Immediate Threat To All Dogs And Owners

[LisaCC]

Ya so anyway, whoever brought up that Bull Arabs might be likely to be considered for the additions is probably not too wrong. If I remember correctly the NSW legislation already considers dogs used for hunting large game to be "dangerous" and needing to be muzzled in public etc. I guess it is only a matter of time until Bull Arabs become representative of those dogs, being the only breed specifically intended for pigging in Australia (most others are mixes of various breeds and a lot harder to sweep up all at once)

Yes these were exactly my thoughts on Bull Arabs, it's not going to matter about all the people that have them as lovely house pets that never see a pig in their life. I can name a few dolers that will be in that position

[Rebanne]

I went and had a look at that Team Dog page, few nutters on there, not my cup of tea.

[juice]

I don't know what the answer is, joe bloggs who owns an oodle couldn't give a stuff about bull breeds.

I am scared, my breed on looks alone will be next I have no doubt, and one of my others is second on the bite list stats.

People are scared of certain breeds and that needs to change , how I don't know.

[Guest hankodie]

I don't quite understand and sorry if someone posted it earlier (tried to wade through all the drama but couldn't find anything) but have they actually added new breeds to the list yet? If not, what methods are they going to use to determine which dogs are and aren't dangerous? How is this different from the laws already in place for this kind of thing?

I'm not too familiar with NSW dog laws so am quite curious, sorry if this seems really obvious.

[lovemesideways]

I don't know what the answer is, joe bloggs who owns an oodle couldn't give a stuff about bull breeds.

I am scared, my breed on looks alone will be next I have no doubt, and one of my others is second on the bite list stats.

People are scared of certain breeds and that needs to change , how I don't know.

I think making them aware that it does effect them is a step in the right direction. Its not just about bullbreeds, its about everyone and their safety.

I personally used to think "well thats sad, but it doesn't effect me so...." until I asked some questions and learned a little more. Some good points that Melzawelza posted before are pretty relevant to everyone. Not only is money being wasted (which comes from us, which then means less money for other things that are actually important), but the result of more laws will be,

"1. No patrolling of the streets to pick up people that are walking their dogs unleashed/letting them escape or any other breaches

2. Minor dog attacks would not be adequately actioned due to lack of resources. Actioning these minor attacks carefully and diligently is one of the biggest ways to prevent the serious dog attacks that happen later from the same dog.

3. No education programs, no visiting the parks and speaking to dog owners about pet ownership

4. No development of educational materials that can be used when dealing with the general public face to face

The result is undoubtedly an increase in dog attacks, quite possibly significantly. It has happened everywhere else in the world that has implemented BSL and it will happen here. "

as for fear, Im not sure. Im always careful around certain breeds (one of them being german shepherds, despite the fact I own 2!) just because I've met so many off leash that are dangerous. The media have a lot to do with public fear, I think if the government stopped focusing on bullbreeds, the media will switch tactic also.

[BlackJaq]

I don't quite understand and sorry if someone posted it earlier (tried to wade through all the drama but couldn't find anything) but have they actually added new breeds to the list yet? If not, what methods are they going to use to determine which dogs are and aren't dangerous? How is this different from the laws already in place for this kind of thing?

I'm not too familiar with NSW dog laws so am quite curious, sorry if this seems really obvious.

No, no new breeds have been mentioned yet but there has been some speculation in this thread, based on bite stats, current popular breed labeling in the press etc....

No way to know for sure until they come out with a list...

As for what can be done, perhaps some targeted media campaigns to educate Joe Public would be the best way to tackle public opinion, since most of the information the Average Joe has comes from the media in the first place. I am not sure if the legislators are being a victim of misinformation due to the media or if they simply respond to the hysteria they are being faced with by the public based on what the media tells them...

Either way, until people know why it affects them (and many of the points raised here previously have been excellent and easy to understand for most dog owners who are not intimate with the ins and outs of the issue) they will probably not act, other than to scream loudly for "something" to be done each time there is an incident.

[Salukifan]

Ya so anyway, whoever brought up that Bull Arabs might be likely to be considered for the additions is probably not too wrong. If I remember correctly the NSW legislation already considers dogs used for hunting large game to be "dangerous" and needing to be muzzled in public etc. I guess it is only a matter of time until Bull Arabs become representative of those dogs, being the only breed specifically intended for pigging in Australia (most others are mixes of various breeds and a lot harder to sweep up all at once)

Assuming of course, that they get over the hurdle of being a "breed" at all. That's not an inconsiderable hurdle. :cool:

In all of this, there is one irrefutable message that needs to be pushed, and pushed hard on anyone with influence on this issue that will listen or that gives a damn.

Breed Specific Legislation Does Not Work

There's no emotion, no agenda, no amount of statistics or argument that can change that fact and that's what needs to be sold. Forget everything else, forget about your breed or anyone elses breed. It really is that simple.

Any proposals for breed bans should be supported by statistics that cannot be found to support them. That's what we need to push.

[BlackJaq]

Yes I think you are right. It would be hard for anybody to argue with this on any basis other than emotion (i.e. fear of certain dogs).

[BlackJaq]

So is there a place where you can access accurate dog related statistics?

I find it incredibly difficult to find reliable information to share with people who would like to learn more.

[Nic.B]

My advice is to ensure as a BSL targeted dog owner, to have a very good Lawyer on board who is passionate and is familiar with C/A law. Also, document evertything. Every single thing.

If you have great records you will either be ok on the spot or you will have evidence to produce in court.

[ruthless]

I went and had a look at that Team Dog page, few nutters on there, not my cup of tea.

Team Dog aren't defined by the comments posted by some followers of the page. It is closely monitored and comments that are deemed offensive or unhelpful to the cause are deleted.

Ya so anyway, whoever brought up that Bull Arabs might be likely to be considered for the additions is probably not too wrong. If I remember correctly the NSW legislation already considers dogs used for hunting large game to be "dangerous" and needing to be muzzled in public etc. I guess it is only a matter of time until Bull Arabs become representative of those dogs, being the only breed specifically intended for pigging in Australia (most others are mixes of various breeds and a lot harder to sweep up all at once)

Assuming of course, that they get over the hurdle of being a "breed" at all. That's not an inconsiderable hurdle. :cool:

In all of this, there is one irrefutable message that needs to be pushed, and pushed hard on anyone with influence on this issue that will listen or that gives a damn.

Breed Specific Legislation Does Not Work

There's no emotion, no agenda, no amount of statistics or argument that can change that fact and that's what needs to be sold. Forget everything else, forget about your breed or anyone elses breed. It really is that simple.

Any proposals for breed bans should be supported by statistics that cannot be found to support them. That's what we need to push.

But more than that, it DOES affect everyone for the reasons already stated by Mel. Why do some people find that concept so hard to grasp

[korbin13]

I'm an educated, responsible dog owner and this is my opinion on the subject:

I'm so over bull breed people and the whole BSL drama. I refuse to get caught up in it and it makes me so angry that you think it's okay to manipulate other dog owners into supporting your cause with your scare tactics and emotional blackmail.

I don't give a toss about BSL or bull breeds. I don't want to know about it/them and being a martyr for a cause is not how I'm going to express myself as a dog owner. That's my choice. Deal with it.

So if that's what I really think, imagine what the average numpty dog owner might think? Probably a thousand times worse than I do, but gee I wonder why.

You really need to change your approach if you expect other dog owners to help you.

Wow, what a different attitude to the one you had last night and I see you have gone back and edited your responses!

Back on topic:

At the end of the day, almost every 'expert' has come out in opposition of BSL but yet the government doesn't seem to listen. There are so many better alternatives than BSL.

[lovemesideways]

Some good links with lots of good information,

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-legislation/effective-v-ineffective-laws/

and

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-legislation/breed-specific-legislation-bsl-faq/

[lovemesideways]

But more than that, it DOES affect everyone for the reasons already stated by Mel. Why do some people find that concept so hard to grasp

I think this is again related to the media and how anti BSL has been mostly promoted. People don't realise it does effect them, I was one of them!

I saw a car with a sticker that said something like "pedophiles are more dangerous than pitbulls, if you like BSL then you LOVE PEDOPHILES"

I'm SO excited that Team Dog is doing their best at promoting anti bsl with actual facts, instead of information like that.

[Nic.B]

I dont know Ruthless, as a bull breed lover and owner I personally hate the scare tactics via facebook.

My energy is better focussed upon actual Law for my dog. You can muck about, post on facebook etc etc though at the end of the day I must ensure my dog is ok.

I will never rely upon social media to help my dog. Never. They simply become an example.

I assisted lots of dogs like Bonnie many years ago, never a problem unless there were behavioural issues which is the same for any impounded dog.

[melzawelza]

For anyone that may be interested, back in August Team Dog put together a simple proposal for an alternative to Breed Specific Legislation, based heavily on the Calgary Model in Canada, which is a very successful breed-neutral animal management model.

This was in response to Miranda Devine's article encouraging an expansion of BSL, and was encouraged to be sent to the Hon Don Page MP who publicly stated he would consider her proposal. Many people got involved.

You can read it here:

http://teamdog.com.au/TEAM%20DOG%20-%20THE%20SOLUTION.pdf

[BlackJaq]

Yes I agree LMS. A lot of the anti BSL crowd use very poor arguments which discredit the whole thing I think.

Slogans like "it's all in how you raise them" and similar just are not 100% true and it numbs people to the valid and true arguments.

By this point though I find it hard to deny that BSL drives the affected breeds under ground and the quality of their breeding goes right down the sewer once the responsible, registered breeders are out of the picture. Some people will not be convinced that it is their problem until they are attacked by a dog like the one in the Ayen Chol case, who had most likely been kept chained in a garage, presumably on concrete since no bedding was found,and who had never been socialized or walked or cared for in any manner that a pet is generally cared for.

Perhaps we also need to start demanding that councils go ahead and enforce reasonable laws that are already in existence now, like leash and containment laws. Perhaps they will realize how much manpower and money it takes to actually police these laws and they will be less keen to have more laws heaped on them.

ETA: Thank You mel, that is very interesting!

Edited February 5, 2014 by BlackJaq

[BlackJaq]

Do you think it would help if plenty of people forward the Team Dog alternative to the relevant people in power? Perhaps if they were sent it enough they would actually read it and give it some thought?

[melzawelza]

So is there a place where you can access accurate dog related statistics?

I find it incredibly difficult to find reliable information to share with people who would like to learn more.

Short answer? No. Dog attack stats are notoriously unreliable. NSW does collate them, but they are useless in trying to determine anything at all basically as the reporting (Especially of breed) is often subjective and it tallies up the amount of dogs of a breed in NSW based on microchip data, which doesn't count all the animals that aren't chipped or that are chipped as a different breed to what they actually are.

If you're really keen you can read it here but really no conclusions can be drawn from it.

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

ETA: it also doesn't differentiate between severity of attack, so a dog that kills a child and a dog that runs at someone barking is tallied all together and not differentiated in these stats. That is, thankfully, one of the good recommendations from the Taskforce that the Gov has agreed on.

Edited February 5, 2014 by melzawelza

[Nic.B]

I was not going to respond to this thread. I own a breed who will be sure to be targeted in the future and this scares the life out of me to be honest.

Having said that there needs to be some balance right across the board if anything is to change or move forward.

In terms of Bonnie (bless her soul) the shelter she was impounded at and the council who had to oversee her release worked openly and proactively with the people involved.

It did not assist Bonnie to make bomb threats where the shelter must be evacuated, nor threats to staff or protesters with signs screaming and hurling abuse. It did not assist Bonnie that it was written all over social media that Bonnie was caged for over three months with no interaction at all which is apparently why she failed the temp test, it is simply not true. People saw Bonnie penned during shelter opening hours yes. Along with the majority of every other dog regardless of breed, size or age who is not lucky enough to spend time with volunteers in the two exercise runs.

What the public or others did not see was what happened before opening, during lunch and afterwards for Bonnie. The public do not know how passionate the staff are in their roles, what levels they go to to save the dogs in their care, the crap that they put up with on a daily basis, from rescue, crap dog owners, dog attacks, surrenders, and abuse cases.

I have learnt a lot over the years, and scaring the shit out of people might get you started, though it wont get you the result you need and want for the breeds targeted.

Team Dog were heavily involved in working towards the release of Bonnie and ensured that Hawkesbury staff and volunteers were given the praise that they so deserved in every post about her for the wonderful care of her while she was there. Any person posting disparaging comments about the Pound were corrected and a separate post also put up that was seen by over 10,000 people:

Post thanking Hawkesbury staff and volunteers for all they did

People should be shit scared about these proposals, no matter what dog they own, or even if they don't own dogs at all. It's as simple as that.

Even if it's unlikely your breed will be targeted (pug owners, for instance), these laws have been proven time and time again to actually lessen community safety when it comes to dog attacks. Huge amounts of Council resources are taken up trying to enforce them, which means those resources aren'tbeing put in to the measures that do prevent dog attacks. Just adding one breed to either the menacing or dangerous risk would result in a workload that very few Councils have the resources to carry out effectively. Because this breed stuff is high profile it will be given priority. There won't be Rangers out patrolling the streets for off leash dogs, they'll be knocking on doors making sure that people have put up a 'warning dangerous dog' sign on their property for their dog that will never cause a problem. This means that even as a pug owner, this does pose a risk to you and your dog. Your dog will be more likely to be attacked by other dogs. Your family members or friends will be.

This is a community issue, not a 'big dog owner' issue or 'pit bull owner' issue.

Every time a community has been apathetic and just 'sat and waited to see' when these suggestions start, has ended in BSL. Every time people haven't taken it seriously and moved on it quickly, it has ended in BSL.

The places that have beaten it are the places that get on it at the first whiff of a possibly and take it very seriously, like it should be.

As previously mentioned, Team Dog is currently putting together a campaign. I encourage anyone, dog owner or not, to keep an eye on the page and get involved when it goes up.

Thank you :) You are an inspiration, there is no doubt about that.

The fact is when using social media you are targeting a number of people/groups. You only need one rouge to stir up a bunch of trouble and it is not a good look. All of what I posted happened and if you are associated with that, even via your site you have to admit it is a really poor reflection of what you ultimately hope to achieve.

I dont care (sorry) about your posts praising staff as damage control after what eventuated to them. Too late, staff have already dealt with the issues and threats which takes time away from helping all companion animals in their care. Not just restricted breeds which are a minority in the sceam of things for this shelter.

I agree it is a community issue, I have spoken about that for years.

Though scaring the crap out of people via social media for signatures is not the way to go IMO. Get in touch and network with the bodies who are already involved (other than yourselves) :)

Team Dog had absolutely nothing to do with the disgusting behaviour of some individuals in that situation and it's completely offensive to suggest we would. We can't control what other people do and post on facebook, only what happens on our own page. We were just as dismayed and disgusted as you when we heard what had happened late that night, not only because it's unacceptable behaviour but because of how it reflects on the topic as a whole, too.

The post praising Hawkesbury staff and volunteers was posted long before any of that happened, and it's also offensive for you to suggest that it was posted as damage control. It was a genuine, heartfelt thanks for the care of a dog we all grew to love.

When threats are made, it impacts upon shelters, the other animals in care, volunteers and the staff it is not only taking away from dogs like Bonnie, it takes away from the whole shelter equation.

This we can absolutely agree on.

Great :)