2011/15: Are Victoria's new dangerous and restricted dog laws appropriate?

What they said...
'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'
Peter Walsh, the Victorian Minister for Agriculture

'This is canine genocide that is all it is. Since restrictions were imposed on pit bulls in 2005 there has been no reduction in overall dog attacks'
Colin Muir, president of the American Pit Bull Breeders Association of Australia

The issue at a glance
On August 18, 2011, four-year-old Ayen Chol was savaged to death by a pit bull cross which had run into the front room of the house in St Albans, Melbourne, where the little girl was living. The dog had previously attacked another family member outside the house.
On August 30, 2011, in response to this fatal dog attack, the Victorian Government altered its dangerous dog laws so that all pit bull and pit bull crosses now have to be registered and desexed by September 29, 2011 or Councils will be able to seize and destroy them. The same requirements are imposed on other restricted breeds and on dogs deemed dangerous.
By extending the restricted dog classification to include pit bull crosses the government has raised the issue of how accurate identification can be achieved; however, it has promised to supply a visual classification document to assist with this process.
The Government has also established a 'hot line', a telephone ring-in service, to be used by members of the public who wish to report a dangerous dog.
On September 13, the Victorian Government introduced into Parliament a bill which will see owners of declared dangerous, menacing or restricted breed dogs serve up to 10 years in jail if their dog kills another person. The bill is very likely to become law as it has the support of the Opposition.
Victoria's new dog laws have met with a mixed response. On the one hand there are those who see them as a strong and welcome response to a serious problem.
On the other there are those who believe they are an unworkable over-reaction.

Background
(The following information has been taken from the Wikipedia entry 'Breed-specific legislation'. The full entry can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation )

Restricted Dogs in Australia
The importation of the Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Japanese tosa, American pit bull terrier or pit bull terrier, and Perro de Presa Canario or Presa Canario into Australia is absolutely prohibited.

New South Wales
January 13, 2006
The following dogs are restricted dogs: American pit bull terrier or pit bull terrier. Japanese tosa, dogo Argentino, fila Brasileiro, any other dog of a breed, kind or description whose importation into Australia is prohibited by or under the Customs Act 1901 of the Commonwealth; any dog declared by an authorised officer of a council to be a restricted dog; any other dog of a breed, kind or description prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section.
Restricted dogs may not be sold, given away, or acquired, and must be spay/neutered. They must be muzzled when in public, wear a special red-and-yellow collar, and may only be handled by a competent adult over the age of 18.
The dog must live in a secure enclosure when at home, and the owner must post "Warning: Dangerous Dog" signs on their property. The owner must also register the dog with the local government and notify the government if the dog attacks a person or animal, cannot be found, dies, has moved out of the area, or is now living at a different location within the local government's jurisdiction.

Queensland
July 1, 2009
A dog of a breed prohibited from importation into Australia under the Australian Customs Act of 1901 is considered "restricted." Breeds currently prohibited under Commonwealth legislation are the dogo Argentino; fila Brasiliero; Japanese tosa; American pit bull terrier (or pit bull terrier); and Perro de Presa Canario (or Presa Canario).
A person who owns a "restricted" dog must:
keep the dog within a child-proof enclosure; display warning signs at the entrance to the property where the dog is located; muzzle the dog in public and have it under effective control at all times; ensure the dog is spay/neutered, wearing a collar and a prescribed tag, and is microchipped.

South Australia
July 1, 2004
The dogo Argentino; fila Brasiliero; Japanese tosa; American pit bull terrier (or pit bull terrier); and Perro de Presa Canario (or Presa Canario) are considered "prescribed breeds."
Owners of prescribed breeds:
Must muzzle their dogs and ensure they are under effective control by means of physical restraint; must spay/neuter their dogs; may not sell or give away their dog, or advertise to sell or give away their dog.

Victoria
November 2, 2005
"Restricted breed" dogs are defined as those dogs prohibited from being imported by the Commonwealth Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956, including the Dogo Argentino, the Japanese Tosa, the Fila Brasileiro, the Perro de Presa Canario (or Presa Canario) and the American Pit Bull Terrier (or Pit Bull Terrier). Of these, the Pit Bull Terrier and the Perro de Presa Canario are the only breeds currently known to exist in Australia.
Restrictions on these breeds include:
a permit is required for a person to have more than two of a restricted breed; escape-proof and child-proof enclosures; permanent identification using microchip technology; owners must notify their council if the dog escapes, dies or there is a change of ownership; in the case of a change of ownership, owners must advise prospective owners that the dog is a restricted breed; dogs must be leashed and muzzled when in public places; conspicuous "Beware: Restricted Dog" signs must be displayed on property access points; and minors are not to own a restricted breed or be in charge of a restricted breed in public places.
Under the new legislation these restrictions also apply to pit bull crosses and any such dog not registered and desexed by September 29, 2011 can be seized and destroyed.

Western Australia
March 2006
The following dog breeds are restricted:
Dogo Argentino (Argentinean mastiff), Fila Brasileiro (Brazilian mastiff), Japanese Tosa, American Pit Bull Terrier and Pit Bull Terrier breeds, Perro de Presa Canario or Presa Canario and any dog of a mixed breed that visibly contains any of these breeds.
All restricted breed dogs must be muzzled, leashed and controlled by an adult who is physically capable of handling the dog, in any environment except prescribed enclosures.
Restricted breed dogs are also required to be sterilised unless there are extenuating circumstances relating to the animal's physical condition or medical treatment. Owners of these breeds are required to display of warning signs where these dogs are kept, meet stringent fencing requirements, notify the local government of changes in the dogs status (moved, died, etc..), and ensure their dogs wear dangerous dog collars.

Internet information
On August 18, 2011, The Punch published an opinion piece by Anthony Sharwood titled, 'Enough bullpit. Destroy these murderous mutts' in which he argued that all pit bulls should be eradicated. The full text of this piece can be found at http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/enough-bullpit.-destroy-these-murderous-mutts/

On August 26, 2011, The Courier Mail published a report on Morton Bay Council the only council in southeast Queensland not to treat pit bull terriers as a restricted breed. The report is accompanied by 165 reader responses either supporting of opposing the banning of the breed.
The full text of this report and the accompanying comments can be found at http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/moreton/moreton-bay-regional-council-refuses-to-ban-extremely-dangerous-pitbull-terriers-until-they-prove-to-be-a-problem-mayor-allan-sutherland/comments-fn8m0yu3-1226122534372

On August 30, 2011, World News Australia issued a report detailing the new Victorian dog control laws. The full text of this report can be found at http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1583070/At-a-glance--Dangerous-dog-laws

On August 30, 2011, the Victorian Agricultural Minister, Peter Walsh, issued a media release detailing the new laws which ended the amnesty on restricted dogs and included pit bull crosses among them.
The full text of this media release can be found at http://www.peterwalsh.org.au/_blog/Media_Releases/post/Legislation_to_end_amnesty_on_restricted_dogs/

On August 31, 2011, ABC Radio's Life Matters presented an interview with Dr Peter Higgins from Dogs New South Wales. Higgins argues that it is the behaviour of owners rather than the breed of dog which is significant.
A full audio file of the interview can be accessed at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stories/2011/3305856.htm
The file can be either listened to directly or down loaded.

On September 13, 2011, the Victorian Agricultural Minister, Peter Walsh, issued a media release detailing the new laws which would make it a criminal offence to own a dangerous or restricted dog which then attacks or kills another person. The offence will carry a penalty of up to ten years imprisonment.
The full text of this media release can be found at http://www.peterwalsh.org.au/_blog/Media_Releases/post/Tough_new_laws_send_clear_message_to_dog_owners_/

On September 19, 2011, The Mildura Weekly published a news report titled, 'Targeting dog breeds no answer: experts' which reported the reservations of a number of animal experts about the effectiveness of the new Victorian dog control legislation.
The full text of the report can be found at http://www.milduraweekly.com.au/blog/2011/09/01/targeting-dog-breeds-no-answer-experts/

Endangered Breeds Association is a non-profit organization founded in 1980 for the purpose of preserving the American Pit Bull Terrier. It is based in the United States and now campaigns against all breed-specific legislation.
It Internet site, on which it presents arguments in support of its position, can be accessed at http://www.endangeredbreedsassociation.org/about.html

Dog Bite Law is a non-commercial website, updated daily by Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips, an American legal expert in dog bite law.
The following extract from his site presents arguments for and against legislation banning specific breeds. These arguments can be found at http://dogbitelaw.com/breed-specific-laws/arguments-for-and-against-breed-specific-laws.html

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.'

Arguments against Victoria's new dangerous dog laws
1. The new laws are an over-reaction
There are those who consider the new laws an over-reaction. It has been suggested that the awful circumstances of the four-year-old's death have provoked a knee-jerk reaction which has not taken into account the likelihood of such an incident occurring again.
A commentator responding to an Age news report on August 30, 2011, of the proposed new laws stated, 'Even though people's anger about this horrible last incident is understandable and justified, I see the introduction of such severe laws as highly problematic and an overreaction. Such unfortunate and tragic cases are extremely rare and do not justify the wholesale response that has been taken.
What is the probability it will happen again? Rational risk assessment is gone down the gurgler once more.'
It has been claimed that there is no Australian evidence to justify the type of approach being adopted by the Victorian government.
Monash University statistician, Linda Watson, has been collating figures from the states and territories for a PhD thesis on the effectiveness of regulation in preventing dog attacks.
Ms Watson has counted at least 33 dog attack deaths in Australia since 1979, but apart from the dog that killed Ayen Chol, only one other culprit been described as a pit bull cross.
In Victoria, between 1979 and 2010 there were 10 deaths from injuries inflicted by dogs, according to the Coroners Prevention Unit. Information relating to the age of the victims is only available for the period 1997-2008 when five deaths occurred - all involving children under the age of 12. While no information is available from the coroner on the breeds involved in any of the deaths, according to the Department of Primary Industries the last three cases of human deaths after dog attacks have involved two rottweilers and a part dingo.

2. The new laws target dog breeds or types rather than irresponsible owners
The Mildura Rural City Council local laws co-ordinator, Sjaakie Adriaans, has stated that he believes more attention should be placed on responsible ownership rather than dog breeds themselves.
Mr Adriaans stated, 'Blaming the breed is incorrect. Blaming the owner is more correct.'
Mildura veterinarian, Dr Ian Japp, has also stated that restricting a specific dog breed is not necessarily the solution to the problem of dangerous and aggressive dogs.
Dr Japp stated, 'I have my concerns that they're targeting one breed...
Breeds that we recognise as potentially dangerous certainly include the Pitbull, but many other breeds also have the potential to cause some form of injury. Targeting Pit bulls and crosses - I think is part of the solution but by no means is it going to be the only solution.
Going to puppy classes, managing your dog's behaviour, ruling out any problems in the early stages - it's all about responsible pet ownership.'
Linda Watson, president of the Endangered Dog Breeds Association of Australia, has stated, 'In recent years, legislators in Australia have focused on particular breeds, despite there being no evidence in the literature to support the notion that restricting particular breeds helps reduce dog attacks.
Experience and research shows that all dog attacks can be traced back to failure by the owner to properly train and socialise the dog, and to owner ignorance, neglect, abuse and sometimes failure to enforce existing dog management laws.'
American Pit Bull Terrier Association of Australia president, Colin Muir, has claimed the legislation was misguided. He said it unfairly focused on the look of a dog, not those that actually presented a danger to the community.
Mr Muir has stated, 'This is canine genocide that is all it is. Since restrictions were imposed on pit bulls in 2005 there has been no reduction in overall dog attacks.'

3. There is no way of conclusively identifying a 'pit bull cross' using visual checks
It has been claimed that, even with the benefit of the visual identification material being supplied by the state government, accurately identifying the breed of a dog is very difficult.
The Mildura Rural City Council local laws co-ordinator, Sjaakie Adriaans, has noted that the tragic attack in Melbourne in August sparked a significant increase in reports of dangerous dogs in Sunraysia in the days after the incident. However, Mr Adreiaans observed most of the dogs were inaccurately identified.
Mr Adreiaans stated, 'Nearly every caller said it was a Pitbull they'd seen, and in every case it wasn't.'
The president of the American Pit Bull Club of Australia, Colin Muir, has warned that the new laws will put at risk many dogs that only resemble pit bulls.
The president of the American Pit Bull Club of Australia, Colin Muir, told Fairfax radio the changes will take many dog owners by surprise, because breed will be determined by appearance.
Mr Muir has stated, 'That could be whole range of breeds - boxer, Labrador, Staffordshire, American Staffordshire, bull terrier - there's a whole range of breeds that just unfortunately happen to look like an American pit bull terrier and the owners of these dogs should be worried.
You know, we've seen some horrendous mistakes by councils already and this is going to broaden it out hugely and owners will have no recourse... if your dog meets that description, it's gone.'

4. The new laws punish rather than educate
There are those who have argued that the new Victorian dog control laws are too punitive in their emphasis and that it might be more effective to encourage dog owners to manage their animals well rather than fine or imprison them after they have not.
Maria Mercurio, the chief executive of RSPCA Victoria has indicated that she believes there should be incentives such as registration discounts for people who train and socialise their dogs.
Ms Mercurio stated, 'While legislation is important and we support the government in that, we would like to see an equal emphasis on educating our community so that we have good, responsible pet owners.'
It is so important to educate dog owners about their responsibility not only to their own family but to their community.
DOGS Victoria (Victorian Canine Association) is the peak body representing owners and breeders of purebred dogs in Victoria.
The organisation responded to the recent death of a child during a pit bull attack with the following statement, 'It is the belief of the organisation that the answer to put an end to dog-related incidents is education. Dog owners need to be educated as does every person who comes into contact with a dog.'
DOGS Victoria President, Peter Frost, stated, 'Every dog benefits from consistent and positive obedience training. Even small dogs can bite. However, the larger and stronger the dog, the more important it is for it to be well socialised.'

5. The new laws do not go far enough
Some critics have argued that the new laws do not go far enough and that it should be made more difficult for people to become dog owners.
It has been claimed that no more than it is possible for anyone to get behind the wheel of a car untrained, then it should not be possible to own a dog without first proving one's competence.
Hugh Wirth, President of RSPCA Victoria, has stated, 'We think the old British system of registering dogs should be abandoned in favour of registering people to own dogs.
Owning a dog is not a right, it's a privilege, and I would like to see the Government license people as competent to own dogs.
Those who want to own a dog should pass a multi-question test to prove they understand something about dogs.'
The National Dog Trainers Federation operations manager Brad Griggs has proposed a similar scheme.
Mr Griggs is promoting a radical policy recalculation that would see all dog owners required to take a certified course in responsible pet ownership, regardless of their breed. He also suggests requiring certain types of dog, such as pit bull terriers, to pass obedience and temperament tests every year.

Further implications
There have been calls for uniform national dangerous dog laws similar to those being put in place in Victoria. This seems unlikely to happen. Queensland has already indicated that it will not be bringing its laws into line with Victoria's, though it has been reported that New South Wales and South Australia may be about to review their legislation in the light of the recent fatal Victorian dog attack.
States and territories are responsible for their own dog laws, but the Federal Government has indicated it is prepared to step in and lead a national overhaul.
The federal Attorney-General, Mr Rob McClelland has indicated his belief that there needs to be national consistency on registration, penalties and management of dangerous dogs
Mr McClelland stated, 'Clearly, we should be doing everything we can to avoid these kinds of horrific attacks. Unfortunately, they occur far too frequently. One attack on a child is one too many.' Mr McClelland said discussion would also look at which laws were most effective and how best to enforce them.
Only five of the eight Australian jurisdictions automatically restrict dangerous breeds, while some jurisdictions still allow these breeds to be sold or given away. The Northern Territory has no laws regarding dangerous animals and relies entirely on local council by-laws.
However, doubt has been raised as to the probable effectiveness of the Victorian legislation.
Monash University statistician, Linda Watson, who is also president of the Endangered Dog Breeds Association of Australia has stated, ' There is no research yet published showing that breed-specific laws have worked.
Particularly for ordinary crossbred domestic pets, the task of breed identification to any level of certainty or reliability by a dog's physical characteristics is simply and absolutely impossible from any scientific, technical or professional perspective.'
Ms Watson has claimed that similar legislative moves in Britain and across Europe in the early 1990s have since been scaled back because of problems with implementation.
Ms Watson stated, 'The laws cannot work if you cannot enforce them.'
A number of Councils have already indicated that their increased responsibilities in terms of implementing these new laws would mean they will need State government assistance.

Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
H/SUN, August 18, 2011, page 1, news item by Ainsworth and Butler, `Pit bull kills girl'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/child-killed-in-dog-attack-at-st-albans/story-fn6bfkm6-1226117119122

AGE, August 18, 2011, page 1, news item (ref to death of young girl / child) by Preiss and Farouque, `Rogue dog kills infant girl, mauls two'.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/rogue-dog-kills-infant-girl-mauls-two-20110817-1iyix.html

H/SUN, August 22, 2011, page 27, comment by Baz Blakeney, `Silly little boys with big dogs'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/silly-little-boys-with-big-dogs/story-e6frfhqf-1226119195035

H/SUN, August 19, 2011, page 34, editorial, `Get rid of this vicious breed'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/editorials/get-rid-of-this-vicious-breed/story-e6frfhqo-1226117732033

H/SUN, August 19, 2011, page 35, comment by Rachel Andersson, `With training and love, they are devoted pets'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/with-training-and-love-they-are-devoted-pets/story-fn6bn88w-1226117738370

H/SUN, August 19, 2011, page 34, comment (photo) by attack victim Leeanne Pelen, `These dogs are guns without a safety catch'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/dogs-are-guns-without-a-safety-catch/story-fn6bn88w-1226117736838

H/SUN, August 19, 2011, page 33, cartoon. (no internet link)

AGE, August 19, 2011, page 14, editorial, `End the menace of attack dogs'. (Scroll down after accessing to find the item, which is the second editorial in the set)
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/state-falters-at-first-test-of-hospital-reform-20110818-1j027.html?skin=text-only

AGE, August 19, 2011, page 13, analysis (photos) by Green and Farouque, `A killer instinct'.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/a-killer-instinct-20110818-1j04c.html

AGE, August 19, 2011, page 3, news item (photo - ref to death of child, injuries inflicted by a pit bull terrier cross at St Albans) by Beck and Levy, `Dangerous dogs "have lost the right to exist"' (with statistics on hospital admissions after dog attacks, list of restricted breeds).

H/SUN, August 31, 2011, page 33, cartoon. (detail of, at right)


AGE, August 31, 2011, page 6, news item (photos) by Dowling and Perkins, `Councils to crack down on pit bulls'. (video included in online version)
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/councils-to-crack-down-on-pit-bulls-20110830-1jk6i.html

H/SUN, August 30, page 26,  editorial, `Justice for little Ayen').
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/editorials/justice-is-served-for-little-ayen/story-e6frfhqo-1226124841328

AUST, September 8, 2011, page 11, analysis by Pia Akerman, `Dog fight brews over tough laws'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/dog-fight-brews-over-tough-laws/story-e6frg6z6-1226131681378

AUST, September 8, 2011, page 8, news item (photo) by Pia Akerman, `Targeting pit bulls unlikely to reduce risk: vet association'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/victorian-vets-fight-pit-bull-crackdown/story-e6frg6nf-1226131730288