Bsl Solution

[BlackJaq]

Finding reasons that explain the behaviour is not making excuses for it. It is the only way to effectively devise strategies to prevent these things from happening again.

For example I have read several studies that show that entire male dogs make up a large number of culprits in dog bite statistics. If every pet home were forced to neuter their male dogs, I assume the bites caused by entire male dogs would reduce dramatically. I know you will argue that these same dogs will still bite even if neutered, but how do you know if you do not try it?

In my opinion this approach is far more constructive than simply blaming a certain look of dog and attempting to eradicate a type of dog that makes up such a large portion of the dog population.

[steamboat]

Finding reasons that explain the behaviour is not making excuses for it. It is the only way to effectively devise strategies to prevent these things from happening again.

For example I have read several studies that show that entire male dogs make up a large number of culprits in dog bite statistics. If every pet home were forced to neuter their male dogs, I assume the bites caused by entire male dogs would reduce dramatically. I know you will argue that these same dogs will still bite even if neutered, but how do you know if you do not try it?

In my opinion this approach is far more constructive than simply blaming a certain look of dog and attempting to eradicate a type of dog that makes up such a large portion of the dog population.

But i'm not about about trying to eradicate a "type'' of dog at all.

If you want to get right the nitty gritty, i'm about making owners responsible for their dogs. For everything concerning their dog.

As for the neutering thing, consider this.

Only registered breeders be allowed to keep entire dogs?

Neuter every pet dog & bitch, not just the dogs.

Why do people think just throwing any old dogs together makes them a ''breeder''.

At least the ANKC has a code of ethics that expects registered breeders to breed for the benefit of the breed. i.e. to breed with the integrity of the breed as their main objective.

[BlackJaq]

As for the neutering thing, consider this.

Only registered breeders be allowed to keep entire dogs?

Neuter every pet dog & bitch, not just the dogs.

Why do people think just throwing any old dogs together makes them a ''breeder''.

At least the ANKC has a code of ethics that expects registered breeders to breed for the benefit of the breed. i.e. to breed with the integrity of the breed as their main objective.

That is exactly what I said, all "pet only dogs" being neutered. I think licencing all breeders would be great and I also think that people should need a licence to own an entire dog. Some work dogs do not have ANKC papers but that doesn't necessarily mean they should not be bred as they are bred for a job and as long as the breeding is responsibly done (i.e. all applicable health testing done, careful selection of breeding stock etc).

The ANKC is not the ultimate authority on breeding any and all dogs and some breeds that may not even be recognized by ANKC are still valid breeds in other parts of the world and I do not believe that they should not be allowed to be bred here just because they are not ANKC registered.

Either which way, requiring everybody to either hold a breeders permit or de-sex their dogs would be a more valid move than to impose BSL on dogs based on looks alone as it is done at the moment. There will always be people disagreeing but I can almost guarantee that bite statistics would look vastly different after this was enforced (yes, not just brought into existence but enforced also). I even believe that councils would be happy to enforce this as long as the process was straight forward and the monetary punishment (which should be awarded to the council) is substantial enough to warrant the effort.

BSL is not only a piss poor excuse for a law but it is also very poorly and inconsistently enforced and there is not much monetary gain for councils to enforce it either, quite the opposite, it costs money to peruse these cases. How fast do you think they would police a neuter/licence law if each case added to their budget rather than draining it.

Edited October 26, 2012 by BlackJaq

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Good grief, what a crock.

To be quite frank, the continued defence of attacking dogs by the posters to this forum is alarming & doesn't give their relentless protestations any credibility.

Why not just use the Devil made them do it defence?

Blaming the victims is really a ridiculous strategy if you are serious about having BSL repealed.

A family is so frightened by a large dog that encroaches on the THEIR property that they gather up their kids & retreat inside THEIR home. The dog follows them inside, attacks & kills their baby & it's their fault?

Give us a break.

Time to come into the real world.

I guess I am defending the dog in that I think that the whole incident was caused by the owner or person who was responsbible for looking after the dog. Banning that type of dog (even if you could adequately define that) will not solve the problem of bad owners.

I'm arguing with your definitions of "provocation". And I'm suggesting that dog bites could be prevented by other means than banning a whole "breed". In the UK and Italy and a lot of other places - they have found that banning certain breeds (Italy banned 95 different breeds before they twigged) - does not reduce the incidence of dog attacks (provoked or not doesn't really matter to me).

So why are you advocating banning a whole breed - a law that cannot be enforced fairly - because we currently have no reliable way of identifying what breed a dog is. It's already known on most places other than Victoria that the problem lies with the owner.

It's the same with cars. They're lethal when not managed responsibly. There's plenty that people can do to avoid accidents but mostly it comes down to the safety and responsibility and competency of the driver. And we do consider drivers need training and a licence that can be taken away from them if they don't act responsibily with their potentially lethal weapon. Hopefully cars will one day require a valid licence before they will operate - or maybe we'll get cars that drive themselves safely - I'm hanging out for that one.

But for dogs - I think the owners should be licenced, pass some sort of basic competency test, and have the licence (and dog) removed if they're found to be irresponsible and dangerous with their management of their dog(s). This would work much better than something breed specific. Because it would apply equally to all dogs and their owners.

[steamboat]

Good grief, what a crock.

To be quite frank, the continued defence of attacking dogs by the posters to this forum is alarming & doesn't give their relentless protestations any credibility.

Why not just use the Devil made them do it defence?

Blaming the victims is really a ridiculous strategy if you are serious about having BSL repealed.

A family is so frightened by a large dog that encroaches on the THEIR property that they gather up their kids & retreat inside THEIR home. The dog follows them inside, attacks & kills their baby & it's their fault?

Give us a break.

Time to come into the real world.

I guess I am defending the dog in that I think that the whole incident was caused by the owner or person who was responsbible for looking after the dog. Banning that type of dog (even if you could adequately define that) will not solve the problem of bad owners.

I'm arguing with your definitions of "provocation". And I'm suggesting that dog bites could be prevented by other means than banning a whole "breed". In the UK and Italy and a lot of other places - they have found that banning certain breeds (Italy banned 95 different breeds before they twigged) - does not reduce the incidence of dog attacks (provoked or not doesn't really matter to me).

So why are you advocating banning a whole breed - a law that cannot be enforced fairly - because we currently have no reliable way of identifying what breed a dog is. It's already known on most places other than Victoria that the problem lies with the owner.

It's the same with cars. They're lethal when not managed responsibly. There's plenty that people can do to avoid accidents but mostly it comes down to the safety and responsibility and competency of the driver. And we do consider drivers need training and a licence that can be taken away from them if they don't act responsibily with their potentially lethal weapon. Hopefully cars will one day require a valid licence before they will operate - or maybe we'll get cars that drive themselves safely - I'm hanging out for that one.

But for dogs - I think the owners should be licenced, pass some sort of basic competency test, and have the licence (and dog) removed if they're found to be irresponsible and dangerous with their management of their dog(s). This would work much better than something breed specific. Because it would apply equally to all dogs and their owners.

The point is, I haven't advocated banning entire breeds at all.

Read my posts, not the posts of my small but persistent band of antagonists..

My opinion is that owners be responsible for their dogs & everything to do with their dogs, including breed/s I.D if push comes to shove.

If this dog was a declared breed, which the owner would deny, as they all do, but couldn't prove otherwise, the owner be held responsible for the death of the baby, be charged with malicious assault causing death & face the penalties associated with the charge.

Twenty years incarceration or what ever it may be?

As it is, a child is dead, the dog is destroyed & the bloody owner just walks away with a lousy $11 K fine.

Where's the justice in that?

Don't you consider if owners were held more accountable people would be more responsible?

Responsible owners with "suspicious'' looking dogs wouldn't have to sweat it every time they took bowser for a walk.

BSL is the law, & until it is repealed, if ever, I would advocate adding a criminal offense aspect in relation to any injuries caused by a restricted dog.

Malicious assault causing death

Malicious assault causing injury etc,etc,etc.

Right down to what the terminologies for death or injury to animals are.

While licensing all owners sounds good, I consider it to be totally impractable.

You can buy a car without a license for e.g.

It's if you are caught driving it is when the shit hits the fan.

edit.

B.J.

You did say pet MALE.

I did reply, job done.

Edited October 26, 2012 by steamboat

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

If this dog was a declared breed, which the owner would deny, as they all do, but couldn't prove otherwise

can't prove that it is either. what's the point.

Don't you consider if owners were held more accountable people would be more responsible?

Agree with that.

you're in a thread about BSL arguing against those who want to get rid of it. This feels like you're supporting BSL.

you're the one who brought up provocation. I argued with your definition. I think most dog attacks are provoked - you think the opposite. It doesn't really matter if they are provoked or not. Owners should still protect their dog and prevent the attack and the provocation if they can - but there are some lawful exceptions

Bringing up the per capita argument (horses and sharks) about risk - is fair, I think. You seem to think it's silly.

Hanging out with a horse is more dangerous than hanging out with a dog. Politicians are concerned about preventing death - but they're not taking into account the risk, likelihood or where the resources might best be used to reduce the death toll. Ie a lot of hysteria and resources going into something that is very low risk for most of us and relatively stuff all resources for the high risk stuff (eg cars, bad food).

The TV news is all about stirring up emotion, so children being ripped to pieces by animals is primally emotional and exciting in the way that Daddy running over his toddler in the AWD is not. I don't know why.

I that criminal offenses should apply to owners of any breed dog that is allowed to attack and injure, not just the ones described in the BSL.

Trouble with the BSL in Vic as it is - is that any dog can be taken away and PTS whether it's done anything bad or not. To me that's wrong.

All dogs in most parts of Australia have to be registered. How hard is it to have an ownership licence that goes with that. If you're caught with a dog and you don't have a licence or your licence has been revoked because you've been proven irresponsible with dogs - then you can be punished and the dog rehomed - before anything bad has happened. To me that would be fairer than PTS dogs because they look scary or the ranger doesn't like them.

You can't legally buy a gun in Oz without a licence. And you'd have a hard time driving a car out the show room without a licence. So it would also help if it was illegal to sell a dog to someone who doesn't hold a valid licence.

[steamboat]

Are you a parent?

I assume you are.

I wonder if your attitude would be the same if you witnessed your baby ripped to bits in your own living room by an unknown intruder?

I wonder if those here who aren't parents would have the same attitude if their oodle or swf was ripped to pieces in front of them in their own home?

BTW, I can't ever recall hearing of a horse or a shark charging into a persons home & killing anyone? Silly analogy for BSL...IMO.

Horses, sharks, cars, food poisoning? What do any of those have to do with BSL ffs. You'll have to do better than that.

I don't support BSL, however, purely from the ''saving the dogs'' perspective, I am more concerned about the damage those who breed &/or actively seek out these dogs & then masquarade them as cross breeds of recognised pure breeds are doing to those recognised pure breeds future chances of not being dragged into a mire not of their making. It has happened o/s

I am more concerned for those pure breeds implicated, my own preferred breed in particular, than I am for any crossbreed mongrel. Hard? Yep. But one has to prioritise..

I don't want to see any dog go down, but losing entire breeds is my greatest fear.

I'm a pure breed kinda person you see.....& have been for a very long time.

I disagree with just about everything you said.

But you disagree me.

So that just makes it even.

I truly do believe making owners responsible for the ''crimes'' of their dogs would be a great step forward in winning over the public.

BSL will never be overturned without public support.

Any politician who proposed it now would be out of a job at the next ballot.

Also, I give more credibility to those that are directly affected by BSL than those with nothing to lose.

But not those who have deliberately flaunted the law. They are the problem. Definately no credibility - at all - in my view.

Edit.

Walk into a car joint & plonk down the bucks order the car.

They wont give a ratz if you have a license or not.

Ditto with a dog.

Guns?

There seems to be a squillion of them around Sydneys outer suburbs, so who needs a license?

Edited October 26, 2012 by steamboat

[BlackJaq]

BSL is the law, & until it is repealed, if ever, I would advocate adding a criminal offense aspect in relation to any injuries caused by a restricted dog.

Malicious assault causing death

Malicious assault causing injury etc,etc,etc.

Right down to what the terminologies for death or injury to animals are.

I disagree, I think all owners should face THE SAME penalties if their dog commits an offense. Otherwise, when Chopper the Lab kills a child, his owner gets a fine. When Billy the Bully kills a child in the same circumstances, his owner goes to jail. Are both children not EQUALLY DEAD? So should both owners not be EQUALLY punished? The circumstances surrounding the death should be of importance as well I believe so they need to be taken into consideration. But say both dogs were off leash in an on leash area and both charged a group of playing children and both bit a child in the group repeatedly until it died, the same punishment should apply to both owners! And if the punishment was jail I would do a happy jig on the day of the conviction and share the news far and wide so that people would finally realize that their dogs' actions could have serious consequences for them!

Edited October 26, 2012 by BlackJaq

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

BSL will never be overturned without public support.

Any politician who proposed it now would be out of a job at the next ballot.

Every single dog in Victoria can be seized and destroyed whether it has ever shown any aggression at all or not. Except ANKC Amstaff. That's how the current law is written. The law as it is currently written gives people with small dogs and children a false sense of security - ie only one kind of dog is dangerous and the rest are safe.

I've seen a dog ripped up in front of me - by a Golden Retriever and I could do anything about it without endangering my own dog. The BSL won't save anyone or any dog. And there are already a team of lawyers working on rendering it useless ie no dog can be legally seized until it has hurt someone - because they can't prove what breed it is.

At the moment - the law is trying to figure out who or what is going to commit a crime in advance. Erm. That would be nice but it is fundamentally wrong. You can't judge a dog by the way it looks and you can't judge people that way either. You can judge people and dogs on past behaviour - so some people should not be allowed to own or live with dogs. Some dogs do need to be PTS - but focussing on the dogs and ignoring the people's part in it - isn't going to fix anything.

And your child and SWF is far more likely to be squashed by a car. But we're not trying to ban all cars. It's a double standard and it's not rational.

[Jed]

Mrs Rusty Bucket

If they'd stood their ground and not run screaming - would the dog still have attacked. What happened before the dog attacked? Were the children standing in ground the dog regards as its territory? Were the children making a lot of high pitched squealy noises? Had the family (that got attacked) previously had any interaction with the dog - good or bad? Bad security, bad training. Bad owner.

This is my take on it - from newspaper and coroner's report. The dog may or may not have been socialised, and he may or may not have regularly lived at the address where he currently was.

However, it does appear he was not out of the backyard very often

So he would have been excited. He ran up to the Chols and their family who were loading their car. They chased him off and he ran across the road, and it was thought he was playing with the people there. Now it is possible that he was annoyed about being chased off, and according to reports, he was playing with other people.

The Chol family were Somali or Sudanese, I think? Neither race likes dogs much, and they smell different from Australians. additionally, they were probably jumping up and down and flapping their arms .... when the dog went for the first child, they were probably screaming again and the dog's level of excitement increased.

When they all ran inside, the dog followed them ... I would think his drive was in overdrive by then, and he attacked.

I knew a lovely registered labrador, a big one. He was a marvellous dog, if you went into the yard, he would go "woof" a couple of times, and go back to sleep.

Unless ... you were aboriginal. And then he would go ballistic. If they walked on the footpath outside his house he would go mad trying to get them through or over the fence. He would run along,biting and snapping at them. Mostly they walked on the other side of the road, and he would not allow one into his yard.

I was told by a "dog man" that different races smell differently.

Don't think I am absolving the dog, or his owners. I really don't think the owners thought he would do that, but whatever, he should not have been able to exit the yard. And I don't think those attacked thought he would attack them so savagely ... and they were frightened from the beginning.

But - I think Mrs Rusty Bucket has it - if the people had basically ignored the dog, the outcome might have been better.

I do wish, and have always wished, that the authorities would allow these dogs to live long enough to find out exactly why they attacked.

The whole situation is just so terribly sad --- if the dog had been securely contained, none of this would have happened. Moral is to keep your dog in, and make sure he is socialised with as many people and in as many situations as possible.

Once again, the government has made THE BREED the scapegoat, so they can introduce more severe laws, instead of laying the blame where it belongs, with THE DEED and the INDIVIDUAL DOG.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

That's a good explanation Jed.

I would not blame the victims or find that dog's behaviour acceptable - but there is a lot that could have been done to prevent that incident - and banning that breed (and nobody has claimed it's a purebred anything anyway) - would not have prevented that kind of incident.

Certainly if the owner had introduced the dog around and talked to his neighbours about how to interact with it that would have helped.

I will never forget one of the "gods must be crazy" movies where the little kid got a big stick with a shield? on it and held it over his head to make himself look bigger to a wild dog / hyena.

[sumosmum]

Mrs Rusty Bucket

If they'd stood their ground and not run screaming - would the dog still have attacked. What happened before the dog attacked? Were the children standing in ground the dog regards as its territory? Were the children making a lot of high pitched squealy noises? Had the family (that got attacked) previously had any interaction with the dog - good or bad? Bad security, bad training. Bad owner.

This is my take on it - from newspaper and coroner's report. The dog may or may not have been socialised, and he may or may not have regularly lived at the address where he currently was.

However, it does appear he was not out of the backyard very often

So he would have been excited. He ran up to the Chols and their family who were loading their car. They chased him off and he ran across the road, and it was thought he was playing with the people there. Now it is possible that he was annoyed about being chased off, and according to reports, he was playing with other people.

The Chol family were Somali or Sudanese, I think? Neither race likes dogs much, and they smell different from Australians. additionally, they were probably jumping up and down and flapping their arms .... when the dog went for the first child, they were probably screaming again and the dog's level of excitement increased.

When they all ran inside, the dog followed them ... I would think his drive was in overdrive by then, and he attacked.

I knew a lovely registered labrador, a big one. He was a marvellous dog, if you went into the yard, he would go "woof" a couple of times, and go back to sleep.

Unless ... you were aboriginal. And then he would go ballistic. If they walked on the footpath outside his house he would go mad trying to get them through or over the fence. He would run along,biting and snapping at them. Mostly they walked on the other side of the road, and he would not allow one into his yard.

I was told by a "dog man" that different races smell differently.

Don't think I am absolving the dog, or his owners. I really don't think the owners thought he would do that, but whatever, he should not have been able to exit the yard. And I don't think those attacked thought he would attack them so savagely ... and they were frightened from the beginning.

But - I think Mrs Rusty Bucket has it - if the people had basically ignored the dog, the outcome might have been better.

I do wish, and have always wished, that the authorities would allow these dogs to live long enough to find out exactly why they attacked.

The whole situation is just so terribly sad --- if the dog had been securely contained, none of this would have happened. Moral is to keep your dog in, and make sure he is socialised with as many people and in as many situations as possible.

Once again, the government has made THE BREED the scapegoat, so they can introduce more severe laws, instead of laying the blame where it belongs, with THE DEED and the INDIVIDUAL DOG.

Agree Jed.

Re the dog being at large, this was due to a faulty garage door from what I could make of the whole thing at the inquest. The owner had the door tested by experts, and it was found that the garage door had too wider frequency and to higher aerial. This meant the door could have been activated by someone else, who knows how far away. The door had been not working correctly for ages, and over a long time, the owner had the company out many times to correct whatever the owner said was wrong with it. It was a problem with the remotes. Not that it had ever opened without anyone in the house opening it before, but the remotes the owner had, were not working correctly and he had been given a lot of different ones over months.

The father also stated that he had walked the dog each day, and had good relations with his neighbors. He said the dog was well behaved, and would sit when out walking when he spoke with or passed someone in the street. There was no evidence presented to say this was not the truth. He also said the dog had socialized with adults and children at family get togethers.

I don't understand why an autopsy was not performed on the dog after he was destroyed. Well, I think I know why, but if they had done an autopsy, at least that part of the inquiry would have been more thorough.

[m-sass]

There was a fatal attack on a child by a Lab x Golden in South Carolina in April of this year.

Thanks for that...........now hands up who owns a Lab or Golden here believes if he/she got out in the street they would be concerned the dog would go on a unprovoked killing rampage and do exactly what Ayen's killer did in the same circumstances? Secondly, hands up those who believe that if the keepers of Ayen's killer had a Lab or Golden instead of the piece of crap they had, that Ayen would still be alive?

[geo]

There was a fatal attack on a child by a Lab x Golden in South Carolina in April of this year.

Thanks for that...........now hands up who owns a Lab or Golden here believes if he/she got out in the street they would be concerned the dog would go on a unprovoked killing rampage and do exactly what Ayen's killer did in the same circumstances? Secondly, hands up those who believe that if the keepers of Ayen's killer had a Lab or Golden instead of the piece of crap they had, that Ayen would still be alive?

The owner f'd up, the dog from what i read had not previously shown this behaviour... so how are you to know if you've got a "piece of crap" dog or not... if your dog has not shown this behaviour how do you know your dog would never bite anyone?? Sure if my dogs bite anyone they will be PTS without hesitation (unless it's an intruder)

Not many dogs at all would go on a "killing rampage", this is an individual case about an individual dog, same as all dog attacks, they're all different. SUre some can have a certain amount of similar precursory behaviour but if they don't show that until it happens we're all just guessing.

[BlackJaq]

I bet the dogs owner didn't think their dog would do this either. It does not matter what an owner believes. For all we know the dog had a medical condition like a brain tumour that caused it to behave this way. As no internal autopsy was performed we will never know.

So what if it had been a Golden, Lab or cross thereof? Why would it not be capable of doing the same? It has teeth all the same and is a large and powerful dog in its own right. Just because you don't believe it capable does not mean it is not. This sort of thinking breeds complacence and is dangerous unto itself.

I also find it highly offensive when you repeatedly label a living being a piece of crap. It was a dog and we do not know why it behaved in the way it did. Even if it was purely genetic aggression that still does not make it a piece of crap. People are born retarded, disabled and with aggressive tendencies all the time. That does not mean they are a piece of crap, not to mention they cannot help it. And if this dog was indeed genetically programmed to behave in this manner (which is not what I believe, it is what the coroner implies when saying the breed is at fault) then it can hardly help that, either. Neither can it help physical illness.

There must be something seriously wrong with you judging by the language you apply to all sorts of dogs in different situations on this forum. Aggressive dogs are pieces of crap. Mixed breeds are pieces of crap. Anything without papers is a piece of crap. They should all be killed. What are you, a dog nazi?

[trinabean]

There must be something seriously wrong with you judging by the language you apply to all sorts of dogs in different situations on this forum. Aggressive dogs are pieces of crap. Mixed breeds are pieces of crap. Anything without papers is a piece of crap. They should all be killed. What are you, a dog nazi?

I think you've hit the nail on the head there BlackJaq. My blood pressure is much better with m-sass on ignore.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

m-sass

I could point you at about four labs and one GR that I would not trust at all. Maybe more. They're perfectly capable of inflicting serious damage and killing too.

This is the NSW stats. Labs are much higher in the list of the top 20 than pitbulls. I would argue that most of the pitbulls were mystery scary looking cross breeds.

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_generalindex.asp?sectionid=1&areaindex=DAIDATA&documenttype=8&mi=9&ml=10

Border collies and JRT are also higher up the bite list.

And I suspect if the dog is smaller than a JRT - people are too embarrassed to say what bit them - and call it a pitbull.

[m-sass]

There must be something seriously wrong with you judging by the language you apply to all sorts of dogs in different situations on this forum. Aggressive dogs are pieces of crap. Mixed breeds are pieces of crap. Anything without papers is a piece of crap. They should all be killed. What are you, a dog nazi?

I think you've hit the nail on the head there BlackJaq. My blood pressure is much better with m-sass on ignore.

Geez,the anti BSL crusade isn't looking good if you can't debate with me........the dog hating community who support BSL will dish out far more than I have......need to get your campaigns a bit stronger to be taken seriously from a legilsative standpoint??.

[geo]

There must be something seriously wrong with you judging by the language you apply to all sorts of dogs in different situations on this forum. Aggressive dogs are pieces of crap. Mixed breeds are pieces of crap. Anything without papers is a piece of crap. They should all be killed. What are you, a dog nazi?

I think you've hit the nail on the head there BlackJaq. My blood pressure is much better with m-sass on ignore.

Geez,the anti BSL crusade isn't looking good if you can't debate with me........the dog hating community who support BSL will dish out far more than I have......need to get your campaigns a bit stronger to be taken seriously from a legilsative standpoint??.

People have given many alternatives i.e the Calgary the solution and posted links to read about how to get around this issue like many countries are doing right now, problem is many BSL supporters and bull breed haters can't be bothered to read them.

Nothing is going to change your point of view so why should people bother debating with you, solutions to BSL and safe dogs in the community are out there but polititions are using these incidences to gain votes and put in ineffective laws, and are not willing to listen.

[m-sass]

There must be something seriously wrong with you judging by the language you apply to all sorts of dogs in different situations on this forum. Aggressive dogs are pieces of crap. Mixed breeds are pieces of crap. Anything without papers is a piece of crap. They should all be killed. What are you, a dog nazi?

I think you've hit the nail on the head there BlackJaq. My blood pressure is much better with m-sass on ignore.

Geez,the anti BSL crusade isn't looking good if you can't debate with me........the dog hating community who support BSL will dish out far more than I have......need to get your campaigns a bit stronger to be taken seriously from a legilsative standpoint??.

People have given many alternatives i.e the Calgary the solution and posted links to read about how to get around this issue like many countries are doing right now, problem is many BSL supporters and bull breed haters can't be bothered to read them.

Nothing is going to change your point of view so why should people bother debating with you, solutions to BSL and safe dogs in the community are out there but polititions are using these incidences to gain votes and put in ineffective laws, and are not willing to listen.

Geo..........sadly there are too many serious attacks involving the same type of dogs........in the news thread the latest is young guy's ear torn off by the same type of dogs AGAIN. I don't think the policing of the laws are working well which doesn't reflect the inability of the law's effectivness when the same types of dogs that the laws should be eliminating off the street remain the primary offenders.