I live over in England and pitbull terriers have already been placed on the dangerous dogs act along with the Japanese Tosa, Fila Brasielero and the Dogo Argentino.
Out of the four the Pitbull terrier was and has always been the most popular out of the four breeds.

After this act was put into place, the trend was quickly placed onto the Staffordshire Bullterriers and soon they were being bred to be larger in size, and being crossed with various mastiff type dogs in order to appear in size to the Pitbull terrier. - As far as I know the pitbull terrier is actually not a specific breed but simply a type of dog. (Forgive me if i'm wrong) I'm sure that they are simply large Staffordshire Bullterriers.

These days Staffies have definitely increased in size, so I wouldn't be surprised if the same will happen in Australia. Another worrying trend which is happening over here is the increase in Mastiff type dogs being owned by the wrong types of people; The Rottweiler and the Dogue de Bordeaux are often favourites to mis-place the Pitbulls - A legal and larger alternative dog.

By introducing and placing the Pitbull Terrier onto the dangerous dogs act, people will simply move on to finding a suitable alternative, Or will continue to keep the dogs illegally often in poor conditions and will in turn over-breed them for the high demand they will have.

The sensible thing for the Australian goverment to do, would be focus more on the ownership of the dogs, - no matter what breed. And crunching down very hard on irresponsible dog ownership.
They should focus less on what type of dog breed it is, and think more about kicking some of the bad owners butts into shape.

Ban the Deed Not the Breed! Breed legislation really is not the way forward... Where does one stop with the legislation? A Pitbull is not really any more dangerous than a Rottweiler, which in turn is no more likely to bite than an Akita?

Forgive me for my ignorance... But in Australia do you guys have the same licensing conditions as the UK for keeping the Pitbull terriers (The need to have them registered, neutred, kept on lead and muzzled in public places?)

This is from the link below, worth a read as it has some extraordinary info there and stories of people who have had to move due to the reaction of keeping their pitbulls and a scale they use to measure the risk a pitbull is, and how a chihuahua was almost an identical match in danger.

• The dog is kept in a child-proof enclosure

• The dog is at no time in the sole charge of a person under 18

• One or more signs on their property must display "Warning Dangerous Dog"

• When in public the dog is leashed or chained with a muzzle

• The guardians must notify the council if the dog has attacked or injured a person, is lost, has died, changed ownership or moved.

• Owners of restricted breeds who do not comply can be fined up to $5500. On top of that, the dog can be seized by an authorised officer who can enter your property and the dog can then be sold or destroyed within 14 days unless the officer is satisfied the council’s requirements are met. In this case, you have just 14 days to move house or build the necessary enclosures.

http://www.dogslife.com.au/dogs_life...446&pid=146514

Wow thanks for the interesting link, It certainly was a good insightful read - Thankyou.

No surprise that they mentioned the ridiculous outlawing of "big" dogs in Germany, If Germany and Italy had there way no dog would be any taller than a miniature Yorkshire terrier! It's amazing how people can actually be foolish enough to believe that only big dogs can bite and are considered dangerous. All those poor dogs that have been destroyed there and for what!? It's absolutely barmy.

The article was really touching, it really brings to home the plight of the Pitbull terrier - Especially in America where many states are following the EU and Australia into introducing muzzling laws and bans of the owning of Pitbull type dogs.
Some of the cases were really disgusting, The poor lady having to move from her home into a one bedroom apartment just to save the lives of her beloved dogs - Any body on this forum would likely do the same, But why should the lady ever have to choose? The world is such a cruel place. Some arses should be kicked for introducing these stupid laws. Another which really infuriated me was the poor Pitbull Logan, If he had no aggressive bone in his body and had never harmed a sole in what right does the council - Or anybody have to seize him and make the choice to end his life? Some of those stories really bought tears to my eyes. It's painfully true, and just so unfair.

It's basically discrimination against breeds of dogs! - It would never be allowed with humans, So how come they do it with our four legged furry friends?

Thanks again for the link, It's such a shame that Australia sounds so much alike to England