PITBULL ID & "VCAT" WHO MADE THE "STANDARD" ???

31st January 2014 New Standard in relation to Restricted Breed Dogs: Please note that a new version of the Standard for restricted breed dogs in Victoria will commence on 31st January 2014. 

The changes to the Standard were introduced in the Government Special Gazette No. S22 dated 31st January 2014. Peter Walsh, Minister for Agriculture and Food Security, approved the new standard, under section 3(3) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994, to assist Authorised Officers of Council in identifying dogs to be of a restricted breed for the purpose of the Domestic Animals Act 1994. 

At 12am on 31st January 2014, the new Standard replaces the Standard as gazetted in the Victoria Government Gazette No. S283 on 1 September 2011. Key Change to the Standard is the linear approach: 

The linear approach for assessment of a dog under the new Standard is the principal process of using a step by step process in the assessment of a dog. · 

Before an assessment of a dog can be completed, the authorised officer must determine if any exemptions exist.

 If any one of the exemptions exists an authorised officer is prevented from conducting an assessment and the dog must not be declared a restricted breed dog. ·

 If no exemptions exist a Council Officer may begin the assessment by first measuring and weighing the dog in accord with the conformation criterion. 

If the dog substantially meets 3 of the 5 conformation criterion the authorised officer may continue the assessment. ·

 If the dog substantially meets 10 of the 18 major physical characteristics found in American Pit Bull Terriers the authorised officer may continue the assessment. · 

If a dog substantially meets 10 of the 19 supplementary physical characteristics provided in the Standard an authorised officer can then decide if the dog is to be declared under the Act. 

A copy of the Gazetted Standard can be obtained from http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/ A range of relevant information, can be downloaded from www.depi.vic.gov.au/pets

 For further information please phone the DEPI Customer Service Centre on 136 186 or visit the DEPI website www.depi.vic.gov.au/pets 

Thank you for your time Bureau of Animal Welfare 

| Department of Environment and Primary Industries 475 Mickleham Rd, Attwood, Victoria 3220 T: 03 9217 4200 | F: 03 9217 4416 | E: animal.welfare@depi.vic.gov.au 

http://www.vetboard.vic.gov.au/docs/140131%20DEPI%20New%20Standard%20Restricted%20Dog%20Breed.pdf

6.14 Breed-specific legislation

Policy

Legislation to prevent dog bites and to manage aggressive dogs should focus on the individual dog and the owner not the breed. Breed-specific legislation for dog bite prevention has failed to reduce the frequency of dog bites both in Australia and overseas.

Background

Any dog of any size, breed or mix of breeds has the potential to be aggressive and to be declared dangerous so dogs should not be declared dangerous on the basis of breed or appearance. Each individual dog should be assessed based on its behaviour. The role of the dog owner is a critical factor with respect to the animal’s behaviour.

Veterinarians share community concerns about aggressive dogs, but banning particular breeds is not the solution. In 2012 the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) commissioned a report into the causes behind aggressive dogs and an alternative approach to address the issue. The report found that there was little evidence to support banning particular dog breeds as a way of addressing canine aggression in the community. Instead, education of the public and legislative tools that equip animal management authorities to identify potentially dangerous individual dogs offer the best results in reducing incidents with aggressive dogs.1.

The facts about dog bites
Genetic predispositions are an important factor in animal behaviour, however the impact of the environment and learning are also critical. The tendency of a dog to bite is dependent on at least five interacting factors 1,2,3.
•    heredity (genes, breed)
•    early experience
•    socialisation and training
•    health (physical and psychological) and
•    victim behaviour.

Dog bite incidents generally occur either in domestic settings where the animal is known to the victim, or by dogs at large unknown to the victim 5. While dogs at large are responsible for a minority of dog bites,6,7 they attract disproportionate media and political interest. They are the public face of the dog bite problem, and most legislation is designed to control this part of the problem. However, most bites occur in the dog’s own home and involve victims bitten by their own dog.6 Further, most scientific studies report that children rather than adults are more likely to be bitten by dogs. 6,7

Breed-specific legislation

Breed-specific legislation generally refers to laws that target specific breeds of dogs. In Australia there are currently two types of breed-specific legislation:

1.  Under the Commonwealth customs legislation there is a ban on the importation of several specific breeds of dogs; Japanese Tosa, fila Brasiliero, dogo Argentino, perrode presa Canario, and American Pit Bull Terrier. Importantly, this is a ban on importation and not a prohibition on ownership.
2.  Most state and territory jurisdictions have placed restrictions upon the ownership of these breeds such as muzzling in public, desexing, and fence and enclosure requirements. Some states and even some local councils have taken the further step of banning the prescribed breeds of dogs completely.

The failure of breed-specific legislation to prevent dog attacks is due to a number of factors:
•    Breed on its own is not an effective indicator or predictor of aggression in dogs. 4,5,6
• It is not possible to determine precisely the breed of the types of dogs targeted by breed-specific legislation by appearance or by DNA analysis.4,5
• The number of animals that would need to be removed from a community to have a meaningful impact on hospital admissions is so high that the removal of any one breed would have negligible impact.4
• Breed-specific legislation ignores the human element whereby dog owners who desire this kind of dog will simply substitute another breed of dog of similar size, strength and perception of aggressive tendencies.4,5,6

References
1. Australian Veterinary Association 2012 Dangerous Dogs – A sensible solution. http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/dangerous-dogs-%E2%80%93-sensible-solu...
2. Beaver et al 2001 “A community approach to dog bite prevention – AVMA Task Force on
Canine Aggression and Human–Canine interactions” JAVMA 281 (11) 1732 – 1749.
3. Seksel K 2002 “Report to the NSW Department of Local Government on Breed Specific
Legislation issues relating to control of dangerous dogs”.
4. Snyder J 2005 “Dangerous Dog Management” National Urban Animal management
Conference, Canberra; Australian Veterinary Association.
5. Kixer KW 1979 “Epidemiologic and clinical aspects of animal bite injuries” JACEP 8:134-
141.
6. Overall KL and Love M 2001 “Dog bites to humans-demography, epidemiology, injury and risk” JAVMA 218 (12)1923-1934.
Other relevant policies or position statements
6.16  Importing dogs
6.13   Aggression in dogs

http://www.ava.com.au/policy/614-breed-specific-legislation

Death in the UK highlights the failings of BSL

A four year old boy, John Paul Massey,was attacked and killed by a dog in his grandmother's home in the UK. And the reaction of the media and local authorities has highlighted why the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 in the UK has failed -- and failed miserably.

Most of the focus of the media articles, and of the authorites, have involved what breed of dog was involved in the attack. According to one news source:

Police said genetic tests would be carried out to establish the breed of the dog involved.

Added the police spokesman: "The process of identification of whether a dog is illegal under the dangerous dog act takes time.

"It is a complex issue and further forensic examinations are ongoing to establish the type of dog involved in this attack."

The dog, for what it's worth, has been described in the media as a "mastiff", a "bull-terrier" a "bull terrier-type", a "bull dog", a mastiff/Bull terrier cross and even one report of it being a 'pit bull".

And while the authorities have been talking about the breed of dog involved, and the media has been creating sensational images around the attack, not once, in nearly 200 articles about this, has anyone seemed at all interested in the circumstances surrounding an attack that led to a four year old boy to be killed.

And that's where this whole thing has gone wrong.

Anyone with any sense at all realizes at this point that breeds are not responsible for aggressive attacks -- that it takes a series of unfortunate circumstances and a neglegent owner for them to happen. By focusing on breeds of dogs, the authorities in the UK are not only wasting their animal control resources trying to gather up 'pit bulls', but are missing a key element to ending major attacks -- which is educating owners on the causes that lead up them.

The reason this dog attacked is the same -- regardless of what breed of dog it ends up being.  But unfortunately, in the UK, they've chosen to focus on breeds, and throwing the educational piece out the window -- and the citizens in the UK are worse off for it. 

In spite of the breed ban that dates back to 1991 - -and quite likely BECAUSE of the breed ban -- major attacks are becomming almost commonplace in the UK. 

In Bradford, the areas saw 42 people treated in the hospital from dog bites in 2001/02 and 41 in '02/'03. That number has been near or above 90 in each of the past 3 years.

In Lancashire, the number of people hospitalized from dog attacks had doubled in just the past 5 years -- from 36 in 2003 to 75 in 2008.

In West Yorkshire, the number of people treated in hospitals for dog bites had gone up 43% in the past 5 yars.

In Midland, hospitalizations are up 60%.

In Scotland, the number has risen 160% in the past 8 years.

Across the nation, the law has been a failure -- and they continue to just throw more money at the issue vs actually dealing with the problem.  And the problem is that everyone in the country seems too focused on "breeds" to realize that it isn't breeds causing the problems, it's a lack of owner education and a lack of focus on irrepsonsible owners that is causing the problem -- and both problems are actually INCREASED because of their breed ban, not improved.  Because of all of this, there is becoming an increased push across the UK to overhaul the Dangerous Dogs Act. And not a moment too soon.

Folks, BSL is failing -- everywhere.

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2009/11/

BSL "It is a failed idea, based on a failed premise that is not scientifically sound. It is time to move on."

Gold Coast, Australia learns of difficulties of enforcing BSL

In 2003, a Gold Coast, Australia woman was attacked by a 'pit bull'. The victim appeared before the city council and demanded the city do something to ban 'pit bulls'.  

Like too many cities, the hysteria of the moment was to much to overlook, and they began one of the strictest enforcements of Queensland's state-wide ban on four breeds of dogs: Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Japanese Tosa and American Pit Bull Terrier.

Years later,the Gold Coast City Council has discovered to its great cost, banning pit bulls is not as easy as it might seem.

The city has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars (likely in the millions)  on court cases pertaining to accurate breed identification -- having lost at least 57 such cases in the past few years.  One such case involved a dog named Rusty that was impounded and sentenced to death by three council experts -- one of whom was Deborah Pomeroy, a Brisbane City Animal Control supervisor who helped devise the 22 point identification system used across Queensland.  During the trial, Pomeroy admitted that she was selft trained, hand no veterinarian qualifications and could claim no scientific basis for the identificiation system she'd helped create.

The case caused a tidal wave of lost breed identification cases, all at substantial costs to the cities and the state of Queensland.

As more and more places rack up experience with BSL, and find that it is way more difficult and costly to enforce than they had thought, it is leading more places to seek breed neutral policies that focus only on the behavior of the dog -- not on some arbitrary "look" that should be outlawed. 

Breed specific legislation has proven to be difficult and expensive to enforce -- and ineffective at dealing with the problem of dangerous dogs around the world -- including Australia, Canada, Puerto Rico, the UK, Germanyand in the U.S.

It is a failed idea, based on a failed premise that is not scientifically sound. It is time to move on.

PLEASE CHECK OUT HIS AND MANY MORE OTHER GOOD ARTICLES AND INFORMATION...

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2009/11/

TANGO'S STORY

"TANGO'S STORY"

• RICHARD GUILLIATT
• THE AUSTRALIAN

• Print
• Save for later

John Mokomoko, with a picture of his imprisoned dog, has led the fightback by owners, and is determined to make authorities pay.Source: The Australian

NO one is quite sure how Tango the dog managed to escape the electrified fence of his backyard enclosure on the Gold Coast in April 2004. But when council dog catchers came across the brindle-and-white pooch loping around the suburban streets of Parkwood later that day, they bundled him into a van on suspicion of being an American pit bull terrier – an offence punishable by death in certain parts of Queensland. It was the beginning of a five-year saga that has made Tango the poster-boy in the War on Dogs.

A year before Tango went for his unauthorised walk, Gold Coast City Council had introduced the harshest pit-bull crackdown in the country, warning that any unregistered or wrongly registered pit bulls would be euthanased. The zero-tolerance policy had been announced after a 30-year-old woman crossing a street south of Surfers Paradise was attacked from behind by an unregistered pit bull that savaged her face, almost tore off her bottom lip and ripped open a gash in her right calf that required 100 stitches. The victim, Jayne Gair, had hobbled into the council chambers on crutches a month after the attack, her face a mess of red welts, to demand the banning of the dogs.

But as Gold Coast City Council has discovered to its great cost, banning pit bulls is not as easy as it might seem.

Take the case of Tango: council officers who examined the dog decreed that he met the criteria for an American pit bull terrier cross-breed. But the dog’s owners, John Mokomoko and Kylie Chivers, insisted he was an American Staffordshire terrier cross-breed. After hiring a lawyer to get Tango off death row and transferred to a kennel in NSW – where he still lives in exile to this day – they began investigating the council’s identification procedures.

Since then John Mokomoko has become the Gold Coast City Council’s worst nightmare, a relentlessly methodical litigant who has helped humiliate the expertise of council dog catchers in court and amassed a file on 5000 Queensland dogs that he claims were either destroyed or forced interstate on the basis of wrongful identification as pit bulls. In February he aims to convince the Queensland Supreme Court that Tango got a bum rap, and that thousands of dogs like him across Queensland may have been wrongfully dispatched to the big kennel in the sky. The case, he believes, will open a floodgate of ­litigation. “I’ve got a list of around 5000 dog owners in southeast Queensland who are waiting for someone to get a win in the Supreme Court,” he says. “Each case could eventually cost the councils at least half a million dollars. Once the precedent has been set, it’ll open a Pandora’s box.”

READ THE FULL STORY......

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/weekend-australian-magazine/the-pit-bull-is-the-usual-suspect/story-e6frg8h6-1225804507090