The debate over dangerous dogs in Victoria is stuck in a toxic deadlock. On one side, public safety demands action; on the other, the "Anti-BSL" lobby claims breed is irrelevant. This update breaks down why current laws are failing and explains the terminology, the science, and the path forward.
The False Choice
For decades, the conversation around dangerous dogs in Victoria has been paralyzed by a false binary choice. The public is told we must choose between:
- Banning dogs based on looks (which is currently ineffective), or
- Regulating all dogs exactly the same (which ignores biological reality).
This deadlock has created a legislative vacuum. While these two sides argue, the loopholes widen, and victims pay the price. To move forward, we need to understand the terms, the failures, and the science.
Defining the Deadlock
To understand why the law isn't working, we have to look at the two conflicting philosophies driving the debate.
1. The Public Safety Position
Often mislabeled as the "BSL Lobby," this isn't an organized group. It is simply the broad public expectation that the government will restrict items—whether they are chemicals, weapons, or animals—based on their capacity to cause harm. The argument is simple: higher risk requires stricter regulation.
2. The "Breed Neutral" Position (The Anti-BSL Lobby)
Opposing these restrictions is a coalition of animal welfare groups, shelter organizations, and veterinary associations (often referred to as the "Anti-BSL" lobby). They champion "Breed Neutrality"—the philosophy that "breed is irrelevant" and that legislation should only target individual dog behavior ("deed not breed"). While this sounds fair in principle, it creates a policy blind spot regarding genetics.
Why Current BSL Fails in Victoria
Critics often claim that "BSL doesn't work." In Victoria, they are technically correct, but for the wrong reason.
Current Breed Specific Legislation fails not because the concept of restriction is wrong, but because the implementation is outdated, narrow, and unscientific.
- The "Purebred" Myth: The Domestic Animals Act 1994 restricts specific breeds by name, most notably the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT). However, purebred APBTs are virtually non-existent in Victoria. The vast majority of the problem comes from the wider genetic group—mixes, XL Bullies, and variants—that do not strictly fit the narrow legal definition. The law is hunting a ghost.
- The "Staffy Loophole": Because the law targets the APBT label, owners can easily bypass regulations by identifying their dog as an "American Staffordshire Terrier" or "Staffy Cross." To the naked eye, these dogs can be visually identical. To the law, one is a "Restricted Breed" and the other is a standard family pet.
- The "Smuggler" Problem: We cannot judge the effectiveness of border control if the smugglers are running the checkpoints. In Victoria, the advisory bodies and enforcement agencies tasked with upholding these laws are often the very same organizations that publicly campaign against them. This creates a profound conflict of interest where the goal of "enforcement" is replaced by a goal of "minimization."
The "Breed Neutral" Fallacy: Ignoring Physics
The "Breed Neutral" argument relies on ignoring two fundamental scientific realities: Physics and Genetics.
The slogan "It's the owner, not the breed" confuses Likelihood with Consequence.
- The Physics Argument: A mistake by the owner of a small companion breed may result in a nip. A mistake by the owner of a powerful fighting breed can result in a mauling or death. Training can mitigate the likelihood of a bite, but you cannot "train" the physics out of a dog. Regulation is about managing the capacity for disaster.
- The Genetics Argument: We accept that Pointers point and Retrievers retrieve because of centuries of selective breeding. To deny that fighting breeds—selected for generations for "gameness" (the drive to continue attacking despite pain)—have different behavioral traits is a form of science denialism.
The Way Out: Genetic Clade Regulation
The solution is not to abandon BSL, but to modernize it. We must stop measuring head shapes and start looking at the genetic blueprint.
We are proposing a shift to Genetic Clade Regulation:
- Abandon Visual ID: Replace subjective tape measures and checklists with objective DNA testing.
- Close the Loophole: Recognize that "Pit Bulls," "AmStaffs," and "XL Bullies" are not distinct biological buckets—they are a single genetic cluster (clade) bred for specific physical and behavioral traits.
- Regulate Risk: Apply restrictions based on the dog's genetic lineage and physical capacity.
We can respect the desire to treat every dog as an individual, but the government has a duty to ensure that animals with the capacity for lethal violence are not distributed and managed as harmless pets.