COULDYou?…..
Mr Premier, in UK in 1991 there existed an estimated 10,000 “pit bulls” and within 18 mths of the enactment of the draconian legislation of the Dangerous Dog Act, half had vanished underground!

Even though some owners will surrender dogs in fear of the costs of harsh containments, do you really think the devoted followers of American Pit Bull terriers COULD psychologically harm them, through the harsh containments set down OR that they COULD allow you to seize their dogs?
There is already a flourishing black market in ANKC registered dog papers, dogs have moved in breeding pairs, some interstate and, as at the Gold Coast with 6000, there are fewer crossbred dogs being reregistered.

When you enact laws to punish the innocent you create more unlawful behaviours---and if we consider in addition, the illegal dog fighters who own “pitbull” dogs, secreted from council and public knowledge now, it is unlikely they would obey any law—rather they will simply move on to another less “hot” type of dog! 

You COULD have decided to pay out large amounts for police to seize dogs, as the UK did. Dogs were dragged from children’s beds, taken from owners in cars stopped at a traffic light, and when a muzzle was removed in the street as a dog gagged and vomited. All these cases resulted in dogs incarcerated for many months while litigation proceeded, all to disprove each was a restricted breed! (London Times, 1993)
OR—as happens in Germany, squads of police COULD shoot down one roaming dog in the street and leave it with 18 bullet wounds, for hours, dying in agony in the gutter (Appollo)--and, as you obviously considered, you COULD have incurred great litigation costs and much bad publicity!

And for the above reasons, you COULD still not have reached ALL the dogs of the type!

No,as  the Holocaust COULD NOT rid the world of the Jewish race—your laws COULD NOT rid Victoria of all “pitbulls”!

• WOULD you pursue the dogs made a scapegoat in the media to the detriment of your own and the government’s reputation?
• WOULD you commit funds not available for proactive council activity to seizure of pets in their homes?
• WOULD you face the media  turned against so harsh a government when children crying for their pets watch them dragged away to be killed?

It has happened in Rockhampton where publicity about the two “pitbull” pets of the Williams family, due to be seized and destroyed as a restricted breed, caused the council to rethink killing the 20+ registered dogs of the type, in their shire!
You are a father sir, do your children have pets—a dog? WOULD they accept and understand it being taken away when it was well behaved? WOULD you like to explain to your children in the future why you ordered such actions to occur?

• WOULD you be able to show that such heartbreaking cruelty had solved public place dog attacks?
• WOULD we be safe walking our streets, when any breed of dog can bite,and science proves this as well as our statistics and experiences?

SHOULD “pitbulls” be restricted/hounded/denigrated/destroyed?

In Victoria sir, your own statistics show these dogs are NOT the most common attackers. If Victoria had 900,000 dogs in 1999 and 21 Pitbulls attacked out of 10,000 over two years, when the total of attacks was 683--one MUST ask what measures you are taking to stop the others from attacking if only Pitbulls are restricted. The other Commonwealth import restricted breeds do not actually apply in our state!
If you apply this BSL measure to prevent dog attacks, SHOULD you not apply it to the worst offenders? To all the breeds involved?  SHOULD you not be consistent and logical with this law, if you believe in it?

Premier, the truth is, you SHOULD admit the real problem is not the breeds but the deeds. That is, results caused by the owners of dogs allowed to run loose. The owners of dogs attack trained and not constrained and the negligent owners who do not train their dogs nor supervise them with children.

This results in children under 10 yrs being the most at risk of a dog attack and most (80% was stated in parliament—Hansard, Nov 21 2001) attacks occurring near the home with family or known dogs!

Your government SHOULD recognise this and ensure measures are followed up to provide a safe
Community. All dogs SHOULD be leashed in public unless in a designated off-leash area, as this has achieved significant reductions in dog attacks overseas.

You therefore SHOULD not target any breed, but all owners and educate, legislate and enforce, democratic dog controls!

Apart from creating a second class of “dangerous dog” through the BSL measures on “pitbulls”, most dog owners will applaud significant penalties for offenders against the laws, but these will be effective only to the degree they are enforced and followed up unilaterally!