Dog Fight Brews Over New Laws

[sumosmum]

Dog fight brews over new laws

WHEN four-year-old Ayen Chol was mauled to death at her northern Melbourne home last month, a torrent of outrage and calls for action filled the public arena.

The attack was shocking and unprovoked. Ayen, born in Australia to a family of Sudanese refugees, had been playing in the front room of a St Albans house, where her family was staying with relatives, when a pit bull cross burst in from across the street. The dog ran into the front yard and rushed at two women standing outside, before chasing them into the house and latching on to Ayen as she sat with other children.

Ayen died while her mother screamed for help. Her five-year-old cousin, Nyadeng, received serious head injuries that required surgery and Nyadeng's mother was bitten on her hands and arm as she tried to save the girls.

The next day, shock spilled into anger as a flood of reaction swamped websites and talkback radio, calling for retribution against "killing machine" pit bull terriers.

"Kill the lot of 'em," screamed readers on the Herald Sun website. "Owning a pit bull is no different to owning a gun."

Politicians promised tougher laws to control the "sharks on legs" as federal MP Bill Shorten dubbed pit bull terriers.

While dogs are regulated on a state by state basis, with enforcement largely carried out by local councils, the St Albans attack sparked calls for tough national legislation to combat what is perceived to be an escalating problem.

Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland agrees there need to be strong and consistent laws across Australia on restricted and dangerous dogs. While he stops short of proposing national laws, he supports standardising the dangerous dog laws that do exist and is writing to the states and territories to this end.

Not surprisingly, the strongest sentiment on the subject has come from Victoria's Baillieu government, which is now poised to bring in new legislation on dangerous dogs, including changes to the Crimes Act that will leave owners whose dogs injure or kill people facing up to 15 years in jail. The changes to the Crimes Act are expected to be tabled in the Victorian parliament next week.

As well, previous moves targeting American pit bull terriers have been escalated, with owners now given until the end of this month to make sure their pit bulls are registered as a restricted breed or they can be seized and destroyed.

In the wake of Ayen's death, NSW and South Australia, which already have comprehensive dangerous dog laws, are considering tightening their restrictions even further, as well as reiterating the message to councils about their responsibilities to enforce the legislation.

But while many in the community support the the aim of the laws -- to breed pit bulls out of existence within a decade -- there is disquiet growing among veterinarians and others who ask: how do you identify these killer dogs?

Is it even possible? And will new laws genuinely reduce the risk of children being savagely mauled?

Five breeds of dog are automatically deemed restricted in Australia and are prohibited from import under the Customs Act. They include the pit bull (and American pit bull), the Argentine dogo (or mastiff), the fila brasileiro (Brazilian fighting dog), the Japanese tosa and the perro de presa canario (another mastiff). The restriction does not apply to crossbreeds.

In most jurisdictions, the restrictions that apply to these breeds are extended to include any dog that is deemed dangerous, irrespective of breed.

But according to the Australian Veterinary Association, which recently began a campaign under the slogan "ban the deed, not the breed", a breed-specific approach to legislation is not the answer.

Victorian president Susan Maastricht says humans, not dogs, are the species that need to be targeted, through education to improve their pets' behaviour.

"The animals are being made the scapegoats, but it's mostly about what humans do with them," Maastricht says. "Politicians are looking for . . . a visible solution. It's not actually going to fix the problem because there will always be dog bites."

Maastricht is concerned vets will come under pressure to certify dogs as non-pit bulls as the new Victorian legislation comes in.

In the absence of DNA testing for pit bulls, the proposed laws provide visual guidelines to help vets and authorities identify the breed. Vets say the process will be complicated by the large range of pit bull crossbreeds in Australia, including the similar looking staffordshire terrier crosses.

Maastricht says it is not that easy to pick a dog breed by looking at it. "The terrible part is that there are an awful lot of lovely looking dogs that are crossbred dogs that have never been and are never likely to be a problem, and they'll get swept up in this," she says.

The unregistered dog that killed Ayen Chol has been described as a pit bull cross, and was put down by council officers the day after the attack.

It had lived at a neatly kept suburban house across the street from the St Albans home before getting loose at about 8pm on August 17.

Police have interviewed the 30-year-old owner of the dog but have not yet decided what charges will be laid.

Statistics from the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention show that of 238 fatalities linked to dog attack in the US between 1979 and 1998, 66 were blamed on pit bulls and another 10 on pit bull crosses.

Rottweilers were the next biggest group, with 39 deaths attributable to purebreds and five to rottweiler crosses.

In Australia, official figures are patchy. There is no national body keeping track of attacks and breeds. While hospitals as well as councils keep some records, many dog bites are dealt with at GP level and remain unrecorded.

One of the few sources of national data is Monash University statistician Linda Watson, who has been collating figures from the states and territories for a PhD thesis on the effectiveness of regulation in preventing dog attacks.

Watson has counted at least 33 dog attack deaths in Australia since 1979, but apart from the dog that killed Ayen Chol, only one other culprit been described as a pit bull cross.

"There is no research yet published showing that breed-specific laws have worked," she says. "Particularly for ordinary crossbred domestic pets, the task of breed identification to any level of certainty or reliability by a dog's physical characteristics is simply and absolutely impossible from any scientific, technical or professional perspective."

Watson says similar legislative moves in Britain and across Europe in the early 1990s have since been scaled back.

"The laws cannot work if you cannot enforce them," she says.

RSPCA policy also argues dogs should not be declared dangerous solely on the basis of breed, though its position has not always been so clear.

In 2009, an American pit bull attacked a Melbourne man who was walking his two small dogs. It killed one of his dogs and latched on to the man's hand, maintaining a powerful grip until ambulance officers arrived and injected the dog with lethal drugs.

At the time, RSPCA Victorian president Hugh Wirth said he believed pit bulls were "time bombs waiting for the right circumstances".

"The American pit bull terrier is lethal because it was a breed that was developed purely for dog fighting, in other words, killing the opposition," he said.

"They should never have been allowed into the country. They are an absolute menace."

The RSPCA declined The Australian's request to interview Wirth yesterday, with a spokesman saying the organisation wished to present a consistent viewpoint.

RSPCA Victorian chief executive Maria Mercurio says the policy has changed since 2009 as there is a lack of research showing pit bulls or any other breed is more prone to attack.

"The statistics just aren't there," she says. "Most breeds of dogs can be aggressive and be violent if they are trained and kept that way. We have matured, and our opinion and our policy has evolved."

In Canberra, however, RSPCA scientific officer Jade Norris says there is "some evidence that certain dog breeds have a greater genetic predisposition towards aggressive behaviour.

"They might also have a lower trigger point for aggression and due to their physical size and strength they may have a greater capacity to inflict serious injury compared to other breeds."

Meanwhile, National Dog Trainers Federation operations manager Brad Griggs describes the legislative push as "the equivalent of racism". "Tacking on more powers for search, seizure and euthanasia doesn't answer the problem," he says.

Griggs is promoting a radical policy recalculation that would see all dog owners required to take a certified course in responsible pet ownership, regardless of their breed. He also suggests requiring certain types of dog, such as pit bull terriers, to pass obedience and temperament tests every year.

INFANTS and young children remain most vulnerable to dog attack, with two children killed in NSW in the past five years, one in Western Australia, and another little girl in Victoria.

Two-week-old Kate Morey didn't stand a chance when her family's pet Siberian husky attacked her in her cot in Perth in 2007.

A nine-week-old girl from Pakenham on Melbourne's southeastern fringe also died after being dragged from her cot by the family rottweiler in the same year.

In NSW, three-year-old Ruby-Lea Burke died after being savaged by four bull mastiff crosses in the home of her babysitter at Whitton in 2009.

And in 2006, four-year-old Tyra Kuehne wandered into a neighbour's backyard and was killed by up to six dogs in Warren, 540km northwest of Sydney.

The dogs were various crossbreeds of boxer, greyhound, pit bull and mastiff, and had been trained for pig-hunting.

NSW District Court judge Michael Elkaim this year ruled the local council had been negligent in failing to seize the dogs despite numerous complaints from nearby residents.

He awarded Tyra's father and brother more than $120,000 in damages, saying the dangerous situation had existed for some time, "perhaps even years".

"Ultimately I am satisfied that but for the council's failure to act, as and when it should have, the attack on Tyra would not have occurred," Judge Elkaim said.

Victorian Agriculture Minister Peter Walsh is making no apologies for the Baillieu government's swift and tough approach, saying the "deed, not the breed" mantra fails to appreciate the potentially deadly consequences of weaker action.

"Once the deed is committed it means someone has been seriously injured or, in the worst case scenario, someone has been killed," he says. "Then it's all too late. You cannot then undo what's been done.

"If that type of dog has been involved in fatalities like we saw two weeks ago, we would be irresponsible not to do something about it."

Walsh says hospital admissions of children injured by dogs show a prevalence of "pit bull type" dogs, and while education for dog owners is good, it is unlikely to reach those who really need it.

"In effect laws are made for those that aren't responsible and that's what we're trying to deal with in this particular case," he says. "The people who don't register their dogs appropriately and don't handle their dogs appropriately are the same people that will not do the training courses."

[Quickasyoucan]

Very interesting article thanks for posting. Good to see that they have the fact of the same laws not having worked in the UK in there and some informed opinion for a change.

ETA sorry should add read the text here so didn't see the picture which lets the rest of it down badly.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Quickasyoucan

[RottnBullies]

I wished they would stop using such photos! Stereotyping at It's best

[SpotTheDog]

Peter Walsh seems to have a hatred of all things dog.

Just yesterday he was refusing to hold off on a poisoned bait programme to control wild dogs, because environmentalists fear that the laying of baited meat will mean the end of the endangered spot tailed quoll.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/spot-tailed-quoll-in-a-battle-for-survival/story-fn7x8me2-1226130884574

[Atanquin]

Omg that poor dog in the photo Poor poor thing this chains must hurt and that muzzle looked like it didn't fit

[cybergenesis]

I don't think pitbulls should be banned and I have personally been fully attacked by one before. It was owned by junkie bogans who obviously mistreated it.

[Atanquin]

I'm sorry it is horrid when a child is attacked by dogs and it should never happen but when a child goes onto someone else's property with these sort of dogs you have to ask where are the parents that really angers me if there are aggressive dog living near would you not tell your child to never go near there

[Cat]

Exactly what I was thinking...surely four is too young to be wandering around alone anyways?

[sandgrubber]

I'm sorry it is horrid when a child is attacked by dogs and it should never happen but when a child goes onto someone else's property with these sort of dogs you have to ask where are the parents that really angers me if there are aggressive dog living near would you not tell your child to never go near there

READ! Ayen Chol was watching TV in her own home. The dog that killed her wandered in. It amazes me that ALL pit bull looking dogs are condemned, yet we have yet to see a photo of the dog in question. It may well have been a pig dog of some sort that would have passed the Vic breed 'standard'. And the owner may yet get off scott free.

[emgem]

READ! Ayen Chol was watching TV in her own home. The dog that killed her wandered in.

Perhaps, you might read instead of going off half-cocked. He was Refering to one of the cases in the article Tyra who was killed by four dogs in NSW in 2007.

[sandgrubber]

READ! Ayen Chol was watching TV in her own home. The dog that killed her wandered in.

Perhaps, you might read instead of going off half-cocked. He was Refering to one of the cases in the article Tyra who was killed by four dogs in NSW in 2007.

Hearing hoofbeats, thinking zebra? If he meant the NSW 2007 case, he should have mentioned that case. The recent Victoria case is what is on everyone's minds, and unless otherwise specified, is the point of reference, 'One of the cases in the article' . . . come on. Which article? There are two articles mentioned in this thread, one relating to the spotted tailed quoll and Peter Walsh, the other opens with reference to four year old Ayen Chol.

[Atanquin]

If you had read the original article you would have known which one I was referring to but never mind you know now

[zayda_asher]

Ayen's Law: family's call for national ban on savage dogs will be heard

THE family of the four-year-old savaged to death by a pit bull wants a national ban on dangerous dogs - and the Federal Government has agreed.

Ayen Chol's family told news.com.au they would like to see a blanket ban on savage breeds like the one that killed their daughter last month.

And in a win for parents across the nation, Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland has promised to raise uniform bans with his state and territory counterparts, saying "we should be doing everything we can to prevent these kinds of horrific attacks."

He added: "One attack on a child is too many."

The Victorian Government passed urgent dog laws following Ayen's death three weeks ago when a pit bull entered her family home.

But other states are lagging behind and the girl's grieving parents have called for a national ban to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

"We would like that type of dog, the pit bull, to be banned and any other dangerous breed," the family told news.com.au through a spokesman.

"That should apply Australia-wide."

Ayen died while clutching her mother's leg as the dog chased her through the front door. Her 31-year-old and five-year-old cousins were also attacked by the animal.

States and territories are responsible for their own dog laws, but now the Federal Government will step in and lead an overhaul.

"Clearly, we should be doing everything we can to avoid these kinds of horrific attacks."

Mr McClelland told news.com.au there needed to be national consistency on registration, penalties and management of dangerous dogs

"Clearly, we should be doing everything we can to avoid these kinds of horrific attacks. Unfortunately, they occur far too frequently. One attack on a child is one too many," he said.

He said the discussion would also look at which laws were most effective and how best to enforce them.

"Ayen Chol’s death touched the heart of the community and every parent, and reinforced the need for dog owners and the wider community to work together to make our homes and streets as safe as possible," he said.

Only five of the eight Australian jurisdictions automatically restrict dangerous breeds.

And some jurisdictions still allow these breeds to be sold or given away.

The Northern Territory has no laws regarding dangerous animals and relies entirely on local council by-laws.

This comes after fears pit bull owners have started dumping their pets on the streets of Melbourne to avoid a recent crackdown.

After the attack, Premier Ted Baillieu said the incident was unacceptable and dangerous breeds had lost the right to exist.

"There cannot be a more tragic situation than to see a young child like this killed in this horrible, horrible way," he said.

Under the new laws, dog inspectors were sent on a search and destroy mission to rid Victoria of thousands of pit bull terriers.

Council officers are now armed with seize and destroy powers for unregistered restricted breed dogs.

But there have been at least four pit bulls caught wandering the northern suburbs of Melbourne in the past week.

Rangers fear the dogs are being dumped by owners trying to avoid being caught breeding or importing the dangerous animals.

WHICH DOG LAWS ARE THE WEAKEST?

(This is a guide only - for detailed information please contact your local council or state or territory government.)

NSW

Animals such as pit bulls are automatically restricted and cannot be bred, acquired or sold. Other dogs can be declared "dangerous" if it attacks or kills a person or animal without provocation, or repeatedly threatens to attack. These animals must be desexed and a warning sign placed on the house. Indoors, it must be in a cage 1.8m high and wide and have an area not less than 10 square metres. If a "dangerous" animal attacks a person, the owner can face two years jail or $55,000 fine.

Vic

Before the new laws came into force, certain dogs were automatically restricted and they could not be bred, sold or acquired. But councils could renew the registration of an existing dangerous dog. Other animals could be declared dangerous if they caused injury, damage or chased a person, animal or vehicle. These animals must be desexed, microchipped and a warning sign placed on the home. Indoors, it must be enclosed (but can be kept in the backyard) and it must be leashed and muzzled outdoors.

QLD

Certain breeds, such as pit bulls, are automatically restricted. Council decides if an animal is "dangerous" or "menacing" - usually if it attacks or menaces a person or animal. These dogs are muzzled in public and a sign posted at home.

SA

Certain breeds, such as pit bulls, are automatically restricted. These breeds must be desexed and cannot be sold or given away. When in public, it must be muzzled and kept on a leash. A dog can be considered "dangerous" or "menacing" if it is believed to have a "propensity to attack". Dangerous dogs must be desexed and microchipped. Indoors, it must be kept in an enclosure where it cannot escape and warning signs must be on the house. A menacing dog does not need to be desexed and must only be fenced in while at home.

WA

Certain breeds are automatically considered dangerous and require warning signs, fencing and muzzling in public. Local councils may declare a dog dangerous if it attacks or shows a tendency to attack. Once declared dangerous, it must be muzzled and on a leash in public.

Tas

There are no automatically restricted breeds, but a dog can be declared dangerous if it has caused a serious injury to a person or animal - or if the council believes it is likely to attack. In public, a dangerous dog must be muzzled and on a leash. At home, it must be in a cage 1.8m high and wide with a sign at the front. These dogs must be desexed and microchipped within 28 days. The owner is liable for up to $2600 for any subsequent attack. You can purchase a dangerous dog with council approval.

ACT

There are no restricted breeds in the ACT. But the council can declare a dog dangerous - usually because of an attack or dangerous behaviour. These dogs must be kept on a leash and a muzzle when outdoors.

NT

The Northern Territory does not have any overarching dog laws. Dog management is the responsibility of each council.

http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/federal-government-to-unify-dangerous-dog-laws/story-e6frfkp9-1226132051447

[Blackdogs]

Politicians seem to be under the impression that we can wipe out dog attacks. This is never going to happen. As long as we live with dogs there will be dog bites, just as living with cars will beget car accidents, living with people will ensure violence and living with stairs will mean scores of trip-related accidents.

Statistically, dogs cause much fewer injuries than do cars. I imagine people and stairs probably fall into the same category. If you think about it, it's amazing that we can live with another powerful species who don't speak our language and come out of it so well.

It doesn't matter whether or not we manage to reduce the number of dog bites, as long as there are any dog bites at all there will be media hype creating public panic. So when does the regulation stop? When there are no more breeds to eradicate? When dogs can no longer leave their yards without a leash and muzzle?

There is no 'dog bite problem'. There is just 'life' and living will always entail a landmine of potential dangers, but limiting life to the point where it's not worth living is not the answer. This is where we are heading with over-regulation, not just of dogs and dog ownership but in many other areas.

Once legislation is passed it is rarely abolished and we are living in a litigious society with a mainstream media that feeds off public fear. As a result, legislation is stacked upon legislation in an increasingly suffocating and repressive living environment.

The perceived 'dog bite problem' is just another symptom of this media hype/moral panic/legislation carousel.

Education, not restriction is the key.