melzawelza

I'm glad you posted your story, Kirty (and I'm so, so sorry it happened), as many people don't know this is a phenomenon that can happen to any of us and does happen to parents with their babies even. It's just the way the human mind works unfortunately. I think this is a brilliant article on the subject and gave me a very different perspective on events like this. (I agree that this sounds like an accident). Fatal Distraction

Raw fed once per day. I think the fat-ness is more to do with being fed too much food than how often they're being fed it. :)

My girl (25kg) was always fed twice a day while on kibble but since being switched to raw she eats once a day at breakfast.

Hahah yes, Cocoa gives me presents when I get home from work, or when exciting new people come to the house. It's usually one of her toys. I doubt very strongly with my dog it's a displacement thing, I've never met a dog that loves visitors like she does. She doesn't even bark at the door when people come, just stands there wagging her whole back end so hard that her tail bangs against the wall.

Dogs will not always behave the same way for their whole lives (studies have shown temperament tests done on dogs in shelters can be vastly different even 24 hours apart!). Their behaviour can be modified by experience, environment or their own physical wellbeing. This is clearly a very lovely dog and didn't seem too fussed by the baby at all, I agree. But let's say the parents allow this to happen every day for a year. Will the dog be so patient then? It is entirely conceivable that over a period of time of this happening regularly the dog will start to have enough and tell the child to piss off. When that happens is when you hear 'he just turned, it came out of the blue...'. Not to mention that the child is putting it's hand right inside the dogs mouth as it's biting down on the bone. Tiny soft hands could be injured in a second, just accidentally.

Pet Resorts Australia is the only boarding kennel in Sydney I'd send my dog to. They do a great job and the trainers are great too. Board and train can be a great head start but you need to be realistic - ten days with other people in a new environment won't send you back a 'fixed' dog. They can give you a head start on a lot of obedience stuff but whether it is lasting depends on how much time you put in to continuing the training after you bring him home.

I agree. I can't see any way the ANKC or kennel clubs could ever represent 'all dogs' when Dogs NSW are actively involved with and take profit from BSL in NSW. They provide 'breed assessors' designated to either 'pass' or 'fail' dogs based on visual ID (arbitrary and inaccurate) assessment, and remove assessors from their list that don't 'fail' enough dogs. They take half the fee for all breed assessments. They also run a course that is supposed to 'build skills on visually ID-ing different dog breeds' but focuses most of its time on the Bull and Terrier breeds (including the APBT even though they don't recognise them as a breed) and is marketed almost exclusively to councils. Council officers from Victoria are traveling up to do this course and then using it in court to justify their declaration that a dog is restricted (and therefore should be destroyed). I can't ever see them being a representative for all dogs/owners/breeders and to be honest there are plenty who wouldn't want to be represented by them given the above.

Very hard to say without seeing it. As others have said, he may just be telling off rude boisterous puppies which is not only normal but desirable for the puppy owner if the dog doesn't go overboard. My girl is very social with all dogs and is perfect for puppies as she will very loudly tell them off for being too full-on. I get comments regularly when my foster puppies grow up from a lot of their new owners about how social and appropriate their puppies are - and I always put it down to my girl teaching them very early that launching at faces and being too full-on will get you a correction.

Stat Dec detailing extremely clearly what happened and how they identified the dog/owner Same from any witnesses Photographs of injury Vet report detailing injuries sustained and treatment required If the dog has unreported history (in the last two years) and you know the victims, encourage them to report their incidents. As long as it happened within the last 2 years council can investigate and take it in to account. Good luck!

The problem is that there is zero way to determine the genetic makeup of a dog without pedigree papers (and even then they can be botched). This kind of legislation has been tried in every incarnation where it's been implemented around the world and it's never been able to be workable and without extensive cost to the taxpayer in appeals (and enforcement). DNA testing isn't reliable and does not test for APBT anyway, so we are left with visual ID, which we all know is completely useless and idiotic. The idea of mandatory desexing for certain 'types' of dogs is certainly much less onerous than the current Vic laws but still completely unhelpful and still ends up with dead dogs. San Francisco has mandatory desexing for 'pit bull' dogs and Chihuahuas, and all it has meant is lots of surrendered dogs to the shelter when their owners can't afford or can't access low cost or free desexing. It also creates a stigma about the dogs that have 'different' regulations than other dogs, which lessens community safety ('my dog isn't a 'pit bull' so therefore I can trust my kid alone with it unsupervised'), and creates barriers to adoption ('There are too many Chihuahuas and we are overpopulated with them and need to stop them from being bred.' - devalues the dogs and lessens desirability). And in the case of 'pit bull' dogs the idea of desexing them all so they cease to exist for public safety reasons works off an absolutely ridiculous and inaccurate premise that dogs that are shaped a certain way are disproportionately dangerous to other dogs to the point that they can't be allowed to exist in society anymore. Mandatory desexing doesn't work anyway - there are never and will never be the ability to enforce it so all you get is people hiding their dogs away from sight because they can't or don't want to desex their dog - this results in less socialised dogs that often are not getting access to vet care or adequate exercise (this is what is happening in San Fran). Sure, what you're proposing would be a lot less devastating than what is going on in Victoria right now, but it is no less unfounded in fact and would continue to cost stupid money and take up stupid amounts of ranger resources on dogs that don't need it. Seriously, we know what the answer is - well written, effective breed-neutral dangerous/menacing/nuisance legislation paired with high levels of education and incentives for doing the right thing. On top of that a well resourced low cost desex/vaccination/chipping program for underserved community members. Almost all of the rest of the world has gotten rid of all BSL and just implemented the above, seeing great results. It's not rocket science put the pollies are resistant to it here because the general public are still uneducated on the topic and believe that focusing on 'breed' is the silver bullet to fix dog attacks. Less and less people are believing this now, though - and it will eventually get to a tipping point, just as it has everywhere else.

Kerser outcome being announced today at 11.30am. Let's hope he's the third...

Sweet. :) Fairy tales, but sweet nonetheless!

Sonny was also a big win - so positive. I would be surprised if declarations don't slow up or halt completely after these two. I heard him speak at the AIAM conference, I tried to get a copy but I was told it was not recorded. I since found out that the man I heard speak was the council prosecutor, not an AMO, and more than one person has said that the rangers at Brimbank are very anti BSL. He didn't do them any favours, that's for sure.

I'm so ecstatic for the outcome. Not only for the dog and the owners but for the implications on BSL as a whole. Not surprised they're still being difficult after hearing the case officer speak.

You can call the police and they'll attend but they'll just punt it to Council. Police can't make Dangerous dog declarations like Council can or really take much action at all. The only real benefit to calling them if it's serious is that they'll get there quicker as they can put the sirens on. They don't have chip scanners though. Where the police can and should be involved is if a person incites a dog to attack a person - that is a criminal offence.

Butterflies. After hearing this Council speak on this matter I really want them to lose with all of my being.

The key problem here isn't that they didn't identify that the owner wasn't all there (although that is a problem). The issue here is that they killed a highly adoptable/rescue-able dog within 24 hours of intake with absolutely zero attempt to sell or transfer to rescue.

Another vote for Vebo! I won't get crates anywhere else!

Sigh. They never change.

I'm quick to have a go at the RSPCA ( :laugh: ), but I don't really see an issue with it, 'breed' wise. Most people viewing the ad wouldn't even know that that dog was a breed or what it was called. There are dogs of every single shape and size in pounds, mutts and dogs that appear purebred, too. A lot of them are stunningly attractive.

Yay Hobbes, I hope he uses up every day of that registration :) Would love to see a pic of the old fella!

A big step in the right direction. We all know what an inquiry into BSL will show - exactly what it's shown everywhere else. Colossal waste of time and money. Whether the parties heed it I don't know, but it being done at all is a big step. I'd certainly be voting labor if I was in Vic.

My aunt is like this - can't own a boy dog because they have a penis. I think it's weird :)

To be honest I find this thread fairly gobsmacking. As efowler said, if your adopters are getting confused about who they are adopting from I would probably gently suggest that maybe the marketing and branding of your group needs to be brought up a notch so that it stays in people's minds. Make it clear to your adopters as to how they can donate to you directly if they wish to. I don't understand all the angst about Shel and Vix's responses here. They may not be exactly what you wanted, but they certainly discussed the concerns raised and the reasons for doing what they do. Personally I found their responses more than satisfactory but if you didn't, and it's really such a big deal, using PetRescue isn't compulsory and you can choose to advertise your dogs in other ways if you wish. I don't get the point of the thread though other than to have a whinge - it certainly wasn't for productive reasons as there's no guarantee that anyone from PetRescue would have seen it. If you have an issue why not contact them directly to discuss? PetRescue being in existence and being free to use does a hell of a lot towards saving lives in this country and helping rescues move their pets on, not to mention the campaigns they create that presumably cost a significant amount to create and run. There's no shame in them fundraising and soliciting donations just like any other rescue group or not for profit.

Mine too. I hope the Councils lose for these dogs individually but also for all other dogs who may be potentially targeted. The more councils that lose BIG bucks on these cases the less likely councils are to continue to attempt to enforce these poorly written and researched laws. We've already seen Monash publicly having a go at the Gov for the laws being terrible after they lost over 100k. More of that happening and we're starting to move towards some sort of solution.