Greytmate

What is the purpose of the record? To provide information about the dogs lineage. It's then up to you to determine if that breeding is desirable or undesirable. An unknown ancestor might be undesirable, but many known dogs are undesirable too. Up to the breeder to choose a dog of the best breeding they can. Just because a dog has a pedigree doesn't automatically make that dog a candidate for breeding from. You have to read the pedigree and make a decision from there.

Only $550? I think your daughter might have grounds to sue the council on this, as they were aware of the problem but didn't take any action against the owners the first time. The dog should have been declared dangerous and the owners forced to build an enclosure. The neighbours sound like complete scumbags. Not apologising and hiding the dog is really irresponsible.

Greytmate - where did you find this by-law? Not having a go - had a look and could not find anything. Here is the Brisbane local law. http://services.dip.qld.gov.au/locallaws/data/postamalgamation/CCBRIS/00_Animals%202003%20LL_res16-06-09.pdf It also needs to be read in conjunction with the subordinate local law. http://services.dip.qld.gov.au/locallaws/data/postamalgamation/CCBRIS/00_Animals%202003%20SLL_res16-06-09.pdf This is the QLD state law regarding menacing dogs. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/amada2008244/s89.html The dog could be declared menacing, because it acted in a way to cause fear. It was having a go at the OP. It isn't acceptable to have dogs loose in unfenced front yards in Brisbane, and the law has been written so that people cannot use the excuse that the dog was on their property. It must be confined in a way where it can't leave the property, and this owner didn't do that. The menacing dog legislation allows council to act against people that allow their dogs to scare other people from their property. Better to be able to have a problem dog declared menacing than it is to wait until they cause harm.

I don't think it's an all-breed problem or even an IW problem. It is a problem for those who hold the dogs who are of suspect breeding. Not all pedigrees have the same value, some dogs have much better breeding than others. If you don't like these dog's pedigrees, don't use those lines. A pedigree allows somebody to determine a a value, there is no inherent value in a pedigree. It's just a record, and these dogs wouldn't be the only ones that have a pedigree that has some substandard dogs in it. It is not as simple as the idea that pedigree dogs are better than non- pedigree dogs, what matters are the quality of dogs on that pedigree.

Every council in QLD has it's own by-laws. Under the Brisbane by-laws, council officers could take action (or at least a warning) if this is reported. Both for the dog being loose in a yard with no fences, and for behaving menacingly towards people and other animals passing by. It doesn't matter what the law is anywhere else in Australia. It shouldn't matter what the size of this dog is. If a large dog behaved in this way it would be extremely scary. If I was trying to walk my dogs past a dog behaving like this in a yard, I would be concerned as well, especially since the woman couldn't catch the dog. I would say her nasty reaction is typical of people who are embarrassed when their untrained, uncontrolled dog makes them look stupid.

No responsible rescue group would rehome a dog with that history. It is highly unethical to rehome dogs that are fence jumpers or who have such a high prey drive that they will kill other dogs. Best practice in rescue is to take the history of a dog and to use that as part of assessment, and so this dog would instantly fail any proper assessment. The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour, and so if an organisation did sell this dog or place it in another home they would be found liable if ever there was trouble. It doesn't matter whether the behaviour is inherent or learned, the fact is that this dog is highly unsuitable to be sold as a pet and can never be trusted.

I don't see why there is a huge problem although I believe that the pedigree should read 'unknown dog' rather than being left blank . Don't breed with or buy a dog unless you are happy with its pedigree. This could have been avoided with DNA testing of all breeding animals. If nobody wants to pay for reliable testing of all registered breeding animals then you have to accept that the pedigrees might be unreliable .

I would tell the lifeguard to get back on the sand and do his job watching the swimmers. Since when did lifeguards have the power to tell people what to do at parks? Maybe you could put in a complaint about him.

How tragic and horrible. Poor little Sarge.

Thanks. I hope so. His sister called today, she is overseas on holiday. So at least we don't have to worry about her, and she is coming back and taking the cat to her house.

Recently a friend of ours in Victoria was taken by ambulance and ended up in Intensive care. They tried to contact his sister as next of kin, but couldn't get hold of her, so nobody was allowed to see him or talk to him or be told how he was. We only knew he was in hospital because he called us complaining of severe pain and we told him to get an ambulance. We knew he had a cat, so a friend who lived close went around to check it was ok. He saw a cat in the garden that ran off, and so we assumed the cat was ok. He left some food for it, and did this a couple of times. On day five our friend was out of intensive care, and able to access his phone again. He called and told us that his cat was locked in the house, and that the hospital wouldn't go and get his phone out of the locker and call his friends and nobody could get hold of his sister. So the friend that lived close to him drove into the hospital straight away to get the house keys and back to see the cat. The cat was ok, but very hungry. Poor cat. This has made me think that people need to get their next of kin details up to date, because hospital staff are not going to go through all your things and phone contacts to call your friends to tell them to feed your cat. He's still in hospital and isn't very well, so I hope he gets better soon.

Send them some stories of dogs that have been declared restricted because there were no papers to prove that the dog was actually a staffy and not some other type of dog.

There was a popular greyhound sire a few years back that died of cancer when he was five. Guess what he passed on to many of his progeny? I would agree that an older stud who has proved that he is a healthy long-lived dog and has proven he can throw good puppies is not as risky as using a younger stud. Dogs are only around for fifteen years or so, so it makes sense to breed from good ones while the opportunity is still there. The progeny will still be around to use after the old boy has gone, if enough of them have been bred.

I know from experience that BCC will act if a written complaint is put in. They have the power to issue a Fencing order, which requires the dog owner to construct a fence to a good standard (like pool fencing) within 21 days. 1.2 metre chain link fences are not considered to be high enough to contain a large dog. The dog doesn't have to have already escaped, if somebody warns the council that the dog seems very likely to escape, council have to act to avoid liability. Your neighbour won't know who reported it, as the order will apply to the whole property and not just the section that adjoins your property. I wouldn't be waiting to see what happens. If you think you can get out there two seconds after a dog fight or attack has started, you will be four seconds too late to protect your dog.

They were sold two dogs as pets, that they brought home and spent 7 months training. It turned out that the dogs were illegal, and therefore not suitable as pets. They should be able to easily take legal action at a basic level to get a refund on purchase price. But if they had a good lawyer I think they could also sue to compensate for the wasted time spent training the dogs as well as suing to recover the all the legal and other costs they had accumulated as a result of being sold two illegal pets. lol what?! The dogs did not have any APBT in them. How does that make them illegal, because someone that went to a 2 day training course on dog identification said so. What a load of bullshit. And even more ridiculous, wanting to sue someone because you purchased an unrestricted breed puppy. I don't think any amount of money will replace the dogs. Some comments on this thread are laughable... Yes, I understand that the law is not a good one, but don't bother having a go at me about it. I never wrote the law and I don't support it. But the law said that these pups met a standard that meant that they were illegal. Under this law, somebody could be held responsible for selling dogs that meet that illegal standard. And suing the breeder will send a message to people that randomly breed and sell dogs for profit that they are responsible for providing pet quality dogs.

They were sold two dogs as pets, that they brought home and spent 7 months training. It turned out that the dogs were illegal, and therefore not suitable as pets. They should be able to easily take legal action at a basic level to get a refund on purchase price. But if they had a good lawyer I think they could also sue to compensate for the wasted time spent training the dogs as well as suing to recover the all the legal and other costs they had accumulated as a result of being sold two illegal pets.

I agree with M-sass. Now maybe these owners (victims) will sue the person who sold them these pups as family pets, and that may deter people randomly breeding and selling dogs in future. While the law itself is a really bad one, it's the people that breed dogs in this way that are more likely to be breeding the dogs that cause the problems that this legislation aims to prevent.

OP has already explained that they can either walk this particular block or risk walking a highway!! In all honesty I would report them- but I keep my dogs indoors when I am out..... Sorry, where does the OP say there is a highway, I must have missed it. In post 17. http://www.dolforums...ost__p__5716622

Some of the comments posted under that banner show a great deal of ignorance and nastiness. To actually blame Ayen Chol's mother for 'not watching her child' and call her an idiot is pretty low. Especially from somebody that claims to hold a leadership position at a well-known university. As long as we have comments like this written in 'support' of pitbulls, I can't see any politicians wanting to change the law in a hurry. It probably confirms any bias they have about the owners of these dogs.

The containers I got were $18.00 each. A good investment when some food costs up to $100 a bag. Which are those? Yup our food is well over $100 a bag.... White food-grade barrels with a screw-on lid from a rural produce shop. Horse people use these too.

The containers I got were $18.00 each. A good investment when some food costs up to $100 a bag.

I have white plastic food-grade barrels with a screw-top lid, from the produce shop. These have lasted much longer and are more airtight than anything else I have tried. It is best not to store excess dry dog food in your pantry. I have seen a few people do this and end up with all of their own food infested by pantry moths.

Yes, I've sent a dog to Colorado. They fly to LAX where they have a facility for the dogs to be fed and exercised before the next flight. I think it's twelve hours to LA? Not too long for a dog to cope with if it has been accustomed to being crated.

Maybe it's time that a good dog was valued accordingly? People pay up to $2000 for the pet dog of their choice and they pay a lot more than that for other interests, hobbies and passions they have. Why should a good dog's value be limited to $400? Especially if the demand is very high?

Thanks for explaining. I think if a rescue is doing it continuously, they are showing that their selection methods are not effective. It isn't good at all. (and is probably off-topic) But I don't think we should be making it harder than it already is to euthanise a dog. We don't need rescues selling problem dogs, or keeping them in risky situations in foster care, because that is cheaper or easier than euthanasia.