the opinionation

…all creatures great and small (almost)

When thinking about animal welfare I am reminded of a Jane's Addiction lyric which, in this case, is taken out of context.

"How you treat the weak is your true nature calling"

I am a proud pit-bull/Staffy mix owner. Her name is Safron or Saffy for short.

I have owned and spent time with countless dogs over my nigh on 24 years on this planet and I don't stutter when I say that out of ALL the dogs I have known and know I would trust Saffy alone with my, and others, children alone without hesitation.

Please don't mistake my love for Saffy as ignorance. I am aware she is a powerful breed, and to generalize has two "dangerous" breeds in her. My fiancee is an animal lover that works in the animal industry, dealing with dangerous to benign dogs/cats/sheep/whatever day in and say out.

Even without having Saffy in my life, I am a strong - militant even- believer that when it comes to animals nurture would often override nature.

For example, my sister owns a cocker spaniel dog - a breed notorious for being loving, loyal and great with kids.

If I had a dollar for every time her dogs went to, or verbally threatened to kill me - I would be a millionaire.  I wouldn't leave her alone with her own shadow - frankly put I think she is a very dangerous dog - beautiful - but dangerous.

I also think the way my sister and parents coddle that dog even when it's behaving badly is the number one reason she is, for all intents and purposes, a bad dog.

If they treated her like we would treat our dogs, if they showed unreasonable aggression towards another person, I honestly believe there would be no issue.

We also have a little toy fox terrier named Cherry-Bomb. When we rescued her from a shelter she was dog aggressive to say the least. A day or two after seeing her "interact" with our existing pets, we second guessed ourselves - what if we had made a mistake? She is too dangerous.

Through training and a bastardized version of dog behavior therapy I am happy to report that Cherry-Bomb presents absolutely no aggression towards dogs, in fact if anything, she is almost too submissive now and is prone to being bullied by other dogs.

I know what you are thinking: Sure, you got one good pit-bull mix - but what about all the other truly dangerous ones?

And that is my point exactly.

The fact that I have a "good one" shows that not all pit-bulls are bad. I will make the assumption that anyone reading this is also a rational person. You are already aware of that fact and can probably point out hundred if not thousands of pit-bull and pit-bull mixes that don't pose a threat or in their life never posed a threat to anyone.

To do a blanket ban on this or any other breed is not only morally wrong but also a disgusting use of the power we wield being the top parasite on this planet.

Do not get me wrong, in the wrong hands "powerful breed" like pit-bulls, rottweilers, shar peis and even german shepards can be very dangerous.

Make no mistake, banning any or all of these breeds will not fix the issue. For example, in Victoria a pure bred pit-bull is already a restricted breed - a normal person shouldn't be able to get their hands on a pure pit-bull (mixes are exempt, for now). Knowing someone in the industry, after this "restriction" was put in place, what do you think happened?

"Reported" attacks went down

and

Registration of such dogs went down

Success yes? Hardly. Reported attacks went down due to either threats/bribes from the dogs owner or compassion on the part of the victim.

Registrations went down and the black market/illegal breeding and sales went up.

Shelters still get as many pit-bulls than they did before, they now just have to destroy them all - even if they are sweet and harmless.

This would be a great example of Government not thinking ahead, but it wasn't only the figureheads that pushed that and any any future legislation through.

It has been driven by the victims and, puzzlingly the RSPCA.

To the victims of pit-bull attacks, I offer my sympathy. The individual dog that attacked you, your child or your animal should be dealt with. The circumstances of the attack should be scrutinised and if the dog behaved in an unreasonable way, then the appropriate action should be taken - but, and I hate to use over emotional arguments, what does that have to do with my Saffy? Other than the fact you deny her right to existance because another dog hurt you?

I don't want to sound like PETA here, but doesn't this sound/look like genocide based on prejudice? Does no one else have a problem with this?

Which brings me to the most hypocritical, media loving organization I know of - the RSPCA. the following is an excerpt form The Age article today:

The Victorian RSPCA’s president, Dr Hugh Wirth, says the dogs are a menace and are not suitable as pets for anyone.

"They are time bombs waiting for the right circumstances,’’ Dr Wirth said.

"All creatures great and small" indeed! Not only is Dr Wirth(less) ignorant but he is also utterly wrong and he more than anyone should know not to generalize about dogs - or any other species.

Before I conlude I touched on the idea of "unreasonable" behavior, and I'd like to explain what I mean.

• If a dog is in his own yard, and someone enters uninvited and gets attacked - that is a reasonable response, and the dog should not be destroyed for this.
• If a dog is with their owner and someone acts in a threatening way towards the owner and the dog attacks the dog should not be destroyed for this.
• If a dog has attacked someone or something and there is no logical reason for the attack to occur, like the dog escaping it's yard, running to the nearest park and jumping the nearest child then it would be ruled that in this instance the dog acted in an unreasonable fashion and the appropriate measures should take place.

Another point I haven't touched on is the "function" of a breed. Most breeds we know today has happened due to artificial selection made by humans.

An argument made against pit-bulls is that they were bred to fight and have no other function - therefore they must be destroyed.

This argument simply doesn't work, as the function of a Beagle is to hunt foxes and the function of a Jack Russell is to hunt rabbits in their burrows - but nobody calls for their destruction and their "function" is just as violent as the "function" of the pit-bull.

The Pit-bull lovers website sums it all up better than I could with their Ten Facts About Pit Bulls Every One Should Know

1. Pit Bulls are commonly used as therapy dogs. Whether they are visiting a senior care facility or helping someone recover from an emotional accident, Pit Bulls are making a mark as outstanding therapy dogs.

2. Pit Bulls are used in Search and Rescue work. One example of well known SAR Pit Bulls is Kris Crawford and her dogs. Kris and her dogs have helped save the lives of many people during their efforts. http://www.ForPitsSake.org

3. Pit Bulls serve as narcotic and bomb sniffing dogs. One Pit Bull, Popsicle (named that because he was found in an old freezer) has the largest recorded single drug find in Texas history. Read more about Popsicle here. Including how he found over 3,000 lbs of cocaine in Hildago, Texas.

4. Pit Bulls are great with kids. They weren't referred to as the "nanny's dog" for nothing that's for sure.

5. Pit Bulls are not human aggressive. The American Pit Bull Terrier as a breed is not human aggressive. In fact, quite the opposite is true of the breed. They are gentle and loving dogs. Like any dog individuals can be unsound and have behavior problems.

6. The Pit Bull was so popular in the early 1900's they were our mascot not only in World War One, but World War Two as well. They were featured on recruiting and propoganda posters during this time period.

7. Sgt. Stubby. A Pit Bull war hero. Stubby was wounded in action twice, he saved his entire platoon by warning them of a poison gas attack and he single handedly captured a German spy.

8. Pete the Pup on the orginal Little Rascals was a Pit Bull.

9. Pit Bulls score an 83.4% passing rate with the American Temperament Test Society. That's better than the popular Border Collie (a breed who scores 79.6%). View the ATTS stats here.

10. They are dogs not killing machines.

In conclusion,  this issue is a fear driven campaign perpetrated by the media. Fear sells product and keeps us distracted from real issues - like Police corruption, a failing health system and the mispending of 44 million dollars of taxpayers wages on a stupid race that costs more money than it makes.

Anyone who has ever owned animals knows that each animal has it's own personality. We can not and should not treat an entire breed as if it works as one.

So, what is the solution?

It's quite simple. In order to adopt a powerful breed, potential owners must sit through and complete a short course (two evenings) on owning and training a dog. By adopting one of these breeds, they agree to and are subject to heavy fines if the dog is ever found outside their property without a lead and or supervision. They are also subject to heavy fines and possible criminal charges if their dog attacks  anyone - human or not - in an unreasonable fashion.

By placing rules like the ones I stated it should ensure that the people owning these dogs think about it carefully before proceeding.

It wouldn't stop me, but as I hopefully have made clear - I am a responsible pet owner.

In any case, a blanket ban of any breed is not the answer to a problem, when the problem lies in the owners, not the animal.

Anyone want to argue?

- db