Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Dog ownership laws a load of total bullpit

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SE QLD
    Posts
    2,903

    Default

    Lol I like this comment

    Dennis says: 10:38am | 01/02/12
    Your dog sounds lovely. But the point is, certain breeds of dogs literally have something wrong with their brains and so a proportion of them are prone to attacking strangers, particularly children, with little warning.

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

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jadielee87 View Post
    Lol most of the people that comment on the punch are like that though. Only their opinion matters and if you disagree you are an idiot that should be kept in a padded room I go on there nearly every day, doesn't matter the subject, although Pit Bulls do seem to get the loopy ones out!
    Sadly I think this is true, certain breeds are more likely to attract the sorts of people who shouldn't own dogs. But that's the key, it wouldn't matter what breed these people owned, they would be more likely to have problems. The more I read on the subject anyway, it seems that it's the other breeds mixed into the pit that result in it becoming human aggressive - ie adding a guarding breed to the terrier nature doesn't look like a good idea on paper to me... So sad though, because you see a pitbull in the right hands and you see what they're capable of you can see that there's no other breed like it - they can't just give up their pits and go out and get another dog that will be able to fill that same role.

    Now I am personally into my large, lean, majestic dogs (hence my Doberman X and Doberman x Ridgeback) but if they banned Dobermans and Doberman crosses they would never hear the end of it from me. So everytime someone posts an article like this I forward it across to the friends I have who work in the public sector - of course you never know with these things but a few of them should have decent positions within the ranks within the next 5-10 years.

    I'm going to have a look through what threads already exist, but I may potentially look at starting a new thread just so that I can have a concise(ish) summary on why BSL won't work - studies and articles that people have found from around the world, and what sorts of viable alternatives exist - what strategies have resulted in the best outcomes for people and animals alike elsewhere, and why?

    As a passionate owner of a breed that could very easily be targeted by this sort of crap, I have decided now is the time to fight - you don't wait till the fight comes to you with these sorts of things.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,292

    Default

    One of the commenters assumed I own a pitbull because I argued against banning them. That just shows you what kind of people they are. They are probably all racist and sexist too.

    There has been quite a few threads on BSL already. But lots of them got a bit too heated and it's pages and pages of back and forth and often personal attacks too.

    I liked this article from Monash uni: Breed blame-game: banning Pit Bulls won’t work - Monash University It mentions that no specific breed can be blamed for more dog bite incidents. Unfortunately there are no reliable stats on breeds involved in dog bite incidents because there is no official system for reporting and collating this info. Which is a real shame because that is how misconceptions fueled by sensationalist tabloid articles are kept alive.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SE QLD
    Posts
    2,903

    Default

    99Bottles - have a look at this website too. They removed BSL in this town and brought in Education laws which have worked.

    The Calgary Model

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

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beloz View Post
    Unfortunately there are no reliable stats on breeds involved in dog bite incidents because there is no official system for reporting and collating this info. Which is a real shame because that is how misconceptions fueled by sensationalist tabloid articles are kept alive.

    Actually there are stats pages if you look.

    New South Wales: Dog Attack Reporting - Department of Local Government

    Here's what I put together after analysing them today (incidents involve chases or attacks on humans or animals that were reported to councils):

    2004/05 (very inaccurate reporting as admitted by the DLG) - 873 reported incidents - 7.33% (64) are Pit Bulls or Pit Bull Crosses / 1.02% of registered Pit Bull population and 1.48% of Pit Bull Cross population
    2005/06 (52% of councils reported) - 1,182 reported incidents / 1,619 dogs involved - 2.53% (41) are Pit Bulls or Pit Bull Crosses / 0.97% of registered Pit Bull population and 0.64% of Pit Bull Cross population
    2006/07 (54% of councils reported) - 1,770 reported incidents / 2,430 dogs involved - 4.40% (107) are Pit Bulls or Pit Bull Crosses / 1.91% of registered Pit Bull population and 3.68% of Pit Bull Cross population
    2007/08 (58% of councils reported) - 1,792 reported incidents / 2,347 dogs involved - 2.64% (62) are Pit Bulls or Pit Bull Crosses / 1.31% of registered Pit Bull population and 1.97% of Pit Bull Cross population
    2008/09 (mandatory reporting from Feb 09) - 2,565 reported incidents / 3,433 dogs involved - 1.84% (63) are Pit Bulls or Pit Bull Crosses / 1.30% of registered Pit Bull Population and 2.19% of PB Crosses
    2009/10 (100% of councils reported) - 4,381 reported incidents / 5,818 dogs involved - 1.94% (113) are Pit Bulls or Pit Bull Crosses/ 2.82% of registered Pit Bull population and 3.02% of Pit Bull Cross population

    2010/11 - Q1 - 1,341 incidents reported (no. of dogs not available) - 28 are Pit Bulls and < 19 are Pit Bull crosses
    2010/11 - Q2 - 1,168 incidents reported (no. of dogs not available) - 15 are Pit Bulls and < 12 are Pit Bull crosses
    2010/11 - Q3 - 1,192 incidents reported (no. of dogs not available) - <17 are Pit Bulls and < 17 are Pit Bull crosses (do not make the "top 20" breeds)
    2010/11 - Q4 - 1,348 incidents reported (no. of dogs not available) - <16 are Pit Bulls and < 16 are Pit Bull crosses (do not make the "top 20" breeds)

    Summary for 2010/11 - 5,049 incidents reported (average of 1.34 dogs per incident consistently over past 5 years, estimated number of dogs involved is 6,766) - Min Pit Bulls involved 43, Max Pit Bull and Pit Bull Crosses 138 (assuming where they were not recorded, they came in just under the top 20 in each quarter). Between 0.63% and 2.04% of all dogs involved.

    2011/12 - Q1 - 1,624 incidents reported (no. of dogs not available) - <16 are Pit Bulls and <16 are Pit Bull crosses (do not make the "top 20" breeds)

    Mandatory reporting can be attributed to the jump in attacks reported between 2008/09 and familiarity with reporting requirements "Might" account for the continued rise in numbers (but then again, maybe the government's animal control legislation just isn't working). Hats off to the NSW government for introducing mandatory reporting / state wide database. Each of the annual reports indicate that less than 2% of incidents involve either a restricted breed (crosses aren't counted as restricted) or a declared dangerous dog. So, what is the government doing about the other 98% of dog attacks?


    Victoria's Dangerous Dog Register - Workbook: (Current as at November 2011)

    Includes Restricted Breed Dogs, Menacing and Dangerous Dogs (can include Guard Dogs). Pit Bulls make up 25% of the list, however not all of those are "Declared Dangerous or Menacing". Based on NSW data, we can assume that only about 2% of the Pit Bulls on the register are actually dangerous or menacing. Between 75% and 93.5% of dogs on the register are NOT of a restricted breed. Thank you Victoria for keeping our children safe.

    Here is a comparison I put together of the popularity ranking of pure breeds from ANKC Litter Registrations, and the Number of Dogs involved in attacks. As you can see, there is a pretty clear line between popularity and representation among attacks. The large green circle represents ALL Pit Bull's and their Crosses. If the actual number involved is closer to 80, it would move left (growing smaller) and sit between the Australian Cattle Dog (brown) and the Rottweiler (purple) - Popularity V Ranking
    "What other people say about you, is a reflection of their character, not yours."

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Oops, I should mention that these reports tend to indicate about 65% of attacks occurring on public property, in contradiction to injury reports (records by hospital presentations, admissions). People are probably less likely to report incidents to council if it involves their own dog biting a family member, or a victim bitten by a friend's dog. So, you could probably triple these figures for a more accurate number of bites each year.
    "What other people say about you, is a reflection of their character, not yours."

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Also, given the breed restrictions in place, it is highly likely that registered numbers of APBT is only a small proportion of actual breed numbers (typically, around 40% of dogs involved in attacks / chases are not registered, so you could double the population figures for pit bulls an still underestimate the total population).

    How many innocent dogs is it "okay" to punish in order to theoretically prevent one bite?
    "What other people say about you, is a reflection of their character, not yours."

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Here's the above data in a graph so you can more easily see the differences between the years.

    The shaded area are dogs that were on public property at the time of the incident, the orange were on private property.

    Blue are the Pit Bulls and Pit Bull crosses.

    Green and Light green are the number of registered Pit Bulls and Pit Bull crosses (keeping in mind that there is probably a large proportion of unregistered Pit Bulls).

    Incidents reported to NSW Councils (1).jpg

    You are welcome to share as you see fit.
    "What other people say about you, is a reflection of their character, not yours."

  9. #19

    Default

    great input - nice to study the statistics of dog attacks

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,292

    Default

    I had a look at those reports. But they don't provide enough detail, I find. The numbers by breed do not discriminate between attacks on people, dogs or other animals. It also is not broken down by severity of attack per breed. The vast majority of these reported attacks resulted in no or minor injury. Based on that I deduct that these stats could include reports of pretty harmless scuffles between dogs at the dog park or a dog chasing the sheep around the paddock. That doesn't make them very useful ammunition to use against BSL, which is only concerned with reducing the number of severe attacks on people.

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
  •