Sbt Tops Bite List In Nsw

[Eileen]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/bite-getting-wor...00503-u3rz.html

Bite getting worse than their bark

HARVEY GRENNAN

May 4, 2010

DOG attacks in NSW increased by 41 per cent in the three months to March.

The latest dog attack register report from the Department of Local Government said there were 1122 attacks on people and other animals, up from 793 the previous quarter.

A total of 666 people were attacked, up from 470. Of these, 131 needed medical treatment and 30 were admitted to hospital.

"Dog owners have a very serious responsibility to ensure their pet is under control and well-supervised at all times - particularly when they are around children," the Minister for Local Government, Barbara Perry, said.

Ms Perry said increasing numbers of councils were reporting dog attacks, contributing to the increase in reported figures. Councils issued 281 penalties (up 39 per cent) and 308 warnings to dog owners, with 471 investigations continuing during the quarter.

Staffordshire bull terriers were the main offenders, with 156 attacks, Australian cattle dogs were next with 93 attacks, followed by German shepherds with 60. There were 114 dangerous dog declarations, up from 100 the previous quarter, and 158 dogs destroyed, up from 108.

Byron Shire has overtaken Blacktown for the most attacks. Owners of dangerous dogs can face fines of up to $55,000 or two years in prison - or both.

The state government has introduced a bill to Parliament to allow cafe and restaurant owners discretion as to whether they allow dogs in their outdoor dining areas. At present they are banned. If dogs are allowed, they must be on a leash, sit on the ground, not be fed and not be within 10 metres of a food preparation area.

[Quickasyoucan]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/bite-getting-wor...00503-u3rz.html

Bite getting worse than their bark

HARVEY GRENNAN

May 4, 2010

DOG attacks in NSW increased by 41 per cent in the three months to March.

The latest dog attack register report from the Department of Local Government said there were 1122 attacks on people and other animals, up from 793 the previous quarter.

A total of 666 people were attacked, up from 470. Of these, 131 needed medical treatment and 30 were admitted to hospital.

"Dog owners have a very serious responsibility to ensure their pet is under control and well-supervised at all times - particularly when they are around children," the Minister for Local Government, Barbara Perry, said.

Ms Perry said increasing numbers of councils were reporting dog attacks, contributing to the increase in reported figures. Councils issued 281 penalties (up 39 per cent) and 308 warnings to dog owners, with 471 investigations continuing during the quarter.

Staffordshire bull terriers were the main offenders, with 156 attacks, Australian cattle dogs were next with 93 attacks, followed by German shepherds with 60. There were 114 dangerous dog declarations, up from 100 the previous quarter, and 158 dogs destroyed, up from 108.

Byron Shire has overtaken Blacktown for the most attacks. Owners of dangerous dogs can face fines of up to $55,000 or two years in prison - or both.

The state government has introduced a bill to Parliament to allow cafe and restaurant owners discretion as to whether they allow dogs in their outdoor dining areas. At present they are banned. If dogs are allowed, they must be on a leash, sit on the ground, not be fed and not be within 10 metres of a food preparation area.

So BSL and not targeting irresponsible owners is really working well then.

However, I take the increase in penalties as a positive if that means that they are actually enforcing existing general legislation. I also see that these numbers are due to increased reporting so it may not really be the 41% actual leap that they are reporting.

[WreckitWhippet]

"Dog owners have a very serious responsibility to ensure their pet is under control and well-supervised at all times - particularly when they are around children," the Minister for Local Government, Barbara Perry, said.

We are never going to get incidents invovling dogs to zero, but if people followed the basic rules of on leash, effective control and keeping their dogs on their own property, there would be a reduction.

Education is the only thing that is going to reduce the number of attacks that involve dogs in their own home. Owners need to choose wisely the breed that is best suited to them, provide an enriched environment for that dog, include the dog as part of the family, supervise, train and socialise it.

Of course "Staffordshire Bull Terrier " is going to top the list, it includes the generic "staffy", the brindle dog that could be anything.

I'd like to see no dog registered as a certain breed, unless you bring with it the ANKC papers, that correspond with the microchip. I think we'd see a big shift in the stats and "cross breeds" would be topping the list.

[Clyde]

I wonder how many of these dogs were responsibly bred? I also think it's a fair chance that the SBT's and ACD's are more popular among 'rough society' too, thus the numbers of these breeds are higher. Not to mention that any knee high cross breed is labelled a Staffy and anything bigger than that is labelled a Mastiff. Next, Mastiffs will be on the list even though they're really not a common breed at all

[WreckitWhippet]

Quickas, mandatory reporting would now be in full swing. All councils are now aware of their obligation to report and audits have been completed. Those who were not reporting have now had their bums kicked.

I would expect that the stats will now level out.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

QLD councils have been doing it for a few years now since they moved on from Pitbulls. Reports I have seen indicate few or no attacks by Pitbulls, and NO attacks from Bull Arabs, even though they are one of the most common breeds. These days they are defaulting to the poor Staffy for everything.

NSW is coming into a stage were they know they have lost the Pitbull fight, but they will pretend they have won by being seen to move on and starting to report high bite stats in some other breed. I think a pattern of Staffy related high bite statistics and media reports in this state has already begun, and I think we will see an increase over the next year or so.

[Staranais]

Those statistics are completely meaningless unless they include how many dogs of each breed are actually present in the population.

e.g., if staffy type dogs are 40% of the dog population, and are responsible for 40% of the bites, then they're not the "main offenders" at all, they're biting exactly as often as you'd expect them to just by random chance.

If they're 20% of the population and doing 40% of the bites, then you could argue that there is a problem with the breed type - or more likely, a problem with the type of owners that staffy-looking dogs tend to attract.

[Quickasyoucan]

Quickas, mandatory reporting would now be in full swing. All councils are now aware of their obligation to report and audits have been completed. Those who were not reporting have now had their bums kicked.

I would expect that the stats will now level out.

So do you think that means the 41% is a statistical blip?

I was only thinking about this this this morning as I drove past my first off leash on the street dog of the morning. I mean how hard is it to walk your dog on a bl""dy leash on the street.

I actually would like to have the power to go round on the spot fining everyone who had their dog off the lead on the street!!! I

t makes life very hard for a friend of mine who does the right thing, but has a dog who is DA in some circumstances when she is constantly having to be on the look out for dogs rushing hers on the street when she is doing the right thing training and keeping her dog on a leash at all times. She shouldn't have to go through that and then cop abuse from people when she tells them their dog may get bitten if it rushes up to hers.

[casowner]

When I was on the Dog & Cat Management Board Forum we discussed the increase in bite statistics and how a high majority were family dogs in their own yards, one of the possible reasons for the increases were the fact that Councils had tightened laws so much that people were no longer walking/socialising their dogs like they used too. When dogs met other dogs and learnt social skills etc etc.

[geo]

Of course "Staffordshire Bull Terrier " is going to top the list, it includes the generic "staffy", the brindle dog that could be anything.

I'd like to see no dog registered as a certain breed, unless you bring with it the ANKC papers, that correspond with the microchip. I think we'd see a big shift in the stats and "cross breeds" would be topping the list.

I agree, Staffies will top the list as they're now being targeted by the media, also i feel they are by far the most populus dog in Australia, (so stats will only prove correct if they have been seasonally adjusted to reflect true numbers) you only have to look in the trading post and search 'staffy' for pages and pages of BYB dogs.

The councils i feel also got pissed at everyone calling their potential pitty a staffy cross to avoid the chance of it being PTS, in most cases they would've been a staffy cross as pure bred pits aren't the norm.

Apparently for the last 20 years staffies have been the great dog next door, now for soem reason they're accountable for all the attacks!!! god damn media and stupid public perception.

[WreckitWhippet]

Yep and I think the stats for the coming 1/4's won't change much

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_...;mi=9&ml=10

The NSW report breaks down by breed but doesn't show how many of that breed are registered.

The council report breaks down by bite/area and shows total number of dogs registered in that area but has no breed break down.

The 2004/5 report has bites per breed and number of that breed registered so you can see that ACD are more likely to bite than some other types of dog but the percentage for APBT is horrible - there are hardly any of them registered so the statistic isn't very reliable anyway, but then if one dog bites and hardly any are registered then the percentage of biters looks really bad. Eg if you meet 100 APBT - one of them is going to put you in hospital. But if I remember right, there are only 100 APBT registered or there abouts in NSW.

Which probably means that most of the dogs are not correctly identified when the report is sent in.

Page 7 and 8 are the most interesting of the 2004/5 report

None of the reports show if the biting dog - is registered at all.

So if you have 100 registered APBT - and none of them bite anybody but an unregistered dog misidentified as an APBT bites someone and puts them in hospital - then APBT get a bite percentage of 1 in 100 when the correct number would be zero percent.

Confused yet?

It would be more accurate if they showed the number of unregistered dogs in the list and put out the report in the 2004/5 format quarterly instead of the crap they do put out.

You need to write to the NSW State LGA minister to make that happen.

Malamutes get a 0.8 which is nearly 1.0 - ie one in 100 malamutes will (try to) bite you? But again there aren't very many of them.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Thats right, they are mis identified ATLEAST 90% of the time.

Someone presents at the vet or medical centre, they say the incident involved a "Pitbull", or "Staffy" and then thats it there it is, facts are unimportant, chalk another one up for those breeds. That is what is in their psyche, that is what they are going to say. Not only that, when its left upto the council to determine breed, that is what is in their psyche and on their agenda, that is what they are going to put down.

Last one I saw, a womens Papillion was attacked down the beach by Pointer type x breed, the woman was rushing away with the dog in her hands telling everyone her dog was attacked by a Pitbull.

[Quickasyoucan]

The other thing to bear in mind is this:

"A dog attack can include any incident where a dog rushes at, attacks, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal (other than vermin), whether or not any injury is caused to the person or animal."

I know there are cases where dogs have been declared dangerous for jumping on people, chasing cats etc, not that this is acceptable but it is not a case of a dog biting a person, which I think can be the public assumption when reading articles headlined "bites are worse than bark".

ETA I also assume "breed" is identified by victim or witness in most cases and not by owner or pedigree registration.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Quickasyoucan

[sandgrubber]

Education is a cop out. If anything is going wrong, politically, the quick response is 'more education' Big questions are WHO IS RESPONSIBILE FOR EDUCATING -- I'd put a big onus on the breeders (including an onus to patrol dodgy breeders). We all know that a few councils do a good job, but mostly, councils are rotten in enforcing dog regs, and the state level is no better.

In terms of pedigree dog registrations, SBT's are vying with Labbies for #1 in Australia.

It would help this situation if the SBT clubs would get heavy handed in promoting responsible breeding for temperement and responsible placement of pups with homes. If more responsibility is taken with respect to breeding and placement, my guess is the SBT will come out of it with no harm done. Good Staffies are a pleasure to own and be around. Bad Staffies can be a real curse. If this is managed really badly, the SBT may end out on the Restricted Breeds list in Oz . . . as it is in most of the European Union.

"Dog owners have a very serious responsibility to ensure their pet is under control and well-supervised at all times - particularly when they are around children," the Minister for Local Government, Barbara Perry, said.

We are never going to get incidents invovling dogs to zero, but if people followed the basic rules of on leash, effective control and keeping their dogs on their own property, there would be a reduction.

Education is the only thing that is going to reduce the number of attacks that involve dogs in their own home. Owners need to choose wisely the breed that is best suited to them, provide an enriched environment for that dog, include the dog as part of the family, supervise, train and socialise it.

Of course "Staffordshire Bull Terrier " is going to top the list, it includes the generic "staffy", the brindle dog that could be anything.

I'd like to see no dog registered as a certain breed, unless you bring with it the ANKC papers, that correspond with the microchip. I think we'd see a big shift in the stats and "cross breeds" would be topping the list.

Edited May 4, 2010 by sandgrubber

[WreckitWhippet]

I completely agree, the breeder is responsible for the education and the carefull selection of where they place their puppies. They also have an obligation, as far as I'm concerned to assist the puppy buyer throughout the life time of the dog.

I personally don't think the problem owners/dogs are from the ethical registered breeders, but whilest we continue to be lumped in with the generic "Staffy" , we'll never know.

[mita]

Ii'd like to see no dog registered as a certain breed, unless you bring with it the ANKC papers, that correspond with the microchip. I think we'd see a big shift in the stats and "cross breeds" would be topping the list.

Yes, a way has to be found to clearly identify specific breeds that have ANKC papers....on their microchips.

For research purposes, these dogs form a distinct group.

They fit a prescribed standard & their location for breeding/raising is identifiable. Making a leap from what current research says.. .those variables tend to be associated with less problematic, aggressive behaviours.

So, for data collection re dog bites/attacks, these dogs should be identified on their microchip, as belonging to that separate group.

Also, when council registration forms.....or any other forms for ID'ing dogs....are filled in, the owner or observer has to indicate Primary Breed & Secondary Breed.

Owners of mixed breeds have a go at putting something in both boxes.

But when this information is pulled out of a data base, only the Primary Breed comes up.

So, for statistics on mixed breed where someone has put 'Staffy' first...they'll come up 'Staffy'. As if they're part of the standardised group of Staffies.

SG's also got a good point that numbers count. And the popularity of the 'staffy' increases both the number of papered staffies, non-papered staffies & the mixed breeds that get named 'staffies'. Another good reason, to have microchip ID that separates out the papered purebreds, to see how they measure up against the dog bite/attack count.

Edited May 4, 2010 by mita

[WreckitWhippet]

Spot on Mita

[J.H.M]

As a rough percentange how many dog bite incidents that are reported result in the offending dog actually being sighted by the council and able to be scanned? Would it be simple 80/20 rule (seems to work for most things)

I think its a great idea, but will you still always have the argument that the stats are distorted because there are many dog incidents that are reported but the dog is never sighted/scanned by the authorities?

None the less it surely is better than the current way of reporting.

Edited May 4, 2010 by JRM75

[Swiss Girl]

An akita breeder in Perth used to have a clause on her puppy contract that the dog must attend Obedience training for a minimum of 12 months, this ensures that the dog is socialized and trained.

Would it be a good idea for all large or staffy types/working dogs to also enforce this?

I have a GSD and feel it is essential for them. It may also stop a certain sort of people purchasing these dogs as they are the sort that never go to obedience. Could it be enforced? Would this be better than BSL?