melzawelza

Show it to me? Show me evidence that shows that anyone who is not an ANKC registered breeder that is breeding dogs is doing it in a completely random manner. I find that one in particular very hard to believe. They are at least picking the breeds they want to use most of the time. Show me the evidence that none of them health test. Maybe they have had different experiences, different upbringing, and different beliefs and education. How many random bred dogs does someone have to buy before they run out of luck? How many pedigree dogs? Rhetorical questions. Of all the byb's I've asked , NONE have health tested their "breeding dogs" None have seen the "need" for it. as to selecting conformation- SOME had no clue what that even meant, while others didn't care. If a person wanted to breed, but couldn't give a hoot about formal registration (ANKC ect) but still health tested and assessed temperament and Conformation- then they are not byb's in my book- but the kind of breeder who cares about what they produce (though I doubt you'll find many of these) as doing "right" by the dog is going to cut into their profit margin- and they may as well become a registered breeder. There's a couple of facebook pages that I ask every BYBer the relevant health questions pertaining to their breed and ask if the parents have been tested. I've asked countless BYBers and not one has said yes, the majority say there's no need to and that they are $500 puppies not show dogs. YES!! No need to health test they are not show dogs, and most don't have a clue what health problems there are or that many of them can be greatly reduced or prevented through proper testing and selection of breeding stock. The one that cranks me off the most is the response " my vet health checked them, so they are fine" ... Sorry don't mean to be a smarty-pants but that is exactly the response I got from a few registered breeders when enquiring - just thought it ironic. I have to say, I am completely against unregistered breeding (unless for a very specific purpose that can be backed up)and spent so many hours convincing my Aunty of the benefits of registered breeders (namely health testing as my main focus) so she wouldn't buy another BYB Silky X Maltese. Convinced her it was worth investigating so we're looking in to breeds. She's interested in Havanese so I ring up a local breeder and start asking some questions. When I mentioned health testing I was told 'I've never had a problem with my dogs, all these people who go on and on about health testing have no idea. My dogs can lie with their legs straight out behind them on the floor and that means there's nothing wrong with their hips!'. She was charging $3000 per puppy mind you. Very hard when you've been telling your Aunty that health testing is paramount and that's why she should be going to a Rego Breeder and pay $1000+ for a pup rather than $100 - and then getting that sort of response. Luckily she found a lovely Lowchen breeder and is thrilled with her puppy. But the dodgy registered breeders really do make it hard for the general public to see the difference. I don't understand why ALL breeds don't have compulsory testing of known issues in the breed like the Lab or GSD do.

You are not responsible for your dog's actions if rushed at by an off leash dog and yours in on leash in a public place. The person at fault is the one who allowed their dog to be at large and do the rushing and the consequences are irrelevent. You don't have to muzzle reactive dogs or keep reactive dogs away from public places where there may be dogs at large rushing at leashed dogs. It's up to the owners of all dogs to keep them on leash in a public place and not allow them to rush at other dogs and respect the personal space of others. In NSW, this is correct to a degree, as there is a defense of provocation. However a dog can be declared dangerous for 'displaying unreasonable aggression'. That is of course subjective but if a dog rushes your leashed dog and your dog then absolutely tears them to pieces, killing them, it's conceivable that depending on the attitude of the Council investigating your dog could still be declared dangerous because the level of response was unreasonable. Something to bear in mind in NSW. Is there a degree of reasonable force written into the NSW legislation, or are we talking ACO's making up their own rules? Lots of things in the Act aren't expressly defined, the level of barking for a nuisance dog is just described as 'continuous and persistent' which is subjective, and ACO's just have to make a judgement call on these things. All I'm saying is that it isn't as black and white as you make out in NSW. If your dog is rushed but then kills the other dog, depending on the individual ACO your dog could be declared dangerous based on unreasonable aggression. You could, of course, appeal that in court, and it'd then be up to the judge as to whether your dog's reaction was unreasonable or not.

Thanks for that further information. I understand there's now similar language in the laws here, too. It opens the way for how the person involved interprets the dog's behaviour. Simply the presence of a largish dog, coming close while on the loose, could make some people feel menanced. There appears to be some element of someone vulnerable feeling under threat in such a way, in this case (from Tralee's description). Recently, I came across a Ridgie-type dog lost & looking a bit anxious. I called to him, hoping to secure him until I could read his ID.... but he lunged towards me with a growl. I could tell it was fear & a warning. If he'd wanted to bite/attack me, he could have. I phoned the Council & gave his location & explained he was frightened so was a bit reactive, but that people who didn't read his behaviour that way, could be very frightened. So there is quite an investigative call to make... interpreting a dog's actual behaviours, the individual responses of people. and aligning that with the options in the law. Absolutely, it's not an easy job by any stretch and what bothers me is the amount of Councils that don't have a designated companion animal office - they just have general rangers with absolutely zero understanding of dog behaviour, body language, motivations etc doing the job. Well, Halle - bloody - luiah. You don't suppose the Ranger went OTT and then found himself out of his depth. ?? That may or may not have happened, I don't know as you haven't given any details of the actual incident. That is beside the point anyway, my issue has never been the incident itself, or the actions taken by the ranger and whether they were actions I would have taken, and I've said a few times I think that you offering the compromise of a Control Order was a good move. My issue has always been that you have misrepresented the facts in this thread by stating that you had won an appeal in court and your dogs now were classified as any other dog in NSW. Both of those statements are false, and by doing that you put other people who may be appealing declarations at risk by providing false information on the outcome. I also had big issue with you posting it in the BSL section and muddying the line between Dangerous Dog and Restricted Dog (which is already done enough in the media and elsewhere). ETA: And in fact based on the information provided I think it's unlikely that the Ranger totally bungled it up, because if he/she did and you could prove it your Barrister wouldn't have told you to settle for a Control, she would have told you to go all the way to appeal to really show the Council up, get costs and ensure your dogs were cleared. This and this. Tralee just doesn't get it, he can dress it up any way he likes but the facts are he did not win an appeal, he conceeded by accepting a control order and is now bound by it. Tralee fails to grasp the enormity of the situation Yep which really worries me.

Thanks for that further information. I understand there's now similar language in the laws here, too. It opens the way for how the person involved interprets the dog's behaviour. Simply the presence of a largish dog, coming close while on the loose, could make some people feel menanced. There appears to be some element of someone vulnerable feeling under threat in such a way, in this case (from Tralee's description). Recently, I came across a Ridgie-type dog lost & looking a bit anxious. I called to him, hoping to secure him until I could read his ID.... but he lunged towards me with a growl. I could tell it was fear & a warning. If he'd wanted to bite/attack me, he could have. I phoned the Council & gave his location & explained he was frightened so was a bit reactive, but that people who didn't read his behaviour that way, could be very frightened. So there is quite an investigative call to make... interpreting a dog's actual behaviours, the individual responses of people. and aligning that with the options in the law. Absolutely, it's not an easy job by any stretch and what bothers me is the amount of Councils that don't have a designated companion animal office - they just have general rangers with absolutely zero understanding of dog behaviour, body language, motivations etc doing the job. Well, Halle - bloody - luiah. You don't suppose the Ranger went OTT and then found himself out of his depth. ?? That may or may not have happened, I don't know as you haven't given any details of the actual incident. That is beside the point anyway, my issue has never been the incident itself, or the actions taken by the ranger and whether they were actions I would have taken, and I've said a few times I think that you offering the compromise of a Control Order was a good move. My issue has always been that you have misrepresented the facts in this thread by stating that you had won an appeal in court and your dogs now were classified as any other dog in NSW. Both of those statements are false, and by doing that you put other people who may be appealing declarations at risk by providing false information on the outcome. I also had big issue with you posting it in the BSL section and muddying the line between Dangerous Dog and Restricted Dog (which is already done enough in the media and elsewhere). ETA: And in fact based on the information provided I think it's unlikely that the Ranger totally bungled it up, because if he/she did and you could prove it your Barrister wouldn't have told you to settle for a Control, she would have told you to go all the way to appeal to really show the Council up, get costs and ensure your dogs were cleared.

Thanks for that further information. I understand there's now similar language in the laws here, too. It opens the way for how the person involved interprets the dog's behaviour. Simply the presence of a largish dog, coming close while on the loose, could make some people feel menanced. There appears to be some element of someone vulnerable feeling under threat in such a way, in this case (from Tralee's description). Recently, I came across a Ridgie-type dog lost & looking a bit anxious. I called to him, hoping to secure him until I could read his ID.... but he lunged towards me with a growl. I could tell it was fear & a warning. If he'd wanted to bite/attack me, he could have. I phoned the Council & gave his location & explained he was frightened so was a bit reactive, but that people who didn't read his behaviour that way, could be very frightened. So there is quite an investigative call to make... interpreting a dog's actual behaviours, the individual responses of people. and aligning that with the options in the law. Absolutely, it's not an easy job by any stretch and what bothers me is the amount of Councils that don't have a designated companion animal office - they just have general rangers with absolutely zero understanding of dog behaviour, body language, motivations etc doing the job.

You are not responsible for your dog's actions if rushed at by an off leash dog and yours in on leash in a public place. The person at fault is the one who allowed their dog to be at large and do the rushing and the consequences are irrelevent. You don't have to muzzle reactive dogs or keep reactive dogs away from public places where there may be dogs at large rushing at leashed dogs. It's up to the owners of all dogs to keep them on leash in a public place and not allow them to rush at other dogs and respect the personal space of others. In NSW, this is correct to a degree, as there is a defense of provocation. However a dog can be declared dangerous for 'displaying unreasonable aggression'. That is of course subjective but if a dog rushes your leashed dog and your dog then absolutely tears them to pieces, killing them, it's conceivable that depending on the attitude of the Council investigating your dog could still be declared dangerous because the level of response was unreasonable. Something to bear in mind in NSW.

Did the dogs in this case 'attack' in ways that fit the descriptions of dangerous dog behaviours as set out in the legislation? If so, the Council would fail in their responsibility if they didn't adhere to the label 'dangerous dog'. If not, then the label 'dangerous' with all its consequences wouldn't apply. All I can find is the OP saying the police described the incident as 'minor'. But that's not descriptive of actual dog behaviours. So doesn't answer the question. What is beyond question, is that the dogs were on the loose outside their property. And the owner would well be ordered, by the Council, to set in place future containment management ... with whatever penalties would follow from any failure. Councils have discretion when it comes to the outcome of reported attacks. Basically in ascending order of seriousness the result can be - no action, warning, fine(s), nuisance order, control order, dangerous dog declaration. You couldn't issue a dangerous dog declaration or seek a control order simply because the dogs had escaped their property. Both are results of a reported attack. Bearing in mind that an attack as defined in the Act can be rushing behaviour, chasing, harassing etc, we wouldn't be declaring every dog dangerous that performed any of those actions, or we'd be declaring dogs every day of the week. We have to make a judgement call based on the severity of the incident and whether it came about from other breaches (i.e dogs escaping), and we need to be able to justify such a decision. Each Council is different in their approach, some are very hard when it comes to dog matters, others are softer.

Not only would they have to be muzzled at shows but they would have to be desexed. I agree that the Council could have easily refused the Control Order (many Councils in my experience completely refuse to even entertain the thought of a Control Order as if the dogs attack again there is the worry that they could be strung up for lessening the restrictions) and he could have then lost in Court and had all of those conditions and more enforced. The fact that his Barrister recommended he take the Control Order shows that there was doubt as to his ability to win in Court during the appeal.

Yikes!!! Poor guy. I really would love to know the circumstances of the incident. Last three or four bad dog attacks picked up by the media in Sydney have been reported as Rottweilers. Lets hope there isn't going to be a bunch of hype and backlash for the breed.

Basically yes, except I have an added incentive, entirely voluntary, to protect my dogs from the public and other peoples' dogs. I elicted the requirements of the Control Order entirely with the intention to increase the integrity of my own dogs' management practices. Some people seem to think that I don't have the requisite intelligence to do that. What you have done is gotten yourself out of a DD tag and instead have an order that if breached have serious consequences, your dogs are not free, you are now bound by the control order. It's been no win for you, it's been a concession to avoid having them declared dangerous. The status of your dogs has nothing to do with BSL, any dog can be declared "dangerous" only those dogs that are thought to be of a restricted breed or cross can have an NOI to declare them to be of a resticted breed. Yes! Thankyou, that's a perfect succinct way to put it rather than my long winded explanations! :laugh:

If your focus was to show up the rangers incompetence (and it sounds like there was a degree of that there if you were able to prove that someone busted your fence but you were still fined for the escape), why didn't you actually go all the way to court to have the matter dismissed and costs awarded to you ( I'm assuming you paid your own costs if you entered a control order upon appeal) and to clear your dog of all Orders? You may not realise it but by making an offer to comply with a control order you haven't cleared your dogs at all and you've essentially confirmed that your dogs need extra precautions than any other by having a court order placed on them to say they need a second inner fence to contain them and can never be allowed unleashed in any public place. Don't get me wrong, I think if you didn't have much chance of winning an appeal in court then offering to consent to those conditions was a good move and the same thing I'd do if it were my dog (and often what I hope dog owners will do when I've been forced to declare their dogs dangerous and I know they're going to lose their appeal) but you have misrepresented the entire case in this thread.

I think you genuinely don't understand the control order on your dogs and the seriousness of such an order. Please ensure you comply at all times because if you are caught not doing so by Council you will be facing heavy fines and possibly destruction of your dogs. The Order is not optional. It is a Court Order. I would hate to see that happen because you didn't fully understand the Order placed upon them.

She also recommended that I accept the Control Orders. That means that your barrister thought you had a good chance of losing in Court if you went to appeal. If you had a good chance of winning there would have been no issues of you going all the way to Court and defeating the declaration so that your dogs would not have control orders and extra restrictions on them. ETA: I should add that I'm glad your dogs have a control order with the specified conditions rather than a dangerous dog declaration. I hate declaring dogs dangerous as the restrictions are incredibly onerous and really overkill for most dogs. Unfortunately if the owner refuses to enter into a Control Order I usually have no choice but to issue the declaration. What I'm taking issue with is the way you are totally downplaying the outcome and the fact that this would possibly influence others who need sound advice if they are appealing an Order, not false hope.

Yes you're correct Reverend Jo. The dogs are still under an Order, just a different one - a Control Order. Not only do they have extra keeping requirements on them but it also states they must never be let off leash in public - so even in a leash-free area Tralee's dogs are not allowed to be let off leash. If a Control Order is breached the Council can issue a Court Attendance Notice to the owner of the dog and prosecute for breach of the Control Order. Section 49 of the Act states: 1 Penalty unit in NSW is $110 so the max fine for this breach would be $11,000. If you breach the Control Order the Courts could also destroy the dog in question or remove it from you: A control order is still a very big deal and Tralee seems to be either misrepresenting this or he actually doesn't understand it himself. I don't understand why if Tralee could prove that his dogs did not attack anyone he offered to enter into a control order, rather than just appealing the order. The order was only revoked because the dog can't have a dangerous dog declaration AND a control order at the same time, and the two parties agreed to a control order. The evidence was not tested in Court and then dismissed because there was no evidence of the offence. On the contrary, if a Control Order has been made and upheld by the court there definitely was evidence of the offence - so he's lucky that the Council agreed to it because they could have easily said no - declaration to stand and then he would have had to try to prove in Court that his dogs didn't attack anyone. If it was found that the dogs did not attack anyone or do any behaviour that would constitute an attack under the Act there would be no need to put all the extra conditions and onerous consequences on Tralee, and he wouldn't have had any need to offer a control order and accept extra conditions on his dog. I realise my tone has been quite curt but it really bothers me that Tralee is misrepresenting the situation which may jeapordise other people's appeals in the future if they were to take his advice. It also really irritates me that it's been posted in the BSL section because dogs subject to BSL are seized only on appearance, not because they have actually attacked. Yes I'm a Companion Animal Officer in Sydney and a very compassionate one actually, I declare very few dogs dangerous, usually working with the owner to get them behaviour advice and assistance / modify their property etc and for the more serious incidents have entered into many control orders with dog owners so that they do not have to deal with the very onerous restrictions of a dangerous dog declaration (which is overkill for most dogs), but entering into a Control Order is still an Order, and it's actually an Order by the Court so holds a lot of weight. If you have a Control Order on your dog, it is recorded on the dogs' microchip and there are very strict penalties for not complying all the way up to destruction of your dog. You did not clear your dogs, you simply lessened the restrictions on them.

Regards Wait, so you didn't successfully appeal the Orders at all, you just willingly entered a consent order with the Council's agreement. That isn't successfully beating a dangerous dog order, that's just the Council being happy to lessen the restrictions on your dogs seeing as you were appealing anyway. Your dogs aren't considered like any other dog now, which would happen if you had successfully appealed a DD order, they just have a different type of Order on them. ETA: This thread shouldn't even be in the BSL section. Dogs that are targeted because of BSL have done nothing wrong. They are targeted specifically because of their appearance. Your dogs escaped your property and obviously did something if you've had a Dangerous Dog declaration and now a Control Order. Worlds apart. I confirm that on the 12/2/13,the Council withdrew their declaration that the dogs were dangerous and therefore your 3 appeals against the dangerous dog declarations were upheld. Can you run that by me again? I confirm that on the 12/2/13,the Council withdrew their declaration that the dogs were dangerous ... Can you run that by us all again? The Magistrate then made a control order, pursuant to s.47 of the Companion Animals Act 1998, in the terms of the consent orders The Companion Animals Act is a control order, the same obligations and penalties apply. Can you please make a further public case for all of us to read about the issue you raise? The Orders HAVE to be revoked for the Control Order to be put in place, that comes part and parcel with the Control Order. What are the terms of your Control Order? Usually they are to do with extra controls on the keeping of the dog, behavioral retraining or desexing. A Control Order is NOT just the normal terms of the CAA. It is a separate order that can be made in lieu of a declaration or if the parties agree to it during the appeal process. If you've agreed to a Control order you haven't cleared your dogs, you've just managed to lessen the restrictions on them. Their microchips will display that they are subject to a control order whenever an officer looks them up, and the terms of that control order. Section 47 of CAA If you've been given a control order or done one by Consent (I'm assuming it was by consent seeing as that wording was used in your letter) then your dogs are not just like any other dog now. You have a Control Order on you which has strict penalties for non-compliance. If the Council hadn't agreed to a control order you may well have lost your case appealing the declaration. I'll say it again that Dangerous Dog matters have NOTHING to do with Restricted Breed cases and by you trying to make out that your case is in anyway similar muddies the water and equates restricted breeds with dangerous dogs. I'll say it again - your dogs/you have breached the companion animals act in some way, clearly by the escape but your dogs must also have been considered to attack someone if you've been given a declaration and then a control order. That is WORLDS apart from a dog being seized from it's home that has never escaped, never attacked anything - based solely on it's appearance. Your dogs were not declared because they were Maremma, they were declared because they breached the Act. To equate that your situation is similar to people that have had their pets seized based solely on appearance is offensive.

Regards Wait, so you didn't successfully appeal the Orders at all, you just willingly entered a consent order with the Council's agreement. That isn't successfully beating a dangerous dog order, that's just the Council being happy to lessen the restrictions on your dogs seeing as you were appealing anyway. Your dogs aren't considered like any other dog now, which would happen if you had successfully appealed a DD order, they just have a different type of Order on them. ETA: This thread shouldn't even be in the BSL section. Dogs that are targeted because of BSL have done nothing wrong. They are targeted specifically because of their appearance. Your dogs escaped your property and obviously did something if you've had a Dangerous Dog declaration and now a Control Order. Worlds apart.

They really will. I told her I was sorry. Then I told the man running the shop exactly what I thought of him. I don't think he could understand me though. It was 10.30 at night too, all re bright lights still on (one in the top of each glass box) so they couldn't sleep properly. Japan is an incredible country in so many ways but their animal welfare is just horrendous in many different ways. It was hard to reconcile what I was seeing with the rest of what I had seen in the country and been so impressed by. The flip side to these horrendous pet shops was pet supply stores FULL of outfits. Baskets, beds, trinkets... Everything you could possibly imagine buying for your pet and more. Very strange parallel. ETA: found the pictures I took. These do not even come close to showing how horrendous it was. That just couldn't translate to picture. This little one wasn't moving at all, seemed very sick. Trying to get away from the bright lights. Imagine these boxes just lining the walls from floor to roof. I wish I took a picture showing the whole wall. This little one was older and bigger so the box was so small for him. He was digging on the glass trying to get to us and crying.

It was really, really awful. I think I started a thread here. We were wandering around looking for dessert and needless to say I couldn't eat afterwards (and that is BIG DEAL!) The worst was the older puppies that hadn't been sold, they were about 14 weeks old. They were just a matted mess, three of them in a small cage on the ground that they again couldn't really move around in. One toileted then immediately turned around and ate it. I sat next to them on the ground and squeezed my fingers through the bars to try and scratch one, who just pushed her whole body up against me and looked at me. I'll never forget her eyes

Yeah, I totally lost it in Japan when I walked in to a pet shop two weeks in. I can't describe how upsetting it was. Tiny sickly puppies each in an individual glass box they could barely turn around in. The walls were just made of glass box upon glass box stacked to the roof with an individual puppy (that looked about 5 weeks old) in each one. Puppies spinning and spinning because they are so isolated and bored, can barely move. Nothing in the box except shredded paper to entertain them. I had had a great time until that point and was in awe of Japan as a country... seeing that took away the rose coloured glasses that's for sure.

I'm hoping I'm missing something but did you just compare restricted breeds to wild animals and say they need to be 'tightly controlled' like wild animals do? LOL, no you're reading too much into it and I did mix the metaphor. I mean BSL has been mentioned here already and just like restricted breeds it would be awful if people own a pet they are afraid for others to see, or in particular afraid to take to the vet (as I gather in VIC they were calling for vets to report pit bulls presented to them for treatment ). Victoria has not only outlawed foxes as pets but also pit bulls? Thats my only comparison here. 'Tightly controlled' refers to the fact that people can and do own exotic pets, and that IMHO acknowledging them with permits gives the owners the ability to keep them without being criminals, and is more helpful for the animals themselves. They are already here, in people's homes. Doesn't mean I want one or want new species imported or want to rescue one or agree with breeding them for a pet market- i.e. the squirrels mentioned in the article link. I want all pets to have access to healthcare and expertise not be hidden away by bans. Cool, I thought I must have been missing something surely and makes much more sense to me now. :)

New York doesn't have BSL, just one of the many breeds that did not make it on that particular site, nothing more, nothing less. here was the BOB Am staff winner Thanks for that! I definitely read something some time ago about a big show being held in a BSL state so when I saw no Amstaff there I thought this must have been it. Thanks for the photo! Dog is nice but fat IMO. I was shocked at how fat a lot of dogs were in the original link (Labrador OMG!)

I'm hoping I'm missing something but did you just compare restricted breeds to wild animals and say they need to be 'tightly controlled' like wild animals do?

A lot of lovely dogs! Some horrible ones too. The GSD as mentioned is simply shocking. Also the Neo Mastiff and the Pekingnese. Poor bloody dogs. Where is the American Staffordshire Terrier? I seem to recall reading something about a big show being held in a BSL state. Is that why there is no Amstaff here? If so - how disrespectful to hold the show there and essentially barr the AST and support BSL.

Companion animals act here covers the microchipping. They cannot sell the puppies without microchipping them first. You're after Section 8 The fine would be $165 per puppy. I think the stuff re age of sale and vaccinations is in the Code of Practice for breeding cats and dogs here. I don't really know that code of practice well though so can't direct you to exactly where within it it will be. Hope that helps. ETA: Just reading through the code of practice, check out page 28: The word 'must' means it is not optional. And then page 30: Edit again: Page 7 has the consequences for failing to meet the standards (which is everything that says 'must')

That is fantastic :D