples should be taken if there is a dog bite to prove which dog was responsible and then appropriate action taken.

Just my thoughts on a cold blustery winter's day in Canberra. Hope you find them interesting.

BSL is not and never will be the answer. There are good dogs in every breed and bad dogs in EVERY breed. It is not fair to blindly ban or put restrictions on large breeds of dogs simply due to their size. For instance in one gov report i read online a few years back there were more then 38 000 registered GSDs and what percentage of them attacked? .02%. Is it fair to place restrictions on the other thousands of dog owners of the breed and similar breeds just because a handful of people cannot train, socialise or handle their dogs properly? The world's first face transplant was performed on a lady due to her Labrador attacking her if memory serves correctly. Due to that attack then should there be restictions placed on the other thousands of labs due to the actions of a minority?

You can have the most perfect fence in the world to keep the dogs in but if the owners are lazy or just generally don't give a damn they won't care if they leave the front gate open for said dog to wonder out. It comes down to individual responsibility, you can punish those who are already responsible and try to make those who are not comply, but if people are not going to be bothered containing their dog the best fences in the world won't help.

Totally agree.

It is posts like the bolded one above that cause the problems in the first place. Labs can bite too you know.

I'm done with this thread, the uninformed rot that's coming from some posters is making me ragey.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Aussie3

[Alkhe]

Here's my two bob's worth.

Large aggressive dogs are becoming more commonplace in Australia. Because of what happened to Ayen Chol the time has come when something needs to be done to make the suburbs safer for children to grow up in. It is not acceptable to throw up your arms and say there will always be irresponsible owners, or parents should be more accountable. Nor is more education the only answer. Education has its limits.

At the moment as the legislation stands your neighbour could purchase a purebred Komondor. According to the ANKC breed standards the following temperament is desirable in a Komondor.

"TEMPERAMENT This dog is not suitable for fondling and is tough by nature. He is distrustful. On guarding and protecting, he shows unshakeable courage, and his attack is silent and bold. The territory entrusted to him must not be entered by any stranger."

ANKC Breed Standards Utility Group 1994.

Anyone can acquire one of these dogs. They are about 70cms tall and weigh on an average 50 kgs. Purebred pups are available on the Internet. Would you like to have one living nextdoor? I know I wouldn't.

BSL was introduced to try to make the world a safer place. It is obviously not perfect and is difficult to enforce. (Some people even describe their pitbulls as lab boxer crosses and get away with it.) Seatbelts in cars and fencing of backyard pools were also introduced to make the world safer and I believe they have been successful. We do need some legislation and I am not sure what it should be.

Some thoughts:

Maybe it should be something to do with size. After all big dogs can maul, while small dogs nip. But what about labs? We don't really want to ban them.

Maybe it should be fencing. Fencing should be of a certain standard before anyone is allowed to own a dog. Perhaps childproof fencing similar to backyard pool fencing. This would still not prevent my neighbour purchasing a Komondor.

To get rid of the problem of repeat offenders it should be easier to declare dogs dangerous when they do bite someone. It should not be possible for an owner to claim it was not his dog. Today we have DNA and samples should be taken if there is a dog bite to prove which dog was responsible and then appropriate action taken.

Just my thoughts on a cold blustery winter's day in Canberra. Hope you find them interesting.

Sorry to say but what a load of rubbish .

Have you ever meet a Komodor in person ?? I gather not & its statements like yours that create hysteria by people who are followers.

Komodors have been shown in Australia ,attended Royal Shows with no dramas.

There is more to understanding breed than cut & pasting a breed standard & then saying there dangerous .

People jump on the band wagon of ban this ban that & many have nevr meet one nor wish to because the hysteria tells them they are bad ,

Let's keep this discussion calm and reasonable. It's a discussion - I think the Komondor example was used as an example - if a dog is bred to exhibit a particular trait it's fair to consider that it will exhibit that trait. I actually just had a look on dogz online and there aren't any breeders in Australia listed anyway.

I read padraic's post as just putting forward a bunch of ideas almost as questions. I don't think he's seriously advocating restrictions on large breed dogs; it's more like thinking out loud about what some of the issues are, that can be grappled with. There are no easy answers or single issues here, there are many intermingled ones all bundled up together. Pulling them apart is important.

It's important to be able to have rational discussions about BSL and associated issues. There's no point in jumping down someone's throat for expressing an opinion, it just means they won't come back and you end up with an insular community in furious agreement. That advances no causes and doesn't change anything. To make any headway into affecting change anywhere it's important to be able to speak to people with varying ideas and understandings, from all sides of the fence. That means people with a lifetime of experience with particular breeds, and no experience at all. If you can't do that, you're not going to help anyone or anything.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Alkhe

[GeckoTree]

I don't think there is a 'The answer', but there are good animal control management systems in the world that actually have shown to reduce dog attacks in the 1'st world. Calgary model comes to mind as the most recent on a world stage, but at the end of the day it comes down to money and the amount available to councils for animal control and management systems to some sort of high degree of enforcement.

BSL is a balls up and always has been,( a proven null and void legislation of animal management in Australia and around the world, which costs a hell of a lot of money to enforce to a very very poor degree, how long has Aus had BSL now again and how much has it cost us/everybody?) education programs lack consistency in delivery nation wide, some local councils are OTT while the next one over are lax.

It's all a money and also a resolution problem. Nothing else, Australia apart from BSL has very good animal management laws and legislation, its just that theres not enough givashit involved by the state governments or local council areas.

J.

PS I would love to see state government abolishment, the 3 tiered system is absolutely retarded at an economic and bureaucrat level of wasted spending, another Aus inflection of dumbshitness.

Edited June 5, 2012 by GeckoTree

[nawnim]

Quote from Showdog:

Sorry to say but what a load of rubbish .

Have you ever meet a Komodor in person ?? I gather not & its statements like yours that create hysteria by people who are followers.

Komodors have been shown in Australia ,attended Royal Shows with no dramas.

There is more to understanding breed than cut & pasting a breed standard & then saying there dangerous .

People jump on the band wagon of ban this ban that & many have nevr meet one nor wish to because the hysteria tells them they are bad ,

Of course I have never met one. I am just quoting from the breed standard which is saying what temperament the ideal Komondor should have. My post is just some thoughts on the subject which might hopefully promote some rational discussion. I seem to have upset you which was not my intention.

Edited June 5, 2012 by padraic

[nawnim]

Here's my two bob's worth.

Large aggressive dogs are becoming more commonplace in Australia. Because of what happened to Ayen Chol the time has come when something needs to be done to make the suburbs safer for children to grow up in. It is not acceptable to throw up your arms and say there will always be irresponsible owners, or parents should be more accountable. Nor is more education the only answer. Education has its limits.

At the moment as the legislation stands your neighbour could purchase a purebred Komondor. According to the ANKC breed standards the following temperament is desirable in a Komondor.

"TEMPERAMENT This dog is not suitable for fondling and is tough by nature. He is distrustful. On guarding and protecting, he shows unshakeable courage, and his attack is silent and bold. The territory entrusted to him must not be entered by any stranger."

ANKC Breed Standards Utility Group 1994.

Anyone can acquire one of these dogs. They are about 70cms tall and weigh on an average 50 kgs. Purebred pups are available on the Internet. Would you like to have one living nextdoor? I know I wouldn't.

BSL was introduced to try to make the world a safer place. It is obviously not perfect and is difficult to enforce. (Some people even describe their pitbulls as lab boxer crosses and get away with it.) Seatbelts in cars and fencing of backyard pools were also introduced to make the world safer and I believe they have been successful. We do need some legislation and I am not sure what it should be.

Some thoughts:

Maybe it should be something to do with size. After all big dogs can maul, while small dogs nip. But what about labs? We don't really want to ban them.

Maybe it should be fencing. Fencing should be of a certain standard before anyone is allowed to own a dog. Perhaps childproof fencing similar to backyard pool fencing. This would still not prevent my neighbour purchasing a Komondor.

To get rid of the problem of repeat offenders it should be easier to declare dogs dangerous when they do bite someone. It should not be possible for an owner to claim it was not his dog. Today we have DNA and samples should be taken if there is a dog bite to prove which dog was responsible and then appropriate action taken.

Just my thoughts on a cold blustery winter's day in Canberra. Hope you find them interesting.

BSL is not and never will be the answer. There are good dogs in every breed and bad dogs in EVERY breed. It is not fair to blindly ban or put restrictions on large breeds of dogs simply due to their size. For instance in one gov report i read online a few years back there were more then 38 000 registered GSDs and what percentage of them attacked? .02%. Is it fair to place restrictions on the other thousands of dog owners of the breed and similar breeds just because a handful of people cannot train, socialise or handle their dogs properly? The world's first face transplant was performed on a lady due to her Labrador attacking her if memory serves correctly. Due to that attack then should there be restictions placed on the other thousands of labs due to the actions of a minority?

You can have the most perfect fence in the world to keep the dogs in but if the owners are lazy or just generally don't give a damn they won't care if they leave the front gate open for said dog to wonder out. It comes down to individual responsibility, you can punish those who are already responsible and try to make those who are not comply, but if people are not going to be bothered containing their dog the best fences in the world won't help.

If I have given the impression that I am advocating BSL I did not mean to do so. Sorry I have not made myself clearer.

[nawnim]

Here's my two bob's worth.

Large aggressive dogs are becoming more commonplace in Australia. Because of what happened to Ayen Chol the time has come when something needs to be done to make the suburbs safer for children to grow up in. It is not acceptable to throw up your arms and say there will always be irresponsible owners, or parents should be more accountable. Nor is more education the only answer. Education has its limits.

At the moment as the legislation stands your neighbour could purchase a purebred Komondor. According to the ANKC breed standards the following temperament is desirable in a Komondor.

"TEMPERAMENT This dog is not suitable for fondling and is tough by nature. He is distrustful. On guarding and protecting, he shows unshakeable courage, and his attack is silent and bold. The territory entrusted to him must not be entered by any stranger."

ANKC Breed Standards Utility Group 1994.

Anyone can acquire one of these dogs. They are about 70cms tall and weigh on an average 50 kgs. Purebred pups are available on the Internet. Would you like to have one living nextdoor? I know I wouldn't.

BSL was introduced to try to make the world a safer place. It is obviously not perfect and is difficult to enforce. (Some people even describe their pitbulls as lab boxer crosses and get away with it.) Seatbelts in cars and fencing of backyard pools were also introduced to make the world safer and I believe they have been successful. We do need some legislation and I am not sure what it should be.

Some thoughts:

Maybe it should be something to do with size. After all big dogs can maul, while small dogs nip. But what about labs? We don't really want to ban them.

Maybe it should be fencing. Fencing should be of a certain standard before anyone is allowed to own a dog. Perhaps childproof fencing similar to backyard pool fencing. This would still not prevent my neighbour purchasing a Komondor.

To get rid of the problem of repeat offenders it should be easier to declare dogs dangerous when they do bite someone. It should not be possible for an owner to claim it was not his dog. Today we have DNA and samples should be taken if there is a dog bite to prove which dog was responsible and then appropriate action taken.

Just my thoughts on a cold blustery winter's day in Canberra. Hope you find them interesting.

Sorry to say but what a load of rubbish .

Have you ever meet a Komodor in person ?? I gather not & its statements like yours that create hysteria by people who are followers.

Komodors have been shown in Australia ,attended Royal Shows with no dramas.

There is more to understanding breed than cut & pasting a breed standard & then saying there dangerous .

People jump on the band wagon of ban this ban that & many have nevr meet one nor wish to because the hysteria tells them they are bad ,

Let's keep this discussion calm and reasonable. It's a discussion - I think the Komondor example was used as an example - if a dog is bred to exhibit a particular trait it's fair to consider that it will exhibit that trait. I actually just had a look on dogz online and there aren't any breeders in Australia listed anyway.

I read padraic's post as just putting forward a bunch of ideas almost as questions. I don't think he's seriously advocating restrictions on large breed dogs; it's more like thinking out loud about what some of the issues are, that can be grappled with. There are no easy answers or single issues here, there are many intermingled ones all bundled up together. Pulling them apart is important.

It's important to be able to have rational discussions about BSL and associated issues. There's no point in jumping down someone's throat for expressing an opinion, it just means they won't come back and you end up with an insular community in furious agreement. That advances no causes and doesn't change anything. To make any headway into affecting change anywhere it's important to be able to speak to people with varying ideas and understandings, from all sides of the fence. That means people with a lifetime of experience with particular breeds, and no experience at all. If you can't do that, you're not going to help anyone or anything.

Thankyou yes.

My post was just meant to be a bunch of ideas. I am no expert. I am just expressing an opinion on what I think is a very important topic.

[mita]

I'm not trying to downplay the significance of dog attacks or take the issue lightly, but I do wonder exactly how big a problem we are dealing with here - have the incidences of dog attacks been increasing in recent years?

Comparisons between injuries from human on human assault and dog on human bite/attack are possible. I've read a research paper (Australian) which pointed out that human assaults are far, far higher than dog attacks. By comparison, dogs tend to be amazingly non-aggressive to the humans they live with and around. Statistically, your chances are better with a dog, than a human. :)

But dog bites and attacks do happen. Two things that possibly leads to a 'sense' that lot more happen these days are:

1. Dog bites/attacks, when they do occur, are more likely against babies, toddlers, young children or the elderly. There's sound evidence that these are the most vulnerable groups.

The nature of these victims & how more easily they can be seriously injured, grab news headlines....which, in turn, promote fear that there's lots of dogs ready to attack the most vulnerable among us.

2. As Australia's population has grown, so do the number of pets, including dogs. And this country has one of the highest dog ownership rates in the world. So there's lots more dogs, living close with humans. Which has increased the chances of attacks/bites.

The frustrating thing is that there's good scientific evidence of what prevents dogs becoming human-aggressive.....and also good evidence on how certain people mismanage dogs (& what are 'markers'). But rarely is such evidence referred to, in discussions like this.

Simply focusing on breeds per se is not helpful....all dogs are dogs. Smaller dogs can cause damage on the thinner skin of toddlers and the elderly. Larger dogs, being more powerful, can inflict life-threatening damage.

Both (all!) types need good socialisation at their base, followed by sound training and management.

Full marks to the Rottweiler Club of Victoria in their blunt recognition that breeder/owner responsibility is heightened with increased capacity to cause damage. And they're proactive in supplying guidelines that could apply to any dog. Which is why BSL is not the answer. Knowledge and effort are....and serious monitoring by the authorities charged with dog management,

Edited June 5, 2012 by mita

[mantis]

I'm fine but it's something I've wondered about alot, there's always posts here about close calls or attacks, so many people have dog aggressive dogs, I dont believe education will work, it's impossible to get the message through to the entire population of dog owners, and there's some who just dont agree anyway, they WANT savage dogs. It depresses me. I often think of Ayen Chol, an innocent child sitting in her own home killed by a dog someone thinks they have a right to own and there's no law to stop them. If BSL isn't the answer what is?

I'm not saying I agree with BSL.

The idea of BSL is to eliminate the types of dogs who killed poor little Ayen so when the owners do drop the ball they don't own the type of dog that will go on a killing spree with uncontrollable aggression. There is a good reason why the types of dogs, Pitbull's, Mastiff's etc and cross breeds of these types of dogs are not used by professionals in protection and guarding, there is a reason professionals use GSD's Rottweiler's, Belgian Shepherd's because they have the stability, intelligence and trainability to be a safer option in the community........I am not against people owning dogs for a protective purpose, but they need to get a proper one bred with the stability for that type of role, not the progeny of uncontrollable landsharks from a BYB offered for sale in the Trading Post, crap dogs like this are accidents waiting to happen and ultimately the death of other animals and sadly people/kids.

Here you go again referring to dogs as landsharks, NO true dog lover would use that term, you have been listening to Hugh Wirthless too much.

The only dog I have been bitten by was a Labrador, all dogs bite if they have irresponsible owners, banning breeds of dogs isn't the answer.

I won't apologise for this reply, I would get banned if I said how I really feel about someone referring to my beautiful gentle giant as a landshark. OK rant over.

[Red Fox]

The last person killed in WA by dog attack was an elderly woman mauled to death by a couple of neighbours Rottweilers that were roaming.

Were the Rottweilers papered dogs bred by an experienced Rottweiler breeder who breeds to type or were they BYB's or perhaps crossbreeds??

Not sure what difference this would make?

Too many dodgy unregistered breeders around breeding 'massive/awesome protection and security' dogs from whatever they can get their hands on - Rotties, Mastiffs, GSDs...

And given the media's track record with identifying breeds, well....

And given the media propensity to misidentify breeds, what makes you think they wouldn't misidentify a pedigree dog?

I don't doubt they would.

[GeckoTree]

Another thing while you all debate the 1'st world condition, Australia has a 3'rd world nation spread out in various locals which will not ever see 1'st world responses to Animal management and control. No matter what breed or cross there off. Thank your lucky stars you live where you do even if its 1 half of a percent better than some of the places I have been.

[nawnim]

I'm not trying to downplay the significance of dog attacks or take the issue lightly, but I do wonder exactly how big a problem we are dealing with here - have the incidences of dog attacks been increasing in recent years?

Comparisons between injuries from human on human assault and dog on human bite/attack are possible. I've read a research paper (Australian) which pointed out that human assaults are far, far higher than dog attacks. By comparison, dogs tend to be amazingly non-aggressive to the humans they live with and around. Statistically, your chances are better with a dog, than a human. :)

But dog bites and attacks do happen. Two things that possibly leads to a 'sense' that lot more happen these days are:

1. Dog bites/attacks, when they do occur, are more likely against babies, toddlers, young children or the elderly. There's sound evidence that these are the most vulnerable groups.

The nature of these victims & how more easily they can be seriously injured, grab news headlines....which, in turn, promote fear that there's lots of dogs ready to attack the most vulnerable among us.

2. As Australia's population has grown, so do the number of pets, including dogs. And this country has one of the highest dog ownership rates in the world. So there's lots more dogs, living close with humans. Which has increased the chances of attacks/bites.

The frustrating thing is that there's good scientific evidence of what prevents dogs becoming human-aggressive.....and also good evidence on how certain people mismanage dogs (& what are 'markers'). But rarely is such evidence referred to, in discussions like this. Simply focusing on breeds per se is not helpful....all dogs are dogs. Smaller dogs can cause damage on the thinner skin of toddlers and the elderly. Larger dogs, being more powerful, can inflict life-threatening damage.

Both (all!) types need good socialisation at their base, followed by sound training and management.

Full marks to the Rottweiler Club of Victoria in their blunt recognition that breeder/owner responsibility is heightened with increased capacity to cause damage. And they're proactive in supplying guidelines that could apply to any dog. Which is why BSL is not the answer. Knowledge and effort are.

Can we please hear more about this research

[mita]

[

Can we please hear more about this research

I've already referred to research in my posts on this topic. So you've 'heard about it'. What you highlighted was my summary statement that evidence is available.

I also pointed out that what was necessary was 'knowledge and effort'. Do as I do....make the effort to locate research on the topic.

[nawnim]

[

Can we please hear more about this research

I've already referred to research in my posts on this topic. So you've 'heard about it'. What you highlighted was my summary statement that evidence is available.

I also pointed out that what was necessary was 'knowledge and effort'. Do as I do....make the effort to locate research on the topic.

Okay I get your message. I'm just a lazy old fart.