An editorial in the Medical Journal of Australia advocates obedience training and education for owners and children, including a primary-school program.
Lead author University of Queensland paediatric surgery professor Roy Kimble said educating children about how to interact with dogs in primary schools had been successful in the US.
The article said banning dangerous dog breeds had been unsuccessful in reducing dog bites overseas.
"Breed-specific legislation fails to take into account that any breed of dog can be dangerous in the hands of an irresponsible owner who fails to provide good and early training," the article said.
Prof Kimble said breed identification might not be accurate because it was rarely documented in the patient's record and it relied on the correct identification by witnesses or family.
It comes just days after the Federal Government asked attorneys-general to consider adopting new dog laws in a push for a nationally consistent approach.
Victoria introduced tough new dangerous-dog laws after the death of Ayen Chol, 4, in August. Restricted breeds have to be registered or face seizure and destruction and owners can face up to 10 years in jail.
State Agriculture Minister Peter Walsh said he strongly disagreed that dangerous-dog breed laws would not lead to a reduction in attacks. He also said the Government already ran pet-safety education programs.
Kidsafe Victoria president Robert Caulfield said children were not mature enough, and lacked the awareness and reflexes to respond in a split-second situation.
"I don't think it would work. It almost suggests that the owners of the dogs are let off the hook," Mr Caulfield said.
Three decades after officials in more than 700 cities throughout the country began passing bans and other restrictions to keep pit bulls out of their communities, state and local governments are increasingly reconsidering their approach to what not so long ago was America's most vilified pet.
Since June, at least nine communities in the Midwest have overturned pit bull bans that were on the books. Last week, Hallsville, Mo., became the latest to lift its ban after a family successfully appealed to the City Council for a change in law when it learned the family dog was a pit bull mix.
Over the past two years, more than 100 municipalities across the USA have overturned bans and other restrictions that target dogs in the pit bull family, the generic term commonly used to describe the American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier and many mixed-breed dogs with square-shaped heads and bulky builds.
More communities could soon follow suit.
The unified government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kan., is considering lifting a pit bull ban that has been on the books for nearly a quarter-century, as part of a comprehensive overhaul of its animal control policies.
The push in Kansas City (pop. 148,000) comes as Roeland Park, Kan. (pop. 6,800) recently began reviewing its ban on pit bulls. The nearby community of Bonner Springsannounced this year that it was lifting its ban.
Advocates argue the bans have been ineffective in reducing dog bites and led to millions of dogs being euthanized. They say too often animal control officials, law enforcement and the media misidentify offending dogs as pit bulls.
"The only ones that are being affected by these bans are responsible dog owners,"said Janelle Holland, a pit bull owner who was forced to leave Roeland Park more than a decade ago after learning she was violating the ban.
There's been action on the statewide level as well.
This year, South Dakota and Utah joined 17 other states in passing laws to prevent local governments passing "breed-specific legislation," or BSL, making it illegal for cities to pass bans targeting pit bulls or any other breed. (The South Dakota law went into effect in July, and Utah's prohibition on pit bull bans will be law on New Year's Day.)
Breed-specific legislation began spreading in communities throughout the country in the mid-1980s after a surge in fatal dog bitings, including a disproportionate number of incidents initially attributed to pit bull-type dogs.
The pit bull was popular in illegal dogfighting rings, and the breed developed a reputation as a favorite accessory of drug dealers and gangsters.
This month, residents in the Denver suburb of Aurora, Colo., voted by a 2-to-1 ratio in a referendum to keep their pit bull ban on the books. The Aurora vote follows a vote in 2012 in Miami-Dade County, where voters opted to keep the ban by a similarly wide ratio.
Jeff Borchardt, an East Troy, Wis.-man whose 14-month-old son, Daxton, was fatally mauled last year by two pit bulls while being cared for by a babysitter, says government leaders should look to the Aurora and Miami examples before overturning bans.
"There's this pro-pit-bull movement that tries to paint these dogs as nanny dogs and sweet, lovely and kind," Borchardt said. "It's disgusting, it's dangerous, and it's irresponsible."
Some groups, including the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Humane Society and the American Bar Association, have suggested governments would be better off focusing attention on problem animals in a community rather than banning any particular breed of dog.
The push to end pit bull bans got a boost last year, when the Obama administration — in response to opponents of such laws petitioning the White House — said it was opposed to breed-specific legislation.
Stakeholders on opposite sides of the issue cast aspersions about the evidence the others use to back their arguments. A lack of recent government or third-party data on pit bull bites further muddies the national conversation.
The National Canine Research Council, which opposes breed-specific legislation, points to a 2013 study it partly funded that suggests a dog's environment has more to do than its breed with the likelihood of a dog making a deadly attack.
The study, published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, of 256 dog bite-related fatalities from 2000-2009 found co-occurring factors in more than 80% of the deadly incidents, such as the absence of an able-bodied person to stop the attack, a history of abuse or neglect of the dog and the failure by owners to neuter the dogs.
"It's becoming more and more obvious that breed-specific legislation doesn't improve public safety," says Janis Bradley, director of communication for the NCRC. "Its purpose is to reduce injuries from dog bites, but there is no municipality or state where it's enacted where they've been able to show that it's accomplished this."
The Center for Disease Control, which opposes BSL, notes that fatal attacks represent a tiny fraction of about 4.7 million dog bites Americans suffer annually and that it's difficult to accurately calculate bite rates for specific breeds.
DogsBite.org, a group that advocates in favor of BSL, points to its own research, culled from news reports of dog-bite-related fatalities, that shows 74% of incidents from 2005 to 2013 involved a pit bull or Rottweiler.
Colleen Lynn, founder of DogsBite.org, dismisses the suggestion from the CDC and others that BSL doesn't work.
"It's not designed to reduce all dog bites," said Lynn, who said pit bulls are an inherently aggressive animal. "It's breed-specific and meant to reduce pit bull maulings and fatalities."
Even as dozens of American communities abandon BSL, some ponder its merits.
This year, Riverside, Ala., a community about 40 miles outside of Birmingham, weighed enacting a pit bull ban after a 5-year-old boy was fatally mauled by neighbor's pit bull. City officials opted against it.
Mayor Rusty Jessup said he would prefer not to have any pit bulls in his community of 3,000. Jessup said he didn't think his community could enforce such a ban or even positively determine the breeds of dogs.
"We were just afraid that we were going to get situations where we're trying to enforce this and people are saying, 'That dog's not a pit bull, it's a boxer,'" Jessup said. " And doggone it, who are we going to have to make that determination?"
The peak body representing vets in Australia is calling on governments to ditch bans on dangerous dog breeds.
The Australian Veterinary Association (AWA), which has launched a new strategy to deal with dog bites, says the latest research shows banning particular breeds does nothing to address aggression in dogs, and nothing to increase public safety.
The vets say a focus on registration, education and temperament testing would be more effective.
But a critic says they are advocating a risky strategy that allows every dog at least one free bite, and that bite could be fatal.
In the past five years or so, each of the Australian states has moved to ban a selection of dog breeds considered to be dangerous.
Among them, the American Pit Bull terrier and the Japanese Tosa.
In each case, the ban followed a ferocious attack, and a brief debate about whether the dog or its owner was to blame.
Veterinary behaviourist and AWA spokeswoman Dr Kersti Seksel argues breeds-specific legislation is not the answer.
"It hasn't decreased the number of dog bites," she said.
"Regardless of breed, dogs are capable of biting, just like people are capable of fighting regardless of our origin either."
Size does not matter
Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.
Dr Seksel says all dogs have the potential to cause serious harm.
"If you're a Great Dane and you bite someone, the sheer size of you is going to make more damage than a Chihuahua will," she said.
"But there are three kilo Yorkshire terriers that have also killed human beings. So it's not just about size."
The AVA points out the vast majority of dog bites are caused by family pets that are known to the victim.
And that victim is usually under 10 years of age.
"Not all aggression is actually always the dog's fault," Dr Seksel said.
"You know if the dog hasn't been fed for 24 hours and someone gives the dog a bone and then tries to take it away from it, then that would be... some would consider to be perfectly appropriate behaviour.
"If you're hungry and you take the bone away well the dog is going to react in some way and the dog can't say 'please don't do this'."
The vets are proposing an alternative framework to dog breed bans.
They want to see all dogs identified and registered; a national mandatory reporting system for dog bites; temperament testing when a dog is sold; and a community-wide education campaign on bites for pet owners, breeders, parents and children.
"We know that owning pets and owning dogs is good for us," Dr Seksel said.
"There's been lots of studies to show that they decrease blood pressure, decrease cholesterol and there's even been studies showing that we could save millions of dollars in the annual health budget in Australia if people actually owned pets.
"And dog bites, on the other hand, do cost the health budget a lot of money so in fact the way that I would see one way of getting it on the national agenda is to get the Federal Minister for Health on board."
'Backward step'
RSPCA Victoria president Hugh Wirth was once a supporter of banning dangerous dog breeds.
He advocated for the breeding out of the American Pit Bull Terrier, saying they were "lethal" and "time bombs waiting for the right circumstances".
But not anymore.
"The truth about breed-specific legislation is that it doesn't work, you don't decrease the numbers," he said.
"In fact you send the breeding of that particular breed of dog underground."
The old system of 'deed not breed' is a system that allows dogs one free bite
Graeme Smith of Victoria's Lost Dogs Home
Mr Wirth says his change of heart was brought about by the latest veterinary and dog behaviour research.
"What I believed years ago, when I made those statements... was the common approach that even the veterinary profession was using," he said.
"Now that this research has been done and it's quite widespread we've discovered that our understanding of dogs and their behaviour was completely wrong."
Graeme Smith of Victoria's Lost Dogs Home says the AVA's recommendations are a backward step.
"The old system of 'deed not breed' is a system that allows dogs one free bite," Mr Smith said.
"In the case of American Pit Bull terriers one free bite can often be a fatal bite.
"Ten years ago I wouldn't have been a breed specific person myself but I've seen what American Pit Bull terriers do and people are fearful of them and we need to protect the community from these dogs."
The AVA will send a copy of the new strategy to each level of government in an effort to have the plan adopted nationally.
The restricted breed laws mean that pit bulls cannot be registered if they were not registered before 2011.
Local councils were given the power to identify, seize and euthanase unregistered pit bulls.
But the parliamentary committee found the laws were causing distress to owners and costing councils money.
A report tabled at State Parliament found there was no way to definitively identify a pit bull.
"The committee heard that distinguishing pit bulls from other breeds using visual identification is generally considered difficult or impossible," it said.
"DNA testing is not a viable alternative, as it is currently not able to make definitive identifications of dogs as pit bulls.
"There does not appear to be any clear way to conclusively identify dogs as pit bulls."
Majority of pit bull declarations overturned
The report found the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) had overturned 74 per cent of declarations that dogs were pit bulls since 2011.
It also found there was not enough information on whether pit bulls were actually more dangerous than other breeds, and called for the ban on registering them to be overturned.
"The committee considers that allowing the registration of pit bulls would facilitate councils encouraging responsible ownership of these dogs," the report said.
"Allowing the registration of pit bulls would also mean that councils could no longer seize and euthanase them solely because of their breed.
"Euthanasia would remain an option for individual pit bulls (like any dog) that have actually committed aggressive acts."
The committee found pit bulls should continue to be muzzled in public and properly contained at home.
It said local councils should focus their resources on responsible dog ownership of all breeds, rather than focusing on restrictions on pit bulls alone.
The Victorian Government has six months to respond to the report.
Would you adopt this puppy? You may not if it’s labeled a pit bull, according to a new study from Arizona State University. Photo by Square Dog Photography/via Getty Images
What’s in a name? If you’re a pit bull in an animal shelter, it could mean life or death.
Dogs labeled as pit bulls stay in animal shelters for three times as long as lookalikes and are more likely to face euthanasia, according to research released today from Arizona State University. In light of the fact that 50 percent of shelter dogs classified as pit bulls are actually lookalikes, the new findings suggest human bias may inadvertently breed death sentences for some abandoned pooches.
“Pit bull” is an umbrella term that typically refers to American and English bulldogs, Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American Pit Bull terriers or their mixes. Their public image is marred by activities like dog fighting and reports of heightened aggression against humans and other dogs. Of 551 dog bite injuries treated at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia between 2001 and 2005, 51 percent involved pit bulls. However, recent research counters that this stereotype of pit bull aggression may be a self-serving prophecy that’s perpetuated by improper care by dog owners.
To test whether the public has bought into this idea, ASU psychologist Lisa Gunter and her colleagues designed a set of four small experiments to measure human bias against the pit bull brand.
One study skimmed an online database of dogs at North American animal shelters in search of pit bulls and lookalikes. A lookalike, as judged by the team, is a dog with pit bull-like features — stature, head, body weight, coat color and coat length — but carrying a different breed label in the database.
The researchers selected 15 pit bulls and 15 lookalikes, and then shared their photos — without breed labels — to 39 potential adopters at the Arizona Animal Welfare League and SPCA in Phoenix.
Example of a pit bull and lookalike from Gunter LM, Barber RT, Wynne CDL, PLoS ONE, (2016). Photo by Arizona Animal Welfare League
When asked to judge attractiveness, the potential pet owners saw no difference between pit bulls and lookalikes. (A separate experiment found the same pattern if the still photo was replaced with a video.) But when the team combed through the database records, the average stay for the dogs labeled pit bulls (42.07 days) was three times longer than for the lookalikes (12.80 days).
“This suggests that the disparity in how long the dogs remained at the shelter waiting for adoption may have been influenced in part by the perception of the label,” Gunter and her colleagues wrote in their study in PLOS ONE.
But does seeing a photo and taking a survey truly translate to real life reactions? To answer this question, Gunter and her colleagues teamed with the Orange County Animal Services (OCAS) in Orlando, Florida. On Feb. 6, 2014, their shelter made a big switch. They took down the breed names from cage cards and online profiles for every dog at their kennel.
Over the course of the next year, the pit bull adoption rate climbed to 64 percent versus 52 percent over the previous 12 months. Likewise, pit bull euthanasia dropped by 12 percent. Dobermans, also typically considered aggressive, saw a 12 percent hike in adoptions too. All breeds benefited from losing their labels, but the average length of stay for pit bulls dropped by 1.5 days, which was nearly twice the value for herding dogs (like German shepherds, border collies and corgis) or working dog breeds (like boxers, mastiffs and Great Danes).
Pit bull. Photo by Square Dog Photography/via Getty Images
“The results of removing breed labels suggest that the pit bull breed labels were negatively altering adopter decision-making at OCAS,” the researchers wrote. They recommend that rather than let breed labels dictate an adopter’s perception, kennels should provide behavioral assessments instead.
The team turned to Reddit users to look for possible explanations. They recruited 49 student and 179 Reddit users to take a baseline survey on the impressions of three dog breeds: pit bulls, border collies and Labrador retrievers. Each participant viewed photos of these breed, and then judged their approachability, intelligence, adoptability, friendliness, difficulty to train and aggressiveness.
Participants judged pit bulls as more aggressive, which the researchers expected given the public reputation of the breed, while border collies and Labradors ranked significantly higher in the other categories.
An American Staffordshire terrier. Photo by Daniele Natarelli/EyeEm/via Getty Images
However, picking the right shelter handler to stand by the dog might alleviate some of this prejudice. The psychologists repeated the experiment with students and Reddit users, but included different people in the photos with the dogs: a middle-aged fit man, a man with tattoos who the team called a “rough adult male,” an elderly woman or a young boy. Here’s what they found:
Approachability, friendliness and adoptability increased while aggressiveness decreased with the presence of the elderly woman. The male child improved perceptions of friendliness and adoptability of the pit bull while lessening the pit bull’s aggressiveness and perceived difficulty to train. The rough adult male reduced perceived friendliness of the pit bull.
Intelligence rankings increased for every dog, regardless of whom stood beside them. Together, these results suggest certain handlers can reduce negative perceptions of pit bulls.
But the main takeaway, according to the authors, is that removing breed labels “may be a simple, low-cost strategy to improve shelter dog outcomes.”
Aamer Madhani
