megan_

Yes but saying that the seizing of unregistered dogs (note, ONLY unregistered dogs) is like killing millions of people is just plain, well, stupid. It has sidetracked the debate and will make the dog-crowd look like a bunch of raving loonies. Personally, I'd like the thread edited so we can get on track and discuss the real issues. People can say what ever they want - doesn't mean they should.

I don't believe that the shelter's ID will mean anything. There will be a new "visual inspection" test that is done by a council staff member (ranger?). I assume there would be some sort of appeal process and if worst came to worst you could get a DNA test done? It seems that the onus will be on owners to prove their dog isn't a PB, the council won't need to prove that they're not. IT is crazy to think that when Mr Cosmolo walks my mini schhauzer Lucy with Dex/Georgie someone could dob them in - and yet Lucy is the one to worry about!

I believe it is just a reporting error.

Well if they're not APBTs and already have council rego, as I read it their owners have nothing to worry about. From the minister: I read this to mean that you have to register your PB/PB cross and it will then be put on the dangerous dog register. Registering it as a staffy x won't cut it any more. If the council believe your dog is a PB cross you will have to comply with the dangerous dog legislation.

Even better - go and meet with them.

if she is registered my understanding is that she can't be seized. If they decide she is a PB (she doesn't look like one, which seems to be the test!) then she may need to wear a muzzle outside your property, and be on leash only.

Those that have them need to register them (as should already have occured). Anything coming out of a shelter will have a breed attribution as they do now. No amount of draconian law is going to have any impact on the irresponsible.. that's the real tragedy here. Because that's where the problem lies. They don't just mean registered with the council though PF, they mean registered as a PB. My understanding that this means no off leash and wearing a muzzle outside of their property.

I'd hate to think where her head is....

I don't blame the dog, but I don't always blame myself either. Sometimes the dog has had too much and you just need to give them timeout (not a punishment). Why does someone always need to be blamed? I personally hate the saying "roll up a newspaper and hit yourself over the head with it". I know it is light hearted but I think this kind of thinking puts way to much pressure on owners. Remember that we do agility to have fun with our dogs. Aussielover - I'd end on something simple (a 1 second sit for example) and then have some time out (either crated or tethered).

Personally, I'd just put my dog in kennels/care (my dogs go to Cosmolo and it is more of a holiday for them!). If they are slack with their dog, you can bet they'll put the dogs together when you're out ("they're dogs, they'll sort themselves out").

Remember to take it slowly! When I played the bang game with Fergus and he started to really enjoy it and offer the behaviour with a wagging tail, I was very keen to try him walking the seesaw. The instructor said to play the game for a few more sessions and not rush into things. It worked and the first time he ran on the seesaw he didn't bat an eyelid as it fell.

A single video won't change people's minds, but it sure will reinforce what they already think.

Kb do you know the bang game? I opted this with fergus and now he loves the seesaw

There isnt a foundation class training at the moment - we have all moved up to the next level. Training was tonight. There won't be anyone training next week because of the assessment. Good luck!

Thing is snook attacks can happen when the parent is there. Sometimes the "always supervise" message gives parents a false sense of security. A dog attack happens in a second. Some dogs are bred not to give specific warnings (obviously not staffys).

Of course any dog can bit but there are plently of people in South Africa that are breeding specifically for human aggression.

Was it really an áttack', the lady was 77 and able to fend of two GSD with 1 bite and scratches. It might just be more media hysteria. You're not serious? What would you call an attack? Granny in hospital? Dead? I'd suggest that she was very lucky to get inside - maybe she saw them coming over the fence. A women was bitten by stray dogs that got over her fence to get to her - and here are dog owners saying it's just "more media hysteria". This kind of crap gives dog owners a bad name. This kind of attitude makes my blood boil (I can't tell you the number of times people have said to me - and I'm talking people who belong to breed clubs, show their dogs etc - "My dog could sort yours out", "if my dog attacked yours you'd know it because your dog would be dead" etc etc).

I heard it on Channel Nines 6.30 pm news. It was a non biased report about a poor 77 year old lady who was attacked in her yard by a pair of German Shepherds and was "driven back into her home and received bites to her ankles". Whilst I am not trying to make light of this poor womans experience. It is true that it would not have made the media two weeks ago. It probably would not have even been reported to the media but been delt with on a local level. My ex's Grandmother received similar injuries when the familys Rodesian Ridgeback Puppy decided to be too playful and was snapping at her ankles. She had scratches everywhere before a family member was able to intervene as the old lady was unable to stop the dog. Without knowing the full story behind this particular dog attack it can easily become fodder for the media. The frail tissue thin skin of the elderly and the sharp teeth of a puppy are not a good conbination. Again, it comes down to someone not tending to their animals properly. um, a grandmother was attacked by two dogs on her own fenced property - that would always make the news in Melbourne. Please don't compare that with someone having their ankles bitten by a puppy for goodness sake. I am against BSL. But I'm also against dog lovers saying calling what has happened recently (a child killed by a dog in her own home!) media hysteria. What has happened in both these cases is disgusting - nothing hysterical about it.

she's a largeish mini schnauzer though. I'd go for 28 cms

I certainly hope that Australian breeders aren't breeding for this trait. Attacking without warning is not a desirable trait in any dog, especially since these are becoming more popular in suburbia.

While I don't agree with all the laws proposed, there IS a need for changes to dog laws (and not just dangerous ones). The fines for roaming dangerous dogs are pitiful, the fines for roaming dogs that haven't been declared dangerous are even more so. If your dog is out on the street without a leash, make the fine a few thousand dollars. People would rush to build secure fencing very quickly. They'd drop the 'the kids let the dogs out' excuses very quickly and would ensure that the dogs don't get out. If your dog seriously hurts someone you should be charged with assualt. If the kill, manslaughter or second degree murder (if it can be proven that someone didn't socialise their dog to get a more aggressive dog). I don't like how all the law talks have focused on dangerous dogs - those are dogs that have already offended. The man who's dog killed the girl will only get a fine - not good enough.

Before people write Matthew b off, his views represent the vast majority of people

But why can't cafe owners decide what clientel they want? Why are they forced not to allow dogs? For some cafes (eg near parks) dog owners are a big revenue earner. Small businesses are doing it hard enough without the councils closing off revenue opportunities. People with allergies can eat inside or go to non-dog cafes.

I know that not everyone in trackies is a bogan (wear the things myself!) but pitbull owners are stereotyped whether you like it or not. True story. If you want to dispel the stereotype you have to show that it isn't true.

I think the cafe owner should be able to decide whether to allow dogs or not. That way people that don't want dogs there can go to dog-free places? Free enterprise and all that....