Right: Pit bull terriers and other large, strong dogs are pitted against each other in dog fights all over the world. Most developed countries ban these events, but dog fight enthusiasts still run "underground" events, such as this one in Indiana, USA, which was raided by police.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of Victoria's new dangerous dog laws
1. Action must be taken to prevent further dog attacks
There is wide spread community concern about dog attacks. A 2007 survey of councils in Victoria found there were 3300 reported dog attacks in one year, translating to about 63 incidents a week, or nine attacks a day.
According to government figures, there are 635,535 dogs registered in Victoria. But it is believed there are also about 260,000 unregistered dogs in the state.
In 2007 the Victorian government introduced new regulations placing restrictions on restricted breeds and dangerous dogs. Following the change in regulation, councils recorded more than 500 dogs on the register. However, there are many dangerous dogs not known to authorities because owners do not register the dog or ignore the protective measures they are supposed to take.
In the year to May 2005, there were 50 dog attacks by American pit bulls in Victoria; only two of the dogs involved were registered.
When releasing the new regulations, Mr Peter Walsh, the Minister for Agriculture, stated, 'The safety of the community is our first priority... People should not be in fear of a dog attack when they are walking down a street or their children are playing in their backyard.'
2. Previous changes to the law have not been sufficiently rigorous
It has been claimed that the current regulations are not sufficient to protect the community from dangerous dogs.
One major area of concern is the number of restricted dogs, predominantly pit bulls, who are in the community unregistered.
The new law brings forward the period of amnesty for these dogs to September 29, 2011 and extends the ban to pit bull crosses.
On September 1, 2011, the Victorian Nationals issued a media release which stated, 'While there are between 200-300 restricted dogs registered in the state, the reality is their numbers are in the high thousands. This Bill now means you have one month to register these dogs or face the threat of having them identified and destroyed.'
This places the onus on the owner to register and desex any dog which may be considered a pit bull or pit bull cross and to have it securely penned. If this has not been done by the end of September, 2011, the new regulations give councils the power to seize and destroy dogs they believe are restricted breeds or cross breeds.
On August 30, 2011, the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Peter Walsh, issued a media release stating, 'The legislation to be introduced today ends the amnesty to register restricted breeds on September 29, meaning any dog identified as a pit bull not registered after that time can be seized and destroyed.
The changes will close legal loopholes to ensure pit bull crosses become a restricted breed and a visual standard for identifying pit bull terriers will be gazetted tomorrow to prevent some of these dogs escaping regulation because of uncertainty over their breed.'
3. Similar laws have been applied in other jurisdictions
There are a range of other jurisdictions which have made owners criminally responsible for injuries inflicted by their dogs.
New Zealand has dog laws similar to those introduced in Victoria. Though there is no provision for what should occur in the event of a dog killing a person, New Zealand law states that the owner of a dog involved in an attack causing serious injury may face a penalty of up to three years imprisonment or a fine of up to $20,000. New Zealand law also has the capacity to declare someone unfit to own a dog if their animals have been involved in a number of incidents.
Section Three of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA) can be applied to any dog of any breed or type, regardless of the dog's size, in England and Wales. In Scotland similar legislation was passed in 2010.
It is a criminal offence for a dog to be 'dangerously out of control in a public place'. The offence is more serious if injury to any person is caused by the dog whilst out of control; this is known as an aggravated offence. Both the dog's owner and the person in charge of the dog at the time (if different) are liable.
Secondly it is a criminal offence to allow a dog to enter a non-public place where it is not permitted to be and whilst it is there, it injures any person or there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so.
An aggravated offence is committed if injury has been caused to any person. On conviction a fine up to S20,000 and/or two years imprisonment is possible.
4. Pit bulls are inherently more dangerous
There is a wide spread belief that breed specific legislation is appropriate because some breeds are inherently more dangerous than others. This claim has been made in regard to pit bulls and pit bull crosses. Part of the reason for the inclusion of pit bull crosses is that it is believed that owners have sort to avoid the restrictions imposed on pit bulls by breeding their pit bull with another type of dog.
The RSPCA Victoria is not generally in favour of breed-specific legislation; however, its current president, Dr Hugh Wirth, appears to hold a divergent view.
Dr Wirth has claimed that pit bulls are not suitable as pets for anyone. Dr Wirth has stated, '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.'
A similar, though more moderately expressed view, has been put by the RSPCA scientific officer in Canberra, Jade Norris, who has stated, 'There is some evidence that certain dog breeds have a greater genetic predisposition towards aggressive behaviour.
They might also have a lower trigger point for aggression and due to their physical size and strength they may have a greater capacity to inflict serious injury compared to other breeds.'
Statistics from the United States Centres for Disease Control and Prevention show that of 238 fatalities linked to dog attack in the United States between 1979 and 1998, 66 were blamed on pit bulls and another 10 on pit bull crosses.
Rottweilers were the next biggest group, with 39 deaths attributable to purebreds and five to rottweiler crosses.
Queensland statistics between July 2007 and February 2010 reveal an average of 144 dog attacks every month. The statistics reveal that pit bulls and staffordshire terriers were responsible for most vicious attacks.
5. The new laws include rigorous measures to punish irresponsible owners
Defenders of the new laws claim that the criminal provisions now applied to the owners of dogs that seriously injure or kill human beings mean that owners are being held responsible in a way they have not been before.
Under the previous legislation, even in the most horrific cases the owners of dangerous dogs could only be fined a maximum of $4500. Critics have claimed that that was inappropriate and did not acknowledge the extent of the injury a dog could inflict.
The Baillieu government has declared that it will treat the owners of dangerous, uncontrolled dogs in the same manner as the law currently treats culpable drivers.
The Agriculture Minister has stated, 'We are introducing new offences into the Crimes Act for failing to prevent a dangerous, menacing or restricted breed dog from endangering a life or causing a death.
The legislation creates new offences, all of which could result in a prison term. The most serious offences apply if the dog in question kills another person and carries the same penalties as dangerous driving causing death.
We are sending a clear message to owners of these dogs: if your animal endangers life or kills somebody, you will be held accountable.
The changes increase the level of responsibility under the law for people to properly manage their dogs.'