Jump to content

melzawelza

  • Posts

    2,564
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by melzawelza

  1. How lovely - I'm so glad it got a news article so the general population see the benefits of animals in our lives. Thanks for posting.
  2. Death isn't an appropriate punishment for a dog escaping the yard. That depends on the dog. Acting after the event if a dogs attacks a person or animal while at large is of no use to the victim. Why is it that most roaming dogs are SBT, Amstaff or Pit crosses? Because they attract irresponsible owners. If they didn't let so many of these types of dogs roam at large BSL may not even exist. Councils have to PREVENT serious attacks. Any dog can bite but those with strong jaws and the tendency to fight by grabbing and shaking, do a whole lot more damage than a breed that nips and backs off. Punishing the deed is too late. This particular dog has not attacked but he has been caught by council twice and the issue would probably never have come up if they had learnt from the first time. I feel sorry for the dog but not for the idiot owners who bought a red nosed, brindle dog and did not think he might be targetted by BSL if they kept letting him out. A few questions to think about: 1.Where is your evidence that 'most roaming dogs are SBT, Amstaff or Pit crosses'. What are you basing that on? Are you saying in YOUR area or Australia wide? Where is the evidence? Why are you lumping three breeds and their mixes together as if they are one? 2. IF you were correct, the SBT is each year either #1 or #2 most numerous dog in this country. Amstaffs are usually about 5 or 6. You seem to be including mixes in your assessment so in that case, it certainly wouldn't be some big revelation or a reflection on the dogs themselves that that of the total 'roaming dog' population, SBT, Amstaffs their mixes (and their lookalikes) would be more highly represented. 3. Where is your evidence that IF 'most' roaming dogs are SBT or Amstaff & mixes - the reason for it is that the dogs themselves attract irresponsible owners as opposed to just being more highly represented in dog numbers overall? 4. Where is your evidence that dogs of these breeds or mixes have a different jaw structure or are somehow different to all other dogs? I see a lot of assumptions in your post but of all my extensive reading on the topic of dog attacks and the best way to reduce them, I've never seen anything that backs them up. Are you aware that the evidence shows that focusing on breed in legislation when trying to deal with dog attacks actually drives up dog attacks? Are you totally fine with the fact that Team Dog and other groups had to spend nearly 5k, Brisbane City Council had to spend an enormous amount, and this dog had to be locked up for 8 months - taking up space for other pound dogs - because he had a red nose? This dog that is great with other dogs, people, and kittens? This dog that didn't behave aggressively even when roaming without his owner's supervision? Of course it is different if a dog has shown aggression. It it not acceptable to kill a dog for escaping it's property, without behaving aggressively in any way. There are appropriate ways to deal with escaping dogs that include fines and orders, or removal and rehoming of the dog if all other options have been exhausted. To imply otherwise is shameful.
  3. Imagine what that money could have been spent on as far as owner support and other programs proven to reduce dog attacks. BSL affects the whole community in a negative way.
  4. So sorry to hear Dave. Glad things are going well with Jazz, hope this is but a minor blip with Zeus.
  5. It's implied by a particular appearance that the dog is of a restricted breed, but they are breeds listed under BSL not appearances per se. From what I can understand of DNA, it cannot accurately determine breed.......perhaps if the parents were papered and with DNA say a papered Amstaff x Labrador, there would be more leverage in such evidence but crossbreed parents determined by DNA that no restricted breed exists in their ancestry could perhaps amount to who conducted the DNA test with result variations. I had the understanding that DNA for breed determination was a bit all over the place as the reason it was refused in evidence? The problem is, when a law is in place, it doesn't matter that the rationale of the law is nonsense to use as a defence for having a dog who's breed cannot be determined to the satisfaction of the courts. We just need to be careful owning dogs of the "appearance" until such a law is reduced in sensationalism and dogs are condemned by temperament only when possessing the "appearance". You're right that DNA isn't super accurate at IDing breed - but it's almost 100% accurate at ID-ing parentage. Dogs who's DNA-confirmed parents have had the standard applied under the legislation and been cleared as NOT being restricted breeds, can still be declared restricted based on THEIR appearance. The fact that the DNA-proven parents are NOT restricted according to the same legislation cannot be used as an argument to clear the progeny. Parentage doesn't matter - the individual dog's appearance does. The original intention may have been for it to target specific breeds, but in application, it is appearance based legislation, not breed. Has that scenario been tested in court where the parents have cleared the appearance test when the dog in question is confirmed by DNA as the parents progeny? It couldn't be discussed in court because it's evidence that is not admissible. The legislation doesn't allow for the dog's actual genetics (unless the owner can produce pedigree Amstaff papers), only the dogs appearance.
  6. Yep. I'm calling it 'appearance specific legislation' a lot these days.
  7. Yes true I need to concentrate on my own fight. Melz I wasn't having a go at you I really do appreciate your help on this, just frustration. Oh I know! Nor am I having a go at you - and I totally understand your frustration, and given the non-action by the owners of your attackers I'd be really unhappy with the Council's response too. Just wanting to give another perspective on the one on their facebook page is all. I agree with others asking for responses in writing. Put together something to the Council and email to the GM - then your response will come in writing and it will get some extra attention. If you want me to look over it PM me.
  8. To be fair, progressive sheltering and rescue in the States wholly embraces transporting dogs, often across the country, to place them where they are wanted and reduce kill rates - and it works brilliantly. California pounds are full to the brim with Chihuahua types (believe it or not) to the point where San Fran has BSL for Chihuahuas - mandatory desexing. There is an oversupply of that type of dog in that area and they are not as readily adopted as the bigger dogs. NYC shelters have lots of Pit Bull types and not enough adopters wanting them due to the high incidence of apartment living. There's a big demand for the littlies but not many in the shelters. The big shelters (ASPCA etc) as well as smaller rescues regularly ship the Chis over to NYC and the Pits over to San Fran - sending the 'in demand' dog to where they are wanted. Adoption rates up, less killing. Lots of 'old school' ideas about rescue are anything but helpful. That said I don't support the actions of dog brokers like those we have in Sydney.
  9. I read though, I didn't see any comments saying they'd been out roaming before? If the fence genuinely blew down in a storm and the owners were desperately looking for their dogs because they knew they had the potential to do damage, that doesn't sound like blase irresponsible ownership. That sounds like someone with dogs who have issues with other dogs (like many many people on this forum) that kept them in what they thought was a secure yard and then a freak accident happened in bad weather. I'm not so sure I'd be surrendering my dogs in that situation. I'd be devastated they had caused such horror and would be paying all vet bills and building secure dog runs etc whether I had an order on them or not... but I wouldn't surrender them if I knew that I could prevent it happening again. Regardless of the actual situation, what I'm saying is the anger at the council in that case seems unwarranted. Everyone commenting is angry because the dogs were not euthanased... the Council couldn't euth them. Not downplaying what is happening in your situation HazyWal because yours is very different to what this one seems to be based on what I've read on that fbook page, but every case is different and I don't think the anger on the Council with that one is warranted. Sorry I was editing my post as you replied to shed a little more light on the community, not that it matters. Reading your edit: I do agree that Menacing isn't enough and is an odd choice. The legislation specifically states that it is for attacks 'without serious injury or death' so doesn't really cut it with this one. The legislation was relatively new a few months ago, maybe they got confused.
  10. Pretty horrendous situation in the UK. I just read this one today: Dog owners taking legal action after banned breeds are seized by police Meanwhile hospitalisations from dog attacks are up 50% since the Dangerous Dogs Act was implemented in 1991.
  11. I read though, I didn't see any comments saying they'd been out roaming before? If the fence genuinely blew down in a storm and the owners were desperately looking for their dogs because they knew they had the potential to do damage, that doesn't sound like blase irresponsible ownership. That sounds like someone with dogs who have issues with other dogs (like many many people on this forum) that kept them in what they thought was a secure yard and then a freak accident happened in bad weather. I'm not so sure I'd be surrendering my dogs in that situation. I'd be devastated they had caused such horror and would be paying all vet bills and building secure dog runs etc whether I had an order on them or not... but I wouldn't surrender them if I knew that I could prevent it happening again. Regardless of the actual situation, what I'm saying is the anger at the council in that case seems unwarranted. Everyone commenting is angry because the dogs were not euthanased... the Council couldn't euth them. Not downplaying what is happening in your situation HazyWal because yours is very different to what this one seems to be based on what I've read on that fbook page, but every case is different and I don't think the anger on the Council with that one is warranted.
  12. To be fair re: that one with the Fox Terrier, according to the Council's post the owners fences blew down in a storm and the owners were out looking for them when the incident happened. Pretty unforseen circumstances. Very different to the irresponsibility of your attackers owners HazyWal. Three months after I bought my house my solid weldmesh fence came down in the strong winds we had here in Sydney - it was rusted under the actual dirt so I couldn't see and one of the posts snapped clean off. Luckily my neighbour found my dog hovering in their driveway all freaked out and took her inside. Council also said they had issued an NOI to the owner, the dogs have possibly been declared since. Seems people are upset because they didn't destroy the dogs but Council doesn't have the powers to destroy dogs unless the owners surrender - only a magistrate does. According to Council the owners have immediately secured the dogs following the incident which I would assume to be something like a dog run or the like. Seems to be very different to your situation and possibly the sort of scenario that I was talking about previously - the incident occurring as a genuine freak accident and the owners immediately taking action to ensure it can't happen again. Absolutely AWFUL and unacceptable that someone's dog died but no sense in three dead dogs if you can ensure it can't happen again.
  13. In NSW people can't care for lost pets at their home. They have to 'as soon as possible' take them to the owner, the pound, or an approved premises (certain vets). Vets who have applied to be an apprpved premises can keep the animal for up to 72 hours if they want to. After that it must go to the pound. Vets who aren't approved premises need to contact Council straight away for the pet to be collected and taken to the pound.
  14. No idea what she's talking about then. She's talking like the fact that it will go to court is a done deal. It will only go to court if the owner lodges an appeal within 28 days. Regardless, she hasn't told you that they don't have enough evidence that the attack occurred, only that she thinks a judge would think a declaration is 'too harsh' because it wasn't a baby (she should talk to all the other Councils that have declared following attacks on other dogs that have stood up on appeal).
  15. They do have to act within their powers though. In this case it means applying to court to get the dangerous dog application approved. The rangers can't just say a dog is a dangerous dog and that is it. In NSW you don't have to apply to the courts to get a DD application approved - rangers CAN just declare a dog dangerous. But they have to ensure they have the evidence of the incident as the owner can appeal the declaration in court if they want to. Can't appeal menacing. Why is Hazywal saying that the ranger said a judge has to look at the declaration then? The Ranger is talking about if the owner appeals the declaration in court. That is not what Hazywal appears to be saying. She said: The month timeframe could be referring to the fact that an owner has 28 days following a declaration to lodge an appeal. Or the Ranger is not expressing herself properly, or HazyWal got the wrong end of the stick. The legislation is what it is. In NSW we do not have to apply to the courts for a Dangerous Dog declaration, the Council can declare following issuing a Notice on Intention a week prior. I've already linked the legislation in this thread.
  16. They do have to act within their powers though. In this case it means applying to court to get the dangerous dog application approved. The rangers can't just say a dog is a dangerous dog and that is it. In NSW you don't have to apply to the courts to get a DD application approved - rangers CAN just declare a dog dangerous. But they have to ensure they have the evidence of the incident as the owner can appeal the declaration in court if they want to. Can't appeal menacing. Why is Hazywal saying that the ranger said a judge has to look at the declaration then? The Ranger is talking about if the owner appeals the declaration in court.
  17. They do have to act within their powers though. In this case it means applying to court to get the dangerous dog application approved. The rangers can't just say a dog is a dangerous dog and that is it. In NSW you don't have to apply to the courts to get a DD application approved - rangers CAN just declare a dog dangerous. But they have to ensure they have the evidence of the incident as the owner can appeal the declaration in court if they want to. Can't appeal menacing.
  18. It's implied by a particular appearance that the dog is of a restricted breed, but they are breeds listed under BSL not appearances per se. From what I can understand of DNA, it cannot accurately determine breed.......perhaps if the parents were papered and with DNA say a papered Amstaff x Labrador, there would be more leverage in such evidence but crossbreed parents determined by DNA that no restricted breed exists in their ancestry could perhaps amount to who conducted the DNA test with result variations. I had the understanding that DNA for breed determination was a bit all over the place as the reason it was refused in evidence? The problem is, when a law is in place, it doesn't matter that the rationale of the law is nonsense to use as a defence for having a dog who's breed cannot be determined to the satisfaction of the courts. We just need to be careful owning dogs of the "appearance" until such a law is reduced in sensationalism and dogs are condemned by temperament only when possessing the "appearance". You're right that DNA isn't super accurate at IDing breed - but it's almost 100% accurate at ID-ing parentage. Dogs who's DNA-confirmed parents have had the standard applied under the legislation and been cleared as NOT being restricted breeds, can still be declared restricted based on THEIR appearance. The fact that the DNA-proven parents are NOT restricted according to the same legislation cannot be used as an argument to clear the progeny. Parentage doesn't matter - the individual dog's appearance does. The original intention may have been for it to target specific breeds, but in application, it is appearance based legislation, not breed.
  19. At the end of the day BSL is not based on temperament - it is based on solely appearance. BSL assumes that any dog with a certain appearance is dangerous - in the eyes of the lawmakers the dog does not need to be temperament tested - it is dangerous regardless. (Zeus is doing brilliantly in his new home and has an absolutely incredible temperament, especially for a dog that has just been locked up for so long. He is super friendly with everyone and every other dog he meets, and is winning over many hearts in the ACT!) It's not actually based on appearance, the appearance governs speculation of a breed that is outlawed. It doesn't speculate that a dog of certain appearance is dangerous, it speculates that a dog of certain appearance is an outlawed breed. The policing of BSL isn't based on the perceived danger level of specific breeds or individual dogs, it's based on breeds that are banned in a given area thereby the owners of dogs perceived to be of banned breeds are breaking the law. And yet many mixed breed dogs without a drop of the legislated breeds are assessed, by their appearance, as being of that breed and therefore subject to restriction or euthanasia. In practice, BSL is absolutely, 100%, appearance based rather than breed based. If it truly was breed based we would only be seeing dogs from a closed gene pool of the 'american pit bull terrier' subject to restrictions, not mutts of every mix under the sun. ETA: A good example of this is the fact that there have been dogs in Victoria assessed under the standard as a restricted breed and seized, and yet their parents, proved by DNA, were assessed under the standard as NOT restricted. The fact that the parents are legally not restricted has no relevance in the legislation on the restricted status of the progeny, a d cannot be used to defend the declaration on the progeny. In practise it is 100% appearance based, not breed based.
  20. At the end of the day BSL is not based on temperament - it is based on solely appearance. BSL assumes that any dog with a certain appearance is dangerous - in the eyes of the lawmakers the dog does not need to be temperament tested - it is dangerous regardless. (Zeus is doing brilliantly in his new home and has an absolutely incredible temperament, especially for a dog that has just been locked up for so long. He is super friendly with everyone and every other dog he meets, and is winning over many hearts in the ACT!)
  21. As much as I was willing to give the Council the benefit of the doubt and hope that they were taking alternate action to a declaration because the owners were on top of it and proving themselves, this is sounding pretty poor now. She's right that she can't force them to put the padlock on the gate but she can certainly take it in to account that they are not taking all precautions to ensure the dogs are safely contained when deciding whether to place a declaration. If the owners hadn't even bothered to do that small thing yet you bet I'd be declaring the dogs. As far as her statement that it won't stand up in court... she needs to ring around some other Councils and she will see that if the evidence is there that the attack occurred and it was unprovoked, and it meets the definitions under the act, many many Councils have had these declarations stand up in court. That's if the owners even appeal it. Menacing declarations don't even have a right of appeal (which I personally think is appalling and open to misuse by Councils). I wonder if, in the past, this Council has had a declaration not stand up for whatever reason and they are just uber cautious now (they would have incurred costs). Because it sounds really odd to me that they would think that an attack of this nature wouldn't result in a declaration sticking if it was appealed.
  22. I used to work with Karen back in the dog training days and remember when she got the job - she was so excited. She must be so pleased with this result.
  23. It's not just socialisation and training - it's the individual dog. While the Husky breed as a whole may trend towards not coexisting well with cats due to prey drive, there are plenty of Huskies that that live with cats without issue. Likewise with any high prey drive breed. When you look at trends within the entire gene pool, you may have more dogs than the average that don't do well with cats, but there will always be many dogs that are fine. Vice versa with other breeds known for less prey drive. While more dogs than the average may be fine, you are still going to get plenty that aren't. If you were getting a puppy and you wanted to maximise success it would be understandable to go for a dog from a breed less likely to trend towards high prey drive, but if you're getting an adult dog that has been fostered or raised with cats then breed is much less important than the behaviour of an individual dog. Cat friendly Grey could be a good choice! :)
  24. If you're looking for an adult why not consider an adult rescue dog that has been fostered in a home with cats? Breed is less important in this situation - what is more important is the individual dog, and getting a dog that has been fostered with cats and you KNOW is ok to live with them will offer the best chance of success.
×
×
  • Create New...