It seems Dr Smith holds opinions that “safety first” is successful in  preventing dog attacks:

when it  means restricting ownership of breeds of dogs, with no “grandfather” clauses in laws.

attempting breed/type eradication by desexing and/or killing ,just in case they MIGHT attack, which elsewhere, he claims his shelter does

and belittling as well as  punishing the owners for their choice of dog.

He ignores the fact that the Australian Veterinary Association has a Policy that states on scientific grounds any dog can bite and that  effective and democratic dog laws focus on punishing the deed not  the breed.

It is patently untrue to imply as he does, that the Veterinary fraternity supports this legislation.
Submissions  on behalf of the great majority of Australian Vets, members of the Australian Veterinary  Association, advised the govt to enact laws which focus on following up and enforcing existing dog controls, requiring mandatory reporting of dog attacks and educating the public about responsible ownership.

Such Policy is reflected  officially in the Australian National Kennel Council and current RSPCA documents, also, even though Dr Wirth, the National President, seems to share Dr Smith's views.

It is obvious after some thought that general practice Vets, Breeders, Judges and Trainers and Behaviourists are able to be effective through wide experience with dog history and development and an intimate knowledge of dog temperaments. It could be suggested, a greater knowledge than welfare workers.

Canine scientific research  is constantly advancing veterinary achievements and all mankind's life saving medical triumphs have come from science!

Just 1 example: Research being undertaken currently at University of Central Arkansas Canine Development is testing different breeds of dogs under varying stress levels to monitor aggressive responses. It is indicating aggression is more allied to an individual dog's response to a situation than it is to its breed.

Safety First and Dangerous Dogs:
Q: Can we identify dogs likely to attack another animal or a human? Are pit bulls loose and attacking everyone so badly the breed needs to be eradicated?

A: Only by the dog's behaviour, difficult with strange dogs, and certainly not by breed, when centuries of selection have affected many original features, both physical and mental, in breeds of dogs. Victorian dog attack in public statistics for 1997-99 showed  683 recorded attacks, of which only 21 were by  Pitbulls, the breed 13th on this list, which was headed by GSD, a very commonly owned breed, with 127.

There are 10,000 pitbulls in Victoria by one estimate (Herald Sun, 21/10/01 ) and the breed from the original imports of pure-bred American Pit Bull Terrier has been in Australia for over 20 yr.. If any of the ludicrous media hype were true, if Dr Smith's implications against this group of dogs were right, almost every street in our cities and towns would be overrun every day with dogs frightening people. Society would never stand for  such a situation! This so-called problem has suddenly appeared recently, and media pressure urges government to apply a “quick fix” law to stop the public criticisms and calls like” When will the govt act?”

What is true is that each of those 21 attacks was sensationally reported while the attacks by 19 other breeds of dogs, were not!
Further, reports which begin naming a cross bred as the attacker invariably go on to call the dog a “pitbull” for the remainder of the story.
Days prior to the Premier announcing the new regulations, there was a story of an owner saying it wasn't his dog which attacked a guide dog pup. He described his cross breed's ancestry. Yet the reporter wrote a very prominently displayed piece about  pitbull attacks in the usual stirring way!  (Herald Sun  Oct. 25 2001, p7 )

Pitbulls have never killed any human in Australia, even though it has been reported incorrectly that they were involved in four recent deaths. The statistics for dog deaths  can be substantiated as they come from University data base collection.
And the other 19 breeds of dogs? What of the other, approx. 640 attacks NOT by pitbulls— are they not serious, deserving of some measures? If the govt is going to apply restrictions to the 13th worst dog by breed, how will it protect us all from the other attackers?? The answer is—it won't protect us! Any more than this restriction on the pitbulls will  protect us or stop dogs from attacking!

There is only one way to limit dogs attacking and that is by responsible owners training and containing their  dogs!

Restricting Dogs By Breed and Outlawing Them and Owners:
Q:  Aren't these dogs banned elsewhere? Weren’t they bred to fight so they are unreliable and dangerous with people?

A:  A number of countries have tried to ban the pitbull dogs as a preventative measure against dog attacks—and all have failed—there is NO long term study showing any country has cut down incidence of dog attacks by banning breeds of dogs, even though some countries have extended the bans to numerous breeds.
Dog attacks are NOT a DOG problem, but a HUMAN problem!

Our major problem is in refusing to recognize that dog attacks will never be totally eradicated, but that owners must act  preventively, responsibly and accountably to keep them at a minimum.

A second problem is that governments hesitate to provide sufficient support and funds to  councils to enforce and follow up democratic laws, provide public education and apply a range of  penalties to both minor and serious offenders, which would deter other irresponsible owners.  Rather, they continually add new measures in response to lobbying and media pressure—Victoria’s laws have been amended each year of this ALP govt’s term— no wonder many citizens do not understand them, know of them or apply them! 

Bans don't work as the already obedient citizen is the one affected by any restrictions. Others who have flouted the laws previously will continue this.
Examples are owners who don't register their dogs. The “macho” owners with a penchant for a tough looking dog, some of whom carry out abortive attack training and/or indiscriminate breeding. The illegal dog fighters who are mostly responsible for ruining the reputation of the APBT breed.
They will simply abandon the breed and their dogs and turn to another

Frightened owners will also surrender their dogs, and Victorian shelters for a time will see an influx of “pitbull” type--by some lay person's description, named so—and the bounty moneys from councils to LDH and RSPCA for pound activities will increase.

But genuine breeders of the original USA bloodlines of the APBT will make other arrangements to preserve their treasured breed---just as in the wartime Holocaust, the Jews couldn't be killed off. In the dog Holocaust sweeping the world currently, this old breed will not be eradicated.

Although countless innocent dogs will die at the hands of illogical and cruel humans who stand behind an absurd and unfair law, the breed  once renowned as America's wartime mascot dog will return, with ever more careful breeding and selection of owners, as it is doing in America today---- and as  in UK, where, at first, half of the 10,000 pitbulls disappeared “underground”--and at last, the govt called a truce on crossbred dogs as “born in infinity” after ten years of  their draconian Dangerous Dog Act 1991. 

This was the Act which caused welfare officers to call for and gain, an import ban on the same breeds identified in the UK ,in Australia in 1991.

Presently, it seems the Rottweiler is becoming the “bogey dog” of the media  and has also been used in illegal dog fights, according to an AVA report . 
In SA a recent Rottweiler attack  on a young boy left unattended at home with the dog, has been reported in all the media with focus given to past Rottie “sins”. But what wasn't reported, and won't be, is that the dog, which was a rescue crossbred  owned for only a short time, had displayed aggression to the degree the RSPCA was called, but these signs apparently were ignored and after its death it was discovered it had a biro pen embedded in an ear! 

The American Pitbull Terrier was originally bred to fight.  This developed from bull and bear baiting activities to dog fighting, and common ancestry applies  to the American Staffordshire Terrier, the English Staffordshire Bull Terrier and American and English Bull Terriers—even to the dear slow old English Bulldog and the little French Bulldog! 
But misunderstandings about responsible breeding since those days makes many overlook the development of the loving and loyal side of these breeds, so today, for example,  the Staffie is Australia's fourth most popular dog!

Dog breed selection sites abound on the internet and commonly they tell such information as this about the APBT—
APBT is a good natured, amusing, extremely loyal and affectionate family pet which is good with children and adults. Almost always obedient, it is always eager to please its master. It usually is very friendly, but has an uncanny ability to know when it needs to protect and when everything is OK. It can be wilful and needs a firm hand. They are generally OK with pets if raised with them from puppy hood. Excellent with children in the family, they have a high pain tolerance and will happily put up with rough child play. Not to be owned by everyone, but a quality companion for quality owners only! Socialize thoroughly when very young to combat aggressive tendencies and be sure to keep the dog under control when other dogs are present” (http://www.dogbreedinfo.com)

As for Owners being “let off the hook”, does this imply something about the selection by  hundreds of owners of cross breeds which look like a pitbull type, due to short legs, broad heads and upright ears?? Read Victorian Hansard  for Nov. 21 2001, and note what Steve McArthur (shadow Minister, Liberal) said about the SAME dog being advertised on the govt’s web site as a “pitbull” example to shelters of dogs to gas on sight, and as a successful rescue, rehoused Staffordshire –“Larrikin”--on the Lost Dogs Home Web site!!
Perhaps we should ask the shelters how many wrongly identified stray and good natured dogs they have gassed!

Finally, Dr Smith it seems, has been involved in trial programs for responsible ownership, and a board  which advises the government on desirable law changes, so one would suppose he advocates measures to increase responsible ownership, like obtaining dog Obedience titles ,and govt support for such owners.
It is suggested he could well press for not Breed Specific Laws, but Owner Specific Laws! Such was the case in Chicago, late in 2001, when legislators recognized that it was not the dogs that had problems with reading dog training manuals and obeying council leash laws, but their owners.