Puppoochi

And Karma Sutra Show, well I think the people that would find you randomly with that name, will be bitterly disappointed with what you'd have to offer them.

I realise that you want to create your own page, that's why I thought up a name. But it's always good to join the page as well, you can advertise your stuff there. The more people that see your stuff, the better don't you think?

there's already this page on fb https://www.facebook.com/groups/showsuits/ Aussie/Australian/Ozzie Best in Show Recycled Clothing. Now what's my prize? :laugh:

I think you will find most dogs operating in a pack structure are just as likely to attack as a pack of bull breed dogs. Again it has nothing to do with breed. You're not seriously suggesting that all dog breeds have the same inate levels of dog aggression are you? Some dogs, bred to live and hunt in packs have been selectively bred for centuries for low levels of dog aggression. SSM's beagles are one such example. The function a dog was bred to perform MATTERS. The fact that some dog owner have no freakin idea of what drives their dogs have and what they are capable of is terrifying. And when you buy your pup from a breeder who know sweet FA about what they are breeding, it compounds the problem.

WTF? There goes all dog sports including greyhound racing, herding on the farm, and we won't need to waste any money on dog parks or dog off lead areas. I think she means roaming at large.

wow, what a Superdog thanks for sharing

Yep, if you want a nice Pom, and she's a lovely lady as well.

Some people want to be educated, others don't. Some people will do want they want irrespective of what the law is. They're generally called criminal. The proposal does not address this.

http://www.ava.com.au/sites/default/files/AVA_website/pdfs/Dangerous%20dogs%20-%20a%20sensible%20solution%20FINAL.pdf I do not deny that the new proposal by the AVA will significantly reduce the incidence of dog bites, but I do not see how it would prevent an incident like this occurring http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dog-breaks-collar-attacks-woman/story-e6frea83-1226422663719

Not at all. Well, in that case I have NFI what you're talking about. You stated you don't like the scheme because dogs have to attack to be declared dangerous. Under the proposed scheme dogs do not have to severely attack someone to be declared dangerous. They can be declared 'potentially dangerous' based on threatening behaviour. I don't understand what more you want, other than dogs being declared dangerous because they look a particular way. Puppoochi wants to get rid of the dogs. Sheridan wants to kill Bambi Bambi, see the film, eat the cast. Are you now denying that you want to get rid of all these types of dogs? Your past posts would indicate otherwise. My posts indicate no such thing

In what way? The AVA have released their paper on Dangerous dog policy and legislative framework just this week based on intensive research on effective animal management. It is science-based and the outcomes proposed are proven to be effective. You can read it here if you wish: http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/dangerous-dogs-%E2%80%93-sensible-solution We will never know of course, hence why I used the word 'may', but if legislation and education like this had been in place in VIC, maybe these dogs would have been adequately socialised, or adequately contained, or adequately trained. Maybe they wouldn't have become dangerous in the first place or maybe they would have but legislation would have picked it up early and prevented this from happening. At the end of the day, legislation such as described in this paper DOES reduce dog attacks, whereas BSL doesn't. This case is a prime example of that. Melzawelza I just want to thank you for drawing my attention to this article (link quoted in post above). It wasn't really the 48 pages you mentioned - more like 26 and it was fairly easy to read. I recommend it to others who are interested in this topic. The more I think about it the more sense it all makes. I think it would make a good thread to discuss.

Not at all. Well, in that case I have NFI what you're talking about. You stated you don't like the scheme because dogs have to attack to be declared dangerous. Under the proposed scheme dogs do not have to severely attack someone to be declared dangerous. They can be declared 'potentially dangerous' based on threatening behaviour. I don't understand what more you want, other than dogs being declared dangerous because they look a particular way. Puppoochi wants to get rid of the dogs. Sheridan wants to kill Bambi

This is beginning to sound personal. Personal? Yeah I guess I am prejudice against people like this http://www.adelaiden...3-1226422663719 Well, unless that was your dog, that isn't personal, is it. I don't understand where you're coming from?

The decisions as to whether to declare dogs dangerous is already happening and being made by authorised officers in local councils, some who know a hell of a lot about dogs and others who know nothing. However here in NSW (and I think other states too) we don't have the option of 'potentially dangerous dog', only dangerous, therefore a lot of dogs are being declared dangerous while something like potentially dangerous would be much more appropriate. Officers use their discretion currently and are obligated to investigate the incident and the history of the dog before taking action. You would hope that those who know dogs would uncover that the dog was not being aggressive and therefore not declare the dog to be potentially dangerous. Re: the temp tests I do understand what you're saying. A standardised test could/should be made by using some of the top behaviourists in the country. Well, that was helpful I tend to agree with Pockets - I too would always say blame the deed not the breed, but in nearly every case of a dog attack it is a bully type dog - the general public does not care on iota if it is a pure bred or not, as far as they are concerned, the dog(s) involved are bully breeds or crosses of such. I also agree, in the right home and environment, they make wonderful pets. This is absolutely incorrect. Nearly every attack IN THE MEDIA is a bully type dog. I am a Companion Animal Officer for a local Sydney Council and I am telling you now, even if you combined ALL of the bull breeds together they still only make up maybe about 20% of the attacks I investigate. And no, all their attacks aren't severe, and all severe attacks are not by the bullies. The most recent one I had which resulted in a woman being in surgery for over an hour and almost needing a skin graft was by a small poodle X. Just have a look at the NSW attack statistics and see how many attacks happen and how many are actually by bull breeds. You are completely incorrect that they are the only breeds attacking. At the end of the day though, even if you were right, banning them still isn't the solution as it as been proven to be ineffective all over the world and in our own country. Just to clarify, dangerous dogs and restricted breeds are two entirely different things. You can't stop people owning dangerous dogs unless you ban every dog. And to put it into a bit of perspective, Australia has approximately 4 million dogs (majority of those would be cross bred mutts). Most of them live without ever harming a single person or thing. If the current laws we have were monitored and obeyed, the chances of anything like this happening would be slim. I am all for stronger penalties for people who do the wrong thing and leave the people who do the right thing alone. RIP Matilda Ok, I'll rephrase it and say restricted breeds instead of dangerous dogs. I don't know how else to describe breeds that tough guys want to own and use to intimidate others with. It's not rephrasing, it's getting the terminology correct. Now I can understand your earlier comment that under the proposed framework I linked 'dangerous dogs have to attack before being declared dangerous' and this was a problem. In response to that, I'm assuming you are meaning that you believe all bull breeds should be automatically be declared dangerous, and you are ignoring all the data in that report that shows that this approach is useless. Not at all.

This is beginning to sound personal. Personal? Yeah I guess I am prejudice against people like this http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dog-breaks-collar-attacks-woman/story-e6frea83-1226422663719

Just to clarify, dangerous dogs and restricted breeds are two entirely different things. You can't stop people owning dangerous dogs unless you ban every dog. And to put it into a bit of perspective, Australia has approximately 4 million dogs (majority of those would be cross bred mutts). Most of them live without ever harming a single person or thing. If the current laws we have were monitored and obeyed, the chances of anything like this happening would be slim. I am all for stronger penalties for people who do the wrong thing and leave the people who do the right thing alone. RIP Matilda Ok, I'll rephrase it and say restricted breeds instead of dangerous dogs. I don't know how else to describe breeds that tough guys want to own and use to intimidate others with.

So you would rather Victoria carry on as is, instead of using this proven method that has reduced bite stats.... so over the next few years whilst they still continue to happen you'll be happy that you prefer laws that aren't working.. Let me put it this way, would you spend your hard earned money to buy a busted up old car that wont start knowing that it will never work, or chose a car that will start and drive you around quite effectively. The only reason you don't like it is because you don't like pitbulls, and this law doesn't ban them. Talk about putting words in my mouth. I wish you would take what I say literally instead of twisting it.

So my dogs don't have a right to live in your eyes because some other idiots can't look after their animals properly? What a silly comment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yes - because thats pretty well how our society works. Laws are made to cater for the lowest common denominator and the rest of us have to wear the results. RIP Matilda -a horrid way to go. But you can see that comments like "they should be wiped out" aren't useful, don't impart any knowledge and don't constructively help anyone. ANY head strong dog (all breeds) with a high prey drive can be an issue in the wrong hands, regardless of size. FYI twice this week I've had an off lead GR run at me and my dogs, sure i wasn't worried but they came over to my dogs (on lead) to ponce around them and posture... Oblivious owner couldn't care that my 2 though not DA do not like other dogs putting their heads over them.. SO here's why nothing occurred: I have years of knowing my dogs, other breeds, triggers etc.. and this is what it takes to be an owner of any breed. Education for me started with my parents teaching me dogs behaviors, training classes etc.. which i'm now teaching my daughters. Could something have occurred..?? you bet and without training my dogs, myself and knowing a little about dogs in general helps. BSL doesn't. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dog-breaks-collar-attacks-woman/story-e6frea83-1226422663719 How do you educate morons like this? How do you stop morons like him owning strong powerful breeds? Some people don't wish to be educated. You can never stop it, but you can drastically reduce it. The AVA draft legislative framework sets out clearly how to do it and is based on models that are proven to work. Calgary, Canada used to have BSL. They got rid of it and implemented policy that the above is based on. There are a hell of a lot more bull breeds around than ever before, the population has doubled yet he bites have halved. Severity of those bites left is also generally much less. So essentially bites are a quarter of what they would have been, even with a hell of a lot of bull breeds in the area. Incidents like this make us despair, and we should despair that the legislative framework in Vic is so draconian and costs so much money yet it is doing nothing to reduce the likelihood of these attacks. But instead of despairing we should be supporting papers like this and the other evidence that shows that the outcome we all want is achievable. Ok, I've read the whole thing and I find a lot of holes in it. The biggest hole being......A dog has to have done something first, only thereafter will it be considered as being dangerous. Too bad if someone dies in the process. There is an entire section on the classification of a 'potentially dangerous dog', for dogs that may not have actually physically attacked someone badly, but has shown aggressive behaviour. This kind of preventative action for even more minor events is widely considered as being instrumental in reducing dog attacks. The dog must have behavioural retraining and after three years can be considered for review after proven progress and a favourable temperament assessment. If your complaint is that the dog has to have done even something minor before any action, then I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Punishing dogs that have done nothing wrong based on appearance? (the current model which is failing miserably). You would have also read that this kind of enforcement action on it's own is not enough, there is an entire education plan to go along with this which will actually reduce the dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. I'm not complaining, I am merely pointing out the biggest hole. There are plenty of other holes in it as well. Sorry but for me, it's not complete and does not prevent the wrong people from owning dangerous dogs. And it does not prevent moron breeders selling dangerous dogs to undesirables. What is the hole? Potentially dangerous dogs are defined and able to be regulated. You know this is based off models that have been proven to work? I have just pointed out some of the holes and I don't understand why you have skirted past what I have written??? And IMO what works in one country, may not necessarily work in other countries.

So my dogs don't have a right to live in your eyes because some other idiots can't look after their animals properly? What a silly comment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yes - because thats pretty well how our society works. Laws are made to cater for the lowest common denominator and the rest of us have to wear the results. RIP Matilda -a horrid way to go. But you can see that comments like "they should be wiped out" aren't useful, don't impart any knowledge and don't constructively help anyone. ANY head strong dog (all breeds) with a high prey drive can be an issue in the wrong hands, regardless of size. FYI twice this week I've had an off lead GR run at me and my dogs, sure i wasn't worried but they came over to my dogs (on lead) to ponce around them and posture... Oblivious owner couldn't care that my 2 though not DA do not like other dogs putting their heads over them.. SO here's why nothing occurred: I have years of knowing my dogs, other breeds, triggers etc.. and this is what it takes to be an owner of any breed. Education for me started with my parents teaching me dogs behaviors, training classes etc.. which i'm now teaching my daughters. Could something have occurred..?? you bet and without training my dogs, myself and knowing a little about dogs in general helps. BSL doesn't. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dog-breaks-collar-attacks-woman/story-e6frea83-1226422663719 How do you educate morons like this? How do you stop morons like him owning strong powerful breeds? Some people don't wish to be educated. You can never stop it, but you can drastically reduce it. The AVA draft legislative framework sets out clearly how to do it and is based on models that are proven to work. Calgary, Canada used to have BSL. They got rid of it and implemented policy that the above is based on. There are a hell of a lot more bull breeds around than ever before, the population has doubled yet he bites have halved. Severity of those bites left is also generally much less. So essentially bites are a quarter of what they would have been, even with a hell of a lot of bull breeds in the area. Incidents like this make us despair, and we should despair that the legislative framework in Vic is so draconian and costs so much money yet it is doing nothing to reduce the likelihood of these attacks. But instead of despairing we should be supporting papers like this and the other evidence that shows that the outcome we all want is achievable. Ok, I've read the whole thing and I find a lot of holes in it. The biggest hole being......A dog has to have done something first, only thereafter will it be considered as being dangerous. Too bad if someone dies in the process. There is an entire section on the classification of a 'potentially dangerous dog', for dogs that may not have actually physically attacked someone badly, but has shown aggressive behaviour. This kind of preventative action for even more minor events is widely considered as being instrumental in reducing dog attacks. The dog must have behavioural retraining and after three years can be considered for review after proven progress and a favourable temperament assessment. If your complaint is that the dog has to have done even something minor before any action, then I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Punishing dogs that have done nothing wrong based on appearance? (the current model which is failing miserably). You would have also read that this kind of enforcement action on it's own is not enough, there is an entire education plan to go along with this which will actually reduce the dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. I'm not complaining, I am merely pointing out the biggest hole. There are plenty of other holes in it as well. Sorry but for me, it's not complete and does not prevent the wrong people from owning dangerous dogs. And it does not prevent moron breeders selling dangerous dogs to undesirables.

So my dogs don't have a right to live in your eyes because some other idiots can't look after their animals properly? What a silly comment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yes - because thats pretty well how our society works. Laws are made to cater for the lowest common denominator and the rest of us have to wear the results. RIP Matilda -a horrid way to go. But you can see that comments like "they should be wiped out" aren't useful, don't impart any knowledge and don't constructively help anyone. ANY head strong dog (all breeds) with a high prey drive can be an issue in the wrong hands, regardless of size. FYI twice this week I've had an off lead GR run at me and my dogs, sure i wasn't worried but they came over to my dogs (on lead) to ponce around them and posture... Oblivious owner couldn't care that my 2 though not DA do not like other dogs putting their heads over them.. SO here's why nothing occurred: I have years of knowing my dogs, other breeds, triggers etc.. and this is what it takes to be an owner of any breed. Education for me started with my parents teaching me dogs behaviors, training classes etc.. which i'm now teaching my daughters. Could something have occurred..?? you bet and without training my dogs, myself and knowing a little about dogs in general helps. BSL doesn't. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dog-breaks-collar-attacks-woman/story-e6frea83-1226422663719 How do you educate morons like this? How do you stop morons like him owning strong powerful breeds? Some people don't wish to be educated. You can never stop it, but you can drastically reduce it. The AVA draft legislative framework sets out clearly how to do it and is based on models that are proven to work. Calgary, Canada used to have BSL. They got rid of it and implemented policy that the above is based on. There are a hell of a lot more bull breeds around than ever before, the population has doubled yet he bites have halved. Severity of those bites left is also generally much less. So essentially bites are a quarter of what they would have been, even with a hell of a lot of bull breeds in the area. Incidents like this make us despair, and we should despair that the legislative framework in Vic is so draconian and costs so much money yet it is doing nothing to reduce the likelihood of these attacks. But instead of despairing we should be supporting papers like this and the other evidence that shows that the outcome we all want is achievable. Ok, I've read the whole thing and I find a lot of holes in it. The biggest hole being......A dog has to have done something first, only thereafter will it be considered as being dangerous. Too bad if someone dies in the process.

So my dogs don't have a right to live in your eyes because some other idiots can't look after their animals properly? What a silly comment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yes - because thats pretty well how our society works. Laws are made to cater for the lowest common denominator and the rest of us have to wear the results. RIP Matilda -a horrid way to go. But you can see that comments like "they should be wiped out" aren't useful, don't impart any knowledge and don't constructively help anyone. ANY head strong dog (all breeds) with a high prey drive can be an issue in the wrong hands, regardless of size. FYI twice this week I've had an off lead GR run at me and my dogs, sure i wasn't worried but they came over to my dogs (on lead) to ponce around them and posture... Oblivious owner couldn't care that my 2 though not DA do not like other dogs putting their heads over them.. SO here's why nothing occurred: I have years of knowing my dogs, other breeds, triggers etc.. and this is what it takes to be an owner of any breed. Education for me started with my parents teaching me dogs behaviors, training classes etc.. which i'm now teaching my daughters. Could something have occurred..?? you bet and without training my dogs, myself and knowing a little about dogs in general helps. BSL doesn't. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dog-breaks-collar-attacks-woman/story-e6frea83-1226422663719 How do you educate morons like this? How do you stop morons like him owning strong powerful breeds? Some people don't wish to be educated.

:love: that's just sooo cute.

True. But you notice how I didn't elaborate on the pet medicare? I never said that everybody should be entitled to full cover or anything like that. My main point was that many animals get put down because the owners couldn't afford say $500-$2000. If you claim to be a pet lover, then surely you would be a little disturbed by this. What so all unemployed people do volunteer work? Thats news to me. I didn't say that either. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. What are you implying Penumbra? One can only presume that you are saying the unemployed are non-paid volunteers that the state relies upon to run effectively??? Otherwise your statement about non-paid volunteers has no relevance at all to this thread. And no, I would like to see unemployed people being employed, not homeless. And you are putting guilt trips on people that don't agree with your pet medicare idea with this statement No, only a dimwit would assume that. That's why I said "just another note" and put it a couple of lines away from the other note. And what I was "implying" with that other note is that our society runs on more than just taxes. If it weren't for those selfless volunteers in places like hospitals, we wouldn't have this society at all. Right, and how can a person get a job if they're homeless? Because that's where the dole is sending a lot of people. It just isn't enough money to live on. Now you are just creating a straw man argument. Well done. What do un-paid volunteers have to do with pet insurance? Really?

True. But you notice how I didn't elaborate on the pet medicare? I never said that everybody should be entitled to full cover or anything like that. My main point was that many animals get put down because the owners couldn't afford say $500-$2000. If you claim to be a pet lover, then surely you would be a little disturbed by this. What so all unemployed people do volunteer work? Thats news to me. I didn't say that either. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. What are you implying Penumbra? One can only presume that you are saying the unemployed are non-paid volunteers that the state relies upon to run effectively??? Otherwise your statement about non-paid volunteers has no relevance at all to this thread. And no, I would like to see unemployed people being employed, not homeless. And you are putting guilt trips on people that don't agree with your pet medicare idea with this statement

http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Animals/Desexing_and_Vaccinations/index.aspx Exemptions are: Vet with dog A cat/dog that is the subject of written Veterinary advice that the health of the cat/dog is liable to be significantly prejudiced if it is desexed A Dangerous Dog that is kept for guarding non residential premises A Dangerous Dog that has under gone protection training A cat/dog that is owned by a person or body that conducts a domestic animal business registered with Council. Where the cat/dog is used for breeding purposes in connection with that business. (Frankston does not have any registered breeding establishments) If a dog or a cat owner is a registered member and the dog or cat has a registered pedigree certificate the dog or cat is exempt from desexing - applicable organisations are as follows (proof is always required - membership card and pedigree certificate)