Right: the American pit bull has traditionally been regarded as epitomising the American spirit of tenacity and toughness, as this World War Two recruiting poster indicates.
.Arguments against laws further restricting pit bull terrier ownership
1. It is not appropriate to ban an entire breed
It has been claimed that breed specific legislation is unfair as it makes a judgement about all dogs in a breed based on the behaviour of some dogs in the breed.
The American dog rescue Internet site R.E.D [Rescue Every Dog] notes that the majority of pit bull terriers are people-friendly and it is the exceptional dog rather than the rule that would be aggressive to either adults or children.
The site claims, 'With humans, the pit bull is very easy to socialize but, since they tend to be very enthusiastic, they should be taught manners early on. A trained pit bull is often a "social butterfly," loving friends and strangers alike. As with most breeds, socialization with humans of all types should be part of the dog's training for life. Note: A pit bull that shows unprovoked human aggression, especially with children, is not typical of the breed and is showing very poor temperament. Such a dog should be thoroughly evaluated by a trainer or behaviorist experienced in the breed for a final determination of their temperament and recommendation on how to proceed.'
2. The behaviour of a dog is determined by its owner
It has been repeatedly claimed that no dog is intrinsically aggressive or unsuitable to keep as a pet. Where a dog behaves badly the responsibility lies with the owner who has not trained it properly or kept it under suitable conditions.
This point has been made by the president of the American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Australia, Colin Muir, who argues that responsibility of ownership - rather than a dog's breed - is the issue.
A similar view has been expressed by Bonnie Norton, secretary of the American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Australia, who has stated, 'Breed bans do not address the recurrent patterns of irresponsible or uneducated dog ownership associated with dog attacks. Measures need to address human ownership practices, as dogs of many breeds and crosses appear in dog attack statistics.'
In an article published in the National Times on October 21, 2009, Lynne Bradshaw wrote, 'What has been largely missing from the pit bull debate of the past few days is that dogs that attack people have owners. To focus our attention on the breed of the dog is to abdicate our responsibility to be accountable for the behaviour of our pets. The recent case in Victoria occurred because a dog owner allowed a poorly trained and poorly socialised dog to roam freely in a public place. So let's bring this issue back to where it started, with the owner of the dog. Only then will we get close to addressing the root of the problem.'
3. Statistics do not support total bans in pit bull terriers
It has been claimed that dog attack statistics do not justify the placing of breed specific bans on pit bull terriers.
In an analysis of Australian and world dog attack data, Dr Stephen Collier, of the School of Human and Environmental Studies, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, concluded that pit bull bans in different Australian states were not justified.
Dr Collier stated, 'Australia does not have very much data on frequency of dog attack by breed. Indeed, we do not have good data on the frequency of dog attacks, as is evidenced by the methodologies employed to estimate their numbers in the various published studies.15,16,17 Dog bite is not a notifiable injury, and while some hospitals and local councils record dog bites and sometimes assessment of the breed involved, others do not. In addition, an unknown, but probably high, proportion of attacks are treated by GPs or at home and never reported to a central authority. Since 1997 the NSW Department of Local Government has required councils to report all dog attacks to head office, but it is unlikely that compliance or accuracy approaches 100%. Never-the-less, these are the best data available in Australia.
The data show that from 1997 to 2000 inclusive there were 829 injuries to people caused by dogs reported to councils in NSW. The breeds responsible for the majority of attacks were crossbreeds, unknown breeds, Cattle Dog types, German Shepherd types, and Collie types. It is noted that breed was not validated and in most cases was identified by one of the people involved. Categories are types rather than specific breeds because identification is imprecise. Bull Terrier types were most likely to attack other animals.'
After surveying the available data, Dr Collier stated, 'These various data indicate two things quite forcefully: a relatively small number of dog breeds contribute a large proportion of all attacks; and the APBT [American Pit Bull Terrier] is not one of the breeds.'
4. Banning the breed would distress owners and infringe their rights
It has been claimed that a total ban on the breed would be an unfair restriction on the rights of owners of well-behaved, well-cared for Pit Bulls who have caused no harm to other dogs or people.
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has stated, 'Breed specific legislation...causes hardship to responsible owners of entirely friendly, properly supervised and well-socialized dogs who happen to fall within the regulated breed. Although these dog owners have done nothing to endanger the public, they are required to comply with local breed bans...'
Bonnie Norton, secretary of the American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Australia, has told of her grandson and the family's pet Pit Bull. Mrs Norton has clearly indicated that dog owners such as her grandson would be very distressed if their animal were put down as part of a blanket prohibition of the breed. Mrs Norton has written, 'In 2006, my then three-year-old grandson, Jayden, whom I love dearly, came to live with us. Jayden is now seven and his best mate, Buster, is a 14-year-old purebred American pit bull terrier. To Jayden, Buster is simply his friend, his companion and his playmate. Every night, he curls up in bed with Buster to read him a bedtime story.
Buster is one of hundreds of thousands of American pit bulls who are faithful companions and friends to families.'
5. The breed is already restricted
Many Australian states already have strict regulations prohibiting the breeding or sale of pit bull terriers and regulating their current ownership.
The Queensland Government passed legislation on 11 December 2001 introducing a statewide framework for four breeds of dog that they deemed dangerous - dogo Argentino, fila Brasileiro.
Japanese tosa and American pit bull terrier. The legislation also covers any crossbreed or offspring of those breeds.
The restricted dogs legislation provides for a minimum standard for the restricted breeds across Queensland but enables local governments, through the implementation of their own local laws, to implement or maintain higher standards of regulation including a total ban of any or all the breeds. Councils can add any breed of dog, which includes dogs that fit the description of the breed, to this list at their discretion.
In May 2005 the New South Wales Government announced new laws prohibiting 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 were required to neuter breeds restricted by Commonwealth law, as well as individual dogs declared dangerous by a local council. This included American pit bull terriers.
6. Breed bans are not a solution to the problem of dog attacks
It has been claimed that bans and restrictions on specific breeds are not an effective means of reducing dog attacks.
According to this line of argument, laws which focus on specific breeds do not recognise that all breeds of dog are capable of attack and aggression.
Bonnie Norton, secretary of the American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Australia, has claimed, 'Breed bans are ineffective as a means of reducing dog attacks. While banning a breed may seem an easy solution to dog bites, the reality is far more dangerous.
There has been no proven reduction in dog bites subsequent to bans of this type being implemented and in fact exactly the opposite has been proved.
Government figures show that focusing on a narrow group of owners of virtually one breed or type will not provide any immunity from dog bites in the community.
Any dog with teeth is capable of biting...
Breed bans do not address the recurrent patterns of irresponsible or uneducated dog ownership associated with dog attacks.'
A similar point has been made by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which has stated, 'Breed-specific laws have a tendency to compromise rather than enhance public safety. When limited animal control resources are used to regulate or ban a certain breed of dog, without regard to behavior, the focus is shifted away from routine, effective enforcement of laws that have the best chance of making our communities safer: dog license laws, leash laws, animal fighting laws, anti-tethering laws, laws facilitating spaying and neutering and laws that require all owners to control their dogs, regardless of breed.'