From David Hartley in New Zealand to a politician of his acquaintance.

I think this really does sum up the extreme problem they face over there.

If anyone can help please act now.
David Levy
====================

I am glad to see a balanced view in the Internal Affairs interim report on
the dangerous dog debate. If I read between the lines, Local Govt NZ and
Internal Affairs have probably heard quite a bit about the 'Breed Specific
Legislation' issue and its failure to reduce the incidence of dog bite
occurrence around the world.
But Jane, I am trying to find reason and sense in Section 13: Breeds of
dog involved in attacks on people. I am absolutely horrified to see how
the local government data supplied in the survey responses has been
interpreted for the report. And the manner in which this has COMPLETELY
sabotaged all the good work we had accomplished in trying to get members
of the media to understand the breeds issue and change the tone of their
breed specific slander. I cannot tell you how devastated I am in this
regard.

"All mixed breeds have been included in the "main" parent breed numbers
(e.g. a Pit Bull Terrier cross is counted as a "Pit Bull Terrier"). In the
case of specified mixed-breeds, (e.g. Pit Bull Terrier/Labrador cross) the
attack has been attributed to the first breed mentioned (e.g. Pit Bull)."

The generic, catch all terms for crossbreed dogs with a vaguely 'bull
breed' heritage are 'staffy X' or 'staffordshire terrier X'. These have
now been translated into 'Staffordshire Bull Terrier' by the Ministry of
Internal Affairs. The interim report published thus reflects very badly on
pedigree breeds such as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier when viewed in
isolation of the supporting commentary. Was it absolutely necessary for
administrators to fall back on the lowest common denominator when
analysing statistics that are recognised as being fundamentally flawed?
that logic was used in this process?

The consequence of having inadequate systems in place to monitor dog bite
incidents now equates to a very public destruction of the reputation of
the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and other breeds. Yet it is as clear as
day to the officials of animal control, SPCA, NZKC etc etc that the
pedigree breeds named are simply not related to the majority of dog
attacks! The composite of the local government dog bite stats should have
read CROSS BREED for at least six of of the top ten culprit list! Read the
stats from Auckland City for a quick reminder, and the point is seen to
stand up to scrutiny. Believe me, the reaction I have had from some of the
more potent but less desirable media commentators has been one of
unadulterated glee.

How scientific is government's thinking? Using this logic, an animal
control officer who reports a large, brindle coloured dog of uncertain
parentage using the term 'staffy X', because he knows no better, will now
see his actions reflect very negatively on a breed not at all involved in
the incident he is reporting! I understand entirely the difficulties in
analysing flawed data, but this is crazy. Instead of recognising the
pedigree breeding patterns that demand and get sound temperament in dogs,
the interim report destroys it by lumping in mongrels under pedigree
names, stating that breed A or breed B is most likely to attack a human,
when it is the cross bred derivatives of these dogs that are actually
listed as the culprits by the local councils. I simply cannot understand
how or why this logic was adopted by the policy group.

Our formal complaints to TVNZ and Newstalk ZB on breed specific
misrepresentation? Dead in the water. Our educational efforts with
journalist staff at the Herald, Post and ChCh City Press? Blown to bits,
just as it was actually showing signs of coming right. I fully expect to
have Paul Holmes espousing a fresh round of anti- Stafford vitriol this
week, and I am sure you understand just how powerful his particular style of
sensationalism is in this fragile world.

When I first came to New Zealand I was struck by just how many people used
the term 'staffy X' to describe their dogs, when it was as clear as day
that their dogs were indiscriminate mongrels, as distantly related to a
pedigree Stafford as an Arabian mule is to a thoroughbred derby winner.
Often, the only link between the 'staffy X' and the pedigree Stafford is
limited to colour - usually the distinctive brindle and white patch -
but all other dimensions are as variable as the NZ weather. And that takes
into account that by no means all Staffords are brindle. I've seen dogs
from the size of pointers to the size of Jack Russells, and everything in
between described as 'staffy X', often at pet shops, a prime culprit in
the sudden growth of this misleading term. Combined with the irresponsible
(and hopefully soon illegal) practice of people registering their dog as
'staffy X' when it's very definitely something else (i.e. pit bulls post-
Local Government Act 1999), we have the crazy situation of today's
defamation of a popular and trustworthy breed. Please don't think I am
simply trying to protect my 'angel' as Brian Rudman would have his readers
believe, it is simply the truth in an increasingly truth-less debate.

How quite extraordinarily unfair this interim report is to the
decades-long efforts of the breeders of fine pedigree dogs, not just
Staffordshires, but to all the other breeds that have been misrepresented.
Years and years of highly focussed breeding for temperament, appearance,
health and loving companionship, blown right out of the water just like
that.

So, with the Staffordshire Bull Terrier in mind, we are left with a
yawning chasm between how the canine experts of the world describe a
breed's behaviour, and how the breed is actually perceived to behave by
government interpretation of poor quality statistics, which consequently
serves to feed anti-dog media commentators. God alone knows what Joe Soap
must think.

The following is how the NZ Kennel Club describes the Staffordshire Bull
Terrier (it's basically the same as all the other Kennel Clubs around the
world):

"From the past history of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the modern dog
draws his character of indomitable courage, high intelligence and
tenacity. This coupled with his affection for his friends, and children in
particular; his off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, makes him
the foremost all-purpose dog."

Crikey, is there a problem with this. Because if the Staffordshire Bull
Terrier is such a dangerous dog, how on earth could the Kennel Club get it
so wrong? The are over 250,000 Staffords in the UK alone. That's an awful
lot of dogs. If they were vicious and untrustworthy, if they had a
reputation as suggested by interim report statistics, would the breed be
so historially popular? Of course not.

Despite all the misinformation in this maddeningly frustrating debate, I
sense that the Interim Report is leaning away from Breed Specific
Legislation, which is a relief. If our government falls into the trap of
passing bad law because of isolated tragedies, it would be a poor
reflection of the intellectual capacity of our government system. I
believe that responsible government officials know that all dogs have the
capacity to bite humans, just like all humans have the capacity to hurt
dogs, and that education is the key to minimising the risks all round,
that more often than not it is the actions of PEOPLE that lead to the
actions of their dogs.

Let's watch the forthcoming documentary this week on the dog fighting fans
in South Auckland to understand a little more about the two-legged beasts
we share our city with before passing further comment on the four legged
friends we love and adore.

Yours in utter exasperation,
David Hartley

Staffords.co.uk / K.C.Liaison / New Zealand