Ava - 'dangerous Dogs - A Sensible Solution'

[melzawelza]

Hi all,

We'd been discussing this a little after I posted it in a thread in News and someone suggested maybe it should have a thread of it's own for us all to read.

The AVA just this week released their Policy and Model Legislative Framework in regards to Dangerous Dogs.

The report covers current legislation in Australia (particularly in relation to Breed Specific Legislation) and analyses both Australian and worldwide data on the topic.

It then explores successful legislative framework and research in regards to dangerous dogs from here and around the world and pulls it all together into a model for Australia to presumably adopt.

Now, the AVA is a member of the NSW Companion Animals Taskforce that recently released a discussion paper re: euthanasia in pounds and is due to release one on Dangerous Dogs later this year. I would assume this document will form a large proportion of the research and proposed legislation that will come out in that document.

It's 47 pages in total but a lot of these are references, the report itself is only 20-something pages and then there is further information at the end.

I really encourage everyone to have a read and discuss here. The DLG will be asking for submissions when the taskforce paper comes out so it's useful for all to discuss.

Personally, I support it wholeheartedly simply because it is SO well researched and based on models that are already successful.

It's also the best analysis of why BSL is such a failure that I've seen, especially as it is Australia-specific.

Link to the report and the short summary here:

http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/dangerous-dogs-%E2%80%93-sensible-solution

ETA: No idea why but despite trying to edit four times it's uncapitalised 'AVA' and the 'D' in dangerous in the title. Sorry about that.

Edited August 11, 2012 by melzawelza

[Puppoochi]

http://www.ava.com.au/sites/default/files/AVA_website/pdfs/Dangerous%20dogs%20-%20a%20sensible%20solution%20FINAL.pdf

I do not deny that the new proposal by the AVA will significantly reduce the incidence of dog bites, but I do not see how it would prevent an incident like this occurring http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dog-breaks-collar-attacks-woman/story-e6frea83-1226422663719

[nawnim]

A great article

I like the way this article recommends that if a dog is declared potentially dangerous the label can be reviewed and revised if the dog can show it has reformed. Being declared potentially dangerous is just warning the owner that his dog needs help. I like this. It is about educating the owners.

[melzawelza]

http://www.ava.com.au/sites/default/files/AVA_website/pdfs/Dangerous%20dogs%20-%20a%20sensible%20solution%20FINAL.pdf

I do not deny that the new proposal by the AVA will significantly reduce the incidence of dog bites, but I do not see how it would prevent an incident like this occurring http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dog-breaks-collar-attacks-woman/story-e6frea83-1226422663719

Nothing will ever completely stop dog bites from occurring, other than getting rid of all dogs.

We will never know if the policy would have prevented such an occurrance, however I can suggest a couple of hypotheticals that may have.

Lets say this dog had previously rushed at/threatened other dogs in some way (and I'm guessing it had. Dog's don't go from perfect behaviour to then killing another dog). Based on this proposed legislation if it was reported the Council could have declared the dog 'potentially dangerous' which would have prevented the dog from being able to break it's collar and kill another dog as it would be wearing a better quality collar and muzzled in public. Or, the owner would have found it all too hard and given the dog up, which would result in it being euthanased.

Maybe the owner would be caught out with an unregistered dog, and be forced by Council to register. Maybe he would have chosen to complete the proposed responsible pet ownership type program and also to desex his dog to pay a lesser registration. Maybe those two efforts may have had him consider his dog's behaviour a little more and be at least a little more responsible.

Maybe none of these things would have happened at all, and the exact same incident still would have occurred. We'll never know. But as you said, the policy will significantly reduce these incidents from occurring.

[melzawelza]

A great article

I like the way this article recommends that if a dog is declared potentially dangerous the label can be reviewed and revised if the dog can show it has reformed. Being declared potentially dangerous is just warning the owner that his dog needs help. I like this. It is about educating the owners.

Yes, I also really like the emphasis on re-training and behaviour of the dog. It doesn't condemn the dog to a life of misery, it gives the owner a light at the end of the tunnel to take their dog and it's behaviour seriously and work hard to ensure the dog is safe.

[Puppoochi]

A great article

I like the way this article recommends that if a dog is declared potentially dangerous the label can be reviewed and revised if the dog can show it has reformed. Being declared potentially dangerous is just warning the owner that his dog needs help. I like this. It is about educating the owners.

Some people want to be educated, others don't. Some people will do want they want irrespective of what the law is. They're generally called criminal. The proposal does not address this.

[melzawelza]

A great article

I like the way this article recommends that if a dog is declared potentially dangerous the label can be reviewed and revised if the dog can show it has reformed. Being declared potentially dangerous is just warning the owner that his dog needs help. I like this. It is about educating the owners.

Some people want to be educated, others don't. Some people will do want they want irrespective of what the law is. They're generally called criminal. The proposal does not address this.

Of course it does. The proposal is a balance of both education and enforcement. For people who will not follow the law then there is enforcement.

The Calgary model is completely self-funded by registrations (and they have a 90+% registration rate, much better than what we have here), and they have adequate staff to donate time to the enforcement of the Act.

So basically, models like this are so successful that they get most people complying, and from that raise enough revenue to have plenty of staff enforcing - which catches the other non-compliant people.

[mymatejack]

A great article

I like the way this article recommends that if a dog is declared potentially dangerous the label can be reviewed and revised if the dog can show it has reformed. Being declared potentially dangerous is just warning the owner that his dog needs help. I like this. It is about educating the owners.

Some people want to be educated, others don't. Some people will do want they want irrespective of what the law is. They're generally called criminal. The proposal does not address this.

It's easy to sit back and be negative and criticize, what do you propose as the solution?

[moosmum]

Read this and quite impressed with the thought and reseach.

Might not be "Perfect" but I think its a very common sense approach that will encourage better out comes in more than the target area.

Puppoochie,

It does address your concerns.Better resources to to enforce the exsisting laws and thus harder to go under the radar.Encourages a more community -responsible attitude and education that would result in well informed peer pressure and ease of reporting.More uniform legislation and so less confusion of protocols.Clear expectations of whats involved in responsible dog ownership.

Looks good to me and will have my vote unless you can come up with better?!

Edited August 11, 2012 by moosmum

[korbin13]

A great article

I like the way this article recommends that if a dog is declared potentially dangerous the label can be reviewed and revised if the dog can show it has reformed. Being declared potentially dangerous is just warning the owner that his dog needs help. I like this. It is about educating the owners.

Some people want to be educated, others don't. Some people will do want they want irrespective of what the law is. They're generally called criminal. The proposal does not address this.

The threat of the death penalty doesn't seem to stop some Australians smuggling drugs to Bali. Really, you can't control everybody and everything. That's why we have crowding in prisons.

The AVA proposal is definitely a sensible step, hopefully the state governments look over it with some consideration.

[nawnim]

A great article

I like the way this article recommends that if a dog is declared potentially dangerous the label can be reviewed and revised if the dog can show it has reformed. Being declared potentially dangerous is just warning the owner that his dog needs help. I like this. It is about educating the owners.

Some people want to be educated, others don't. Some people will do want they want irrespective of what the law is. They're generally called criminal. The proposal does not address this.

Puppoochi, I agree some people do want to be educated. Some owners of dogs that have attacked have been remorseful. The guy who was caring for the dog that attacked Ayen Chol was remorseful. Many people don't realise what their dog is capable of and what the consequences (I don't just mean the legal ones) might be for them and for their dog. In hindsight they probably wish they had acted differently if only they had known.

Of course there is always the criminal element (and they are products of our society too but that is another issue) and it's not useful to just focus on them and throw up our hands in despair. We do need laws to protect the vulnerable in our society. We need effective legislation to minimise the number of people and dogs being killed or attacked in the future.

[melzawelza]

One thing I do think is a little over the top in the report is a dog being declared potentially dangerous (going to you PD from now on!) for escaping twice in a 12 month period.

My girl has escaped twice. Once a month ago - she stayed inside while I was gone for a month while I spent $1000 getting new gates/fencing in the area she had eacaped frlm. And again on Friday night where my front fence literally blew over in the gale force winds. She will again be staying inside until I get brand new colorbond put in there.

The first time was my fault but the second not. I was very careful and responsible after the first incident,

And the second was beyond my control.

Granted, she didn't get picked up by the Council either time but I think if she had been it would be insane to have to muzzle her in public for three years as a result. She is not aggressive to humans or other dogs at all, and my Neighbours picked her up in their driveway on Friday and she spent two hours playing with the kids in the backyard until I got home.

Instead there should be a different term that focuses solely on fencing/enclosure that does not have muzzling provisions (except of course if the dog does display PD behaviour once out).

Edited August 12, 2012 by melzawelza

[mita]

Some people want to be educated, others don't. Some people will do want they want irrespective of what the law is. They're generally called criminal. The proposal does not address this.

I read of a US study which showed that, statistically, owners of dogs that had been involved in serious bites/attacks had a higher incidence of traffic violations (and they'd also highly likely not registered their dogs). Seems that impulsivity and lack of responsibility were at the base of these owners' approach to life. generally. So dog management tended to go the same way. I think there was also a significant chance they'd had criminal convictions of some kind.

I'd like to see the AVA team up with people representing the (human) behavioral sciences to trawl the research literature on the characteristics/situations re dog owners who are at highest risk for their dogs being poorly managed in terms of excessively aggressive behaviour. To see if there'd be some earlier stage intervention. One step would be for the authorities to seriously check the situations where owners don't register their dogs. Apart from those people who genuinely can't afford the cost....there are higher risk owners in this group. So make one consequence of owning non-registered dogs that their dog must be behaviorally assessed.

Even tho' the French still link potentially dangerous dogs with appearance....breed or 'appearance of'... they have a good system where such owners have to acquire a Certificate of Competency in handling their dog and also to take out 3rd party insurance, among other things. There's also some restrictions on how and where they can take their dogs.....once they've done all that & got a licence.

Just change the starting point from breed, to actual assessed behaviours....and there's some value in this French system.

Edited August 12, 2012 by mita

[LuvsDobes]

For those who are concerned that (under guidelines such as the AVA's recommendations) a dog must do something wrong before that dog can be declared dangerous I would highlight that the offences which would bring such a dog onto the radar would be far less severe and would likely stop the downward spiral to where a dog attacks and severely injures or kills.

For those who find this such a strong argument against the AVA report, I ask you this;

Can you predict a future burglar by physical appearance? An embezzler, con artist, swindler? How about a rapist? A murderer? If you CAN then you should first go join ASIO/ ASIS/ Federal Police as you will be paid highly, but SECOND, you must answer- if you can pick such individuals on physical appearance alone, then WHEN should those people be euthanased? As children? At 16? 21?

Why would dogs be different?

Edited August 12, 2012 by LuvsDobes

[megan_]

The minister has already rejected it!

[Maddy]

Just finished reading this and while some of the proposed solutions are great, the proposed definition of dangerous dog had me really worried..

Dangerous dog

Any dog that:

(a) Causes a serious injury to a person or

domestic animal; or

(g) Kills a person or domestic animal

Where would this leave a lot of sighthounds and other breeds with higher prey drive?

All of my own greyhounds would kill a cat if they got the chance but they're certainly not dangerous dogs so far as public safety goes.

Prey drive and aggression aren't the same thing so lumping them together is very unfair.

[Maddy]

And another issue that just came to mind..

For rescues who deal with dogs with higher prey drive, where does this leave them, legally?

If I assess as greyhound as being not cat-safe, it would have to be rehomed as a dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog.

No adopter is going to want to own a dog that has to be kept in an enclosure and handled like a legitimately dangerous animal :/

[melzawelza]

Just finished reading this and while some of the proposed solutions are great, the proposed definition of dangerous dog had me really worried..

Dangerous dog

Any dog that:

(a) Causes a serious injury to a person or

domestic animal; or

(g) Kills a person or domestic animal

Where would this leave a lot of sighthounds and other breeds with higher prey drive?

All of my own greyhounds would kill a cat if they got the chance but they're certainly not dangerous dogs so far as public safety goes.

Prey drive and aggression aren't the same thing so lumping them together is very unfair.

This is already the case in NSW.. Not sure about other states. But dogs can and are regularly declared dangerous here for escaping and killing cats.

[melzawelza]

And another issue that just came to mind..

For rescues who deal with dogs with higher prey drive, where does this leave them, legally?

If I assess as greyhound as being not cat-safe, it would have to be rehomed as a dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog.

No adopter is going to want to own a dog that has to be kept in an enclosure and handled like a legitimately dangerous animal :/

The dog is only potentially dangerous or dangerous of it has actually killed/injured the animal and subsequently been declared as such by a Council. If the dog has not done this (or has but isn't declared) then it's not a dangerous or PD dog and as such is not subject to any restrictions.

Edited August 12, 2012 by melzawelza

[mymatejack]

Just finished reading this and while some of the proposed solutions are great, the proposed definition of dangerous dog had me really worried..

Dangerous dog

Any dog that:

(a) Causes a serious injury to a person or

domestic animal; or

(g) Kills a person or domestic animal

Where would this leave a lot of sighthounds and other breeds with higher prey drive?

All of my own greyhounds would kill a cat if they got the chance but they're certainly not dangerous dogs so far as public safety goes.

Prey drive and aggression aren't the same thing so lumping them together is very unfair.

This is an interesting point, however, as much as i'm no fan of cats, wouldn't the loss of a cat to a dog attack be as traumatising to a cat person as the loss of a dog to a dog attack would be to a dog person?

I see the point of the proposal being that no matter what breed of dog you own, whether they may have potential drive to attack cats, dogs, humans or whatever, the responsibility lies with the owner to ensure that NO attacks happen?

I've only read some of the AVA proposal so far but i'd like to see(if its not there already) an exclusion for any dog that attacks an intruder on the owners property, whether that be cat, dog or human