Sbt Tops Bite List In Nsw

[mita]

Spot on Mita

I only agreed with you!

Maybe we can get the ANKC to lobby that all papered purebreds show it clearly ID'd on their microchip. Apart from the research value in getting accurate data re dog bites/attacks....there'd be value in getting health information for vet science & demographic information for councils.

And it's not elitism...

[mita]

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?

You're not wrong, JRM.

But we talked on another thread about how there's a need for authorities (police, rangers...etc) to have criteria to follow in reporting on/investigating dog bites/attacks. Like they have for car accidents (they have 3).

Just some mandatory standardised vital boxes to tick. All useful data to pull out to tell about the background & contexts for dog bites/attacks.

Like, US studies have extracted interesting info.....which has led their Vet Assoc Task Force on serious Dog Bites/Attacks to say that going down the breed per se route in prevention, doesn't lead anywhere useful.

Studies have revealed other interesting descriptors rather than just breed. Like, owners of offending dogs tend to have more than usual traffic offences, the dogs tend not to be registered....& it's not the first time the dog's shown marked aggression.

So at a level of seriousness...medical treatment required...it would be mandatory to tick off a box if dog sighted....or not... & .to check microchip & also council registration & if ANKC papered. This data could then be pulled out to get accurate info.

Edited May 4, 2010 by mita

[J.H.M]

ahhh ok so you can drill down better on the stats that makes sense.

[WreckitWhippet]

Spot on Mita

I only agreed with you!

Maybe we can get the ANKC to lobby that all papered purebreds show it clearly ID'd on their microchip. Apart from the research value in getting accurate data re dog bites/attacks....there'd be value in getting health information for vet science & demographic information for councils.

And it's not elitism...

Yeah but you have a way with words

[Quickasyoucan]

I had a quick look at the report and it also had a higher number of "breed not identified" dogs involved in "attacks" than any of the breeds mentioned (even staffords).

It seems to have on it stafford but also stafford cross wonder where that information comes from if not off microchip, given what Mita is saying.

It also doesn't list source of identification. As I said before there is a great difference between what a victim thinks a breed was, particularly given the awful circumstances of being involved in an attack and how that might alter perception and identification by way of microchip or even better pedigree registration papers.

I wonder what the percentage difference would be if you added up total registrations across all councils in NSW for 'staffords' and total Dogs NSW registrations for papered SBT's? But I suppose even that would be inaccurate as you would have to factor in low rates of council registration (I think it is supposed to be around 30%) and also the fact there is no requirement to notify a death.

If I had a dollar for every person who said to me I thought my dog was a pure stafford I would be a rich woman. He is so far from what a pure stafford looks like and in fact (according to BITSA) has twice as much border collie than the very small amount of stafford but yet he appears to be what the public thinks is a "stafford".

It seems it is hard to get a clear picture. I don't have a problem with what SBT 123 said re registrations but the form is such that you have to put something on it that it is a breed approximation.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Quickasyoucan

[Quickasyoucan]

I had a quick look at the report and it also had a higher number of "breed not identified" dogs involved in "attacks" than any of the breeds mentioned (even staffords).

It seems to have on it stafford but also stafford cross wonder where that information comes from if not off microchip, given what Mita is saying.

It also doesn't list source of identification. As I said before there is a great difference between what a victim thinks a breed was, particularly given the awful circumstances of being involved in an attack and how that might alter perception and identification by way of microchip or even better pedigree registration papers.

I wonder what the percentage difference would be if you added up total registrations across all councils in NSW for 'staffords' and total Dogs NSW registrations for papered SBT's? But I suppose even that would be inaccurate as you would have to factor in low rates of council registration (I think it is supposed to be around 30%) and also the fact there is no requirement to notify a death.

If I had a dollar for every person who said to me they thought my dog was a pure stafford I would be a rich woman. He is so far from what a pure stafford looks like and in fact (according to BITSA) has twice as much border collie than the very small amount of stafford but yet he appears to be what the public thinks is a "stafford".

It seems it is hard to get a clear picture. I don't have a problem with what SBT 123 said re registrations but the form is such that you have to put something on it that it is a breed approximation.

Doh gremlins

Edited May 4, 2010 by Quickasyoucan

[mita]

I had a quick look at the report and it also had a higher number of "breed not identified" dogs involved in "attacks" than any of the breeds mentioned (even staffords).

It seems to have on it stafford but also stafford cross wonder where that information comes from if not off microchip, given what Mita is saying.

It also doesn't list source of identification.

You're right. If they don't list source of information re how that breed label was reached....we have no idea at all what the actual breakdown was.

The only group of dogs where actual evidence would back their breed on a microchip.....would be the purebreds with papers IF proof was required. And if this info was mandatory in reporting on dog/bites.

These purbreds with papers are the only dogs that can form a distinct group among all that finish up with 'Staffy or 'Staffy X' on their microchip.

So, there's a good reason for putting ANKC- papered on the microchip....because it'd then allow this group of dogs to be measured against how often they turn up in the stats figures for dog bites/attacks.

If the science holds that dogs from registered breeders tend to have less problems with aggression, then these purebred staffies MAY buck the trend for so-called 'staffies' being over-involved in bites/attacks.

[WreckitWhippet]

I'd like to know as registered breeders are we getting it right, when it comes to selecting for temperament, raising our pups and selecting appropriate homes. My own experiences would say yes, given that none of the dogs I have bred, to my knowledge have been involved in attacks.

If we are getting it right, what knowledge can we impart , that could help reduce the bite stats.

[Quickasyoucan]

I had a quick look at the report and it also had a higher number of "breed not identified" dogs involved in "attacks" than any of the breeds mentioned (even staffords).

It seems to have on it stafford but also stafford cross wonder where that information comes from if not off microchip, given what Mita is saying.

It also doesn't list source of identification.

You're right. If they don't list source of information re how that breed label was reached....we have no idea at all what the actual breakdown was.

The only group of dogs where actual evidence would back their breed on a microchip.....would be the purebreds with papers IF proof was required. And if this info was mandatory in reporting on dog/bites.

These purbreds with papers are the only dogs that can form a distinct group among all that finish up with 'Staffy or 'Staffy X' on their microchip.

So, there's a good reason for putting ANKC- papered on the microchip....because it'd then allow this group of dogs to be measured against how often they turn up in the stats figures for dog bites/attacks.

If the science holds that dogs from registered breeders tend to have less problems with aggression, then these purebred staffies MAY buck the trend for so-called 'staffies' being over-involved in bites/attacks.

and this goes for all the other breeds listed too, especially those favoured by BYB's, as I think Clyde mentioned there was mastiff on the list, I last time I looked mastiff was more than one breed anyway, ie bullmastiff, neopolitan mastiff etc. I'd have a punt that, for example, the rotties listed too weren't ANKC papered ones...

My dog is a medium-sized desexed shorthaired black crossbreed and I would have no issue with him being listed as such. Doesn't change how wonderful and special he is to me. Besides aren't those enough descriptors for identification purposes? I guess it goes to human beings liking a label for things.

[Jed]

I have believed for some time that more breeds would be added to the bans. I have noticed that SBT are now being identified in newspaper reports as the No. 1 attack dog, and this has been for quite some time.

I believe this is to promote to the public that the SBT should be banned.

Exactly the same thing happened with the APBT. People were led to believe that APBT were extremely savage, and untrustworthy - an uncontrollable killer dog - so the public agreed with the ban.

The only disagreement came from APBT owners, and those who had some knowledge of the breed.

Even now, people on this forum have read what was in the media, and believed it, so think the bans are good, despite never having met an APBT and knowing nothing about them. People believe umpteen fatal attacks in Aust have been perpetrated by pitbulls, when there has never been one.

People believed that all those crossbred dogs which attacked were APBT, because the media so identified them. They will believe the same of the SBT.

Wont take much for the media to convince the public, over a few years, that the SBT is just as untrustworthy and dangerous as the APBT. The public will consequently favour bans.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Exactly, like you say, and like I have been saying for years, people really need to keep their wits about them continue to work on facts, because i'v seen dog people, APBT supporters, get brainwashed over time, I have seen a gradual change in attitude from people you would not expect. The government and media bullshit machine is firing on 13 cylinders and its catching people napping and sweeping them away. And yes now the SBT is coming into focus.

I don't think we need to be looking at the dogs and the breeders. There is nothing wrong with the temperament of the vast majority of these dogs.

Focusing on that is missing the point. This is based on hype, bias, ignorance, and misinformation, NOT on reality, so looking at how to better breed the dogs has nothing to do with it.

Bad breeders are are a plague which affect everyone and every breed, its always an issue that needs attention but it is not directly related to any of this.

[Eileen]

Wont take much for the media to convince the public, over a few years, that the SBT is just as untrustworthy and dangerous as the APBT. The public will consequently favour bans.

How can we stop this from happening? Is this something the MDBA can help with? Perhaps lobbying to change the registration details?

[WreckitWhippet]

Absolutley we need to be looking at the dogs and the breeders. You can bet that the vast majority of dogs involved in attacks do not come from ethical registered breeders, who have carefully selected the homes for the puppies, that are going to do the right thing by the dogs.

I for one won't be happy with the dogs from registered breeders going down with the sinking ship. I hope the Canine Councils are suited up and ready to go, to look after us and our pedigree dogs.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Absolutley we need to be looking at the dogs and the breeders. You can bet that the vast majority of dogs involved in attacks do not come from ethical registered breeders, who have carefully selected the homes for the puppies, that are going to do the right thing by the dogs.

That may be true, but the way SBT's are beginning to be represented in stats and the media has little to do with incidents involving actual SBT's, thats why their breeding is an important but separate issue.

As with Pitbulls, if the breed disappeared tomorrow, reports of attacks involving alleged Pitbulls would continue at the same rate, guaranteed.

edited for clarity

Edited May 4, 2010 by Lo Pan

[sandgrubber]

I run a boarding kennel. Occasionally, we get a SBT with wonderful conformation, clearly pedigree/Main Register, who is difficult with other dogs and a bit out of control re people (mostly jumping, full body mass directed to the human centre of gravity). We get lots of 'staffy X' dogs, sometimes two from the same household, who are essentially DA, and cannot be mixed with other dogs. The last two dogs I've had to take to the vet for stitching up were Staffy X dogs from the same household who got into a barney and someone got a bit torn up.

Ugly though it is, someone needs to do policing. Clubs generally put it in the 'too hard' basket. But if you see a problem arising re hereditary aspects of temperament and certain breeders, I'd say slog it out through the breed club to end out with self-patrolling. Better than ending up with a breed that becomes a restricted breed.

I also sense -- sorry no stats to back it -- a tendency for SBT owners to want to keep the boys with nuts on. Breeders could do more to support desexing.

I'd like to know as registered breeders are we getting it right, when it comes to selecting for temperament, raising our pups and selecting appropriate homes. My own experiences would say yes, given that none of the dogs I have bred, to my knowledge have been involved in attacks.

If we are getting it right, what knowledge can we impart , that could help reduce the bite stats.

Edited May 4, 2010 by sandgrubber

[dogbesotted]

look out look out sbt ppl BSL is racing down the street to you...

i know i am a cynic but believe me in the interests of public saftey this WILL happen it is only a matter of time.

the true dog people know that it is close to impossible to identify a cross bred .. but any short coated stocky dog that remotely resembles a bull breed will be identified as a SBT ( used to be pitbull)... you are in their sights..

H

[WreckitWhippet]

I don't think it will be the registered pedigree dogs next, it will be all of the cross breds and those that cannot prove what breed they are.

The ANKC breeds need to distance themselves as far as possible from the generic dogs and promote the stability of the temperaments of the pedigree dogs.

[Jed]

SBT123, whilst I agree with the ANKC distancing themselves from "generic" dogs, being purebred didn't help the registered pit bull, and I very much doubt that it will help the SBT - although the ANKC does have a bit more clout than the pitbulls had going for them.

I would be very interested in the number of purebred, properly registered APBT which were involved in attacks. I would think very few, if any, but it is all lost in the media hype, so we'll never know.

Any photos I've seen of "pitbulls" involved in attacks, both human and dog, were very problematic - mid size shorthaired boofy dogs, I would think. Exactly the same dogs which were collared, and are being collared.

If anything is going to save SBT it will be proof of registration with the ANKC - and not getting into trouble. Whether the ANKC is up to the job is another matter. One can only hope so, because once the SBT is banned, it will probably be open slather on other registered breeds.

And I imagine that government would require proof that registered STB were not involved in attacks. And there is no proof of that, nor will there ever be. A registered dog and a cross bred are the same thing to the people legislating. They fail to understand the difference.

With dogbesotted, and a lot of experienced people, I don't think much can be done. I don't think the majority of breeders believe it will happen, so they wont do much, and the ANKC wont do much either, until it lobs on the doorstep, and by that time, it will be too late.

"Everyone" should have stood up in the beginning, but 90% wouldn't, because it wasn't their breed, it wasn't ANKC registered, and "who cares anyhow, those pitbulls attack people and other dogs. They should be banned."

"Everyone" - including the CCs - fail to see that in years to come, it will be their breed under the pump.

[RottnBullies]

"Everyone" should have stood up in the beginning, but 90% wouldn't, because it wasn't their breed, it wasn't ANKC registered, and "who cares anyhow, those pitbulls attack people and other dogs. They should be banned."

"Everyone" - including the CCs - fail to see that in years to come, it will be their breed under the pump.

Exactly

[Jed]

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?

You're not wrong, JRM.

But we talked on another thread about how there's a need for authorities (police, rangers...etc) to have criteria to follow in reporting on/investigating dog bites/attacks. Like they have for car accidents (they have 3).

Just some mandatory standardised vital boxes to tick. All useful data to pull out to tell about the background & contexts for dog bites/attacks.

Like, US studies have extracted interesting info.....which has led their Vet Assoc Task Force on serious Dog Bites/Attacks to say that going down the breed per se route in prevention, doesn't lead anywhere useful.

Studies have revealed other interesting descriptors rather than just breed. Like, owners of offending dogs tend to have more than usual traffic offences, the dogs tend not to be registered....& it's not the first time the dog's shown marked aggression.

So at a level of seriousness...medical treatment required...it would be mandatory to tick off a box if dog sighted....or not... & .to check microchip & also council registration & if ANKC papered. This data could then be pulled out to get accurate info.

All great ideas, but it's not going to happen without some very serious footwork, and I very much doubt that anyone will do the work.

It's easier to ban than to classify and categorize.

Bans fly in the face of facts.

As it's easier to ban than understand the triggers for attacks, and the type, as opposed to breed, of dog which attacks, and control that. It's all too difficult, and too expensive. And the bans are being driven by animal rights.

Yep, tell me I am paranoid, but before you believe it, read what I (and others) wrote 4 or 5 years ago.

Do paranoid delusions eventuate?

I think not.