Rspca Letter To Victorian Premier

[melzawelza]

Intelligent people are against BSL because it doesn't work - dog attacks typically rise under BSL. That includes any breed it has ever been imposed on (of which there have been many all around the world). We aren't in it to 'free the Pit Bull', we're in it to change the harmful and incorrect belief in the general consciousness that aggression is a breed problem, not an owner problem. Until we get out of this mindset we'll never move forward and actually start putting a nice dent in our dog attacks. Places around the world have no BSL and have well resourced and legislated animal management programs, and enjoy an extremely low dog attack rate. We don't need different laws for certain breeds, it's completely unnecessary.

The general community see BSL as restricting a breed of dog that they can't be bitten by if they don't exist. If BSL was abolished and a child was killed by a newly imported Fila, they would argue had the breed remained restricted, the child would not have been killed by a Fila and probably would be still alive. It's a big risk for a government to abolish BSL as it's probably not anti BSL supporters who will cause them election defeat. Personally I don't see BSL as an easy thing to abolish from a political stand point? The destruction of dogs on appearance is stupid, ok check them out but if they pass a temperament assessment that should release them from concern IMHO

It's been abolished all over the world. In almost every single town and city in the USA (less than 2% of the Country now has BSL), and in fact sixteen states now have preemptions which means that no town or city within that state can ever implement BSL. Germany abolished it following a study showing the targeted breeds were no more aggressive that the control group of golden retrievers. The Netherlands has... so many places have abolished it.

We will too, it'll just probably take another ten years. After being in the States two years in a row I would say we are where they were ten years ago as far as animal welfare issues go.

Edited August 31, 2014 by melzawelza

[YOLO]

So anti-BSL protesters are phoning in bomb threats to the RSPCA. Yes, clearly these are right-minded people who should be listened to.

And once again somebody trots out the old "all dogs are dangerous" horse____.

I remember many moons ago in WA, there was a "move" to require all "large dogs" to be muzzled. Obviously stupid, but that's one of the alternatives.

People need to ACCEPT the basic premise that we need to eliminate (or greatly reduce) the danger of dangerous dogs (whichever dogs they may be.)

THEN suggest what is the best way to achieve this.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Big D

[YOLO]

In almost every single town and city in the USA (less than 2% of the Country now has BSL), and in fact sixteen states now have preemptions which means that no town or city within that state can ever implement BSL.

Yes, because Americans believe that being a ____wit is their God-given (and constitutional) right. Most states also allow any halfwit to own assault rifles, excuse violent pornography as "freedom of speech," have active chapters of the KKK, and armed militia dedicated to the destruction of the Federal government.

[korbin13]

In almost every single town and city in the USA (less than 2% of the Country now has BSL), and in fact sixteen states now have preemptions which means that no town or city within that state can ever implement BSL.

Yes, because Americans believe that being a ____wit is their God-given (and constitutional) right. Most states also allow any halfwit to own assault rifles, excuse violent pornography as "freedom of speech," have active chapters of the KKK, and armed militia dedicated to the destruction of the Federal government.

With rants like this, no one will take anything you say seriously. :laugh:

[ricey]

Dear, dear, deary me; Amax-1 and Big D both of you really need to take a chill pill and calm down. Else you both are going to burst a big blood vessel in your brain and become a burden on the public health tax dollar.

If you can come up with any research that supports your blinkered views on pit bulls and BSL, I'd love you to share it with us.

But you won't be able to, will you? You'll just continue pouring out your ill considered poisonous drivel that you heard from someone else, wont you?

Go on, surprise us all by saying something well thought out and considered. Just repeating drivel you read in the news or heard on the bus on the way to work does not constitute intelligent discussion.

Merry Christmas to you all.

ricey

[ricey]

The thing is, all of us are able to change our minds once shown compelling evidence. If we don't, that just shows us to be stupid.

This is the process that Hugh Wirth, the former president of the RSPCA, went through.

Hugh Wirth and Graham Smith of the Lost Dogs Home were the leading Australian champions of BSL. Graham Smith still is, but Hugh read the research and changed his mind. He very publicly recanted, and is now stridently anti BSL. I admire him for that. I don't admire the damage that Hugh Wirth did to this blameless pit bull breed in Australia, but I do admire him for having the courage to admit he was wrong.

The dog acts vary somewhat from state to state and territory, but the bottom line in all of them is that the dog owner is responsible for the actions of their dog. So whether you have a pit bull or a Pekingese, the responsibility is the same: look after your dog and make sure that it is not a problem. That's not too much to ask, is it?

ricey

[melzawelza]

In almost every single town and city in the USA (less than 2% of the Country now has BSL), and in fact sixteen states now have preemptions which means that no town or city within that state can ever implement BSL.

Yes, because Americans believe that being a ____wit is their God-given (and constitutional) right. Most states also allow any halfwit to own assault rifles, excuse violent pornography as "freedom of speech," have active chapters of the KKK, and armed militia dedicated to the destruction of the Federal government.

Yeah, not really a valid comparison. The USA started BSL, and had it on the books in some form in most states for many, many years. They weren't averse to the idea of controlling or banning breeds to try and reduce dog attacks, and believed it would work, and championed the approach.

It is now being repealed with lightning speed because lawmakers looked at the evidence in their areas and around the world which unequivocally shows that this approach does absolutely zero dog reduce dog attacks - in most areas it actually increases them. It costs unbelievable amounts of taxpayer dollars to implement for no measurable gain in public safety, and it results in the deaths of many lovely dogs and breaks families apart. There have been people who have committed suicide after having their friendly dog seized and killed.

Now less than 2% of the country has it on the books, and the evidence is so strong as to what a public safety failure these laws are that 18 states now have a pre-emption which prevents any of the counties within from enacting BSL. The most recent being Utah as of 1 January 2015.

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/blog/south-dakota-and-utah-to-be-the-17th-and-18th-states-to-preempt-breed-specific-legislation/

Seeing as it has been repealed in SO many communities, you would think that if it was keeping the public safe we'd now see a big increase in dog attacks, but that just hasn't happened - again showing that the legislation was costing (often) hundreds of thousands of dollars with no effect (actually a negative effect) on public safety.

ETA and if, despite all of the above you still aren't keen on anything the USA does, check out the study which caused Lower Saxony in Germany to repeal their BSL:

Beginning in July 2000 legislation in Lower Saxony restricted the keeping of bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, pit bull terriers, and 11 other breeds. Exemption was possible after attending an especially developed test. The tests analyzed for breed predisposition for excessively aggressive signaling or aggressive behavior in inappropriate situations, differences in behavior between breeds, and factors differentiating biting from nonbiting dogs.

The test results of 415 dogs were analyzed. The test consisted of a veterinary examination; a learning test; situations of dog-human, dog-environment, and dog-dog contact; and obedience. Escalation in aggressive behavior was scored using a scale of 1-7. No aggressive behavior (1 on the scale) was shown by 38.07% of the dogs, 61.69% showed aggressive behavior scored as 2 to 5 on the scale, and 0.24% bit without previous threatening signals (6 on the scale).

Concerning a score of 1 on the scale, pairwise comparison (chi-square test) showed significant differences between bull terriers and American Staffordshire terriers (P = 0.004), pit bull terriers (P = 0.01), Doberman pinschers (P = 0.003), and rottweilers (P = 0.009). Concerning scores of 2 to 7 on the scale,, no significant differences were found.

Ninety-five percent of the animals reacted appropriately in the test situation. Five percent displayed excessive aggressive signaling or aggressive behavior in inappropriate situations. These displays were associated with unusual movements and the dogs' apparent apprehension. Correlation between test results and owners jerking on the leash or misinterpreting their dogs' behavior and dogs trying to elude physical manipulation was found. No significant difference in behavior between breeds was detected.

The results show no indication of dangerousness in specific breeds. Justification for specific breed lists in the legislation was not shown.

Link

Edited January 7, 2015 by melzawelza

[mita]

Mel, I loved that work from Lower Saxony in Germany that you posted. Bears out exactly the same results from a study at the University of Cordoba in Spain.

[melzawelza]

Mel, I loved that work from Lower Saxony in Germany that you posted. Bears out exactly the same results from a study at the University of Cordoba in Spain.

It's a good one isn't it! They actually repealed the legislation after this.

[mita]

Mel, I loved that work from Lower Saxony in Germany that you posted. Bears out exactly the same results from a study at the University of Cordoba in Spain.

It's a good one isn't it! They actually repealed the legislation after this.

Laws reflecting the science! That's what we want.

[ricey]

Yes, and laws demonstrating common sense.

Not too much to expect, really.

ricey

[huck house]

The greater worry is , what other polices enforced by legislation are the state government getting so horribly wrong?