Victorian councils are required to hold lost dogs for 8 days to give owners a chance to collect them. As of 1st Sep 2010, councils can kill impounded dogs after 48 hours if:

• the dog was ‘at large’
• the owner cannot be identified
• they ‘reasonably believe’ that the dog is likely to attack a person or animal in future if it were ‘at large’ again

I’ve written at length about why this is a bad idea but I’ll just received the Practice Note (download here) advising Councils how to establish ‘reasonable belief’.

This document shows an inexcusable level of ignorance about dog behaviour. I have trouble believing an adult was paid money to prepare it. Just look at the list of suggested reasons for killing dogs before the 8 days:

I think this is one of the easiest articles I’ve ever had to write as the author of this Practice Note says it all for me! Who wrote this and how did such bad advice get approved by the Minister?

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

The goodfordogs.org website also gave some feedback on this legislation. It said:

Fines for failing to register or renew registration for a dog should be in proportion to the offence. Owners of impounded dogs should be given the opportunity to register their dog as a condition of its return but should not face steep fines that would result in more dogs remaining unclaimed.

I found that an interesting scenario. If you took that logic to the nth degree, most people would not bother to apply for a drivers licence until they were caught. There need to be some reasonably strong punitive measures for those who do not do the right thing and register their dog.

Mr Walsh disagreed with our suggestion that owners of impounded dogs “should not face steep fines that would result in more dogs remaining unclaimed”.  Mr Walsh incorrectly read this to mean owners of impounded dogs should not be fined at all.

Goodfordogs.org went on to say that:

Breed-specific legislation (BSL) has been tried around the world —

as I mentioned —

and has not been shown to reduce the incidence of dog bites. Experts here and abroad are calling for a rethink on dangerous dogs with a focus on ‘deed not the breed’.

But, as I said earlier, once the deed is done it is too late.

Mr Walsh doesn’t dispute the fact that BSL fails to make us safer. Yet he still supports it. Why would a rational person decide the answer to correcting something that isn’t working is to do more of what isn’t working?

It doesn’t take a dog attack to know a dog is obviously dangerous. Perhaps our choice of words is misleading. ‘Behaviour not breed’ isn’t nearly as catchy as ‘Breed not Deed’ but it better describes what the experts are calling for.

A qualified dog behaviourist is much better placed to assess whether a dog is dangerous than a council worker with a ‘pit bull cross identification checklist’. So why don’t we ask these trained professionals to assess the temperament of suspected dangerous dogs?

We’ve been provided a copy of the Parliamentary Research Brief. It contains statements that some people may find misleading. It misrepresents the Victorian RSPCA by quoting statements made by Hugh Wirth last year. I’ll be dissecting it in more detail over the weekend. I appears to have been removed from the Parliament website so here it is for your enjoyment.

Parliamentary Research Brief : Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010

What is Natural Justice / Procedural Fairness?

“The rules or principles of natural justice, also known as procedural fairness, have developed to ensure that decision-making is fair and reasonable. Put simply, natural justice involves decision-makers informing people of the case against them or their interests, giving them a right to be heard (the ‘hearing’ rule), not having a personal interest in the outcome (the rule against ‘bias’), and acting only on the basis of logically probative evidence (the ‘no evidence’ rule).”

– ‘Natural Justice/Procedural Fairness’. NSW Ombudsman

This Bill Fails to Ensure Procedural Fairness

Currently, Councils must hold impounded dogs for 8 days to enable their owners to be reunited with them. The Bill would allow Council officers to kill unregistered dogs found at large after 48 hours on the suspicion that they might commit an offence in future if allowed to roam. Councils would have an incentive to kill dogs after 48 hours instead of keeping them the full 8 days as it would save money and cage space (the ‘bias’ rule). The Bill does not require that owners are notified or given a right to be heard (the ‘hearing’ rule). The Bill doesn’t require any evidence that the dog has or will harm any person or animal for it to be destroyed (the ‘no evidence’ rule).

Procedural Fairness Is Part of Good Government

Victorian law is meant to ensure Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness. This Bill fails us in this regard.

“Decision-makers need to be aware of the requirements of procedural fairness when making decisions which affect a person’s rights or interests. Failure to notify a person of a potentially adverse decision, or to allow them an opportunity to be heard, is contrary to good government, and may result in the decision being set aside by a court.”

– ‘Procedural Fairness – The Hearing Rule’ Victorian Government Solicitors Office

Driving this legislation

John Brumby [Premier]

Ministerial office –
Level 1, 1 Treasury Pl, Melbourne 3002
Tel: 9651 5000
Fax: 9651 5054

Electorate office –
145A Wheatsheaf Rd, Glenroy 3046
Tel: 9300 3851
Fax: 9300 3915
Email: john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au

Minister Responsible

Joe Helper [Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Small Business]

Ministerial Office-

Level 22, 1 Spring Street, Melbourne 3000
Tel: 9658 4670
Fax: 9658 4671

177 High St, Maryborough 3465
(PO Box 175, Maryborough 3465)
Tel: 5461 1255
Fax: 5461 1631
Email: joe.helper@parliament.vic.gov.au

Dr Bill Sykes [Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture and Water]

Veterinarian

Shop 2, 55 Carrier St, Benalla 3672
Tel: 5762 2100
Fax: 5762 4478
Email: bill.sykes@parliament.vic.gov.au
Internet: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~sykes

Dr Bill Sykes is collecting responses from organisations concerned about the Bill. His office has been very helpful and we appreciate the interest Bill is taking in this threat to Victoria’s dogs and their owners.

We look forward to Dr Sykes contribution to the debate.

Find your local member from the list of Legislative Assembly Members.

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.