geo

Off lead dogs always used to piss me off running upto my leashed and sometimes DA staffy (he was a rescue, had been used for baiting).. Anyways, the owners would say, "oh he's alright"... "well that's fine but my dog is not" i'd say.. "oh but he's wagging his tail".... "yeah don't be fooled by that".. Some people would say,"it's just 'cause he's on lead!".. then i'd almost have to demonstrate it for them to believe me.., like i don't know my own dog. Now i have a bounding 36kg 1year old dog who i want to avoid having a negative impact on other dogs or having them having a go at him because they're not quite sure how to read other dogs signals. SWF owners tend to mother their dogs a little too much (gross generalistaion i know) and the majority that i've met have been aggro towards bigger dogs, and they tend to react quicker to boistrous behavior as they can feel threatened, i know i would if i was a little 'un. So as a rule their is no off leash with strange dogs or really small ones, (just incase he stepped on them).

I agree, Staffies will top the list as they're now being targeted by the media, also i feel they are by far the most populus dog in Australia, (so stats will only prove correct if they have been seasonally adjusted to reflect true numbers) you only have to look in the trading post and search 'staffy' for pages and pages of BYB dogs. The councils i feel also got pissed at everyone calling their potential pitty a staffy cross to avoid the chance of it being PTS, in most cases they would've been a staffy cross as pure bred pits aren't the norm. Apparently for the last 20 years staffies have been the great dog next door, now for soem reason they're accountable for all the attacks!!! god damn media and stupid public perception.

I disagree SBT, dumbass people are everywhere, it's just ashame that they're allowed to own such a breed. Again the minority ruining it for the majority, and broad generalisations are just as bad.

OMG did you read peoples comments, i swear the media has so much to answer for. When will people learn that they are just becomming media puppets by perpetuating the myth of the pitbull. Will they only be happy when they can view them behind bullet proof glass at a circus or something.

Absolute drivel...Certain breeds, Killer instinct!! you really have a way with words! I think that any dog with the 'killer" instinct is the exception tho the rule not the other way round. So you've seen a few staffies that according to you are DA, most people never let any squabbles get past the first growl only to declare all staffies DA! maybe if dogs were introduced in controlled enviroments where the dogs were at ease and not random in a park or the excitement of obedience classes, which is the worst place to try and socialise you dog effectively and in a controlled matter, you wouldn't have the same opinion. My rescue staffy was DA because of being mistreated/baited, i trained him and now he has plenty of dog freinds, but also plenty that he doesn't get along with, this is not because of his BREED!!!

You have suggested breed specific legislation in this thread. They don't. 90% of what they report on they allege involved a Pitbull or Staffy. Of that, only a small fraction actually do involved those breeds. Further more, something that seems to escape you and alot of others, for every reported attack there are atleast 100 others. So its not "whenever a tragedy occurs" at all. They make this current affair tripe for people like you that swallow it all. Too tru Lo pan, good post. Abigail clearly has very little understanding of it all! Apparently staffies can pull down male lions with one paw tied behind their back! so said A Current Affair:laugh: FYI the report said, "suspected of being crossed with a pitbull"!!! they had no proof just wanted to add it in to make the story sound good, what a load of tossers! one was apparently 40kg's!!! i'm really sure that one was a staffy, one of them looked like it was crossed with a kelpie! not that breed matters, just goes to show how little the journalists know.

Hey there folks I have been watching this out of curiosity as we have had similar debates here in the USofA but have never had the American Stafford threatened, at least not that I know of. One thing that has happened in similar situations is a theory you don't seem to have considered here. Never underestimate the power of the almighty dollar. Municipal authorities have very big pockets and generally settle out of court. I note that the dog owners said they have paid out thousands of dollars and been without their dog for a number of years. Had they of triumphed in this case was there a liabilities case to come? Were they expecting a lottery win sized payout for their pain and suffering? Was the American Stafford put at risk out of greed for their own earn rather than for the love of one dog? How many others would have been able to follow on the coat tails if they had won? How many have possibly been bluffed into helping? I am not saying they did it just for the money please no.. But I have seen it happen here! I'd like to think they weren't after a big payout, though many countries/people are becoming more and more like the states with their enthusiam and greed for suing people. had they won compensation etc.. it would've opened the flood gates for sure, but in saying that, the GCCC has already admitted that it had no experts and the 22point checklist was flawed, so anyone who has lost a dog or been forced interstate may have a case. Hopefully an appeal will help turn things around.

Ok so focusing more on ownership here, everytime i went to the local pound, everytime i look in the local papers, the one breed that seems to pop up a lot is Staffy. To me it seems that every other dog is a staffy or staffy cross. I have several friends in california and they rate the APBT as one of the highest owned dogs, but again this all depends on where you live and i guess the socio economic background. And when it comes to stats on registered ownership (in the US), thats exactly what they are, registered, and i'd go out on a whim and say that a large majority of pitbulls aren't registered. I bet the majority of dogs in pounds over there are also pits. If you think we had a problem with BYB over here you can imagine how bad it is over there.

The pitbull is only regarded as socially undesirable because of common public misconception. I agree that once they were the same breed but that was many many years ago, but i don't agree that the litigant set out to deceive anybody, let alone thought that all amstaffs would now be in this terrible position. I just wish that everyone would set their sights on getting the amstaff out of this mess instead of blaming just 1 person for putting them into it. Many poeple can't believe that their dogs have now been lumped into the BSL debacle, along with the poor pitty, they'll now be tarred with the media brush and any attacks will soon become amstaff crosses instead of pitbull just so they can justify banning it! So the sooner people band together and stop poitning the finger the better for all breeds!

That can't be answered by anyone without someone disagreeing, the Layman may have a case to say yes, but the learned breed fanciers will say no. I can see both sides of the argument, but as far as Australia is concerned i feel they are different, in a same same but different sought of way. It is easy to tell them apart over here i find.

Yep it sure does put people on either side of the fence, and i cannot believe anyone who loves dogs (infact no-one on this whole forum) could possibly support BSL in any form, if they do then in my opinion they are just as guilty as the law makers for killing innocent pets.

I'm not denying the harm that's been done, and i do feel for all the amstaff owners out there, it was terrible news, all i'm saying is that harping on about whose fault it is doesn't help anyone. As for anti BSL crap, what have you done, how have you made a difference? So if you care about amstaff owners, tell us what you've done to help them?

Yet another poor pathetic finger blaming response from the sour lemon It's obvious you can't see past this, so why do you even bother coming In here ETA: Continuing to blame the very people who have been and are still fighting hard In regards to BSL and for ALL dogs is very poor form, If you can't see that this is nothing other than a personal attack on one dog then you and the rest are not seeing the bigger picture. Must agree rottn, get over it whippets, what have you done lately to help stop BSL?

Filo?! what are they, pastry?!!! FILA! got to agree with lilli, being hostile whilst guarding property is different to being out in the streets and being HA. People on this forum should remember that their experiences are just that.. that does not make them experts, unless you've owned one Sandgrubber or several for that matter maybe you shouldn't be spouting what you've read or heard. I've owned several dogs, well read but by no means an expert in any breed as far as my experience has shown is that all dogs are different even litter mates, if a breeder with years experience was to come on here and pass opinion then i would listen until someone does i'll form my own opinion and not try to tell others what breeds behave in which manner, especially if i've not owned one.

Good post Bulldogz!

Very sad to hear about your horses, would hate that to happen to my families horses. But saying a whole breed should be banned shows how little you may know about dogs as a whole, (ie saying that staffies came from pitbulls etc.. i read on another thread post of yours) many dogs were bred to bring down prey, it just so happened that you say it was an APBT done this to your horse, so of course they must all be dangerous blah blah blah. many breeds could of done this also, so should we ban them all?! Still very sad and i'd want the owners of the dog made responsible and to pay all costs involved, poor horse. I hope he made a speedy recovery.

Very sensible post, as usual from Souff. It's all very well for people who weren't there to say what the boy should have done - in the heat of the moment one doesn't always think clearly. Poosible the attack DIDN'T last for an hour and a half, but I'm sure it SEEMED like that. Onece again the resident DOL know-it-alls have to carp & criticise - hope none of you are ever in this position. Why did he wait 90 minutes before stabbing the dog? Why didn't he call for help? Parents do shoulder some responsibility here too In my considered opinion. You can't be serious Maybe a more experienced person with dog attacks would have known exactly what to do in a crisis This situation of "why didn't he do this and why didn't he do that" reminds me of a rape case I read about years ago. The defendants said to the girl "why didn't you shout for help? why didn't you get away?" Her reply was: "I don't know sir, I'm not experienced at being raped". Not quite the same, but yes dog attacks can be scarey enough to warrant some shock, they are not nice at all. However one thing all dog owners should be ready for is the fact that some dog may attack your dog, what are you going to do? wait an hour and a half?..hmmmm i think not. Far too many people take dog ownership too lightly and do not comprehend a dogs world and as a result this is what we read in the headlines all too often, and it's the dogs who get blamed not their owners. 2 dead dogs, 2 owners probably none the wiser or scared for life against certain breeds.

There is no question that owners influence dog behaviour. I doubt you can find any reputable study that says dog behaviour is all nature, no nurture. There is also no question that breeding influences behaviour, and that there are some people who are drawn to 'tough' dogs. Some of those people breed deliberately to bring out aggression. All I'm trying to say is that overt and deliberate breeding for aggression at the breed level is reason for legislation. Were there a breed where the breed standard says the dog should be HA and/or DA, I would say that breed should not be brought into Australia. Where it is with specific bloodlines, I don't know. Maybe there is a way to go after specific bloodlines. It is awful to go after a whole breed because some people are doing everything they can to bring out vicious tendencies. The APBT situation is a mess, and I think a lot of people and bull breed dogs are suffering unjustly due to BSL. But reform at the council level is required to bring about the 'enforcement' miracle people keep saying is needed. I'd say that will happen when pigs can fly. A council here and a council there will be progressive and do a good job . . . but you're dreaming if you think it'll happen on a national scale. Bloodlines ares still only half the story when it comes to how a dog turns out, 25 of that US footballers "fighting" pitbulls were rehomed, dogs that have seen the pit, fought, won lost whatever.. they're being loved right now by families that don't belive the hype and people who're keen to find out for themselves what a real pitbull is. The people that want to bring out vicious tendancies will do it with any breed, regardless of legislation, it would be nice to have other breed owners supportive of pitbull owners, if everyone had the same standards of dog training and understanding as a committed pitbull owner the dog world would be a better place 'cause i tell you now most of them are so aware of their dogs and their surroundings that they are heads and shoulders above other dog owners. Especially small dog owners who think they can let their dog run amok 'cause it's small. Most bull breed owners are so aware/paranoid of how people perceive their dog that they really want to show how good their dog' breed can be.

I know, it would be nice if they lifted their ban on pitbulls but registered owners instead. Whatever they decide will have massive implications.

This was a letter i recieved from Logan Timms. Thank you for your e-mail today As I stated on ABC radio this morning, the Department of Infrastructure and Planning is examining this week's Supreme Court decision relating to a specific and long-running case involving the Gold Coast City Council and the owners of an American Staffordshire terrier. It was never the State's intention to include American Staffordshire terriers in the definition of a "restricted dog" used by Federal, State and local laws. This is precisely why the Department of Infrastructure and Planning is carefully analysing what, if any implications the Supreme Court decision may have. In Queensland, the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 sets down conditions for keeping and controlling "regulated" dogs, which includes dangerous, menacing and restricted dogs. The Queensland legislation uses the definition of "restricted dog" set by the Federal Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulation 1956. It identifies five dog breeds which are prohibited from importation. The Commonwealth agencies enforcing this law are the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and Customs which have advised the State Department of Infrastructure and Planning that American Staffordshire Terriers can be legally imported. Importantly, the State Act gives local councils the autonomy to introduce separate local laws for particular breeds of dogs which is the case with the Gold Coast City Council which has put in place a local law that bans pit bull terriers. The decision to make such a local law is at the discretion of each local government. State Government laws do not force any council to ban any dog breed. I will ensure you are e-mailed and kept in the loop regarding any developments on this issue. Once again, thank you for taking the time to write regarding this issue. Kindest Regards Logan Logan Timms Senior Policy Officer Local Government Services Department of Infrastructure and Planning

Hopefully they can sort it out and look after the members and their dogs. Again what about the poor rescued mutt? i hope they can sort it out for the members and their dogs but this is bigger than just them.

Do you have the number of of that facility? think i'll use them to prove my dogs aren't of restricted breed, maybe all lookalike amstaff/pitbulls/sbt's should get tested before it gets any better!!!

The breeds have been seperate for so long (i understand your reasoning though), perhaps it's better if they are all lumped together so BSL can be fought on a united front. As for the rest i totally agree.

Yep thats it, Sheer Malice!! tybrax Oh FFS! It was a Supreme Court case with huge ramifications which ever way it went and most likely tens of thousands of dollars in cost. I don't think malice has anything to do with it. The council even offered the owners to return Tango to his home on the Gold Coast years ago as a restricted dog but the owners cut their noses off to spite their faces and refused. Why should they have to have him restricted if he wasn't a restricted dog? it's about principals and they stuck by theirs. All court cases are about winning at any cost, malice has plenty to do with it. I'm sure the council and them aren't really on friendly terms.