Zhou Xuanyao

More than likely. And that will be evidence in support of our argument, not yours

Theres another person in another thread at the moment with this similar attitude. You have to accept that there has to be attacks, followed by punitive action, over and over again before people start getting it and attacks reduce. It doesn't matter if you don't like it or do not think it is ideal, its just how it works. Like I said in the other thread, punitive is preventative, but it takes time. You can only realistically aim for a reduction in dog attacks. Dogs attacks will never be eliminated while there are dogs we have to accept that. The sooner they start focusing on the right end of the lead, the sooner dog attacks will decrease. Or, we can just keep banning and blaming breeds, because thats working ....... How many years has it been now ? How many more until they they admit they are wrong and move on ? In the interim people will continue getting bit at the same rate. People should be angry at the government not bull breed owners.

On what grounds do you not think so ? Have a look at local and state statistics pertaining to the volume of reported dog attacks. Like I say, alot of people seem to think that the only time a dog attack occurs is when it is reported in the media. If these were infact the total sum of attacks people should be throwing a party not complaining. eta Evidence abounds.

Yes, thats what i'm commenting on.

Well there you go, onya Ipswich city council, a wonderful opportunity to drum up some business. Make it known that the dog was not registered, and hope that peoples logic goes a little something like this 1. Dog attacked 2. Dog was not registered Therefore 3. If I do not want my dog to attack, I better run to the council and hand over a wad of cash

A punitive measure also serves as a preventative one. It is a process, reduction in dog attacks cannot happen immediately.

One guy followed the other guy, that is the reasoning. For example, Australia followed the UK, and it snow balled. I don't know a great deal about all the breeds, but a theory I dare put forward for why they where chosen is that atleast some of the breeds involved are currently work bred in different parts of the world, and the type of work they do is considered displeasing. For example, the Tosa is widely fight bred in Japan and Korea, the APBT is widely fight bred in the USA, and to a lesser degree Asia and Europe, I also understand the Fila to be bred for use as a bold and aggressive guardian in South America. These dogs are strictly selectively bred, and even then many dogs are killed as pups because they are deemed to lack the potential to fulfill their work requirements. As soon as they stop being tested and selectively bred, they begin to lose their abilities. Thats why Australia is full of essentially useless dogs, from GSD's, Dobermans, Staffords, Danes, ect you name it and most are of little use for their originally intended task. Why, because they are bred as pets generation after generation. Does not matter what a fight bred APBT is capable of, a pet and a fighting dog are not nearly the same thing. Further to that, i'm of the belief that even fight bred dogs are not NECESSARILY dog aggressive, rather they have all the right potential to be champions if they are conditioned to fight, in other words, the epitome of a great dog. Structurally sound, hard nerved, tenacious, willing to please, ect. I think I have done put one forward. If we enforce the dog control laws we already have properly (minus BSL), and introduce a system like the one I described, that is a positive alternative that will in fact reduce dogs attacks, imagine that.

Lol yeh sure he did. Maybe if it came up to him looking for a pat.

Look yes we do I agree. Most breeds are largely alike. Sure contrasts exist to some extent but you do not need 101 different breeds just to run them around a show ring. Most of them were intended for use as WORKING dogs. Now, few are bred along working lines much less tested for so whats the point. Whats the difference between a Bull Terrier, Stafford, and APBT ? Not a great deal. What about the all the different gun dogs ? All the Mastiffs ? And so forth. No we do not NEED half a dozen more breeds. But ...... The complication is people do not want pets because they are being pragmatic, they want them because they like them not because they need them. People still have their preferences. On logical grounds, BSL should be unacceptable from anyone's perspective, whether your passion is the preservation of the breed, civil liberty, equity, animal welfare, or ofcourse community safety, it fails on all counts. The attitude is wrong, we have to move on positively and we cannot do that if we are still stuck on the banning breeds mentality.

Yes someone has to break the law before they can be punished. One of the the idea's behind laws and consequences is to deter people, so if authorities can show that they are ontop of this thing and are justly prosecuting, it might make dog owners feel a little more accountable - So this is the prevention. I don't think it would open up a legal mind field. They already impose these kinds of sentences on the odd occasion, they just do not have the details sorted out. All dog people will potentially take an interest in them. Some people view the world through the glasses the media and the government has painted for them, and some just get on with their lives and judge life and everything in it on its merits. Sure you will see families wanting all kinds of breeds. edited for clarity

Not breed specific, no "types of dogs". Just a ban on dog ownership for a given period of time. So for example, if your dog attacks and you are found to have been negligent, you could be looking at a 2 year ban, 5 year ban, ect. I think they could set up something like that. Would it work ? To some extent. Sure drugs continue, people always have free choice, whether or not they obey the law is upto them. People have to weigh up their will to break the law against the possible consequences, all laws are alike in that respect and this prospective scenario would be no different. The devil is in the detail, setting it up so that it will would be organized and effective, a national database, ect.

The line could be drawn based on individual proven track record, and it should be breed irrelevant.

Good article. The organizations who have been perpetuating these figures simply discredit themselves in their persuit to (presumably) promote desexing. When the truth comes out everyone will view anything they say with greater skepticism in the future, so they have hurt their cause with their irresponsible use of bad information. Unfortunately his right.

What a hero good dog Angel !

Its sad to see the Chinese do not have a concept of animal cruelty. They are not the scum of the planet they are just not conditioned to care for animals. Animal welfare is learned its not intrinsic to humans.

Yes the reason we tend to sound APBT centric is because that is by far the most prominent of the restricted breeds in Australia. I am against breed specific legislation of any kind, all forms of federal, state and local BSL should be binned.

Argentine Dogo.

A great result

I nailed together a frame using fence palings for the form work, and used weldmesh tied together with wire for reinforcing. The concrete was poured around the ice cream containers (fill them with sand or something) for the bowls. It is 80kg, or 4 bags of concrete at $5 a bag, cost effective little project.

Make one. That way it will be just what you want. I had to make one for my dog as she kept knocking it over, chewing it up , ect.

Those interested in learning more about dog fighting, might like to watch the following documentary about dog fighting in Chicago. They talk about the different types of dog fighting, the training and treatment of the dogs, how the children grow up desensitized to dog fighting, the difficulties they face in policing and prosecuting the cases, and so forth.

I agree but that is not proof that people who willfully hurt animals are mentally ill or are likely to show the same abuse toward humans. Similarly, you could say that proof exists that people who eat brussel sprouts quite often go onto cheat on their spouse. I think it could be an indication of future behavior amongst one type of abuser, but not others. Like I say, I draw an important distinction between those who are indifferent, and those who express regret on moral grounds. The second group is the one of most concern from a mental health perspective. Its important to try and take a world and historic perspective when you consider this issue. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that the concept and feeling of welfare toward animals in an individual or group is conditioned.

Calling these abusers sick and other names is not helpful. Why ? Because it is not true. Sure, some of them coincidentally may be mentally ill, but abusing animals is not proof of their being anything wrong with them. They do it because they are conditioned to do it, they simply do not see anything wrong with it. You see alot of kids like that, not necessarily kids who engage in animal abuse, but kids who just don't see the problem, are indifferent or disinterested. The reason is, they were raised in a household which is either indifferent to animals or abusive to animals. Their friends might be the same. In foreign countries like the USA, children are often raised surrounded by a dog fighting culture, ect. Same as in so many other foreign countries where animal abuse is the norm not the exception, why, because they are simply conditioned differently. It is like that today, and it has always been like that. The Romans used to hoard magnificent, beautiful creatures like lions, tigers, and elephants into their arenas and spear them to death, much to the amusement of the audience. The abusers who have mental issues are probably the ones that show regret for what they have done. This shows they do understand the concept of animal rights, they do accept that dogs have feelings, they do regret that they did something cruel to the dog on a moral level, but they did it anyway. So it is in this type of case i'd consider mental illness, not in a case where the offender is indifferent.

Why do they have to have a review ? Why was the promotion not a good idea ? People are just so over the top all the time. The poor girl, its a regrettable accident. They do happen, someone or something does not always have to be to blame. It is this type of thinking which is harmful and in the extreme leads to BSL, why ? Because lets learn that sometimes we have to accept an accident has occured and move on.

You see ? So like I say, your argument cannot be disproven in whole. It cannot reasonably be disproven that Linke's comments will have a negative impact on the Staffy in Mastiff. However most of it can and has been. Just about everything you have put up to support your view has fallen in a heap, not a subjective heap, and objective heap, and the only one that can't see that is you Instead of admitting where you are wrong, you carry on with arguments that don't make any sense, and pull out one fallacy after another. Your latest and one of your most common throughout this thread is the straw man. Show evidence that Linke, or indeed anyone at all in this thread, has blamed this attack on Staffies or Mastiffs.