zuri

Doesn't a vet certificate of breed identity clear a dog from seizure if declared not a Pitbull or Pitbull X? Are the vets saying they won't declare a dog to be a Pitbull or they won't provide conformation that it isn't?\ Ultimately, all anyone need do, is have their vet provide a certificate to say a dog in the firing line is not a Pitbull and the problem is solved isn't it?

Don't count on your opinion, Zuri. And life with dogs is not all about ANKC recognised breeds. Actually, come to think of it, nor is it all about ANKC. I'm actually for all dogs. Not selective breeds. ETA: Hey, SG ... thanks for the prompt to change Victoria's description in my profile. "Dismal" is an understatement. But yes .... it is depressing, that's for sure. ETA: Oh, and BTW, Zuri - out of curiousity, what State do you reside in? Erny, what I am trying to say is that the only thing new about the situation is they have extended the target to Pitbull cross breeds which doesn't mean next week they will be after Rottweilers, GSD's or any other large breed and I don't think we should be scaring people to believe this could happen anytime soon. The target remains on Pitbull's, cross breeds with Pitbull blood is not a step closer to restricting anything other than dogs of Pitbull connection, it has nothing to do with other breeds so why the panic? What I object to, is the "your breed will be next" agenda on the basis they have tightened up on restricted breeds and extened the target to crossbreeds of which is basically the tightening or policing of the laws already in place. When they start tabling legislation to add breeds to the list or restrict recognised breeds, then we panic, but until then, it's just my opinion that we need to relax and deal with that situation if it ever arises?

Erny, it's quite clear what they are after, the policing of "restricted breeds", absolutely nothing indicates they are looking at adding breeds to the list. It's already been tested with the Amstaff when claims made it was a Pitbull of a different name and was the Amstaff struck off the ANKC register? No it was fixed in the same fashion it will be fixed if they target any other established breed. The Pitbull was never established or recognised in the first place, the poor thing has no voice of authority it's a soft target. Try restricting GSD's for example and watch the voices of authority come out swinging punches, it won't happen, the ANKC breeds have nothing to worry about for what my opinion is worth.

I have never had an issue with GSD's in terms of fearing them, I guess near were we lived growing up, there were a few car yards that used to have GSD guard dogs wandering around at night and on the weekend. One in particular I used to feed through the fence, he was beautiful, I wouldn't say I would have jumped the fence, but you could pat him through the fence and give him treats, he looked frocious running up to the fence barking, but he would settle, wag his tail, he was lovely

I had lengthy chat with a GSD breeder of 30 years experience about aggression in the breed which she maintains is in the dogs genetics, either they have an aggression tendency or they don't, and where it surfaces is when the owners of the potentially aggressive individuals haven't dealt with the problem adequately in training and management. She told us that she had aggression in her lines years ago that came in from one dog effecting a couple of generations mainly in males that were stranger aggressive and would instinctively bite people they didn't know, she said they were not safe dogs for anyone outside the family and she corrected the situation by breeding the trait out of her bloodlines? Others can correct me if i am wrong but as far a GSDs are concerned (to my knowledge) the working bloodline (used in police and corrective services work ect) do have a higher prey and aggression drive then other bloodlines of shep. They have been bred for this specifically in order to do the work required of them and have experienced handlers who know how to deal with them training and taking care of them. Actually, the GSD breeder I spoke of which I thought the stranger aggressive dogs would be used for police dogs, she said the police won't use dogs like that, they have to be high in prey drive but very stable in temperament apparantly? She said they train aggression into the dogs as an extension of prey drive and the type of dog they use is a courageous dog when challenged that doesn't back down or run away, but she said they teach the dog to win fights with obviously lengthy and specialised training. She told us that young GSD's the police pick for training are pups that mad on chasing balls, playing tug with heaps of energy, not one's that are snappy, fearful or show aggressive tendencies? No they wouldn't take ones that show aggressive tendencies as these are not good traits to have, they need to be able to control the aggression and have the dog turn it on and off so to speak i suppose lol Someone who is more versed in the working lines might be able to answer you correctly. sorry :D The shows on TV with the K9 squads, the dogs are calm until commanded to work, they are not lunging at the camera man etc and they sit quietly during interviews with the officers. There has been a couple of retired police dogs shown at times running with other dogs and people patting them much like any average pet. It's amazing what the training can achieve with the right type of dog? As far as being wary, I am wary of off leash or unattended dogs I can't physically handle if it turns nasty, football size dogs are fine ;)

I had lengthy chat with a GSD breeder of 30 years experience about aggression in the breed which she maintains is in the dogs genetics, either they have an aggression tendency or they don't, and where it surfaces is when the owners of the potentially aggressive individuals haven't dealt with the problem adequately in training and management. She told us that she had aggression in her lines years ago that came in from one dog effecting a couple of generations mainly in males that were stranger aggressive and would instinctively bite people they didn't know, she said they were not safe dogs for anyone outside the family and she corrected the situation by breeding the trait out of her bloodlines? Others can correct me if i am wrong but as far a GSDs are concerned (to my knowledge) the working bloodline (used in police and corrective services work ect) do have a higher prey and aggression drive then other bloodlines of shep. They have been bred for this specifically in order to do the work required of them and have experienced handlers who know how to deal with them training and taking care of them. Which is why I did not use the phrase "all aggressive dogs" in my comment. I could have said "some aggressive dogs" but I really think that most of the aggression we see today is the result of having the wrong owners who do not seem to understand that dog ownership is all about training and management of the dog. Souff Mine aren't aggressive, but I haven't really done nothing special in their raising to achieve that, they are just not aggressive, where a friend of ours has a seriously dog aggressive dog which is improving but has had a lot of work and money spent in training etc to date, but my point is, this dog just started to go after other dogs with aggression at about 5/6 months old and escalated quickly into what appeared as wanting to chase and tear every dog apart that he saw?. To me, there is nothing the owners did to create this situation, where one of mine of similar age was enjoying other dogs and loved to play, this dog suddenly wanted to kill them, which I am thinking aggression has to be in the dog's make up, their older dog same breed and raised the same is fine, like mine, aggression was never a problem to be addressed?

I had lengthy chat with a GSD breeder of 30 years experience about aggression in the breed which she maintains is in the dogs genetics, either they have an aggression tendency or they don't, and where it surfaces is when the owners of the potentially aggressive individuals haven't dealt with the problem adequately in training and management. She told us that she had aggression in her lines years ago that came in from one dog effecting a couple of generations mainly in males that were stranger aggressive and would instinctively bite people they didn't know, she said they were not safe dogs for anyone outside the family and she corrected the situation by breeding the trait out of her bloodlines? Others can correct me if i am wrong but as far a GSDs are concerned (to my knowledge) the working bloodline (used in police and corrective services work ect) do have a higher prey and aggression drive then other bloodlines of shep. They have been bred for this specifically in order to do the work required of them and have experienced handlers who know how to deal with them training and taking care of them. Actually, the GSD breeder I spoke of which I thought the stranger aggressive dogs would be used for police dogs, she said the police won't use dogs like that, they have to be high in prey drive but very stable in temperament apparantly? She said they train aggression into the dogs as an extension of prey drive and the type of dog they use is a courageous dog when challenged that doesn't back down or run away, but she said they teach the dog to win fights with obviously lengthy and specialised training. She told us that young GSD's the police pick for training are pups that mad on chasing balls, playing tug with heaps of energy, not one's that are snappy, fearful or show aggressive tendencies?

I had lengthy chat with a GSD breeder of 30 years experience about aggression in the breed which she maintains is in the dogs genetics, either they have an aggression tendency or they don't, and where it surfaces is when the owners of the potentially aggressive individuals haven't dealt with the problem adequately in training and management. She told us that she had aggression in her lines years ago that came in from one dog effecting a couple of generations mainly in males that were stranger aggressive and would instinctively bite people they didn't know, she said they were not safe dogs for anyone outside the family and she corrected the situation by breeding the trait out of her bloodlines?

What dogs besides restricted breeds and greyhounds wear a muzzle from puppyhood? Which council is automatically seizing and destroying dogs? It sounds like you are making this up, but if you are not, you need to provide more information. If a dog bites it may be declared dangerous, but it will only be seized and euthanised if it's owner refuses to pay the fines, if they refuse to keep it as required, or if the dog is a repeat offender. The new laws are bad enough without the needless scaremongering. Not scare mongering,bloody terrified after hearing this though. I heard of the above incident in Lithgow. I was told by the owners of the dog she was pt after an incident. The owners mother took her own small dog and this one to the dog park.A smaller dog was annoying her,then moved on to attack her smaller companion.The muzzle came off and she grabbed the SWF when it attacked her smaller companion.The woman grabbed her quickly and freed the smaller dog but said "when Mum got her jaws open and freed the little dog her jaws closed on mums hand. It was reported as a dog bite by the owner of the SWF and they took her away.We tried to fight it but lost" (Having no idea where to turn) When I asked why the dog was muzzled in the 1st place,thinking there were some previous issues,they told me that when they registered their dog they were told that "As a large breed,it must be muzzled at all times in public" The owners did not question this,but abided by it. No excuse for attacking the small dog,she should have had better controll but by the same token, abiding by such a decree IMO is setting the dog up for failure,especialy if dog parks are where they are going to learn their manners. This was a X guardian breed,no resemblance whatso ever to a pitt and matured about the size of a Kepie.No previous indication of aggression or complaints I believe. Sounds like poor naive people conned by fools Someone else can't report a dog biting another person, the woman in control of the dog only had to deny that the dog bit her and the report ends, something doesn't sound right here

I love the way people keep coming up with how all dogs are the same and breed makes no difference in their aggression responses? Perhaps we shoulkd ask police or security dog trainers why they don't use hounds and retrievers and ask Jack the Lad why he has a Pitbull to guard his crop? I am not a BSL supporter, but at least look at the big picture for an informed decision. Sure sounds like you're a BSL supporter and have absolutely no idea what you're on about. That's why I asked the question Geo because from what I have seen, there must be a reason when people need aggression from a dog they use particular breeds and types, otherwise if they all had equal potential to do the work effectively, wouldn't they just use any dog?

Agreed! Both the dogs in your pic are beautiful! I worry for my breed too. All of these big "aggressive" breeds are starting to be seriously targeted by media and public for the actions of a very slim few! GSD's have a too large support base to be messed with also they rarely appear in serious attacks for my opinion like most ANKC recognised breeds are quite safe. Bearing in mind the poor old Pitty is a restricted breed anyway and has been import restricted for many years, big difference policing a restricted breed than banning a recognised breed of high popularity.

I love the way people keep coming up with how all dogs are the same and breed makes no difference in their aggression responses? Perhaps we shoulkd ask police or security dog trainers why they don't use hounds and retrievers and ask Jack the Lad why he has a Pitbull to guard his crop? I am not a BSL supporter, but at least look at the big picture for an informed decision. I wasn't saying all dogs are the same, I was pointing out that the OP is misinformed. If you really, honestly believe that the people fighting BSL are doing so blindly, then there is zero point in me arguing with you. Do you realise the dog in your avatar will be under threat because of the new identification method in Victoria? Ok, firstly I don't think we need to fight BSL because the the restricted breeds other than the APBT here are virtually non existent, let the Government have their little win with them and agree that we don't need those dogs in the country. What needs to be done is to free the APBT from BSL and to do that, they need to promote the breed in a similar way the GSD club did to free their breed. The GSD club collected and trained their best GSD's in all types of work and disciplines and put them on public display, even gave trained dogs to politicians to test for the breed to win people over. They need to get dogs out there, their best Pitts, let people play with them interact with them and love them, then tell them what breed it is, use the dog to speak for it's self and show people what a good Pit is all about and let the people turn it around when the know first hand the value the breed has. Talk is cheap and rarely listened to with much credibility attached, they need in my opinion to use the dog to make the point.

The Golden Retriever who bit 4 people in NSW certainly got media coverage albeit they are promoted as the ideal family pet with a gentle nature, so I don't think that is the case. They probably don't have a media splash when little fluffy bit Johnny on the ankle and needed a bandaid sure, but there is a diffence between nip statistics and maulings. Although true, Johnny suffered a dog bite, but I am sure if little fluffy took Johnny's ankle off, it would be on the news? There was the Husky in the hair salon who bit a child on the face that received media coverage, I don't think media coverage on dog attacks is reserved only for Pitbull hype, it's more reserved for the attacks of greater severity regardless of breed from what I have seen? I don't agree with seizing good innocent dogs on the way they look, that's wrong, but it doesn't hurt to check them out and see how their behaviour and controllability looks? If they find a Pitty type dog that acts a bit nasty, make the owner bring the dog to the council offices for a traffic test, make them walk up the footpath, around the corner past some people etc. If the lunging at the end of the leash wanting to kill everyone and the owner has no leash control would be a good candidate for seizure. If the dog is calm and well controlled it's off the hook, something like that?

I love the way people keep coming up with how all dogs are the same and breed makes no difference in their aggression responses? Perhaps we shoulkd ask police or security dog trainers why they don't use hounds and retrievers and ask Jack the Lad why he has a Pitbull to guard his crop? I am not a BSL supporter, but at least look at the big picture for an informed decision.

So in one breath you say that the majority of attacks are most likely not pitbulls but were mongrel crosses of completely different breed, yet in the next you suggest that BSL will work? So which breeds do we need to rid society of in order to stop dog attacks - especially given the statistics from a researcher at the monash uni which says that of 33 fatal dog attacks since 1979, ONLY 2 were pitbull or pitbull crosses? Isn't it time to make laws to make people train, socialise and contain their dogs? The OP didn't say they were mongrel X of completely different breed, they said they were not pure bred Pits but cross breeds of similar appearance. I think you will find the Vic legislation is after Pit X type dogs because they are the type most relevent in the serious attacks. Most of the serious attacks from my recollection have been reported as Pitbull type dogs and from the photo's shown of the dogs involved definitely were not Border Collies, Huskys or GSDs otherwise they would be after them also?. If they are in fact Pitbull type crossbreeds which they sure look like that type of dog in the coverage I have seen, then perhaps we should accept the facts to enable the right plan to be but into place?