Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: BANNING dangerous dog breeds would not prevent dog bites

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SE QLD
    Posts
    2,903

    Default BANNING dangerous dog breeds would not prevent dog bites

    I am glad someone has finally come out and said this... its taken long enough! Dangerous dog breed bans won't stop bites say health professionals | News.com.au

    BANNING dangerous dog breeds would not prevent dog bites, but teaching children to be more canine savvy could curb injuries, according to a group of Australian health professionals.
    An editorial in the Medical Journal of Australia advocates obedience training and education for owners and children, including a primary-school program.
    Lead author University of Queensland paediatric surgery professor Roy Kimble said educating children about how to interact with dogs in primary schools had been successful in the US.
    The article said banning dangerous dog breeds had been unsuccessful in reducing dog bites overseas.
    "Breed-specific legislation fails to take into account that any breed of dog can be dangerous in the hands of an irresponsible owner who fails to provide good and early training," the article said.
    Prof Kimble said breed identification might not be accurate because it was rarely documented in the patient's record and it relied on the correct identification by witnesses or family.
    It comes just days after the Federal Government asked attorneys-general to consider adopting new dog laws in a push for a nationally consistent approach.
    Victoria introduced tough new dangerous-dog laws after the death of Ayen Chol, 4, in August. Restricted breeds have to be registered or face seizure and destruction and owners can face up to 10 years in jail.
    State Agriculture Minister Peter Walsh said he strongly disagreed that dangerous-dog breed laws would not lead to a reduction in attacks. He also said the Government already ran pet-safety education programs.
    Kidsafe Victoria president Robert Caulfield said children were not mature enough, and lacked the awareness and reflexes to respond in a split-second situation.
    "I don't think it would work. It almost suggests that the owners of the dogs are let off the hook," Mr Caulfield said.


    Read more: Dangerous dog breed bans won't stop bites say health professionals | News.com.au

    There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    36

    Default

    I emailed Peter Walsh today and asked him to verify his claim that BSL would reduce dog attacks. His secretary replied asking for my mailing address as standard protocol is to send a hard copy reply. I'm not a Victorian resident, so not sure if he'll bother, but I hope he does write back, I'd like to hear what evidence he has to support his claim.

    There does seem to be a positive trend in the media these days in trying to report a more balanced view (still listening to unvalidated, antiquated opinion a little too much though). There was an interview on one of ABC's radio stations. If you didn't hear it I'll try and find a link to the podcast. It was pretty good. Jon Faine tried to argue a few points, but the three guests were all against breed specific legislation.
    "What other people say about you, is a reflection of their character, not yours."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SE QLD
    Posts
    2,903

    Default

    Yeah I listened to the interview online last week. The host made it pretty clear though that he wasn't a fan of bull breeds, lol made me angry :S

    There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    743

    Default

    The podcast is up on iTunes- search for Dangerous Dogs Forum, and I think it is also still up as a mp3 download on the ABC's website

    Linky: Dangerous Dog Forum - ABC Melbourne - Australian Broadcasting Corporation

    The guests were;
    Tammie King (PhD student, zoologist) who is researching the creation of a better 'amicability' scale for dogs
    Robert Holmes (Vet Behaviourist)
    Colin - (president APBT Club)

    And another man whose name I've temporarily forgotten who recently rescued a baby from a dog attack

    Overall it was good listening, however IMHO John Faine really missed the point that 'we' (meaning a small group of interested parties lead by Brad Griggs and NDTF) are trying to make- that being that we need to do something about dog attacks, but identifying dogs as 'dangerous' by looks alone is flawed and does little to protect our community.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jadielee87 View Post
    Yeah I listened to the interview online last week. The host made it pretty clear though that he wasn't a fan of bull breeds, lol made me angry :S
    I wonder whether Jon Faine actually feels that way, or if he was just throwing those "usual" comments out there so that his three guests could debunk them. It's interesting that all three guests have the same opinion (albeit the right one), but they didn't get on one of the outspoken Anti-Pit Bull spokesman (particularly those supporting the ban in government).

    The most annoying I keep hearing is "if it was a Maltese, it wouldn't have happened". Like our only choice in pets is either an APBT or a Maltese.

    "Would you rather have an angry Maltese or an angry Pit Bull running at you" - is also another annoying one. Well, as an adult, if given no other choice, of course I'd rather the smaller of the two dogs. But children are the most common victims of dog bites, and I certainly don't want an angry Maltese running at my child (and very young children HAVE been killed by small dogs like Pomeranian, or a 3 month old Labrador). What I'd rather is that "all dogs, regardless of breed, were adequately confined to their property", and that "all dogs were under effective control when not on their property, regardless of breed". But lets play along a little more, would you rather an angry pit bull, or an angry goldren retriever, or an angry great dane, or an angry tibetan mastiff, or an angry blue heeler. Not so easy now to decide which is the "lesser of two evils".
    "What other people say about you, is a reflection of their character, not yours."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SE QLD
    Posts
    2,903

    Default

    What annoyed me was him continuously asking some callers "how do you walk around all day with that thought in the back of your mind that your dog could kill someone" or what ever he said along those lines, pretty much saying that they are like a landmine waiting to go off, which is a load of crap IMO! lol

    There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    743

    Default

    The old 'would you rather an x or a y running at you' argument, IMHO proves a point:

    1. There is acceptance in that statement that wee dogs AND big dogs can behave in an aggressive manner (thus debunking the BSL myth) and

    2. That the intent can be the same. For example, though a smaller dog does have a decreased physical capacity to cause severe damage, the INTENT to do damage/ cause harm/ aggress upon a human remains the same.

    In human population to be guilty of murder requires both act and intent, so if the intent remains the same, and the act is still to bite, then again BSL remains nothing more than coddswallop.

    I once showed colleagues two videos. One was a Malinois biting a sleeve on a decoy. The second was a Boston (I think) also biting the sleeve of a decoy. The reaction? Video 1 showed an aggressive dog. Video 2 was 'cute'. Believe me, both dogs were doing the same act with the same intent!!

    If we don't remove this safe vs dangerous language in the argument- we are in real trouble. Yes, a dog can be declared dangerous, but never can a dog be guaranteed 'safe'. The whole 'if it is not a dangerous dog, it is a safe dog' is the garbage Mr and Mrs General public are being spoon fed by idiots like Peter Walsh.

    I'll get off my soapbox now, lol.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SE QLD
    Posts
    2,903

    Default

    I agree V&F, how many video's do you see on Funniest Home Vid Show of little dogs acting in an aggressive manner - and people just think its cute cause its little. You would never see a video of a Staffie or Mastiff doing the same because as you said, its being aggressive.

    There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Villain & Flirtt View Post

    ...The reaction? Video 1 showed an aggressive dog. Video 2 was 'cute'. Believe me, both dogs were doing the same act with the same intent!!
    I hear that over and over again, people saying it's "cute" when it comes from a small dog. I think larger dogs should have a self defence clause if they retaliate against being attacked by a smaller dog that was "being cute". No dog should be allowed to behave that way. I have read a study called "Breed differences in canine aggression" which shows that there are different levels of aggression associated with breed (and pit bulls are below average in Human Directed aggression, but higher than average in dog directed aggression). In my opinion, the difference levels of aggression are more related to how tollerant of aggression owners are. For example, owners of large breeds are much less likely to tolerate aggression in their dogs, which is why smaller breeds (daschunds and chihuahau's top the list) are so high. Again, I think people 'tolerate' dog directed aggression in their dog's because they think that there's nothing they can do about "because it's the breed". I know of three Akita's all with the same Sire, one owner didn't socialise the dog because it was "just going to be dog aggressive, because it's an Akita" and the other one made sure she spent a lot of time socialising her two boys. Guess which one has the 'dog aggressive' Akita?

    Interestingly, I found an article that stated that Dominance Aggression has a heritability of around 20%, which correlates with the highest levels of aggression found in any of the breeds in the other study, which was just above 20% (aggression being defined as a dog who growls, bites or attempts to bite, so it's fair to say that some of those cases were not dominant aggression, but maybe fear or pain related). I've also read that even those people who fight their Pit Bulls can't reliably produce a good fighting dog from a good parent, which I think further proves the point (I'd be interested to find out if their "success" rate at producing "good" fighting dogs is around 20%). It should therefore be very easy, with a focused breeding program and a high focus on socialising to reduce the levels of dominance aggression in any breed.
    "What other people say about you, is a reflection of their character, not yours."

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,596

    Default

    I think Italy banned or restricted about 95 different breeds for being "dangerous" until they decided that it wasn't the dog but the tool that owned it.

    The idea that BSL doesn't work is old and well understood by thinking people. But given that a child being mauled is a very emotional idea for most people - something like banning certain scary looking dogs does tend to win votes for those who make the rules. The fact that it doesn't do what people want (apart from make them feel better) is irrelevant.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •