• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Submission 199 I would like to add my support to the case for rescinding Breed Specific Legislation in the State of Victoria. As well as the usual objections, including that the scientific literature does not support BSL, that it is ineffective as well as inhumane, and that it blames a breed rather than a deed, I would like to draw attention to two perhaps unintended consequences of BSL that have a detrimental effect on society at large. • The requirement for restricted breed dogs to wear muzzles and collars identifying them as ‘dangerous’ whenever outside their property creates unwarranted fear in members of the public When encountering a dog that is muzzled, the natural assumption to make is that the dog is wearing the muzzle for a good reason, and to feel some degree of wariness. This reaction would be reinforced if the dog is also wearing a collar designed to warn people of potential danger. However, if the dog wearing these identifiers of risk has no history of aggression, then the requirement for it to wear these items whenever in public creates anxiety in members of the public who encounter it that serves no valid purpose whatsoever. This requirement to publicly label restricted breed dogs as indiscriminately threatening not only creates unjustified fear for the community, but also psychologically primes people to anticipate acts of aggression, which puts restricted breed dogs and their owners at risk. Say, for example, that a dog (of any breed) out on-leash with its owners is startled by a cyclist passing them at speed from behind without giving a warning of his/her approach, and reacts defensively by barking and/or lunging at the cyclist. It is likely that the same event would be perceived completely differently by the cyclist and any witnesses (particularly any without a sound understanding of canine behaviour) if in one scenario the dog is not muzzled, and in the other is both muzzled and wearing a collar identifying it as ‘dangerous’ or ‘menacing’. The muzzle and the collar in the second scenario pre-empt and validate an interpretation of the dog’s reaction to the cyclist as aggressive and threatening, rather than defensive and/or fearful, because of the ‘where there’s smoke there’s fire’ assumption that the animal would not need to be muzzled and wearing a warning collar unless it presented a proven risk to members of the public. Given the deeply entrenched prejudice in the common consciousness regarding pit bull terriers, which extends to assumptions about ‘the type of person who would own that kind of animal, it seems likely that any such incident would be framed as an ‘attack’, which could lead to the dog in question being undeservedly seized and destroyed. As a responsible owner of a pit bull terrier living under the current legislation, this requirement has made the simple act of exercising my dog an extremely stressful experience. My dog is very elderly (almost 14 years old), very placid and sweet-natured, and in his long life has never shown any aggression towards humans or to other dogs on leash. Despite this, he is required by law to wear a ‘dangerous dog’ collar and to be muzzled outside the boundary of our property. The entire area where we live is designated an on-leash area, but this is rarely observed by dog walkers; consequently, I spend our walks in a state of high alert, constantly on the lookout for dogs not under the control of their owner, and other hazards such as cyclists using the path without due consideration to the comfort and safety of other users (another frequent occurrence in our area), because I am terrified of what could happen if he were to be taken by surprise by the actions of an unthinking human or an uncontrolled dog. Under these circumstances, it is not the community that is at risk. Submission 199 It is unjust and utterly counterproductive to maintain a legislative requirement that places responsible dog owners at an elevated risk of having their dog seized and destroyed due to potential misinterpretation of normal dog behaviour that may arise from other people behaving irresponsibly, and that has been enacted into law based solely on the dog’s breed. The only time an animal should be required by law to be muzzled at all times when outside its property and to be publicly identified as threatening is if that individual animal has been assessed as presenting a quantifiable and serious risk to the community. This requirement in the current legislature needs to be rescinded and replaced with an alternative that targets only those dogs (regardless of breed) and their owners that pose a genuine danger to the public. • The requirement for owners of restricted breed dogs to prominently display information about their ownership around their property makes them easy targets for criminals, including dog thieves and illegal dog fighting rings. This puts owners between a rock and a hard place: if they comply with this legislative requirement, they are identified to people who have a criminal interest in acquiring restricted breed dogs, which places both animals and owners in unacceptable danger; if they do not comply with this legislative requirement, they risk punitive fines, jail sentences, and their dogs being seized and destroyed. This legislation unjustly disadvantages and endangers members of the community on the basis of the breed of their dog. Breed-specific legislation fails every section of the community. It does not address the circumstances that lead to dogs developing aggressive tendencies. It does not address the circumstances under which dog bites are more likely to occur. It does not address responsible dog ownership or promote understanding of fundamental canine behaviour, both of which are key to reducing and preventing dog bites. Instead, it promotes fear and misinformation among the general public that are not only counterproductive in reducing dog bites, but that lead to responsible dog owners and well-behaved and socialised animals being vilified, ostracised, punished, and (in the dogs’ cases) arbitrarily killed. If the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can indeed be judged by the way its animals are treated, then Victoria’s adherence to BSL is a sorry indictment. The people rely on lawmakers to act with integrity in relation to the community’s best interests – expert testimonial and evidence collected from studies around the world over the last two decades overwhelmingly concludes that BSL is ineffective and counterproductive. It is time for the government to reject the wilful ignorance of its predecessors, act on the evidence, and give Victoria just, effective, and evidence-based dangerous dog legislation, such as the Calgary model. Yours sincerely, Saskia Wells .

Load more

  2

Copy Link