• Roll-up! Roll-up! Come one and all the fantastic Turning the World to Darkness painting competition. Welcome to any skill level, you can find out more here.
  • It's time once again to ferret out those murderous vampires in a new VAU - Vampires Amongst Us. A cross between Cluedo and a roleplay, sometimes gory and often hilarious! Find out more here.

Stupid Dog Laws in Western Australia, also, logic fail.

Sanai

Stylish Deviant
True Blood
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
5,229
#1
So, I noticed something while doing an assignment for my studies.
In western australia, where I live, there are 2 categories of sorts for risky dogs.
One is restricted Breeds. A restricted breed is a breed of dog considered a risk to the public, i.e. a pit bull. Alot of restrictions apply to these dogs, such as muzzles (at all times except in "prescribed enclosures", handler age limits, banning from certain areas, etc.

The other is dangerous dogs. A dangerous dog is an individual dog that has been agressive, attacked people/animals, etc, and has as a result been declared a dangerous dog. A dangerous dog only has to be muzzled.

So, my question is, using an example.

Say there is in a room, a restricted dog (a normal, calm pit bull for arguments sake) and a dangerous dog (a kelpie which bit 3 people and killed 2 beloved pets, and growls and snaps at anyone who comes near,also for arguments sake). Which dog should just be muzzled, and which should have a muzzle, special collar, approved handler and be confined to certain areas? The one who has alot of cousins that are aggressive, and could possibly be aggressive? Or the dog that has been, and is right now, absolutely, certainly aggressive? Which dog should I be more worried about?

I tried to explain this to my parents. They kept going on about the restricted dogs being a group and how they are statistically more dangerous, and kept saying that they understood my point but disagreed, and then my dad called me a f***wit. I dont see how those responses even have anything to do with this.

Well, just venting.
 

Onikaigo

Vampire Lord
True Blood
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
3,607
#2
I see your point, Sanai. And, scary enough as it is, I'm going to have to agree with you.

If a creature, man or beast proves itself to be a hazard to living things around it and must still be kept alive due to sentimental reasons, then it should have more protective measures. Just because I want to have a 'Statistically Aggressive' dog (Rottweiler, doberman, Pit Bull) doesn't mean that that dog in particular is as bad as the dog that is comparable to the fifth (de)generation of prison bait Rap Artists.

'Dawg, walkin' the streets...'

I'm cutting off bad Rap jokes there. But I see your point, and agree with you.
 

Disciple of Nagash

The Perverted One
Staff member
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
27,917
#3
I can see your logic yes. Indeed the animal which has proved to be more aggressive should be more carefully handled, have more restrictions, that the ones that may be dangerous.
 

Burnanation

Crypt Horror
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
573
#4
Totally agree with you. I lived in Indianapolis Indiana. While I was living there there were some huge problems with dog fighting, the illegal kind of fighting. My then current girlfriend, we'll call her... well I'll be nice and not call her what I want to call her, anyways, she owned a King Doberman. Pretty big dog about 110 lbs. or 50 kg, big freak'n teeth, and for all that the dog was a big baby, he was even afraid of the Christmas tree. Only time he was the slightest big aggressive towards me was when he stole a bagel from me, I held him down on his back and that's was the last of that :-O He was always labeled as one of those "aggressive dogs."

One day as I was going off to work a huge pit came around the back side of my car as I was reaching for the car door handle. Mind you 2 days ago a girl about 5 blocks from where I lived a girl had just been mauled by a pit, so my heart sped up just a bit. The dog saw me and started to lunge. It's face was full of scars, he had been, without a doubt used for fighting at some point. I had some training for what to do if an attack dog were to attack you, so I turned on my heels to present my left forearm. I'm right handed so I'd be better off having that limb free to rip open the dog's neck with keys. Yes all this flashed through my head in one very brutal and scary second. The dog went for my left arm bumped it with his nose then got down and all fours butt raised up in the air and tail waging like crazy. Poor guy just wanted to play. He rolled over and showed me his belly. I felt horrid for the dog, he had been seriously mistreated and abused for a long time. His scars had all been healed over, and looked pretty old so it must have been a long time since he had seen any mistreatment.

Long story short, those lists are rubbish. It's all about how you treat your dog. Give your dog a good, loving home, you'll get a good and loving dog... for the most part. I'm sure just like we have crazy people there are crazy dogs...
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
106
#5
Just for the sake of argument:

It is simple for the government to say 'muzzle breed X' whereas on the other hand looking at dogs individually takes up a lot of manpower, time and money: 'Dog Z has killed several birds and rabbits in the wild and has also killed a rabbit that is a pet, do we class this as dangerous?' or even, 'Dog Y has bitten a child that was pulling its fur and tail, is it dangerous?'

I dont disagree with your point in the example you gave, but if you walked into the same room with the dogs sitting there, and you didn't have any knowledge of thier character or background, which one would you be more nervous of?
 

Sanai

Stylish Deviant
True Blood
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
5,229
#6
Actually they have stuff in place for that. A dog will not be declared dangerous/ its owner if it was provoked.
 

ironlord

Black Knight
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
397
#7
I think its easier for them to just say "This breed is dangerous, muzzle all dogs of this breed." rather than repeatedly review each individual case. Because you would need to review individual dogs every few years to ensure their mental stability.
Although you may love YOUR dog, you can't ensure the behavioral stability of the entire breed because of all the individuals being exposed to almost infinate types of stimulus. So maybe it is safer too tar them all with the same brush than try too do individual cases for each dog.
Would you rather hear a story of some one's child being mauled to death (we had ALOT of those over here in the UK because of fighting pit bull breeds) or a story about people complaining about the rights of their dogs?
It may seem horrible that you can't have the dog you want because it's breed has a bad track record but surely you would rather be safe than risk having a potential ticking time bomb in your house?
You're looking at this from the perspective of someone who likes dogs, rather than someone who has to ensure the safety of a group of people. Try thinking about it from their perspective and you will see that it's better to just brand them all and be safe than play it case by case where, innevitably, something or someone will fall through the cracks of beaurocracy and someone will get hurt. And when you are dealing with a potentially lethal dog, that can become a major problem.
 
Top