[youtube url=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr8pJrHEBSQ” width=”560″ height=”315″ align=”centre” autohide=”0″ rel=”0″ showsearch=”0″ showinfo=”0″]
The following is an open letter in reply to an article that appeared in The Age on 27 January 2013. A link to the article in question can be found at the base of this letter.
Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) has proven to be throughly ineffective community safety and dog bite prevention strategy across the world, in both theory and practice.
When they chose to strengthen their existing breed specific legislation in 2011 the Victorian Government actively ignored the unanimous opinion of the educated scientific community throughout Australia and the rest of the world.
This recent Supreme Court decision has little if anything to do with any particular breed or breed club. It instead showcases how patently ridiculous Victoria’s current dog law is, and how difficult and inherently costly it is to enforce this ineffective and backward legislation.
There does not exist a single set of even remotely valid statistics that the Victorian Government can claim supports their current stance on and they are aware of this. I know because I helped present them with these facts. These laws were not passed on the recommendation of any professional body, nor were they passed based on research or statistics.
All peer reviewed scientific research refutes the efficacy of the Government’s breed specific approach and reliable statistics that support this literature are readily available from more those communities that lead the way in low dog bite statistics and high dog ownership numbers.
In similar countries and cultures that have had similar measures in place dog bites and/or dog bite related deaths have actually increased until those countries intervened and had studies done to analyse the situation objectively. As a result of their research Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and areas of Canada and the US have repealed their breed specific policies.
Britain is currently in the process of repealing their ‘status dog’ laws because they have proven to have been part of the overall problem rather than offering the solution.
[pullquote3 quotes=”true” align=”right” variation=”red”]Consider that effective legislation must serve the key stakeholder – the community – by offering the public actual benefit, as opposed to simply allowing politicians an opportunity to appear ‘in action’ during a time of public outcry. BSL fails absolutely in this regard.[/pullquote3]
The cases we are discussing involve a dog failing to significantly meet the gazetted Standard for Restricted Breed Dogs In Victoria.
It should be noted that where any council makes a decision to impound a person’s pet in absence of other compliance issues, and based on how it looks – which is the only area being questioned in these cases – they should be considered at fault for having failed to have adequately assessed the merits of the individual case.
In one case mentioned in this article a dog met around 40% of the criteria the government have outlined for visual identification. Had this decision been upheld then there would be precedent for the seizure and pursuant destruction or onerous restriction of a great many dogs including many labrador cross type breeds.
I sat in the Supreme Court gallery and heard the arguements of the two councils in question. I believe any person with an enquiring mind would have been surprised to see this article quote the prosecution costs at over $200,000 given the arguements offered by council’s representatives.
Whilst the public is incited to malign the waste of public funds they should also consider the cost to these pet owners, both physically and emotionally, and they should also be called to consider whether they could afford to stop their dog being discriminated against based on the way they look…or indeed, whether they believe it just that one should have to in the first place.
What are the alternatives to the Victorian Government’s current breed specific approach to community dog bite prevention?
Well for a start we need to understand that this is a social issue, not a genetic issue. This is about what people are, or are not, doing with their dogs that put them in these situations in the first place.
Until our community dog bite prevention and companion animal management policies focus on responsible canine guardianship and meaningful dog bite prevention education programs for the public will continue to see tragic dog bite and aggressive dog incidents rise in our community.
Only a behaviour based approach to identifying dangerous dogs in our communities will appropriately address the canine element of the dog bite equation.
We need to give our Animal Management Officers sensible, effective, science backed legislation that they can enforce in good conscience and for maximum community benefit.
I commend Justice Kaye on his decision, and I implore the public to do just a little research on this issue before making their minds up on where they stand on the matter. Those that do will no doubt find the Baillieu Government to have shown a distinct lack of concern for the facts surround this issue.
Let’s hope that 2013 will see common sense prevail regarding these issues.
Warm Regards,
Click here to read the article in question.
PLEASE TAKE SOME TIME TO SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS POST BELOW, AND BE SURE TO SHARE IT WITH YOUR FRIENDS.
Well said Brad!
Very true Brad …. it’s in the training and handling of the dog … most untrained dogs are not dangerous, it’s aggressive and poor handling that makes a dog dangerous … not some gene pool … dear God, are families of a successive lines of a boxer/wrestler dangerous?? Come on folks … pay attention councils … stop killing family pets and start paying attention to the real problems. Many councils are now progressive enough to have exercise events for community to attend – is it too far a stretch to put money into dog training events instead of taking owners to court when family pets are clearly not aggressive but simply do not “fit the bill” of some preconceived idea of what a dog should, or should not, look like? Good grief!