Reporting on dog attacks is my least favourite thing to post about, but as ‘dangerous dogs’ are big news today, I feel compelled to discuss.
Firstly, let me start by saying the dogs we share our lives with are remarkably safe. In the state of NSW – where there a smidge over 1 million dogs – just 6,847 dogs were involved in attacks (people and animal attacks combined, and including any incident where a dog rushes at, attacks, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal) in 2010/11. This means less than 1% (0.68%) of dogs are involved in attacks annually.
But they do happen. Which is why identifying the true causes behind dog attacks and working on reducing actual risk becomes vital if we want to continue to enjoy man’s best friend.
Back in July, a nine year old boy in Port Lincoln lost part of his nose when looked over a fence and a neighbours Australian Bulldog lunged at him. His injuries are now being reported as healing well, thankfully.
The story featured just twice; in the Adelaide Advertiser, and then later it was picked up by the Herald Sun (who, true to form, turned it into a story about banning ‘pit bulls’).
In the same month, two other serious dog attacks happened in Adelaide; a german shepherd-cross attacked and bit a woman and her silky terrier after escaping, and a mastiff cross killed a small shih tzu and bit the arm of its owner.
These were both only featured in the local news.
Now compare those to the story today. Yesterday, in Bankstown, a 19 year old man and his dog were set upon by two loose dogs. While trying to defend his own dog, the man fell to the ground where his ear was bitten off. He also suffered leg injuries. He was taken to Liverpool Hospital, where surgeons were working to reattach his ear. The dogs are currently impounded at Bankstown and the owner is helping police.
I know we’re all wishing the injured man a speedy recovery both physically and emotionally.
Unfortunately, the NSW Police reported the breed of dogs involved in the attack as ‘pit bulls’, even though the breed would later be changed to American staffy mixes. What we have seen since is the ‘pit bull’ effect;
News agencies which have picked up the ‘pit bull’ story include; the Canterbury-Bankstown Express, the Byron Shire News, The Australian;
The West Australian, The Bigpond news feed, ABC news (+ radio + twitter of 90,000 followers), the Channel Seven national news (who even now, are still reporting the attack to be from ‘pit bulls’);
.In fact in the first 3 hours, more than 30 news outlets picked up the story – while only a handful have published the story since the breed was corrected.
What is most startling however, is that every single one of these stories calling for ‘something to be done about pit bulls’ is overlooking the fact that NSW already has breed specific legislation (BSL) governing dogs in the state . Since 2008 councils have been able to declare a dog as ‘dangerous’ if they are of the opinion that it is a restricted breed, or a cross-breed of a restricted breed. It is an offence to sell or give away a dangerous or restricted dog, dogs must be managed by someone over the age of 18 and kept in an enclosure that complies with extensive specifications including 1.8 metre high fences and a concrete floor. Warning signs must be displayed and the dog must wear a ‘dangerous dog’ collar.
The fact that this man was still injured – and by dogs who were mistaken for, but weren’t ‘pit bulls’ – demonstrates that breed specific laws fail in their purported aims to make the community safer and keep people from being injured by dogs.
Along with all the usual beat up however, some genuine gems have emerged. Adam Spencer (@adambspencer) from ABC radio hosted Dr Kersti Seksel speaking on behalf of the AVA, in conjunction with their position paper on dog management;
The Australian Veterinary Association has warned against a breed-based model for dangerous dog laws.
Animal Behavioural specialist, Kersti Seksel, says there is credible evidence that some breeds have suffered from bad press.
“The data that’s being collected in other countries and other jurisdictions don’t indicate that a particular breed is more likely to bite,” she said.
“What we do know is when a particular breed gets a lot of media attention, then they get identified as the dog even though we know that sine of them are cross-breeds and may not have any of that particular breed in them at all.”
Not only did Adam take the time to get an actual expert on dog behaviour along to speak, he asked pertinent questions and listened to the answers with an open mind. Pretty much the exact opposite of what we’ve come to expect after these kinds of incidents.
Listen to the full interview here (highly recommended).
News.com.au reporter Chris Paine (@christoforpaine) has also brought sensible discussion, experts & research to the dangerous dog debate, in his piece “The dog attack blame game”;
“Breed is not an indication of behaviour. Jurisdictions that ban dogs based on breed rescind that legislation because it doesn’t work,” said the AVA’s Kersti Seksel.
“You need to identify nuisance dogs, ones that are actually dangerous, then their owners can take steps to manage that dog to make a good member of our society.
“A lot of abnormal aggression is based in anxiety, and humans don’t recognise that in dogs.”
(Veterinary behaviourist Jacqui Ley) says American Staffordshire Terriers and Pit-bull breeds only have a bad reputation because they’re a popular dog.
“Ten years ago we were jumping up and down because of German Shepherds,” she said.
“There’s more variation within breeds than between breeds. It could have happened with any type of dog.
“There are some American Staffordshire Terriers that are really reactive, and some are lovely and laidback.”
BSL in Victoria is killing healthy, friendly pet dogs. Laws which only target the way a dog looks consistently fail to address the real causes of dog attacks; the behaviour of owners, of individual dogs, and the wider community.
The first episode of this web series – the first of its kind that I’ve seen in Australia – is a baby step towards educating people about the dangers of looking to BSL to solve their dog problems. Please share.
See also: When is a pit bull, not a pit bull?
I see the media is still using poor old Rocky. This Rotty x just happened to be at the pound when the media rocked up looking for a picture of a vicious “Pit Bull”.
The Pit Bull types that were incarcerated at the time were all too friendly so they took a photo of Rocky instead who was not too happy with his lot.
I know this as it was told to me at the time by a now ex council ranger that was present.
Great blog. The National Canine Research Council in the US investigate each dog attack fatality in the US and have some interesting info. They put their yearly reports here http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/ These reports show that although many media stories blame Pit Bulls frequently its not actually Pit Bulls involved.
This whole BSL issue makes me sick.
Anybody who knows anything about dog behaviour (and who doesn’t directly profit from the pet shop trade) will tell you that its fearful dogs that attack, fearful dogs are likely to be undersocialised, and that dogs sold in pet shops are highly likely to be undersocialised. But will they ban selling dogs in pet shops? Surely that would be a whole lot easier than BSL? Just a whole lot less profitable.
Great blog post!
Let’s not forget that it’s not just the media that are pushing this agenda. The Pet Industry Association of Australia (PIAA) have also politicked and utilised the public outrage to try and land themselves some extra media attention and a seat on a government panel.
“there is a problem with the pit bull breed”
http://www.poochmag.com.au/features/157/comment/
What hope do we have when we have supposed peak industry bodies echoing the media driven sensationalist drivel that fuels the fearful and reactionary public opinions that grows support for the regressive, oppressive and ineffective BSL based policies instituted and strengthened here in Victoria, Australia.
PIAA aren’t the only organisations that do damage whilst making a living off the dog’s back – APDT and Delta Society have been sitting on their hands throughout recent times, with little or no attempt to influence correct thought on the matter.
At least the NDTF include a BSL element in their education and were the key sponsors of a rally to protest BSL. They can be applauded for not fence sitting, and for doing their part.
It is blogs like this one that help promote a sensible message – one of responsible canine guardianship and owner onus.
[…] Saving Pets, as always, posted a bunch of good content. They looked at a year in NSW pounds in terms of ‘bad’ stats, and then in terms of ‘good’ stats (and the ‘good’ doesn’t include the RSPCA, surprise!). They posted, “The UK leaves Australian animal shelters for dead” and “‘Pit bull’ hype still rules aussie media“. […]