Touchy Subject

[sd1981]

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]

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]

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]

No good.

 

[Wing_Nut]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

really well said..

 

[Sean51]

BSL is completely ridiculous.

 

[champagne]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.