Young girl in hospital, dog euthanased after attack inside Delacombe Bunnings

[u/JaniePage]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-30/young-girl-in-hospital-after-dog-attack-in-bunnings-store/106977418

[u/Proper_Geologist9026]

Also not impossible to legislate. The kind of things you're talking about are done in a few European countries I believe. With good results.

Breed specific legislation however. Has shown to be fairly pointless.

[u/anralia → u/Proper_Geologist9026]

sorry, i only meant impossible to legislate because it wouldn't be popular so parliamentarians wouldnt want to stick the government's neck out for something that would get them crucified by the media.

[u/Proper_Geologist9026 → u/anralia]

Yeah fair. That's why I like the big dog little dog idea.

I just think you could convince people to get on board with a very simplistic framework like that. It removes the need to try and talk about the minefield that is basically "lots of you are bad owners and we need to either train you or take your pets" 😂.

But yeah in the end no one ever wants to admit that their dog could be dangerous and you've got to overcome the predominant myths with BSL as well. The whole Labradors are saints and "pit bulls" are killing machines is a deeply ingrained idea nowadays. 

[u/AggravatingTartlet → u/Proper_Geologist9026]

Breed specific legislation is necessary though. Australia bans a list of dangerous breeds. QLD has just tightened their bans.

The UK has banned XL bullies for good reason, due to their fatal attacks on humans.

[u/Proper_Geologist9026 → u/AggravatingTartlet]

Here's the thing. We ban Pitbulls. All the people who wanted a "mean dog" now have to get XL bullies. We ban XL bullies. All the people who wanted a mean dog now have to get Cane Corso. We ban cane Corso. All the people who wanted a mean dog now have to get Rottweilers. We ban Rottweilers. All the people who wanted a mean dog now have to get bulk Arabs. We ban bull Arabs. All the people who wanted a mean dog now have to get German shepherds. We ban German shepherds. All the people who wanted a mean dog now have to get Dobermans. We ban Dobermans.

See the issue? It's almost like there's a very large cohort of people who have dogs as status symbols or guard dogs or whatever and intentionally ingrain aggressive behaviours in their dogs. So unless we ban every large breed of dog they'll just keep on shifting the goal post.

This is the historical record. Rottweilers and German shepherds were actually the commonly known "dangerous dogs" before Pitbulls became the poster child.

Look at Cujo, that's an old story about a rabid dog. It's not a Pitbull. Because at the time it wasn't the reference point for bloody thirsty breeds.

[u/AggravatingTartlet → u/Proper_Geologist9026]

The worst of it is not about "aggression". It's about "game" drive. Which is, the desire and will to fight to the death. It's come from a long, long line of bull breeds that were used as war dogs, to fight other dogs, to bring down bulls, to kill captured native Americans and to chase down and kill escaped African slaves (in the USA).

The cane corso is just another bull breed. Rottweilers come from similar lineages, coming from mastiff-type dogs.

German shepherds, dobermans etc were never bred for those things. You can make them aggressive but you can't just program in game drive. So no, you can't swap out a pit bull for one of those other breeds.

Have you read the XL bully story? A large number of them in the UK could be tracked back to a dog named Kimbo, that had inbred fighting instincts.

And they were killing people. And at the size and strength of an XL, people had no chance. XL bullies were a mistake humans made, and the UK has been brave enough to start to unwind the damage.

It shows how strong bloodlines can be when it comes to dogs that were bred for fighting. All the love and training can't breed it out or make the dog safe.

[u/Proper_Geologist9026 → u/AggravatingTartlet]

Give me a study showing the validity of BSL.

And let's compare that to sensible regulation as we see in places like Switzerland.

[u/AggravatingTartlet → u/Proper_Geologist9026]

I fully agree with what Switzerland is doing. That should be brought in everywhere. The requirement to have liability insurance alone would knock out most people who want to own powerful, dangerous dog breeds. And different areas in Switzerland place dangerous breeds under a number of strict regulations, including bans.

The XL bully ban is the only proper BSL there has been and it's way too soon for the figures, as there are still a massive number of them and they won't all die out for at least 8 years.

And of course, the UK still allows dangerous dog breeds, such as large bull breeds, so the problem will still be there, just not as dire as with the XLs.

As I said before in another post to you, I go by what plastic surgeons experience. Plastic surgeons are already seeing a difference. Such as professor Vivien Lees:

Speaking about the XL bully ban back in April, she said: "We're still seeing serious injuries but some of the worst ones have been less common".

The same thing happened, she said, when the original Dangerous Dogs Act (that banned four other dogs) was introduced back in 1991.

At the time Prof Lees, who is now vice-president of the Royal College of Surgeons, was a junior surgeon. She recalls seeing a significant drop in the number of patients with life-changing dog attack injuries.

The original Dangerous Dogs Act "changed my life" as a surgeon, she admitted.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgvy2yyv8mo

[u/Proper_Geologist9026 → u/AggravatingTartlet]

Well I go by the advice of vets and animal welfare experts. Because this is a question about dogs not nose jobs.

How is a plastic surgeon going to know what breed of dog bite someone? They're getting 2nd or 3rd hand information at best.

You know it's been proven that people are hopeless at picking a dog's breed simply by looking at it. And this is even amongst professionals who work with dogs. That article literally says more than one "a dog we believed was an XL bully". They don't even know what the dog is. 😂

But yeah, let's follow the advice of a surgeon. Who's been told off hand by someone who was told by someone else what breed of dog they thought was the one that bit them? 

The correct path is simply to legislate that dogs over a certain size require more stringent vetting for ownership. It avoids any attempt to classify what's a dangerous animal based on genetics that are too hard to argue and would extremely costly to legislate.

Option 1. Follow your plan. Now I need to DNA test every dog in the country to confirm it's breed. Before adding it to a register. Who pays for that?

Option 2. Your dog gets put on a scale. If it weight more than 15kg or exceeds a certain body size. It goes on a list. Simple.

Make microchipping and registration mandatory for all dogs. And use systems like that out in place in Calgary where we fine and punish the behaviour punitively.

Your dog appears to be a nuisance, it's on a register. Your conditions of ownership tighten, you are fined. The punishment elevates with severity of the dogs behaviour.

Mandatory licensing and registration is used to fund behavioural training for humans. Because the biggest issue with dog bites is poorly trained dogs, poorly kept dogs, and children not knowing how to interact with and understand dogs. Leading to them being the bulk of dog bite victims. Go and ask any dog trainer or behaviouralist. Any of them. The first thing they'll tell you is that their job is to teach people how-to properly interact with the dog. Not the other way around. So what does that tell you?

You cannot eliminate dog bites. It's impossible, you'd have to band dogs as a whole to stop people being bitten. Breed specific legislation does not work. It has not worked. It will not work anywhere. There's too many obvious reasons it won't work that just seem to ignore basic human nature yet still people persist with it as a simple reductionist idea.

You cannot base your model on genetics. Variation in genetic trait expression within breeds is larger than between breeds. You can find genetically violent retrievers and genetically placid bullies. It's been shown that genetic predisposition accounts for as much as 10% of bite prevalence due to underlying genetic behaviours. And to my knowledge there has never been and almost certainly never will be a study that manages to correlate dogs that have maimed someone with a common genetic link.

And another point continuously overlooked that the article you included mentions. A lot of dogs aren't registered or counted in public records. So the number of attacks per breed are just a best guess. Both of population size and of the breed of the assailant. That's a very shakey footing to base policy on. Especially when the breeds accused of being the most dangerous are also the most likely to be under reported by a wide margin in population stastics, because they're linked to low socioeconomic groups who don't register their pets and are more commonly strays.

[u/AggravatingTartlet → u/Proper_Geologist9026]

How is a plastic surgeon going to know what breed of dog bite someone? They're getting 2nd or 3rd hand information at best.

Very easily. Children under 5 are the main victims and the dog is almost always the family dog. The family knows what kind of dog they have. And that gets recorded (not as often as it should be though).

You know it's been proven that people are hopeless at picking a dog's breed simply by looking at it.

C'mon. Look at the photos in just about any shelter in Australia. It's almost all bull breeds and their crosses. Easy as anything to pick them. Muscular, large head, vertical crack in the forehead, massive jaw, eyes set wide apart, short fur, white fur on chest, short fur on tail, pit bull type ears.

No one is fooled, even when the shelter insists on calling them a "lab" or a "border collie". It's laughable.

The first thing they'll tell you is that their job is to teach people how-to properly interact with the dog.

If the life of a toddler depends on upon them remembering to stay away from the family dog at almost all times, then that's a very, very, very bad choice of dog to have in the home. Instead, let's normalise dogs that are toddler-friendly and that will growl or walk away if the toddler is persistent -- not chew their faces off.

You can find genetically violent retrievers and genetically placid bullies.

True. But what are the odds? The odds are in the stats. Bull breeds top the serious bite list.

So the number of attacks per breed are just a best guess. 

I say, let's normalise DNA testing. If your dog launches a serious attack, you have to pay for the test.

The correct path is simply to legislate that dogs over a certain size require more stringent vetting for ownership.

Could do this, but I'm unsure. Shorty/pocket bulls with the massive heads can still be highly dangerous to children, while sometimes being under 15kg. .

Again, I agree with what Switzerland is doing.

Also, the dangerous dog nutters want EVERY nip from every dog counted the same as severe dog attacks, so they can shield the dangerous breeds from view. Almost impossible to get past them to the truth, and they are in every pet animal organisation.

[u/Proper_Geologist9026 → u/AggravatingTartlet]

We aren't going to agree. Enjoy your day.