The media and politicians, dog catchers and pound contractors all have a vested interest in making us fear a kind of evil super dog they call the ‘Pit Bull’. They tell us they’re not like other dogs – that they are far stronger, more aggressive, more unpredictable – than regular dogs. Selective reporting and misreporting of dog attacks claimed to involve Pit Bulls reinforce the myths.

The Australian newspaper depicts the 'Pit Bull' using the most terrifying stock image they could find.

The Side We’re Seldom Shown

A search for ‘pit bull’ on YouTube brings up plenty of videos of family pets playing happily with their owners, families and other dogs. These images would weaken the folk devil that’s been created and great efforts are made to make these dogs look mean.

Meet George

The following photos are being given to Victorian Council staff as part of the govt’s ‘Approved Standard‘ to help them identify whether your dog has some “Pit Bull” in it. We don’t know anything about this dog so we’ll call him George.

George was chosen by the Victorian Govt to feature in their 'approved standard' for identifying American Pit Bull Terriers.

It’s most likely George was killed after the taking of this photo. Given he was chosen as an example of an ‘American Pit Bull Terrier” it’s quite likely that his only offence was his appearance.

Dressing Up Dogs on Death Row

If you look carefully you’l see a big black studded collar was placed over his head after his slip lead was put on. It looks like a purely cosmetic addition to make him look mean. Who would do such a thing? (Our only clues are bricks and maple leaves.)

Photo from Victorian Govt's "Breed Standard" for "Pit Bulls"

Graeme Smith Can’t Stop Talking About Pit Bulls

The Lost Dogs Home’s CEO campaigns tirelessly against what he calls ‘Pit Bull Terrier Types’. They impound seized ‘Pit Bulls’. Could they be responsible for the pictures above? (bricks?)

Graeme Smith calls for dog owners to surrender.

Want Extra Collars With That?

In this piece we’re shown several ‘Pit Bulls’ in pens at The Lost Dogs Home with one collar on and then a dog being paraded with no less than three collars, including a studded one. Why do they dress them up like Mr T?

Lost Dogs Home parade 'Pit Bull' with 3 collars on

“They Dressed Me Up Like This”

Once an industry of dog seizers and killers have been assembled, so in Nils Christie’s terms, an industry is formed which has a vested in creating the preconditions for its own employment.

“Then they came for the dogs” Professor Simon Hallsworth, Director of the Centre for Social and Evaluation Research at London Metropolitan University

With just under two weeks till the opening of  ‘dog season’ in Victoria, Councils are preparing to start knocking on doors and seizing family pets.

The State Government is encouraging the public to dob in their neighbours pets via a dedicated ‘Dob in a Dangerous Dog’ hotline.

Q. My neighbour has a pit bull terrier that does not appear to be
registered or kept according to the law. What can I do?

A. Call the Local Council or the Government hotline (1300 101 080). An
Authorised Officer will inspect the premises and review the breed of the dog.
If it is of a restricted breed then an official declaration process and
restriction of the dog will be initiated.

Restricted Breed Dogs FAQ - Bureau of Animal Welfare - Department of Primary Industries, Victoria

DPI Advice to Councils is Incorrect

Council staff are not qualified to identify the breed components of dogs from unknown parentage. The identification “standard” issued by the State Government comes without explanation of how it is to be used. It will lead to mistakes and declarations of dogs who do not have any Pit Bull in them because there is no scientific basis behind it. New laws grant Councils power to kill dogs based on their appearance under certain (but not all) circumstances.

The DPI’s own website states:

Current owners may keep their restricted breed dogs as long as the dogs were:

1. in Victoria prior to 1 September 2010, AND
2. registered (as any breed) with the local council prior to 30 September 2011.

Things You Should Know About Restricted Breed Dogs – Victoria DPI Website

The DPI have provided advice to Councils on the process for declaring a Restricted Breed Dog. It wrongly gives the impression that unless the owner makes an application to VCAT to appeal the declaration their dog will be killed. As we saw above, that is not always the case. Owners who meet the conditions can accept the declaration and may be allowed to keep their dog subject to restrictions.

Restricted Breed Process Flow Chart distributed to Councils by Victorian DPI

We’re talking about the seizure and destruction of family pets. Dog owners will have their lives turned upside down by what’s about to occur. It’s crucial that Council staff and dog owners are given clear and accurate information.

"There is no scientific methodology or process for determining the
genetic history of a dog from its physical appearance."

Linda Watson, Researcher

"If it looks like a Pit Bull, it's a Pit Bull"

Graeme Smith, CEO at Lost Dogs Home

Owners Fear Their Dogs Will Be Wrongly Identified

An increasing number of Victorians are currently terrified that their family pets will be seized and killed by Council Officers. The Victorian Government wants to rid the state of ‘Pit Bulls’ and has enacted new laws to enable a cull. These laws enable Council officers to seize and kill dogs they believe look like American Pit Bull Terriers.

Breed Standards Not Valid For Identifying Breed

Key to this process is the release by the Minister of the ‘Standard For Restricted Breed Dogs in Victoria’. As we will see below, this is basically a rearrangement and rewording of the official breed standards for the breeds in question. The problem is, breed standards are intended for dog show judges to use when comparing dogs of a known pedigree.

Use of a breed standard as a basis for determining the breed of a dog, where that
breed is not known as a matter of fact and  is a question in dispute, is an entirely
misconceived use for the document, and is not a process which is capable of
producing any objectively valid determination as to whether a dog is of one particular
breed or not.

VALERIE HODGSON, DINO DA FRE Complainant AND LOGAN CITY COUNCIL

That Won’t Stop This Government

The Minister has released an identification standard (download here) created by three individuals who we believe wish to remain anonymous. The work they have produced has not been scientifically validated. No evidence has been provided to allay fears that it will produce false positives. Given its intention is to decide the fates of family pets this is unacceptable.

Thinly Veiled Copy of UKC Breed Standard

Did you ever do a school project by copying text from a single book and simply rearranging sentences and making cosmetic changes to avoid accusations of plagiarism?  The authors of our ‘approved standard’ appear to have done just this. The section on American Pit Bull Terriers reads like a thinly veiled reworking of the United Kennel Club’s breed standard for APBT’s.

Muzzle

Slightly shorter in length to the skull (i.e. 2:3 ratio for muzzle:skull). It is broad, deep and powerful with a slight taper to the nose and falls away slightly under the eyes (refer figure 4).

UKC: The muzzle is broad and deep with a very slight taper from the stop to the nose, and a slight falling away under the eyes. The length of muzzle is shorter than the length of skull, with a ratio of approximately 2:3.

Skull

Large, fairly flat, broad and deep, slightly tapering towards the stop. There is a deep median furrow reducing in depth from stop to occiput. Cheek muscles are prominent but free of wrinkles. When the dog is alerted wrinkles will form on the forehead.
UKC: The skull is large, flat or slightly rounded, deep, and broad between the ears. Viewed from the top, the skull tapers just slightly toward the stop. There is a deep median furrow that diminishes in depth from the stop to the occiput. Cheek muscles are prominent but free of wrinkles. When the dog is concentrating, wrinkles form on the forehead, which give the APBT his unique expression.

Nose

Large with wide open nostrils and may be of any colour.

UKC: The nose is large with wide, open nostrils. The nose may be any color.

Eyes

Medium in size, round in shape and set low in the head – not prominent. Eyes can be all colours except blue. The eye rims are the same colour as the skin colour.

UKC: Eyes are medium size, round to almond-shaped, and set well apart and low on the skull. All colors are equally acceptable except blue, which is a serious fault. Haw should not be visible.

Neck

Moderate length and with great strength, tapering from the head into the shoulders. A slight arch over the crest. The neck must be free from loose skin or dewlap (loose, pendulous skin under the throat).

The neck is of moderate length and muscular. There is a slight arch at the crest. The neck widens gradually from where it joins the skull to where it blends into well laid-back shoulders. The skin on the neck is tight and without dewlap.

Mocking A Dog Before Killing It?

The breed standard contains photographs of a number of dogs. We’re seeking more information about these dogs but think there’s a reasonable chance they were taken at a Victorian pound and that these dogs were subsequently killed.

Both collars look super loose and the second “tough dog” collar was obviously dropped over the top of the slip lead. To make him look vicious? Was this his crown of thorns?

Are These Verified American Pit Bull Terriers?

Are they certified American Pit Bull Terriers or are they simply dogs someone thought looked like Pit Bulls? How was the breed of these dogs established? This document will be given to people with no training or qualification in breed identification. Surely it does not include images of dogs from unknown parentage?

Who Actually Wrote The Standard?

People do some things under the clover of anonymity that they would never dream of if they had to sign their work. It’s our understanding that the authors were assured their involvement would remain a secret.

Hon. P. R. HALL (Minister for Higher Education
and Skills) — In respect of consultation with other
groups, I can advise Mr Barber that the persons
involved in the consultation on the development of the
standard — I do not know the actual names of the
people — included an all-breeds judge, a veterinarian
and an authorised officer of council. They represented
their groups on the development of the standard.

Hansard

We Believe The Writing Group Consisted Of These People

We would welcome a response from the writers and would be happy to publish anything they send through.

Patricia Stewart, AVA Victorian Branch

Glenda Cook, All Breeds Judge and Corgi Breeder

An Authorised Officer

The primary means of breed identification for non-pedigreed dogs and mixed-breed dogs is a visual glance and a guess. The dog may be compared with the breed standard for a breed; again, this is based on visual assessment. It is entirely subjective.

http://stopbsl.com/bsloverview/impossibleid/

Domestic Animals Amendment (Restricted Breeds) Bill 2011 Passed

I’ve just returned home from Victorian Parliament where a new Bill has been rushed through both Houses without being included in the Notice papers.

The Domestic Animals Amendment (Restricted Breeds) Bill empowers the Minister to approve “standards” by which an Authorised Officer can declare your dog a Restricted Breed Dog.

One year ago tomorrow the Domestic Animals Act was updated to enable “a standard prescribed by regulations” to be used. What’s changed now is that the definition of what constitutes a ‘Pit Bull Terrier’ is at the whim of the Executive with no ability for the Parliament to reject changes.

As Greens Minister Greg Barber put it, the Minister could draw a stick figure of a dog, approve it and therefore enable rangers to seize and kill and dog that fits that description that was not in Victoria prior to 1 Sep 2010.

The opposition, while not opposing the Bill, pointed out that the Governor in Council could have provided an exemption from the requirement to produce a regulatory impact statement. This could have epedited the process without removing Parliamentary oversight.

“an approved standard”

The Minister was asked how we could trust that such a ‘standard’ would not result in innocent dogs being wrongly identified as ‘pit bull crosses’. If the standard is too broad it would end up including dogs with no ‘pit bull’ in them that share similar physical characteristics. This would have serious consequences given Councils would be required to kill many of these dogs.

Parliament was told that the approved standard would be reliable because it was created by a working group that consisted of:

* one ‘all breeds’ judge
* one Authorised Officer
* one Australian Veterinary Association Official

The Minister went on to say that,

“Following the 2010 legislative amendment the working party consisted of a veterinarian who previously participated in the then minister’s restricted dog breed panel and was on the executive of the Australian Veterinary Association.”

spoken by Hon. P. R. HALL - Hansard

He seemed very proud to be able to claim that not only was there a dog catcher and someone out of ‘best in show’, they had someone with relevant qualifications.

What’s Motivating This Vet?

The Australian Veterinary Association (along with RSPCA Vic) opposes Breed Discrimination. Why would an AVA Official assist in creating this ‘standard’? Is it the same AVA Official who presided over the Restricted Breed Review Panel that led to Ouzie being killed by Manningham Council? How can the AVA allow this?

Patricia Stewart presided over the Review Panel that led to Ouzie being killed.

Despite the RSPCA making their position clear to the Minister, Peter Walsh prefers to remember what Hugh Wirth said in 2009. “The president of the RSPCA is on the public record as well in believing that this type of dog has no right to exist as well,” he said. Let’s see what Hugh Wirth had to say about this in 2010.

Minister Peter Walsh was recently happy with current laws

“I think we’ve actually got it fairly right at the moment so I don’t anticipate there being any changes”. Tune in from 2m40s to hear a prophetic interview with the Minister recorded several weeks before the Herald Sun Ayen Chol died and the Herald Sun started their #banthebreed campaign.

The Australian Veterinary Association Opposed Breed Bans

Despite having some of the most restrictive rules for dog owners in the world, dog attacks still happen in Australia. Vets say overregulation is not the answer.

“Following the tragic dog attack in Melbourne this week it’s vital that we redouble our efforts to improve education and socialisation of dogs and people,” said Dr Kersti Seksel from the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA).

“It’s understandable that people are now calling for the banning of some breeds, however all the good evidence available shows that this doesn’t work,” she said

“Unfortunately we believe the banning and overregulation of dogs in our communities could be part of the problem as this leads to poor socialisation and increased risk of attacks.

http://www.ava.com.au/mediarelease/vets-say-ban-deed-not-breed

So Who Is Supporting Breed Bans?

This clown again.

Reporting rarely includes the events that led to the attack, valuable information that might help us avoid similar incidents.  Instead we are led to believe that the pit bulls are simply unpredictable dangerous dogs. We frequently read headlines about Pit Bulls whose breed later turns out to be misidentified. We read about dogs turning on owners who later turn out to be someone minding the dog. We read about “family dogs” who later turn out to be simply “resident dogs” confined to a back yard.

We decided to investigate whether the Australian media shows a bias against Pit Bulls.

Two Attacks but Only One Reported

The first attack involved a couple walking their small dog home from the shops in Diamond Creek, Victoria. They encountered two roaming dogs, one of whom repeatedly bit their dog and the female owner. She received serious injuries to her hands and her dog received multiple wounds with possible fractures. Nillumbik council seized both roaming dogs. The dog who attacked them was not a Pit Bull. A week later we have not been able to find a single report of this incident in the media. Nothing. Not even a line in the local paper.

The second attack resulted in a man and a woman being hospitalised after receiving multiple bites from a dog in their backyard in Sydney. Initial reports claimed that the dog involved was a Pit Bull and the media went wild.

Just 12 hours after the incident, Google shows how the media respond to news of a 'pit bull' attack.

Media Reaction to Mention of ‘Pit Bull Attack’

• 3:40PM “Two People Attacked by Dog – St Clair“,  NSW Police Media release
• 3:45PM “Cops shoot pit-bull in dog attack“, The Daily Telegraph
• 3:51PM “Dog attack in St Clair puts two people in hospital“, Penrith City Star
• 3:56PM “Police shoot violent dog dead in St Clair“, Mt Druitt Standard
• 4:15PM “Crazed dog attacks couple, turns on police“, abc.net.au/news
• 4:41PM “Cop shoots dog after two mauled“, The Australian
• 4:54PM “Man and woman mauled by dog“, The Sydney Morning Herald
• 21:55PM “Man and woman mauled by dog“, SkyNews.com.au

Every single one of these stories reported that a Pit Bull was believed to have attacked it’s owner. While they focussed on the injuries caused and police shooting the dog, none of these stories gave any details on what led to this attack.

It Wasn’t a Pit Bull

Early reports suggested the dog in question may have been a pitbull terrier – a breed that has been banned in Australia since 2005.

But police last night confirmed the animal was a Staffordshire bull terrier.

news.com.au

Early reports suggested the dog in question may have been a pitbull terrier – a breed that has been banned in Australia since 2005.But police last night confirmed the animal was a Staffordshire bull terrier. Early reports suggested the dog in question may have been a pitbull terrier – a breed that has been banned in Australia since 2005. But police last night confirmed the animal was a Staffordshire bull terrier.

So What Led to This Attack?

At midnight, news.com.au published a story that gave details of what led to the attack.

Mr Edwards said both dogs were normally kept in the backyard. He said he understood his wife was in the backyard hanging out washing when her friend arrived and probably tried to gain access by cutting through the garage. The man, aged in his 50s, was attacked first, then Mrs Edwards, who is in her 40s, was bitten.

News.com.au

What We Want to See

This sort of sensationalized reporting only feeds people’s fears. We are not in the middle of a dog bite epidemic.

Australia has a canine population of about 4 million and over 40% of homes have a dog. However, fatalities are rare (less than one a year nationally) and just 1,400 people have injuries that are serious enough to send them to hospital. I say ‘just’ because the number of people hospitalised each year from tripping over – 18,970. While 1,439 people are hospitalised from ‘trampoline’ related incidents.

SavingPets.com.au

Misreporting and over reporting of attacks by ‘Pit Bulls’ has resulted in States enacting laws that target dogs based on their appearance. Victoria recently enacted laws that allow council officers to seize and kill family pets who look like they may have some ‘pit bull’ in them. There is no scientific evidence that one breed is more likely than another to injure a person. Media bias against certain dog breeds feed public fears but do nothing to make us safer.

The Australian Veterinary Association have spoken out against Breed Specific Legislation. The RSPCA also believes that the owner, not the dog is the issue. It’s time to stop feeding pit bull hysteria and do more to educate the public in how to be safe around dogs.

Dr Patricia Stewart (image pixelated at her request), Liz Walker, 2 x DPI lawyers, Colin Muir (obscured), Linda Watson, Jane Harvey

Council Declares Intent To Kill Family Dogs

Last week I was invited to attend a Review Panel hearing considering the fate of two dogs. Earlier this year a ranger from Manningham council removed two dogs from a residents home. This occurred while the home owner was out and no attempt had been made to contact the owner before a search warrant was obtained. The reason for the raid? The ranger believed the dogs to be American Pit Bull Terriers. At the time of this declaration it was illegal to register an American Pit Bull Terrier in Victoria unless it had existed in Victoria prior to November 2, 2005 and was currently registered with a Council. Note that neither of the dogs had been accused of harming anyone.

Review Panel Called To Decide Dogs Fate

There were three members on the panel tasked with deciding whether to affirm the declaration as made by the council officer or set it aside.

DPI staffer reveals their secret weapon, the Pit-o-Meter

None of these panel members are qualified to do breed identification and yet each of them agreed to take part in the panel. There simply isn’t a reliable way to determine a dogs breed from appearance when the ancestry of the dog is unknown. The DPI’s own guidelines for councils are incredibly broad. The ranger who made the declarations told the panel that according to the DPI guideines, his German Shorthaired Pointer is an American Pit Bull Terrier.

Under amendments to the Victoria’s Domestic Animals Act that came into effect on 1 Sep 2010, any dog that looks enough like the Government’s description of an American Pit Bull Terrier will be deemed to be a Restricted Breed dog. This means the actual breed of the dog is not longer relevant. This panel however was making a determination under the old law. Are these dogs APBTs? For those interested, we’ve included the relevant laws below.

The Decisions Made By The Panel

Sabbath was overjoyed to hear the news that he is not a pitbull.

Sabbath has been returned to his owner after the Review Panel set aside the Council Ranger’s declaration. After five months being held at the pound, this 9 y/o family dog with no history of aggression is finally allowed to go home.

Note that this required a previous appeal to a Review Panel who affirmed that he was a Restricted Breed Dog. This resulted in a Supreme Court challenge on the basis that the Panel did not take into account evidence from the dogs owners and their representatives.

Ouzie’s declaration has been upheld ie.The panel have by majority vote upheld the declaration of Ouzie as a restricted breed. Fate still unknown

Who would go to such trouble to save the life of a nine year old dog? Linda Watson, dog lover.

Who would go to such trouble to have him destroyed? The City of Manningham with support from the Victorian Bureau of Animal Welfare.

The Letter of The Law (for you legal eagles!)

At the time of declaration the law defined a Restricted Breed Dog as:

restricted breed dog means a dog of a breed

whose importation into Australia is

prohibited under the Customs (Prohibited

Imports) Regulations 1956 of the

Commonwealth;

26	Dogs of the following breeds:
	(a)   dogo Argentino;
	(b)   fila Brasileiro;
	(c)   Japanese tosa;
	(d)   American pit bull terrier or pit bull terrier;
	(e)   Perro de Presa Canario or Presa Canario http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/cir1956432/sch1.html

This does not include cross breeds. Australian Customs service manual clearly states this.

2/2/6 Exemptions/Exclusions

The control does not cover crossbreeds and hybrids, or consignments of semen and/or embryos.

http://bit.ly/bOCt7b

21 Sep 2010: DPI have still not responded to our emails about the two remaining incorrect statements on their site.

28 Sep 2010: DPI have advised us that they’ve updated their website and notified councils of their error however councils still do not have the new identification “Standard” referred to in their materials.

Victoria’s Department of Primary Industries is providing information to Councils and the public on the new “Dangerous Dogs” laws that we believe to be misleading.

Given that these laws may result in the killing of family pets who have not committed any offence other than looking like a American Pit Bull Terrier (or crossbreed) we think it’s important that the laws are not misinterpreted by Council officers making declarations or by dog owners.

While most of us use the web to find information, few of us read the actual law. The DPI have recently published a page entitled:

New laws for Restricted Breed Dogs

which states that:

Note that it is still illegal to purchase or acquire a Restricted Breed Dog in Victoria.

We see nothing in the Act the prevents the transfer of ownership of a Restricted Breed Dog except to a minor. 13 Sep 2010 DPI removed this line from advice on their web page

41K Prohibition on transfer of ownership of restricted
breed dogs to minors
    The owner of a restricted breed dog must not sell,
    give or otherwise transfer ownership of the dog to
    another person who is less than 17 years of age.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/daa1994163/s41k.html

It’s our understanding that the DPI have not yet produced the new identification “Standard” for American Pit Bull Terriers. Why are the public being directed to contact their council when the new standard doesn’t exist? 1 Oct 2010 DPI has still not responded to our queries on this issue.

Contact your local Council for more information, including help in determining whether your dog fits the new identification "Standard" for Restricted Breed Dogs.

The DPI also claims that owners of a Restricted Breed Dog can only register it with their local Council if they can prove they owned it prior to the law being enacted on 1 Sep 2010.

From [date] you will have two years to declare and register your Restricted Breed Dog with your local Council, if you haven’t already done so (as long as you can prove you owned and kept this dog in Victoria prior to [date]).

The Act does not require that you owned the dog prior to the 1 Sep 2010 for you to register it during the two year amnesty period (ends 30 Aug 2012). It only requires that the dog was in Victoria at this time. 28 Sep 2010 DPI has corrected this error on their website and notified councils.

Registration of dangerous and restricted breed dogs

(1A) A Council may register a dog as a restricted breed
     dog—
     (a) in the period that is 2 years after the
         commencement of section 7 of the Domestic
         Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs)
         Act 2010, if the dog was in Victoria
         immediately before that commencement; and
     (b) on or after the end of the period specified in
         paragraph (a), if—
           (i) the dog was in Victoria immediately
               before the commencement referred to
               in paragraph (a); and
          (ii) the dog was registered as another breed
               of dog immediately before the end of
               the period specified in paragraph (a).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/daa1994163/s17.html

Legislating against Scary Looking Dogs

Breed Specific Legislation has never been shown to reduce the incidence of dog bites anywhere it’s been tried. While many Governments are reviewing or abandoning this failed approach, John Brumby’s Government has just enacted a range of measures to further crack down on “pit bulls”.

Previous Laws Restricted Owners Of Pit Bulls

Victoria already had strict regulations for the ownership of Restricted Breed Dogs (aka. American Pit Bull Terriers). Owners were required to notify their council, keep them in a child proof enclosure, keep their dogs muzzled and on a lead when off their property and display prescribed warning signs at all entrances to the premises where the dog is kept. Restricted breed dogs born after 2005 were not allowed to be registered.

Can you identify the Pit Bull?

The problem was, Council rangers were mistakenly declaring crossbred dogs as American Pit Bull Terriers. This would lead to much anguish for families as dogs were seized and held. In some cases, owners appealed and were given their dogs back. We are sure there are many others who were not so fortunately. The thing is, you can’t determine that a dog is a purebred American Pit Bull Terrier from appearance alone. You need to know the ancestry of the dog.

Try for yourself! Click on the pictures below to find the Pit Bull.

1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	 15
16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25

Neither Can The “Experts”

“The determination of whether a dog is of a particular breed can be quite difficult. There is, on the evidence before me, no satisfactory scientific method such as DNA analysis which provides a reliable answer. The word “breed” itself has to be applied carefully. To determine whether a dog is of a particular breed is, of course, a question of fact.”

– Judge Martin J, Supreme Court of Queensland, March 2010

Victoria now Legislates Based on Appearance, Not Breed

To avoid costly court challenges over the validity of visual breed identifications, the the newly amended Bill deems the actual breed of the dog irrelevant.

“The Bill provides for a standard to be prescribed to assist with the identification of a dog as one of the restricted breed dogs.  If a dog fits within the standard it will be included in the definition of a restricted breed dog whether or not the dog is a cross breed.”

– Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010 : Second Reading Speech

A dog of any breed, even a pedigree, could potentially fall within the prescribed standard for Pit Bulls. A Department of Primary Industries spokesperson confirmed that the prescribed standard for Pit Bulls does not exist. He stated that the DPI would create one after the Bill is enacted. The 2006 Edition of the DPI’s “Guidleines for Identification” are farcical. As a ranger explained at a recent Review Panel hearing “My German Short Haired Pointer is a Pit Bull according to those guidelines”.

Rethinking Dangerous Dogs

Breed Specific Legislation has been tried around the world and has failed to reduce the incidence of dog bites. Experts are calling for a rethink on dangerous dogs with a focus on “deed not breed”.

“We know that a dog’s tendency to bite is the product of at least five factors: the dog’s genetic predisposition to aggression; early socialisation to humans; its training or mistraining; the quality of its care and supervision; and the behaviour of the victim. Genetics is only one of these factors. In the wrong circumstances, any dog, regardless of size, breed or mixture of breeds can be dangerous. The RSPCA believes that deeming a dog as “dangerous” should therefore be done on the basis of its behaviour, not its breed.”

- Lynne Bradshaw, National President, RSPCA Australia

The Scottish Parliament recently passed a Bill that shifted the emphasis from ‘breed’ to ‘deed’.

“It is clear that a dog’s breed is only one factor which may affect its behaviour. Attempting to define the law purely in relation to breed has failed to protect the public. This view is supported by several leading organisations concerned with the welfare of dogs, including the Kennel Club, Advocates for Animals, the Dogs Trust and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty Problems with existing legislation to Animals.  The widely accepted view is that the way a dog is trained and treated is far more important in determining its behaviour than its breed is.”

– Proposed Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill

The British Government is preparing a review of its Dangerous Dogs legislation

“The BVA believes that the manner in which a dog behaves is largely a result of its inherited characteristics, but more importantly the rearing and training provided by the owner.

The BVA has therefore long been opposed in principle to any proposal or legislation that singles out particular breeds of dogs rather than targeting individual aggressive dogs. The problems caused by dangerous dogs will never be solved until dog owners appreciate that they are responsible for the actions of their animals. This is known as the ‘deed not breed’ principle.”

– British Veterinary Association on Dangerous Dogs Act

Pit Bull Hoax Video

Containing interviews from world renowned dog experts such as Ian Dubbar, Pit Bull Hoax exposes the failure of Breed Specific Legislation to reduce the incidence of dog bites. It provides a reasoned counterpoint to the pit bull hysteria promoted by the media and politicians. This video is made available with kind permission of Drayton Michaels at PitBullGuru.com

What Makes More Sense

The definition of Restricted Breed should not be extended to include dogs of any breed who happen to look like someone’s idea of a Pit Bull. Responsible owners of well behaved dogs should not have to worry that their dog might be declared a restricted dog simply because of the way it looks.

Perhaps it’s time to stop pandering to media generated hysteria over Pit Bulls and accept that BSL is an overly simplistic response to the problem of dog bites and that our efforts would be better spent on other approaches.