# Touchy Subject



## JackTheHerper (Mar 23, 2013)

Thoughts on BSL? Fair or not.


----------



## Snake Catcher Victoria (Mar 23, 2013)

unfair


----------



## Tobe404 (Mar 23, 2013)

Errr... What's BSL?


----------



## =bECS= (Mar 23, 2013)

Breed Specific Legislation
The ban on dogs based on their breed, most commonly the pitbull


Ban the deed not the breed


----------



## Tobe404 (Mar 23, 2013)

Oh I see. In that case. Unfair. Bad pets (dogs) (no matter what the breed) usually stem from bad owners/treatment.


----------



## sharky (Mar 23, 2013)

*UNFAIR!

*Equal rights to all dog breeds!


----------



## thals (Mar 24, 2013)

Extremely unfair. It targets the wrong end of the leash..


----------



## bohdi13 (Mar 24, 2013)

i think that it is completely rediculous and i am completely against the racism of pitbulls and other animals that usually get racism. i want pitbulls to be legal and bred in australia. i like pitbulls so much that i am getting a blue american staffordshire when we move just to replicate having a pitbull and having a close relative.


----------



## bohdi13 (Mar 24, 2013)

sadly a family member of mine passed away around two years ago and he had a few american pitbulls and he bred them. going back over to SA this weekend and will see what ended up happening with the dogs, it would be good to have a puppy from one of his dogs.


----------



## nintendont (Mar 24, 2013)

> Breed Specific Legislation
> The ban on dogs based on their breed, most commonly the pitbull


Fair


----------



## =bECS= (Mar 24, 2013)

My girl is a pedigree amstaff.......
Her grandfather is an american import, in his line there are dual registrations for amstaff and pit. Its not fair to deem a dog dangerous by its breed. Some dogs are human agressive but not simply because of their breed and not the entire breed. We are against discrimination here and have anti discrimination laws to uphold it, we also have a law that discriminates against animals based on their breed alone, its like racial discrimination! 

I've met some nasty little mutts in my time and pittys are lower on the list of dog attacks than more commonly kept breeds. 
Its because they are bigger and have a stronger bite strength that they have gained a bad rep but all the pittys I have met have been big babies.

Bull breeds are keen to please their masters, they look upon you for guidance and need to be well trained, the problem lies with bad owners training their dogs to attack, not having proper control over their dogs or worse mistreating dogs to use as fighting dogs or bait dogs.

Most human aggressive bull breeds have been mistreated and are scared of people therefore they end up with the mentality of I'm going to hurt you so you cant hurt me.


----------



## JackTheHerper (Mar 24, 2013)

=bECS= said:


> My girl is a pedigree amstaff.......
> Her grandfather is an american import, in his line there are dual registrations for amstaff and pit. Its not fair to deem a dog dangerous by its breed. Some dogs are human agressive but not simply because of their breed and not the entire breed. We are against discrimination here and have anti discrimination laws to uphold it, we also have a law that discriminates against animals based on their breed alone, its like racial discrimination!
> 
> I've met some nasty little mutts in my time and pittys are lower on the list of dog attacks than more commonly kept breeds.
> ...



Couldn't have been said any better.


----------



## disintegratus (Mar 24, 2013)

nintendont said:


> Fair



On what grounds?

BSL is completely unreasonable. A knee-jerk reaction of the kind we have come to expect from our government, which has no basis in fact, and does nothing to stop dog bite incidents, or to stop bad pets being bred. All it does is shift the problem. Pitbulls have an image as a "tough" dog, so to ban them will only stop the law-abiding lovers of the breed. Those who want a "tough" dog, and those who treat their dogs in such a manner so they become "tough" will not be deterred by BSL. Worst case scenario, they move on to a new breed. It's happened before to several breeds: German Shepherds, Rottweilers and Dobermanns have all had the same stigma attached to them over the years. Luckily there have been enough true lovers of these breeds to ensure that they have come through the other side of it relatively intact. I only hope the same will prove true for Pitbulls. As for BSL, it has been tried in countless countries with only one thing in common: IT HAS FAILED IN EVERY SINGLE ONE. Google the "Calvary Model" to find a model that actually works. Based on education, teaching PEOPLE how to interact safely with dogs, because you cannot guarantee that every person has taught their dog how to safely interact with people.

Let's see how long this thread lasts before it dissolves into the usual excrement-storm and gets closed or deleted


----------



## JackTheHerper (Mar 24, 2013)

I hope it doesn't turn into a storm, just wanted to discuss with who ever was against/for BSL about it, And see some love for the breeds


----------



## Stuart (Mar 24, 2013)

Unfair.


----------



## =bECS= (Mar 24, 2013)

Sometimes people get angry when they dont have a valid argument and it gets torn to shreds in an eloquent and respectful manner, so with no reply left and in a rage they turn to name calling and derogatory terms. This is when the skies turn grey and the proverbial storm occurs 

Hopefully everybody has their grownup hats on and it doesn't come to that.... then again it is Saturday night and this is APS 



JackTheHerper said:


> I hope it doesn't turn into a storm, just wanted to discuss with who ever was against/for BSL about it, And see some love for the breeds


----------



## disintegratus (Mar 24, 2013)

=bECS= said:


> Sometimes people get angry when they dont have a valid argument and it gets torn to shreds in an eloquent and respectful manner, so with no reply left and in a rage they turn to name calling and derogatory terms. This is when the skies turn grey and the proverbial storm occurs
> 
> Hopefully everybody has their grownup hats on and it doesn't come to that.... then again it is Saturday night and this is APS




I think you mean when the skies turn brown...


----------



## =bECS= (Mar 24, 2013)

disintegratus said:


> I think you mean when the skies turn brown...



:lol:


----------



## sd1981 (Mar 24, 2013)

Unfair..I want to start off by saying that this is my opinion only and that not all Bull Terrier breed owners are irresponsible or abusive toward their dogs, far from it...
As a former registered breeder of English Bull Terriers, I saw plenty of unjust negativity towards my breed for what could only be described as public ignorance. People telling me off for walking my "pitty" down the street, for not muzzling my "pit bull" and being told off for having a dog that would kill someone's kids, it was just a "matter of time"... Blatant ignorance... As we all know, education is the key... Unfortunately, for many people, having a dog with a fearsome reputation is key for them to be seen as a big man etc. These people are usually the same people who will revv up a dog at feeding time, hit them to get them agro, post footage of the dog going crazy on youtube and then be seen on Today Tonight or ACA saying that their dog, which mauled a 3 year old was such a big sook and had never shown any signs of aggression toward anything...

I do not and cannot blame the dogs at all when these things happen, all responsibility must fall back on the owner completely... Any animal has the potential to have an adverse turn, unfortunately for the various Bull Terrier breeds, their strength and high pain threshold, both traits that they were originally bred for, has caused them to be targets of both douchbags who won't respect their power and also politicians who would rather destroy an entire breed instead of creating and enforcing harsher penalties for the people who abuse these animals... I do get the pollies reasons for wanting these breeds gone..although it is a well established fact that smaller dogs attack people and other animals on a much more regular basis, the damage done is generally less, due to less strength and smaller mouths and teeth etc. When a powerful breed such as a Bull terrier or Mastiff takes a bite, they are harder to comtrol, harder to remove from the victim and they take out larger chunks.....


----------



## SarahScales (Mar 24, 2013)

The term 'pit bull' includes American Staffordshire Terrier, the 
Staffy Bull Terrier and the least common of the three, the American Pit Bull Terrier. However in Australia, they are all 90% crosses of all three breeds, we actually have very few true pit bulls. The reason pit bulls seem to get targeted is their dog fighting ring basis, the majority of litters bred outside of the ANKC are bred to go into fighting pits due to their durability and ease of aggression. Yes, a good deal of the pit bulls that have been backyard bred have a nasty disposition, as that is the way they are bred and raised. Temperament in dogs is somewhat hereditary but is mostly overridden by the way they are brought up.

When I was 11, I lived on a farm and my neighbors kids had dumped two pit bulls off 'on the farm' as they were too aggressive for suburbia. Unfortunately due to the pack mentality of the pair, I was unlucky enough to get caught out and attacked by the pair in my front yard whilst playing with my toys. They stalked me through the fence, found a way in and I was bitten numerous times. However it was dismissed as I was young and both my parents and the neighbors assumed I had taunted them. Less than a year later, the same pair of dogs broke through our gate, chased my large Labrador cross Kelpie to our house, broke down our front door and hunted her into my bedroom and killed her on my bedroom floor. They literally ripped out her throat and she bled out on the carpet. My parents and I were at the stables at this time and I found her roughly an hour later. The blood literally soaked through our carpet, the underlay and into our wooden floors, not to mention what was on the ceiling and walls. It was an aggressive, territorial and gruesome act.

Despite all of this, I still am not biased against the entire breed. The issue is the 'tough guy' image perpetrated by these dogs. They are raised being taught that aggression is good behavior until it is turned onto a human and they get put down. It's not fair to the breed and its not fair to the dogs. In my opinion there should be policed licensing of known 'aggressive' breeds such as the pitbull. Similar to a vens license. Dogs that have been line bred for aggression so long come with certain responsibilities in my opinion and only those willing and capable should be allowed to keep them.

That is only my opinion though and it has been shaped by my experiences with the breed. I train dogs in obedience and agility and have seen plenty of very sweet staffies and pitties. It's a shame the breed has developed this way and its not their fault. But something has to slow the backyard breeders down. After all, pit bulls won't be such a status symbol if you can't have them hanging off the back of your ute.


----------



## sd1981 (Mar 24, 2013)

Unfortunately, the people who practice "Dodgy backyard breeding" are generally unsavoury types who will work outside of the confines of the law. Laws are there to stop honest people from doing the wrong thing, whereas Crims will do what they want with total disregard for the law and society in general....

It is a well known fact that when the Restricted breed laws were passed in NSW a few years back (where all Pitbulls were required to be desexed and all pitbulls being brought into NSW from other states were to be desexed to ensure that no more breeding would occur, thus in theory, wiping them out in NSW) the numbers of Registered AmStaffs registered equated to an almost equal amount of the Pitbulls previously registered in NSW. As Amstaff's have an almost identical profile to a Pitbull due to Bull terrier breeds being the bulk of the genetic make up, it is virtually impossible to distinguish, as you can write them off as cross breeds (eg: Amstaff x unknown) and there the loophole opens up. The dodgy bros (various backyard breeders) continued to breed Pitbulls and renamed them as AmStaffs and it was never questioned by the Govt.


----------



## Dutchy88 (Mar 24, 2013)

I'll go with unfair people seem to see pit bulls as a killer I think all dogs have that instinct in them if there pushed enough I've seen some cattle dogs certainly go nuts more than pit bulls


----------



## Virides (Mar 24, 2013)

I used to own curly coated retrievers and while not aggressive by nature, it is still a "wild" animal. Domesticated does not imply that all it's wild traits (that it is born with) are completely gone, just that they have been trained to suppress them. For this reason you never leave a dog alone with children. For instance, our first dog was in the back of the 4WD while myself and my dad were talking with friends. My dad's friend came up to the window that was slightly ajar and went to pat her. She went nuts because to her, she was protecting her territory. All dogs, no matter how docile, even a corgi will have to some extent a wild nature that will allow them to lash out in certain circumstances, it is just that certain breeds do this more often in more circumstances. But essentially all breeds should be treated with the same respect and one shouldn't become complacent.


----------



## Wally (Mar 24, 2013)

No good.


----------



## Wing_Nut (Mar 24, 2013)

Governments legislate based on majority public opinion. And in this case the general public, either misinformed or undereducated, have a high level of fear of some dog breeds. The media has certainly added fuel to the fire and fanned the flames of public hysteria. When a little old lady sees a unsavoury looking fellow walking down the road with and animal they perceive as dangerous, you can understand their feelings. The pitbull breed is a very image orientated and in that regard is it's own worst enemy. It makes them a public image of dangerous dogs in general. While the BSL is unfair to the animals involved and to breeders who have done the right thing, the legislation has gone a long way to alleviate public fears and has shown the public that the government is aware of their fears and are seen to be doing something about it. The reality is that the legislation has done little to change anything in real terms to combat the root of the problem. Unfortunately the government legislators have learnt lessons from past attempts to restrict breeds that it will be very difficult to sway public opinion to change the path of this legislation. Bearing witness to a savage attack from a pitbull I can relate to the fear a lot of people feel. The breed is a very powerful and has been genetically selected and bred to become more so. The clincher for legislators is not that the animals are all dangerous, but they have the potential to be, and this is very difficult to deny. I personally disagree with the need for these kinds of laws and believe that the onus of animal control should be on individual owners. 

Kind Regards

Wing_Nut


----------



## sd1981 (Mar 24, 2013)

Very well said Wingnut... The problem with the legislation is the way it's worded. It can be interpreted any way and as long as it can be proven that it is reasonable to interpret the legislation that way, the government/ local council can declare any breed a dangerous or restricted dog without warning and for any reason. You could purchase a British bull dog one day, and it can be declared a restricted breed the next day, you must then comply with all caging, desexing and muzzling requirements otherwise fines or imprisonment can be enforced. As a responsible Bull Terrier owner, I have socialised my dogs since 12 weeks of age at the local dog park (couldn't any earlier, due to parvovirus vaccination requirements). At 2 years of age, my 30kg male Bull Terrier cuts an imposing figure but is the most socially adept character you'd ever meet. I had him down there and a guy with a Maltese terrier came in, and the matese terrier became aggressive towards my little Hercules, biting him and drawing major amounts of blood... Looked bad on a white bull terrier. However Hercules didn't even look like having a go, thankfully as there would've been nothing left. I removed the fluffball from my dogs throat and advised the owner who was off somewhere talking on his phone, that as he had a dangerous dog, he had to remove his dog from the park. he phoned the police, and even though myself and about 10 other regulars witnessed the attack and could verify that my dog hadn't reacted, hadn't started the fight and I found out later that the other dog had done this about 6 other times at the same dog park, my dog had to be responsible for the fight and MUST be removed... He was guilty of looking like a dangerous dog, so therefore must be.... I'm glad of his high tolerance and threshold for pain as he would've been the example of a vicious dog.....


----------



## nintendont (Mar 24, 2013)

disintegratus said:


> On what grounds?
> 
> BSL is completely unreasonable. A knee-jerk reaction of the kind we have come to expect from our government, which has no basis in fact, and does nothing to stop dog bite incidents, or to stop bad pets being bred. All it does is shift the problem. Pitbulls have an image as a "tough" dog, so to ban them will only stop the law-abiding lovers of the breed. Those who want a "tough" dog, and those who treat their dogs in such a manner so they become "tough" will not be deterred by BSL. Worst case scenario, they move on to a new breed. It's happened before to several breeds: German Shepherds, Rottweilers and Dobermanns have all had the same stigma attached to them over the years. Luckily there have been enough true lovers of these breeds to ensure that they have come through the other side of it relatively intact. I only hope the same will prove true for Pitbulls. As for BSL, it has been tried in countless countries with only one thing in common: IT HAS FAILED IN EVERY SINGLE ONE. Google the "Calvary Model" to find a model that actually works. Based on education, teaching PEOPLE how to interact safely with dogs, because you cannot guarantee that every person has taught their dog how to safely interact with people.
> 
> Let's see how long this thread lasts before it dissolves into the usual excrement-storm and gets closed or deleted


i dont own a pittie, nor want one so I dont particularly care about the subject, but since you asked; i just feel that if the government did nothing when confronted with the statistics of breed related attacks in australia they would be negligent. only my opinion but I cant see any better alternatives coming out of this thread.


----------



## Timmeh103 (Mar 24, 2013)

I don't agree with it, nor the predujice that follows on this breed, but where I stand is with the traits of the dog. No matter how you "breed" or "raise" a dog there is still a difference between having an aggressive pitbull and an aggressive chihuahua. That being said, I'm not saying all dogs are aggressive but put in certain situations all animals can turn on humans, the difference in capacity of injury between the two extremes is quite vast. I have been attacked by 5 dogs in my 21 yrs, one being a pitbull, he is still to this day one of the loveliest dogs I know, and I adore him to bits, but like I said in the situation he turned on me in defence of his owner(my uncle). I required some stitches and there was plenty of brusing. Now I have also been attacked by a chihuahua, same situation, defending its owner and I got in the way, minimal damage done. I guess all I'm trying to say is there are reputable arguments on both sides. And statistics play a factor as well, although there are plenty of dog attacks, the severity of a pitbulls is quite high in comparasan so they tend to create a bad name for them selves.


----------



## Justdragons (Mar 24, 2013)

=bECS= said:


> My girl is a pedigree amstaff.......
> Her grandfather is an american import, in his line there are dual registrations for amstaff and pit. Its not fair to deem a dog dangerous by its breed. Some dogs are human agressive but not simply because of their breed and not the entire breed. We are against discrimination here and have anti discrimination laws to uphold it, we also have a law that discriminates against animals based on their breed alone, its like racial discrimination!
> 
> I've met some nasty little mutts in my time and pittys are lower on the list of dog attacks than more commonly kept breeds.
> ...



really well said..


----------



## Sean51 (Mar 24, 2013)

BSL is completely ridiculous.


----------



## champagne (Mar 24, 2013)

I think its ridiculous because stats show that more people require medical attention from small breed dog attacks then all bull breeds put together...... poddles are some of the highest offenders


----------



## Tesla (Mar 24, 2013)

Fair.
People in Australia with "Pitbulls" make me laugh. I have never seen a single true Amercian pitbull in Australia, all are American amstaff crosses owned by bogans. And if you showed an American breeder of pitbulls a picture of the crap we have here they would themselves laughing.

All of this "Ban the deed, not the breed" crap obviously have very little understanding of genetics. More to the point they are banned....get over it and move on. Same as I can't own a King cobra, I don't sulk like a child I just get over it and move on.


----------



## Tesla (Mar 24, 2013)

=bECS= said:


> pittys are lower on the list of dog attacks than more commonly kept breeds.





This might help you
Ratio | Define Ratio at Dictionary.com


----------



## Sean51 (Mar 24, 2013)

Tesla said:


> Fair.
> People in Australia with "Pitbulls" make me laugh. I have never seen a single true Amercian pitbull in Australia, all are American amstaff crosses owned by bogans. And if you showed an American breeder of pitbulls a picture of the crap we have here they would themselves laughing.
> 
> All of this "Ban the deed, not the breed" crap obviously have very little understanding of genetics. More to the point they are banned....get over it and move on. Same as I can't own a King cobra, I don't sulk like a child I just get over it and move on.



There is pure pitbulls over here..... :/

And the king cobra is completely irrelevant as you can't own any exotic reptiles were you can own exotic dogs...


----------



## BIGBANG (Mar 24, 2013)

obviously there are many people here that love pitbulls for some reason and will defend them, i am a believer that it is how a dog is bought up, i have an english staffy that is trained to hunt pigs but at home is the best family pet you could ask for BUT i just cant bring myself to like pitbulls, it is like they are wired wrong, yes i know that small dogs bite ( i was attacked by maltese cross thing at christmas time that tore a hole in my shin that took weeks to heal) but i'll survive that, i know its no excuse but if it had of been a pit bull fair chance i would have ended a totall different way, far to often you hear about a pitbull(cross) attacking a kid or person and the owners saying "oh it had never shown any aggression before i just dont understand what happened" there is something in the make up of them similar to a JAG i can not bring myself to like them either, this is just my opinion weather it be the same as yours or not


----------



## disintegratus (Mar 24, 2013)

nintendont said:


> i dont own a pittie, nor want one so I dont particularly care about the subject, but since you asked; i just feel that if the government did nothing when confronted with the statistics of breed related attacks in australia they would be negligent. only my opinion but I cant see any better alternatives coming out of this thread.



But in regards to breed related attacks, they have done nothing. The bite stats are still there, they haven't changed. People are still getting bitten by dogs every day. In my opinion, they have been extremely negligent, because they have done something which all research indicates is not even useless, but potentially more dangerous than doing nothing. It's like if they looked at the car accident statistics nationwide and thought "well, the general perception is that red cars go faster than other cars" so they banned red cars. Then all the idiot public think they're safe from the scourge of red car fatalities, so they start crossing roads without looking. It creates the appearance of having "done something", while actually achieving a more dangerous status quo than before. 



Tesla said:


> Fair.
> People in Australia with "Pitbulls" make me laugh. I have never seen a single true Amercian pitbull in Australia, all are American amstaff crosses owned by bogans. And if you showed an American breeder of pitbulls a picture of the crap we have here they would themselves laughing.
> 
> All of this "Ban the deed, not the breed" crap obviously have very little understanding of genetics. More to the point they are banned....get over it and move on. Same as I can't own a King cobra, I don't sulk like a child I just get over it and move on.



No, it's more like if they decided that since Olive Pythons have more capacity to hurt you when they bite, they not only banned them from being bred and sold, but also insisted on taking your Olive and killing it, even though it had never bitten anyone in its life.
I'm sure you would be doing more than "sulk like a child" if your beloved family pet had been siezed and destroyed with no alternative. I know several people that have had this happen. The few people out there with the available funds have fought it, but it's a long and expensive road.
What do you mean by having very little understanding of genetics? Are you implying that in fact pitbulls are bred to be indiscriminately aggressive? If so you would be sorely mistaken, and have obviously never met a pitbull. Yes, there is no denying that they were bred as a high-drive dog, and the pit bull of today has its origins in the fight ring. However, part of that IS specifically what makes a well-bred pitty a good pet. They were bred to have a high degree of handlability whilst in a state of high arousal. That is to say, they were specifically made so that if they were in the middle of a fight, a person could manhandle them without fear of getting bitten. That is a far cry from the indiscriminate aggression that you have painted them all with.


I think the thing that gets to me the most with this whole shemozzle is that the dog that started it all by killing that little girl was never even proved to be a pitbull. There was never even a photo of the actual dog published.


----------



## disintegratus (Mar 24, 2013)

BIGBANG said:


> obviously there are many people here that love pitbulls for some reason and will defend them, i am a believer that it is how a dog is bought up, i have an english staffy that is trained to hunt pigs but at home is the best family pet you could ask for BUT i just cant bring myself to like pitbulls, it is like they are wired wrong, yes i know that small dogs bite ( i was attacked by maltese cross thing at christmas time that tore a hole in my shin that took weeks to heal) but i'll survive that, i know its no excuse but if it had of been a pit bull fair chance i would have ended a totall different way, far to often you hear about a pitbull(cross) attacking a kid or person and the owners saying "oh it had never shown any aggression before i just dont understand what happened" there is something in the make up of them similar to a JAG i can not bring myself to like them either, this is just my opinion weather it be the same as yours or not



Yes, but the general public percepton is that if it is biting, it must be a pitbull; this then goes hand in hand with it's a pitbull, so it must bite. In actual fact, the amount of bites from actual pitbulls is next to nil.


----------



## saintanger (Mar 24, 2013)

i am against it, its unfair. i own a chihuahua and she will bite any stranger who goes near her and looks at her or try touching her. i have owned pitbulls and pit bull crosses that have never show agression to a human or another dog.

since the ban i have pure breed pedigree am staffs. often they get mistaken for pitbulls, but my girl is a big sook and a gental giant. my male can be protective at times but never bitten a human, he is all bark and no bite.

but try to hit me or be threatening and my border collie cross husky cross cattle dog will rip your throat out while my chihuahua rips your ankle apart. yet my am staffs will only bark.

ban the owners not the breed. 

i have never been attacked by a pitbull or am staff or any staffy. i have been attacked by a german shepard, multesse terrior, rocwheelier.

german shepards are well known for attaking people but they have never copped bad press, why? cause cops use them and we can't ban them cause of that. 

there is good and bad in every breed, every race, every species. but its the owners fault for not teaching them the right way. 

if our goverment is allowed to ban breeds cause of bad owners, whats to stop them from banning us from owning reptiles cause of bad owners.


----------



## dragonlover1 (Mar 24, 2013)

Tobe404 said:


> Oh I see. In that case. Unfair. Bad pets (dogs) (no matter what the breed) usually stem from bad owners/treatment.



usually I'd agree that the dogs attitude stems from the owners attitude but I know for a fact that sometimes the dog(or other animal)'s attitude is totally it's own .I am a fanatic animal lover in my mid 50's and have owned a multitude of various animals and have seen just about everything and sometimes there is just a lunatic animal and nothing can be done except putting it down for the good of society and the peace of your family.


----------



## disintegratus (Mar 24, 2013)

dragonlover1 said:


> usually I'd agree that the dogs attitude stems from the owners attitude but I know for a fact that sometimes the dog(or other animal)'s attitude is totally it's own .I am a fanatic animal lover in my mid 50's and have owned a multitude of various animals and have seen just about everything and sometimes there is just a lunatic animal and nothing can be done except putting it down for the good of society and the peace of your family.



You are completely right, some dogs, just like some people, are born bad and there's nothing that can be done to rehabilitate them. However, the point is that these BSL laws imply that being a pitbull is what makes a dog bad, and being bad makes it a pitbull. It also implies that all other breeds in general and dogs in specific are faultless, which is a very very dangerous attitude to have.


----------



## bohdi13 (Mar 24, 2013)

put it like this, it's not really like how they are brought up. some dogs trust humans more than others no matter what, every dog is different and they say that all living land animals are 80% instinct and if you didn't have much trust in something\someone and your main instinct is to be defensive what else are you meant to do? they have a lock jaw and the head sway to tear you to shreds. sure it's the animals fault and people need to have more precaution on all dogs in my opinion.

i think it's unfair allthough if they were reintruduced as being legal people would need to take more precaution.


----------



## montysrainbow (Mar 24, 2013)

unfair.


----------



## Tesla (Mar 24, 2013)

disintegratus said:


> No, it's more like if they decided that since Olive Pythons have more capacity to hurt you when they bite, they not only banned them from being bred and sold, but also insisted on taking your Olive and killing it, even though it had never bitten anyone in its life.
> I'm sure you would be doing more than "sulk like a child" if your beloved family pet had been siezed and destroyed with no alternative. I know several people that have had this happen. The few people out there with the available funds have fought it, but it's a long and expensive road.




How is it anything like that? Time and time again they are proved to be vicious towards people. Perhaps it's all a big conspiracy where it is actually sausage dogs attacking people and the pitbulls are just planted in an effort to tarnish the breed .

All the people who support it answer me this with ONE single word. Yes or No
Were pitbulls bred for aggression? Is that a genetic trait?

I bet not a single supporter for the breed can answer honestly without trying to ad some type of justification.


----------



## saintanger (Mar 24, 2013)

honestly how many times have you looked in the newspaper and read about pitbull attack and wen you look at the pic of the dog it aint a pitbull at all not even a cross breed.

people these days think if looks like a pit or staffy and it bit me so it must be a pitbull.


----------



## Davesgonefishin (Mar 24, 2013)

Fair! Why?
Pitbull = selectively bred to fight, kill & win. Yes that is what the breed was deveoped for.
Typical (& I said typical not all) bogan + pitbull = "kill him boy"


----------



## saintanger (Mar 24, 2013)

cross breeding animals to get what you want doesn't always mean they will have that trait, especially wen its a personallity trait.


----------



## disintegratus (Mar 24, 2013)

Tesla said:


> How is it anything like that? Time and time again they are proved to be vicious towards people. Perhaps it's all a big conspiracy where it is actually sausage dogs attacking people and the pitbulls are just planted in an effort to tarnish the breed .
> 
> All the people who support it answer me this with ONE single word. Yes or No
> Were pitbulls bred for aggression? Is that a genetic trait?
> ...



It's exactly like that. Just because an Olive python has the capacity to cause more damage with a bite, doesn't mean it will necessarily bite. Just as a pitbull has the capacity to cause more damage with their bite, doesn't necessarily mean they will bite.

Show me some evidence (newpaper articles where a photo of the actual offending dog has been published instead of a stock photo of a snarling dog will be accepted) where pitbulls have been proven "time and again" to be indiscriminately vicious. The fact is that crossbreeds OF ALL TYPES are responsible for most attacks. It is also fact that most dog attacks are provoked, though not necessarily knowingly. If you know anything about dogs at all, you will know that dogs, like people, do not generally lash out violently without giving some kind of warning first.
As for your question, no. Pitbulls were not bred for aggression. 
They were bred for high drive, tenacity, strength, willingness to please. If you have ever met a pitbull or a staffy (because yes, genetically they are very similar), you will know they are extremely devoted to their owners. They are also very headstrong. They are also generally much more tolerant (for example of small children poking and prodding them) than other dogs.



Davesgonefishin said:


> Fair! Why?
> Pitbull = selectively bred to fight, kill & win. Yes that is what the breed was deveoped for.
> Typical (& I said typical not all) bogan + pitbull = "kill him boy"



Yes, pitbulls were bred to fight. I'm not denying that. They were bred to fight DOGS, not people. They were bred to be able to be handled safely by people WHILE they were fighting dogs. In saying that, various breeds were bred for things that we no longer require them to do. For example, Poodles were bred to be water retrievers. These days, they are predominantly pets. Border Collies were bred to herd sheep, and yes they are still used for that, however there are a huge number of BCs in pet homes where they exist quite happily never having seen a sheep. Just because a dog was bred for a particular purpose does not mean that purpose is the be all and end all for the dog. And you're wrong. It should be "Typical bogan + ANY DOG = kill him boy" ANY DOG is a weapon in the right hands, and you've made your own point moot anyway because by your account, it is the bogan at fault there. The dog is just doing what it's been trained to do.


----------



## Tesla (Mar 24, 2013)

disintegratus said:


> It's exactly like that. Just because an Olive python has the capacity to cause more damage with a bite, doesn't mean it will necessarily bite. Just as a pitbull has the capacity to cause more damage with their bite, doesn't necessarily mean they will bite.
> 
> Show me some evidence (newpaper articles where a photo of the actual offending dog has been published instead of a stock photo of a snarling dog will be accepted) where pitbulls have been proven "time and again" to be indiscriminately vicious. The fact is that crossbreeds OF ALL TYPES are responsible for most attacks. It is also fact that most dog attacks are provoked, though not necessarily knowingly. If you know anything about dogs at all, you will know that dogs, like people, do not generally lash out violently without giving some kind of warning first.
> As for your question, no. Pitbulls were not bred for aggression.
> ...




So I guess you couldn't answer yes or no because you knew you would either be lying or admitting the obvious. Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## Wing_Nut (Mar 24, 2013)

Davesgonefishin said:


> Fair! Why?
> Pitbull = selectively bred to fight, kill & win. Yes that is what the breed was deveoped for.
> Typical (& I said typical not all) bogan + pitbull = "kill him boy"



The Pitbull was not developed or bred to fight, kill and win. This is entirely false and is information that is spread by those who are opposed to the breed. The Pitbull was first developed in England and were used as catch dogs for unruly livestock once they arrived in the USA. They were bred for there athleticism and strength and in latter years some were bred for fighting. The Pitbull is renowned for there loyalty and fearlessness. Contrary to popular belief, dog fighting is a taught skill and not inherent to there nature. Pitbulls are a very versatile breed and because of their makeup, they we adopted to fighting, not developed. The breed is misunderstood, and has gained a bad reputation by irresponsible owners. They are no different to any other domesticated dog in that they are not unstable or have a mean streak. 

The breed is not always suitable to city life as they are primarily a working breed, and like any working breed they require stimulation. The Australian kelpie and cattle dog are very well known as biting breeds however because of there build are less likely to cause a fatal attack. Once put to 'work' and sufficiently stimulated Pitbulls become very loyal, tenacious, and willing workers. Trained to fight, they will fight. 

I don't deny that dogs that fit the Pitbull profile may be dangerous, however it's ridiculous that misinformation is used as a justification.

Kind Regards

Wing_Nut


----------



## disintegratus (Mar 24, 2013)

disintegratus said:


> It's exactly like that. Just because an Olive python has the capacity to cause more damage with a bite, doesn't mean it will necessarily bite. Just as a pitbull has the capacity to cause more damage with their bite, doesn't necessarily mean they will bite.
> 
> Show me some evidence (newpaper articles where a photo of the actual offending dog has been published instead of a stock photo of a snarling dog will be accepted) where pitbulls have been proven "time and again" to be indiscriminately vicious. The fact is that crossbreeds OF ALL TYPES are responsible for most attacks. It is also fact that most dog attacks are provoked, though not necessarily knowingly. If you know anything about dogs at all, you will know that dogs, like people, do not generally lash out violently without giving some kind of warning first.
> *As for your question, no. Pitbulls were not bred for aggression.*
> ...




Thank you for proving to me that just like most blind proponents of BSL, you have no willingness to be swayed by facts or have your baseless arguments challenged.


----------



## Timmeh103 (Mar 24, 2013)

Just sayin?? 

:/ 


Wing_Nut said:


> "The Pitbull was not developed or bred to fight"
> 
> "and in latter years some were bred for fighting. "


----------



## =bECS= (Mar 24, 2013)

Tesla said:


> This might help you
> Ratio | Define Ratio at Dictionary.com





This is taken from dogforum.com.au



> DOG BITE RELATED FATALITIES 1995 - 2011 (AUSTRALIA)
> 
> 28 dogs were involved in 11attacks in 1995 and 2011 (sourced from media reports in Australian Newspapers and are therefore not exhaustive. Bite studies indicate at least an additional 6 fatalities during this time)
> One dog was involved in 6 fatalities (55%), Two dogs were involved in 2 fatalities (18%), Three to four dogs were involved in 2 fatalities (18%) and 11 dogs were involved in 1 fatality (9%).Six of the dogs were reported to be purebred, five were reported to be first generation cross breeds (both parents identified), with mixed or unknown breeds accounted for the remainder.
> ...










In answer to your other question about agression - yes

So were german shepards, rottweilers and the like. Why arent they banned? 

Pitties weren't bred for human agression but dog agression and dogs that showed human agression were usually put down as they couldnt risk being in the ring with these dogs.

They have a sad history and a bad rep and yes majority you see here are crossbreeds but in the right hands and a loving but firm environment, a well trained and socialised bull breed is more trustworthy than a maltese or chihuahua.


----------



## disintegratus (Mar 24, 2013)

The point wing nut is making is that they were not *originally *bred as fighting dogs, however later in their development as a breed they were used for fighting and therefore were bred for this purpose, but were not initially developed for this purpose. For example German Shepherds were bred as sheep herding dogs, but are now more commonly used as guard dogs (in a working role, most of them are actually pets )


----------



## bohdi13 (Mar 25, 2013)

Davesgonefishin said:


> Fair! Why?
> Pitbull = selectively bred to fight, kill & win. Yes that is what the breed was deveoped for.
> Typical (& I said typical not all) bogan + pitbull = "kill him boy"



You sound like a bogan. They were bred to be 'bull dogs' where the pit bull grabs the bull by the nose so the person Castrating doesn't get gored.


----------



## zack13 (Mar 25, 2013)

I think if you are to have them they should be on a similar license to venomous snakes. Must have years experience and be recommended by a reputable breeder. Must wear a muzzle out should be checked on by someone to make sure they are fine. 
While I get any breed can be aggressive you can not argue that pit bulls don't have a higher predisposition to aggression than most dogs. Seeing that they can do much more damage than most as well they should be under strict restrictions. That's my opinion.


----------



## Tesla (Mar 25, 2013)

So wait, if their aggression is genetic doesn't that then mean if your brought up an albino Darwin the right way you could "bring" it up so it would become coloured? Using a dog forum as proof....... Lol


----------



## disintegratus (Mar 25, 2013)

Tesla said:


> So wait, if their aggression is genetic doesn't that then mean if your brought up an albino Darwin the right way you could "bring" it up so it would become coloured? Using a dog forum as proof....... Lol



By your logic now that I've had a bottle of milk in the fridge for 3 days, I'm eligible to become Queen of the world. That makes about as much sense as what you just said.


----------



## =bECS= (Mar 25, 2013)

Ratios and statistics.
Isnt that what you asked for??
So it came from a dog forum. Where are your ratios to show they are all genetically bad?


----------



## champagne (Mar 25, 2013)

Tesla said:


> Fair.
> People in Australia with "Pitbulls" make me laugh. I have never seen a single true Amercian pitbull in Australia, all are American amstaff crosses owned by bogans. And if you showed an American breeder of pitbulls a picture of the crap we have here they would themselves laughing.
> 
> All of this "Ban the deed, not the breed" crap obviously have very little understanding of genetics. More to the point they are banned....get over it and move on. Same as I can't own a King cobra, I don't sulk like a child I just get over it and move on.


 was going to reply but after reading the whole thread realised someone is just seek attention........


----------



## =bECS= (Mar 25, 2013)

Dogs are domesticated, reptiles are not.
Agression is an emotion not a skin pigment.
Your darwin point is null and void


----------



## champagne (Mar 25, 2013)

yes aggression is genetic to a point. but in saying that pitbulls have not been used in the ring for multiple generations and responsible breeders have been breeding the DOG aggression out of them for just as long. The problem is not the breeds, it is the owners that have no idea how to handle their dogs. ie the bogan that play fights with his dog that has not obedience training what so ever (just because you can yell at your dog to go lay down and it runs off or it sits after you tell it to 3 or 4 times doesn't mean its trained). I have 2 German Shepherds that are professionally trained attack dogs and we have had the same if not more training then the dogs. If my wife and I were irresponsible owners the dogs would be very dangerous. I don't think that pitbulls should be banned because I think they pose the same risk as any large dog. I do believe all dog owners should have to do a handling course as well as temperament tests on the dog to register/own any breed.


----------



## Red-Ink (Mar 25, 2013)

Totally unfair...


----------



## wylie88 (Mar 25, 2013)

It is unfair. I also beleive that there should be a licensing system in place for owners. I also think its up to the owners to anticipate certain potential problems and make a concious effort to reduce the risk of an incidence occuring, for example; Huskies have a tendency to escape so as a result most breeders will only sell puppies to people with decent fencing, Herding dogs such as border collies , cattle dogs and shepherds are very high drive dogs and owners should make a concious effort to either give the dog a "job " or plenty of exercise or they run the risk of destructive behaviours. I own a mastiff which is a guardian breed and is bred to guard and males have a tendency to be very stubborn and also toward dog aggression, as a result my dog was well socialized at a young age (which should happen with any dog regardless of breed) I also trained my dog to be very obedient. As a result my dog looks to me in any situation before he acts. He is great with kids and with visitors that I introduce to him but because he is a guardian he will not let anyone in our yard without me and he is very protective of our family and although he is friendly to most people he doesnt hesitate to "tell off" anyone acting suss. Because I am aware of the potential for a possible accident should he read a situation wrong I make a concious effort to supervise him around other people especially kids and when he leaves the yard he is properly restrained at all times to prevent any accidents. I think if everyone did the same there would be no need for bsl. 
Sorry for rambling and any grammatical error's, I didn't get much sleep last night.


----------



## Sean51 (Mar 25, 2013)

Clearly such an aggressive breed


----------



## jakedasnake (Mar 25, 2013)

fair


----------



## Albino93 (Mar 25, 2013)

Definatly unfair.


----------



## Trimeresurus (Mar 26, 2013)

MacroMagic said:


> Clearly such an aggressive breed



I don't have an opinion on this matter itself as I'm not into dogs whatsoever, but a picture of a dog looking happy proves no more than a picture of a dog snarling in a newspaper...


----------



## Sean51 (Mar 26, 2013)

Trimeresurus said:


> I don't have an opinion on this matter itself as I'm not into dogs whatsoever, but a picture of a dog looking happy proves no more than a picture of a dog snarling in a newspaper...



I was just thinking that all the people that are saying fair have obviously never seen that they can be a truly loyal loving dog which to have the ability to be happy and aren't all what the newspapers show...


----------



## Merkinball (Mar 26, 2013)

BSL has absolutely no statistics to support it. Media coverage of dog attacks are always led with the headline of Pit Bull or Pit Bull Cross, i have never seen a follow up to any of these stories proving it was a pit bull. Anyone who has really delved into the breed can find that this breed WAS, yes, bred to be dog aggressive, but at the same time bred to be non aggressive to humans, so if the heridatry line stands true then there should be no attacks on humans, the only other factor is the humans themselves. So who is to blame? The backyard breeders! I own an Amstaff who has been around children and a stable family her whole life, never has she shown aggression. However my child was bitten by another family members Cattle Dog. Cattle dogs are known to be one of the breeds highest in number of attackes per year, where are the news crews then? And people are correct, as soon as this blows over or the breed is obliterated in Australia, the next target will be the bull arab/ great dane/mastiff crosses that i see every week advertised as great guard / hunting dogs. Maybe some of the humans need to be sent the same way as the dogs.


----------



## nonamesleft (Mar 26, 2013)

nintendont said:


> Fair



Had to be one.


----------



## nintendont (Mar 26, 2013)

Merkinball said:


> Anyone who has really delved into the breed can find that this breed WAS, yes, bred to be dog aggressive, but at the same time bred to be non aggressive to humans, so if the heridatry line stands true then there should be no attacks on humans


then i guess you have no sympathy for the poor blind guy whose guide dog was attacked by two pit bulls which ultimately led to its death: because that's what these "snuggle-pillows" were bred for right?


----------



## nintendont (Mar 26, 2013)

nonamesleft said:


> Had to be one.


Im sure there is more than one buddy. how else would this legislation be passed, einstein?


----------



## =bECS= (Mar 26, 2013)

The general public's view of pitbulls is that they are all evil, aggressive and will turn and kill you so they should be banned.

The general public's view of snakes is that they are all evil, poisonous (not venomous) and will even chase you up a tree to kill you so a good snake is a dead snake.

The general public is not always correct


----------



## champagne (Mar 26, 2013)

nintendont said:


> then i guess you have no sympathy for the poor blind guy whose guide dog was attacked by two pit bulls which ultimately led to its death: because that's what these "snuggle-pillows" were bred for right?



........


----------



## sharky (Mar 26, 2013)

There are pit bulls, etc who *are *agressive and dangerous but there are *also* bullies who are lovely, calm and docile animals. Just because the breed has a reputation of being agressive doesn't mean that certain individuals or litters can be calm, happy, docile and friendly dogs. I think these stereotypes ar just stupid. *Any* dog has the potential of being dangerous, there is no reason to have to single out certain breeds just because of their build.

If people would actually look into the history of dogs, they will find that the origional reason they were owned was for hunting and killing, not to be walked down streets and lick strangers. 

All dogs are dangerous and all are un predictable. This is just an unfair law singling out the largest and most rugged looking breeds.


----------



## Grogshla (Mar 26, 2013)

It is unfair for the breed and the owners but it is fair for all others.


----------



## orsm (Mar 26, 2013)

nonamesleft said:


> Had to be one.



As they say, there're always 2 sides to a story. Here's the other side..

https://www.facebook.com/PitbullBan


----------



## pharskie (Mar 26, 2013)

Pitbull terriers and all other dogs on such a ridiculous breed specific legislation ban should be like keeping an elapid snake. You have to have a licence to do so and the penalties for not complying to the terms is enforced. It's simple really. I have a 3 yr old pit bull x Mastiff and I have the proper fully enclosed cage along with a 6 ft fence that is 1 ft bellow the ground and 6 ft above, and due to the fact I spent ALOT of time and money to make sure I abided by the council regulations I have never had a single issue. It's simple people.


----------



## disintegratus (Mar 26, 2013)

orsm said:


> As they say, there're always 2 sides to a story. Here's the other side..
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/PitbullBan



Not so much "other side of the story" as "misinformed breed/dog bashing"...


----------



## Merkinball (Mar 26, 2013)

nintendont I don't believe anywhere in my post did i say that i had no sympathy, for animals or humans that have been attacked or killed by any breed of dog. My point is that they have never been bred to be aggressive towards humans, therefore the issue lies with the responsibility of the owners. Why were the dogs able to attack? Is this not a similar situation to the Burmese python in the US that killed a child. Should we ban all snakes as they are just as likely to cause harm to humans and other animals. I would rather take the chance of a well socialised and raised pit bull than a cowboy with elapids and terrible husbandry and enclosure security.


----------



## Pauls_Pythons (Mar 26, 2013)

100% unfair.

Problems as always lie with humans not with the animals. Animals do what is either instinctive or what they are trained to do.
Man has bred these animals to be suitable for specific tasks.


----------



## Merkinball (Mar 26, 2013)

And for anyone on here who has not seen and read the legislation in Victoria, i urge you to have a look at it, because anyone with a Staffordshire Bull Terrier or similar looking breed will be shocked to see the ease with which your pet can be taken from you and euthanised just for looking the way it does. The government has even set up a dob in a dog hotline, as well as an app for smartphones to try and identify a dangerous dog.Changes to the law have now moved the onus to the pet owner to prove it is not a pit bull type breed, and even the Stafford is in the firing line. Google save Bobo and see for yourself.


----------



## MissFuller (Mar 31, 2013)

My girl is the most well mannered balanced dog I've ever owned. Better thence mums jack Russell who attacks anyone who gets near my mum and when she was attacked by a red cattle dog she just laid back and took it. I've seen her have kids on her back riding her, pulling on her tail and her ears. I'd trust her with any child I came across.
Bsl is a complete rubbish legislation that does nothing but rip pets away from the families that love them. And based on appearance? If it was in humans it would be racism. Any dog can be raised to be aggressive and in my experiences I've seen more aggression in these fluffy little lap dogs.
Don't get me wrong, if a dog is aggressive towards people or other animals then yes, it should be taken. Blame the deed not the breed!


----------



## MyMitchie (Apr 1, 2013)

How many of you own english staffies? Pretty popular breed arn't they? They seem like a nice family dog? My horse and myself were mauled by one and left with permanant emotional damage because of it. I was also attacked by a cocker spanial who bit me because I answered the phone, attacked by a maltese for leaving the house. All these dogs were obedience trained, the staffy having 5 years of obedience and showing.

My point is that any dog is dangerous reguardless of its breeding. I suggest those who are against pittbulls and the like look up what breeds were used for fighting. Chances are your cute little family dog may have been originally bred to kill.


----------



## Stuart (Apr 1, 2013)

MyMitchie said:


> Chances are your cute little family dog may have been originally bred to kill.



Very true. I own two German Shepherds and folks are regularly telling me to watch out because they turn on their owners or attack other dogs because they were bred to do it. Pity they are good at doing other things as well as Shepherding....

I bet folks who own Jack Russels don't understand the history of their cute lapdog or those Lakeland Terriers look so great when darting around until you learn that they were bred to hunt and kill.

I get myself into trouble regularly saying this, but as far as I'm concerned, there are no bad dogs, just dogs with bad owners and experiences. It's my own opinion, but some folks should just not be allowed pets.


----------



## karmag (Apr 1, 2013)

As said by someone else on this subject. Blame the owner not the dog... he has no say in how he is treated, just loves you for what you give of yourself. Cruelty is a learned trait. ban the owners not the dogs. You make the dog and the dog makes you.


----------



## greendoubt (Apr 3, 2013)

fair.

"blame the owner, not the dog," sounds fair enough in theory. in reality, with so many obviously bad owners, it's safer for everybody to just remove the dog. baw about it all you want, but until EVERYBODY can be trusted with these animals, nobody should be.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Apr 4, 2013)

greendoubt said:


> fair.
> 
> "blame the owner, not the dog," sounds fair enough in theory. in reality, with so many obviously bad owners, it's safer for everybody to just remove the dog. baw about it all you want, but until EVERYBODY can be trusted with these animals, nobody should be.


So we better ban every other large powerful breed of dog as well by that logic. How about we ban large powerful and potentially dangerous reptiles as well, and large powerful dangerous cars, and the list goes on. There are just as many irresponsible reptile owners and probably 10 times as many irresponsible drivers, so we should ban everything and all walk around in individual plastic bubbles, because hey, there are irresponsible companies polluting the air.


----------



## greendoubt (Apr 4, 2013)

how often do you hear about other breeds attacking people and other dogs? of course it happens, but with far less frequency and significantly devastating effect. there numbers are there for anyone with the intent to find them.

everything else you said is ridiculous. how many irresponsible reptile owners can say they're accountable for a death or a crippling attack? there are already bans on OP cars for certain drivers deemed too irresponsible to handle them, the carbon tax is in place as a misguided effort to cut polution. do you already live in a bubble?

australia is a nanny state, not a democracy. there are bigger issues than being allowed to keep an ugly animal with extreme potential for deadliness, anyway


----------



## Stuart (Apr 4, 2013)

Plagerised this from a well known site


----------



## disintegratus (Apr 4, 2013)

greendoubt said:


> how often do you hear about other breeds attacking people and other dogs? of course it happens, but with far less frequency and significantly devastating effect. there numbers are there for anyone with the intent to find them.
> 
> everything else you said is ridiculous. how many irresponsible reptile owners can say they're accountable for a death or a crippling attack? there are already bans on OP cars for certain drivers deemed too irresponsible to handle them, the carbon tax is in place as a misguided effort to cut polution. do you already live in a bubble?
> 
> australia is a nanny state, not a democracy. there are bigger issues than being allowed to keep an ugly animal with extreme potential for deadliness, anyway



do you believe everything you hear/read word for word? How many of those "pitbull" attacks have ever been confirmed as pitbulls? I'd hazard a guess the answer would be close to zero. Anyway, when there's absolutely no chance it can be portrayed as a "pitbull" or "pitbull type", it's always reported simply as a dog attack. 

A couple of years ago, a chihuahua killed an infant. How is that any less devastating than when a pitbull kills a child? Happens with about the same frequency too. It's actually quite common for smaller dogs especially to attack newborns, whether through inability to communicate or jealousy or any other reason. The fact of it is, most people with larger or more powerful dogs are much more likely to teach their dogs how to behave appropriately around a variety of people of all different shapes and sizes.


----------



## Wing_Nut (Apr 4, 2013)

greendoubt said:


> how often do you hear about other breeds attacking people and other dogs? of course it happens, but with far less frequency and significantly devastating effect. there numbers are there for anyone with the intent to find them.
> 
> everything else you said is ridiculous. how many irresponsible reptile owners can say they're accountable for a death or a crippling attack? there are already bans on OP cars for certain drivers deemed too irresponsible to handle them, the carbon tax is in place as a misguided effort to cut polution. do you already live in a bubble?
> 
> australia is a nanny state, not a democracy. there are bigger issues than being allowed to keep an ugly animal with extreme potential for deadliness, anyway



I think you have hit the nail on the head with your opening statement. The breeds you refer to are vilified by the media, and the numbers you talk about reflect this. 0.6% of dogs belonging to restricted breeds or previously declared dangerous were responsible for attacks in NSW (of the 6,875 attacks reported in 10/11 only 40 were by this group). 75% of all attacks reported in NSW were a direct result of irresponsible dog ownership (dogs were not in the control of their owner.) Furthermore, the one statistic that indicates that these regulatory measures will ultimately fail, is that 61% of attacks were caused by dogs that were not registered. There are already laws in place that require the registration of dogs, however the majority of offending animals are owned by people who have already shown a lack of respect for the law. The changes to the laws will simply drive a larger divide between this group and owners who do the right thing. The laws will punish good owners not the actual problem. It should also be noted that the animals that are responsible for the most number of attacks are generally on par with these being the most popular breeds kept as pets. While the statistics I quote are based on studies in NSW, the data available in other states is very similar. You final statement that there are bigger issues than being allowed to keep an ugly animal with an extreme potential for deadliness, what do you have to support this statement? The percentage of the population that keep dogs is certainly not a minority, and its about time government bodies started to give the majority due consideration rather than pandering to minorities. Of the dogs kept that the media classify as 'dangerous' 1,770 were responsible for dog attacks. This leaves 5105 attacks that are the result of so called 'good family pets'. You are right about one thing, the media is responsible for the misinformation out there, and that the government is easily swayed by popular opinion, right or wrong. 

Regards

Wing_Nut


----------



## Venomous_RBB (Apr 6, 2013)

Extremely touchie subject but unfair... 100%
I am not saying this for just pitbulls but big dos in general, they are all shamed upon now. Who cares if the little chihuahua bit your kid only 5 seconds ago but if a big dog dare growl at your child then it is a dangerous mongrel. Honestly little dog people annoy me (not all but most), they complain about big dogs biting people or aggressive big dogs but if their small dog bites someone then its cute or funny, same if it growls or "protects" their owner.
Honestly..... I have a Long haired GS 1 year old and he seriously would not hurt a fly let alone a kid or another dog. But everyone avoids him because he is a tall, black and hairy dog? Also because he is German shepherd.
And people wonder why big dogs turn aggressive....

Sorry about my rant but seriously, it is not just the pitbulls that get a bad rep, its all big dogs.
Anyway onto BSL - Unfair.... Completely. I do not own a pitbull but love them very much, a good friend has one and he is an amazing dog - blue desexed 12 month old. And he is great with everything, his best friend is a chicken.


----------



## hulloosenator (Apr 6, 2013)

i got bored after the first page...........

ban all dogs i say.

i am sick of mowing my lawn and cutting through dog turds when i dont even have a dog


----------



## Madders (Apr 7, 2013)

Instead of ban the dogs ban idiots owning them.


----------



## jesus (Apr 12, 2013)

My pitty is a baby most well natured dog every one loves her all over my neighbourhood


----------



## jacorin (Apr 13, 2013)

unfair......one of the most nastiest agressive breeds i've come across is the chihuahua.....that breed will NEVER be banned though


----------

