Qld Dolers may be interested in this: new laws for dangerous dog owners

[Boronia]

survey at the bottom of this link

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-25/qld-dangerous-dog-consultation-new-laws-jail/102521068

Edited June 25, 2023 by Boronia

[Little Gifts]

Thanks Boronia. I'm going to check that out. I actually don't want to see an increase in the number of dogs euth'd but a stronger burden of responsibility on owners and ensuring there is an opportunity for circumstances around an incident to be fully explored so dogs with no history of violence, who may be reacting protectively, are not automatically declared as dangerous. It seems once declared there is no coming back from your black mark. There is no encouragement for owners to work with trainers and behaviouralists, learn any triggers and manage them. In all the instances it is the dogs that suffer. Plus we need to learn from the serious and fatal attacks and what failed for them to occur.

 

I still often think of the DOLer who was out walking with her dog late one night, an old guy scared them all and her dog injured him. What she went through after that was horrible. There was context around that incident that the law didn't allow for. Her dog suffered, as did she. After she got it back she disappeared. But I still think about her and her doggo and hope it went well for them after they were reunited.

[Tempus Fugit]

Had a bit of a giggle at the proposal to ban 5 particular breeds. Pitbull owners have long described their pets as American Staffordshires and I can think of heaps of mastiff breeds that are just as potentially dangerous as the other four breeds proposed to be banned. I guess they simply mimic the donkeys who drafted the relevant clause in the Commonwealth Customs Act.

[tdierikx]

5 hours ago, Tempus Fugit said:

Pitbull owners have long described their pets as American Staffordshires

 

The problem I see is that anyone who doesn't own a pedigreed AmStaff, could face the possibility that their crossbred bull breed dog may be "identified" as a pitbull (or cross thereof), and will be subject to the proposed new laws - regardless if the dog is perfectly stable and appropriately mannered. Then there is the fact that DNA of the AmStaff and Pitbull are pretty much identical, so who will decide whether a dog is one or the other if there are no pedigree papers to definitively prove it? That is a can of worms I wouldn't like to open...

 

I'm also not convinced about the reasoning behind limiting the right of appeal when a destruction order for a declared dog is made.

 

On the face of things, the discussion paper reads like the declared dog problem has been well thought out, and is worded appropriately to give that impression, but there are some issues that can be picked up if one reads it carefully.

 

All that said, I'm supportive of stronger penalties for those who actively encourage bad behaviour in their dogs - of any breed/size - where the dog has occasioned actual bodily harm... and custodial sentences for those who are repeat offenders.

 

T.

[LunaRott]

Be very careful with government discussion paper wording, we know what a restricted breed is, but they are now saying "regulated" breeds as well.

I know breed clubs, in particular the GSD and rottweiler clubs of Queensland have gotten together after finding out their breeds are targeted. From the rottweiler club of Queensland Facebook page: 

Also Mastiff is a very broad term, there are a lot of Mastiff breeds, are they all to be targeted? Or left to the discretion of local government?

The whole thing stinks.

span widget

[LunaRott]

Sorry bad screenshot before

[tdierikx]

I read the discussion paper, and did not see any explicit reference to any breeds other than those already listed as banned from import.

 

I can see the possibility of issues for people who own the traditionally "guard/security" breeds, as councils may wish to take the state legislation further by restricting certain breeds by default via their local laws - dog knows that most councils are already imposing local laws that make little sense other than to make things administratively easier for themselves with regards to animals in their LGA's. Who is to say whether councils may opt to list Rotties and Shepherds as automatically restricted in some way purely due to the ability to cause major damage if they happened to bite... not to mention that an approach from even a friendly dog of those breeds could frighten a person enough for them to make a complaint, then have the dog restricted/regulated...

 

It would be interesting to see any evidence that any smaller breed dog has been subject to "dangerous" dog restrictions after one or more attacks on humans or other animals... I'd be tipping there aren't any...

 

T.

[Deeds]

The breed I've had the most trouble with attacking my very large dogs are Jack Russells and Jack Russell crosses.  Particularly the smooth coated tan and white ones.  All with idiot owners.

[DogsAndTheMob]

8 hours ago, tdierikx said:

It would be interesting to see any evidence that any smaller breed dog has been subject to "dangerous" dog restrictions after one or more attacks on humans or other animals... I'd be tipping there aren't any...

 

Here:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/maltese-terrier-joins-dangerous-dog-list-20091025-hehr.html#:~:text=They may look friendly and,the latest Dog Attack Register.

I remember this story from the era when puppy mills were selling many “Maltese” puppies via pet shops. At the time, I thought it was unfair to label the breed in that way, because of the number of crossbred puppies sold as Maltese.
 

Even though I’ve usually owned German Shepherds or other larger dogs and the only dog that ever bit me was a neighbour’s Jack Russell, I also thought (and still think) that it’s unrealistic to quantify dangerousness in a small dog by the same standard as dangerousness in a large dog. An aggressive Maltese might harm children, other small dogs, cats and small pets, but an aggressive large dog such as a German Shepherd could easily kill even an adult.

 

8 hours ago, tdierikx said:

I read the discussion paper, and did not see any explicit reference to any breeds other than those already listed as banned from import.

I thought the same… Banning of those breeds by the QLD Government might have minimal impact because importation of those breeds has been banned for many years.

 

I’m unfamiliar with the Japanese Tosa and was interested to look up the breed description. I’m glad that their importation is banned. I find the idea of a 90kg dog with dog-fighting ancestry quite perturbing. Even if 99% of Japanese Tosas were totally unaggressive, that one aggressive dog in a hundred would be very difficult for even the strongest person to control. 
 

Generally though, I don’t see much value in more breed bans. The sort of people who want big, intimidating dogs to boost their ego will just choose a different large, intimidating breed or cross-breed. IMO, the owners of dangerous dogs should face more penalties than the dogs. For example, it might be good to require anyone who has owned a declared dangerous dog to undergo a course of training or period of probation before acquiring another large dog.

[Papillon Kisses]

 

13 hours ago, tdierikx said:

It would be interesting to see any evidence that any smaller breed dog has been subject to "dangerous" dog restrictions after one or more attacks on humans or other animals... I'd be tipping there aren't any...

 

 

T.

Erm, sorry T, but you’re outing yourself as never having looked at any dog bite statistics as they are there. The small breed most commonly ranked higher up is the Jack Russell, not so surprising given it was historically bred to dispatch vermin. The dogs that rank highest usually have some biting or killing aspect in their breed history. Staffies, Amstaffs and their mixes typically well outnumber the others.

 

To be clear I don’t support breed bans as they’re not supported by science. What is needed is education. For everyone. And part of that education is understanding what the dog in front of you has historically been bred to do, it’s capabilities (yes any dog can bite but let’s not pretend there aren’t differences in the amount of damage that can be done), and how they experience the world. Yes I’m including all breeds in that, lest anyone jump to conclusions. Many don’t pay any regard to a tiny dog’s rightful fears and autonomy, especially when it comes to Chihuahuas and small white fluffers. They learn they have to shout to be listened when their subtler body language is ignored.

 

I’m sending this comment out into the world rather than you specifically, but I get very tired of “don’t bully my breed” types turning around and shitting on small dogs and their people.

[tdierikx]

@Papillon Kisses... I hear you about the difference in the amount of damage that larger dogs can invariably inflict, but is that a reason to place bans or ridiculous restrictions on them all? Then again, smaller breeds can inflict serious damage to a small child too... and I'm not bagging out smaller breeds in saying that.

 

I'm with you on the need for education about owning any dog, because what someone may find intimidating or downright scary coming from a larger dog, might also be the exact same behaviour that is smiled upon with a smaller breed dog. Quite frankly, I don't fancy being bitten by ANY dog, and any owner who thinks it's amusing or acceptable for their smaller dog to act in certain ways, really needs to rethink their stance in that respect.

 

T.