Click here to go back to the issue outlines list

Sections in this issue outline (in order)
1 What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.
Related issue outlines
1995/1996: Should pit bull terriers be eliminated from Australia?




Dictionary
To activate the in-built dictionary linked to this issue outline, double-click on any word in the body of the text.

Analysis help
Students and others can read a guide to analysing the language of the news media by clicking HERE

Managing Pit Bull Terriers: are the new Victorian dog laws excessive?

What they said ...
'Eliminate the bad owners, not the breed'
Paul Dodson, in a letter published in the Herald Sun on November 2, 2001.
'Owning a Pit Bull Terrier is like having a loaded gun in your house'
Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie

On October 29, 2001, the Victorian Government announced that it would be introducing more restrictive dog laws. These laws will be particularly demanding for the owners of American Pit Bull Terriers.
Supporters of Pit Bull Terriers are arguing that the new legislation is excessive and unfair to the breed.
Defenders of the new laws have argued that Pit Bull Terriers represent a major threat to people and other dogs and that special measures must be taken to control them. Indeed some of those concerned about the breed are complaining that the new legislation does not go far enough and that either these dogs should immediately be banned or all pit bulls should be desexed.

Background
History of the Pit Bull Terrier
In 1835 the British Parliament outlawed bull baiting, a gambling game in which bulldogs were used to attack and harass bulls. The dog would assault the bull, avoid the stomping hooves and slashing horns, grab a nose or ear, and hang on until the bull collapsed.
After bull baiting had been banned, dog breeders who liked the fierceness and tenacity of the bull dogs began breeding similar dogs for dog fighting. They began with the bull dog, mixed in some terrier blood, and produced the Bull and Terrier. The Bull and Terrier was bred to display aggression to other dogs, tenacity, a high pain threshold and affection for people.
Bull and Terrier dogs came to the United States in the early 1800s as farm dogs and guard dogs. The United Kennel Club recognized the Bull and Terrier Dog as the American Pit Bull Terrier in 1898.
The American Kennel Club refused to acknowledge breeds called "pit bulls" until 1936, when it recognised the American Pit Bull Terrier under the alias Staffordshire Terrier, named after the miners of Staffordshire, England, who had helped develop the breed for the fighting pit.
The name was changed in 1972 to the American Staffordshire Terrier to distinguish the breed from the Staffordshire Bull Terrier of England, the ancestor of the American dogs, which was recognised by American Kennel Club in 1974.
The British version of the dog is 14-16 inches tall and weighs up to 45 pounds. The American cousin is 18-19 inches tall and weighs up to 80 pounds. A similar dog, United Kennel Club's American Pit Bull Terrier, is preferred to range from 30-60 pounds with females generally, but not necessarily, smaller than males.
Thus there are at least two different versions of this dog, the American Staffordshire Terrier and the American Pit Bull Terrier. Since the breed was allowed into Australia 17 years ago there has been significant unregulated crossbreeding. Some Australian critics of the dog dispute that it is actually a distinct breed.
Steps toward stricter dog laws
American Pit Bull Terriers were allowed into Australia in the early 1980s. At that time a number of animal welfare groups had protested that the breed was dangerous and should have been kept out of Australia.
In 1987, in part in response to the introduction of Pit Bull Terriers into the state and the cross breeding of pit bulls with other larger dogs, the Victorian Government announced it would consider tightening dangerous dog laws.
In 1988 there were reports that Pit Bull Terrier fights were being organised in Melbourne.
In June, 1991, the State Government indicated that it would introduce tougher dog laws as part of its Companion Animals Bill. The Bill did not become law.
In November 1991 the Federal Government banned the importation of American Pit Bull Terriers into Australia.
In December 1995 the State Government decided against jail terms for the owners of dogs who attack people or other animals.
In April 1996 the State Government's Domestic Animals Act came into force. Under this Act dogs deemed dangerous had to wear warning collars visible at night and to be kept in childproof enclosures.
In April 1997, the then premier Jeff Kennett decided against a tightening of dog laws after a bull mastiff/great dane cross mauled a Melbourne boy, 12, to death.
In November, 2000, a seven-year-old Sunshine boy and his mother were attacked by a pack of seven Pit Bull Terrier cross dogs. The Bracks Government promised to introduce new regulations to control the breed. It established the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to make regulations about responsible dog ownership. The Committee's recommendations formed the basis of the new laws that were announced on October 29, 2001.
Provisions of the proposed legislation - Animal Legislation (Responsible ownership) Bill
All Pit Bull Terriers and Pit Bull Terrier crosses will be designated 'dangerous' dogs.
Authorised council officers will be able to declare that any dog they judge a Pit Bull Terrier or Pit Bull Terrier cross is of a restricted breed when the dog is registered. Owners can appeal to a panel, comprising representatives from the RSPCA, Lost Dogs Home and the Victorian Canine Association.
The only basis for appeal is that the dog designated 'restricted' or 'dangerous' is not a Pit Bull Terrier or Pit Bull Terrier cross.
For other dogs to be deemed 'dangerous' they must have been judged to have behaved aggressively, usually because they have attacked another dog or a person. The new law would have the whole Pit Bull Terrier breed designated dangerous, without reference to the behaviour of an individual dog.
A new category of 'menacing' dog will be introduced. Residents in an area can apply to have a dog classified as 'menacing' if they believe its behaviour is threatening. The owner would then be subject to heavy fines if the dog attacked at a later date.
As 'dangerous' dog owners, the owners of Pit Bull Terriers will be required to have them wear a muzzle and be on a leash in public; to wear the bright, distinctive collar mandatory for 'dangerous' dogs and to keep them in childproof enclosures at other times, marked with a 'dangerous dog' warning sign.
It will be illegal to own more than two Pit Bull Terriers without a special breeding permit.
No one younger than 17 will be allowed either to own a Pit Bull Terrier or to be responsible for one in public.
Owners of Pit Bull Terriers or other dogs deemed 'dangerous' will face fines of up to $12,000 if their dog attacks a person.
Those who attend a dog fight will face a fine of up to $6,000.
It will be a specific offence to organise a dog fight.
The possession, sale and use of electronic or pronged dog collars will be banned unless authorised by a vet.
If the owners of Pit Bull Terriers do not comply with the new regulations within twelve months of their becoming law, all Pit Bull Terriers will be compulsorily desexed.

Internet information
The Victorian Government has a public information page outlining the provisions of the current dog laws regarding dangerous dogs. As the law stands at the moment, all dangerous dogs 'are defined by their actions, not by their specific breed'. If the proposed new legislation comes into effect, Pit Bull Terriers and Pit Bull Terrier crosses will be deemed 'dangerous' by virtue of their breed.
All the restrictions that apply to a 'dangerous' dog are outlined on this government information page. The page can be found at http://www.pets.info.vic.gov.au/web/root/domino/pets/petssite.nsf/pages/dogs_dangerous
An article published in The Age on October 7, 2000, and titled, 'Owners of vicious dogs escape the law' outlines the irresponsible behaviour of some dog owners in one of Melbourne's northern suburbs. It focuses on the experiences of a Moreland City Council Ranger.
The article can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/news/20001007/A36164-2000Oct6.html
On November 11, 2000, The Age published an article outlining the Victorian Government's response to an attack by seven Pity Bull Terriers on a six-year-old boy and his mother. It is this attack that prompted the most recent review of dog laws and the proposed new legislation.
The article is titled '"Wretched" pit bulls facing ban' and can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/news/20001111/A41106-2000Nov10.html
Dog Bite Law is a privately run public information page on dog laws across the United States. It supplies detailed general information and examines some of the most controversial instances of dog attack in that current and the legal response.
This page can be found at http://www.dogbitelaw.com/
The Dog Owners' Guide, an American information site for dog owners, supplies detailed information on the Pit Bull Terrier. Most of the information supplied on the history of this breed in the Background section of this issue outline comes from this source.
The information on Pit Bull Terriers can be found at http://www.canismajor.com/dog/amerpit.html
The Dog Owners' Guide also gives an overview of dog laws in the United States. This can be found at http://www.canismajor.com/dog/laws1.html
The American Public Debate site has a forum on the question, 'Should aggressive breeds be more strictly controlled?' Responses to this question, including some referring specifically to Pit Bull Terriers, can be found at http://www.publicdebate.com.au/is/120/f2.html

Arguments suggesting that the Victoria's new Pit Bull Terrier regulations are excessive
1. Restrictions should be placed on individual dogs, not on the whole breed
Opponents of the new regulations claim that the 'dangerous dog' designation should only be applied to dogs that have shown themselves to be a risk, not to a whole breed of dog.
The claim is made that the vast majority of Pit Bull Terriers are calm, reliable animals and that it is inappropriate to apply restrictions to every Pit Bull Terrier.
This position has been put by some members of the Victorian Canine Association, who have argued that action against dangerous dogs should be taken on a 'deed, not a breed, basis.' Mr Colin Muir, the president of the American Pit Bull Terrier club, has made the same point. Mr Muir has stated, 'The entire breed of dog doesn't bite anybody, only individuals of any breed do.'
Nessa Aledo, in a letter published in The Herald Sun on November 5, 2001, stated, '... I have never trained my dog to be vicious. However, when the new laws are passed, as a law-abiding citizen, I will be forced to walk my dog muzzled.
This will obviously send the message that she is vicious and bloodthirsty when in fact she is the opposite ... It would have been more sensible for the Government to pass tough laws against dogs that actually do attack, rather than discriminate against responsible owners because of the actions of unscrupulous owners.'
2. Pit Bull Terriers are not an especially savage or aggressive breed
Defenders of Pit Bull Terriers claim that the breed is not particularly aggressive. Val Hodgson, in a letter to the editor published on November 5, 2001, wrote, 'Experts say genetic differences between dogs are virtually non-existent and behavioural differences between breeds have more to do with training than breeding.'
There are also those who argue that even on a genetic basis Pit Bull Terriers cannot be considered an aggressive or savage breed.
In a letter published in The Herald Sun on November 2, 2001, Paul Dodson argued that Pit Bull Terriers have been breed not to be aggressive towards humans. Mr Dodson stated, 'For people to say these dogs are nothing but aggressors is quite amazing. Over time, pit bulls that were aggressive towards humans and attacked others were culled, so that aggressive genes would not be transmitted.'
3. The regulations should target dog owners as they create problem dogs
It has been claimed that any dog can be aggressive if it has been poorly treated and is untrained. Those who hold this view argue that the problem lies with inappropriate owners, not with particular breeds of dog.
In a letter published in The Herald Sun on November 2, 2001, Paul Dodson wrote, 'It is not the type of dog you have, it is how it is treated and how it is raised.
Good pet owners raise good-tempered dogs. It's the morons who starve their dogs and let them loose who give these dogs a bad name.
Eliminate the bad owners, not the breed.'
A similar point was made in a letter to the editor from Judy Small and published in The Herald Sun on November 5, 2001.Ms Small writes, 'We have to go back to the root of the problem, the person who gets a dog and lets it wander ... Some sort of dog training for owners should be compulsory ... Licence the owner. Give the dog a go.'
4. The new regulations are unenforceable
Some members of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, the body that advised the Victorian Government on its new responsible dog ownership laws, are said to have reservations about placing blanket restrictions on Pit Bull Terriers.
These members of the committee were apparently concerned that the identification of a dog as being a Pit Bull Terrier or Pit Bull Terrier cross can be extremely difficult. There is concern that many dogs that are not even Pit Bull Terriers may be classed as dangerous on a misclassification of their breed.
It has been suggested that difficulties in classification will make enforcing the regulations extremely hard to achieve.
A poster prepared by the Government to help the public identify pit bulls has 20 different dogs on it, and was used by the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee members as an example of how difficult it will be to identify the dogs.
5. The new regulations are discriminatory as other potentially hazardous breeds have not been similarly restricted
Opponents of the new regulations claim that they focus unfairly on Pit Bull Terriers. In a letter published in The Age on November 2, 2001, Stephen Collier claimed that 'A survey of dog attacks in six Victorian council areas from 1997 to 1999 recorded 700 incidents. Pit Bull Terriers were alleged involved in 21 of these, the 13th-ranked breed. German shepherds were involved in 127 incidents.'
It has been claimed that other surveys reveal similar results. Critics of the regulations claim that if the state government is serious about protecting people there are other breeds of dog that should be targeted ahead of pit bulls.
Defenders of the breed claim they are the victims of discrimination, as more hazardous breeds do not face the same blanket restrictions. Terry Lange, in a letter published in The Herald Sun on November 2, 2001, asked, 'Why is there no mention of muzzling German shepherds? They are responsible for twice the number of pit bull attacks.'

Arguments claiming that Victoria's new Pit Bull Terrier regulations are not excessive
1. Pit Bull Terriers are an exceptionally dangerous breed of dog
Supporters of the new regulations argue that they are necessary as Pit Bull Terriers are an exceptionally dangerous breed of dog.
Opponents of the breed claim that it was bred for fighting and so its aggressive tendencies have been maximised. This point was made in an Age editorial published on October 31, 2001. The editorial quotes RSPCA president Hugh Wirth, who has described Pit Bull Terriers as a 'wretched breed' with no redeeming features. The editorial also states, 'They are breed only to fight either other dogs or humans.'
It is also argued that since the breed was introduced into Australia 17 years ago it has been involved in a large number of attacks. Those who hold this view argue that the figures on dog attacks must be considered carefully as it is not only the number of attacks that a breed of dog is involved in that needs to be considered. It is argued that the number of dogs in the community is also a factor. Thus, as there are far fewer Pit Bull Terriers in Victoria than there are German shepherds, it is claimed there should be far fewer Pit Bull Terrier attacks. This point was made in a Herald Sun editorial published on October 31, 2001. The editorial stated, 'Statistically pit bulls are four times more likely to attack people than the German shepherd - the next most troublesome breed.'
When the relative numbers of each breed is factored in it is claimed that Pit Bull Terriers figure in a disproportionate number of dog attacks.
It has been claimed that though Pit Bull Terriers make up just one per cent of the dog population they account for eight per cent of attacks. Further, it has been noted that over the past ten years Pit Bull Terriers have been involved in four of the seven dog attacks in which people have died.
2. It is too late to declare a dog dangerous after it has attacked
Opponents of Pit Bull Terriers argue that members of the community should not have to wait until one of these dogs has bitten a person or attacked another dog before it is declared 'dangerous'.
The new regulations require that other dogs be assessed on an individual case basis to see whether they should be classed as 'dangerous'. Critics have argued that this procedure is too conservative and that a dog should not have had to cause injury before it is placed under strict controls.
This position has been put in an editorial published in The Herald Sun on October 31, 2001. The editorial states, 'A panel ... will gather to assess case by case whether individual animals from other breeds should be declared a dangerous dog.
Will this be before or after a particular dog has savaged a child or taken off a postman's leg?'
3. The new regulations target dog owners as well as restricting Pit Bull Terriers
It is further claimed that the new regulations do target owners, not simply restrict the breed. Under the new regulations, only those over seventeen will be allowed to own a Pit Bull Terrier and similarly, minors will not be allowed to be in control of a pit pull in a public place. This would appear to be an attempt to ensure that only adults, who are more likely to be responsible, can be in control of Pit Bull Terriers.
Even implementing the restrictions placed on Pit Bull Terriers requires sensible ownership. Owners must ensure that their dogs are muzzled and wear warning collars when in public. They must also ensue that they are behind child-proof fencing when at home. Meeting all these provisions is an owner responsibility.
4. The rights of potential victims outweigh the rights of dog owners
It has been argued that the rights of people who might be injured by savage dogs have to take precedence over the rights of dog owners.
Referring to whether there should continue to be public areas where dog owners can exercise their animals off a leash, Mr Eugene Arocca, a senior partner with the law firm Maurice Blackburn and Cashman stated, 'This is a prime example of councils sacrificing personal safety for the appeasement of a handful of [dog owners].'
There is growing encouragement for the victims of dog attacks to defend their rights by not only suing the owners of the animals that attacked them but also the council or other government body which instituted regulations appearing to put the rights of dog owners ahead of potential victims of dog attacks.
5. The new laws do not seek to ban pit bulls, only to tightly regulate the conditions under which they can be owned.
Defenders of the new regulations claim they are relatively moderate. The Victorian Government has been under pressure to either have all Pit Bull Terriers put down or desexed. The Government has shied away from such extreme action, though it is still considering the possibility of having the dogs desexed.
The new regulations will be trialed for twelve months and if the owners of Pit Bull Terriers do not comply with them or if there continue to be a disproportionate number of Pit Bull Terrier attacks then the Government will legislate to have these dogs desexed.
Mr Keith Anderson, the Minister for Agriculture, has stated, 'The Bracks Government is putting pit bull owners on notice. You've got twelve months to get your act together or face the possibility of compulsory desexing.'

Further implications
The impetus for the current proposed legislation has come from a number of dog attacks involving Pit Bull Terriers. The most recent significant Victorian attack involved a mother and child who were attacked by seven Pit Bull Terriers.
Demands for reform have come from animal welfare groups, especially the RSPCA and the Lost Dogs Home. The Lost Dogs Home has now adopted a policy of putting down all Pit Bull Terriers and Pit Bull Terrier crosses unclaimed after the mandatory eight-day holding period. The Lost Dogs Home claims the dogs are too potentially dangerous to attempt to relocate with other owners. The Lost Dogs Home has not been rehousing Pit Bull Terriers since 1998.
Weighed against this group are the American Pit Bull Terrier of Australia Club and all owners of Pit Bull Terriers. Pit Bull Terrier owners are a large group - it is estimated that there may be as many as 4,000 Pit Bull Terriers in Victoria and perhaps 10,000 across Australia.
The principal reason why the Victorian Government appears not to have legislated to ban Pit Bull Terriers is that it believes it would face expensive legal challenges and the prospect of having to pay owners compensation.
However, there appears to be a growing tendency among the victims of dog attacks to demand compensation or redress.
The Crime Victims Support Association is supporting the demand of a woman whose husband died after a 'pig dog' attack to have the case re-opened and charges brought against the dog's owner. Even more interesting is the recent suggestion that people attacked by dogs in areas where municipal regulations allowed dogs to be exercised off a leash might sue the relevant municipal council.
This raises the possibility that victims of dog attacks, especially Pit Bull Terrier attacks, might sue state governments for not imposing adequate controls on hazardous breeds. In the case of Pit Bull Terriers this could mean that someone attacked by a Pit Bull Terrier might sue the state government for not having banned the breed.
Were such a development to occur there would be enormous pressure on the Victorian Government to further tighten its dog laws.
As things stand at the moment, if there is not adequate compliance with the new laws, Pit Bull Terriers will be compulsorily desexed after a twelve month review period of the operation of the new laws. It is not made clear what would constitute adequate compliance. In practical times it seems likely that if there is another significant Pit Bull Terrier attack against a person in the twelve month review period then the States Government is likely to have all Pit Bull Terriers desexed. This would be difficult to implement, as many dog owners would try not to comply either by hiding their animals or mounting legal challenges. There is also the vexed question of how to accurately identify a Pit Bull Terrier cross.

Sources
The Age
30/10/01 page 3 news item by Richard Baker, 'State to act on Pit Bull Terriers to curb attacks'
31/10/01 page 6 news item by Richard Baker, 'Experts split over pit bull crackdown'
31/10/01 page 16 editorial, 'Two Pit Bull Terriers are two too many'
2/11/01 page 14 letter to the editor from Stephen Collier, 'Almost all pit bulls are safe'
6/11/01 page 7 news item by Andra Jackson, 'Dog-attack widow pleads for justice'
6/11/01 page 14 letter to the editor from Ivar Dorum, 'Figures can't disguise the pit bull problem'
The Herald Sun
24/10/01 page 9 news item by Michelle Pountney, 'Pit bull savages guide pup'
25/10/01 page 7 news item by Michelle Pountney, 'My dog is no animal'
25/10/01 page 7 chronology of events, 'Dogged by debate'
27/10/01 page 4 news item by Kathleen Cuthbertson, 'Family pet mauled to death at home'
30/10/01 page 3 news item by John Ferguson, '$12,000 fines for bad dogs'
31/10/01 page 1 news item by Felicity Dargan, 'Do or die: danger dogs face chop if blitz fails'
31/10/01 page 4 news item by Michelle Pountney, 'Bred for their aggression'
31/10/01 page 4 table, 'Top 20 dangerous dogs'
31/10/01 page 4 news item by Michelle Pountney, 'Savage animals killed in hundreds'
31/10/01 page 17 cartoon by Mark Knight
31/10/01 page 18 editorial, 'Pit bulls v people'
2/11/01 page 18 five letters under the heading, 'We're to blame as happy dogs don't bite'
2/11/01 page 19 letter to the editor from Val Hodgson, 'Pit bull bans won't work'
5/11/01 page 17 letter to the editor from Judy Small, 'Train the owners'
5/11/01 page 17 letter to the editor from Val Hodgson, 'Little difference between dogs'
5/11/01 page 17 letter to the editor from Nessa Aledo, 'Dog laws unfair'