BSL, Pit Bull Perceptions & Influencing Factors

Breed Specific Legislation and the Pit Bull: A comparative look at

influencing factors on individual thoughts and perception.

1

Abstract

In recent years the Pit Bull has been in the spotlight for their perceived aggressive
behaviour and tendency to attack without provocation, in reality becoming a ‘scape-dog’
for all attacks. The aim of the study was to discover whether the media has played a part
in influencing public perception of the Pit Bull, which in turn influences the government
to implement Breed Specific Legislation (BSL). Perceptions of respondents who work in
the animal welfare field were compared to those respondents that do not. Gender and age
was also explored to determine if these variables impacted on perception. An electronic
and hard copy form of the survey was distributed among animal welfare workers, friends,
acquaintances, family and university students, with results being compiled using the SPSS
data analysis program. Of significance, it was found that those who frequently read /
watched the news were able to accurately identify by name only 1 of the 5 restricted
breeds, that being the Pit Bull Terrier or American Pit Bull Terrier. It was found that
respondents were unable to identify these same breeds by physical appearance. This
highlights the misleading influence the media has on public perception by use of
inaccurate photographs and information on the Pit Bull. Other significant findings
included animal welfare workers inability to select restricted breeds solely on physical
appearance, disparity throughout the age groups in relation to factors contributing to
aggression and disbelief in the effectiveness of BSL. Of interest, it was also found that
males tend to select ‘strong’ factors and females ‘weak’ factors which contribute to dog
aggression. It was found that more in-depth research needs to be carried out by the
government to enable them to implement strategies to more effectively deal with
aggressive dogs and to educate the general public on these strategies. More training and
education also needs to be provided to those employed in the animal welfare field
regarding breed identification.

2

1.0 Introduction
Breed Specific Legislation, or BSL as it is commonly referred to, is where a specific
breed of animal is banned on the basis of their breed, not individual behaviour. BSL has
been implemented in NSW through the Companion Animals Act 1998 and the Companion
Animals Regulation 2008, with the Pit Bull and Pit Bull crosses the latest target. BSL is
not a novel legislative instrument in Australia; an import ban was placed on the German
Shepherd in 1928 as it was deemed to be a threat to farmers should it breed with Dingoes
and create a ‘super race of sheep killing canines’ (EDBA, 2006). This ban however was
lifted in 1974 and the German Shepherd has gone on to become a popular family pet and
guardian, consistently placing in the top 5 of most popular breeds. However there is now
a general international consensus that BSL is ineffective and does little to prevent dog
attacks. A number of countries have implemented BSL in different forms to no avail, yet
the Australian government insists on introducing these measures instead of dealing with
the root of the problem; a lack of responsible ownership, lax dangerous dog laws and lack
of community education.

At 63%, Australia has the world’s highest incidence of pet ownership, including 3.7
million registered dogs (ACAC, 2009). If BSL is allowed to continue many people, most
notably responsible owners, will be affected. This is due to the current mentality of
banning a dog once it is perceived as aggressive. The German Shepherd, Rottweiler,
Doberman, Staffordshire terrier and many more breeds could be next in the firing line.
Instead of implementing legislation that will target problem owners who own aggressive
animals, the state and federal governments target responsible owners of certain breeds.
This causes the problem that by introducing BSL responsible owners will no longer own
the restricted breed. Only irresponsible owners, who own the breed as a social status or
macho accessory, and thrive on the fact they own an aggressive animal, will now be
attracted to the Pit Bull. These irresponsible owners are unlikely to adhere to strict
restrictions that apply to the Pit Bull, extracts of which are provided in Appendices A and
B.

3

Current literature concerning BSL focuses more on its failures and the media’s role in
causing community panic and outrage. Huitson’s (2005) in-depth review of two decades of
media stories found a dramatic increase in the past five years of Pit Bull related stories,
with breed misidentification, evocative language and myths (such as the Pit Bull’s ability
to lock their jaw) rife amongst the articles. Huitson (2005) found that a ‘moral panic’
spread through communities where these types of articles were repeatedly featured.
Houston (2007) concurs with Huitson, going further to highlight the bias displayed by the
media by providing examples of three similar dog attacks. He noted that the only story to
be reported by the media involved an attack by a Pit Bull. Houston espouses the media
sensationalises stories to evoke fear in an attempt to boost ratings and profits. Other
studies include Cohen & Richardson’s (2002) work which investigated media portrayal of
the Pit Bull. They concluded that the Pit Bull is demonised by the media by fabricating
information and using strategies that sustain myths and associate the Pit Bull with
criminal activity in order to create fear within the community.

Statistical analysis of dog attacks has been carried out by numerous researchers.
Responding to the proliferation of serious dog attacks in America, Hussain (2006) found
the Pit Bull responsible for one third of American ‘canine homicides’, noting extensive
media coverage elevated the Pit Bull to a sought after breed for perspective owners
seeking an aggressive dog. Another American study conducted by Bradley (2007) found
the media were prone to reporting only those attacks perpetrated by a Pit Bull, in turn
influencing public opinion on the breed. Bradley noted that BSL does little to decrease
bite incidences, nor does it deter irresponsible owners seeking the breed based of their
reputation; BSL could in fact increase attacks as irresponsible owners neglect to adhere to
regulations. Bradley suggests diverting BSL resources into community education
programs promoting responsible ownership, and proper enforcement of existing
regulations for aggressive dogs.

Australian statistics are flawed as there are no uniformed reporting mechanisms (Seksel
2004). Attempts to ‘calculate breeds attacks rates lacks validity’ due to a variety of factors
including incomplete or inconsistent data collection on ownership and attacks, breed

4

misidentification and the use of breed clusters (used due the imprecise nature of breed
identification) instead of individual breeds in compiling statistics (Collier, 2006). Contrary
to popular belief Pit Bulls rarely appear in Australian bite statistics (Watson, 2004), nor have
they been responsible for any of the 19 recorded deaths in Australia from dog attacks. In
addition, any attempt to reflect a true breed attack rate would be flawed, considering that
½ to ⅓of dogs in Australia are not registered (Collier, 2006). This is particularly relevant to
the Pit Bull due to the high level of irresponsible ownership (Mills, 2006). Most Australian
researchers concur with the American findings that resources should target public
education when attempting to reduce dog attacks, rather than implementing BSL. Of
interest is Burnstein’s (2004) suggestion that BSL provides communities with a ‘false
sense of security’ as residents now assume all vicious or aggressive dogs have been
banned. Stereotyping whole breeds rather than individuals as aggressive provides false
representation (Gladwell, 2006) despite common sense dictating that any dog can bite in a
variety of situations and circumstances.

An interesting study by Schalke et al (2008) involved the analysis of temperament tests in
415 dogs from banned or restricted breeds in Hanover. These bans enforced after the
death of a child in a school playground included 11 breeds such as the Pit Bull, Doberman
and Mastiff. To remain in possession or have restrictions lifted from these breeds, the
dogs had to pass a temperament test. If they failed, banned dogs were euthanized, or in the
case of restricted breeds, owners had to comply with strict restrictions concerning the
keeping of their dog. Schalke et al found that there was little to no difference in the dogs’
behaviour, despite the varied breeds. 95% of the dogs analysed in this study passed the
temperament test, therefore disproving the authority’s belief that the implementation of
these bans and restrictions will reduce the incidence of dog attacks. Ott et al (2008)
followed up this study by comparing the temperament tests of 70 Golden Retrievers to
those of the banned / restricted dogs. On analysis of the data, no significant differences in
exhibited behaviour was noted. This again disproved that BSL was effective in reducing
incidences of dog attacks. The studies were so persuasive that the legislation was
withdrawn.

5

There is minimal literature available on personal perception regarding the Pit Bull and the
influence that the media has. This is an area that requires more study to provide a
comprehensive analysis of the issue. This study involved distribution of a survey to 105
individuals that required them to answer specific questions relating to their perception of
the Pit Bull, media influence and Breed Specific Legislation. This quantitative study aims
to address the above issues to help reduce the gap in current Australian literature.

Hypothesis: To determine the level of public opinion of dog breeds and BSL and how this
opinion was formed, be it from media influence or personal knowledge / experience.

2.0 Method

One hundred and twenty five, 30 question surveys were distributed to proposed
respondents (a copy of the survey is provided in appendix C). This included work
colleagues, friends, family and fellow students. Surveys were personally delivered or
emailed to respondents. Of the 125 surveys sent out, 105 responses were received. The
survey was conducted between the 5th – 15th October 2009. Respondents were asked to
answer questions relating to their age, sex, education level and place of birth. Information
regarding thoughts on the media, legislation and specific dog breeds was also requested.

3.0 Results

Of the 105 respondents 61% were aged under 30, 39% were over 30 (group breakup: <20
= (n 27) 25.71%, 21 – 25 = (n 22) 20.95%, 26 – 30 = (n 15) 14.28%, 31 – 35 = (n 18)
17.14%, 36 – 40 = (n 10) 9.52%, 41 – 45 = (n 6) 5.71%, 46 – 50 = (n 3) 2.85%, 51 – 55 =
(n 1) 0.95%, 56 – 60 = (n 3) 2.85%). The average age of respondents was 29 (mean =
29.228). Of those 33.33% were male (n 35), 66.66% were female (n 70). The majority of
the respondents, at 79.04%, are Australian born (for group breakup: see Table 1) while
43.78% of respondents parents were born overseas (group breakup: see Table 2). The
majority of respondents lived with their parents (group breakdown: Live with parents = (n
40) 38.09%, Board = (n 4 ) 3.80%, Rent = (n 31) 29.52%, Own = (n 30) 28.57%).

6

Table 1: Group Breakup of Respondent Table 2: Group Breakup of Parental
Country of Birth Country of Birth
Country n % Country n %
Australia 59 56.19
Australian 83 79.04
USA 5 4.76
USA 2 1.90 UK 20 19.04
UK 12 11.42 Africa 1 0.95
Asia 2 1.90 Asia 6 5.71
Europe 3 2.85 South America 6 5.71
Russia 1 0.95 Europe 5 4.76
Russia 1 0.95
NZ 2 1.90
Middle East 2 1.90

51.41% of respondents have attained an education level higher than the school certificate, while
the majority of respondents’ parents’ attained a high school education (Table 3).

Table 3: Level of Education; Respondents and Respondents’ Parents

Q6. What is your level of Q7. What level of education
education? did your parents achieve?
Level of Education Attained n % n %
High School 49 46.66 67 63.80
Tertiary 25 23.80 11 10.47
Undergraduate 26 24.76 14 13.33
Postgraduate 4 3.80 10 9.52
Other (PHD) 1 0.95 3 2.85

29.52% of respondents were in full time study, 55.23% worked full time, while 20.94% both
worked and studied simultaneously (Table 4). Of these 41.90% of respondents have worked or
currently work in the animal welfare industry. Group breakdown: No = (n 61) 58.09%, Yes = (n
44) 41.90%.

Table 4: Study / Work Commitments

7

n %
Study F/T 31 29.52
Study P/T 9 8.57
Work F/T 58 55.23
Work P/T 28 26.66
Unemployed 1 0.95
Study F/T & Work P/T 13 12.38
Study F/T & Work F/T 1 0.95
Study P/T & Work F/T 6 5.71
Study P/T & Work P/T 2 1.90

Question 10 and 12 (Table 5) related to frequency of use for two types of media, the newspaper
and television news programs. Question 13 asks the respondent if they think the media influences
their perception of issues, while Question 14 asks the respondent if they think the media focuses
reports on issues that may be controversial (Figure 1).

Table 5: Frequency of Media Use.

Q10. How often would you say that you Q12. How often would you say that
read a newspaper, be it electronically or in you watch the news?
hard copy form?
Frequency n % n %
Daily 29 27.61 50 47.61
2 – 3 times 47 44.76 35 33.33
weekly
4 – 5 times 13 12.38 17 16.19
weekly
Never 16 15.23 3 2.85

Question 15 asked if the respondent had seen any media reports on dog attacks. 2.85% answered
no (n 3), while 97.15% answered yes (n 102). Question 16 asked whether media reports
mentioned the breed of dog which had attacked, while Question 17 asked whether media reports
on dog attacks were accompanied by a picture of the attacking dog (Figure 2).

8

Figure 1: Perception of the Media

40
35

30
25
Q13
% 20
Q14
15

10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 = Strongly Agree 7 = Strongly Disagree

Figure 2: Media Reports: Identification of attacking dogs

50
45
40
35
30
Q16
% 25
Q17
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Questions 18 and 19 refer to previous and current dog ownership, while 19a asks how many dogs
the respondent currently owns (Table 6).

Table 6: Previous and current dog ownership
Q18. Have you Q19. Do you Q19a.
previously owned currently own How many?
a dog? a dog?
n % n % n %
No 5 4.8 24 22.8 0 24 22.85
Yes 100 95.2 81 77.2 1 31 29.52
2 24 22.85
3 17 16.19
>4 9 8.57

9

Question 20 asked the respondent whether they had heard of BSL previously. 68.57% (n 72)
answered yes, 20.95% (n 22) answered no, 10.47% (n 11) answered unsure. Question 21 asked
where they had first heard of BSL (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Q21. Where did you first learn of BSL?

Vet 0.95

Council 1.9
Now 3.8
Website 8.57

Social Network 5.71

Family / Friend 20.95

Book 0
News Media 20.95

No Answer 15.23

0 5 10 15 20 25
%

In Question 22 & 23 respondents were asked if they have previously or currently owned a
restricted breed (Table 6).

Table 6: Previous and current ownership of restricted dogs

Q22. Have you Q22a. Q23. Do you Q23a.
previously owned How Many? currently own How Many?
Restricted breed? Restricted breed?
n % n % n % n %
No 76 72.38 0 92 84 80.00 0 93 88.57
87.61
Yes 14 13.33 1 9 12 11.42 1 9 8.57
8.57
Unsure 12 11.42 2 4 7 6.66 2 3 2.85
3.80
Unanswered 3 2.85 2 1.90

Question 24, 25 and 26 refer to the respondent’s thoughts on; whether the media influenced the
government to implement BSL, if they believe BSL is effective and if they believe BSL will
solve problems associated with aggressive dogs (Figure 4).

10

Figure 4: Perception of Media & BSL

45
40
35
30
Q24.
25
% Q25.
20
Q26.
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question 27 related to what factors the respondents considered attributed to dog aggression
(Figure 5).

Figure 5: Factors of Aggression

60
1
50
2
40 3
Respondents

30 4

20 5
6
10
7
0
Born
Fear Pain Nervousness Untrained Naughty Dominant
Aggressive

1 52 39 27 14 27 9 23
2 31 24 18 9 18 6 23
3 10 17 32 18 20 21 22
4 8 15 17 24 19 26 24
5 1 4 9 9 5 13 4
6 1 2 1 11 7 11 4
7 2 4 1 20 7 19 2

Question 28 asked the respondent to name from a provided list the breeds which they thought
were restricted by BSL in Australia (Figure 6).

11

Figure 6: Breeds Identified as Restricted / Banned By Name

American Pitbull Terrier 89.50%
Doberman 16.20%
Fila Brasilerio 36.20%
Neopolitan Mastiff 10.50%
Dogo Argentino 41%
Pitbull Terrier 85.70%
Akita 15.20%
Dogue de Bordeaux 9.50%
Bull Mastiff 20%
Maltese Terrier 1.90%
Japanese Tosa 46.70%
Shiba Inu 6.70%
Rotw eiller 21.90%
Affenpinscher 6.70%
Presa Canario 24.80%
Chihuahua 1%
Bull Terrier 26.70%

Question 29 asked the respondent to indicate whether they think it is possible to identify a breed
of dog on their physical appearance alone (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Q29. Do you think it is possible to accurately identify a dog's
breed based on physical appearance alone?

30.0

25.0

20.0

% 15.0

10.0

5.0

.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1: Strongly Agree 7: Strongly Disagree

Finally, question 30 asked respondent’s to select which breeds they thought were restricted based
solely on physical appearance from the pictures provided (Figure 8).

12

Figure 8: Breed Identified as Restricted / Banned By Picture

Ultimate Mastiff 8.60%
Pitweiler 16.20%
Guatamalan Bull Terrier 56.20%
Fila Brasileiro 11.40%
Dogo Argentino 61.00%
Dogue De Bordeaux 15.20%
Bullypit 8.60%
Bull Mastiff 11.40%
Boerboel 12.40%
Australian Bandogge 33.30%
American Staffordshire Terrier 46.70%
American Bulldog 42.90%
American Bull Dogue de Bordeaux 25.70%
American Bandogge Mastiff 61.00%
Presa Canario 43.80%

Various T-test’s comparisons were carried out with differing variables. The significant findings
are included as follows:
• Table 7: Gender
• Table 8: Age
• Table 9: Animal welfare workers compared to non animal welfare workers
• Table 10: Animal welfare workers compared to non animal welfare workers regarding
breed identification
• Table 11: Comparison of attitudes towards breed identification and ability to name or
identify restricted breeds
• Table 12: Comparison of perception of media influence and ability to name or identify
restricted breeds
• Table 13: Comparison of newspaper use and ability to name or identify restricted breeds
• Table 14: Comparison of frequency of watching news and ability to name or identify
restricted breeds
• Table 15: Comparison of perception of media focus on controversial issues and ability to
name or identify restricted breeds

13

Std. Sig.
Table 7 What Is Your Gender? Mean Deviation (2-tailed)
Q16. Did these reports mention the 1 2.4000 1.47927 .030
breed which had attacked?
2 1.7857 1.27282 .040
Q27. (A): Fear 1 2.4857 1.48267 .001
2 1.6286 1.05186 .004
Q27. (C): Nervousness 1 3.2857 1.27352 .002
2 2.4286 1.33592 .002
Q27. (D): Born Aggressive 1 3.5429 1.89958 .034
2 4.4143 1.98175 .032
Q27. (G): Dominance 1 3.1429 1.30931 .064
2 2.5571 1.60286 .049
Q29. Do you think It Is possible to 1 3.5143 1.31443 .006
accurately Identify a dog's breed on
2 4.4429 1.70792 .003
physical appearance alone?

Which age group Std. Sig.
Table 8 do you belong to? Mean Deviation (2-tailed)
Q25. Do you believe BSL is an effective 1 3.7778 1.73944 .051
tool to reduce problems associated
2 4.8636 2.05393 .056
with aggressive dogs?

2 4.9091 2.18019 .027
Q27. (F): Naughty 3 4.8667 1.68466 .039
4 3.5556 1.78958 .038

Q27. (G): Dominance 5 2.8000 1.22927 .023
6 4.5000 1.37840 .033

Have You Ever Worked In The Std. Sig.
Table 9 Animal Welfare Industry? Mean Deviation (2-tailed)
Q16. Did These Reports Mention The 1 2.2787 1.51802 .010
Breed Which Had Attacked?
2 1.5909 1.01885 .007
Q25. Do You Believe BSL is an Effective 1 4.4426 1.68844 .007
Tool to Reduce Problems Associated With
2 5.4318 2.00462 .009
Aggressive Dogs?
Q26. Do You Believe BSL Will Solve the 1 4.9672 1.71238 .008
Problems Associated With Aggressive
2 5.8636 1.62239 .008
Dogs?
Q27. (A): Fear 1 2.1311 1.18989 .039
2 1.6136 1.33322 .043
Q27. (C): Nervousness 1 3.0984 1.30006 .001
2 2.1818 1.29889 .001
2 4.6364 2.08082 .027
Q27. (F): Naughty 1 3.8852 1.73300 .005
2 4.8864 1.79425 .005

Table 10

14

Identification By Name Have You Ever Worked In The
Animal Welfare Industry** Mean Std. Deviation Sig. (2-tailed)
Bull Terrier 1 .3934 .49257 .000
2 .0909 .29080 .000
Rottweiler 1 .3770 .48867 .000
2 .0000 .00000 .000
Japanese Tosa 1 .2295 .42401 .000
2 .7955 .40803 .000
Bull Mastiff 1 .3443 .47907 .000
2 .0000 .00000 .000
Dogue de Bordeaux 1 .1475 .35759 .032
2 .0227 .15076 .017
Dogo Argentino 1 .1639 .37329 .000
2 .7500 .43802 .000
Neapolitan Mastiff 1 .1639 .37329 .020
2 .0227 .15076 .009
Fila Brasilerio 1 .1803 .38765 .000
2 .6136 .49254 .000
Doberman 1 .2787 .45207 .000
2 .0000 .00000 .000
American Pit Bull Terrier 1 .8197 .38765 .003
2 1.0000 .00000 .001

Identification By Picture
Australian Bandogge 1 .4590 .50245 .001
2 .1591 .36999 .001
Bull Mastiff 1 .1803 .38765 .012
2 .0227 .15076 .005
Bully-Pit 1 .1475 .35759 .007
2 .0000 .00000 .002
Dogue de Bordeaux 1 .2459 .43419 .001
2 .0227 .15076 .000
Pit-weiler 1 .2787 .45207 .000
2 .0000 .00000 .000
American Bulldog 1 .6066 .49257 .000
2 .1818 .39015 .000
** 1 = No, I have not or do not work in the Animal Welfare Industry, 2 = Yes, I have or currently
work in the Animal Welfare Industry

15

Table 11:

Q29. Do you think it is
possible to accurately
identify a dog’s breed
based on physical
appearance alone? APBT1 PBT2 FB3 DA4 JT5 PC6 PPW7 PBP8 PPC9 PDA10 PFB11
1** Mean 1.0000 .0000 .6667 .8333 .3333 .0000 .5000 .5000 .1667 .5000 1.0000
N 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .00000 .00000 .51640 .40825 .51640 .00000 .54772 .54772 .40825 .54772 .00000
2 Mean .7778 .1111 .2222 .1111 .1111 .0000 .1111 .5556 .0000 .2222 .7778
N 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Std. Deviation .44096 .33333 .44096 .33333 .33333 .00000 .33333 .52705 .00000 .44096 .44096
3 Mean .8696 .0870 .3043 .3478 .1739 .0435 .2609 .4783 .0435 .2174 .7391
N 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
Std. Deviation .34435 .28810 .47047 .48698 .38755 .20851 .44898 .51075 .20851 .42174 .44898
4 Mean .8966 .2069 .3448 .4483 .3103 .1724 .5862 .7241 .2069 .4138 .8966
N 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29
Std. Deviation .30993 .41225 .48373 .50612 .47082 .38443 .50123 .45486 .41225 .50123 .30993
5 Mean .8750 .1875 .4375 .5625 .3750 .0000 .5625 .8125 .0625 .3750 .8750
N 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
Std. Deviation .34157 .40311 .51235 .51235 .50000 .00000 .51235 .40311 .25000 .50000 .34157
6 Mean 1.0000 .2222 .6667 .6667 .0000 .2222 .4444 .5556 .2222 .5556 .8889
N 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Std. Deviation .00000 .44096 .50000 .50000 .00000 .44096 .52705 .52705 .44096 .52705 .33333
7 Mean .9231 .2308 .5385 .5385 .3077 .0769 .4615 .4615 .0769 .3846 .9231
N 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
Std. Deviation .27735 .43853 .51887 .51887 .48038 .27735 .51887 .51887 .27735 .50637 .27735

** Likert Scale of 1 – 7; 1 = Strongly Agree, 7 = Strongly Disagree
1 7
American Pit Bull Terrier identified by name Pitweiler identified by picture
2 8
Pit Bull Terrier identified by name Bullypit identified by picture
3 9
Fila Brasilerio identified by name Presa Canario identified by picture
4 10
Dogo Argentino identified by name Dogo Argentino identified by picture
5 11
Japanese Tosa identified by name Fila Brasilerio identified by picture
6
Presa Canario identified by name

Table 12

16

Q13. Do you think
the media influences
your perception of
issues? APBT1 PBT2 FB3 DA4 JT5 PC6 PPW7 PBP8 PPC9 PDA10 PFB11
1** Mean 1.0000 .0833 .4167 .2500 .2500 .3333 .7500 .0000 .0833 .3333 .9167
N 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Std. .00000 .28868 .51493 .45227 .45227 .49237 .45227 .00000 .28868 .49237 .28868
Deviation
2 Mean .9524 .1905 .4286 .4762 .3333 .3810 .7143 .0000 .0476 .4762 .9048
N 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21
Std. .21822 .40237 .50709 .51177 .48305 .49761 .46291 .00000 .21822 .51177 .30079
Deviation
3 Mean .7391 .1304 .3043 .3478 .2609 .2609 .4348 .1739 .0435 .3043 .6522
N 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
Std. .44898 .34435 .47047 .48698 .44898 .44898 .50687 .38755 .20851 .47047 .48698
Deviation
4 Mean .9500 .1000 .7000 .4500 .2500 .7000 .6000 .1000 .2500 .6000 1.0000
N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Std. .22361 .30779 .47016 .51042 .44426 .47016 .50262 .30779 .44426 .50262 .00000
Deviation
5 Mean .9333 .2667 .5333 .2667 .1333 .4667 .6667 .1333 .2000 .2667 .8667
N 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Std. .25820 .45774 .51640 .45774 .35187 .51640 .48795 .35187 .41404 .45774 .35187
Deviation
6 Mean .8571 .1429 .4286 .4286 .2857 .7143 .4286 .0000 .1429 .4286 .7143
N 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Std. .37796 .37796 .53452 .53452 .48795 .48795 .53452 .00000 .37796 .53452 .48795
Deviation
7 Mean .8571 .2857 .4286 .1429 .1429 .2857 .7143 .1429 .0000 .4286 1.0000
N 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Std. .37796 .48795 .53452 .37796 .37796 .48795 .48795 .37796 .00000 .53452 .00000
Deviation

1 7
2 8
3 9
4 10
5 11
6

Table 13

17

Q10. How often would
you say that you read a
newspaper, be it
electronically or in hard
copy form? APBT1 PBT2 FB3 DA4 JT5 PC6 PPW7 PBP8 PPC9 PDA10 PFB11
Daily Mean .8966 .9310 .5862 .4828 .3103 .1379 .3103 .5862 .1034 .4483 .1034
N 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29
Std. Deviation .30993 .25788 .50123 .50855 .47082 .35093 .47082 .50123 .30993 .50612 .30993
2-3 Mean .9149 .8085 .3830 .4894 .2340 .1277 .4468 .5745 .1277 .3191 .0213
times N 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
weekly
Std. Deviation .28206 .39773 .49137 .50529 .42798 .33732 .50254 .49977 .33732 .47119 .14586
3–4 Mean .7692 .7692 .3077 .4615 .2308 .3077 .3846 .5385 .0769 .4615 .3077
times N 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
weekly
Std. Deviation .43853 .43853 .48038 .51887 .43853 .48038 .50637 .51887 .27735 .51887 .48038
Never Mean .9375 .9375 .2500 .3750 .1875 .1875 .6875 .8125 .1250 .2500 .0625
N 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
Std. Deviation .25000 .25000 .44721 .50000 .40311 .40311 .47871 .40311 .34157 .44721 .25000

1 7
2 8
3 9
4 10
5 11
6

Table 14
Q12. How often would
you say that you
watch the news? APBT1 PBT2 FB3 DA4 JT5 PC6 PPW7 PBP8 PPC9 PDA10 PFB11
Daily Mean .9600 .9200 .4800 .5400 .2800 .0800 .4200 .5800 .0800 .4000 .0400
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Std. Deviation .19795 .27405 .50467 .50346 .45356 .27405 .49857 .49857 .27405 .49487 .19795
2-3 Mean .8000 .7429 .3714 .4286 .2286 .2571 .4571 .6571 .2286 .3429 .1429
times N 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
weekly
Std. Deviation .40584 .44344 .49024 .50210 .42604 .44344 .50543 .48159 .42604 .48159 .35504
3–4 Mean .8824 .8824 .2941 .3529 .2353 .1765 .4118 .5882 .0000 .2941 .1176
times N 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
weekly
Std. Deviation .33211 .33211 .46967 .49259 .43724 .39295 .50730 .50730 .00000 .46967 .33211
Never Mean 1.0000 1.0000 .3333 .3333 .0000 .3333 .6667 .6667 .0000 .3333 .0000
N 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Std. Deviation .00000 .00000 .57735 .57735 .00000 .57735 .57735 .57735 .00000 .57735 .00000

1 7
2 8
3 9
4 10
5 11
6

Table 15

18

Q14. Do you think
the media focuses
reports on issues
that may be
controversial? APBT1 PBT2 FB3 DA4 JT5 PC6 PPW7 PBP8 PPC9 PDA10 PFB11
1.00** Mean .9000 .1000 .4500 .3750 .8250 .4000 .6000 .1250 .4000 .1750 .1750
N 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Std. Deviation .30382 .30382 .50383 .49029 .38481 .49614 .49614 .33493 .49614 .38481 .38481
2.00 Mean .7778 .0741 .4074 .3333 .9259 .4444 .6296 .0741 .3704 .4074 .1111
N 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27
Std. Deviation .42366 .26688 .50071 .48038 .26688 .50637 .49210 .26688 .49210 .50071 .32026
3.00 Mean .8333 .0000 .4444 .5000 .8889 .3889 .6111 .1111 .3333 .2222 .1111
N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Std. Deviation .38348 .00000 .51131 .51450 .32338 .50163 .50163 .32338 .48507 .42779 .32338
4.00 Mean 1.0000 .1667 .5833 .6667 1.0000 .5000 .5833 .2500 .4167 .2500 .1667
N 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Std. Deviation .00000 .38925 .51493 .49237 .00000 .52223 .51493 .45227 .51493 .45227 .38925
5.00 Mean 1.0000 .0000 .5000 .5000 1.0000 .0000 1.0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000
N 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Std. Deviation .00000 .00000 .70711 .70711 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000
6.00 Mean .8000 .2000 .8000 .8000 1.0000 .4000 .4000 .0000 .2000 .2000 .6000
N 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .44721 .44721 .44721 .44721 .00000 .54772 .54772 .00000 .44721 .44721 .54772
7.00 Mean .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 1.0000 .0000 1.0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000
N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Std. Deviation . . . . . . . . . . .
1 7
2 8
3 9
4 10
5 11
6

4.0 Discussion

The media has had an obvious influence on public perception regarding the Pit Bull due to
the fact that the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT) at 89.5% and the Pit Bull Terrier (PBT)
at 85.7% were the only breeds to score highly when respondents were asked to identify
restricted breeds by name (Figure 6). This is supported by the findings in questions 10 and

19

12 which refer to frequency of media use. Those that read the paper daily (Table 13)
consistently named the APBT (mean 0.8966, st. dev 0.30993) and PBT (mean 0.9310, st.
dev 0.25788) as restricted, but failed to name other restricted breeds such as the Presa
Canario (mean 0.1379, st. dev 0.35093) or Japanese Tosa (mean 0.3103, st. dev 0.47082).
They also could not identify the restricted breeds by physical attributes (Pitweiler mean
0.1379, st. dev 0.47082 and the Bullypit mean 0.3103, st. dev 0.50123). Similar results
were found for those that watched the news daily, consistently naming the APBT (mean
0.9600, st. dev 0.19795) and the PBT (mean 0.9200, st. dev 0.27405), but unable to
identify those same breeds through physical attributes (Pitweiler mean 0.0800, st. dev
0.49857 and Bullypit mean 0.4200, st. dev 0.49857). Those who strongly agreed that the
media influences perceptions (Table 12) also scored highly in naming the APBT (mean
1.000, st. dev 0.000) and the PBT (mean 0.833, st. dev 0.28868). In addition to this, 81%
of respondents agreed (scores 1 – 3 on scale of 1 – 7) that the media focuses on
controversial issues (Figure 1); of those that scored 1 on the Likert scale (Table 15) almost
flawless results occurred during breed identification by name for the APBT (mean 0.9000,
st. dev 0.30382) and the PBT (mean 1.000, st. dev 0.30382), although inability to identify
those breeds by physical attributes was still present (Pitweiler mean 0.6000 st. dev
0.49614, Bullypit mean 0.1250 st. dev 0.33493). Of the 83% (Figure 2, scores 1 – 3 on
scale of 1 – 7) of respondents agreeing that media reports always mention the breed that
has attacked, those that scored 1 consistently identified the APBT as restricted by name
(mean 0.9388, st. dev 0.24223). Interestingly 71% of respondents believe that the media
influenced the government in their implementation of BSL (Figure 4). These results
support the findings of previous studies in that the media consistently targets the Pit Bull
when reporting dog attacks, which in turn influences public perception of the breed. The
results also support previous findings that the breed is often misidentified, particularly
through pictures accompanying articles, leading to skewed public perception on the
physical appearance of the Pit Bull.

No major discrepancies were found between perceptions with gender as the variable. The
only significant finding relating to gender concerned the varying factors that the
respondents felt contributed to dog aggression (Table 7). Males had a tendency to lean
towards more ‘strong’ factors such as born aggressive (sig. 2t 0.032) and dominance (sig.

20

2t 0.049), while females tended to consider more ‘weak’ factors such as fear (Sig. 2t .001)
and nervousness (sig. 2t 0.002) important. The other interesting finding was that males
tend to consider themselves more capable of identifying breeds on physical appearance
than females (Male mean 3.5143, Female mean 4.4429, sig. 2t 0.003).

Major discrepancies were found however when the variable changed to whether the
respondent had worked in the animal welfare industry or not. Behaviours which the
respondent considered to contribute to dog aggression varied; welfare workers considered
nervousness (welfare mean 2.1818, non welfare mean 3.0984 sig. 2t 0.001) a more
important factor than naughty (welfare mean 4.8864, non welfare mean 3.8852, sig. 2t
0.005) when compared to non welfare respondents. When comparing whether the groups
thought the media reported breeds in their stories, animal welfare workers agreed that they
frequently did, while non welfare workers were noncommittal (welfare mean 1.5909, non
welfare mean 2.2787, sig. 2t 0.007). This is perhaps a result of welfare workers being
more interested in media reports concerning animals than those not working in the
industry. When comparing attitudes towards BSL, opinions varied between the groups.
Welfare workers are more skeptical of BSL’s effectiveness (welfare mean 5.4318, non
welfare mean 4.4426, sig. 2t 0.007) and ability to solve aggressive dog problems (welfare
mean 5.8636, non welfare mean 4.9672, sig. 2t 0.008). This finding is most likely the
result of welfare workers being exposed to more aggressive animals from a variety of
breeds compared to that of those not in the industry (Table 9). When it came to identifying
breeds by name, those in the animal welfare industry were more likely to be able to name
the restricted breeds however surprisingly when it came to identifying restricted breeds by
physical appearance alone, those that did not work in the industry proved more successful
(Table 10).
Although the majority of respondents (27.6%) were uncommitted (scored 4 on Likert
scale) when asked whether they thought it was possible to identify breeds on physical
appearance alone, those that did strongly agree that it was possible (scores of 1 – 2 on
Table 11 for combined percentage of 14.3) were unable to name either the Presa Canario
or Pit Bull Terrier as restricted breeds, while only half (0.50%) identified the restricted
breeds of Pitweiler, Bullypit and Dogo Argentino by the pictures provided. Overall the
response was poor for identifying breeds by physical attributes alone. Five of the breeds

21

pictured are classed as restricted in Australia (as shown in Appendix D), yet only one,
Dogo Argentino which is rarely found in Australia, had a response rate of over 50%. The
most dismal results came from the breeds containing the Pit Bull, the only restricted breed
in Australia that is commonplace; the Pitweiler - a Pit Bull / Rottweiller cross, had a
response rate of 16.2%, while the Bullypit – a Bull Terrier / Pit Bull cross, had a response
rate of only 8.6%. Considering that BSL applies to purebreds and their crosses, this is
compelling evidence that BSL cannot work due to the unreliable nature of breed
identification. Of interest it was found that those who were able to name the PBT in
question 28 were more inclined to believe that BSL will be unable to solve the aggressive
dog problem (selected mean 5.5333, not selected mean 4.2000, sig. 2t 0.005). Overall 20%
(scores 1 – 3 on scale of 1 – 7) of respondents agree that BSL is effective, while only 10%
(scores of 1 – 3 on scale of 1 – 7) of respondents believe that BSL will solve the problems
associated with aggressive dogs (Figure 4).

5.0 Conclusion

The results of this survey clearly indicate that the media has had a strong adverse affect on
public perception of the Pit Bull. The ability to name the Pit Bull breed, yet inability to
recognise them physically raises serious questions on the validity of whether the media is
correctly portraying the breed in pictures that accompany news reports. Due to the Pit Bull
not being a recognised breed as such, identification relies on personal perception of what a
Pit Bull should look like. This has serious implications in that any dog, regardless of breed
can be classified as restricted (which entails strict compliance to various control
requirements, and can result in their seizure and euthanasia) if and when a person in the
position to class it as such, regards the dog to resemble a Pit Bull.

Based on the findings of this study, recommendations include the abolishment of BSL and
the introduction of broader, uniformed ownership regulations. This would ensure owners
take a responsible approach to dog ownership. Resources that are currently allocated to the
enforcement of BSL can then be re-directed into community education programs. This
will increase the public’s knowledge on how to identify both specific breeds and dog
behaviour in general. Given that animal welfare workers (including shelter, pound and

22

council workers) are expected to possess specialised knowledge concerning dog breeds
and behaviours, more training is needed to enable them to accurately identify the Pit Bull
not just be name but also by physical traits. In addition, documentation and reporting of
dog attacks in general needs to be standardised. Compulsory reporting by all councils to a
central register will streamline statistics for better analysis of dog attacks. Increased
public knowledge and streamlining of council notification in effect will assist the media in
the researching of dog attacks, thereby reducing inaccurate reporting.

6.0 References
ACAC. 2009. ‘The Importance of Pets’. Australian Companion Animal Council Inc. Retrieved
1 Oct 2009. <http://www.acac.org.au/>

Bradley, Janis. 2007. ‘Dog Bites: Problems and Solutions’. Animals & Society Institute. 2007
Policy Paper. Retrieved 1 Oct 2009.<http://www.understand-a-bull.com/>

Burstein, Devin. 2004. ‘Breed Specific Legislation: Unfair Prejudice & Ineffective Policy’.
Animal Legal & Historical Centre. Retrieved 1 Oct 2009. <http://www.animallaw.info/journals/>

23

Cohen, J. Richardson, J. 2002. ‘Pit Bull Panic’. Journal of Popular Culture. 2:36. pp285-317,
Retrieved 1 Oct 2009. <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/>

Collier, Stephen. 2006 ‘Breed – specific legislation and the Pit Bull Terrier: Are the laws
justified?’, Journal of Veterinary Behavior. Vol 1, pp17-22. Retrieved 1 Oct 2009.
<http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/>

Companion Animals Act 1998. 2009. NSW Legislation. Retrieved 1 Oct 2009.
<http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/>

Companion Animals Regulation 2008. 2009. NSW Legislation. Retrieved 1 Oct 2009. <http://
www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/>

EDBA. 2006. ‘What is Breed Specific Legislation?’ Endangered Dog Breed Association of
Australia. Retrieved 1 Oct 2009. <http://www.edba.org.au/>

Gladwell, Malcolm. 2006. ‘Troublemakers: What Pit Bulls can teach us about profiling’. The
New Yorker. February 6th 2006. Retrieved 1 Oct 2009. <http://www.newyorker.com/>

Houston, T.E. 2007. ‘The Media and The Pit Bull’. For Pit’s Sake. Retrieved 1 Oct 2009.
<http://www.forpitssake.orgl>

Huitson, Niki. 2005. ‘An Exploratory Analysis of the Emergence and Implications of Breed
Specific Legislation: Knee-jerk Reaction or Warranted Response?’ Simon Fraser University.
Retrieved 1 Oct 2009. <http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/retrieve/2404/etd2000.pdf>

Hussain, Safia. 2006. ‘Attacking the Dog-Bite Epidemic: Why Breed-Specific Legislation
Won’t Solve the Dangerous-Dog Dilemma’. Fordham Law Review. April 2006. Vol 74. pp 2847
– 2887. Retrieved 1 Oct 2009. <http://law2.fordham.edu/>

Mills, D.S. Levine, E. 2006. ‘The need for a co-ordinated scientific approach to the
investigation of dog bit injuries’. The Veterinary Journal. 172:3. pp 398 – 399. Retrieved 1 Oct
2009. <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/ >

Ott, S.A. Schalke, E. Von Gaertner, M. Hackbarth, H. 2008. ‘Is there a difference?
Comparison of golden retrievers and dogs affected by breed-specific legislation regarding
aggressive behaviour’ Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 3:3.
pp 134 – 140. Retrieved 1 Oct 2009. <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/>

Schalke, E. Ott, S. Von Gaertner, A.M. Hackbarth, H. Mittmann, A. ‘Is breed-specific
legislation justified? Study of the results of the temperament test of Lower Saxony’. Journal of
Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 3:3. pp 97 – 103. Retrieved 1 Oct
2009. <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/>

24

Seksel, K. 2002. ‘Report to the NSW Department of Local Government on Breed Specific
Legislation Issues Relating to Control of Dangerous Dogs’. NSW Department of Local
Government, Retrieved 1 Oct 2009. <http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/>

Watson, L. 2004. ‘Does Breed Specific Legislation Reduce Dog Aggression on Humans and
other Animals? A Review Paper’. Endangered Dog Breed Association of Australia. Retrieved
September 1st 2009. <http://www.edba.org.au/>

7.0 Appendices

Appendix A: Companion Animals Act 1998 extracts

Division 5 Special restrictions for other dogs

55 Interpretation

25

(1) The following dogs are restricted dogs for the purposes of this Act:
(a) American pit bull terrier or pit bull terrier,
(b) Japanese tosa,
(c) dogo Argentino,
(d) fila Brasileiro,
56 Owner of restricted dog must comply with control requirements

(1) The owner of a restricted dog must ensure that each of the following requirements is complied with:
(a) Desexing
In the case of an existing restricted dog, the dog must be desexed within 28 days after the relevant date.
In the case of any other restricted dog born after the relevant date, the dog must be desexed within 3
months of being born.

(a1) Enclosure requirements
While the dog is on property on which the dog is ordinarily kept, the dog must be kept in an enclosure that
complies with the requirements prescribed by the regulations.
In the case of an existing restricted dog, or a restricted dog born within 3 months after the relevant date,
the owner has 6 months from the relevant date to comply with this paragraph.

Note. A certificate of compliance in relation to the prescribed enclosure must be obtained by the owner of
the dog—see section 58H.
(a2) Until such time as the requirement under paragraph (a1) is complied with in relation to the dog, the dog
must, while on property on which it is ordinarily kept, be kept in an enclosure that is sufficient to restrain
the dog and prevent a child from having access to the dog.
(b) The dog must not at any time be in the sole charge of a person under the age of 18 years.
(c) One or more signs must be displayed on that property showing the words “Warning Dangerous Dog” in
letters clearly visible from the boundaries of the property on which the dog is ordinarily kept or, if the
regulations provide for the signs required by this paragraph, complying with the regulations.
(c1) Distinctive collar must be worn
The dog must at all times wear a collar of the kind prescribed by the regulations.
(d) Dog must be kept on lead and be muzzled
Whenever the dog is outside its enclosure, the dog:
(i) must be under the effective control of some competent person by means of an adequate chain, cord or
leash that is attached to the dog and that is being held by (or secured to) the person, and
(ii) must be muzzled in a manner that is sufficient to prevent it from biting any person or animal.
For the purposes of this paragraph, a dog is not considered to be under the effective control of a person if
the person has more than 2 dogs (one of which is the restricted dog) under his or her control at the one
time.

(h) Registration of dog
In the case of a dog declared by an authorised officer of a council under Division 6 of this Part to be a
restricted dog, the dog must, regardless of its age, be registered (if not already registered) within 7 days
after it is declared to be a restricted dog.
57 Restricted dog may be seized if control requirements not complied with

(4) Seizure after transition period
If, after the transition period, an authorised officer of a council is satisfied that any of the requirements of
section 56 have not been complied with in relation to a restricted dog, the authorised officer may seize the
dog.
(b) the council or the pound operator, as the case requires, may destroy the dog.

26

57A Prohibition on selling restricted dog or proposed restricted dog

(1) A person who sells, or advertises the sale of, a restricted dog or proposed restricted dog is guilty of an
offence.
Note. The term “sell” extends to the transfer of owner by any means, including by gift.
(2) A person does not commit an offence under this section by reason only of surrendering a dog to a council
pound or an approved animal welfare organisation.
Note. A restricted dog that is surrendered to a council pound or an approved animal welfare organisation
cannot be sold.
57B Prohibition on accepting ownership of restricted dog or proposed restricted dog

(1) A person who accepts ownership of a restricted dog or proposed restricted dog is guilty of an offence.
57C Prohibition on breeding restricted dog or proposed restricted dog

A person:
(a) who causes or permits a restricted dog or proposed restricted dog to breed with any other dog, or
(b) who advertises that a restricted dog or proposed restricted dog is available for breeding,
is guilty of an offence.
Division 6 Declaration of dogs as restricted dogs

58A Notice of intention to declare dog to be restricted dog

(1) If an authorised officer of a council is of the opinion that a dog:
(a) is of a breed or kind of dog referred to in section 55 (1) (a)–(d1), or
(b) is a cross-breed of any such breed or kind of dog,
the authorised officer may give notice to the owner of the dog of the officer’s intention to declare the dog
to be a restricted dog.
(a) the requirements that the owner of the dog will be required to comply with if the declaration is made, and
(b) the procedures associated with obtaining a breed or temperament assessment (as referred to in section
58C) in relation to the dog.
Division 7 Other provisions relating to dangerous and restricted dogs

58G Power to seize and destroy dangerous or restricted dog in certain circumstances

(1) Seizing dangerous or restricted dog that attacks
An authorised officer may seize a dangerous or restricted dog if the dog attacks or bites a person or animal
(other than vermin) without provocation.
(1A) Seizing dangerous dog if certain control requirements not complied with
An authorised officer may seize a dangerous dog if the requirements referred to in section 51 (1) (c), (c1)
or (e) are not complied with in relation to the dog on at least 2 separate occasions over any period of 12
months (whether or not each occasion relates to the same requirement).
58H Certificate of compliance required for dangerous and restricted dog enclosures

(1) A person must not own a dangerous dog or restricted dog unless a certificate of compliance under this
section is in force in relation to the enclosure in which the dog is required to be kept under section 51 (1)
(c) or 56 (1) (a1) (as the case requires).

27

Appendix B: Companion Animals Regulation 2008
Part 4 Dangerous or restricted dogs
24 Enclosure requirements for dangerous or restricted dogs

(1) For the purposes of sections 51 (1) (c) and 56 (1) (a1) of the Act, the requirements set out in subclauses
(2)–(4) are prescribed as the requirements that must be complied with in relation to an enclosure for a
dangerous or restricted dog.

28

(2) The enclosure must:
(a) be fully enclosed, constructed and maintained in such a way so that the dog is not able to dig or otherwise
escape under, over or through the enclosure, and
(b) be constructed in such a way so that a person cannot have access to it without the assistance of an
occupier of the property who is above the age of 18 years, and
(c) be designed to prevent children from having access to the enclosure, and
(d) not be located on the property in such a way so that people are required to pass through the enclosure to
gain access to other parts of the property, and
(e) have a minimum height of 1.8 m and a minimum width of 1.8 m, and
(f) have an area of not less than 10 square metres for each dangerous or restricted dog kept on the property,
and
(g) have walls that are fixed to the floor and constructed to be no more than 50 mm from the floor, and
(h) have walls, a fixed covering and a gate that are constructed of:
(i) brick, timber, iron or similar solid materials, or
(ii) mesh that complies with subclause (4), or
(iii) a combination of the materials referred to in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), and
(i) have a floor that is constructed of sealed concrete and graded to fall to a drain for the removal of effluent,
and
(j) provide a weatherproof sleeping area of sufficient dimensions to enable each dangerous or restricted dog
kept on the property to shelter from the weather.
(3) Any gate to the enclosure must:
(a) contain a self-closing and self-latching mechanism that enables the enclosure to be securely locked when
the dog is in the enclosure, and
(b) be kept locked when the dog is in the enclosure, and
(c) display the warning sign referred to in clause 26.
(4) Mesh used in the construction of an enclosure must be:
(a) chain mesh manufactured from at least 3.15 mm wire to form a maximum mesh spacing of 50 mm, or
(b) weldmesh manufactured from at least 4 mm wire with a maximum mesh spacing of 50 mm.
26 Warning signs for dangerous or restricted dogs

(1) For the purposes of sections 51 (1) (d) and 56 (1) (c) of the Act, a sign or signs complying with subclause
(2) must be situated so that the words “Warning Dangerous Dog” are legible to any person immediately
before entering the property by way of any gate, door or other entry point.
(2) Each such sign must:
(a) be no smaller than 40 cm × 40 cm, and
(b) be made of durable materials, and
(c) show the words “Warning Dangerous Dog” in letters that are, in any case, at least 50 mm high and 10 mm
wide.
27 Distinctive collars for dangerous or restricted dogs

(1) For the purposes of sections 51 (1) (d1) and 56 (1) (c1) of the Act, a collar is of the prescribed kind if:
(a) it consists of red stripes alternatively spaced with yellow stripes, each stripe being 25 mm wide and set
diagonal to the rim of the collar at an angle of 45 degrees, and
(b) all of the stripes of at least 1 of the 2 colours are sufficiently reflective so as to be visible in low light, and
(c) it is made of durable materials, and
(d) it is able to be securely fastened, and
(e) it has a device or other facility that enables it to be attached to a leash, and
(f) it has a minimum width of:
(i) 25 mm for a dog weighing less than 20 kg, or
(ii) 40 mm for a dog weighing between 20 kg and 40 kg, or
(iii) 50 mm for a dog weighing more than 40 kg.

29

(2) A dog must not wear any such collar unless the dog is a dangerous dog or a restricted dog.

Appendix C: Survey
Media Influence and Breed Specific Legislation

This survey is being conducted between the 5th – 15th October 2009. Any person of
any age or background is welcome to complete the survey. No identifying personal
information is required, ensuring your complete anonymity.

30

The principle aim of this research project is to discover whether the media has an
influence over the public and their perception of specific issues, namely Breed
Specific Legislation. As well as this, it is endeavoured to discover if there are other
influencing factors which shape perceptions including; background, education level,
age, sex, and life experience.

If there are any concerns or queries please feel free to contact the researcher,
Michelle Butcher by email on either michellebutchermb@hotmail.com or
16781737@student.uws.edu.au

Please complete and email the survey to the above addresses by the 15th October
2009.

Thankyou for your assistance.

Breed Specific Legislation is legislation that bans or places restrictions on the
ownership of specific breeds of dog which have been deemed dangerous.

Please Answer ALL Questions

ü Please copy this tick and paste in front of your answer.
1. Which age group do you □ Under 20
belong to?
□ 21 – 25
□ 26 – 30
□ 31 – 35
□ Over 35, Please Specify_________
2. What is your gender? □ Male □ Female
3. What country were you □ Australia

31

born in? □ Other, Please Specify
__________________________
4. What country were your □ Australia
parents born in?
□ Other, Please Specify
__________________________
5. Do you currently? □ Live at home with parents
□ Board
□ Rent
□ Own
□ Other, please specify
_______________________________
6. What is your level of □ High School □ Tertiary
education?
□ Undergraduate □ Postgraduate
_______________________________________
7. What level of education □ High School □ Tertiary
did your parents achieve?
□ Undergraduate □ Postgraduate
_______________________________________
8. Do you currently? □ Study full time □ Study part time
(tick all that apply)
□ Work full time □ Work part time
□ Unemployed

9. Have you ever worked in □ No □ Yes
the animal welfare If yes, are you still currently working in the
industry?
industry? □ Yes □ No
How long have you currently or previously worked
in the industry? Please Specify__________
10. How often would you □ Daily
say that you read a
□ 2 – 3 times weekly
newspaper, be it
electronically or in
hard copy form?
□ Never
12. How often would you □ Daily

32

say that you watch the □ 2 – 3 times weekly
news?

□ Never
13. Do you think the media
influences your Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
perception of issues? Agree Disagree
14. Do you think the media
focuses reports on Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
issues that may be Agree Disagree
controversial?
15. Have you seen any
media reports on dog □ No □ Yes
attacks?
16. Did these reports
mention the breed Always 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never
which had attacked?
17. Were these reports
accompanied by a Always 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never
picture of the dog that
had attacked?
18. Have you previously □ No □ Yes
owned a dog?

19. Do you currently own a □ No □ Yes
dog? If yes how many? ____________________
20. Have you previously
heard of Breed □ No □ Yes □ Unsure
Specific Legislation?
21. Where did you first □ News media □ Book □ Friend / family
learn of BSL?
□ Social networking site □ Website
□ Other, please specify______________________
22. Have you previously □ No □ Yes □ Unsure
owned a dog that is If yes how many? ____________________
restricted by BSL?
23. Do you currently own a □ No □ Yes □ Unsure
breed that is restricted If yes how many? ____________________
by BSL?
24. Do you believe the

33

media has played a role Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
in the government Agree Disagree
implementing BSL?
25. Do you believe BSL is an
effective tool to reduce Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
problems associated Agree Disagree
with aggressive dogs?
26. Do you believe BSL will
solve the problems Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
associated with Agree Disagree
aggressive dogs?
27. What factors do you
believe contribute to a
dog showing
aggression?

A: Fear Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree

B: Pain Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree

C: Nervousness Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree

D: Born Aggressive Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree

E: Untrained Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree

F: Naughty Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree

G: Dominance Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree

28. Please select all the □ Bull Terrier □ Chihuahua
breeds that you think
□ Presa Canario □ Affenpinscher
are classed as
□ Rottweiler □ Shiba Inu
restricted under BSL in
Australia
□ Japanese Tosa □ Maltese Terrier
□ Bull Mastiff □ Dogue De Bordeaux
□ Akita □ Pit Bull Terrier

34

□ Dogo Argentino □ Neopolitan Mastiff
□ Fila Brasilerio □ Doberman
□ American Pit Bull Terrier

29. Do you think it is
possible to accurately
identify a dog’s breed Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
based on physical Agree Disagree
appearance alone?

30. Please identify which breeds of dog which you believe are restricted,
based on physical appearance, from those pictured below.

□ □ □

□ □ □

35

□ □ □

□ □ □

□ □ □
Thankyou for participating in this survey
Appendix D: Breeds used in Question 30 of Survey
30. Please identify which breeds of dog which you believe are restricted, based on
physical appearance, from those pictured below.
Restricted / Banned breeds names are in red.

Presa Canario American Bandogge Mastiff American Bull Dogue de

36

Bordeaux

American Bulldog American Staffordshire Terrier Australian Bandogge

Boerboel Bull Mastiff Bullypit (American Bulldog /
American Pit Bull Terrier Hybrid)

Dogue De Bordeaux Dogo Argentino Fila Brasileiro

Guatamalan Bull Terrier Pitweiler (Pit Bull Terrier Ultimate Mastiff (Dogue de
/ Rottweiler Hybrid) Bordeaux /Neapolitan Mastiff
Hybrid)

37

BSL, Pit Bull Perceptions & Influencing Factors

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à BSL, Pit Bull Perceptions & Influencing Factors

Similaire à BSL, Pit Bull Perceptions & Influencing Factors (16)

BSL, Pit Bull Perceptions & Influencing Factors