Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2005 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
Search for listed newspaper items online - see end of this page
What they said ...
'A pit bull is a killing machine on a leash and too often someone ends up in an emergency ward after an encounter with one of these dogs' Former New South Wales premier, Bob Carr
'It's a form of canine genocide. There is no question about that' President of the American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Australia, Colin Muir
The issue at a glance
In May 2005 the New South Wales Government announced that it would be introducing laws requiring the owners of American Pit Bull Terriers and some specified other breeds.
The new laws in New South Wales prohibit the sale, acquisition, breeding or giving away of pit bull terriers, American pit bulls, Japanese tosas, Argentinian fighting dogs and Brazilian fighting dogs.
On September 4, 2005 the Victorian Government announced that it too would introduce new laws to have American pit bull terriers bred out of existence. Under these laws owners will be required to neuter breeds restricted by Commonwealth law, as well as individual dogs declared dangerous by a local council. Unless this is done the animals will be seized and killed.
These laws have been meet with relief by some, including the president of the the Australian Royal Society for the Prevention of Crulty to Animals (RSPCA), Dr Hugh Wirth. Others, including the members of the American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Australia, have stated that the laws are unnecessary and discriminatory.
The New South Wales and Victoria bans are similar to bans introduced in Ontario, Canada last year and bans which already operate in the European Union.
Queensland already has laws prohibiting the breeding of pit bulls. The Australian Capital Territory, on the other hand, has decided not to introduce dog control legislation specific to a particular breed.
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.
The history of American Pit bulls in Victoria
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 introduced 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 Victorian Animal Legislation (Responsible ownership) Bill
All Pit bull Terriers and Pit Bull Terrier crosses are designated 'dangerous' dogs.
Authorised council officers are 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 designates the whole Pit bull Terrier breed designated dangerous, without reference to the behaviour of an individual dog.
A new category of 'menacing' dog has been introduced. Residents in an area can apply to have a dog classified as 'menacing' if they believe its behaviour is threatening. The owner is then subject to heavy fines if the dog attacks at a later date.
As 'dangerous' dog owners, the owners of Pit Bull Terriers are 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 is illegal to own more than two Pit bull Terriers without a special breeding permit.
No one younger than 17 is 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' face fines of up to $12,000 if their dog attacks a person.
Those who attend a dog fight face a fine of up to $6,000.
It is a specific offence to organise a dog fight.
The possession, sale and use of electronic or pronged dog collars is banned unless authorised by a vet.
New South Wales regulations regarding dangerous dogs.
In a response to a question put in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly on May 3, 2005, regarding pit bulls, the former New South Wales premier, Mr Bob Carr, gave the following overview of the then current state of the law regarding dangerous dogs in his state.
'Under New South Wales law, if a dog is declared dangerous, the owner must have the animal desexed, muzzle it in public, and keep it in a childproof enclosure. Owners face heavy penalties for breaching these rules or if their dog is involved in an attack. If all else fails, councils have the power to seize and destroy animals. Owners of dangerous dogs can face fines of up to $22,000, two years gaol and disqualification from owning a dog for life.'
Until the regulations were changed in May of this year to effectively ban American pit bulls and a number of other dogs judged to be specially dangerous, New South Wales does not appear to have had breed-specific dog laws.
Internet information
The online encyclopaedia Wikipedia has an informative entry on Pit Bull Terriers, including the history of the breed and legislative attempts in various parts of the world to deal with the threat it supposedly represents. The information is presented in an unbiased manner.
It can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_Bull_Terrier
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
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/
On May 3 2005 there was discussion in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly about appropriate government response to the threat posed by pit bull terriers and other similar breeds.
The then New South Wales premier, Bob Carr, outlined his government's position on the question in language that has since been much quoted in the media.
These comments can be found at http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/v3ByKey/LA20050503
Please note, you will have to scroll down the page a little before you find the relevant material.
The Endangered Dog Breeds Association is an Australian body set up to counter breed specific regulations governing the ownership of dogs in any Australian state. The group's particular emphasis is on pit bulls, but it argues that breed specific legislation is a threat to many breeds of dog.
The group's Internet site can be found at http://www.edba.org.au/index.html
Jennifer Thomas, a Texan who owners an American Pit Bull Terrier and a pit bull cross has maintained an Internet site over a number of years give advice and information about the breed. Her essential aim is to demonstrate that like all dogs, the vast majority of pit bulls make reliable pets if handled properly.
The Internet site can be found at http://pitbulls.jentown.com/beforeyouemail.html
On May 15, 2005, The Sydney Morning Herald published a news report titled, '"Killing Machine" a trophy dog'. The article looks at the apparent increas in popularity of pit bulls since the New South wales government announced they would be effectively banned.
The article can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Killing-machine-a-trophy-dog/2005/05/14/1116024405806.html
Arguments in favour of Pit Bull Terriers being bred out of existence
1. Pit bulls are breed to fight
Opponents of the breed claim that they are breed to be aggressive and to fight. They further claim that the dog has an inbred intolerance to other dogs and so have a far greater readiness to fight.
Dr Hugh Wirth, the president of the RSPCA, has claimed of American Pit Bulls, 'The problem is these dogs are bred solely to fight, so they have a very low threshold of tolerance of other dogs and if they feel as though they're threatened in any way, this genetic conditioning kicks in and they become a raging beast.'
Dr Wirth has also described what he says is these dogs typical method of attack, 'They run towards the dog, they belt them on the chest so the dog is pushed to the ground, then they grab them by the throat and rip it out.'
Dr Wirth has further claimed, 'They'll attack anything they think is a threat to themselves, whether it's a human or whether it's another dog and they won't stop attacking until that alleged threat to their safety disappears.'
Former New South Wales premier, Mr Bob Carr, stated, 'A pit bull is a killing machine on a leash and too often someone ends up in an emergency ward after an encounter with one of these dogs.'
2. A number of pit bull owners actually keep the dogs for their aggressive qualities
It has been claimed that the aggressive qualities of Pit Bull Terriers are, in fact, the reason some of their owners acquire them and that these characteristics are actually encouraged by some owners.
Sydney vet Julia Meares has said 'These are species that were bred for fighting and that's what they do. They tend to be bought by people who are making a statement - "I'm tough and so is my dog". Regrettably, while there are very responsible pit bull owners whose dogs are a real delight, there are irresponsible owners whose dogs are highly dangerous.'
According to this line of argument, the aggressive reputation of dogs like pit bulls virtually ensures that many of those who purchase this breed do so if order to encourage their aggressive tendencies.
3. Previous regulations appear to be insufficient to control pit bulls
It has been claimed that many owners of dangerous dogs, and especially pit bulls are failing to adequately adhere to the regulations that should control their dogs behaviour and guarantee the safety of the public.
In the speech in which he explained why his government was intending to have pit bulls bred out of existence, Mr Bob Carr stated, 'We were all horrified by the pictures of five-year old Jordan Wisby lying in hospital with his head bandaged-the victim of a vicious pit bull terrier attack last Friday. He and his brother were walking home from school in Illawong when a dog, which had already been declared dangerous by the Sutherland shire, bolted out of a window and attacked him ... Yesterday in another incident, two unregistered pit bulls escaped from their home in Homebush and turned on a 75 year-old man.'
In both of these incidents dogs which had either been recognised as dangerous and should have been controlled or which were not even registered both caused serious injuries to people. These incidents have been said to indicate that a legislative response, attempting to restrict potentially violent dogs are unlikely to be successful.
The former New South Wales premier, Bob Carr, stated, 'Owners of dangerous dogs can face fines of up to $22,000, two years gaol and disqualification from owning a dog for life. These are strong laws, but with pit bull terriers, it is clear that we need to go further.'
In this context, desexing regulations and breeding limitations, aiming to remove the breed from the states concerned appear to be a better solution.
4. Declaring dogs dangerous only after people have been attacked means attacks will continue
It has been claimed that regulations that state that a dog has to behave aggressively before it is designated 'dangerous' are inappropriate when dealing with a breed known to be dangerous. According to this line of argument an innocent until proven guilty approach simply means that many people are being exposed to unnecessary risk.
In October 2004 in Canada, Ontario's Attorney General, Michael Bryant, stated, 'I am convinced that pit bulls are ticking time bombs.' He then went on to call them 'inherently dangerous animals.'
Referring to recent attacks, Mr Bryant defended his government's decision to crack down on the pets, saying, 'How many limbs are going to have to be severed before we do something about these dogs? We cannot have these animals walking the streets, the fields, or the family rooms of Ontario.'
5. The potential harm caused by these dogs outweighs the loss suffered by their owners
It has been argued that the rights of owners of pit bulls and similar dogs to keep their animals entire and breed from them are secondary to the rights of the general public.
As the president of the RSPCA, Dr Hugh Wirth, has noted, it is not as though either the New South Wales or the Victorian governments has taken the more extreme action and required that these dogs be put down.
According to this argument, pit bulls have the potential to cause serious injury and loss of life. They also threaten the rights of other animal owners, both domestic and commercial, because, it is claimed, pit bulls are a serious hazard to other animals.
In response to a question put in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly on May 3, 2005, the then state premier, Bob Carr, stated, 'A pit bull is a killing machine on a leash. Too often someone ends up in an emergency ward after an encounter with one of these dogs, to say nothing of damage to stock in rural areas.'
In this situation, it is argued, it is only reasonable to put the wellbeing of the general community above an essentially minor restriction of the rights of pit bull owners.
Arguments against Pit Bull Terriers being bred out of existence
1. The aggressiveness of American Pit Bulls has been exaggerated
Supporters of American Pit Bull terriers have argued that the negative characteristics of the breed have been exaggerated. Michael Hallinan, a New South Wales Pit Bull breeder, has claimed the dogs are in fact 'gentle giants'.
The President of the American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Australia, Colin Muir, has further stated, 'American pit bull terriers don't get lock jaw, and in fact they're one, or probably the only breed of dog that's had 150 years of selective breeding for non-aggression to people. They ... feature quite low on bite statistics all over the world ... it's not a breed issue.'
American Pit Bull Terrier Association treasurer Nigel Norton said the Government's move would not reduce the number of dog attacks in Victoria, claiming only 0.01 per cent of dog attacks were linked to pit bulls.
2. The behaviour of any dog is dependent on the training given by the owner
It has been claimed that a dog's behaviour is largely determined by how it has been trained and handled by its owner. Thus it is claimed, when any dog behaves aggressively or inappropriately the fault lies with the owner, not the particular breed to which the dog belongs.
Anthony Kent, in a letter published in the Sydney Morning Herald, stated, 'If treated normally in a loving fashion, pit bulls, like any other dogs brought up in a responsible way, are extremely quiet and affectionate towards people and to other animals - I know by experience.
If a dog, including an Alsatian, doberman, mastiff or countless others, turns overly aggressive it is because the irresponsible owner has trained it this way.
It is such owners who should be banned from possessing dogs, pit bulls or any other breed. The issue is not the fault of the dog, and responsible owners should not be deprived of the joys of having such wonderful pets.'
3. Banning American Pit bulls will force the breed underground
Some opponents of the attempt to remove American Pit bulls fear it will simply drive the breed underground. According to this line of argument, some enthusiasts for the breed who do not want to see it eradicated in this state will simply continue to breed the dog illegally, not registering their animals.
It has been claimed that this may worsen the problem these dogs represent as those who own them illegally may be more likely to disregard other restraints on the dogs' behaviour which are currently in place.
It is claimed that currently in Victoria there are 578 registered Pit bulls, but it is estimated there are thousands more that are cross-breeds or have been driven underground by tough laws. Some critics of the proposed law changes believe this situation will only grow once if an attempt is made to force the breed out of existence.
4. The proposed bans are discriminatory, not treating other breeds of dog as harshly
American Pit Bull Terrier Association treasurer, Mr Nigel Norton, as argued that a ban targeting pit bulls in the way those in both New South Wales and Victoria intend is discriminatory.
According to this line of argument, pit bulls and associated breeds are far from the only dogs associated with attacks and yet it is they that are being marked for extinction.
In other cases, individual dogs that have been shown to be dangerous will be retrained or put down. Here, a whole breed or breeds of dogs are marked to be bred out.
American Pit bull Terrier Association treasurer Nigel Norton has argued, 'What about the cattle dogs, chihuahuas, rottweilers and bloody Shetland sheep dogs? The Government only wants to eradicate pit bulls. Banning red Commodores doesn't reduce the road toll. That's the sort of logic behind it.'
Similarly Mr Eric Wingate, in a letter published in The Sydney Morning Herald on May 5, 2005, noted, 'In my life, I have been chased by dobermans, German shepherds, blue heelers, huskies and the ever-popular Staffie - all dogs capable of doing serious harm. But society's knee-jerk reaction to a press feeding frenzy is to call for the ban of a beautiful species.'
This position has been endorsed by the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) which has decided against breed specific legislation.
ACT Urban Services Minister, John Hargreaves has argued, 'To have breed specific legislation, it's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction really.'
5. Restrictions should be placed on individual dogs, not on the whole breed
It is claimed that pit bulls, like all dogs, should be treated on an animal by animal basis. That is, any individual dog which behaves aggressively should be restrained and if its behaviour poses too great a risk put down. However, supporters of the breed argue, there are no grounds for exterminating the breed as a whole, whether by blanket de-sexing or other means.
Jennifer Thomas who runs an American pit bull information website has claimed, 'One of the biggest mistakes a person can make is to assume that all pit bulls are dog-aggressive because they have a recent history of being bred to fight other dogs. You can not simply say, "All pit bulls are dog-aggressive" because it's not true. It is very much an individual trait that varies from dog to dog.'
Further implications
It remains to be seen how effective the new legislation put in place in New South Wales and Victoria will be. The New South Wales regulations are more rigorous, not just requiring that pit bulls be desexed, but also that they not be sold, given away or otherwise acquired. Supporters of the removal of the dog from Australia have argued that the Victorian regulations, in particular, do not go far enough.
The Victorian State Opposition legal affairs spokesman, Andrew McIntosh, has condemned the Government plan as 'half-baked'. He elaborated, 'If we have a problem with pit bulls we should be thinking of eradicating the breed, rather than just putting through a cosmetic piece of legislation which will only deal with those dogs that are actually registered.
Thde national president of the RSPCA, Hugh Wirth, has said he fully supports the Victorian government's announcement. However, he and the organisation he heads believe that New South Wales has adopted a better approach as it has moved toward eradicating the breed completely.
'The thing that has to be done - the final nail of the coffin - is to ban the trade of American pit bull terriers,' Dr Wirth said. 'In other words you can't buy one because it is illegal.'
Even if, as seems likely, Victoria does take this further step, problems will persist. Unregistered animals and cross-breeds will continue to pose problems for any government seeking to eradicate the breed. All that can be said with confidence is that if pit bulls and other similar animals are the threat that a number of governments seem to believe then the actions taken in New South Wales and Victoria will reduce if not remove that threat.
Newspaper sources used in the compilation of this issue outline Herald-Sun:
6/09/2005, page 18, editorial, `Biting the bullet'.
5/09/2005, page 5, news item by Tanya Giles, `Pit bulls face state extinction'.
14/09/2005, page 3, news item by Tanya Giles, `Dogs shot to stop attack on girl, 7'.
12/09/2005, page 17, letter from Richard Nichols, `A role for pit bulls'.
5/10/2005, page 36, news item (photo - ref to airlines) by T Giles, `Pit bulls grounded'.
18/10/2005 page 18, editorial, `House training'.
17/10/2005, page 9, news item by T Giles, `MP pushes compulsory dog training'
4/1/2006, page 14, news item (photo) by N Protyniak, `Bull terrier savages boy, 7'.
The Age
5/09/2005, page 2, news item (photos - ref to pit bull terriers etc) by A Morton, `War on terrier given teeth as the law gets tough'.
4/1/2006, page 3, news item (with list of dangerous dogs) by J Berry, `Dog put down after boy attacked'.
5/1/2006, page 7, news item by Orietta Guerrera, 'Loyal and loveable ... but not if you end up with the wrong breed'
The Australian
7/10/2005, page 5, news item (photo of Adelaide child victim) by V Edwards, `Anger as judge pardons dog that mauled toddler'.
NOTE: Listed items may still be available on the Web. To search for them, cut and paste any headline into the search-box below (or type the headline in exactly) then click the search button. The search opens in a NEW WINDOW.
To make your search more accurate, put " around the pasted headline, as in "This is the headline"
Search for listed newspaper items online - see end of this page
