Pit Bull Forum on Studio 10

On the 27th of March, Studio 10 had a news article on a boy who was mauled by a ‘pit bull’, but the pit bull was not euthanised, but instead desexed and defanged.

The panel questioned why anyone would have a pit bull when they’re ‘not pets’, and ‘they’re fighting dogs’, with a history of ‘bad accidents’. They criticised public response to this incident saying, “I don’t understand how they’re blaming the babysitter instead of the owner of the dog”.

Paula Abdul is the only one who says anything mildly positive, with “not every part of that breed is bad”.

Understandably, dog lovers were pretty unimpressed with this coverage and criticised Studio 10 through social media.

And Studio 10 then had a ‘right of reply’ panel. And here is how it went down.

While the guise of this discussion was providing balance, Studio 10 clearly pulled the shots, asked the questions, and didn’t provide adequate right-of-reply in many instances. Here’s a blow by blow of what was said… And what I would’ve said.

The little starting introductory video/graphic describes some dog breeds being ‘banned in Australia’, and then describes that in 2011 half of dog attacks were by five breeds (Bull Terriers, Australian Cattle Dogs, American Staffordshire Terriers, German Shepherd Dogs, and Rottweilers). It then goes on to make the claim that bites by restricted breeds are decreasing.

There’s a lot of stuff in this that the expert panel did not get a chance to address!

  • Firstly, no breed is banned in Australia. The five breeds listed are ‘restricted breeds’, meaning that the way they are owned is regulated by most states, but no state outwardly bans them.
  • While we can dispute the validity of the statistics on breed attacks, it should be pointed out that the pit bull terrier does not appear in the list of breeds involved in half of all dog attacks.
  • While bites by restricted breeds may be decreasing (and I’m not even sure if that is true), that doesn’t mean bites overall are decreasing.


Studio 10 asks, “Why do you think pit bulls have such a bad public perception?”

Dr Andrew O’Shea, from the Australasian Veterinary Association, answers this: Because the media chooses to report on pit bull attacks almost exclusively. The media sensationalistness has a lot to answer for. As Dr O’Shea points out, many reports are ‘it’s a pit bull terrier’, when it’s not really. Dr O’Shea points out that the media makes them out to be ‘more dangerous’, but in reality they’re probably just as dangerous as any dog of a similar size. Any dog with teeth can bite.


“But Dr O’Shea, I’m confused though, because the media is reporting we’re told, say by the police and other people at the scene, and I think, there is, like you say, there’s a bit of confusion about talking about pit bulls, er, are the crossed with staffordshire terriers, I mean, I must say, sitting here in the studio, I’m very nervous, I’m, I mean, because of the dogs. I feel frightened.”

Not really a question, nor articulately asked, but then you didn’t give the panel a chance to reply either.

What is significant is not just that the media is reporting on ‘pit bull’ attacks, but the fact that attacks by breeds that are not pit bulls are not reported on. For example, in Port Lincoln an 8 year old boys had his nose bitten off by an Australian bulldog. This barely made the news, and when it did, the report focussed on the death of Ayen Chol by a pit bull. While the news heavily reported on Isabelle Dinoire who received the first face transplant, but neglected to report that her facial injuries were as a result of a labrador mauling.

The fact that you feel frightened is probably a consequence of the media hysteria surrounding pit bulls. I am sorry that you’re fearful, but your fear is illegitimate, and proves that we need to reassess the way dog attacks are perpetuated in the media. When two dogs lay in a relaxed and quiet way in a studio (a totally foreign environment to them), and they are regarded as scary, then the community clearly needs a much more comprehensive understanding of dogs and dog behaviour.


“Centuries ago, they were bred as fighting dogs. Am I right in saying that?”

Dr O’Shea responds to this by basically agreeing, but argues that defining ‘pit bulls’ is complex, and many dogs that look like a pit bull are classified as one despite not being one. And despite being crossbreed. He says that because they’re a bigger breed and tend to be reactive, they seem to get a bad name.

However, I would’ve taken a different response in responding here… I would’ve said:

Yes, but many dogs have roles now vastly different to their original purpose. Many Labradors are bred to assist blind people – while their original purpose was to carry dead birds around. Many German Shepherds are bred for multi-purpose police roles, including biting people, while their original purpose was herding sheep. Many people own terrier breeds who were bred to kill small vermin. Overtime, breed roles change. Additionally, within a breed, there are many variations in terms of personality and type. If you look at the greyhound industry, you’ll see a vast number of greys are killed for not meeting the task at hand, despite breeding specifically for running fast after quarry. You can imagine, in our current era, where dogs are primarily bred as pets, the history of a dog does not have a large implication on the temperament of the dogs we see today.


“A big reactive dog sounds quite scary to me, though. I mean, why, why, what I don’t understand is why people are so passionate about pit bulls in particular. Like, why, I mean, surely, if if, the restrictions at the moment seem to be working at the moment, and the number of attacks is going down, and surely if there is, er, some evidence … For example, you’d be familiar, Dr Hugh Worth, the head of the RSPCA, in 2009 said that there was absolutely no place for these dogs in Australia. He said they were time bombs. He said they should be banned. Now everyone here, I’m sure, who has any knowledge of animal welfare issues knows who Hugh Worth is. He is a very respected veterinarian. The RSPCA is an organisation that is there to prevent the cruelty to animals and protect them. If he is saying it, surely, surely not getting your personal favourite breed of dog is a small price to pay for knowing that kids could be safer. And adults,” say Joe Hildebrand.

“What do you think about that Melanie?” says the host.

Wow, give poor Melanie a chance. There’s about a million points there.

Melanie tries, she says that while ‘the laws appear to be working’ you will probably see that attacks haven’t gone down, but they have stayed the same or risen. She asks if we want to see dog bites to go down, or do we want to see pit bull bites to go down? Maybe pit bull bites are going down, but surely we want dog bites to be going down full stop.

Then Melanie got cut off before she got a chance to say all I would’ve:

  • This is not about people having a dummy spit for not being allowed to own pit bulls. The issue is that banning pit bulls does not make kids and adults safer.
  • There is not a reduction in dog attacks in all, just dog attacks by restricted breeds. So the community isn’t safer from a pit bull ban, they’re just less likely to be bitten by them. (Just like if you banned Ferraris, no more people would die from Ferrari related accidents. But people would still die in car accidents.)
  • Dr Hugh Worth is known as Dr Hugh Worthless by many animal-lovers in Australia. ‘Nough said.
  • The RSPCA is not very well respected and does a pretty poor job at protecting animals.


Joe Hildebrand talks about serious pit bull attacks, and includes footage of a guy severely mauled by three American Staffordshire Terriers. He argues that the severity and frequency of these attacks should see the breed banned.

Again, no real chance of reply is provided. So my reply would include:

  • Hi. The dogs in that video are American Staffordshire Terriers. Not pit bulls.
  • Also, people die from weimaraner and jack russell bites, too. The media often fails to report on these attacks, or when they do so, they report in a different way. (For example, Buster the golden retriever attacked 4 people and the media at the time mostly reported on ‘why would a golden retriever attack?’ instead of the ‘golden retrievers should be banned’ approach we see after bull breed attacks.)

“So you’re not hearing of labradors, or maltese terriers, or toy poodles causing this damage…” says Sarah Harris.

Ambulance guy (from the expert panel) says he’s been to attacks of lots of different breeds. He says that he “can’t tell the breeds apart to be honest” and “In my experience… all dogs can bite. It doesn’t matter what kind of breed it is” and ‘the bigger the dog, the bigger the bite’.

I would elaborate this response, if I had the opportunity, to when you say ‘you’re not hearing of’ attacks by different breeds, that’s because you’re not reporting them


It’s how you train the dog, surely?

Yay, a decent question! Ambulance guy says that he trains his dogs and doesn’t leave them alone with kids. Good advice!


“Brad can talk through how the behaviour works. I mean, are pit bulls aggressive dogs?”

Brad was methodical in his response to this question.

It’s about preventing dog bites. You want the community to be safer, right?

Are you attached to the how (BSL)? Or are you attached to the outcome?

When we look around the world at measures used to reduce dog bite statistics to as low as possible, we see that success is based on behaviour-based strategies and not breed.

“You’ll never get rid of [dog bites] – get rid of 400 breeds – right? It doesn’t really matter.”

Go Brad.


“When we were talking about this last week, a 4 year old boy had been attacked and terribly mauled and there was a question mark over the fate of the dog who did that. And I must say, as a mother, I would want that dog destroyed. I wouldn’t want to be standing up let’s protect this dog because he’s just.. severely injured this child, potentially could’ve killed this child. To me, isn’t that more of the issue?”

Brad answers this one as well.

This is the result of a ‘tragic convergence of errors’.

The dog was chained – chained dogs are more likely to bite.

The babysitter was there – not the owner.

The dog was large – larger dog, larger damage.

The child wasn’t adequately supervised

Well done Brad, again.


Joe Hildebrand wants hands to be raised for anyone who thinks dogs that attack a child should be killed. (That is, he fails to acknowledge the factors affecting the likelihood of a dog bite, as described by Brad.)

There is no place in society for a dangerous dog. What makes a dog dangerous is based upon the behaviour of the individual.


The whole thing got a little bit messy, with Joe Hildebrand speaking over Brad and Brad refusing to be spoken over. In summary:

  • There is a perception in the community that dogs are dangerous and
  • NSW statistics show that the pit bull terrier is the most dangerous breed of dog.

Brad replied that:

  • Perception is only perception, and
  • Those statistics are invalid, and
  • It doesn’t matter: We know what causes dog bites, globally, and we know that BSL doesn’t work.


We were talking about whether a dog who attacked a toddler should be destroyed.

Dr O’Shea says it’s context based. A good call.



And this is where this exchange ends.

So do you think the expert panel was given a fair chance?


Further reading:

A Case Study in Media Bias

Breed Specific Legislation FAQ

Posts tagged BSL on Some Thoughts About Dogs


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


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


Breed Specific Legislation FAQ


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.


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