zara

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?

I am sorry, I didn't mean to mess up your thread, my apology, going to the BSL section

Personally, I don't think this rates with what the family of the little girl killed by one have suffered, although I agree it is a sad state of affairs all round but primarily they are trying to save human lives and serious maulings from those type of dogs and given that they can't control the people who own them, the only other option to satisfy community outcry is get rid of that type of dog unfortunately. Sandgrubber: People keep saying how you can make any dog aggressive, in certain circumstances you can, but the type of active preditory aggression that the dog killing the little girl displayed, you can't make the average dog do that, perhaps a high drive working dog trained extensively and set upon a child by command, but these dogs are not trained, they are nasty dogs who want to get everyone, we have all seen this type of dog in various breeds, the one's you hope the owner doesn't drop the leash as the dog lunges and snarls at everything? Interestingly the report of this shocking incident claimed the owner just stood there watching the dog attack, he was probably scared of the dog and knew it was a fruitloop, my God, if one of mine attacked a child I would throw my entire body over the dog without even thinking of consequence not stand there like a stunned mullet, I can't believe that?

Huh? Unless I completely misunderstand you ..... the "debate" and the "opposition" to BSL, both from its inception (2001, I think, as far as Australia is concerned) to now, is because people, including dog-lovers of the breeds which have been, both past and present, targeted under the terms of the legislation (the net for which is so much broader now) do NOT want people being injured by dogs and DO want bite stats to be reduced AND because they know, from WORLD-WIDE statistics who have already tried the BSL, that the legislation is doomed for failure. NOT ONLY doomed for failure, but deemed to make things worse, because it lulls people into false senses of security, gives the wrong impression and MIS-educates. Mind you, I don't know that anywhere in the world has gone so far as turning "Breed Specific Legislation" into "Physical Specific (loosely speaking) Legislation", so can't suggest the World, save for Australia, has gone that mad. Zara - What "factual argument" can you provide a link to that shows BSL is overall successful? I ask you this Erny: Is it correct for me to say it's a fact that if the recent surge of attacks committed by Pitbull type dogs had fallen victim to a BSL, that those dogs including the culprit who took the little girl's life couldn't have done the deed if they didn't exist? Is it also a fact if the owners of these offending dogs had dogs of a different breed and type, that it's impossible to prove an attack would have still occurred with the same outcome?

You are totally missing the point Kirty? Nearly every viscious unprovoked attack causing serious injury and recently death has featured a Pitbull style of dog. Pitbull style I don't mean specifically a pure bred Pitbull but a dog of Pitbull/Mastiff type appearance, definitely not the type of dog that Border Collies, Standard Poodles or GSDs could be mistaken for, they are on the Bull breed platform and the facts are if BSL had eliminated these breeds and style of dog, the offending dogs could not have attacked when non existant. That's actually a fact, if the offending dogs had been eliminated via BSL prior to the attack, the attack from those particular dogs would have been prevented and without BSL the attacks did occur. Whether or not the owners of the attacking dogs had a different breed and may still have attacked etc etc, is not fact, it's speculation and guess work. If Pitbull type dogs are eliminated by BSL, it's a fact that a Pitbull type dog will no longer attack anyone, and with no BSL regardless of what programs are in place to guarantee a Pitbull type dog whilst remaining in existance shouldn't re-offend, they can, but they can't re-offend if they are gone? If the community makes a stance to say they no longer want to be subject to attacks from Pitbull type dogs, eliminating them from existance will fix it, fact!!. It won't stop dog attacks, it will stop Pitbull type attacks which people are most scared of. So in the interests of public saftey the debate favouring to abolish BSL over tightening it up an anti BSL campaign can't win having no factual argument to present.

Thanks for the link Melzawelza I will check it out.

I totally agree that any attacks are owner mismanagement and the raising of dogs irresponsibly, but there are plenty of those owners with all different types of dogs and breeds which proves irresponsibility and owner mismanagement doesn't cause every dog and breed to be become prone to serious attacks and killings. What irresponsible ownership and mismanagement highlights are the type of dogs that are most likely to attack in irresponsible hands which seems to be the Pitbull type of dogs subject to the present target more so than anything else? Pitbull type dogs are attractive to irresponsible people who like aggressive dogs which doesn't help the situation, but Rotties, GSD's etc and the various cross breed combinations of those type of dogs are also owned by irresponsible people too for the same reason but don't seem to cause the carnage of the same magnitude, like they are not the Rotty GSD type dogs ripping people apart, killing kids and other dogs on a regular basis is what I mean, the real serious one's seem to be the Pitbull Mastiff style of dog which is the reason they are clamping down on them from what I can see? I don't think they single out the Pitbull Mastiff style of dog without good reason and I am sure it would be the same with any breed who featured regularly in serious attacks, so when the serious incidents keep featuring a particular style of dog, they really have no choice from public outcry to address the situation? Because these types of dogs fit an image for those people.Remove the breed and they will find an alternative untill no dogs are left.Just as the banning of a car wont stop bad drivers being on the roads. We educate road users to have duty of care.Not ban cars. Yes, but so do Rotties and GSD's and other large breeds fit the image too which these people have now and have done so for years and they get out, bail people up, chase kids on bikes and bite people, fight other dogs, but they don't seem to feature in too many seriously savage attacks is what I mean as the Pitty type dogs have? There would be equally moronic owners with breeds other than Pitbull Mastiff types that are kept for aggression and image, but also the dog needs to have some natural anger to fulfill these roles too. Moving on to a dog that doesn't have the anger in the breed to work for these people won't create the monsters they are looking for, they are not great dogs made aggressive as many people believe I don't think, a lot of the aggression is already in the dog and possibly what they were bred for perhaps?

I totally agree that any attacks are owner mismanagement and the raising of dogs irresponsibly, but there are plenty of those owners with all different types of dogs and breeds which proves irresponsibility and owner mismanagement doesn't cause every dog and breed to be become prone to serious attacks and killings. What irresponsible ownership and mismanagement highlights are the type of dogs that are most likely to attack in irresponsible hands which seems to be the Pitbull type of dogs subject to the present target more so than anything else? Pitbull type dogs are attractive to irresponsible people who like aggressive dogs which doesn't help the situation, but Rotties, GSD's etc and the various cross breed combinations of those type of dogs are also owned by irresponsible people too for the same reason but don't seem to cause the carnage of the same magnitude, like they are not the Rotty GSD type dogs ripping people apart, killing kids and other dogs on a regular basis is what I mean, the real serious one's seem to be the Pitbull Mastiff style of dog which is the reason they are clamping down on them from what I can see? I don't think they single out the Pitbull Mastiff style of dog without good reason and I am sure it would be the same with any breed who featured regularly in serious attacks, so when the serious incidents keep featuring a particular style of dog, they really have no choice from public outcry to address the situation?

But how do you convince someone who has been attacked or effected by a restricted breed attacked that BSL doesn't prevent attacks when it would have prevented the attack they suffered if the offending dog didn't exist?. You can't say to them "if it wasn't the Pitbull who got you another breed would have anyway so at the end of the day, BSL wouldn't have prevented you suffering a dog attack"?

• Is there any scientific literature that proves people victims of attacks from restricted breeds would still have suffered attacks if BSL had previously eliminated the dogs who attacked them? In other words, if the owners of the dog who killed the little girl had a Rottweiler instead of the Pitbull X they had, would the Rottweiler have chased the kids into the house and killed the little girl in the same fashion?

I meant dogs that are registered already as a Staffy X Labrador for example although may have the "look", if they catch someone walking a dog like this, would they accept what it's registered as and if it's a nice dog, leave it be, or seize it on the off chance it's breed was incorrectly nominated?

No doubt. There is a place in this world IMO for dogs prepared to do harm to humans who simply trespass. IMO Australia is not one of those places and a dog with the temperament of the Fila needs to be carefully placed in the right homes anywhere. A correctly temperamented Fila will do more than just guard.. so when little Timmy comes uninvited over the fence looking for his tennis ball, he won't be leaving in one piece. I'd say he wont' be leaving anyway but in a coffin. Anyone who could casually say that they wish to own such a dog in an urban setting in this country needs their head read. Place that argument in a place like Johannesburg and its a whole new ball game. I don't know why people want these types of dogs for protection, Pitbull's, Dogo's etc as the people training protection dogs in an urban setting don't use them anyway and the best breeds for that role we can have now?. From what I have ever read in terms of trainability, trustworthiness, predictability etc, the GSD, Malinois and Rottweiler are said run rings around the restricted types, Mastiff's etc being the reason they use them exclusively. If the police and security people can trust their lives on the breeds like the GSD etc, surely they are sufficient as protection against home invasion when properly trained?

Secretkei, what I meant was that I didn't perceive from your post that you had your name down on a litter and one popped up on offer suddenly and sometimes happens with surplus pups that lack the better traits although still need a good home. I was just saying that I would want to know how one popped up on offer as often really promising working litters are presold with deposits taken before the mating has occurred. You are correct in saying there are no home shortages for pups from promising litters which is usually the case and often hard to even buy one.

Isn't that strange?, my desexed boy was the same and we wondered if they missed some vital bits when he was castrated?. I have had a desexed female who was also a cronic humper far worse than any entire male?

She could be subject to a payout or something along those lines, insurance claim etc for her eyesight that isn't as bad as she claims. The dog may be used to justify her condition and look the part?. It sounds highly out of character for a legitimate guide dog to behave in that manner, bit sus in my opinion? Not to misjudge the poor woman if she is genuinely blind and has a dog with temperment issues, but people have been caught before trying on eye sight claims and go to great lengths in their charades?