Why Breed Specific Legislation fails to stop dog attacks
.
     
 

Breed measures are usually implemented rapidly following public disclosure of serious dog attacks, creating an emotive fuelled outrage and pressure on governments to “act”. They are either ill researched or all research showing their failure to solve dog bites is ignored for short term public admiration.
.
In Australia, various politicians and the current president of the RSPCA have successfully demonised dogs they call Pit Bulls as needing to be restricted or prohibited. Killing machines on a leash, wretched, one off breed…will turn on you and other similar dramatic terms have been used freely. In spite of this, no legislation documents that these restricted or prohibitive measures are expected to stop or reduce dog attacks. However no policies have been described to the public as successful models of the decided process or such desired outcomes.
.
In 2001 Premier Bracks told Victorians their government would ensure they can walk the streets in safety, sadly dog attacks still occured. In 2006 further prohibitions applied to one restricted breed and it is now being compulsory desexed out of existence.
.
The Queensland Childrens Hospital (with assistance from the Queensland Injury Surveillance Unit) released a study of dog bite victims. The hospital averaged 5 dog bites per day. As would be expected the culprits were all types of dog, rarely were restricted breeds involved. Interesting fodder considering the import Ban was introduced in 1991. Strangely why isn’t the implementation being reviewed and amended if, as implied, it somehow isn’t working?
.
Every dog bite occurs not from one factor alone. The dog is a product not only of genetic predispositions, but of interactions with humans, socialisation, training, containment and its own mental and physical health. Not to be forgotten (which it so often is) is the human interaction at the moment of attack. In a nutshell the truly dangerous dog is very much the exception to the norm.
 

Points to ponder regarding BSL
.

  • Due to unclear definitions and the lack of scientific, practical or discriminating breed identification methods worldwide, breeds such as American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Bull Terriers, American Bulldogs, Bull Arabs and the Dogue de Bordeauxs are confused with the undefined Pitbull dog.

  • Crossbreeds have fallen foul of this scatter gun type of law with perfectly innocently obtained cross breeds embroiled in litigation in desperate attempts by owners to save the life of a loved pet.

  • The head of RSPCA Queensland, Mr Mark Townend, has made several attempts to persuade the Queensland government this failing law should be reviewed and is causing unnecessary hardships.

  • Breed bans have robbed responsible, tax-paying, dog-owning citizens of their rights and companions. They punish good dogs and good owners for the sins of the minority.

  • Breed bans have caused community complacency about other breeds and potential for bites.

  • Breed bans have failed to comprehensively and accurately inform the community in the importance of supervising children and teaching them how to approach and respect unknown dogs.

  • Breed bans do not hold owners fully accountable.

.

EDBA demands governments treat dog control in a democratic way. Simply implementing owner onus measures, match severity of penalty to severity of infringement, educate the public and ensure compliance through unilateral and fair enforcement of sound control, leash and containment laws.
 

  • BSL funding diverts scarce community resources into seeking a small percentage of dogs of one type. Dogs which look a certain way and have not needed to commit any sort of law infringement. Under many laws these pets die despite owners’ pleas.

  • The existing democratic dog control laws have not been consistently enforced or fully reviewed, yet unsocial, selfish community attitudes of non compliance are easily seen and documented - loose dogs, fouling dogs, barking dogs, untrained, unleashed dogs biting dogs - etc - not confined to any one state, city or jurisdiction or type of person.

  • It has minimal effect in creating a safer community for children. Most at risk are those under the teenage years. The majority of bites on children are by known or neighbourhood dogs. Highlighting loose dogs attacking doesn’t change recorded facts that about 75%+ of  bites aren’t by public area culprits but occur in or near homes with local/known dogs.

  • The law is always a reversal of the British justice system. An owner has within a short time frame to prove the dog isn't a Pitbull. Sadly the pet is guilty until proven innocent. How does one prove beyond doubt the pets parentage if he is an unpapered dog?

 

“...Dog owners deserve legislation that establishes a fair process by which dogs are identified as “dangerous” based on stated measurable actions and then allows appropriate penalties for irresponsible owners.”
 

© 2006 EDBA All Rights Reserved