Jade~Harley~Bella Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 they have had 20 years warning that the Pitbull is an undesired breed yet people/breeders keep pushing the envelope previously through an open door which is now closing. Undesired by who? I know plenty of people who enjoy the APBT as a breed, I quite like them as well (if you haven't noticed) :laugh: I think regardless of whether you are a fan of the APBT or not, we all need to work together to remove these laws. The posts in this thread have opened my eyes up with how bad they actually are. In a perfect world Bear and Kooda would be the last dogs that fall victim to these laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 they have had 20 years warning that the Pitbull is an undesired breed yet people/breeders keep pushing the envelope previously through an open door which is now closing. Undesired by who? I know plenty of people who enjoy the APBT as a breed, I quite like them as well (if you haven't noticed) :laugh: I think regardless of whether you are a fan of the APBT or not, we all need to work together to remove these laws. The posts in this thread have opened my eyes up with how bad they actually are. In a perfect world Bear and Kooda would be the last dogs that fall victim to these laws. I think many people retain a high enough reflex level to drive a car safely over a blood alcohol reading of .05, like the Pitbull, it doesn't matter if the breed is safe or not or the driver over .05 is safe or not, the law is the law and if you get caught breaking the law expect the consequences is my point. I agree that it is terribly sad what happened to Bear and Kooda but the law is the law and is not without fair warning in regard to the APBT as it has been a restricted breed for 20 years........there is no way in a pink fit that I would own a Bull breed other than an ANKC papered pure breed, neither would I drive after having a few drinks, so what I am saying is that these terrible consequences can easily be avoided with a little fore thought and responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 they have had 20 years warning that the Pitbull is an undesired breed yet people/breeders keep pushing the envelope previously through an open door which is now closing. Undesired by who? I know plenty of people who enjoy the APBT as a breed, I quite like them as well (if you haven't noticed) :laugh: I think regardless of whether you are a fan of the APBT or not, we all need to work together to remove these laws. The posts in this thread have opened my eyes up with how bad they actually are. In a perfect world Bear and Kooda would be the last dogs that fall victim to these laws. Totally agree. The law needs changing. Nobody is any safer with Bear and Kooda dead. That is what the law is meant to be all about. This system we have at the moment will be changed. No true dog lover would agree with these laws, whether the victim is purebred or a cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvawilow Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 No true dog lover would agree with these laws, whether the victim is purebred or a cross. I agree 100% with the above - the law needs to be changed. It's heartbreaking to think of those poor dogs being stuck in a pound for ages all because of what humans have done - the law makers, council, their breeder and owners :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) If you read the information from Ohio.....& why that US state repealed their laws which presumed that pitbulls were invariably vicious....you'd have seen the move was backed by the American Veterinary Association. That call was made based on the knowledge gained from scientific studies. Where the evidence is that breed per se is not the determining factor if a dog develops as dangerously unsafe. One study at the University of Cordoba, Spain, studied a huge cohort of dogs, both purebred and mixed. It included Rotties and Pitbulls. Based on breed label alone, such dogs were no more predictably aggressive, by nature, than any other. What linked with aggressive behaviour was what's called owner-dependant factors What humans do in raising and managing dogs, whatever the breed or mix. So, in the interests of public safety, what needs to be 'gone after' is the behaviour of humans which produces dangerous dogs. Not breed labels. Repeat.....a breed label, the same as physical feature... does not invariably predict behaviour. There are studies which have looked at the human factors involved in those who own dogs whose aggressive behaviour has caused harm. That's the place to look for information which would help frame dog safety laws. This Victorian law belongs in the dark ages of ignorance. And by putting resources in the wrong direction, it is failing to protect the community from the humans who 'produce' unsafe dogs.....whatever breed label they have, or whatever they look like. While also killing dogs for nothing. From the poor dogs' point of view, a quote from Henry Fielding: 'It's bad enough to die for something, but to die for nothing is the very Devil.' Edited June 19, 2012 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 they have had 20 years warning that the Pitbull is an undesired breed yet people/breeders keep pushing the envelope previously through an open door which is now closing. Undesired by who? I know plenty of people who enjoy the APBT as a breed, I quite like them as well (if you haven't noticed) :laugh: I think regardless of whether you are a fan of the APBT or not, we all need to work together to remove these laws. The posts in this thread have opened my eyes up with how bad they actually are. In a perfect world Bear and Kooda would be the last dogs that fall victim to these laws. Totally agree. The law needs changing. Nobody is any safer with Bear and Kooda dead. That is what the law is meant to be all about. This system we have at the moment will be changed. No true dog lover would agree with these laws, whether the victim is purebred or a cross. To change the law would mean Pitbull's being removed from BSL is the only way crossbreeds of a Bull variety of unknown parentage that fit the restricted breed standard could be saved.......bearing in mind the dogs involved in incidents for the most part labelled as Pitbull's are crossbreeds according to the Pitbull enthusiasts so who in authority or political influence is going to free up the very type of dog responsible for Ayen's death.........let's be realistic, it's not going to happen in a general public versus Bull crossbreed lovers, Ayen's death would have upset more people than the death of Bear and Kooda, dogs as much as we would like to think so, don't rate above human life, it's just how it works?. It boils down IMHO to the situation can a member of the public avoid placing themselves and their dogs in these terrible situations, do we have to breed and own dogs who fit the restricted breed standard like there are no other options.......of course not, there are hundreds of different breed types and combinations to choose from that are totally safe from BSL, even if people want a dog that matches the restricted breed standard they can have one of them too in a papered Amstaff from a registered breeder, so basically they have clamped down on BYB's and puppy farmers churning out Bull crossbreeds matching restricted breed descriptions.......so what are we fighting for, the ability for BYB's and puppy farmers to flourish is what it amounts to??. What we should be doing IMHO is advising people to avoid BYB bull breeds given the BSL status and directing them towards registered Bull breeders supplying papered dogs, infact the BSL status reinforces a good reason not to support random Bull breedings, BYB's and puppy farmers at the end of the day, that's where these dogs like Bear and Kooda come from??. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 So, in the interests of public safety, what needs to be 'gone after' is the behaviour of humans which produces dangerous dogs. Not breed labels. Repeat.....a breed label, the same as physical feature... does not invariably predict behaviour. There are studies which have looked at the human factors involved in those who own dogs whose aggressive behaviour has caused harm. That's the place to look for information which would help frame dog safety laws. What about about the genetic factor and the difficulty managing a dog predisposed with aggression.......drop the leash with a dog like that and it will cause harm to a person or another dog/animal. I have never heard so much absolute nonesense that bad owners are the cause of aggression in all dogs.........ask some behaviourists how many human/animal aggressive dogs they work with that has nothing to do with the owners or how the dog was raised, generally the problem is that the owners don't know how to manage an aggressive dog, but give the same owners a genetically stable dog of good temperament, they would have no problems managing a dog like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 ..let's be realistic, it's not going to happen in a general public versus Bull crossbreed lovers, Ayen's death would have upset more people than the death of Bear and Kooda, dogs as much as we would like to think so, don't rate above human life, it's just how it works?. So you believe in keeping the general public ignorant about the evidence which points to how human life can be protected from seriously aggressive dogs? And thereby reinforcing stereotypes that come from lack of knowledge gained from science? While more beneficial ways to ensure dog safety are not followed up on? What you're preaching is endangerment based on omission. That is, failing to address the factors where danger comes from. Which is why you cite not one scrap of evidence for your opinion Your position is part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 .....so what are we fighting for, the ability for BYB's and puppy farmers to flourish is what it amounts to?? No, we're fighting for public safety. The BSL hypothesis has not been supported, i.e just as many children will be hurt or killed in a future with BSL as without. The argument can really be that simple. Or you could choose to look at it from a legal, ethical, or scientific perspective and argue that if we allow laws like this we are dooming ourselves to a dark future that says "your right to maintain your ignorance and foist it on the rest of us is more important than my right to an educated opinion based on evidence and enquiry". Regardless of BSL (stays or goes) this is just as important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 So, in the interests of public safety, what needs to be 'gone after' is the behaviour of humans which produces dangerous dogs. Not breed labels. Repeat.....a breed label, the same as physical feature... does not invariably predict behaviour. There are studies which have looked at the human factors involved in those who own dogs whose aggressive behaviour has caused harm. That's the place to look for information which would help frame dog safety laws. What about about the genetic factor and the difficulty managing a dog predisposed with aggression.......drop the leash with a dog like that and it will cause harm to a person or another dog/animal. I have never heard so much absolute nonesense that bad owners are the cause of aggression in all dogs.........ask some behaviourists how many human/animal aggressive dogs they work with that has nothing to do with the owners or how the dog was raised, generally the problem is that the owners don't know how to manage an aggressive dog, but give the same owners a genetically stable dog of good temperament, they would have no problems managing a dog like that. You're sounding like the rooster who believes his crow causes the sun to rise each morning. Sure, some people do argue that pitbulls are no more likely to bite than other breeds, but it's a moot point. BSL has repeatedly failed to bring about public safety improvements. Get rid of all the pitbulls and pitbull crosses, you still have a problem. Calgary has had a nett increase in their pitbull population coinciding with a an improvement in public safety outcomes. How do you explain that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 So, in the interests of public safety, what needs to be 'gone after' is the behaviour of humans which produces dangerous dogs. Not breed labels. Repeat.....a breed label, the same as physical feature... does not invariably predict behaviour. There are studies which have looked at the human factors involved in those who own dogs whose aggressive behaviour has caused harm. That's the place to look for information which would help frame dog safety laws. What about about the genetic factor and the difficulty managing a dog predisposed with aggression.......drop the leash with a dog like that and it will cause harm to a person or another dog/animal. I have never heard so much absolute nonesense that bad owners are the cause of aggression in all dogs.........ask some behaviourists how many human/animal aggressive dogs they work with that has nothing to do with the owners or how the dog was raised, generally the problem is that the owners don't know how to manage an aggressive dog, but give the same owners a genetically stable dog of good temperament, they would have no problems managing a dog like that. Do some quoting of evidence about the relationship of genetics with developed behaviour. You obviously believe in genetic determinism when it comes to predictions of behaviour. I've quoted evidence from the University of Cordoba who mounted one of the most extensive and comprehensive studies into the genesis of aggression in dogs, of all kinds and mixes. I've also quoted the position of the American Veterinary Association which is based on studies of that kind. Frankly, your position is solely based on opinion, I'll leave you to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Calgary has had a nett increase in their pitbull population coinciding with a an improvement in public safety outcomes. How do you explain that? The researchers from the University of Cordoba (& elsehere) would say that their work would predict that possibility. Especially given that Calgary changed their approach from pursuing breeds to lessen attacks from aggressive dogs.....towards other measures of how humans managed dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asal Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 So, in the interests of public safety, what needs to be 'gone after' is the behaviour of humans which produces dangerous dogs. Not breed labels. Repeat.....a breed label, the same as physical feature... does not invariably predict behaviour. There are studies which have looked at the human factors involved in those who own dogs whose aggressive behaviour has caused harm. That's the place to look for information which would help frame dog safety laws. What about about the genetic factor and the difficulty managing a dog predisposed with aggression.......drop the leash with a dog like that and it will cause harm to a person or another dog/animal. I have never heard so much absolute nonesense that bad owners are the cause of aggression in all dogs.........ask some behaviourists how many human/animal aggressive dogs they work with that has nothing to do with the owners or how the dog was raised, generally the problem is that the owners don't know how to manage an aggressive dog, but give the same owners a genetically stable dog of good temperament, they would have no problems managing a dog like that. very wel put, there are NO simple answere unfortunately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 there are NO simple answere unfortunately There are evidence-based approaches, where improvements have been measured in terms of pubic safety. And breed labelling had nothing to do with it. The simple answer is: Follow the science and learn from the places where fndings have been applied with positive results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tybrax Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 ..let's be realistic, it's not going to happen in a general public versus Bull crossbreed lovers, Ayen's death would have upset more people than the death of Bear and Kooda, dogs as much as we would like to think so, don't rate above human life, it's just how it works?. So you believe in keeping the general public ignorant about the evidence which points to how human life can be protected from seriously aggressive dogs? And thereby reinforcing stereotypes that come from lack of knowledge gained from science? While more beneficial ways to ensure dog safety are not followed up on? What you're preaching is endangerment based on omission. That is, failing to address the factors where danger comes from. Which is why you cite not one scrap of evidence for your opinion Your position is part of the problem. Well said Mitta :clap: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJean Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) What about about the genetic factor and the difficulty managing a dog predisposed with aggression.......drop the leash with a dog like that and it will cause harm to a person or another dog/animal. I have never heard so much absolute nonesense that bad owners are the cause of aggression in all dogs.........ask some behaviourists how many human/animal aggressive dogs they work with that has nothing to do with the owners or how the dog was raised, generally the problem is that the owners don't know how to manage an aggressive dog, but give the same owners a genetically stable dog of good temperament, they would have no problems managing a dog like that. human aggression/dog aggression are not always faults and exist in stable, correct-tempered dogs. Unfortunately there are very few genetically stable Australians with good knowledge about dogs. Interesting that Australia finds it so difficult to manage dog attacks yet many countries not as 'advanced' have no problem at all. Advance Australia Fair ... alas there is nothing advanced about the Australian custom and culture towards its dogs. RIP Bear and Koda. Edited June 19, 2012 by lilli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) The borough of Princeton, USA, publishes a Dog Safety brochure which they acknowledge they sourced from Calgary in Canada (where the ban on pitbulls was revoked in favour of other measures & bites/attacks were reduced). This brochure points out....any dog can bite. The info in this brochure is packed full of well-sourced advice. Laws that pick up on these issues.....and public education....are the way to go. That Princeton council has used photos of rescue dogs who may still be available for adoption....for their brochure. Take a look at the big tough-looking guy....obviously screened for temperament and behaviour. In Victoria, he'd be sending the checklist authorities after the angle of his ears & the shape of his snout. When he's no more likely to be aggressive than the other dogs in the brochure. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:CvbguP_PhgcJ:www.princetonhealthoffice.org/Files/154.pdf+What+did+Calgary+do+to+prevent+dog+bites+and+attacks&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgMVgnr2FJuke1xyHBr8OG60BJ1X-ip-kk6awaQddKbhnKo0hLspXNstaBt4CBCW1Ua3FxfHncFm0QainhJwGjw4zgJS26BOE96vLwVJJrsdpy-xgu9v0ySOVh6P0bUbMef_T5E&sig=AHIEtbQQLcoZGRblxAU-tkUwSxaJdr_qQA Edited June 19, 2012 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 ..let's be realistic, it's not going to happen in a general public versus Bull crossbreed lovers, Ayen's death would have upset more people than the death of Bear and Kooda, dogs as much as we would like to think so, don't rate above human life, it's just how it works?. So you believe in keeping the general public ignorant about the evidence which points to how human life can be protected from seriously aggressive dogs? And thereby reinforcing stereotypes that come from lack of knowledge gained from science? While more beneficial ways to ensure dog safety are not followed up on? What you're preaching is endangerment based on omission. That is, failing to address the factors where danger comes from. Which is why you cite not one scrap of evidence for your opinion Your position is part of the problem. No, I believe in reality........it's absolute fantasy IMHO that minority opinion will repeal restricted breed laws as there are too many general dog haters out there to convince and governments are NOT going to repeal laws based on minority opinion in regard to public safety.......it's like raising the drink driving limit, it's not going to happen whether it's right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 So, in the interests of public safety, what needs to be 'gone after' is the behaviour of humans which produces dangerous dogs. Not breed labels. Repeat.....a breed label, the same as physical feature... does not invariably predict behaviour. There are studies which have looked at the human factors involved in those who own dogs whose aggressive behaviour has caused harm. That's the place to look for information which would help frame dog safety laws. What about about the genetic factor and the difficulty managing a dog predisposed with aggression.......drop the leash with a dog like that and it will cause harm to a person or another dog/animal. I have never heard so much absolute nonesense that bad owners are the cause of aggression in all dogs.........ask some behaviourists how many human/animal aggressive dogs they work with that has nothing to do with the owners or how the dog was raised, generally the problem is that the owners don't know how to manage an aggressive dog, but give the same owners a genetically stable dog of good temperament, they would have no problems managing a dog like that. You're sounding like the rooster who believes his crow causes the sun to rise each morning. Sure, some people do argue that pitbulls are no more likely to bite than other breeds, but it's a moot point. BSL has repeatedly failed to bring about public safety improvements. Get rid of all the pitbulls and pitbull crosses, you still have a problem. Calgary has had a nett increase in their pitbull population coinciding with a an improvement in public safety outcomes. How do you explain that? I am not debating whether or not BSL is right or wrong........I am speaking purely on the fact that BSL is law and what we need to do for compliance and to minimise heartache and devistation in this present BSL affected climate. Obviously going to a VCAT hearing and telling the panel that BSL is bullshit and my Pitbull X won't hurt anyone and done nothing wrong doesn't overturn the decision to euthanise, neither will quoting statistics from Calgary, but choosing a breed of dog that doesn't comply with the restricted breed standard will avoid seizure and the loss of much loved pets to me is a no brainer, so if you want to play with fire by all means get a BYB Bully crossbreed, if you want to play it safe with a dog the rangers won't be chasing up to seize it, get a papered Bull breed or a crossbreed that doesn't fit the restricted breed standard.....just need to use some common sense really :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Fair enough then, m-sass. Personally I don't believe we should accept such dreadful legislation in this country, and history has a habit of snuffing legislation like this out eventually so I'll remain optimistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now