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.

Firstly, Ted Baillieu, the Premier of Victoria, can be contacted by his website. He is the leader of the political party responsible for this legislative change.  His buddy, Peter Walsh, also received the same email from me. (Peter Walsh’s email is: peter.walsh@parliament.vic.gov.au)

Dear Ted,

I am writing to you as I am very concerned about legislation being introduced in Victoria regarding dangerous dogs. I understand that your government is trying to make changes that reduce dog bites, which is an admirable goal. As you understand, dog bites are a multifaceted problem requiring many avenues of attack. However, I fear your new strategy will not see a change in dog bite statistics as you hoped.

Implementing legislation that specifies particular requirements for pit bulls has been implemented, at different times and in a variety of conditions, globally. However, it has never been seen to decrease the incidence of dog bites. My concern is that your legislation, by targeting pit bulls, will also fall into the ineffective category.

In order to reduce dog bites, we need to be providing councils with sufficient resources to enforce existing legislation. There are too many instances of dogs roaming at large and existing unregistered, due to the inability of rangers to uphold existing legislation. Additional funding should be provided for these means.

Additionally, I think public education – for dog owners, adults, and children – could go a long way in ensuring stable dogs in the community, and safe interactions by others. This is also an area that could benefit from increasing funding.

I fully support proposals that make dog owners responsible for their dog’s behaviour. This would allow owners of dogs that bite or kill to be prosecuted for offences, including manslaughter. Hopefully this type of change would make dog owners think twice about owning an aggressive animal.

Your current proposal seeks to classify dogs as ‘pitbulls’ by their physical characteristics. This is an impossibility. In reality, the legislation is targeting dogs of a particular appearance. As staffordshire bull terriers, and mongrels of, are popular breeds, it is likely that many innocent pets with no pit bull heritage would be condemned with these legislation changes. Indeed, as staffordshire bull terriers are a very popular breed, I am sure a number of voters will be incredibly disgruntled by this problematic move that targets their pets, guilty of no offence.

As a public figure, I know it is often difficult to make changes to assertions. However, considering the circumstances, I think a more elaborate review of the literature regarding dog bite strategies (i.e. what has and hasn’t worked) is necessary to ensure that dog bites are reduced. It would be foolish to invest in a scheme that does not deliver a reduction in dog bites.

Ultimately, we want something that WORKS, not something that looks good on paper. I fear that the strategy that you are proposing does nothing to truly reduce dog bites.

I welcome your email or phone call. My phone number is xxxx

Next, I hope that Daniel Andrews, the opposition leader in Victoria, can do something about this.  His email is daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

Dear Daniel,

I am writing to you as I am very concerned about legislation being introduced in Victoria regarding dangerous dogs, as being pushed by the Baillieu government. I hope that the Labor Party can provide a more sensible and thoughtful approach to the dog bite problem.

The most obvious flaw in the new scheme is the intent to classify dogs as ‘pitbulls’ by their physical characteristics. This is an erroneous proposition. In reality, the legislation is targeting dogs of a particular appearance. As staffordshire bull terriers, and mongrels of, are popular breeds, it is likely that many innocent pets with no pit bull heritage would be condemned with these legislation changes.

I am sure you would agree that the $100 000 price tag of the hotline is an atrocious waste of tax payer’s money, when there is no scientific basis to the process proposed by Baillieu. By this I mean: In no country where there has been a pitbull ban has there also been a decrease in dog bites.

Ultimately, these finances would be better spent increasing the number of ranger-hours in all councils, so they can efficiently enforce existing legislation. Furthermore, funding of educational programs, including children dog-safety programs, are vital for reducing the dog bite statistics.

I fully support proposals that make dog owners responsible for their dog’s behaviour. This would allow owners of dogs that bite or kill to be prosecuted for offences, including manslaughter. Hopefully this type of change would make dog owners think twice about owning an aggressive animal.

I am sure that you and the Labor Party will be interested in making a decision that actually works to reduce the incidence of dog bites in Victoria, such as educational strategies, rather than supporting the heinous proposals by the Liberal Party. The dog world can clearly see the holes in the Ballieu government’s incompetent and hastily drafted strategy, and would surely embrace a more logical proposal from the opposition.

I welcome your email or phone call. My phone number is xxxx

Kind regards,

Seemingly, by Hansard, Greg Barber from the Greens seems very sceptical of the Baillieu’s government’s plan, and so I wrote him a complimentary email.  His email is: greg.barber@parliament.vic.gov.au

Dear Greg,

I am writing to express my thanks for your critical comments to the recent amendments made by the Liberal Party to the Companion Animals Act.  When reading the Handsard document, I was impressed with your understanding of the dog bite issue and the issues inherent in the amendments to the act. I was pleased to see that the Green Party was providing a more thoughtful approach to legislation that appears rushed and illogical.

The most obvious flaw in the changed scheme is the intent to classify dogs as ‘pitbulls’ by their physical characteristics. This is an erroneous proposition. In reality, the legislation is targeting dogs of a particular appearance.  As you so thoughtfully said, this presents the problem of the pendulum swinging ‘the other way’.  American Staffordshire Terriers are a very similar breed to American Pitbull Terriers, and it is likely that any definition describing a ‘pit bull’ will also encompass American Staffordshires.  Indeed, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and mongrels of, are very popular, and it is likely that many innocent pets with no pit bull heritage would be condemned with these legislation changes. Again, as you intuitively noted, these owners may not even be aware that their animals could be deemed as ‘dangerous’ under the new definition, and may be at risk of their pets being destroyed.

Furthermore, as you observed, there is a risk that more breeds will be included in the restricted breed list, causing more legislative changes and more expense.

Ultimately, legislation such as that seen in Victoria (that is, legislation that specifies restrictions on dogs based on breeds) have not been seen to be effective in any country in which they have been implemented.  You are right to be sceptical that this mechanism will be effective.  History tells us it will not be.

The public wants to see a reduction in dog bites.  I fear the strategy introduced here will not be effective at this goal.

Councils need to be provided with better resources, full stop, especially in regard to ranger-hours.  Currently, rangers struggle to uphold existing legislation, resulting in many dogs roaming at large – such as the dog who tragically entered the Chol family home.  Indeed, this dog was not even registered with council.  It is a fallacy for the Liberal Government to believe that councils can sufficiently fund their current dog management, let alone increased dog management as a result of these legislative changes.

I fully support proposals that make dog owners responsible for their dog’s behaviour. This would allow owners of dogs that bite or kill to be prosecuted for offences, including manslaughter. Hopefully this type of change would make dog owners think twice about owning an aggressive animal.

I am sure that you and the Green Party will be interested in making a decision that actually works to reduce the incidence of dog bites in Victoria, such as educational strategies, rather than supporting the heinous proposals by the Liberal Party. The dog world can clearly see the holes in the Ballieu government’s incompetent and hastily drafted strategy, and would surely embrace a more logical proposal from the opposition.

I welcome your email or phone call. My phone number is **.

Kind regards,

Also, John Lenders seems like an alright bloke sceptical of the Baillieu government’s plan.  Plus he’s in opposition. I emailed him, too. His email is: john.lenders@parliament.vic.gov.au

Dear John,

I am writing to express my thanks for your critical comments to the recent amendments made by the Liberal Party to the Companion Animals Act.  When reading the Handsard document, I was impressed with your understanding of the dog bite issue and the issues inherent in the amendments to the act. I was pleased to see that the Labor Party was providing a more thoughtful approach to legislation that appears rushed and illogical.

The most obvious flaw in the changed scheme is the intent to classify dogs as ‘pitbulls’ by their physical characteristics. This is an erroneous proposition. In reality, the legislation is targeting dogs of a particular appearance.  As you so thoughtfully said, this presents the problem of the pendulum swinging ‘the other way’.  American Staffordshire Terriers are a very similar breed to American Pitbull Terriers, and it is likely that any definition describing a ‘pit bull’ will also encompass American Staffordshires.  Indeed, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and mongrels of, are very popular, and it is likely that many innocent pets with no pit bull heritage would be condemned with these legislation changes. Again, as you intuitively noted, these owners may not even be aware that their animals could be deemed as ‘dangerous’ under the new definition, and may be at risk of their pets being destroyed.

Furthermore, as you observed, there is a risk that more breeds will be included in the restricted breed list, causing more legislative changes and more expense.

Ultimately, legislation such as that seen in Victoria (that is, legislation that specifies restrictions on dogs based on breeds) have not been seen to be effective in any country in which they have been implemented.  You are right to be sceptical that this mechanism will be effective.  History tells us it will not be.

The public wants to see a reduction in dog bites.  I fear the strategy introduced here will not be effective at this goal.

Councils need to be provided with better resources, full stop, especially in regard to ranger-hours.  Currently, rangers struggle to uphold existing legislation, resulting in many dogs roaming at large – such as the dog who tragically entered the Chol family home.  Indeed, this dog was not even registered with council.  It is a fallacy for the Liberal Government to believe that councils can sufficiently fund their current dog management, let alone increased dog management as a result of these legislative changes.

I fully support proposals that make dog owners responsible for their dog’s behaviour. This would allow owners of dogs that bite or kill to be prosecuted for offences, including manslaughter. Hopefully this type of change would make dog owners think twice about owning an aggressive animal.

I am sure that you and the Labor Party will be interested in making a decision that actually works to reduce the incidence of dog bites in Victoria, such as educational strategies, rather than supporting the heinous proposals by the Liberal Party. The dog world can clearly see the holes in the Ballieu government’s incompetent and hastily drafted strategy, and would surely embrace a more logical proposal from the opposition.

I welcome your email or phone call. My phone number is xxx.

Kind regards,

 

Then I could get selfish, and contact my local members of parliament (state and federal).  Sorry, you will have to research your own contacts for this, but here is my email (as applicable to South Australia).

Dear (member),

I am writing to you as I am very concerned about legislation being introduced in Victoria regarding dangerous dogs, and that similar legislation may make its way to South Australia.

The new Victorian legislation seeks to make ‘pit bull’ cross breeds classified as dangerous dogs, too, and encourages members of the public to report any dogs their suspect are a pit bull.

I find this heinous as pit bulls cannot be identified by physical characteristics, or even DNA, and in reality the legislation is targeting any ‘bully breed’ like dog. As staffordshire terriers, and mongrels of, are popular breeds, it is likely that many innocent pets will be condemned with these legislation changes.

It is unnerving that the government is so willing to spend colossal money on this project, even implementing a hotline, when there is no scientific basis to this process. By this I mean: In no country where there has been a pitbull ban has there also been a decrease in dog bites.

In a perfect world, these resources would be spent on:

* Increasing the number of ranger-hours in all councils, so they can efficiently enforce legislation that is currently specified in the Dog and Cat Management Act.

* Increasing educational resources to dog owners, parents, and children, to encourage safe practices by all facets of the dog bite issue.

* Introducing legislation that makes owners responsible for their dog’s behaviour. This would allow owners of dogs that bite to be prosecuted for offences, including manslaughter.

As a concerned resident, I was hoping that you may direct me to the best place in which I can make my arguments against any changes in the Dog and Cat Management Act. I am very unsettled about these developments in Victoria and how it may impact on pet ownership in South Australia.

I welcome your email or phone call. My phone number is **.

Kind regards,

Ultimately, the message here is: Please, please, do something! This has implications, at the very least, on anyone with a staffordshire bull terrier or american Staffordshire cross dog.  On a more broad level, it shows a risk of legislative changes nationally that could potentially encompass more breeds.

I am happy to include any additional letters or resources on my blog. Please contact me if you have any suggestions for further action.

Postscript: Clearly, there has been some time between my blog posts.  It is most unfortunate that life has ‘caught up’ with me, as it were. The good news is that my honours project is due to conclude at the end of September, which means I can write some academia about dogs instead of about children.