melzawelza

Up until a couple of years ago not many suspect dogs at that pound had the opportunity to be breed/temp assessed and were just PTS regardless but these days they have a much better chance That's not to say that the Council itself isn't very aggressive in their approach to dogs they believe may be restricted breeds, I don't know if they are or they aren't, but they don't run their own pound so therefore they have limited input into the outcome of their impounded animals.

That's just the exact wording of the Companion Animals Act, most Councils (if not all) have the same thing on their website. I know the pound Waverley uses very well, don't stress. They subcontract to 11 different Councils. They aren't as progressive with 'suspect' looking dogs as the other major pounds in Sydney and it can be a bit more of a headache but most of the time if the dog is 'suspect' but rehomable temp wise it is released to rescue and breed/temp assessed so that everything is legal and above board. It's a really good pound.

Amstaff crosses aren't restricted ever. Pit crosses can be restricted, if they fail a temp test. If they pass they're safe and can live like any other dog. Very, very VERY few dogs come back as pure bred APBT. I've never seen one come back as such but have been told of one or two cases. Dogs NSW don't recognise the breed so I don't see how anyone from that organisation could then state that the dog is pure bred anyway. The whole thing is so stupid. What's the policy?

Bingo. Plus they also run a 'breed ID' course for council officers that they've managed to get nationally accredited, even though there is no science or validity behind visually breed assessing dogs.

Not unless they're also dogs NSW judges.

Who's to say they weren't Viszla crosses though? Don't get me wrong, visual breed ID of mixed breed unknown dogs is bloody stupid, science tells us it's completely unreliable. But that means that your assessment that the dog ISN'T a Viszla X is just as silly as an assessment that it is. Breed assessing in general is stupid but it's the law currently and it means that blacktown and the other major Sydney pounds are meeting their obligations and not breaking the law. Love your statement that Pit bulls being misidentified as Viszla crosses would harm the reputation of a 'good natured' breed (with the insinuation that 'pit bulls' as a whole are not good natured). There are many, MANY more than 'a few' dogs that have had their breed assessment come back as Viszla X but I don't see any reputations ruined yet. Greytmate the breed assessors are dogs NSW judges. From memory they have to have been a terrier specialist judge for 2 years or an all breeds judge for 4 years. Pit bull X are not restricted in NSW unless they fail a temperament assessment so if the dog comes back as such they are temp tested before release. The temp testers are government approved.

If that is the case, the person who started the thread in general about being randomly photographed has nothing to worry about? I thought they could still assess her dog even though she bought it from the pound as a staffy X. Is a breed assessment from the pound enough proof that it is? It's not a breed assessment from the pound, blacktown Council issue a Notice of intention to declare the dog to be a restricted breed. An independent breed assessor and temperament tester if needed goes out to the pound and performs the assessment. The results are recorded on DLG paperwork and sent back to Council. The owners get the pink copy of their assessments and the results are recorded on the microchip in a particular section just for that purpose. If Ziggy went through that same process at his pound he'd be automatically safe from BSL but I'm assuming that isn't the case as it only tends to be done on red nosed dogs, and StaffyLuv would have got paperwork showing the assessment etc. Basically, there's a difference between pound staff just chipping the dog as 'staffy cross' and actually issuing the NOI and going through the official process. The latter guarantees the dogs safety in NSW from BSL.

QANTAS made it a BSL issue when they stated more than once on their Facebook page that the breed is on the list because it is 'historically aggressive'. Nothing about dogs busting out of crates and eating the plane. As others have said, Virgin and other aircrafts seem to be able to transport them without issue, so if it WAS due to escapes that just tells me that Qantas are totally incompetent.

QANTAS made it a BSL issue when they stated more than once on their Facebook page that the breed is on the list because it is 'historically aggressive'. Nothing about dogs busting out of crates and eating the plane. As others have said, Virgin and other aircrafts seem to be able to transport them without issue, so if it WAS due to escapes that just tells me that Qantas are totally incompetent.

Semantics I know however the statement I have bolded is so very wrong in my opinion. Perhaps a better way to say it would be "A lot of dogs just aren't suitable for rehoming and that is the sad reality." I agree the wording is important, because our words are twisted and spat back at us. But we can be very clear about what is acceptable in our community as a pet. It should be able to be easily contained by normal suburban fence, it should be a legal breed, it should be able to be taken for exercise on a normal lead. Without threatening or attacking people or other animals. That is what a reasonable person would desire and expect from a pet dog. It's what the community expects. PR are doing nothing to ensure the dogs they are promoting meet this expectation of a pet. I'm going to preface my comment by saying I can't stand PR tactics just like everyone else and I also don't believe TRULY dog aggressive dogs should be rehomed (i.e dogs that will go after another dog to attack it without provocation). BUT in regards to you comment that the dogs being rehomed should be a legal breed, I'm assuming you're referring to the appearances of some of the dogs PR were promoting. Blacktown and all other pounds do not release dogs deemed as a restricted breed as per the Act. But you and I aren't breed assessors, neither are BP staff. Suspect dogs are breed assessed (and temp tested if found to be a cross of a restricted breed) before release, therefore no matter how much you may think the dog is an illegal breed, it actually, legally, is not. That's not to say that I disagree with everything else you've said, but I felt I needed to make that point.

We're no where near as bad as Victoria - he couldn't be taken off you and held (unless you break the rules), and you'd most likely pass the breed assessment or at least go on to a temp test that of course he'd pass. It's an inconvenience and stressful but I think you'd be fine and it's unlikely to happen in the first place :)

Pit Bulls are required to be muzzled too and this is what the lady believes the dog to be. However a dog is NOT a restricted breed in NSW unless it is chipped as a pure bred of one of the breeds, or it has been through the breed assessment / temperament testing process and failed one or both. As Ziggy doesn't tick either of these boxes he's not required to be muzzled. However if, upon the report, the Council believes the dog to be a restricted breed they can place a notice on the dog to force it through that breed assessment / temp test process. I would think looking at Ziggy it would be pretty unlikely for 1. the Council to issue a notice, or if they did for him to fail either section. I wouldn't be concerned Staffyluv but if you have any issues PM me. I got him from the pound melza, they were the ones who originally assessed him as a staffy cross and chipped him as such. Plus he is a good boy and very friendly :D Pound assessments aren't breed assessments - pound assessment doesn't keep the dog safe. Breed assessment does. It's with a government approved assessor and you have to pay for it. The results are recorded on the dog's microchip in a seperate section to the breed so you can see that the dog has been through the process. Lets say a new ranger has started since you got Ziggy that doesn't like bull breeds; there is nothing stopping him issuing you with an NOI and forcing you through the process, even though a previous ranger sold you the dog. You'll probably have no issues at all but it's worth knowing where you stand and if you do get any issues just send me a message and I'll help you through the process. :)

Pit Bulls are required to be muzzled too and this is what the lady believes the dog to be. However a dog is NOT a restricted breed in NSW unless it is chipped as a pure bred of one of the breeds, or it has been through the breed assessment / temperament testing process and failed one or both. As Ziggy doesn't tick either of these boxes he's not required to be muzzled. However if, upon the report, the Council believes the dog to be a restricted breed they can place a notice on the dog to force it through that breed assessment / temp test process. I would think looking at Ziggy it would be pretty unlikely for 1. the Council to issue a notice, or if they did for him to fail either section. I wouldn't be concerned Staffyluv but if you have any issues PM me.

This. The cat can't be declared dangerous but it can be declared a nuisance. Why tell them to take it to the pound! The cat is not a stray etc. it's home is well known. How would you like it if someone trapped one of your animals and took it to the pound - and then having to rely in the pound to scan it etc and hope they're not full and don't PTS before you find it?? If there is an issue then contact the Council and they will deal with it. It is the responsibility of the cat owner to ensure their cat is confined to their property. Not in NSW it isn't. You cannot just steal the cat because it is a menace. That is not the way to deal with this. Maybe the people do not know or realise what the cat is doing. Cats don't just attack people normally so I would guess it has been traumatised in some way. Has anyone ever actually spoke to the people about this ? If not that seems the way to start or if everyone isn't brave enough or can't approach because of the cat a letter in their mailbox explaining the problem & that you all hope they will keep the cat indoors or accompany it if outside or you will have to contact the council. Give them a week to act & if they don't call the council & tell others to do the same. One call they may ignore, lots they won't. Legally, if the cat is outside of personal property boundaries or within your property property boundaries, you are legally entitled to "seize" the cat to the pound (or vet). You are not stealing the animal at this point. If you then choose keep the animal, then yes it is stealing. No, not in NSW, where the OP is. The cat is allowed to wander. HOWEVER this particular cat could be seized because of the attacking. Section 32 of the Companion Animals Act: You cannot allow your cat to wander into someone else's property, and it is perfectly acceptable and legal to hire a cat trap from the council to catch a cat that is on your own property . However, from the sounds of the OP it seems as thought the cat is just sitting in front of its own house? If that is the case then you can't just put a trap wherever you want and catch it. As far as I am aware you are only allowed to trap cats on your own property. I've been through this recently. There is no where in the Act that states that a cat must not enter someone's property. It is simply not an offence for someone's cat to enter your yard. There is no fine for it and it is not listed in the Act. If it's yowling non stop outside your window or destroying your property the cat can be declared a nuisance but there is no offence committed if it simply walks into your yard and hangs out. Each Council interprets how to deal with cats very differently as the act is so so inadequate when it comes to cats. Some will seize cats that are obviously lost without an owner even though technically they don't have authority to. However most Councils will refuse to pick up a cat that you've trapped on your property unless there's an ongoing nuisance complaint and the cat has been declared a nuisance or you sign a stat dec to say it was killing wildlife (that makes the seizure legal as per the part I quoted earlier). Others will pick up cats that are obviously feral without that stat dec but not domestics. It's a shady grey area but if you take it literally as some Councils do they refuse to pick up any cat for any reason other than with an accompanying stat dec to say that the cat was killing wildlife.

This. The cat can't be declared dangerous but it can be declared a nuisance. Why tell them to take it to the pound! The cat is not a stray etc. it's home is well known. How would you like it if someone trapped one of your animals and took it to the pound - and then having to rely in the pound to scan it etc and hope they're not full and don't PTS before you find it?? If there is an issue then contact the Council and they will deal with it. It is the responsibility of the cat owner to ensure their cat is confined to their property. Not in NSW it isn't. You cannot just steal the cat because it is a menace. That is not the way to deal with this. Maybe the people do not know or realise what the cat is doing. Cats don't just attack people normally so I would guess it has been traumatised in some way. Has anyone ever actually spoke to the people about this ? If not that seems the way to start or if everyone isn't brave enough or can't approach because of the cat a letter in their mailbox explaining the problem & that you all hope they will keep the cat indoors or accompany it if outside or you will have to contact the council. Give them a week to act & if they don't call the council & tell others to do the same. One call they may ignore, lots they won't. Legally, if the cat is outside of personal property boundaries or within your property property boundaries, you are legally entitled to "seize" the cat to the pound (or vet). You are not stealing the animal at this point. If you then choose keep the animal, then yes it is stealing. No, not in NSW, where the OP is. The cat is allowed to wander. HOWEVER this particular cat could be seized because of the attacking. Section 32 of the Companion Animals Act:

Short coated red dogs - my favourite colour in APBT but also similar to Ridgebacks, DDB etc. Just love that kind of coat.

Wrong. That's what AR wants you to think. And you could elucidate the "terrible breeding practices" of which you speak? There is no denying that a small number of breeds are facing large scale health issues or just simple diminished quality of life because of breeding for the extreme. Neo mastiffs are one. Unless the pb world as a whole stops excusing these breeds then yes, you will get an overarching body stepping in and seeing the demise of the purebred dog. If the purebred body publicly accept and actively work towards improving quality of life for these dogs then people won't feel the need to constantly put pressure and impose on the pb fancy. AND they'll stop extrapolating it to all breeds. There has been so much of it in this thread. Denial of any issue in any breeds. That just makes the general public think the rest of you are just as bad otherwise why would you excuse it? Even if it isn't the case, the whole group ends up being put in the basket.

Never leave unsupervised. Leash at all times when the cat is around and when he goes to do it a big UH UH! and very firm correction on the collar. This is dangerous and possibly life threatening for your cat - no time for niceties with the dog. He needs to learn very quickly that you will NOT tolerate this behaviour or you will end up with a dead cat.

Well said Megan. I agree. The group that will see the demise of the pedigree dog is the pedigree dog world that consistently excuses terrible breeding practices in some breeds, not the AR nuts (can't stand them either and don't deny their aim but they won't be the ones that achieve it.).

Could be wrong but I believe the Bulldog standard was completely unchanged from at least the early 1900's until just a couple of years ago after the PDE debarcle. The standard was (I believe) unchanged - people's interpretation of it was not Too true. From my understanding (I could be wrong) most of these breeds that are just so far gone have standard with quite open-ended statements, often encouraging exaggeration. This is what has lead to people breeding for more and more exaggerated versions of the dogs they once were.

I was not talking about merely training only. If a dog heads down to the back fence trying to get away from the hose or a broom, then they have "issues". If they take off aggressively at every teen male that come sin the gate, it is an "issue". Etc. It takes much more than the usual "training" to break them from steam train pulling.... all that is not what you can term "training" in the normal sense. I never had a pup with any of those "issues" - as I call them. Maybe you would prefer the term "remedial training" if you want to argue semantics? Teaching a loose leash walk is only hard or lengthy if you are shutting out any sort of punishment and plugging away at rewards only OR you have a very large dog with a small person and refuse to use a tool that will give you control. Pups need leash walking training as well. Lots of pups and even adult dogs sourced as pups take off away from a scary object. A dog barking aggressively a teen males is definitely a behavioural issue that needs training. IME very few rescue dogs actually have those kinds of issues. An ethical rescue group wouldn't home a dog that was still doing that, it wouldn't be up for adoption until that was sorted (or if it was too far gone the dog would be euthansed). It is easy to teach a pup lose leash walking. It takes longer to break an undesirable habit taught by a previous owner. How long it takes is not an issue. It just does. I guess my lovely girl would have been euthed many times then if she had not come here. :laugh: The aggression was due only to abuse in the past, not an innate trait. Fortunately, she was not likely to actually do anything unless they posed a threat to one of us. And any Dobe would act in that situation regardless. I'd be the first to say a dangerous dog should not be re-homed. She was not dangerous. She had "issues" and she suited this home. We got around or solved all her problems. No, she would not have suited just ANY home. :D We must be very special. :) Sounds like you were a fantastic owner for her! And that she did have issues, but in mine and most other people in the rescue world's experience, most rescue dogs do not have issues like that at all other than the need for some obedience training and to be in a home that fits their breed or temperament. The few that do are given re-training by the rescue group before adoption.

I was not talking about merely training only. If a dog heads down to the back fence trying to get away from the hose or a broom, then they have "issues". If they take off aggressively at every teen male that come sin the gate, it is an "issue". Etc. It takes much more than the usual "training" to break them from steam train pulling.... all that is not what you can term "training" in the normal sense. I never had a pup with any of those "issues" - as I call them. Maybe you would prefer the term "remedial training" if you want to argue semantics? Teaching a loose leash walk is only hard or lengthy if you are shutting out any sort of punishment and plugging away at rewards only OR you have a very large dog with a small person and refuse to use a tool that will give you control. Pups need leash walking training as well. Lots of pups and even adult dogs sourced as pups take off away from a scary object. A dog barking aggressively a teen males is definitely a behavioural issue that needs training. IME very few rescue dogs actually have those kinds of issues. An ethical rescue group wouldn't home a dog that was still doing that, it wouldn't be up for adoption until that was sorted (or if it was too far gone the dog would be euthansed).

That is such crap. I work very closely with a few rescues, foster dogs and provide training assistance to foster homes as the absolute vast majority of dogs have no *behavioiral* issues at all - they simply require obedience training so they can walk well on a lead and obey commands and they're brilliant dogs. Most dogs are in pounds because the owner got the wrong type of dog for their lifestyle and/or didn't bother putting the work in. A total couch potato household with a border collie is my likely to end well if the family don't change their lifestyle. And then the dog ends up in the pound. Same dog in an active household - no problems. I'm not saying this to guilt trip the OP. the breeder she is talking to sounds great and I fully support people purchasing from registered breeders. But your comments are so ridiculous and damaging, they have to be addressed.

I agree that the other breeds that are fine are overlooked. It's not a 'pedigree dog' problem but it certainly is an issue within some breeds (usually breeds that had or have statements in the standard that are open ended and encourage exaggeration). But I do think that too many in other groups and the system in general do not hold those problem breeds to account often or loudly enough. If the pedigree world as a whole is excusing this type of breeding it does then become a 'pedigree' problem in the eyes of the public.

Some breeds are a problem. There is no denying that. I feel so sad when I see what the Neo Mastiffs have become, particularly compared to the old style. But it isn't a problem across the board with all pedigree dogs and shouldn't be made out to be.