Category Archives: Dogs and Politics

12/3/11

National BSL? Say no!

Photos © Ruthless Photos

Here I go again!  If you have not sent letters to Brendan O’Connor or John Rau rejecting national BSL, click here to see past letter proformas.

If you have, good, now I’ve got another letter for you to send.

This letter I have tailored to be sent to Jay Weatherhill (SA Premier) and Paul Caica (minister for sustainability, environment, and conservation).  I also sent it to my local member.

It is (loosely) based on CommunityK9’s letter, which I also suggest you look at and consider sending. (If you’re not in SA, they have some recommendations on who you should be contacting. I’m a bit of a politics failure, so their suggested recipient list is a great help.)

You might even want to use bits of mine and bits of their’s.  I don’t mind. As long as you send a letter, I’m happy!

So, without further adieu, here’s the letter to be sent to Jay Weatherill (via vaughan.julienne@dpc.sa.gov.au) and Paul Caica (minister.caica@sa.gov.au). Continue reading →

11/28/11

South Australia: Don’t Copy Victoria’s BSL!

After my breed specific legislation letter writing spree, I just received a extremely concerning letter from The Hon. Brendan O’Connor MP (via Amanda Rishworth MP) regarding dangerous dog legislation is South Australia.

Photos © Ruthless Photos

This post is a call to action.  Now is the time to immediately write a letter of protest to Brendan O’Connor. We do not want South Australia to replicate the mistakes of Victoria’s breed specific dog legislation.

Letter from Brendan O'Connor - click to enlarge

The most fundamental aspect of the letter is this:

…the Australian Government … is taking steps to protect Australians from dangerous dogs… The Attorney-General and I have written to our State and Territory counterparts to encourage them to develop nationally consistent laws relating to the registration and management of dangerous dogs, including offences and penalties.

To me, there is no doubt, that these ‘nationally consistent laws’ mean copying the flawed and devastating laws hurriedly passed in Victoria, as a knee jerk reaction to the tragic death of Ayen Chol.  Already, Dr Karen Davies has described how “for the first time in 20 years I am questioning if I still want to do this job” euthanasing a sweet natured dog that unfortunately met the current description of a ‘pit bull’.  Then there stories of councils refusing to register dogs of pit bull type, leaving them vulnerable to euthanasia.  And rangers being abused while seizing unregistered pitties and systematically doorknocking to ensure annihilation of pitbulls in some council areas.

And, amongst this, dog bites are still happening in Victoria.

All dog savvy people know that this is only the beginning of the ‘epic fail’ that is Breed Specific Legislation.  Sadly, it seems that politics is more interested in looking sexy than reducing dog bites.

I have a letter written to both Brendan O’Connor and John Rau (the Attorney-General), and they’re provided in a more general fashion below.  You are most welcome to copy and paste these, word for word, or write similar letters to these individuals.  Please, please do something.  We can only try. Continue reading →

11/6/11

Breed Specific Legislation FAQ

RuthlessPhotos.com

What is Breed Specific Legislation?

Breed Specific Legislation, commonly known as “BSL”, is legislation that places restrictions upon certain breeds of dogs.

What breeds are affected by BSL in South Australia?

There are 5 prescribed breeds in South Australia, which mirrors legislation in the other States. These breeds are the American Pit Bull Terrier, the Fila Braziliero, the Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentina, and the Presa Canario. Additionally, Greyhounds are affected by BSL in South Australia, but are not considered a prescribed breed.

What restrictions are placed upon the prescribed breeds in South Australia?

Prescribed breeds must wear a muzzle or be physically restrained in public, and owners must desex their animal. Prescribed breeds must not be sold or given away.

What restrictions are placed upon greyhounds in South Australia?

Greyhounds must be muzzled or physically restrained in public, except when they are partaking in an organised activity and are under effective control.

What other Australian states have BSL?

All states except the ACT, NT, and Tasmania have some form of BSL. Nationally, restrictions on prescribed breeds often specify where the animal may be kept. For example, in New South Wales, restricted breeds must be kept in a child proof enclosure with warning signs.

What is the motivation behind introducing BSL?

Governments often believe that introducing BSL will decrease dog bites, or the severity of dog bites.

Why doesn’t BSL work?

This legislation incorrectly assumes that some dogs are more dangerous than others. In reality, owners are more responsible for their dog’s behaviour than the genetics of their animal. Furthermore, there are a myriad of enforcement issues with BSL as breeds cannot be confirmed by physically characteristics or DNA. Effectively, BSL is unenforceable and does not target the real cause of dog bites: inappropriate animal management.

How do we know BSL does not work?

BSL has been introduced in several countries globally, yet in no country has this legislation reduced the incidence of dog bites.

The Netherlands is a key example. A ban was implemented on the American Pitbull Terrier in 1993, and on the Rottweiler in 2000. The breed ban was repealed in 2008 after no decrease in dog bites was seen in the 15 year period. Similarly, the Dangerous Animals Act in Spain, 2000, was seen to have no significant difference in the number of dog bites.

In 1997, the United Kingdom banned the American Pit Bull Terrier and three other breeds, and their crossbreeds. However, dog bites incidents have increased by 50% in the period from 1997-2007. That is, 10 years after the ban, dog bites have actually increased. An increase in dog bites was also seen in Denmark in 2010 following the banning of 14 dog breeds. In the 12 months following the breed bans, there was a 60% increase in dog bites.

What welfare concerns are associated with South Australian BSL?

BSL means that animals that are prescribed breeds cannot be rehomed. This means that any prescribed breed entering shelters must be destroyed. Furthermore, individuals who wish to rehome their dog due to change of circumstances cannot legally do so if their dog is a prescribed breed.

What welfare concerns arise with changes to legislation in Victoria?

Recently, the Victorian government has made changes adding a standard that describes an American Pitbull Terrier. Effective from the 30th of September 2011, dogs that meet the description in the standard have to be registered as a restricted breed. As Amercian Pitbull Terriers cannot be effectively identified by appearance, it is likely that many dogs that are bull breed mixed breeds will be deemed as a prescribed breeds. Owners that fail to register their dog as a prescribed breed are at risk of having their dog seized and destroyed by councils.

What is the alternative to BSL in addressing dog bites?

Legislation needs to be introduced that recognises that any dog is capable of biting, and that it is up to owners to effectively manage their dog of choice to ensure dog bites do not occur. Any changes in legislation need to not cause further burden to those who responsibly own their dog, but seek to punish those who are irresponsible.

Existing legislation already requires dogs to be effectively contained in yards, on a lead or under verbal control when in public. All dogs must also be registered. Councils need further resources to ensure that individuals are responsibly housing their animals.

Education is also a vital part of the picture. Dog bites involve a dog owner, and the dog bite victim. With education, humans interact with dogs more responsibly and so bites are reduced. Education should also be targeted at to-be-dog-owners, to ensure that they are making appropriate and responsible decisions in choosing their pets and also in socialising their animal.

How do we know that these alternatives work?

Calgary, Alberta, Canada, is seen to be the key model of reducing dog bites. In Calgary, they have found that increased education and regulation has seen a decrease in dog bites. This education has targeted children specifically in grades 2 and 3, and seen an 80% reduction in dog attacks. Calgary has also focused on strengthening enforcement and regulation of current laws, and implementing tougher penalties for irresponsible dog ownership. Calgary has also provided low cost desexing options, as it is known that undesexed animals are more frequently represented in dog bite statistics.

08/31/11

Pitbull Hysteria, Australia

Recently, a girl in Victoria was killed by a dog identified as a pitbull cross.  A terribly tragic event, which has ramifications that are simply frightening for the dog community.

The Victorian premier has begun implementing legislative changes, which ultimately put all ‘pit bull type’ dogs at risk of being destroyed. (Another news article describing these changes available here.)

I do not want to waste time describing all the reasons these changes are misguided. I am writing this post to motivate action. Please, dog owners, do something!!  If this is implemented in Victoria, many dogs are at risk of euthanasia.  This also sets a precedent for other states.

I have included below a number of letters I have sent to parliamentary figures. Feel free to modify these letters and make them your own, or even send them as they are. Continue reading →

03/12/11

“From fork to friend”

Recently, I attended an Adelaide University event called Research Tuesdays, where one receives a free ‘crash course’ of sorts, with the university promoting their recent research projects.  The hour-long session was called “Animals in Society – from fork to friend”.  It basically was a brief consideration of research being undertaken regarding many facets of animals.  The professor running the topic was Gail Anderson, from the school of veterinary science.

She explained how research on animals has taken place mostly concerning the human benefits involved. Production animals (such as cattle, pig, alpacas, etc) have a financial appeal to people.  Animals have also been useful as models for human disease, and studying therapies for those diseases. Research concerning wild animals often has an overarching environmental aim. There was also a mention of animals used in ‘recreation’, such as racing animals.  Finally, the category of companion animals was considered, and that this was an expanding field as there are ongoing discoveries regarding the human-animal bond.

I will briefly summarise the other categories before considering the companion animals in more detail.

Firstly, production animals need to be as profitable as possible – so research is ongoing into the best way to increase profits from animals.  Additionally, there is increasing concern regarding animal welfare and sustainability of practices.  All of these are research pressures in the production animal industry.

Animal welfare allows for the use of animals in experimental conditions, such as testing human treatments.  There are obviously ethical issues concerned, and there is concern from animal rights groups, as well.

Research into wildlife seeks to maintain environmental populations, discover “extraordinary metabolic pathways”, and otherwise use animals (such as frogs) as environmental indicators. Emerging diseases may also be found in wildlife.

Recreational animal research is often centred around welfare, but also ‘increasing speed’ (and so financial gain).  In terms of dogs, there are studies being commenced that attempt to measure heat stress, and its implications, on racing groups. Particular, methods of ‘cooling’ after racing will be considered. The ultimate aim of this research is to establish welfare protocols – so potentially establish a ‘too hot to race’ policy, and a universally effective method for cooling animals down.

Companion animals, admittedly, were a small segment of the talk. Anderson explained how 63% of Australian households (and 62% of USA households) have pets. As many pet owners place their animal’s health before their own, and prefer their pet’s company to people, then this poses ‘risks’ to people that risk their own well being for the sake of their pet.

We also need to consider the therapeutic value of companion animals – with proven studies shown that touching animals reduces blood pressure, and that caring for animals empowers people.  There was also mention made to the fact that there is a strong relationship between harm to animals and harm to children.  (That is, if a vet sees animals being harmed in a household with children, serious consideration should be given to the wellbeing of those children.)

Companion animal treatments are becoming increasingly specialised.  Vets are becoming specialists in fields or in particular animal species.  Animals that are of particular benefit to people, such as guide dogs, are privy to methods to determine hip dysplasia and arthritis earlier, prevent its onset, and also prevent its occurrence by genetic screening.

This is a brief overview of what was overall a brief session, but I hope it is of a small interest to those involved in animals in some way.

(On a side note, question time revealed that cortisol levels are reflective of stress, but that handling of animals in order to obtain samples can increase the stress of animals and so also cortisol levels.  This has implications for the changes seen in Belyaev’s fox experiment, as the difference between the domesticated and undomesticated foxes could have been exaggerated due to undomesticated foxes being more stressed from handling, and so revealing a higher cortisol level.)