melzawelza

As WIW said, copy cat most likely. Most of this stuff is. Us animal people share it in outrage and bring it to people's minds that never would have thought of it before.

Bingo.

yes that is odd. How much easier would it be to just text an address, rather than physically place a little ribbon. Yep, I just can't fathom that people committing an illegal act (stealing a dog) to do another illegal act (dogfighting), would risk being seen/noticed in such a way (TWICE - once putting the ribbons on, and then a second time trawling through the streets finding them)........ when they could just text an address. I mean in this case if it actually was to steal the dogs they've now been foiled - the owner has noticed and will presumably be keeping the dogs inside or something like that. So they lose the dogs. It just makes no sense, and I haven't seen any evidence other than people getting upset on facebook that such marks are anything to do with dog thefts or dog fighting. Perhaps the ribbon is for another party to identify the address. It is possible that the ribbon 'installer' is out and about scouting. Yes but why not just wander around scouting, note down the addresses that have the dogs you want and text those addresses through to the other party? Why hang around in the street suspiciously on two separate occasions if you don't need to? Especially if you're involved in dogfighting which has big repercussions.

yes that is odd. How much easier would it be to just text an address, rather than physically place a little ribbon. Yep, I just can't fathom that people committing an illegal act (stealing a dog) to do another illegal act (dogfighting), would risk being seen/noticed in such a way (TWICE - once putting the ribbons on, and then a second time trawling through the streets finding them)........ when they could just text an address. I mean in this case if it actually was to steal the dogs they've now been foiled - the owner has noticed and will presumably be keeping the dogs inside or something like that. So they lose the dogs. It just makes no sense, and I haven't seen any evidence other than people getting upset on facebook that such marks are anything to do with dog thefts or dog fighting.

It's certainly a little unnerving but the immediate jump to dogfighting claims and all sorts of other sinister things is probably not helpful. A question I can't answer in my head... why would 'the dogfighters' be marking gates with paint, ribbons etc etc when there are constant news stories freaking about it all. Why draw attention to themselves while doing it... why draw attention to yourselves walking down the street later when you're stealing the dogs checking every gate for a tiny mark?? Why not just make a note of the addresses that have dogs that you want?? It makes no sense...

Your first link re: Oakland isn't just dogs in shelters at risk of euthanasia. I know so because four of the dogs in the first line are actually at BADRAP right now, I met one of them! Randomly clicking about thirty dogs showed that most were with rescue groups rather than in shelters. Pit Bull type dogs are incredibly popular, so of course they will be represented in the shelter population more than some other breeds. When you consider that you're lumping three distinct pure breds and all their mixes (and other breed mixes that get labelled 'Pit Bulls'.... there's a Boxer in your link!) I'm not surprised there are a lot of dogs listed as such up for adoption. It doesn't really matter how many dogs of a particular type are in the shelter anyway, as great shelters won't be euthanasing most of them due to their proactive approach. The kill stats in the pounds come down to the pound itself, not the community or the myth of overpopulation, and if the pound is killing lots of dogs, or lots of pit bulls, then that is a problem with the pound, not with the dogs. There's still a way to go, sure, but there has been vast improvement in many areas in the last ten years, and whole culture changes in many of the areas (and most of the country). There is no 'pit bull problem'. There is a people problem though :laugh:

This is pretty much what happened on the Gold Coast after the Chivers/Mokomoko case. The thing that worries me is that Walsh was on the radio a few weeks ago saying that they are currently drafting legislation to place the onus on the dog owner to prove that the dog is NOT a restricted breed, not on the Council to prove that it is. This would mean that Council could seize any dog they damn well please and unless you've got pedigree Amstaff papers you've not got a leg to stand on.

Dandy just because of his looks. He's never shown aggression to any people or animals. There was a rotten paling on the fence at the house they had just moved in to days prior and he and her other dog got through into the neighbors yard. Neighbour called the council and they allowed one dog to go home but not Kerser because of his appearance.

I think it is. I met some wonderful ladies who do Pit rescue in Colorado, near Denver ( which has the worst BSL in the USA and uses a visual ID system too). Even she was stunned by what was going on in VIC and says it's worse than Denver.

Thanks for sharing, I love hearing positive stories like this! No problems, it was really great to see, a fantastic experience. Very appropriately, a friend I made over there who is part of a Pit-Specific rescue just posted this on facebook, and I think it's a really important and insightful perspective. "What an interesting day. We took our group, #### , to a "Pit Bull" event. We met a woman, affluent and white, who was interested in one of our dogs and then inquired how she would act if her children jumped on her or poked her eyes or ears. Seriously? We discussed appropriate behavior and bite prevention but are not sure we got through. Later that day we met a man who has obviously done some time and whom people avoided interacting with. He had a beautiful, huge headed, (and balled but we can help that), black staffy named "Diablo". He LOVED this dog and I watched him find shade for him to lie in, water for him to drink and witnessed him holding his big head and kissing him on it. I made sure to strike up a conversation with this wonderful example of a Pit Bull owner. But it left me to ponder, what do we mean when we say our breed attracts all the "wrong" people? Are we thinking of this man or the woman. I know what my thoughts are." Most people who we would look at as 'bad' owners actually love their dogs very much, and want to do the best for them. They may not meet our very high standards due to lack of education or lack of access to resources, but if we just help them, without judgement and without preaching, we get real results.

I's true, that there are masses of "Pit Bull" type dogs both here and in the States. They are incredibly popular, and this can lead to issues, just as it has with previous 'popular' breeds. However, the vast majority of the dogs are responsibly owned and loved. (http://iamthemajority.tumblr.com/) There are many programs now up and running in the states that target low socio-economic areas and provide free spay/neuter/vaccination/microchipping without judgement to people who need it most (Pets for Life program, BADRAP, Animal Farm Foundation and many other smaller rescues and charities), who are drastically improving things for both the owners (who love their pets and want to do the right thing, but simply don't have the knowledge or access to services so they can) and the dogs. I learnt a lot about these programs while I was over there last month and it was very inspiring. Changing the culture over time, by not 'preaching' or judging people is the way to go. BADRAP said that thirteen years ago when they started, they couldn't give away free spay/neuter to "Pit Bull" owners in the Oakland CA area - they were laughed at. Now they have so many people wanting to take them up on it they've just bought a giant spay/neuter van as they just didn't have enough surgery spots to keep up with the demand. They've done this simply through working with the kind of people that we would usually judge, try to lecture etc. etc. They have earned their trust, shown them the benefits, appealed to the fact that these people DO love their dogs... and over time have gotten real results. All very inspiring

I'm glad it's not just me! My girl usually hardly sheds a thing but over the last month it's been insane!!

It would not have made any difference if Kerser was registered or not. He would still be in the same situation. Any dog who even vaguely fits the Victorian Government Standard, no matter what their genetic make up may be, born after September 2010, registered or not is at risk of being killed. Only exception being papered American Staffordshire Terriers. Seems this is currently shady at the moment too isn't it?

^^ Exactly. We're going to see a lot more dogs in the same situation as time passes and there are more dogs born after that date being declared.

I actually made no judgement on that in my prior posts, I was simply trying to work out what the OP actually wanted to be done, as it wasn't clear from the OP whether she just wanted the ad gone or to actually notify the authorities of the dogs. I've never met a Dogo, don't know much about them and don't really consider them to be a bull breed in the sense of the types or dogs I would own, but nice try at the personal dig. I do, however, know that BSL doesn't protect the community so the thought of a dog person wanting a whole litter of puppies (if they existed) being killed for no reason certainly makes me feel a bit ill.

If someone makes false and inflammatory claims, such as that 'there is a major problem with bull breeds in this country', then someone else is going to pull up the information that shows that their claim is incorrect. Simple as that. There is no dog bite epidemic (ALL dogs included) and the likelihood of being bitten by a dog is incredibly low, for ALL breeds. No one said all bull breeds are angels and are never at fault so I don't know where you're getting that from. The point was simply made that the overwhelming majority of ALL DOGS are not involved in any sort of incident at all, and that Bull Breeds are just dogs, like all the others. Yes, they're strong and a med-large size so there is an extra level of responsibility there than say, a poodle, but there is a list as long as my arm of breeds that would go into that same category. They aren't some magical beast that are unlike other dogs, resulting in there being a 'major problem' with them. To see 'dog people' perpetuating the myth of dog bite epidemics and that there is a 'dog problem' in this country is quite sad. 'Trotting out the stats' actually has people reconsider what they may inherently believe as true.

Very sorry for the situation you're in. I can't imagine how I'd feel if it were me. But I think the decision to PTS your dog is the right one and I don't think anyone here would judge you on that considering the circumstances.

What? I'm trying to figure out what the OP actually wants to happen - as a restricted breed, notifying the authorities of such a litter (if it existed) would surely see the lot euthanased. I'm trying to figure out if this is what she wants or if there is some other reason for the thread.

I'd put money on it being a scam anyway. There are only a handful of Dogo's in the whole country. What's your aim here anyway, if they existed is your aim to see them all killed?

LOVE Jarrah's seal colour as well. There are some really stunning seal APBT in the states.

I know, I've just had a few too many tough guys asking me to breed their red nose dog with Jarrah, they always express some disappointment she doesn't have a red nose though. Yay for desexing, so these conversations are stopped in their tracks without me having to fulminate on the subject. There has been a big change though, I have noticed that too. Really happy to see it. There's plenty of those out there too :laugh: but yeah, the change is huge. Many many people wanting to adopt a 'red nosed' dog through rescue, because they have falling in love with this type of dog. I have to admit I'm biased towards that look - love all bull breeds but to me the look of a tan coloured dog with a red nose and amber eyes <3 I like the look of Ridgebacks and Viszla's too for that reason. I don't get many douchebags asking me to breed Cocoa luckily (she's desexed of course anyway), I think I've had maybe one or two in the year and a half I've had her? We do get stopped CONSTANTLY for cuddles though, like I know you and Jarrah do!!

Lurchers, what's in a lurcher? Doesn't matter really what the cross is, it's a type rather than a breed. You make it sound like "pit bulls" are multiple breeds. They aren't, there is only one Pit Bull and that's the American Pit Bull Terrier. It's a shame that the term has become such a vague name for everything half-bullyish looking. Whether you like it or not, that is the way the term is used all throughout the US and the rest of the world. 'Pit Bull' is used by legislation and the rest of the community to mean APBT, Amstaff, SBT and their crosses (this group keeps getting wider and wider too). That's why Animal Farm Foundation changed their mission a few years ago to say that they were working to achieve equal opportunity 'Pit Bull' dogs rather than 'the American Pit Bull Terrier', because they realised that most of the dogs they were helping weren't APBT, but they had been defined under the 'Pit Bull' banner by authorities, by shelters, or by their owners. I'm really not an anomaly :laugh: Honestly, there are masses and masses of people who own 'red nosed' dogs who love their dogs and look after them well. The others are just more 'visible'. I have felt a real change in the last year or so too, with more and more 'average' families seeking out a dog like this, because they have met them and they love them - not for any status symbol or tough guy image.

It's true, when I was in the US last month talking to 'Pit Bull' rescues and advocacy groups, they couldn't understand why we only seem to define 'pit bulls' as red dogs with red noses. Anything else is an 'Amstaff'. My theory for why this has happened in Aus - In the states where BSL has existed it does not only include the APBT. It included all dogs of Pit Bull type, so Amstaffs and SBT as well (And their mixes). Here in Aus, the APBT is subject to BSL but the Amstaff and SBT are not. As we all know visual ID of mixed breeds is impossible, particularly when Council Officers are supposed to be able to tell the difference between an Amstaff and an APBT in absence of pedigree. The only real difference between the two is that Amstaffs do not have red noses (it does crop up sometimes but it is really really rare). I think the 'red nose' became the way for Council Officers to discern between Amstaff and APBT, as that is the only real 'difference' if you are looking at a bull breed type dog in front of you. This then meant that only red nosed dogs seem to be targeted for BSL (this has now changed in Victoria in the last year but prior to that it was the same there). Because it is the 'red nosed' dogs that are then targeted for BSL and therefore defined as 'pit bulls', the 'red nosed' dogs seem to have become exclusive and popular. They are being bred at astonishing numbers and everyone wants one. People define their red nosed dogs (with no papers so god knows what they are) as Pit Bulls, and dogs of other colours to be Amstaffs. I think BSL caused it, particularly the nature of BSL in Aus which does not include Amstaffs and SBT as restricted dogs.

The links I provided weren't BSL research - they were studies on aggression in bull breeds in comparison to other breeds. But if you want even more local, relevant research then check out the info contained here: http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/Council%20Reports%20of%20Dog%20Attacks%20in%20NSW%202010-11.pdf Now I'll be the first to say that attack statistics like this are not really to be relied upon, but the general gist of this will answer your questions. My reading of this shows that if you tally up the total pure bred and cross bred SBT, AST and APBT identified in NSW you get a total of 93,637. If you tally up the number of attacks by those three breeds and their cross breeds you get a total of 1475. This shows that 1.5% of those three breeds and their crosses are actually involved in dog attacks. Doesn't sound like a 'major problem with bull breeds in this country' as Dogmad said earlier in the thread. I'm well aware that many attacks aren't reported, but I'm also well aware that due to BSL and BYB there are masses and masses of bull breeds and their crosses that are unmicrochipped - thus basically evening it out. I am also well aware (seeing as I'm a council officer and actually report these stats as part of my job), that we must report EVERY incident, regardless of if there is any injury to the other person or animal, so don't assume that all of those 1475 attacks resulted in a bite. Despite what the media would like you to believe, there simply isn't a 'bull breed' problem or indeed a 'dog bite epidemic' at all. Dogs are incredibly safe to live with, much safer than our cars. That includes Bull Breeds. Can we be doing more to reduce dog attacks? Absolutely - the current focus on BSL and total ignorance of proven animal management models is criminal. But it doesn't change the fact that the likelihood of being seriously injured by a dog is incredibly low. You are still missing my point. However, yes, there was a large bull breed cross a few houses down from mine that created a real problem last year. It got out when granny opened the gate to put the bin out - the dog was dog aggressive, it's why it's original owner was getting rid of it and passed it on to my well meaning but clueless neighbours. I didn't even know the dog was there. It wasn't trained and was very strong. New owners were terrified of walking it so it never got out of the yard for a year or two. This dog attacked a boy walking his poodle and then someone else walking their dog. Council drove round for 2 days looking for the dog. It was eventually found and euthanased as the owners couldn't comply with the dangerous dog containment requirements. I dodged a bullet that couple of days, the dog attacked the other dogs exactly where I walked. For some reason I decided on another route that day. I don't just imagine that my dogs might be attacked by loose dogs - they have been, several times over but by working breeds. As you don't own small dogs I am sure you can't see my dilemma. I am not prepared to take even 2 dogs out on the lead past the houses I know that cannot contain their dogs. The fact that they are bull breeds isn't the point. If they decide to attack - which of my dogs am I going to leave on the ground? It's not a situation I am prepared to risk - would you? You are also ignoring the fact that I'm tired of people telling me their dogs have been attacked by a staffy or pitbull type. The foster carer I had in 2011 who was walking along the road when a Pitbull rushed her and ripped her Whippet's chest open, costing $2000 in surgery and an enormous amount of pain and distress. This was in Canberra. I'm sorry you find my posts so repetitive - personally I think you are blowing it all out of proportion and are hypersensitive - why I don't know. Like I say, if it doesn't happen, I won't be making it up. This is a public forum, we are all entitled to share our opinions, stories and the like - that's what it's here for. As for most of my posts denigrating bull breeds - hardly, that really is an exaggeration. Put me on ignore if it bothers you but if I feel like sharing a story, whether it's about a Schnauzer, an Afghan, Greyhound or Staffy, then I will. Thank you for all those anecdotes. I hate to hear of any dog attacks so I'm sorry that they happened. However, ou are not showing me anything different than what I already know though - bull breeds and their crosses are incredibly popular in this country and there are enormous amounts of them in existence. It would make sense that individual people would have maybe had issues with bull breeds more than other breeds - there are more of them around (especially when you are lumping three distinct breeds and their mixes in to that label). That doesn't mean 'there is a major problem with bull breeds in this country' though. Correlation does not = causation. Also, I acknowledged that your OP was about ownership rather than breed. But your subsequent posts have not been, and that's what I am responding to.

Not sure if you mean reports to council or media reports, but you cannot conclude that because something is not reported that it doesn't exist. For example, of the more serious incidents in my local area that were actually reported to council, one incident where two SBTs killed a small dog and another where a staffy mix attacked a person, neither even made the local paper. Countless other incidents were neither reported to council nor made the media. I'd like to read these stats if you could let me know what evidence you are referring to. Sure: Center for Disease Control “Our research does not support breed-specific legislation” Statement: “[The study] does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic…There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.” http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/AVMA-CDC_Statement.pdf Banned breeds are no more aggressive than others, new study finds - Study of pet dogs in Spain published in The Journal of Veterinary Behavior found that the so called dangerous breeds simply behave no differently from dogs in general when it comes to behaviors likely to lead to biting. - What the study did find was that the larger the dog (dividing the 232 dogs studied into 3 size categories), the less likely it was to exhibit aggressive behaviors toward people such as barking, growling, snarling lunging, snapping or biting. Large dogs were also less likely to behave fearfully http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Spanish%20study%20commentary.pdf Aggression and dogs - “no significant difference found between breeds.” A standardized temperament test administered by veterinary behaviorists at the University of Veterinary Medicine in Hannover, Germany: • 415 dogs of the targeted BSL breeds were tested in 21 situations of dog-human contact and 14 situations of dog-environment contact. • 70 Golden Retrievers, having been volunteered by their owners, were also tested using this same standardized temperament test. • There was no significant difference between the volunteered Golden Retrievers and the dogs from the targeted breeds that were required to submit to the test in the occurrence of aggressive behavior in inappropriate situations. • Dogs of the targeted breeds signal their intent just like other dogs. • Dogs of the targeted breeds are statistically no more likely to show inappropriate aggressive behavior than are Golden Retrievers. No indicators of greater dangerousness of any of the then-restricted dog breeds were found. http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Schalke.pdf Pit Bulls pass the American Temperament Test Society's test with a higher than average result: http://einhorninsurance.com/california-insurance/pit-bulls-pass-atts-temperament-test/ These are just a few that I have pulled up, there are many more on the topic. When you also consider the myriad of studies on how BSL fails to reduce dog attacks it also shows that focusing on the breed when it comes to attacks is useless and time consuming.