The following submission was presented to the Victorian  State Government in April 2001 after claims were made that there was an intention by this Government to introduce breed specific legislation

CONTENTS

1.1   The American Pit Bull Terrier Club Of Australia Inc.

1.2 The American Pit Bull Terrier

1.3 American Pit Bull Terrier And Aggression

1.4   The American Pit Bull Terrier In Australia

2 Dangerous Dogs And Victoria

2.1 Breed specific Legislation  

3   The Alternatives

3.1Effective Control Of Dogs In Public

3.2 Defined duties for Local Government

3.3 Independent State Inspectorate

3.4 Regulatory control over breeders not defined as a 'domestic animal business'.

Conclusion 

1.1 The American Pit Bull Terrier Club Of Australia Inc.

The American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Australia Inc., is the sole representative of the American Pit Bull Terrier in Victoria. 

The Club was formed in Melbourne in 1990 by owners concerned with the public perception of their breed and amid fear of imminent breed specific legislation during the early 1990's. Incorporating in 1993, the club now has membership throughout Australia and New Zealand. 

Although the American Pit Bull Terrier stud book and breeding records are not maintained by the Australian National Kennel Council, The American Pit Bull Terrier is a dog of  'pure breed' and pedigrees were first registered in the United States with the United Kennel Club in 1898. The major registry in use today is the American Dog Breeders Association and the APBT Club Of Australia uses this breed standard and rules of show as their basis and have no affiliation with other Australian canine organizations.  

The Major objectives of the Club are;

*         To Promote responsible dog ownership and education

*         To Promote responsible practices in breeding and selling of dogs

*         To Lobby Government and Non-Government  Organizations

*         To Make representations to the media

The Objectives of the club are serviced by;

*         Compiling, printing and distributing accurate information in relation to the APBT

*         Holding regular Breed show and competition

*         Developing & participating in community education programs

*         Representing Members through Government lobbying

*         Investigating & responding to media reports

*         Maintaining a  code of ethics for breeding & selling APBT.

  Australia has a large population of dogs numbering in excess of 4 million (BIS, 1999) and the vast majority of these dogs cause no problems within society. The American Pit Bull Terrier Club Of Australia Inc. recognizes however, that the minority within the dog population that do cause problems present a serious social issue throughout this country. Problem dogs and owners are represented in all breeds. There is a clear need to treat all breeds of dog in the same manner in the development of  domestic animal controls.

There has been concern in all Australian States that old, inefficient animal control legislation has not assisted in controlling problems created with domestic animal ownership. South Australia NSW, and Victoria have introduced domestic animal management legislation. The Tasmanian Government is  expected to release a discussion paper soon. Media reports indicate that the Queensland State Government may also be initiating legislation in the near future and have developed a 'model' local law on domestic animal control.

 1.2 The American Pit Bull Terrier

The American Pit Bull Terrier is a pure breed (pedigree) dog. Pedigrees and breed standard for this breed were issued by the United Kennel Club (UKC) in the U.S. in 1898 and the American Dog Breeders Association (ADBA) in 1909. The American Kennel Club (AKC) registered the breed in 1936 under the breed name of American Staffordshire Terrier. The Australian National Kennel Club (ANKC) recognizes the breed under the name American Staffordshire Terrier. 

The American Pit Bull Terrier has been widely owned over two centuries and recognized over the first seven decades of the 20th century  as the canine symbol of  ' Americanism'. It was common through both world wars for the American Pit Bull Terrier to be used in propaganda promoting the US war efforts.  (O'Neil, 1995 pp.20-25)

 The use of American Pit Bull Terriers as a 'fighting dog' is highly publicized, however the APBT has been used in many roles.  In the US the APBT was the dog of the frontier and adapted quite well to uses in guarding  livestock from predators. They were also used for catching and herding of cattle. The US military has used the APBT in their canine corps and one APBT named 'stubby' was the most decorated canine soldier of WW1. Hollywood has had a long partnership with the APBT. The intelligence and trainability of the APBT has creating several movie stars starting with the 'Our Gang'  comedy series in the thirties and it remains common to see an APBT in film to this day.  In latter years the APBT has been used effectively as therapy  dogs in hospitals and their solid temperament is well suited to this task.  Notable owners of the breed have included U.S. President Roosevelt  and Helen Keller.

1.3 American Pit Bull Terrier And Aggression 

Much has been said about the American Pit Bull Terrier and dog fighting. While dog fighting in any form is repugnant it did result in all the so called fighting breeds (i.e. APBT& American Staffordshire Terrier,  Bull Terrier, Staffordshire  Bull Terrier, Boxer, Bull Dog) having very good stable temperaments with people.  Contrary to media reports American Pit bull terriers have had a well documented selection in the breed for NON aggression to humans. Two centuries of dog fighting removed man aggression from the breed due to both the practical reason in handling and financial reasons of disqualification.  (Stratton 1983,1991, Colby , 1997, O'Neil, 1995) The flip side to this is that like other terriers and 'fighting' breeds APBT's can and often do display aggression towards other dogs and this is where most APBT related problems occur. It is interesting to note that Clifford, et al, (1990),  published a comprehensive compilation of media abstracts in relation to APBT and indicate few media reports of ABPT issues pre 1974 and none pre 1972, the period that dog fighting was in its peak (1850-1974) 

Colby (1997) supports this with anecdotal evidence gained from a over one hundred years breed  combined experience with  his father as the most prolific breeders (and fighters) of the APBT  

"After more than one hundred years of being hailed as the greatest breed of all dogdom by people from all walks of life, nothing has been maligned as the American Pit Bull Terrier in the last two decades. The media has projected them as dangerous and  unfit companions, particularly for children. Yet, I am the father of nine children who grew up with these dogs (several hundred of them)  and there has never been an incident of aggression to them or their friends. Most of my children 'cut their teeth' chewing on puppies' and dogs' tails and ears"  (Colby, 1997, p8).

O'Neil (1995), argues that problems with the APBT had a direct correlation to legislation outlawing  dog fighting and disproportionate or inappropriate media representation. As people began to be prosecuted for illegal dog fighting, the media instead of targeting the dog fighters  who broke the law, aimed their cameras at the dogs. A bloodied, muscular, exhausted dog made for a much better story. It was not long before these stories combined with the 'mystique' of dog fighting  attracted petty criminals, thugs and irresponsibility. The media myth soon became a reality. Poor breeding by people with no understanding of breeding or genetics combined with cross breeding and trained aggression soon made the media monster a reality. The dog still called 'pit bull' by their uninformed owners were unrecognizable in comparison with the real pedigree  APBT that was tainted unfairly in the same way.

 A British study by Podberscek (1994), monitored the instance and manner in which dog attacks in the United Kingdom had been reported in the media from 1988-1992. This study found that there was a disproportionate amount  of media stories relating to the  APBT.  During the study period other breeds of dog attacked, including, Doberman, Jack Russell, Golden Retrievers and Labradors but the frequency of reporting was low. Levene (1991) reported that of 724 of dog attacks that had a record of the breed involved only 1 was identified as an APBT.

1.4 The American Pit Bull Terrier In Australia

Although there is some evidence to suggest that the breed has been here for over a century the American Pit Bull Terrier has now been in Australia officially for approximately 20 years. The bulk of this time has been marred by constant controversy. This controversy has led in most cases to the APBT to being unfairly maligned by the media , so called experts and Governments. Empirical data suggests a completely different perspective than the popular opinion.

 In 1991 the death of an infant in Sydney as the result of an incident by a Bull Terrier resulted in a Federal import ban of  APBT. At that time no incidents involving pure bred APBT had been recorded in Australia.

  Following the United Kingdom's Dangerous Dog Act (1991) the South Australian Government introduced restrictions on the APBT and again this was not as a response to any specific incident involving the breed.

  The 1995 death of an elderly woman in Towoomba was widely reported throughout Australia as an attack by an APBT and much of the press that this incident received was highly sensationalized. The result was that several Queensland  Municipalities introduced restrictions or total bans on APBT. The dog involved in this incident was a cross breed of unknown origins of Labrador type and was in no way an APBT.

2 Dangerous Dogs And Victoria

The Victorian Domestic (Feral & Nuisance) Animals Act (1994) defines 'dangerous dog' as a dog that rushes, worries, attacks.  The register of dogs that have been declared dangerous (Victorian Bureau of Animal Welfare) shows that dogs of many different breeds and hybrids have been declared dangerous.

 There is an estimated  920,000 dogs in Victoria (Bis-Shrapnel, 1999) and most of these dogs live and are owned responsibly, however , there are a high number of people presenting to hospital emergency rooms each year with dog bite related problems. For example Ashby (1996) reports that children aged 1-4 were almost twice as likely to receive hospital treatment for dog bite injuries than they were for car accident injuries (42 per 100,00 : 25 per 100,000). The Victorian Injury Surveillance System Research Center has an unconfirmed estimate of around 1400 people each  year attending hospitals as the result of dog bite with around 250 of these requiring admission.

2.1 Breed specific Legislation

Legislation in NSW and South Australia as well as local by-laws in many Queensland municipalities contain breed specific elements In relation to the American Pit Bull Terrier and the Federal Government introduced an import ban on the APBT and 3 other breeds  through customs regulation in 1992.

 The Regulatory Impact Statement, Domestic (Feral Nuisance) Animals Act 1996 (p.p.5-6) discussed the question of breed specific elements, and  recognized that dog attacks had more to do with socialization, training, care and supervision than any genetic predisposition to be aggressive. The cost of breed specific law was also discussed in reference to the UK Dangerous Dog Act and estimated the cost of administering this element in legislation was US $14 million.  

Breed Specific legislation by its nature is unjust. Good dogs and good owners are punished equally as bad dogs and bad owners, while  bad dogs and bad owners of other breeds are ignored.

 Breed specific laws have been aimed both in Australia and off shore, typically at the American Pit Bull Terrier. Empirical research would suggest that  if  a breed specific approach was utilized, breeds other than the APBT would be implicated to a far greater extent. Studies both in Australia and overseas place APBT far below most breeds in dog bite statistics. (Poderscek, et al ,1994 : Klaassen, et al, 1996 : Thomson, 1997 : Ashby, 1996 : Ashby, et al, 1998.) One of the most problematic aspects of a breed specific approach is that the most implicated breeds are also the most widely owned, which in turns makes any legislation aimed at them publicly unacceptable.

 Another much discussed problem with breed specific laws aimed at the APBT is the much debated topic of identification. It is very common for the general public ( and may 'experts') to incorrectly identify a Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Miniature Bull Terrier, and all their crosses as an APBT. This is further confounded by the addition of the American Staffordshire Terrier that can still have a dual pedigree issued as both an American Staffordshire Terrier or an American Pit Bull Terrier.

Breed specific laws have been used as an expedient method of  appeasing public concern while not having any real effect on the problem of dog attacks. Klaassen et al (1996) found that in two years of operation the UK Dangerous Dog Act (aimed predominantly at the APBT) had no effect on hospital admission rates. 

' ' the Dangerous Dog Act 1991 does little to protect the public from mammalian bites as it fails to address the most commonly implicated breeds and, ' and has failed to show any reduction is injuries caused by so called 'dangerous' breeds. The Act has singled out certain 'dangerous' breeds without, it would seem' any substantive data to support it  ' If legislation is to reduce and prevent injury from dog bites, there should be a much wider control of the dog population in general  and not one that simply address the 'dangerous' breeds referred to in the Dangerous Dog Act 1991'. (p 91) 

3.     The Alternatives

It is clear that a breed specific approach does not address what is an obvious social problem; that of inadequate control of domestic animals. The American Pit Bull Terrier Club Of Australia recognizes the Domestic (feral & Nuisance) Animals Act (1994) as some of the best domestic animal legislation in the world. This organization suggests that any future amendments to domestic animal legislation should;

*         maintain a 'deed not breed' approach. 

*         introduce prescriptive control measures for dogs in public places

*         introduce defined duties for Local Councils

*         provide for an independent state inspectorate with duties of maintaining centralized data, powers of investigation and enforcement

*         introduce regulatory control over breeders not defined as a 'domestic animal business'.

3.1 Effective Control Of Dogs In Public

Ashby (1996) reports that in Victoria 19% of bites to children and 41% of bites to adults occur in public places.

The Domestic (feral & Nuisance) Animals Act (1994) s 27 refers to the control of dogs and cats however is prescriptive in relation only to Greyhounds. This section could be amended to require all dogs to be under the same control as Greyhounds, i.e. S. 27 (1) (b) under the effective control of some person by means of a chain, cord or leash.

 Local councils could be required in legislation to provide properly sign posted 'off lead areas' to allow for off lead exercise in a restricted, clearly defined area.

3.2 Defined duties for Local Government

The Domestic (feral & Nuisance) Animals Act (1994) places the powers of enforcement on Local Government. There is a large degree of variation between municipalities in the way that they administer their enforcement powers some do this quite well, while others are quite poor. The Act does not define particular duties for local councils. Defined duties could include;

*         defined information and reporting requirements for dogs declared dangerous or menacing dogs.

*         a requirement  for local council to provide 'off lead' areas.

*         a requirement for council to provide registered owners with local law information

*         a requirement that sufficient resources are maintained to allow council to adequately administer their duties.

3.3 Independent State Inspectorate

The Bureau of Animal Welfare was established in 1982 and has its major function is liaison/co-ordination between the States, Commonwealth, Local Government, and  Animal Welfare Agencies.  The Bureau has a function of providing information and facilitation of the Domestic (feral & Nuisance) Animals Act (1994) but has no powers in administration conferred by the Act.

There could be considerable benefits in expanding the role of this or another Government Department into an inspectorate with defined powers and duties in areas of information, investigation of serious attacks, and enforcement, without limiting the role of Local Government.

 3.4 Regulatory control over breeders not defined as a 'domestic animal business'.

While it almost impossible to cover all owners and all situations with prescriptive legislation, by identifying that breeders are the source of animals, they are also the source of potential problems as well as having the potential to reduce problems. It is much easier and far more appropriate to develop controls on those who breed and sell by ensuring that proper thought and care is given in both producing the litter and ensuring that prospective purchasers are given correct information about the dog they are buying.

 Breeding of dogs and cats in controlled in some way in Part 4 of the Domestic (feral & Nuisance) Animals Act (1994) that relates to 'domestic animal business'.

 The definition of  'domestic animal business' includes;

(b) an enterprise that is run for profit'

(I)     the breeding of dogs and cats where;

(A) the enterprise has more that 10 fertile female animals

(B) the enterprise has less than 10 fertile female animals but the owner is not a member of an applicable organization.

The Victorian Canine Association as the major (or only) 'applicable organization' dealing with dogs does not recognize some pure breed dogs (such as the American Pit Bull Terrier) or cross breeding of dogs.

While the cross breeding of dogs can be a complex issue in itself it must be said that there are many cross bred dogs that are fine family pets and there is always a market for these. The 'domestic animal business' definition fails to take this into account adequately and fails to address any issues with members of  an 'applicable organization' that have less than 10 fertile females but breed on an occasional basis. It is this area of breeding that produces the most dogs, and probably the area of breeding that produces the best and the worst of them.

 This then leaves two areas of uncontrolled breeding of dogs, i.e. those members of the VCA that have less than 10 entire females and breeders that do not come under the auspices of the VCA.  There is a high degree of scope to develop control (particularly of an educational basis) in this area through the formation of a licensing system for those who do not operate as a 'business' yet breed for other reasons on a casual basis.

The formation of a licensing system could be developed with changes to several pieces of legislation; 

* by a introducing a modestly priced license being purchased for each breeding

*The most practical method of control of breeding is prevention of sale prohibiting the advertisement of puppies unless there is a current license number as part of the advertisement.

* regulations and a code of practice should be developed to;

* provide for a proper description of the breed or type of dog in any advertisement

* information to be provided by the breeder to the purchaser relating to proper keeping, housing, feeding, responsibilities.

*Requirement for proper vaccinations of puppies prior to sale

* compulsory microchiping of dogs at point of sale.

Conclusion

The American Pit Bull Terrier Club of  Australia maintains opposition to breed specific laws due to their inability to produce results and the inequality of any such proposal. Laws aimed specifically at the American Pit Bull Terrier are not supported by available data and are further confounded by identification issues. Information relating to dog attacks is often unreliable. Victorian Legislation operates on a deed not breed basis and should remain so.

 Alternatives to breed specific are available and should be investigated. Any alternatives should take into account control of dogs in public places; effective methods of investigation; effective compilation and accuracy of data; performance indicators for local council enforcement; and education at the source i.e. breeders. 

PUNISH THE DEED NOT THE BREED

REFERENCES

 

Ashby, K , 1996.           Dog Bites, Hazard Ed. 26, Victorian Injury Surveillance system.

Ashby, K. Routly V. Stakakis, V, 1998.           Enforcing legislative & regulatory injury prevention strategies. Hazard Ed.34, Victorian Injury Surveillance system.  

BIS.,      1999           Contribution of  the Australian Pet Care Industry to the Australian Economy.3rd ED. BIS-Shrapnel, Global Marketing & Intelligence Forecasting.

 Colby, L . 1997  Colby's Book of the American Pit Bill Terrier,           TFH Publications, Inc. U.S.A. 

Clifford, D, Green K.A., The Pit Bull Dilemma, The Charles Press, Philadelphia

Watterson, R , 1990,  Levene, S.  1991, Dog Bites to Children, British Medical Journal, 303: 466 

Klaassen, B. Buckley, J. R. Esmail, A. , 1996 Does the Dangerous Dog Act Protect Against animal attacks: a prospective study of mammalian bites in the accident and emergency department.  Injury 77:2 

O'Neil J, 1995, The American Pit Bull Terrier, Howell Book House, New York 

Poderscek, Anthony L. 1994,   Dogs On A Tight Rope: The Position of Dogs In Society As Influenced By Press Reports on Dog Attacks. Anthrozoos, VII (4)

  The Regulatory Impact Statement, Domestic (Feral & Nuisance) Animals Act 1996 Victoria 

Stratton R. 1983, The world of the American Pit Bull Terrier, TFH Publications, Inc. U.S.A. 

Stratton R.  1991, The Truth About The American Pit Bull Terrier, TFH Publications, Inc. U.S.A. 

Thomson, P. 1997  The public impact of dog attacks in a major Australian city, Medical Journal Of Australia Vol. 167

 Domestic (Feral & Nuisance) Animals Act (1994) (Victoria)