Australian Pure Bred Dog Forums - Dogz Online: Does Bsl Reduce Attack Rates? - Australian Pure Bred Dog Forums - Dogz Online

Jump to content

  • 6 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Old topic!
This topic has had no activity for over 365 days. Due to that, you will not be able to reply. Please create a new topic!

Does Bsl Reduce Attack Rates? Victorian restricted breed laws

#1 User is offline   zara 

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 24-March 06
  • Location:Victoria
  • State:QLD

Posted 02 October 2011 - 01:02 AM

Over the past couple of years, there has been some serious dog attacks involving Pitbull type dogs to the recent death of the poor little Melbourne girl which sparked community outcry to clamp down and potentially rid the community of these type of dogs?. We know that probably all of these serious attacks although reported in media hype as Pitbull culprits, were not genuine APBT's but cross breeds of various Bull/Mastiff styles etc of Pitbull type similarities appearance wise.

Although people get bitten by dogs on a regular basis from all breeds, types and sizes, a trend appeared to develop where the seriously savage attacks, maulings with severe injury and a death were caused primarily by these cross breed dogs of Pitbull style and similarity clearly more of these type of dogs involved in attacks than anything else.

These attacks for the most part were unprovoked active and predatory type aggression where they had chased people down, gone after and attacked other dogs where people were bitten trying to protect their own dog to the horrifying situation where the the dog chased some neighours kids into their home and killed the little girl in the lounge room.

People in community outcry protested that getting rid of these types of dogs will make the community a safer place and reduce the incidence of dog attacks and severe injury and quite frankly I agree on the basis if these dogs had fallen victim to a BSL and no longer existed, the specific incidents wouldn't have happened?

Ultimately if there were no dogs, dog attacks wouldn't occur at all and with that said, a BSL in the extreme would work. Some say that any form of BSL doesn't reduce attack rates, well we know a total BSL of no dogs will reduce attacks competely, so surely in that case a blend of BSL eliminating the types of dogs prone to active and predatory type aggression would have to reduce attack rates over no BSL at all, yes or no?

This post has been edited by zara: 02 October 2011 - 01:04 AM


#2 User is offline   bslsux 

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 49
  • Joined: 09-September 11
  • State:VIC

Posted 02 October 2011 - 01:23 AM

Zara, suggest you provide supporting factual evidence for all of your statements, otherwise it is all hearsay and sounds very much like media acquired expertise

#3 User is offline   sandgrubber 

  • Forum Regular
  • Posts: 5,558
  • Joined: 06-February 06
  • Location:Florida
  • State:Overseas

Posted 02 October 2011 - 05:58 AM

In answer to the question, does BSL reduce attack rates. The answer is simple. NO.

I'll be happy to eat my words and apologize if you can provide any evidence that BSL (other than import bans, which I, personally, support) has a positive effect.

I support import bans, mainly, because there are some breeds out there with high-drive, strong guarding instinct and low bite inhibition. The current mess with regard to the APBT would be much worse if there were a bunch of fila's, dogo's, etc. around, producing hybrid pups. If that were the case, it wouldn't just be AmStaff and SBT x owners in fear. The entire molasser spectrum, and anything vaguely resembling the (quite rare) Tosa. The current witch hunt would be uglier if there were more types of witches.

This post has been edited by sandgrubber: 02 October 2011 - 06:13 AM


#4 User is offline   geo 

  • Forum Regular
  • Posts: 591
  • Joined: 10-October 06
  • Location:Gold Coast

Posted 02 October 2011 - 08:52 AM

View Postzara, on 02 October 2011 - 01:02 AM, said:

Over the past couple of years, there has been some serious dog attacks involving Pitbull type dogs to the recent death of the poor little Melbourne girl which sparked community outcry to clamp down and potentially rid the community of these type of dogs?. We know that probably all of these serious attacks although reported in media hype as Pitbull culprits, were not genuine APBT's but cross breeds of various Bull/Mastiff styles etc of Pitbull type similarities appearance wise.

Although people get bitten by dogs on a regular basis from all breeds, types and sizes, a trend appeared to develop where the seriously savage attacks, maulings with severe injury and a death were caused primarily by these cross breed dogs of Pitbull style and similarity clearly more of these type of dogs involved in attacks than anything else.

These attacks for the most part were unprovoked active and predatory type aggression where they had chased people down, gone after and attacked other dogs where people were bitten trying to protect their own dog to the horrifying situation where the the dog chased some neighours kids into their home and killed the little girl in the lounge room.

People in community outcry protested that getting rid of these types of dogs will make the community a safer place and reduce the incidence of dog attacks and severe injury and quite frankly I agree on the basis if these dogs had fallen victim to a BSL and no longer existed, the specific incidents wouldn't have happened?

Ultimately if there were no dogs, dog attacks wouldn't occur at all and with that said, a BSL in the extreme would work. Some say that any form of BSL doesn't reduce attack rates, well we know a total BSL of no dogs will reduce attacks competely, so surely in that case a blend of BSL eliminating the types of dogs prone to active and predatory type aggression would have to reduce attack rates over no BSL at all, yes or no?



BSL does not work. Fact. Trends along the chained/untrained theory are more likely to be the case not breed specific trends as really unless every case is reported on accurately "trends" mean absolutely nothing... and the media hype you mention is just that.

There are many many threads on this forum you should read that mentions actual cases where BSL has failed and newer dog laws are being introduced.

#5 User is offline   moosmum 

  • Forum Regular
  • Posts: 840
  • Joined: 30-November 09
  • Location:N.S.W
  • State:NSW

Posted 02 October 2011 - 10:05 AM

Zara,

BSL is like swallowing a spider to catch the fly.What are we going to swallow to catch the spider?

BSL does nothing to encourage responsibility,but takes away our right to choose it.

You can decide for yourself that some dogs are just not suited to be a part of society,but whos society are you talking about?
There are places for any breed where they can be raised and kept both responsibly and ethicaly.They have the history of centuries of co habitation behind them,all of them.Each to their own place.

ANY breed of dog can be corrupted within a very short time in the wrong hands.

The responibility as owners is to choose wisely and with knowledge a dog that will fit your needs and you his.Keep to the right place.

People need a clearer understanding that different breeds have different needs.Its not one size fits all where dogs are concerned.Any breed/type of dog will have qualities that make it perfectly suited to some homes and horribly unsuited to others.Some owners are able to handle most dogs responsibly and others who should be selecting from a very few breeds or types.
Average Joe needs to understand that before they get a dog,but mostly they don't.Society suffers from that basic lack of understanding.

The infection in society isn't "bad dogs".Its bad owners and breeders,mostly with a very poor understanding of dog breeds,behaviour,training and ethics.Cut out the bad dogs and the infection will grow back in another spot.You have to takle the infection at its roots.
BSL IS in,and attacks are still happening.

Ignoring BSL for the moment,the current hysteria needs to be addressed fast and responsibly.All larger breeds ARE being targeted by local state and federal governments who are being pressured to act.All it takes is a vindictive or frightened person to make a report on any large breed for the most minor things and we are at risk of loosing them.Its happening all over,now.

#6 User is offline   aussielover 

  • Forum Regular
  • Posts: 4,148
  • Joined: 19-September 09
  • Location:Sydney
  • State:NSW

Posted 02 October 2011 - 02:14 PM

No. BSL has failed in numerous other countries.

Firstly because breed does not dictate whether a dog will attack, secondly because people don't obey the law anyway.
If people actually obeyed the law by keeping their dogs contained, many serious attacks could be prevented.

#7 User is offline   Sandra777 

  • Forum Regular
  • Posts: 5,381
  • Joined: 11-November 06
  • Location:QLD
  • State:QLD

Posted 02 October 2011 - 02:34 PM

Just choosing two of your statements

1) That "clearly more of these type of dogs involved in attacks than anything else"

and

2) That "These attacks for the most part were unprovoked active and predatory type aggression"

I don't think there are any statistics to support either of these beliefs, could you cite your sources please.

ETA: No BSL doesn't work. This has been proven over and over.

This post has been edited by Sandra777: 02 October 2011 - 02:35 PM


#8 User is offline   mymatejack 

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 29-September 11
  • State:VIC

Posted 02 October 2011 - 06:14 PM

View Postzara, on 02 October 2011 - 01:02 AM, said:

We know that probably all of these serious attacks although reported in media hype as Pitbull culprits, were not genuine APBT's but cross breeds of various Bull/Mastiff styles etc of Pitbull type similarities appearance wise.

Ultimately if there were no dogs, dog attacks wouldn't occur at all and with that said, a BSL in the extreme would work. Some say that any form of BSL doesn't reduce attack rates, well we know a total BSL of no dogs will reduce attacks competely, so surely in that case a blend of BSL eliminating the types of dogs prone to active and predatory type aggression would have to reduce attack rates over no BSL at all, yes or no?


So in one breath you say that the majority of attacks are most likely not pitbulls but were mongrel crosses of completely different breed, yet in the next you suggest that BSL will work? So which breeds do we need to rid society of in order to stop dog attacks - especially given the statistics from a researcher at the monash uni which says that of 33 fatal dog attacks since 1979, ONLY 2 were pitbull or pitbull crosses?

Isn't it time to make laws to make people train, socialise and contain their dogs?

#9 User is offline   Ruffles 

  • Forum Regular
  • Posts: 6,763
  • Joined: 07-January 06
  • Location:The Most Archaic State in Oz
  • State:VIC

Posted 02 October 2011 - 06:21 PM

I smell a Troll, so dont want to bite... but "types of dogs prone to active and predatory type aggression"? What sort of dogs would these be? Dogs are predators, and its predatory aggression that causes a dog to chase a ball, and fetch a stick. The dogs that are more prone to such I would imagine would be Hounds and Retrievers, who's retrieval skills and desire to chase are attributes that humans have encouraged, and utilise.

#10 User is offline   Chris the Rebel Wolf 

  • Look twice. See more than the obvious.
  • Posts: 1,001
  • Joined: 04-June 11
  • Location:Townsville
  • State:QLD

Posted 02 October 2011 - 07:26 PM

View Postaussielover, on 02 October 2011 - 02:14 PM, said:

No. BSL has failed in numerous other countries.

Firstly because breed does not dictate whether a dog will attack, secondly because people don't obey the law anyway.
If people actually obeyed the law by keeping their dogs contained, many serious attacks could be prevented.


Here here. Nothing much to add that hasn't been said already... any dog can be dangerous and there is numerous evidence to support the downfall of BSL.

#11 User is offline   zuri 

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 68
  • Joined: 07-April 08
  • State:QLD

Posted 02 October 2011 - 09:36 PM

View Postmymatejack, on 02 October 2011 - 06:14 PM, said:

View Postzara, on 02 October 2011 - 01:02 AM, said:

We know that probably all of these serious attacks although reported in media hype as Pitbull culprits, were not genuine APBT's but cross breeds of various Bull/Mastiff styles etc of Pitbull type similarities appearance wise.

Ultimately if there were no dogs, dog attacks wouldn't occur at all and with that said, a BSL in the extreme would work. Some say that any form of BSL doesn't reduce attack rates, well we know a total BSL of no dogs will reduce attacks competely, so surely in that case a blend of BSL eliminating the types of dogs prone to active and predatory type aggression would have to reduce attack rates over no BSL at all, yes or no?


So in one breath you say that the majority of attacks are most likely not pitbulls but were mongrel crosses of completely different breed, yet in the next you suggest that BSL will work? So which breeds do we need to rid society of in order to stop dog attacks - especially given the statistics from a researcher at the monash uni which says that of 33 fatal dog attacks since 1979, ONLY 2 were pitbull or pitbull crosses?

Isn't it time to make laws to make people train, socialise and contain their dogs?


The OP didn't say they were mongrel X of completely different breed, they said they were not pure bred Pits but cross breeds of similar appearance. I think you will find the Vic legislation is after Pit X type dogs because they are the type most relevent in the serious attacks. Most of the serious attacks from my recollection have been reported as Pitbull type dogs and from the photo's shown of the dogs involved definitely were not Border Collies, Huskys or GSDs otherwise they would be after them also?. If they are in fact Pitbull type crossbreeds which they sure look like that type of dog in the coverage I have seen, then perhaps we should accept the facts to enable the right plan to be but into place?

This post has been edited by zuri: 02 October 2011 - 09:47 PM


#12 User is offline   Cat 

  • Forum Regular
  • Posts: 1,914
  • Joined: 03-January 08
  • State:NSW

Posted 02 October 2011 - 09:53 PM

why? so innocent dogs can be put down? Have a read of some other threads - bsl doesn't fix the real problem - which is irresponsible ownership.

Other breeds have been involved in attacks, they just don't get the media hype. Plus I rarely see them put the offending dog in the reports, just some random vicious pit bull. Most people wouldn't know a pit bull if they tripped over one. Lab x are often mistaken as apbt.

#13 User is offline   zuri 

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 68
  • Joined: 07-April 08
  • State:QLD

Posted 02 October 2011 - 10:04 PM

View PostRuffles, on 02 October 2011 - 06:21 PM, said:

I smell a Troll, so dont want to bite... but "types of dogs prone to active and predatory type aggression"? What sort of dogs would these be? Dogs are predators, and its predatory aggression that causes a dog to chase a ball, and fetch a stick. The dogs that are more prone to such I would imagine would be Hounds and Retrievers, who's retrieval skills and desire to chase are attributes that humans have encouraged, and utilise.


I love the way people keep coming up with how all dogs are the same and breed makes no difference in their aggression responses? Perhaps we shoulkd ask police or security dog trainers why they don't use hounds and retrievers and ask Jack the Lad why he has a Pitbull to guard his crop? I am not a BSL supporter, but at least look at the big picture for an informed decision.

#14 User is offline   zuri 

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 68
  • Joined: 07-April 08
  • State:QLD

Posted 02 October 2011 - 10:19 PM

View PostCat, on 02 October 2011 - 09:53 PM, said:

why? so innocent dogs can be put down? Have a read of some other threads - bsl doesn't fix the real problem - which is irresponsible ownership.

Other breeds have been involved in attacks, they just don't get the media hype. Plus I rarely see them put the offending dog in the reports, just some random vicious pit bull. Most people wouldn't know a pit bull if they tripped over one. Lab x are often mistaken as apbt.


The Golden Retriever who bit 4 people in NSW certainly got media coverage albeit they are promoted as the ideal family pet with a gentle nature, so I don't think that is the case. They probably don't have a media splash when little fluffy bit Johnny on the ankle and needed a bandaid sure, but there is a diffence between nip statistics and maulings. Although true, Johnny suffered a dog bite, but I am sure if little fluffy took Johnny's ankle off, it would be on the news? There was the Husky in the hair salon who bit a child on the face that received media coverage, I don't think media coverage on dog attacks is reserved only for Pitbull hype, it's more reserved for the attacks of greater severity regardless of breed from what I have seen?

I don't agree with seizing good innocent dogs on the way they look, that's wrong, but it doesn't hurt to check them out and see how their behaviour and controllability looks? If they find a Pitty type dog that acts a bit nasty, make the owner bring the dog to the council offices for a traffic test, make them walk up the footpath, around the corner past some people etc. If the lunging at the end of the leash wanting to kill everyone and the owner has no leash control would be a good candidate for seizure. If the dog is calm and well controlled it's off the hook, something like that?

This post has been edited by zuri: 02 October 2011 - 10:33 PM


#15 User is offline   Ruffles 

  • Forum Regular
  • Posts: 6,763
  • Joined: 07-January 06
  • Location:The Most Archaic State in Oz
  • State:VIC

Posted 02 October 2011 - 10:40 PM

View Postzuri, on 02 October 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

View PostRuffles, on 02 October 2011 - 06:21 PM, said:

I smell a Troll, so dont want to bite... but "types of dogs prone to active and predatory type aggression"? What sort of dogs would these be? Dogs are predators, and its predatory aggression that causes a dog to chase a ball, and fetch a stick. The dogs that are more prone to such I would imagine would be Hounds and Retrievers, who's retrieval skills and desire to chase are attributes that humans have encouraged, and utilise.


I love the way people keep coming up with how all dogs are the same and breed makes no difference in their aggression responses? Perhaps we shoulkd ask police or security dog trainers why they don't use hounds and retrievers and ask Jack the Lad why he has a Pitbull to guard his crop? I am not a BSL supporter, but at least look at the big picture for an informed decision.


I wasn't saying all dogs are the same, I was pointing out that the OP is misinformed.

If you really, honestly believe that the people fighting BSL are doing so blindly, then there is zero point in me arguing with you. Do you realise the dog in your avatar will be under threat because of the new identification method in Victoria?

Share this topic:



Old topic!
This topic has had no activity for over 365 days. Due to that, you will not be able to reply. Please create a new topic!

  • 6 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


Privacy Policy | Web Site Terms and Conditions