melzawelza

Team Dog were heavily involved in working towards the release of Bonnie and ensured that Hawkesbury staff and volunteers were given the praise that they so deserved in every post about her for the wonderful care of her while she was there. Any person posting disparaging comments about the Pound were corrected and a separate post also put up that was seen by over 10,000 people: Post thanking Hawkesbury staff and volunteers for all they did People should be shit scared about these proposals, no matter what dog they own, or even if they don't own dogs at all. It's as simple as that. Even if it's unlikely your breed will be targeted (pug owners, for instance), these laws have been proven time and time again to actually lessen community safety when it comes to dog attacks. Huge amounts of Council resources are taken up trying to enforce them, which means those resources aren'tbeing put in to the measures that do prevent dog attacks. Just adding one breed to either the menacing or dangerous risk would result in a workload that very few Councils have the resources to carry out effectively. Because this breed stuff is high profile it will be given priority. There won't be Rangers out patrolling the streets for off leash dogs, they'll be knocking on doors making sure that people have put up a 'warning dangerous dog' sign on their property for their dog that will never cause a problem. This means that even as a pug owner, this does pose a risk to you and your dog. Your dog will be more likely to be attacked by other dogs. Your family members or friends will be. This is a community issue, not a 'big dog owner' issue or 'pit bull owner' issue. Every time a community has been apathetic and just 'sat and waited to see' when these suggestions start, has ended in BSL. Every time people haven't taken it seriously and moved on it quickly, it has ended in BSL. The places that have beaten it are the places that get on it at the first whiff of a possibly and take it very seriously, like it should be. As previously mentioned, Team Dog is currently putting together a campaign. I encourage anyone, dog owner or not, to keep an eye on the page and get involved when it goes up. Thank you :) You are an inspiration, there is no doubt about that. The fact is when using social media you are targeting a number of people/groups. You only need one rouge to stir up a bunch of trouble and it is not a good look. All of what I posted happened and if you are associated with that, even via your site you have to admit it is a really poor reflection of what you ultimately hope to achieve. I dont care (sorry) about your posts praising staff as damage control after what eventuated to them. Too late, staff have already dealt with the issues and threats which takes time away from helping all companion animals in their care. Not just restricted breeds which are a minority in the sceam of things for this shelter. I agree it is a community issue, I have spoken about that for years. Though scaring the crap out of people via social media for signatures is not the way to go IMO. Get in touch and network with the bodies who are already involved (other than yourselves) :) Team Dog had absolutely nothing to do with the disgusting behaviour of some individuals in that situation and it's completely offensive to suggest we would. We can't control what other people do and post on facebook, only what happens on our own page. We were just as dismayed and disgusted as you when we heard what had happened late that night, not only because it's unacceptable behaviour but because of how it reflects on the topic as a whole, too. The post praising Hawkesbury staff and volunteers was posted long before any of that happened, and it's also offensive for you to suggest that it was posted as damage control. It was a genuine, heartfelt thanks for the care of a dog we all grew to love.

No, people in the state of NSW should be concerned and taking action. The NSW state government is not going to give a toss what anyone who doesn't vote for them thinks or does. The proposals have Federal implications of recommending adding breeds to the Customs Act. If this comes about, this will have the most impact on breeders and showies, of which there are many on this forum.

Most Councils barely have the resources to patrol the streets for off leash or escaping dogs adequately as it is. They are totally under resourced already. They can't even get all the pets in the area microchipped, which has been law for over ten years. Add one semi-popular breed to the list and you easily will add a bare minimum of couple of hundred properties/dogs in the small Councils (many, many more in the larger councils) with a dog microchipped as that breed or cross breed. Just think about the manpower required to ensure that each and every one of those properties have: 1. Dangerous dog signage on every entrance 2. Dangerous dog collars on every dog 3. Ensuring every dog is desexed 4. Ensuring every owner is muzzling the dog in public 5. Ensuring every property meets stringent and total overkill requirements for containing the dog 6. Regular compliance checks of every property (AT LEAST yearly) 7. Battling owners in Court 8. Obtaining warrants and seizing any dog that isn't meeting the above, and transporting them to the pound. Not to mention all the paperwork involved / letters and emails which is often the bit that takes the most time. I haven't even mentioned the cost of solicitors and impounding fees. Adding just one semi-popular breed would essentially mean that Councils are spending almost all of their time doing the above. Almost all of the dogs that come under the above would never have caused a problem. In the meantime: 1. No patrolling of the streets to pick up people that are walking their dogs unleashed/letting them escape or any other breaches 2. As you said, minor dog attacks would not be adequately actioned due to lack of resources. Actioning these minor attacks carefully and dilligently is one of the biggest ways to prevent the serious dog attacks that happen later from the same dog. 3. No education programs, no visiting the parks and speaking to dog owners about pet ownership 4. No development of educational materials that can be used when dealing with the general public face to face The result is undoubtedly an increase in dog attacks, quite possibly significantly. It has happened everywhere else in the world that has implemented BSL and it will happen here. It doesn't matter if you own a tiny companion dog that is unlikely to ever be on the list. This affects you.

Team Dog were heavily involved in working towards the release of Bonnie and ensured that Hawkesbury staff and volunteers were given the praise that they so deserved in every post about her for the wonderful care of her while she was there. Any person posting disparaging comments about the Pound were corrected and a separate post also put up that was seen by over 10,000 people: Post thanking Hawkesbury staff and volunteers for all they did People should be shit scared about these proposals, no matter what dog they own, or even if they don't own dogs at all. It's as simple as that. Even if it's unlikely your breed will be targeted (pug owners, for instance), these laws have been proven time and time again to actually lessen community safety when it comes to dog attacks. Huge amounts of Council resources are taken up trying to enforce them, which means those resources aren'tbeing put in to the measures that do prevent dog attacks. Just adding one breed to either the menacing or dangerous risk would result in a workload that very few Councils have the resources to carry out effectively. Because this breed stuff is high profile it will be given priority. There won't be Rangers out patrolling the streets for off leash dogs, they'll be knocking on doors making sure that people have put up a 'warning dangerous dog' sign on their property for their dog that will never cause a problem. This means that even as a pug owner, this does pose a risk to you and your dog. Your dog will be more likely to be attacked by other dogs. Your family members or friends will be. This is a community issue, not a 'big dog owner' issue or 'pit bull owner' issue. Every time a community has been apathetic and just 'sat and waited to see' when these suggestions start, has ended in BSL. Every time people haven't taken it seriously and moved on it quickly, it has ended in BSL. The places that have beaten it are the places that get on it at the first whiff of a possibly and take it very seriously, like it should be. As previously mentioned, Team Dog is currently putting together a campaign. I encourage anyone, dog owner or not, to keep an eye on the page and get involved when it goes up.

In the UK they cannot action or prosecute any attack that happens on private property. Unless the dog is a 'pit bull type', then they can seize the dog (regardless of whether it's attacked or not). Agree that the woman is a nutter. It's one thing to not want to euthanase your dog, but to not seek help for the behaviour? Madness.

I'm sorry, I thought that had always been the case. Is this a new thing? It would have required a hell of a lot more work and legislative changes previously. Now that the minister has snuck in the provision to declare a breed or kind of dog as 'menacing' with the recent changes to the Act it is as simple as a flick of the pen and it's done. On top of that, they are now actively tasking an advisory group to identify and recommend breeds or kinds of dog that should be added to both the menacing and restricted list, as well as writing to the federal parliament to to attempt get the customs act updated to ban for import any more breeds they decide on.

And yet here we are, with an advisory group being tasked to specifically look at which breeds to add to the list, and a recommendation to expand the dogs banned for import into the country. I think you have a real false sense of security going on and it's very sad. ETA what's even sadder is that you don't care about dogs as a whole, only pedigrees. Like I said, I will continue to work to ensure that no dog, pedigree or mutt, is killed based on it's appearance. It has been overturned all over the world and will happen eventually here.

Yes and the first one which was aimed at reducing euthanasia in shelters. Many of the recommendations in the latest document were from the taskforce. None of the breed-specific ones were in there. I've read it back to front numerous times and made a submission on it personally and on behalf of an organisation. These breed specific recommendations are not in there. You can either just believe me or read it yourself, it's up to you. You do realise they are looking to add more breeds to the menacing and restricted list? Why exactly do you feel your pedigree dogs would not be subject to this? They will be the first ones to be caught up as they are easily identified as of said breed. You do realise that pedigree dogs are banned and restricted in many countries around the world? Because the deal was done long ago when Dogs NSW the then Canine Council made sure that ANKC registered breeds were exempt. Providing my animals do not menace, rush, attack, then there is no danger to them being declared restricted or dangerous. And yet here we are, with the NSW Government specifically looking to add more breeds to the restricted and new 'menacing' list. Which non-ANKC breeds do you think they are aiming for? They pretty much have already nailed 'non-ANKC' with the five listed. As much as your complete arrogance and ambivalence to the subject infuriates me (especially since you own and breed one of the Bull Breeds), I will continue to fight for your dogs and do everything in my power to prevent this occurring. I'm still confused as to why you think it was my responsibility to baby you through it in the first place, seeing as you were the one that insisted the taskforce must have recommended it, but then refused to actually just look at it yourself. But hey, no worries. I'm used to doing things for those who are incapable of doing even the most simple of tasks themselves. :)

Sigh. It's seriously not that hard. Open two tabs up, read the breed specific parts in the most recent document then go read the recommendation for that particular point in full in the recommendations. But seeing as you insist I do it for you here we go. Here's the first taskforce recommendation point in full: The Gov's response to that particular part (you know it's the same part because of it's number): The bold is the part that was not recommended by the taskforce and added by the Gov in the response. Second Taskforce recommendation that is linked to a breed specific response in the Gov's latest: The Gov's response. Bold is the part not included in the taskforce recommendation. ^^ In fact, this conclusion has nothing to do with the Taskforce's recommendation! Last breed specific recommendation: This one is not linked to any part of the taskforce paper at all and specifically says 'additional initiative' so it can't really get much clearer than that.

...... the breed specific ones in the original post.

Yes and the first one which was aimed at reducing euthanasia in shelters. Many of the recommendations in the latest document were from the taskforce. None of the breed-specific ones were in there. I've read it back to front numerous times and made a submission on it personally and on behalf of an organisation. These breed specific recommendations are not in there. You can either just believe me or read it yourself, it's up to you. You do realise they are looking to add more breeds to the menacing and restricted list? Why exactly do you feel your pedigree dogs would not be subject to this? They will be the first ones to be caught up as they are easily identified as of said breed. You do realise that pedigree dogs are banned and restricted in many countries around the world?

The Taskforce didnt come up with any of these recommendations. They have essentially come out of nowhere and just been added in to the response to their actual recommendations. The taskforce only recommended breed neutral stuff. That isn't what the site states. I find it difficult to copy and past on my iPad but it states in the second paragraph that the "Government is pleased to support most Taskforce recommendations..." That to me indicates, or at the very least implicates, the Taskforce as being the one making the recommendations. Go read the taskforce recommendations. They came out last year. There are no breed specific recommendations contained within.

The Taskforce didnt come up with any of these recommendations. They have essentially come out of nowhere and just been added in to the response to their actual recommendations. The taskforce only recommended breed neutral stuff.

The Minister (Don Page) is appointing 'relevant stakeholders'. Who they will be and whether they have been appointed yet I do not know.

Tdeirikx none of the breed specific stuff in here was actually in the taskforce recommendations, so it seems the minister himself has been the one who has taken the initiative to add it all in.

If you don't think this is an immediate threat to dog owners and dog ownership them I think you're underestimating the situation. ETA: Might not be masked madmen, but how about uniformed animal control officers and police breaking into your house and seizing your dog while you're out doing the shopping, to take it to be killed? You come home to feces and urine all over your house due to your dog being so terrified. That's the reality and it's exactly that which happened in Victoria recently.

Unfortunately this has the potential to affect dogs and dog owners Federally, if they succeed in having more breeds added to the import prohibitions.

Via Team Dog . Direct link to post here. Please share if you are on Facebook. This has the potential to end the breeding and showing of breeds in NSW (menacing and restricted dogs must be desexed) and also the import of said breeds in to Australia.

Never mind shelters, what about the family pet that has restricted breed appearance as in Victoria they seize the dog and PTS, a perfectly adjusted pet they have probably had from a pup. That dog if it's assumed be to be a risk to public safety because of it's appearance deserves a temperament test to prove otherwise. If it's a good stable dog, then it deserves to live it's life. It's got nothing to do with a shelter dog's ability to be rehomed, it about the seizure and mindless euthanasia of people's beloved pets that needs to be addressed first and foremost IMHO. Like I said, it's certainly better than the current appearance-only model, but it's still completely unacceptable, completely unscientific, a waste of Council money and resources and at the end of the day it's still Breed Specific Legislation, which fails at public safety and creates more problems than it solves. Some of the SE QLD Councils have started seizing again: http://www.savingpets.com.au/2014/01/the-terrible-awful-heartbreaking-story-of-zeus/

Studies have shown that even well researched and put together behaviour assessments are pretty average at not only predicting the behaviour of a dog when transitioning from shelter to home, but even just from day to day in the shelter. http://www.savingpets.com.au/2014/01/sacrificed-on-the-alter-of-temperament-testing/ Remember that any restricted breed temp test is a one-off Pass/Fail test here in NSW and definitely would be the same in Vic if it was implemented. ETA: I understand that you're saying that it could be done in and around the home but we already have all of this legislated carefully here in NSW and it resulted in a Vet being approved by the Department of Local Government to be an 'approved temperament tester' for restricted breed dogs, and that vet deeming it suitable to test a dog that has been in the pound for three months at his vet surgery. The system is flawed, and anything breed-specific is flawed too. Not to mention the resources that go in to it for no measurable benefit.

Dog's that need a behaviourist attached to the rehoming process are not stable enough to be rehomed and sadly we can't keep them all and a line has to be drawn. You're a troll with numerous usernames so there's not much point in engaging with you however I will say for the benefit of anyone that may be reading this that this is absolute crap. There is nothing wrong with taking a dog in to a rescue that may need some extra help and working with it until it's rehomable. Reputable rescues do it regularly with great success. If the dog is so badly damaged that even with work it's not able to be rehomed safely - then it isn't rehomed. The absolute majority don't fall into this category.

The Government commissioned and paid big bucks for those models to be made. They also imported actual skulls of apparent APBT from the USA too. Temperament test of 'restricted breed dogs' is flawed, although arguably better than visual-only based seizure. We have a temp test based system in NSW for dogs that have been deemed as Pit Bull cross breeds. Last month we lost a beautiful dog that was in a Sydney pound to a so called 'temperament test'. The dog came in in absolutely horrendous physical condition, but in three months in the pound never showed an ounce of aggression to people or other dogs. She had a very reputable rescue ready to take her on with behaviourists on board should she need it. She was then taken to a vet surgery after three months impounded and 'temperament tested' there by a vet. She reacted to the other dogs and was failed and killed. Her three months of non-aggression prior was not considered in any way - the legislation prevents this. It's all based on a short interaction (in a vet surgery no less...) There are many studies that show that one-off 'temperament tests', especially in shelter environments, are pretty much useless in predicting behaviour. The dog tests differently in a 24 hour period, and usually completely differently once out of the shelter. So do I support 'temperament tests' for supposed restricted breed dogs? Hell no. But it's certainly at least an improvement on what Victoria has at the moment.

.

Why do you feel the need to constantly re-sign up with a new username to come back and argue the same points? What do you get out of it?

Human rather than dog I know but when my grandfather was on chemo he lost all his fingernails. Poor girl, good luck with the rest of this journey.