The-war-on-terrier-perfect-pet-or-killing-machine

[lmwvic]

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-war-on-terrier-perfect-pet-or-killing-machine-20111001-1l331.html

ONE is an outlawed killer, feared for its brutality. The other is the sook of the canine world, a favoured family pet, thanks to its seemingly bottomless need to show and receive affection.

At first glance it can be hard to tell the difference, and for the owners of Staffordshire bull terriers, the state government crackdown on the pit bull terrier menace is making for nervous days.

Already, Staffie owners deal with the nervous glances and hurried sidesteps as they go for a walk with their pet. Now they contend with an even bigger worry, as the public is invited to dob in dangerous dogs, and council rangers are told to identify problem breeds on sight, something even canine experts say is difficult.

It's a problem Fiona Gillies knows well with her pet, Riley. ''Sometimes when we go to the playground with him, you clear the playground,'' she says. ''You'll see people pick up their small dogs and walk off.

''I was walking around the Tan with him and a ranger came up and asked me if I had the proper papers for the dog. Which we do, of course. People are very confused.''

The state government's dangerous and restricted breeds legislation is aimed at clearing streets and neighbourhoods of aggressive breeds, after a fatal attack on four-year-old Ayen Chol, of St Albans, last month. But there is concern that harmless pets and innocent breeds will be swept up in the campaign. As of last Friday, dogs deemed in the ''restricted and dangerous category'' can be confiscated and put down.

Fiona Gillies & Holly with their family Staffordshire terrier Riley. Pic By Craig Sillitoe CSZ/The Sunday Age28/9/2011

The rush to amend legislation after the Chol tragedy worries Reece Fry, president of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Victoria, who has embarked on a campaign to help people recognise the differences between Staffies and the breeds being targeted.

''It's a knee-jerk thing, a typical government knee-jerk, thinking 'we better do something quickly','' Mr Fry said. ''People see 'bull' in the name and they assume you've got a bad breed. If they are going to do it properly and give council rangers these powers, they need to educate the rangers to recognise the breeds of dog. It's obvious the public has this misconception, and I'd guess many rangers have this misconception as well.''

It is of particular importance with Staffies, simply because there are so many of them, Mr Fry says. ''They are in the top five dogs in Australia as pets, and that's because they are loving, friendly and loyal. It's because of their nature.''

Mr Fry hates even talking about pit bulls and Staffies in the same sentence. ''Pit bulls have a much bigger head. They are generally just bigger. Staffies are shorter, they're not as long, they've got shorter legs, and their temperament is totally different to that of a pit bull.''

But concrete identification of any breed is difficult, experts say, even for vets.

Cross-breeding, even in the distant past, can complicate identification. There are Staffordshire bull terriers, popularly known as English Staffies; there are American Staffordshire terriers; there are pit bull terriers; and then there are the cross-breeds, such as the pit-bull-mastiff cross that attacked Ayen Chol.

Maria Mercurio, of the RSPCA, said the association had concerns about the new laws, in line with its policy that when it comes to dogs: ''We talk about the deed, not the breed. Any breed of dog can be dangerous.''

And when it comes to nailing a particular breed she is worried mistakes inevitably will be made.

''It's nearly impossible to say with any certainty,'' she says. ''And there is no DNA test that can tell with any certainty. This is not an exact science. Vets are saying, 'We're not going to do it.' It's too fraught.''

Susan Maastricht, president of the Victorian division of the Australian Veterinary Association, agrees. The association is seeking legal advice on the responsibilities and liabilities of vets under the new rules.

''The Australian Veterinary Association believes the legislation proposed in Victoria is not a long-term solution,'' she says. ''The risk is that this could lull the community into a false sense of security.''

Edited October 3, 2011 by lmwvic

[lmwvic]

Mr Fry hates even talking about pit bulls and Staffies in the same sentence. ''Pit bulls have a much bigger head. They are generally just bigger. Staffies are shorter, they're not as long, they've got shorter legs, and their temperament is totally different to that of a pit bull.''

When will the ANKC breed clubs get their heads out of the sand and start protecting all dogs regardless of their preferred breed??????

[Greytmate]

Mr Fry hates even talking about pit bulls and Staffies in the same sentence. ''Pit bulls have a much bigger head. They are generally just bigger. Staffies are shorter, they're not as long, they've got shorter legs, and their temperament is totally different to that of a pit bull.''

When will the ANKC breed clubs get their heads out of the sand and start protecting all dogs regardless of their preferred breed??????

It's a shame that pitbull owners didn't have their breed recognised by the ANKC. You can't expect the ANKC to involve itself with things that don't concern its members.

[german_shep_fan]

Thank you very much for posting

I still can't get my head around the horror that is going on in Vic and whilst the Pres of the staffy club has every right to stand up and speak out for his breed (and good on him!) i can't help but find it a little distasteful the way he talks about the Pit Bull I understand he is trying to protect staffys and that is more then fair enough but when he talks down abt pitties like that it just makes me mad! I have no idea abt the genetics of staffies or pits or how closely related they are ect, thats not my point, its just that the way he talks he demonises all pits when of course they are not all like that.

[Kiara&Heidi]

Mr Fry hates even talking about pit bulls and Staffies in the same sentence. ''Pit bulls have a much bigger head. They are generally just bigger. Staffies are shorter, they're not as long, they've got shorter legs, and their temperament is totally different to that of a pit bull.''

When will the ANKC breed clubs get their heads out of the sand and start protecting all dogs regardless of their preferred breed??????

The reporter does make it sound much worse though - Mr Fry did not say "I hate even talking about pit bulls and Staffies in the same sentence", he just pointed out the differences between Staffies and pit bulls. Yes, Mr Fry is clearly biased towards Staffies, but not so much as the reporter makes it out.

ETA: the club will have enough trouble defending SBTs without worrying about pit bulls as well unfortunately

Edited October 3, 2011 by Kiara&Heidi

[lmwvic]

Thank you very much for posting

I still can't get my head around the horror that is going on in Vic and whilst the Pres of the staffy club has every right to stand up and speak out for his breed (and good on him!) i can't help but find it a little distasteful the way he talks about the Pit Bull I understand he is trying to protect staffys and that is more then fair enough but when he talks down abt pitties like that it just makes me mad! I have no idea abt the genetics of staffies or pits or how closely related they are ect, thats not my point, its just that the way he talks he demonises all pits when of course they are not all like that.

Exactly.

I have no issue with the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club promoting the virtues of their breed (and incidently I am a Staffordshire Bull Terrier owner) but I find it offensive that they are prepared to denigrate another breed they most likely have no experience with.

Edited October 3, 2011 by lmwvic

[KatrinaM]

The APBT would not have been eligible for ANKC recognition.

I thought this debate had long ago transcended the "our breed would never bite, it's those xxxxxx breed that you have to watch" and protect your own bottom at the expense of somebody else. It should be about keeping people safe from all dog attacks and all dogs safe from senseless discrimination.

[DerRottweiler]

I don't blame staffy owners (and Amstaff owners for that matter) for wanting to disassociate from the APBT name.

[KatrinaM]

I'm no rocket scientist but why would you want to do that when it clearly hasn't worked for the last 20 years?

[SpotTheDog]

I find it difficult to understand why someone would try to protect their breed by denigrating another breed.

It just adds to the argument that BSL is somehow justified. It also leaves those of us who own unpapered rescue crossbreeds right up the creek without a paddle.

Regardless of whether or not pitbulls are ANKC recognised, the ANKC need to recognise the potential for legislation to go against the larger guardian pure breeds - rottweilers, dobermans, german shepherds - once BSL has been passed in the first place. You don't have to be pro-pit to be anti-BSL.

[Greytmate]

I find it difficult to understand why someone would try to protect their breed by denigrating another breed.

It just adds to the argument that BSL is somehow justified. It also leaves those of us who own unpapered rescue crossbreeds right up the creek without a paddle.

Regardless of whether or not pitbulls are ANKC recognised, the ANKC need to recognise the potential for legislation to go against the larger guardian pure breeds - rottweilers, dobermans, german shepherds - once BSL has been passed in the first place. You don't have to be pro-pit to be anti-BSL.

Who denigrated another breed? The only quote on this page refers to a pitbull's head being larger than a staffy head. That isn't denigration, it is fact.

This really has nothing to do with the ANKC. There has been other laws regarding other breeds in the past, and it is the people that own the breed that have got laws changed. The ANKC is a registering body for purebreeds, and that is about it.

[SpotTheDog]

Who denigrated another breed? The only quote on this page refers to a pitbull's head being larger than a staffy head. That isn't denigration, it is fact.

This really has nothing to do with the ANKC. There has been other laws regarding other breeds in the past, and it is the people that own the breed that have got laws changed. The ANKC is a registering body for purebreeds, and that is about it.

The language throughout that article seeks to promote one breed as better, safer and more reliable than another. Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

The rush to amend legislation after the Chol tragedy worries Reece Fry, president of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Victoria, who has embarked on a campaign to help people recognise the differences between Staffies and the breeds being targeted.

''It's a knee-jerk thing, a typical government knee-jerk, thinking 'we better do something quickly','' Mr Fry said. ''People see 'bull' in the name and they assume you've got a bad breed. If they are going to do it properly and give council rangers these powers, they need to educate the rangers to recognise the breeds of dog. It's obvious the public has this misconception, and I'd guess many rangers have this misconception as well.''

Reece Fry appears to think the misconception is that Staffies are as dangerous as Pit bulls, as opposed to the misconception being that specific breeds are dangerous and subsequently all animals of a specific breed should be treated universally.

The sort of administration that can pass a law such as the one we're now living under - that administration doesn't have to stretch far to include other dogs.

Sometimes I wonder if pure breed owners believe they're untouchable because of the popularity of their breeds and the money that goes into their dogs. The attacks that prompted the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 in the UK were perpetrated by Rottweilers - yet Rottweilers were not named in the breed specific legislation that followed...

[Chris the Rebel Wolf]

and whilst the Pres of the staffy club has every right to stand up and speak out for his breed (and good on him!) i can't help but find it a little distasteful the way he talks about the Pit Bull

That was the exact impression I got when reading this. As with Shep fan I don't blame him but it just lets the public know there IS something wrong with Pit Bulls, here's an expert saying so. *sighs* At least they did include the 'Blame the deed not the breed' point but it clearly was not the focus of this article.

None of this should be happening. Hopefully the public outcry against these news laws will be heard.

[geo]

Reece Fry appears to think the misconception is that Staffies are as dangerous as Pit bulls, as opposed to the misconception being that specific breeds are dangerous and subsequently all animals of a specific breed should be treated universally.

I think this is spot comment with regard to a large proportion of dog owners who think their dog breed could never do what the media say's an APBT supposedly does for breakfast, lunch, and dinner...

[Greytmate]

The rush to amend legislation after the Chol tragedy worries Reece Fry, president of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Victoria, who has embarked on a campaign to help people recognise the differences between Staffies and the breeds being targeted.

''It's a knee-jerk thing, a typical government knee-jerk, thinking 'we better do something quickly','' Mr Fry said. ''People see 'bull' in the name and they assume you've got a bad breed. If they are going to do it properly and give council rangers these powers, they need to educate the rangers to recognise the breeds of dog. It's obvious the public has this misconception, and I'd guess many rangers have this misconception as well.''

Reece Fry appears to think the misconception is that Staffies are as dangerous as Pit bulls, as opposed to the misconception being that specific breeds are dangerous and subsequently all animals of a specific breed should be treated universally.

No he doesn't. He criticises the government and the misconception he speaks about is one where people think 'bull' in the name is a bad thing.

The sort of administration that can pass a law such as the one we're now living under - that administration doesn't have to stretch far to include other dogs. Sometimes I wonder if pure breed owners believe they're untouchable because of the popularity of their breeds and the money that goes into their dogs. The attacks that prompted the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 in the UK were perpetrated by Rottweilers - yet Rottweilers were not named in the breed specific legislation that followed...

Yes, other breeds could be included. It is up to the people behind those breeds to let people know that the dogs they breed are not a danger to the community. Mr Fry is doing the only sensible thing he can do.

It is no use being angry at the Staffy club, the Amstaff club, the ANKC or even the RSPCA. This isn't their fault.

[DerRottweiler]

I find it difficult to understand why someone would try to protect their breed by denigrating another breed.

It just adds to the argument that BSL is somehow justified. It also leaves those of us who own unpapered rescue crossbreeds right up the creek without a paddle.

Regardless of whether or not pitbulls are ANKC recognised, the ANKC need to recognise the potential for legislation to go against the larger guardian pure breeds - rottweilers, dobermans, german shepherds - once BSL has been passed in the first place. You don't have to be pro-pit to be anti-BSL.

It is dog eat dog so to speak. APBTs are pretty much doomed, Staffy/AmStaff owners don't want their breed to go down that same route.

I don't think it is fair to ban the APBT, but I can see the logic in protecting your own breed in the furtherance of self-interest.

I agree vis-a-vis your second point, guardian breeds are def. next on the list. Especially in Victoria- The Kneejerk State.

[Alyosha]

This really has nothing to do with the ANKC. There has been other laws regarding other breeds in the past, and it is the people that own the breed that have got laws changed. The ANKC is a registering body for purebreeds, and that is about it.

It is no use being angry at the Staffy club, the Amstaff club, the ANKC or even the RSPCA. This isn't their fault.

Thank you for talking sense Greyt.

[sandgrubber]

I can understand why SBT people are defensive. In Germany (and I think some other Northern European nations), the SBT is banned along with the APBT. My German friends -- who did a lot of schutzhund training in Germany and were quite comfortable with guarding breeds, were amazed to see Staffies running free on the beach in Australia, cause they regarded them as super aggressive. Which of course, they aren't. But then, neither are the vast majority of APBT's.

[Ruffles]

I find it difficult to understand why someone would try to protect their breed by denigrating another breed.

It just adds to the argument that BSL is somehow justified. It also leaves those of us who own unpapered rescue crossbreeds right up the creek without a paddle.

Regardless of whether or not pitbulls are ANKC recognised, the ANKC need to recognise the potential for legislation to go against the larger guardian pure breeds - rottweilers, dobermans, german shepherds - once BSL has been passed in the first place. You don't have to be pro-pit to be anti-BSL.

It is dog eat dog so to speak. APBTs are pretty much doomed, Staffy/AmStaff owners don't want their breed to go down that same route.

I don't think it is fair to ban the APBT, but I can see the logic in protecting your own breed in the furtherance of self-interest.

I agree vis-a-vis your second point, guardian breeds are def. next on the list. Especially in Victoria- The Kneejerk State.

I dont think you would find ONE Amstaff owner who has an education above year 7 that will throw the APBT to the Sharks. As an Amstaff owner, and actively involved in BSL I can tell you that its a large proportion of Stafford people, and those with other breeds that are happy to do it. AST owners are fighting tooth and nail to have ALL BSL overturned, because right now in Vic we are exempt simply by ONE line of text, a line of text that the Government gave permission for ONE person to strike out whenever they want to, without it having to go through the normal channels.

AST owners dont see it as 'lets martyr the APBT to save ourselves', we see it as "we have to fight, because we are next".

Edited October 3, 2011 by Ruffles

[Erny]

Let's not be divided by breed passion/preference. Stand united. The current but recent regulations in Victoria have transcended BSL. The BSL Laws here have now grown tentacles that transcribe as "it's how the dog looks". And don't think for a second that other breeds will not be added to the list in your lifetime.

There are people campaigning and fighting against these laws even though their breed choice and preferences are not the breeds/types of yours. Don't exclude these people, and do take into account that they are the ones who demonstrate to you that division to breeds is irrelevant. "Division" between the people is EXACTLY what the Government rely on. You going to given them that?

Edited October 3, 2011 by Erny