A call to include more dangerous dogs in restricted breed legislation is being made by WA Local Government Association president Troy Pickard.
… he said the State Government could also look at adding Boerboel, a large mastiff breed from South Africa, to the list of restricted breeds.
He rejected a view by the RSPCA that a dog’s behaviour was shaped by its upbringing and training rather than its breed.
“There are dogs that have it in their DNA to kill and it’s their breeding, that’s their gene pool,” he said. (ref)
What could be the driver behind adding a rarely seen purebred to the ‘dangerous’ dog list? (According to the Boerboel Australia website there are only twelve breeders nationally, and just two in WA).
Only that these new laws apply to purebred AND crossbreed dogs.
Simply banning ‘pit bull type’ dogs doesn’t give Councils enough powers against all the mastiffy, araby and staffy blends they desire to target.
Rather than give up on the failed premise of breed specific laws, they instead are looking to expand the criteria to include pretty much any dog that looks any way.
(Ironically, making their breed specific laws so general as to absolutely make breed irrelevant in likely behaviours).
Given currently there is no official ‘visual identification’ process to reference in id’ing dogs. If they say it’s a pit bull, then it’s a pit bull. Henceforth if they say it’s a Boerboel, it’s a Boerboel.
How totally absurd.