Echo Issue Outline: copyright Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
Should pit bull terriers be eliminated from Australia?
On Wednesday, December 27, 1995, a 79 year old woman was savaged to death by a pit bull terrier in the backyard of her niece's home.
The dog belonged to a next-door neighbour and attacked the woman after jumping a metre-high fence.
The Queensland Government is now reportedly considering outlawing the breed and a range of groups have called on all state governments to tighten their dog-control laws.
Background
The American pit bull terrier stands about 50cm high and weighs between 25kg and 40kg. The dog has a high pain threshold and an exceptional strength-to-weight ratio. The jaws can exert much more pressure than those of breeds such as rottweilers and bull terriers.
The American pit-bull terrier was developed in the United States last century. It is a hybrid of a number of strong, aggressive breeds, including the staffordshire terrier.
Once the new breed was established, it was used in America for the blood sport of pit fighting.
American pit-bull terriers were first introduced into Australia 12 years ago.
It is estimated that there are now some 13,000 pit bull terriers in Australia, excluding cross-breeds.
Prior to the dogs being allowed into the country, the RSPCA made representations to the Federal Government that the dogs not be brought in.
There have been two fatal pit bull attacks in the last five years.
In 1991, the Federal Government passed legislation making it illegal to import pit bull terriers into Australia. In South Australia it is illegal to sell or give the breed away.
Proposals that pit bull terriers be eliminated from Australia involve the ban on importation remaining in place and a program of compulsory de-sexing being introduced so that the breed would ultimately die out.
Arguments against attempts to eliminate pit bull terriers from Australia
There are two major arguments offered against the proposal that pit bull terriers be eliminated from Australia.
The first argument offered is that elimination is not necessary. The second is that it is not possible, and therefore alternative methods of control need to be found.
Those who hold that elimination is not necessary do so on a number of grounds.
Defenders of the breed claim that the dog's aggression has been exaggerated.
Those who claim that the dog's aggression has been exaggerated note that there have been only two fatal attacks attributed to pit bull terriers in the fourteen years since the breed was introduced into Australia. They also note that pit bulls are not the only dogs capable of attacking human beings and causing serious injury. However, they claim, it is only pit bulls that are at risk of being removed from the Australian dog scene.
(Of the seven major dog attacks reported between April and December, 1995 only one of these was caused by a pit bull. Though the pit bull attack was the fatal attack on the 79 year old Queensland woman, another of the seven attacks was also fatal - a pack attack on an 85 year old Perth woman, apparently by a number of rottweilers and a german shepherd.)
Defenders of pit bulls claim that the dog usually poses a threat only to other dogs and then only when it is not adequately controlled.
The essential argument of those claiming the elimination of pit bulls is unnecessary centres around control. They claim that it is not the dog that is the problem, rather it is some owners who are irresponsible.
Ms Bonnie Norton, a Dandenong pit bull breeder, has claimed, `Any dog in the hands of the wrong owner can be a threat.'
According to this line of argument, if the dog is properly handled, is appropriately trained and if sensible precautions are taken regarding yarding and supervision, then pit bulls pose no hazard to human beings or other animals and therefore do not need to be eliminated.
Supporters of pit bulls claim they are a loyal dog which can be trusted around family members. Ms Bonnie Norton has stated, `[My pit bull terrier] is a family pet that I trust around my grandson and my nieces and nephews, and providing I'm here, I trust her with anyone who walks through the front door.'
There are also those who argue that it would be inappropriate to attempt to eliminate pit bulls, because it would be impossible to do so.
According to this point of view the breed is already established in this country and is beyond the point where it could be removed.
It is claimed that there are some 13,000 pit bulls in Australia.
The further importation of pit bulls into the country is already banned, however, it is claimed that current numbers are sufficiently large that interbreeding within the existing Australian gene pool will ensure the dog's continued survival.
The Queensland Government is said to be considering banning the breed in response to the recent dog-attack fatality, while the president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), Dr Hugh Wirth, has suggested that state governments consider the compulsory de-sexing of pit bulls. If this were done, it is claimed, the breed would eventually die out.
However, there are those who argue that whether or not it might be desirable to have all members of the breed within Australia de-sexed, it will not be possible to do so.
Though he has stated he would like to see the breed removed from Australia and has stressed that the RSPCA argued against its initial introduction, Dr Wirth has observed that all placing a ban on pit bulls was likely to do was drive the breed `underground'.
Dr Graeme Smith, the general manager of the Lost Dogs Home in North Melbourne, has claimed that having all pit bulls de-sexed would be impossible because their owners would simply lie about their dog's breed.
Dr Smith has claimed that this was the experience when authorities in Britain tried to have all pit bulls neutered.
Dr Smith claims that a lengthy and ultimately futile legal battle followed as each party tried to prove or disprove the dog's ancestry.
A further complicating factor is the range of authorities involved.
The federal government can and has banned the further importation into Australia of pit bulls. However, attempts to limit the growth of the breed within the country was both a state and local responsibility.
The acting premier of South Australia, Mr Tom Burns, has claimed that the question of banning certain breeds has been raised with the Federal Government on several occasions, however, Mr Burns further claims that the issue is largely the responsibility of local councils.
Taking co-ordinated action involving state and local authorities appears to pose a problem.
South Australia's acting Local Government Minister, Mr Jim Elder has been reported as claiming that it was time the State Government and local authorities discussed banning certain breeds.
According to those who hold that pit bulls are a danger to the community, but who believe their elimination within Australia is no longer possible, the answer is to introduce strict dog control laws and to impose severe fines and perhaps imprisonment upon owners who breach those laws.
It is claimed that such a legal response focusing on owner responsibility would have a greater likelihood of success.
Arguments supporting attempts to eliminate pit bull terriers from Australia
Three major arguments are offered by those who would have pit bull terriers eliminated from Australia.
The first of these arguments is that the dog has unique characteristics such that it represents a greater danger than other large and potentially violent breeds.
The second argument is that it responds poorly to training and thus cannot be reliably controlled in this manner.
Finally it is argued that the dog is predominantly a fighting machine and has no useful contribution to make to Australian dog owners.
Those who hold that pit bull terriers represent a special hazard tend to stress that it has features that make it far more dangerous than other powerful dogs that are sometimes involved in serious attacks.
The RSPCA's Queensland pit bull expert, Dr Cam Day, has claimed that American pit bull terriers are `head, shoulders, feet and everything else above other breeds' in terms of their capacity to injure and maim.
Dr Day has claimed that pit bull terriers typically refuse to loosen their grip on any animal they have seized, except to rebite.
`Other dogs ... if they bite they will grip and then let go. But when pit bull terriers bite they don't let go. They only let go to take in more flesh,' Dr Day has claimed.
Dr Day has also said that pit bulls are unique in the manner in which they attack.
Dr Day has maintained, `We don't need these dogs, they just bowl in like a thunderclap with no warning ... Other dogs will give some warning by ... growling or barking.'
It has also been claimed that pit bull terriers will attack without being obviously provoked.
Commenting on the recent fatal attack on an elderly Queensland woman, Dr Hugh Wirth has suggested, `In total innocence, that poor, unfortunate woman did something - a hand action perhaps - that turned on this dog's basic fighting instinct and it became a raging killer.'
It has also been claimed that the pit bull is unusually insensitive to pain, which, it has been maintained, means that using force to get it to cease an attack is unlikely to be effective.
Mr Keith Kirkpatrick, a Brisbane dog trainer and adviser to Brisbane City Council has said, `They're not a good guard dog because when they bite they switch off. You can tap them on the head [but] there's nobody home and their pain threshold is so high they'll keep [attacking] until the person submits totally.'
Ms Joanne Ward, a veterinary nurse, who, along with her two dobermans, was attacked on January 7, 1996, by a pit bull terrier, has claimed, `I have good knowledge of dogs and know what to do but I was absolutely helpless. Everything I've learned, read and heard in lectures, nothing worked on this dog.'
According to those who make such claims the pit bull terrier is unique in being almost totally unresponsive when making an attack.
This leads to the second major argument put by those who believe that the only solution to the problem posed by pit bull terriers is to remove the breed from Australia.
This argument is that pit bull terriers are virtually untrainable.
It has been claimed that the pit bull terrier is a relatively unintelligent dog and that this makes it difficult to train. It has further been suggested that this relative lack of intelligence and unresponsiveness to training makes the dog unreliable.
Thus, it is argued, careful training and management are unlikely to render the pit bull terrier safe.
Dr Wirth has claimed, `As long as the pit bull terrier is not switched on to its natural fighting mode then it's a nice dog. The trouble is it can change instantly.'
Finally it has been argued that the dog serves no useful purpose within the Australian community.
Dr Wirth has recalled, `We said to the Federal Government in the first place [before the breed was introduced into Australia] why would any Australian want to own a dog thats only attribute is that it's a fantastic killer of dogs.'
It has been stressed that the breed was developed in the United States exclusively for dog fighting and that it has retained the attributes that were developed in it.
Mr Paul Edwards, a public relations officer for the RSPCA has said, `Instinctively they really are killing machines. The people in the States who have breed them have done a great job of creating this little monster that's highly unpredictable and designed to tear other animals to pieces.'
According to those who would have the dog removed from Australia, it can really be relied upon to serve no other purpose than to attack.
Pit bull terriers are not used as police or patrol dogs because, according to Dr Day, they are `untrainable'.
Thus, it is argued, they serve no useful function and their presence is an unacceptable risk to people and to other dog breeds within this country.
Further implications
The debate surrounding pit bull terriers is of broader significance than the question of what measures should be taken specifically to control or remove this particular breed.
Between April and December 1995 there were seven serious dog attacks in Australia, two resulting in fatalities. Only one of these, the attack resulting in the death of the 79 year old Queensland woman, involved a pit bull terrier. The other breeds involved in these attacks were rottweiler, English bull terrier, german shepherd and bull mastiff.
Early in 1996 a blue heeler attacked a young boy visiting its owner's home.
Such attacks have lead to moves in a number of states to increase the penalties faced by the owners of dogs who attack and to attempts to alter the law to improve the manner in which animals known to be dangerous are restrained.
The Victorian Government, for example, will have its Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act effective as of April 9, 1996.
There has been some criticism of this and measures foreshadowed in other states as being inadequate.
The Victorian Act allows for fines of up to $1000 to be imposed on the owners of dangerous dogs and also requires that dogs known to be dangerous never be taken on to the street without leash and muzzle and be restrained at other times in child-proof enclosures.
Among the criticisms raised of such provisions is that they do not include the possibility of prison for dog owners whose animals injure or kill others through owner negligence.
There are those who argue that owning a potentially dangerous dog is akin to owning a fire-arm and that penalties for negligence should be equally severe.
Sources
The Age
15/10/95 page 2 news item by Sue Hewitt, `Ban on pit-bulls "futile"'
29/12/95 page 5 news item by Jason Koutsoukis, `Push for tough dog laws'
30/12/95 page 4 news item by Stewart Oldfield, `Second dog attack, but state firm on new laws'
1/1/96 page 4 news item by Stewart Oldfield, `Vet casts doubts on laws on dangerous dogs'
9/1/96 page 11 editorial, `Dog laws need more bite'
The Australian
29/12/95 page 3 news item by Matt Robbins, Kevin Meade and David Nason, `Call for criminal charges as pit bull slays woman'
30/12/95 page 5 news item by Fiona Kennedy and Mark Irving, `Deadly American pit bull terriers all pain, no brain, say experts'
5/1/96 page 3 news item by Mark Irving, `Jail term call as killer dogs' owner fined $1000
The Herald Sun
14/10/95 page 9 news item by Brad Newsome and Michelle Edmunds, `Pit bull attack bites worst seen'
29/12/95 page 1 and 4 news item by Allison Harding, `Jail bid for dog attacks'
29/12/95 page 4 news item by Allison Harding, `Owner stands up for breed of "pussycats"'
30/12/95 page 5 news item, `Mastiff girl thought she would die'
30/12/95 page 5 news item by Allison Harding, `Prison terms ruled out'
2/1/96 page 2 news item by Simon Ferguson, `Gentle family dog rips boy's throat'
3/1/96 page 13 analysis by David Hill, `Taking the killer out of your dog'
3/1/96 page 30 news item by Nicola Webber, `Dog attacks blamed on owners'
4/1/96 page 12 comment, `head to head' by Dr Hugh Wirth and Dr Robert Holmes, `Should pit bull terriers be banned?'
8/1/96 page 5 news item by Michelle Pountney, `Vicious pit-bull attacks TV pet'
What they said ...
`[My pit bull terrier] is a family pet that I trust around my grandson and my nieces and nephews, and providing I'm here, I trust her with anyone who walks through the front door'
Ms Bonnie Norton, pit bull terrier breeder
`You're dealing with a dog who knows how to fight because that's how it's been bred; he's got 45 to 50 kilograms of brute strength ... Nobody's got a ghost of a chance against them'
Dr Hugh Wirth, RSPCA president