Federal Government Agrees To National Ban On Dangerous Dogs

[RottnBullies]

It is the solution. Many years ago, a group of responsible pitbull owners got together and decided to start a quality breeding program. The result is the American Staffordshire Terrier.

No, they created the show version, that Is all. You need to look deeper Into what path the Am Staff Is going In Australia, hell you only need to go to some shows and see, hardly a responsible quality breeding from some breeders. Get rid of BSL and I'm sure there will be responsible APBT breeders once again

Oh and look at some of their adds, they're charging different prices for males and females and different colours, pied dogs for example are fetching a higher price, yep that sounds pretty ethical to me

With the exception of some, most dogs are not born aggressive they're made aggressive

ETA

Edited September 8, 2011 by RottnBullies

[mita]

It gets me that the government is assuming its the genetics of the breed which is bad, rather than understanding that surely in the vast majority of circumstances dog attacks are due to negligence, seriously inappropriate socialization of the animal or lack of socialization, and a poor understanding of dog behavior as animals. Surely the solution is to ensure quality breeding programs by reputable people for such dogs, and to increase education to the public about dogs. I mean combine this with significant penalties for inappropriate management of dogs by the public, such as allowing them to escape, or inappropriate aggressive behavior. Just how I feel the issue should be handled, without all the hysterics.

There's a good overview of genes and environment in relation to both animal & human behaviour here.

http://www.biologyreference.com/Ar-Bi/Behavior-Genetic-Basis-of.html

[Sticky]

It gets me that the government is assuming its the genetics of the breed which is bad, rather than understanding that surely in the vast majority of circumstances dog attacks are due to negligence, seriously inappropriate socialization of the animal or lack of socialization, and a poor understanding of dog behavior as animals. Surely the solution is to ensure quality breeding programs by reputable people for such dogs, and to increase education to the public about dogs. I mean combine this with significant penalties for inappropriate management of dogs by the public, such as allowing them to escape, or inappropriate aggressive behavior. Just how I feel the issue should be handled, without all the hysterics.

There's a good overview of genes and environment in relation to both animal & human behaviour here.

http://www.biologyreference.com/Ar-Bi/Behavior-Genetic-Basis-of.html

What you need to be arguing is the disconnection between physical appearance and behaviour.

see:

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Irizarry%20viewpoint.pdf

The “science” of inferring cognitive and behavioral traits from physical properties of the head and skull (called phrenology) had been discredited in the last century (20th century). Why we would allow laws based on phrenology to be enacted in the 21st century is a question worth investigating

S

[RubyBlue]

Interesting mix of comments.

Wonder who "Poodle owner of Canberra" is. ;)

Nice comment

[mita]

What you need to be arguing is the disconnection between physical appearance and behaviour.

...as Sandgrubber has summarised, in capital letters for spot on emphasis. And my example of a pitbull X which matched a stock photo of a pitbull.....but who demonstrated a life-long soft temperament.

So your point is a good one, that predicting a specific behaviour solely from appearance, belongs in a past that was not well-informed by science.

My later reference was specifically given to cyber to fill out the understanding of genes.

[cybergenesis]

Anybody read the link I provided?

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/publications/ncrc-publications/

The Pitbull Placebo is really a good read, it has a lot of info about fatal dog attacks.

In most cases there are serious problems such as: Chaining the dog all the time, serious abuse of the pet, severe negligence / starvation of the animal, poor understanding of pack behavior / dog behavior, poor socialization. Not always, but in most cases there are certain underlying factors. One of the most important things for people to realize that is very young children (infants) should not be allowed around dogs because sometimes the dogs will simply kill them. Dog don't know they are your precious offspring, they see them as small animals.

OH and BTW the chances of your child being killed in a fatal dog attack are less than them being struck by lightening.

Edited September 9, 2011 by cybergenesis

[fuzzy82]

It gets me that the government is assuming its the genetics of the breed which is bad, rather than understanding that surely in the vast majority of circumstances dog attacks are due to negligence, seriously inappropriate socialization of the animal or lack of socialization, and a poor understanding of dog behavior as animals. Surely the solution is to ensure quality breeding programs by reputable people for such dogs, and to increase education to the public about dogs. I mean combine this with significant penalties for inappropriate management of dogs by the public, such as allowing them to escape, or inappropriate aggressive behavior. Just how I feel the issue should be handled, without all the hysterics.

Thing is, most people don't have a clue that dogs need to be "socialised". And even if they did, they would think "socialise" means "run around like maniac at the dog park". The great majority of dogs we meet have had very limited socialisation and no or very little training.

A lot of dogs spend their lives in the backyard.

So if the majority of the population has no clue that socialisation is good, or how to socialise a dog, then how would the politicians know?

[Keira&Phoenix]

It gets me that the government is assuming its the genetics of the breed which is bad, rather than understanding that surely in the vast majority of circumstances dog attacks are due to negligence, seriously inappropriate socialization of the animal or lack of socialization, and a poor understanding of dog behavior as animals. Surely the solution is to ensure quality breeding programs by reputable people for such dogs, and to increase education to the public about dogs. I mean combine this with significant penalties for inappropriate management of dogs by the public, such as allowing them to escape, or inappropriate aggressive behavior. Just how I feel the issue should be handled, without all the hysterics.

Thing is, most people don't have a clue that dogs need to be "socialised". And even if they did, they would think "socialise" means "run around like maniac at the dog park". The great majority of dogs we meet have had very limited socialisation and no or very little training.

A lot of dogs spend their lives in the backyard.

So if the majority of the population has no clue that socialisation is good, or how to socialise a dog, then how would the politicians know?

It also doesn't help that most pet shops and vets say you cannot take your dog out to socialise prior to having all its vaccinations which means the majority of people miss the critical socialization period of 8 - 16 weeks because most don't finish vaccs until 14 - 16 weeks.

Re spending time in backyards - I am helping out my dog trainers with a group class they have and I am specifically helping with a Kelpie X Cattle Dog X Jack Russell who spends his whole life in the backyard with no stimulation and they wonder why this dog barks at people and dogs and shows aggressive behaviour, this dog is 9 months old.