In the Sunday Mail last week, they had the option to SMS in questions to Mike Rann (Labor) or Rob Kerin (Liberal). I decided to try my luck, and I messaged in, "South Australia is one of the states with breed specific legislations in place. What action will your party be seeking in order to abolish this ridiculous legislation that does not work, and instead legilsate responsible pet ownership?" (Or something to that affect...)

Then, I forgot all about it and only saw the paper today. I was shocked! :o Mike Rann had responded.

:mad: :mad: :mad:
There are SO many things wrong with this short paragraph.

• APBT were not bred for fighting. :rolleyes:
• Some of the prescribed breeds were bred for fighting - for fighting other dogs!!
• Only prescribed breeds pose a danger to children?
• "This legislation is policed" - what about all the other non-policed laws which, if policed, could reduce dog bites? GRR!
• He admits that only "a small-minority of pet owners are not responsible" - that means a large-majority of pet owners are suffering! Why should the majority suffer as a result of a minority?
• He says 'pet owners are not responsible' - but is supporting BSL, which clearly targets breeds and not owners - yet here he is saying that owners are the problem!

I'm sure you can find more things wrong.

The Sunday Mail was again running the SMS thing, so I SMSed to Rob Kerin, "The Labor party introduced breed specific legislation on false information. Will you seek to reverse this legislation that punishes responsible pet owners and instead legislate responsible pet ownership?"

I can't leave it at this. GRR! There is SO MUCH wrong with what 'Mike Rann' had published in the paper, and I don't want the public to accept this as 'the truth'. I plan to e-mail Rann rebutting that paragraph with those points (and any you guys come up with ;). Of course I've got my letter to QLD's premier saved). I also am going to e-mail my rebutal letter to the Sunday Mail and hope they publish it. :(
(The Advertiser/Sunday Mail have published my letters before [though not about BSL], so hopefully my e-mail jumps out at them. ;))

The saddest thing was, I was going to vote for Labor... But I can't support this party now. :mad:

I'm not sure if your BSL's are so different than our BSL's, but I would like to point a couple of things out (which I am basing upon our BSL's).

1. The majority of the public (at least here) is in favor of BSL's, including the majority of dog owners.

2. "Some of the prescribed breeds were bred for fighting - for fighting other dogs!!" Fighting other dogs is the problem. For one thing, it's animal cruelty, for another thing, dog fights attract drug activity (most dog fights are done by drug dealers), which is bad all the way around for the community.

3. "This legislation is policed" - what about all the other non-policed laws which, if policed, could reduce dog bites? GRR!" Odds are they could care less about the dog bites, they need legislation like this so they can go after dog fighters/drug dealers. In some areas here, people who own banned breeds can even go to jail just for having them, but it's at the police's discretion, so basically it's like, if you're a drug dealer fighting dogs, then yeah you're going to jail, if you just have a beloved pet, then at most you might get a citation, or have to move the dog out of the area.

4. "He admits that only "a small-minority of pet owners are not responsible" - that means a large-majority of pet owners are suffering! Why should the majority suffer as a result of a minority?" It's only a small minority of drunk drivers that wreck... it's the small minorities of screw ups that make us all suffer, if it wern't for small minorities like that, we wouldn't need laws (well, we might need something about cheating on taxes, since that's not really a small minority of people. :D )

5. "He says 'pet owners are not responsible' - but is supporting BSL, which clearly targets breeds and not owners - yet here he is saying that owners are the problem!" You can't go after the owners without the laws being in place, can you?


Sorry if I'm mis-interpreting the situation, because I'm not familiar with what's going on over there with that.

I love Bully Breeds!! :wub: they're cool! and that law is stupid!! :angry:

That's because of the crap that the media produces. The media only wants to report on attacks by breeds affected by BSL. Most individuals don't research facts.
Most people put goldfish in a bowl. Doesn't mean this is an appropriate home.

BSL doesn't ban dog fights. In most communities, dog fighting is banned. HISTORICALLY some of these breeds are bred for dog fights, which may mean they're more dog aggressive, but they're certainly not human aggressive. I'm all for banning dog fights, not for banning (or legislating against) specific breeds.

BSL is made to stop dog bites, not dog fights.
Why should someone have to move out of an area (or move their dog out of an area) because of the breed of dog they own?

I'm for laws against irresponsible owners. I'm against laws against dogs.


I think you misinterpreted my meaning. I don't think absolutely everyone should own dogs, or no laws should be in place for dogs. I don't want BSL to be in place.