Echo Issue Outline ... to return to the page you "clicked" from, simply close this window



Related issue outlines:
2006: Should Pit Bull Terriers and similar species be bred out of existence?
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click this icon ...

... to search the Echo newspaper index and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
dogs
attacks

Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
2009/20: Should pit bull terrier regulations be further tightened?<BR>

2009/20: Should pit bull terrier regulations be further tightened?

What they said...
'The American pit bull terrier is ... an absolute menace... There is no reason at all for the dog in the country. They are not suitable pets for anybody'
Dr Hugh Wirth, Victorian president of the RSPCA

'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'
Bonnie Norton, secretary of the American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Australia

The issue at a glance
On the evening of October 18, 2009, an unrestrained pit bull terrier, roaming the streets of a Melbourne suburb, killed a pet cat and another smaller dog before seizing the hand of the dog's owner.  The man was freed after twenty minutes when an ambulance officer called to the scene administered a fatal injection to the pit bull terrier.
The Victorian Premier, John Brumby, declared on the day of the attack that the Victorian Government was about to extend the powers of local councils, enabling them to immediately put down declared dangerous breeds of dog if they were found unregistered and without their owners.
Dr Graeme Smith, the chief executive of the Lost Dogs Home, welcomed the Government's proposal but went on to claim that restrictive legislation should apply not just to specific breeds but to crosses with those breeds.
Supporters of pit bull terriers continued to argue that laws should not be framed in response to individual dog attacks, exaggerated by a sensationalist media, and further that breed-specific legislation is both inappropriate and ineffective.

Background
'Pit bull' is a term used to describe several breeds of dog in the Molosser family. Many breed-specific laws use the term "pit bull" to refer to the modern American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and dogs with significant mixes of these breeds; however, a few jurisdictions also classify the modern American Bulldog and Bull Terrier as a "pit bull-type dog". The term can also refer to dogs that were known as "bull terriers" prior to the development of the modern Bull Terrier in the early 20th century.
The American Pit Bull Terrier is the product of interbreeding between terriers and a now-extinct breed of bulldogs to produce a dog that combined the gameness of the terrier with the strength and athleticism of the bulldog. These dogs were initially bred in England, Ireland, and Scotland, and arrived in the United States with immigrants from these countries. In the United States these dogs were used as catch dogs for semi-wild cattle and hogs, to hunt, to drive livestock, and as family companions; however, some were selectively bred for their fighting prowess, and starting in the early 20th century they began to replace the bull terrier as the "dog of choice" for dog fighting in the United States.
There is no evidence for the existence of a physiological "locking mechanism" in the teeth or jaw structure of normal pit bull-type dogs so this is not a factor in the number of fatalities attributed to them; however, pit bull-type dogs often exhibit "bite, hold, and shake" behavior and refuse to release when biting, so some pit bull rescue organizations and advocacy groups recommend owners of pit bull-type dogs carry a "break stick" to lever their dog's jaws open if it bites a person or animal.

Current Australian legislation
1.  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.
2.  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.
3.  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.

Internet information
The September 2005 Victorian Government Media Release which outlines that state's current legislation regarding 'dangerous dogs' and pit bull terriers can be found at http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/newmedia.nsf/798c8b072d117a01ca256c8c0019bb01/57ce79d096ac0a9eca2570730008ea8d!OpenDocument

On September 5, 2009, The Daily Telegraph published a news report by Chelsea White titled, 'Black market for pit bulls flourishing'.  The article reports that dog breeders and sellers are circumventing state laws prohibiting pit bulls by continuing the trade illegally.  The full text of the article can be found at http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26029832-1242,00.html

On October 19, 2009, The Courier published an editorial arguing that all pit bulls should be banned.  The full text of the editorial can be found at http://www.thecourier.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/pit-bull-attacks-will-continue-until-the-breed-is-banned/1653702.aspx

Urban Animal Management (UMA) is a Committee of the Australian Veterinary Association Limited. The group favours widespread education to improve the animal management behaviours of both pet owners and the general public.  It does not favour breed-specific legislation and argues that there is no reliable evidence to support action being taken against pit bull terriers.
UAM's home page can be found at http://www.uam.net.au/

In 2003 UAM published 'Does breed specific legislation reduce dog aggression on humans and other animals? A review paper' by Linda Watson.  The author is a statistician at the Accident Research Centre, Monash University and Vice President of the Endangered Dog Breeds Association of Australia (EDBA). EDBA is also opposed to breed-specific legislation.  
The research paper is very detailed and draws on a wide range of studies and statistically-based reports.  It can be found at http://www.uam.net.au/PDFs/PUB_Pro03_67_74_Watson.pdf
The report argues against the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation.

Dogs' Life is an Internet site directed toward dog owners.  The site opposes breed specific legislation.  Despite its bias, it gives a clear overview of dog-specific legislation in Australia.  The overview includes some arguments against such legislation and includes detailed references to the work of Dr Stephen Collier, University of New England, who claims data on the frequency of dog attacks by breeds in Australia reveals the Pit Bull to be exceeded by several other breeds.
This overview and argument can be found at http://www.dogslife.com.au/dogs_life_articles?cid=9446&pid=146514

Pit Bulls on the Web is an Internet site run by Monique Chesser, a United States pit bull educationalist and advocate.  The site's home page can be found at http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/
Its arguments against breed-specific legislation can be found at http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/legislation.html

The Dog Bite Center is a United States public education group that seeks to inform dog-bite victims of their rights and lobby for legislation to protect the community against aggressive dogs.  The Center considers pit bulls of particular concern.
The Dog Bite Center's Internet site can be found at http://www.dog-bite-law-center.com/
Its overview of American dog-bite statistics can be found at http://www.dog-bite-law-center.com/pgs/stats.html
Its page dealing specifically with pit bull terriers can be found at http://www.dog-bite-law-center.com/pit_bull_attacks.html

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is an international animal rights group.  It supports the banning of pit bulls because it believes this may be the only way to prevent the abuse dogs of this breed receive.  
A full explanation of PETA's position on this issue can be found at http://www.peta.org/about/hottopic007.asp

Arguments in favour of laws further the restricting pit bull terrier ownership
1.  Pit bull terriers are bred to attack
It has been claimed that the breeding history of the American pit bull and other, similar types of fighting dog, mean that they are innately aggressive.
Dr Hugh Wirth, the president of the Victorian branch of the RSPCA, has stated, 'Pit bull terriers should never have been introduced on to Australian shores. They are time bombs waiting for the right circumstances.
The American pit bull terrier is lethal because it was a breed that was developed purely for dog fighting, in other words killing the opposition. They should never have been allowed into the country. They are an absolute menace...
There is no reason at all for the dog in the country. They are not suitable pets for anybody.'

2.  Pit bull terriers have attacked many people and other animals
A Herald Sun editorial published on October 20, 2009, stated, 'Owners who claim the dogs are not dangerous refuse to accept the evidence of repeated and horrific attacks.'
The United States Dog Bite Law Center supplies statistics on the breeds of dog involved in dog attacks.  The center's Internet site claims. 'In one study sponsored by the US Government Centers For Disease Control it was reported that 32% of all dog related killings of human beings in the United States are caused by Pit Bulls attacks, yet Pit Bulls constitute only 2% of all dogs. 70% of those mauling deaths were of children.
According to this large federal government study conducted over a 20 year period the Centers for Disease Control concluded that attacks by pit bulls accounted for one third of the fatal dog attacks in the United States. This study also cited the disproportionate threat these dogs pose to children. Children, according to the study, are the most vulnerable victims in dog attacks, with those under the age of 14 accounting for 42 percent of all dog bite injuries. Most of the mauled victims are between the ages of five and nine.'
In April, 2009, DogsBite.org, a national United States dog bite victims' group, released its first multi-year report on U.S. dog bite fatalities. The report covers a 3-year period - from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008 - and analyses data gathered from 88 dog bite incidences that caused death to a United States citizen. The report documents dog breed information, property information (where the attack occurred) as well as dog bite victim age information.
Of the 88 fatal dog attacks recorded by DogsBite.org, pit bull type dogs were responsible for 59%. This is equivalent to a pit bull killing a U.S. citizen every 21 days during this 3-year period. The data also shows that pit bulls commit the vast majority of off-property attacks that result in death. Only 18% of the attacks occurred off owner property, yet pit bulls were responsible for 81%.
Pit bulls are also more likely to kill an adult than a child. In the 3-year period, pit bulls killed more adults (ages 21 and over), 54%, than they did children (ages 11 and younger), 46%. In the 21-54 age group, pit bulls were responsible for 82% (14) of the deaths. The data indicates that pit bulls do not only kill children and senior citizens; they kill men and women in their prime years as well.'

3.  Current restrictions against pit bull terriers are inadequate
It has been claimed that the current restrictions in some Australian states, such as Victoria,  are inadequate as they do not require the neutering of pit bull crosses.  Critics claim that this allows pit bull owners to breed from their dogs by claiming they are not pure breeds.  It is also of concern to some that the cross breeds are equally dangerous and yet they are able to continue to be bred.
It has been claimed that many dog owners are deliberately circumventing the current restrictions.  A Herald Sun editorial published on October 20, 2009, states, 'Previous attempts to control American pit bulls have failed because many owners stopped registering them.
Laws to force owners to desex the dogs so the breed will eventually die out have also proved a failure for the same reason.'
The chief executive of the Lost Dogs' Home, Dr Graeme Smith, has claimed that eve the new laws flagged by Mr Brumby would offer insufficient public protection.
Dr Smith has stated, 'The number of declared dangerous dogs known to and registered by authorities is the tip of the iceberg compared to the number of dogs with the potential to turn killer.
There are about 10,000 dangerous pit bull terrier types in Victoria but only 277 are registered as a restricted breed.
The only way of preventing people and other defenceless pets from being attacked and killed by pit bull-type dogs is to declare all of them a restricted breed. Not just the pedigrees but any dog with any part of the breed in it.'
In an editorial published in The Courier on October 19, 2009, it was further noted, 'A ban on the breeding and sale of pit bulls and other breeds of dangerous dogs already exists, but it does not apply to animals born before 2005. For that reason, there remains a population of these animals in Victoria.'

4.  Current restrictions against pit bull terriers are not being fully implemented
It has been claimed that the restrictions that are currently in place in various Australian states are not properly implemented and that a more total approach is needed.
The Victorian president of the RSPCA, Dr Hugh Wirth, has claimed that local councils were not doing enough to enforce strict laws on pit bull terriers.
Restrictions for owners include confining the dogs to their property, ensuring the property is escape-proof, while a signpost warning of the dog's existence must be displayed outside the property.
Dr Wirth has noted that unless the law to desex the dogs was properly enforced there would be more attacks.
Dr Wirth has stated, 'Local government has got to spend some money going around identifying these dogs and forcing the issue.'
It has further been claimed that funds are not being made available to allow current legislation to be properly implemented.  This claim has been made by the Endangered Dog Breeds Association of Victoria.  The Association has stated, 'A second problem is that governments hesitate to provide sufficient support and funds to  councils to enforce and follow up democratic laws, provide public education and apply a range of  penalties to both minor and serious offenders, which would deter other irresponsible owners.  Rather, they continually add new measures in response to lobbying and media pressure - Victoria's laws have been amended each year of this current Government's term -  no wonder many citizens do not understand them, know of them or apply them!'
The claim has been made that as current legislation is being either under-implemented or inadequately funded, a total ban would be easier to put in place. The argument would seem to be 'If it is too hard to regulate a breed - remove it.'

5.  Pit bull terriers are commonly abused
Some animal welfare groups have supported a ban on pit-bull types dogs because dogs of this sort are very frequently abused by their owners.
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is in favour of a ban on pit-bull type dogs.  PETA claims,  '... such laws ... have the potential to prevent an enormous amount of suffering. In the United States, pit bulls stand out as the most abused of all dog breeds. Pit bull rescue groups are bursting at the seams with victims of dogfighting, abuse, and neglect. Shelter workers across the nation see firsthand on a regular basis the extreme cruelty that countless pit bulls are subjected to. Infected wounds left untreated, eyes swollen shut with blood and pus, broken or torn off limbs left to "heal" with no veterinary care, and ears cropped at home and then allowed to rot are only a few of the unforgettable atrocities.'
PETA argues that pit-bull type dogs suffer this type of abuse because the reputation of the dog heir as a viscous fighter means that many potential owners seek these dogs out for their aggressiveness and then mistreat them accordingly. PEAT Internet site states, '...it is important to bear in mind that nice families rarely come to a shelter seeking pit bulls. The vast majority of people who want pit bulls are attracted to the "macho" image of the breed as a living weapon and seek to play up this image by putting the animals in heavy chains; kicking, beating, and otherwise abusing them into aggression; and leaving them outside in all weather extremes in order to "toughen" them up.'

6. The potential harm caused by these dogs outweighs the loss suffered by their owners
It has been claimed that there has to come a point at which the safety of the community comes before the rights of dog owners.
It is strengthening legislation introduced in 2005 which banned the breeding of several varieties, including pit bulls.
The Victorian Premier, John Brumby, has claimed that the owners of dangerous dogs often appeal against their animals destruction on what he has called 'tenuous grounds'.
On this basis, the Premier has argued that owners' right to appeal needs to be further limited.
Mr  Brumby has stated, 'If there's a dangerous breed, if there's a restricted dog and it's running along the street you know, with no collar, and not muzzled: that dog will be taken in by council and it will be put down.'

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.'

Further implications
When Victoria strengthened its laws regulating pit bull terriers in 2005, there was concern that attempts to ban the breeding of these dogs would be ineffective.  Reports of a thriving black market industry and speculation that there are thousands of these dogs in homes, while only hundreds have been registered, seem to bear out the reservations of the original critics.
The Victorian Government's new proposal to allow unregistered 'dangerous' dogs, including pit bull terriers, to be immediately put down if they are found unrestrained in public places may serve to make the owners of these dogs more cautious. However, it is unlikely to increase the effectiveness of the Victorian Government's attempt to have the breed die out.
Dr Graeme Smith's proposal that breeding bans apply not only to pedigree dogs but to crossbreeds appears to have more likelihood of success.  It would prevent pit bull owners misrepresenting their dogs and (if pit bull crossbreeds are as dangerous as some critics claim) it would be an attempt to remove another dangerous dog population.
Would it succeed completely?  This seems unlikely.  Dog breed recognition is an inexact science, particularly when crossbreeds are being considered.  It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to substantiate that a particular dog was a pit bull crossbreed.  
Queensland has partly overcome this problem by placing the power to determine in the  hands of local councils.  Queensland councils have the power to demand that any dog be desexed that they deem potentially dangerous.
However, the question of effectiveness remains.  Increasing sanctions tend to do two things.  Firstly they drive many owners and breeders of dog underground, where they are more difficult to regulate.  Secondly, making a particular breed of dog officially 'dangerous' tends to attract the wrong type of owner.
PETA claims, 'It is important to bear in mind that nice families rarely come to a shelter seeking pit bulls. The vast majority of people who want pit bulls are attracted to the "macho" image of the breed as a living weapon and seek to play up this image by putting the animals in heavy chains; kicking, beating, and otherwise abusing them into aggression.'  Put simply, outlawing a breed of dog tends to make those dogs outlaws.
All of this does not address the appropriateness of breed-specific bans as justified by dog attack data.  These figures seem to be able to be manipulated by different groups to support very different conclusions.

Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
Herald-Sun:  October 20, page 20, editorial, `Put them down'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/editorials/put-them-down/story-e6frfhqo-1225788492014

Herald-Sun:  October 20, page 23, comment by Bonnie Norton, `Breed bans are not the way to go'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/pit-bull-breed-bans-are-not-the-way-to-go/story-e6frfhqf-1225788489392

Herald-Sun:  October 20, page 5, news item (photos) by Kelly Rayn, Ashley Gardiner, `Brumby gives councils a licence to kill dogs'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/brumby-gives-councils-a-licence-to-kill-dogs/story-e6frf7jo-1225788517614

Herald-Sun:  October 20, page 5, news item (photos), `Deadly pit bull had the taste for blood'.
NOTE: the below item is by Brendan Roberts and is identical to the item cited:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/pit-bull-attacks-man-kills-dog/story-e6frf7jo-1225788097621

Herald-Sun:  October 20, page 21, cartoon.

The Australian:  October 20, page 7, news item (photo) by Gary Hughes, `Pit bull bite spurs change'.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26233732-5006785,00.html

The Age:  October 20, page 4, news item (photo) by Royce Millar and Mex Cooper, `State promises councils "licence to kill"'.
NOTE: the online item is accompanied by a video news report
http://www.theage.com.au/national/state-promises-councils-licence-to-kill-20091019-h50g.html