OzPit

I appreciate this idea but doubt it would ever be turned into any form of legislation. At the end of the day, childcare centres are dealing with human babies. It would take a lot to convince Joe Public that dogs used in breeding practices would require the same standards of care as human children. Also, childcare centres have ratios which change depending of the number and age of the children present. Is it suggested that there is one adult for, say, every 10 adult dogs? Does this go down to , perhaps, one adult for every 5 puppies, as they have higher needs? What ratio would you suggest? What about night times? Midnight? 3am? What age are children considered to be competent handlers or managers of the dogs, so that they can be considered in this carer:dog ratio? You can't try to say that during business hours, a certain ratio has to be adhered to, but at night this is not applicable. Breaches of animal welfare occur at all times of day and night. I speak from experience when I say that staff:child ratios in childcare centres are often not adhered to. It shouldn't happen, but it does, simply because of the nature of what the staff:child ratio implies. A lot of the time, this breach of practice goes unnoticed by the relevant authorities; I doubt very much that it would have any effectiveness when applied to dogs, even on grounds of animal welfare. Another point to consider - would the carer:dog ratio also then have to be applied to other businesses dealing with dogs? Boarding kennels, veterinary practices, pet stores, doggy day care, dog walkers? If you use animal welfare as the grounds to establish a nominated carer:dog ratio then it would follow that, on the grounds of animal welfare and human OHS, these ratios would have to applied across the board.

There's a lot of talk about one of the indicators of a PF being profit as the motivation. How would one measure this? If "profit as the motivation" is accepted and used as the yardstick in determining who is and is not a PF, where would this take us? Does the RSPCA or any other relevant animal welfare authority visit the farms? Do they ask the "breeder" what their motivation is? What if "breeder"'s response to that question does not include any mention of profit, or the desire for profit? Do they use ATO or other records to determine income from the PF? This still can't prove profit was the motivation behind the breeding, just that it was a consequence. What if reputable registered breeders have happened to make a profit one year? What happens to them? This whole issue is fraught with difficulties. It's too hard to use the housing of the dogs as the defining factor. As long as the dogs have adequate and appropriate food, shelter, and water, what else can be done? If you try to introduce a standard of conditions, what would they be? People on this forum are debating grass vs concrete. Both have their benefits and their drawbacks. If PFs are held to a standard of care, then it follows that ANKC breeders should be held to the same standards. But again, what will those standards be? Concrete kennels/runs? Free-range? There is such a difference in opinion, both here and in wider society, that there is no happy medium. The production & ownership of dogs is very much an emotive issue, and people cling tightly to their opinions regarding what is best practice. Try to impose standards and requirements and there will be public outrage. It's a helluva task you've set yourself, Steve. I wish you all the best. And as a final, completely unrelated aside: why is it that I can type DD instead of the long & irritating "designer dog"; PF instead of "puppy farm"; and any number of acronyms for breeds....but there isn't a DOL-standard acronym which stands for "registered and reputable breeder"? It's so long. I'm campaigning for the use of RRB. Seriously.

Hm. Thanks. Will pass this on to son. Are the LDDS/ACTH blood tests something that all vets would perform? Ie, not a specialist?

Update. Urine sample taken up showed high glucose again, so badger went in for more bloods last week. Son was told to feed him a big, carbohydrate-heavy brekkie and then take him up to the vet so they could do some more tests immediately after he ate, and then some more at different points during the day. Results: After a meal, his glucose goes up quite high, then returns to normal/just in the "high" range. Vet's opinion is that it is early stages diabetes. Son is happy with this, but his girlfriend is concerned that vet basically said to take Badger home, keep an eye on him and bring him back up in 3 weeks for more tests. She has asked me if they should go to a different vet and get a second opinion/more tests. I told her I didn't know. Seems weird though, not giving a precise diagnosis and then just sending him home to be watched for 3 weeks? Opinions?

I'll add a fresh perspective to this. First let me say although this post may not sound like it, I DO NOT support BSL. But, I have heard so many times from a lot of different people that if their breed was banned (completely banned) they would own one anyway (I'm talking about buying a new dog/puppy, not their current dog), they don't care about the LAW. They disregard muzzling laws, or DD tags, or say they would walk their dog on the street even if it were banned, and who benefits from it? The owner for getting to keep their dog? What if you get CAUGHT???? Only the dog will suffer for it by being PTS. Boo-hoo you don't get to own a particular breed when they are banned. Get over it and actually think about the poor dog that is going to suffer because of YOUR stupidity. I have heard of people deliberately registering their dog as another breed with the council ie: Pitt bull registered as a Lab X Boxer or something unbelievable. Now this business with registering your dog as another breed with the ANKC just takes the cake!!! Seriously, take a step back and look at yourselves. I don't like BSL, but I'm thinking I really don't want to support people who lie, cheat and scam... I don't care if you think you are doing it for the dogs... you AREN'T! FIGHT BSL, try and stop it, or try to get bans and restrictions lifted, but don't go being an idiot and destroying your dog by buying one after a ban has been put in place. And certainly don't advertise the fact... have you ever thought that someone lobbying FOR BSL might read something like this? I'm not targeting anyone in particular, more letting off some frustration from about 3 different forums I have heard this same thing on! (except the ridiculous ANKC scam) From reading this I know there are only a few here who would consider it, so all the sensible people please disregard my post. /end of rant I understand your point. But. If I were to go out tomorrow and find a reputable (though obviously not registered) APBT (yes there are reputable breeders still out there, protecting and continuing their lines), I can. That's not to say it is legal, but I can. And in NSW, if I do that, and register my dog as what it is (an APBT), and comply with the regs, then my dog is not at risk of being destroyed. I may be at risk of a big fine for illegally buying one, but if the dog is contained and managed according to the legislation, then the dog is safe. I always say this. If you want an APBT, fine, go and get one. But register it as what it is. And comply with the laws. They're not that unbearable, really. If the laws are complied with, then the dog is safe. And that should be the first concern of anybody considering buying an APBT - "Can I keep this dog safe?" If they can't, they shouldn't get one.

Totally understandable. Small dogs are (as a sweeping generalisation) often allowed to get away with a lot more by your average dog owner. Their agression is often laughed at because they are so small. Even when they bite, it's often overlooked because they don't generally cause much damage. For example: Say there's a town that has 100 SWFs in it, and 100 Rotties. If 10% of those SWFs bit someone, how many of those attacks would go reported, or acted upon? If 1% of the Rotties attacked, how many would be reported, acted upon, be in the media? What's the bet there'd be some BSL targeted at the Rotties? The bigger the dog, the worse the damage. Doesn't matter if a SWF bites someone every day of the week - society sees that as acceptable. But when a bigger dog acts the same, they're up in arms about it. So we're left with what we have now. The larger, more powerful breeds are punished whereas smaller breeds are overlooked. Which is ridiculously unfair. It SHOULD be deed, not breed. But I can't see society as a whole accepting and acting upon that saying any time soon.

yeah right. I wonder what all of the Amercian Pit Bull owners have their dogs registered and chipped as ? certainly not APBT Gotta agree with SBT123 here. APBT people harp on that their dogs are the real deal; fair enough, they are the shall we say not-watered-down version of the AST. They're entitled to that opinion. It's not hurting anyone. But if you go out and get an APBT, and want to tell people it's an APBT, and want to snort in derision at AST owners, telling them their dog isn't the "real deal"...then register your APBT as an APBT, and comply with the legislation. When APBT owners register their dogs as ASTs, we see what we see now. People with poorly bred APBTs, registering them as ASTs, and if something happens...suddenly the AST is to blame. Much as I hate to say it, and I don't necessarily think it's the right thing to do for the APBT's sake, if AST breeders (we're talking reputable breeders breeding to the standard, not registered breeders pumping out dogs which come perilously close to being ABs) want to save their own breed, they DO need to distance themselves from the APBT people. And I wouldn't blame SBT people if they started distancing themselves from AST people. Maybe it sounds harsh or breedist but it's the facts. Put it this way - if you lived in an apartment building and it went up in flames, you'd sure as hell be saving your immediate family first before you even considered trying to rescue anyone else. Greytmate is right. You can't change what others are doing, you can only do the best thing by your dogs and your breed, and get out there and show why your breed is not a threat.

Thanks Chocolate. My son also mentioned that Badger has started "shivering", apparently for no reason. He doesn't know if it's related to the excess drinking or if it's just "nerves" (his words not mine!). Could this be related? Son is starting to get concerned. Should he be requesting another set of bloods instead of just the second urine test?

Thanks for replies, everyone. Stormie: That was very useful, thanks for putting it in basic terms that I can explain to son. So basically it's looking like a kidney problem. Son is getting results back on friday so will report back here when that happens.

Interesting, thanks. Will pass some of that info on to son.

Just got a call from my son. His 8 year old staffy mix was taken to the vet last week for excessive water consumption. Urine and blood samples were taken. Test at the vet indicated high levels of glucose in urine, but lab tests for both blood and urine came back negative for diabetes and negative for bacterial infection. He's now been asked to take up another urine sample, but asked me if I might know of any other diseases that could cause this, so he can ask the vet. It seems Badger (his dog) has just started drinking a helluva lot of water, and seems to "carry on" about getting fed more than normal. Apart from that, has no other symptoms - no lethargy, no loss of coat condition, no loss of weight, etc. There hasn't been any change in diet, dog's still getting fed his normal food. Any ideas? Could it be Cushings?

Although it's not recognised by the ANKC, the APBT IS a real breed. It has a standard and there ARE ethical (but obviously not registered) breeders of these dogs in Australia. The AST is NOT the same dog. Genetically, yes. In terms of type and temperament, no - they are quite different. I'm interested in this: The APBT, whilst not recognised in Australia, IS the "real deal". The AST is a show strain and is very different. Regardless, BOTH breeds are targeted by uneducated, uninformed and badly advised persons. IMO it would be wiser to fight BSL altogether instead of just fighting for this breed or that breed. Because if you won't fight for the APBT then you are effectively admitting that you agree the AST should also be targeted. I don't understand AST people who are happy to call their dogs the "real deal" ... but then want their "real" dogs to be spared from BSL? If you don't want to fight for the APBT, fine. But don't then wander around calling the AST the "real deal" and then expect them to be spared.

Wow. Thanks for that information. Very interesting. I wonder why? Having a "vibrant and plentiful" gene pool is as good a reason as any, I suppose. It does drive a wedge firmly between the APBT and AST in the USA though, which will probably allow AST owners to claim their dogs are nothing like the APBT and thus possibly keep them a little safer from BSL.

Not Sure. A very good point. Attempts at changing public perception aren't working, the general consensus is that they're blood-thirsty killers. Yes, we may be able to change one or two people's opinions but the media isn't going to be swayed so easily. Add to this the moral dilemma APBT owners face when attempting to change perceptions of the breed. One could laud them as the greatest, most unflappable, stable, loving, loyal, SUPER DOGS ever, but that is possibly not the ethical way to go about it. Fact remains, they do have the power and tenacity to inflict incredible damage. To deny this is not in the public's best interest, but to admit it gets the breed nowhere. BSL affects everybody . What a ridiculous , ignorant thing to say, yes it may all be starting with an unregistered breed but has started to include registered breeds ( like the AST) . I have voted no. i don't think they are doomed because i believe that there is enough support even from those who don't have a BSL targeted breeds to fight against BSL . BSL inherently doesn't affect everybody. It is specific to certain breeds only. I read that more as BSL has the potential to affect everybody through the addition of more breeds to the dangerous/restricted lists. But I may be way off! What a useful and constructive comment. I suppose you had the same response every time the topic of white german shepherd dogs / white swiss shepherds came up (before they were recognised)? Besides which, this thread is not necessarily promoting the APBT. In fact a lot of people are agreeing it is a lost cause. I wouldn't call that "promotion" as such.

Too easy! ANKC Extended Breed Standard of the American Staffordshire Terrier From what I can see there's just over 2 pages documenting the history of the AST, with absolutely no omission whatsoever of the breed's fighting history. Ask breeders of AST's in Australia if their dogs are fightbred, they'd probably want to fight you for being a complete idiot. The AST is NOT a fighting breed. Is was developed from the APBT for SHOWING only; hence it can NOT have any game or fighting lines in it, because for that to occur, the dogs would have to have been bred with a dog that is NOT an ANKC Reigistered AST. This would then render the resultant offspring unable to be ANKC registered. I'm not sure any reputable AST breeder would take too kindly to you asking them if they're breeding crossbred dogs. Obviously the case in the US is a little more difficult, with AKC/UKC/ADBA registration but the general gist of it is this: You can have an AKC registered American Staffordshire Terrier. You can have an AKC registered American Staffordshire Terrier ALSO registered (ie Dual Reg) with the UKC as an American Pit Bull Terrier. OR you can have an ADBA registered American Pit Bull Terrier. The ADBA is the registry that leans heavily towards the preservation of the old game/fighting lines. The owners and breeders of ADBA APBTs generally see their dogs as the true or original APBTs, as any APBT registered with the UKC must first come from AKC AST lines; hence, the dual-registered dogs are not a continuation of the older game lines; hence, they are not seen as "real" or "true" APBTs by the purists. There is also a HUGE difference aesthetically between the three. Click here to see a great comparison between ADBA, UKC and AKC dogs. The reason the game and fighting lines are regarded as being distinct has little to do with the genetics of reinforcing the traits, I believe, and more to do with the entire issue around AKC/UKC/ADBA dogs. Since the AKC/UKC dogs can NOT have any of the old lines in them, because these lines are not in the pedigrees of AKC dogs for the same reason they are not in the lines of ANKC AST's (and a dog must first be AKC registered if it is then to be UKC registered) then yes, the old lines (as used by ADBA breeders) are considered to be very precious and very distinct to those used by breeders of AKC/UKC dogs.