This is a submission addressing proposed amendments to the above act. 

The legislative proposals are flawed in a number of ways, and if implemented will fail to meet their objectives, will impose very considerable costs and administrative burdens upon state and local governments, and great grief and expense upon many of the state’s dog owners.

Dog Bite Injuries

The state government is correct in addressing the issue of dog attacks upon people. A large number of attacks is reported annually, and an even larger number occurs and goes unreported. The Victorian Injury Surveillance System Research Center estimates that 1400 people attend hospitals in that state annually with dog bite injuries, and many more must treat injuries at home or consult their GP. The number of injuries caused by dogs would be of a similar magnitude in Queensland and other states, relative to population. Furthermore, a number of human fatalities due to dog attack has been reported in Australia, with eleven recorded over the last two decades. Dog attack is a significant public health issue that must be addressed with a view to its significant reduction.

Rationale of the Draft Legislation

The draft legislation offers no provisions that will reduce either the frequency or severity of dog attacks in the state. It targets for restriction and ultimate elimination four breeds which are responsible for very few attacks on people, and for none of the recorded fatalities. Three of the breeds, the Dogo Argentino, the Fila Brasileiro and the Tosa are very rare, if they exist in Australia at all. The fourth breed, the American Pit Bull Terrier, is a relatively common dog, and it is the effective target of the legislation. While this dog in some quarters has a reputation for savagery, unpredictability, and uncontrollable aggression, this character is the opposite of its true one. These breeds have been chosen for restriction, not because of their record of attacks in Queensland, but because of their reputation, which has been damaged further by a handful of highly publicized attacks in recent months. That these flagship incidents have not actually involved any of the restricted breeds is a fact that has been lost in the excitement, though they have been blamed on the American Pit Bull Terrier by a careless news media. The only justification offered for the restriction of the other three breeds is that they are banned as to import by the Commonwealth Government. This ban was introduced in 1991 in the wake of the passage of the Dangerous Dog Act in the UK, and shortly after a Sydney toddler was killed at home by the his family’s Bull Terrier. The DDA targeted the breeds because they were "fighting" dogs, with the implication that this made them uniquely dangerous among all dog breeds. 

In fact, while the American Pit Bull Terrier and Tosa have been used in dog fights for centuries, the Fila Brasileiro and Doggo Argentino are not fighting dogs, but guardian and hunting dogs. As the Australian government banned import of the four breeds in imitation of the DDA, the error was perpetuated. There was never any justification for the Commonwealth ban, as no attack on a person by any of the breeds had been reported in Australia at that time, and there have been relatively few since, yet this ban is the only excuse offered for the restriction of these same breeds in Queensland. The media statements by the premier when announcing the draft legislation claimed that the American Pit Bull Terrier was a fighting dog that was inherently dangerous, and that the breed was responsible for a number of severe attacks. The same accusations have been made by the breed’s enemies in Australia for over ten years, while the breed’s good safety record during that time has done nothing to soften the prejudices of these critics. 

Are Some Dog Breeds Dangerous?

Dog breeds were developed to provide specialized services to humanity. After many generations of rigorous selection for traits relevant to those tasks, breeds have been produced which differ as to behavioral abilities and propensities. It is simple but reasonable to say that breeds have varied instincts that dispose them to behave in characteristic ways. Examples that are at once familiar are the herding instincts of Kelpies, the object retrieving of gun-dogs, and the rodent killing of terriers. These instincts have to be shaped and developed by training, but some expression of them is a default behavior of the respective breeds. Aggression is more highly developed in some breeds than in others, and it has been produced by selection for certain functions, such as hunting, property guarding, or personal protection. The combative aggression of dogs bred to hunt formidable animals was channeled into the baiting sports of old Europe, and ultimately into dog-fighting, which exists today in a small way as an illegal activity. The American Pit Bull Terrier is the premier fighting dog today, but a large number of breeds have a fighting history and retain the behavioral tendencies. One may easily suppose that a dog bred for fighting is necessarily aggressive and dangerous, but this view is mistaken. 

There are many forms of aggression in dogs, with scholars producing various lists, but generally they include dominance aggression, pain aggression, prey aggression, fear aggression, intra-dog aggression, possessive aggression, territorial aggression and protection aggression. Most of these behaviors are the result of individual experiences or personality and are at best loosely associated with breed. These are discrete categories of behavior with different causes, and a different genetic basis. Of relevance to the American Pit Bull Terrier is intra-dog aggression, which is exhibited to a high degree by some individuals of the breed. 

This behavior is genetically based, but like all forms of aggression, its expression is determined by several interacting environmental variables. Strictly, there are no genes for specific behavior in complex animals like dogs, and genetic variation is responsible for relatively low levels of behavioral variation. Rather, genes interact with environmental variables to produce outcomes, but there is no scientific consensus on the relative importance of genes versus environment (training, socialization, handling etc) in final behavioral outcomes. 

Some specialists hold that genetics (breed) is of trivial importance to behavior like aggression, while others believe it is an important variable in average breed differences. It is vital to realize that no dog breed has unique behavior. Rather, all dogs have the same set of behaviors, but the breeds have different stimulus thresholds at which the behavior is exhibited. Most importantly, individuals within any breed vary dramatically in their behavior, and there is great overlap in this between breeds. Two breeds can have high and low average levels of a given behavior, but many individuals of the "low" breed will exhibit more of the behavior than many individuals of the "high" breed. This is true regardless of whether the behavior is genetically or environmentally based, and this makes nonsense of claims that a whole breed is more dangerous or more aggressive than another breed. What is relevant to this legislation is the fact that genetically based intra-dog aggression is completely distinct from aggression towards people. If it were not, all dog-aggressive dogs would also be aggressive towards people. A consideration of the large number of terrier breeds refutes this possibility. Terriers generally are aggressive towards other dogs (some breeds markedly so) and have a low threshold of violence towards them. The same dogs are very friendly and affectionate towards people. Of course, terrier breeds exhibit a wide range of responses towards other dogs, with many being very relaxed and companionable with them. Environmental experiences are very powerful in the outcomes for any given dog. The situation of the American Pit Bull Terrier is just the same. On average, they have relatively high levels of dog-aggression, a legacy of their breed’s development, but many individuals are safe with other dogs, for both genetic and environmental reasons. If a trait is under genetic influence, there will be significant genetic variability in the breed, and significant variability in the expression of the trait. 

On scientific grounds, all this means that it is not possible to say that any single breed of dog is aggressive in some way while another breed is not. Individuals of any breed can be aggressive towards people, while other individuals are not. Even that statement is simplistic, as almost any dog will react aggressively in some circumstances, but those circumstances may never arise in the life of a given dog. The data on dog attacks reveal that the above is true. Individuals of all breeds have bitten people, while some breeds appear to be responsible for relatively more bites than others. However, even the breeds responsible for the greatest proportions of attacks have a majority of individuals that have never bitten anybody. It is reasonable to argue from this that there are not any dangerous breeds if this designation is meant to imply that all or most individuals of that breed are likely to attack people. It still may be true that some breeds bite more people than do other breeds. 

Is the American Pit Bull Terrier a dangerous breed?

This question can be answered either by examining the bite record of the breed or by looking at the behavioral propensities of the dog. Of course the two are related. 

The American Pit Bull Terrier has been responsible for a large number of serious and fatal attacks upon people in the United States and other countries. These attacks began in the 1980s, coincident with the news media attention paid to the breed and its booming popularity. Initial media coverage addressed dog-fighting, but it conveyed an image of the breed that promoted it to personalities inimical to responsible dog ownership, and it was not long before uncharacteristically aggressive individuals were making their presence felt. Unfortunately, as lurid accounts of the breed’s depredations increased, the breed became more desirable to the worst elements of dog owners. An example of this was seen recently after two Canary Dogs killed a woman in California. Breeders of Canary Dogs had a surge of enquiries for pups, with some callers openly stating that they wanted killer dogs. The "pit bull problem" in America and elsewhere largely is a sociological problem of a certain class of dog-owner, and not a problem of a breed. Indeed, for the preceding one hundred years the American Pit Bull Terrier was a fighting and farm dog, and aggression towards people was unknown. In Australia we do not have the sociology of American inner-urban communities, and we have not experienced the attendant "pit bull problem". This problem is not confined to one breed. Dr Randall Lockwood is a Humane Society professional in Washington and a leading expert on the "pit bull problem". In 1988 he had this to say:
 

This was at the height of the pit bull hysteria in the U.S., and Dr Lockwood’s views have since been vindicated. In the 1990s the American Pit Bull Terrier was eclipsed by the Rottweiler as the nation’s demon dog. In America the "pit bull" has a bad bite record, but this is owing to factors in addition to sociology. Many alleged "pit bull" attacks have been cases of mistaken identity, as acknowledged by experts like Dr Lockwood. Just as in decades past any attack by a medium to large, vaguely black and tan dog was a German Shepherd attack, so more recently any attack by a medium sized, short haired dog was reported as a pit bull attack. This sort of mistaken breed reporting has been very evident in Australia, and comprehends most of the widely reported attacks. Also, in America "pit bull" does not mean American Pit Bull Terrier. It also means many of the Bull breeds, such as Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, American Bulldog, and often even Boxer, Bulldog and Boston Terrier. 

In Australia the American Pit Bull Terrier has a much better record. There are not good dog attack records in Australia, but since 1997 the NSW Department of Local Government had collected records of attacks reported to councils. These data show that bull terrier type dogs (the American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier) were responsible for 8% of attacks, but many of these were on other animals, not people. These figures are roughly supported by data from Queensland councils. All councils were asked by colleagues for their dog attack data and 19 replied. The detail recorded varies greatly, but in sum, 750 odd dog attacks on people were recorded with 8 of the dogs being American Pit Bull Terriers, or said to be so. The Gold Coast City Council, alleged to have experienced a spate of pit bull attacks, reported 162 attacks on people in the last year, only 3 of them by American Pit Bull Terriers. 

The other source of data is several medical studies of dog bite injuries treated in hospitals. Consistently, the breeds identified as causing most injuries do not include American Pit Bull Terriers, though "bull terriers" as a category are included in the top 5 – 10 biting breeds. 

These data do not reveal the American Pit Bull Terrier to be a dangerous breed either in terms of absolute or relative frequency of attacks. Nor is it true that the most severe attacks are committed by that breed. As stated above, there have been some 11 human fatalities owing to dog attack in Australia in recent decades, and in only one case was an American Pit Bull Terrier blamed, incorrectly. That case was the death of Barbara Stringer in Toowoomba in 1995. Initial media reports claimed the dog was a pit bull cross, which resulted from a chance comment by an animal welfare officer. Subsequent media reports transformed the identification to an American Pit Bull Terrier , and so it has remained. The dog was registered as a Labrador cross, and Mr. Collicot, who seized and maintained the dog has presented a written assessment of it as a bull breed cross. The council made no attempt to assess the dog’s breed formally, and, indeed, prevented such an assessment by inspection by myself of the dog’s body. There are no grounds for claiming this dog as an American Pit Bull Terrier. 

Other widely reported severe attacks by "pit bulls" have proven to be false identifications, including the recent one on Jane Gair at the Gold Coast. The exact breed identity of dogs involved in isolated attacks is not really the point. American Pit Bull Terriers can bite, and occasionally do. On overseas evidence a minority of those attacks are severe, even fatal. The point is that American Pit Bull Terriers in Australia are responsible for a very small percentage of total dog attacks, for no deaths to date, and for fewer serious attacks than are several other breeds. If American Pit Bull Terriers could be made to vanish from the country immediately, the frequency and severity of dog attacks would be reduced very slightly if at all. In summary, the bite record indicates that the American Pit Bull Terrier is not a dangerous dog. What of the behavioral propensities of the dog?

Mr. Beattie made much of this in his address to parliament. What he said was ill-founded. Yes, the breed was developed for pit fighting, and some of the dogs have been fought over the last two centuries. Yes, this has endowed the breed with certain characteristics of heightened dog-aggression, tenacity, determination, and resistance to pain and trauma. Does this make a dangerous breed? No. Just as the above traits have been under selection, so have other traits vital in a pit dog. Such a dog must be safe for human handlers, referees, those attending its wounds and conditioning it, the families of the owner-trainer etc. Selection for dog-aggression has been accompanied by equally rigorous selection for friendliness and reliability with people, and this is the temperament almost always seen in the breed. A breed that will kill other dogs is necessarily no more savage that a breed that will kill rats, deer, foxes or other animals, and very many dog breeds were bred for these tasks, while being required to be friendly, safe and tractable with people. Mr. Beattie called the American Pit Bull Terrier a killer because some individuals of the breed have been used to kill other dogs, but would he call the family Jack Russell a killer because it kills a rat, or a Deerhound a killer because it kills a kangaroo? Does this render the dog unsafe with the children? 

That fighting dogs are not automatically dangerous to people is demonstrated by the fact that during the many decades when the American Pit Bull Terrier was known in America virtually only to dog-fighters and farmers, it was unknown for it to bite people. The problems with the breed came when it moved into the wider community where its strength and determination were occasionally perverted by irresponsible or criminal people. Even then the vast majority of dogs remained perfectly safe. On the worst figures for the breed, accepting all the alleged breed identifications, and at the height of the "pit bull problem" any given American Pit Bull Terrier was between 8 and 16 times less likely to kill a person than was any given American person to murder another. This depends on the breed population being between one and two million in the U.S. In the worst years, up to 12 people were killed by alleged pit bulls, which left one to two million that were not killers, loaded guns etc. Nobody thinks of excluding American people from Queensland, but on the evidence, it would make 8 to 16 times more sense to do so than to ban American Pit Bull Terriers!

Flaws in the Draft Legislation

The above discussion has demonstrated that the draft legislation is mistaken in considering the American Pit Bull Terrier an inherently dangerous breed. On the contrary, its record in Australia shows it to be a safe breed, like all others, but like all others, it has the occasional individual that will attack people under certain circumstances. There is no justification for discriminating against this breed in relation to its danger to people. As the American Pit Bull Terrier is not a large part of the dangerous dog problem in Queensland, it follows that restriction of it cannot supply a large part of any solution. Even those breeds that on their records are the most dangerous, are composed overwhelmingly of safe and reliable dogs. Any breed-specific measures will punish the safe and well-behaved majority in an attempt to control the unsafe few owned usually by irresponsible people. As a corollary, irresponsible people are likely to render any dog dangerous, so removing one breed from the community will not remove problem dogs. Bad pit bull owners will quickly become bad Rottweiler, German Shepherd or Akita owners. These simple observations are why virtually all dog behaviorists and organizations throughout the world are opposed to breed-specific laws. 

A serious problem in the draft legislation relates to the comprehension of crosses of the restricted breeds. American Pit Bull Terriers are pure bred dogs with long pedigrees. However, breed in dogs is not a scientifically discernible category, and it is not yet reliably possible to do genetic marker tests to determine a dog’s breed. Therefore, breed identification must rely on visual assessment of certain phenotypic traits typical of the breed in question. This is straight forward for most show breeds, but the American Pit Bull Terrier has long been a performance breed of significant physical variability. Indeed, it is more useful to think of American Pit Bull Terriers as a collection of tightly inbred strains rather than as a uniform breed. They range in type from the American Bulldog to the Manchester Terrier, but most are something like a tall and rangy Staffordshire Bull Terrier. It is not possible for anybody to be certain that any individual pit bull is indeed a pit bull. This is because the various strains have so much in common with all the Bull breeds, and crosses of these breeds easily can closely match average pit bull conformation. In addition, crosses of breeds like Labradors and Rhodesian Ridgebacks, with no Bull blood, can resemble pit bulls. 

When crosses of American Pit Bull Terriers are considered, there is no possibility of distinguishing such a cross from a Stafford cross, a Boxer cross or any other Bull Breed cross – or even a Labrador cross. It simply is ridiculous to imagine such can be done. 

Breed identification to the level of reliability required for the imposition of judicial penalty has been the rock upon which all breed-specific legislation has foundered. The Queensland Government has recognized this, and has shifted the onus of identification onto the dog owner. This is a mean-spirited approach. If the government with all its advice cannot identify a dog’s breed, how can an owner, especially if the dog came form an unregistered breeder, a pound, a petshop etc? The law will hold responsible and liable to significant penalty a person who has no objective way to know whether or not he is breaking the law. This seems to violate natural justice. The comprehension of cross breeds in the legislation will make it unworkable, and will entangle citizens and councils in the courts, to the great expense and grief of both sides. What does a Fila or Tosa cross look like, and how does it differ from a Bloodhoud of Bull Mastiff cross? It beggars the mind to consider these difficulties. 

I will not address the administrative and financial costs of implementing this legislation. Such questions as who will finance local governments’ enforcement; how many new staff will be engaged and trained; whom will councils consult as expert witnesses and who will pay them; what legal aid will be made available to people accused of having a restricted dog, are all issues that others must address. 

Summary

While dog attacks on people are a serious concern to the authorities and the public, American Pit Bull Terriers pose no special danger, and measures against them that ignore demonstrably more guilty breeds are unjust and will be ineffective in reducing the number of attacks. 

No breed of dog has an inherent temperament that automatically expresses itself, whether for aggression or any other trait. Behavior of dogs varies more between individuals than between breeds, and the determining factor relevant to danger is human environmental input.

Reliably assessing the breed of individual dogs is all but impossible, and is out of the question for cross-breeds. Very many owners of dogs will learn they have "pit bull types" when their dogs have no American Pit Bull Terrier blood. 

The costs and procedures in attempting to administer these laws will be insuperable, and will lead to patchy and arbitrary enforcement, to the additional compromise of natural justice.

Many well-behaved dogs will suffer death for having a certain appearance, and their decent owners will suffer significant grief and expense.

All owners of hitherto inoffensive dogs of now restricted breeds will be subjected to great financial expense in meeting the requirements for management of their dogs, and may be subjected to harassment and even attacks from neighbors stirred to witch-hunting zealotry and fear by sensationally inaccurate breed defamation attendant upon the promulgation of the legislation.

The draft legislation is about as bad as legislation can be that is aimed to safeguard the public from dog attacks. It repeats the errors made by other jurisdictions at a time when they are recognizing and attempting to remedy their errors. It is unnecessary, unjust and unworkable. A far better approach is to enforce existing dog related laws, compel local governments to devote sufficient resources to this, and embark on a public education campaign on responsible dog ownership and dog attack avoidance behaviors, especially for children. A vital step to precede legislation is discovery of the relevant facts. The state should immediately require local governments to record and return information on all dog bites, with the clearest possible breed identification. If after five years these records show American Pit Bull Terriers to be uniquely dangerous dogs relative to other breeds, I will support legislation to restrict them. To legislate before the facts are established can never be good government. 

Stephen Collier Ph.D
Lecturer in Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology,
School of Human and Environmental Studies
University of New England
Armidale, NSW.