Queenslanders asked to weigh in on tough new laws for dangerous dog owners (www.abc.net.au)

submitted 1 year ago by Tau@aussie.zone to c/australia@aussie.zone

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] TiredSpider@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 year ago

The breed bans are so misguided and wont fix anything. We know now, with scientific evidence, that breed is NOT the cause of aggression. Also while some dogs like pitbulls have stronger bite forces that may contribute to worse injuries, that bite force is roughly matched by german shepherds (which are suspiciously absent from the proposed banned breed list despite this, I'm sure it has nothing to do with their use by the police surely). In fact there are dogs with higher bite forces than both these breeds that don't even make the list.

Also without DNA testing you cannot know what is an isn't a pitbull. You may think you know a pit when you see one but this just isn't the case. If you have ANY rescue mutt regardless of appearance it may have a higher content than many dogs that are labelled pits on sight alone.

The issue of breeds being over-represented in attacks is not one of biology, it's one of culture. The more fear mongering about these animals there is the more attractive they are to dipshits who want a dangerous dog, the same dipshits that generally know nothing about canine behaviour or training and think beating an animal will make it behave. Laws like this may actually make the issue WORSE by making the breed more tantalizing to edge-lords.

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7F4OfDSvPU

I was going to just link the articles and studies individually but I think this video is more accessible. If anyone wants to do a deep dive you can check out the literature mentioned in your own time.

Do not get me wrong, the dog attacks are a serious issue and owners need to be better held to accountable. However banning breeds is a distraction and makes the issue needlessly divisive. They risk losing support from owners of banned breeds for the actually good legislation proposed.

INB4 someone doesn't read any of this unhinged screed I've written and calls me a salty pit owner, I have never owned a pit I'm just passionate about animals and the associated science.

[-] No1@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Bruh, that 'scientific evidence' is based on owners self reporting about their own dogs behaviour.

It's weak af

[-] TiredSpider@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago

admittedly that's an issue with the study and I'm glad you brought it up. This runs into the issue of how else could you collect the data? If you just go off reports or surrendered dogs you will miss out on smaller breeds like chihuahuas whose aggressive behaviour isn't seen as serious enough to do anything about, as well as bias in the form of being more likely to label an aggressive dog a pit.

I think the more important thing to put forward here is that many of the participants didn't actually know their dogs genetics. Like pointed out in the video if you have a mutt you really have no idea of it's dna without testing. If aggression was a genetic issue you might expect the owners of smaller dogs like chihuahuas to admit to aggression, since doing so would not put their pet at risk, then the dna testing could show a commonality between their genes and the genes of more maligned breeds. Unless aggression if specifically linked to traits like a big muscular head, this seems like the smoking gun that this is a cultural issue.

I also haven't seen any studies with different methodology find a link between aggression in certain breeds with genetics in any statistically significant way. This was just the largest study I've seen.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago

If you just go off reports or surrendered dogs you will miss out on smaller breeds like chihuahuas whose aggressive behaviour isn’t seen as serious enough to do anything about

I’m not sure what the best methodology is, but I’m not sure this objection really holds much weight.

Because if a dog is "aggressive" but unable to actually cause any real harm…what does it matter? I’m most interested in taking an approach that actually reduces harm. That’s naturally going to mean that larger dogs are more likely to be affected than smaller ones, and I see no problem with that.

[-] TiredSpider@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

because then if it is genetic and someone's chihuahua or other small dog runs off and sires pups with a larger dog you've got the same issue all over again.

[-] JayPenshar@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago

I agree with you. People don’t know how to raise and train their dogs. You will get some serious damage from small breeds but their size usually limits it from being fatal. Most people only know how to raise a dog from watching parents or others. Their theory on training a dog is usually based on outdated and flawed premises. When we got ours we did a bunch of research on training and behaviour and I had to relearn what I knew about dogs even though I had them growing up.

[-] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago

The laws aren't even about a breed ban. It's about reducing the avenues for appeal that "bully breed" owners have for contesting their dogs being put down following an attack and increasing criminal penalties for owners that can't control their dogs. I think this is the way to go about this. It's not the dogs who are at fault, it's the dumb cunts who get dogs they can't control as a fashion statement.

The next thing authorities need to do is crack down hard on unlicensed backyard breeders.

[-] RandomRotator@lemmy.fmhy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Thanks @TiredSpider, I read all of that and realised how little I know about this issue. My gut reaction didn’t really hold up to scrutiny. I appreciate the perspective.

[-] TheShane@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Politicians said something. Typically doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[-] No1@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Check out the RSPCA adopt a pet

I wonder why the the dogs & puppies given up for adoption are nearly all staffy/mastiff/arab/bully mix?

[-] Ilandar@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Are they? Or are those just the ones that last long enough to be listed online? Smaller dogs are in higher demand and more popular breeds are adopted quicker. Foster owners sometimes pick these dogs up before they even become available to the public. What you see online is not reflective of the total amount of being surrendered to the RSPCA.

And even if we were to make the assumption that these breeds are surrendered in higher numbers, is that an indication of a problem with the animal? Or, rather, the type of person who is predisposed to owning one?

[-] No1@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago

Hmmm. So you're saying that there could be lots of other dogs that get adopted quickly and nobody wants these dogs

and/or

the original owners can't/won't take care of these dogs

[-] Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Possibly. Rightly or wrongly, there's quite obviously a social stigma around these breeds that deters potential owners. And small dogs will always be more popular due to their relative affordability, perceived safety around small children and likelihood of being accepted by a landlord/strata group.

The stigma also plays in the opposite way - people who want a dog for defence are more likely to select one of these breeds. These owners are likely not as concerned with the emotional well being and/or safety of the animal. They're more likely to surrender or abandon them for a replacement if the animal proves too difficult to manage or doesn't live up to expectations.

I don't know if these breeds have the potential to be safer, or if they should be banned (I would like to see detailed and peer reviewed research into these areas) but I do know there a lot of reasons why you see the dogs you do on the RSPCA adoption website.