Although they tried to turn it into a scare piece with a nasty dog photo and threatening headline, the latest A Current Affair story on restricted dog breeds was actually a pretty good representation of why there isn’t really a ‘dangerous dog’ problem at all…
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
There’s about 2,000 restricted dogs being kept as pets in WA.
There aren’t overall statistics for the number of dogs that have been destroyed for attacking people or other animals, so A Current Affair surveyed all 141 Local Governments in Western Australia.
Of the local governments that replied, five councils reported destroying a total of 23 dogs.
Five of those were restricted breeds.
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Five! So 18 times out of 23, the problem dog wasn’t a ‘restricted breed’ at all but just simply a regular-ol-dog. And with an estimated 338,000 dogs being kept in Western Australia, aggressive ‘restricted breeds’ are being destroyed at a rate of about o.oo15% of the entire dog population.
But what now for the 2,000 dogs who, thanks to this legislation, aren’t able to be socialised, well rounded members of the community as they are now kept under lock, key and muzzle for simply being the ‘wrong’ breed? Tell me again how we can have social, well raised, animals and responsible owners with legislation which actively discourages bull breed owners from participating in ordinary, responsible pet ownership activities?
Legislation which extends to the hundreds of thousands of ‘iffy’ cross breeds whose paranoid owners are now avoiding social contact lest they see the wrong side of a dangerous dog order. And that’s any bull breed (or that which looks like one) since we simply can’t tell them apart. From The West Australian;
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
WA Rangers’ Association president Samantha Tarling said identification had emerged as a fundamental problem, with WA’s chief veterinarian refusing to “testify to the DNA of a dog.
“I once challenged some owners that their dog was a pit bull,” she said. “They showed me the parents with the paperwork. It was a cross between a boxer and a labrador. I could have sworn it was a pit bull.”
She said some pit bulls looked like bull mastiffs, a breed that is not restricted.
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
KC Dog Blog nails beautifully Australia’s ineffective approach to dog regulation;
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
The message that is sent to the people? Pit bulls are dangerous. Other dogs are not. The problem is, there will always be a “different” breed that will be a problem. The people who have no idea how to properly train/socialized/care for their dogs, will continue to own SOMETHING.
Until we focus on the owners, the way dogs are raised and socialized, and cared for, we will fail at improving public safety. The situations that lead up to attacks like this all follow a common pattern — the breed of dog is irrelevant. We MUST focus on these issues, because focusing on breeds of dogs is proving repeatedly to be a failed endeavor.
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Zactly.
I would hazrad a guess that there are probably more than 2000 pit bull type dogs being kept as pets in WA unbeknown to the local councils. Interestingly they arent causing much of a problem state or nation wide though.
Dangerous dog laws are enough on their own to protect the public and it all comes down to the governments realising this, like a large proportion of the dog loving public already do.
Lets hope the state governments cotton on sooner rather than later that it is the owner not the breed, so they can put a halt to this ignorant breedism and stop innocent lives continuing to be destroyed around the nation and stop having these fantastic family dogs living confined to their homes leading half the life they should be, which is around people.
Bull breeds deserve a better go.