Longcoat

Yeah what is with that !! I would love to see if i can apply for a third dog, but it worries me in re; to that condition :D Me too! In some councils, you obtain the permit then the dog, and in others, it's the other way around...has me scratching my head there. In the council area we lived in in Darwin, you had to get the dog first...then the permit. But if just one neighbour didn't like the idea of having three dogs in the area, then potentially you couldn't get your permit. It's the sort of situation that leaves people wondering exactly where they stand...and what if you move to the area with your three dogs which you've had in previous areas without a hitch and then one of your neighbours objects? How do you get around that, apart from having to re-home a dog? With the councils that require you to get the dog first then apply for a permit and then be faced with re-homing a dog should the permit be rejected, some people I have known haven't taken the punt to bring attention to themselves with council and used alternative measures successfully, generally licencing one dog at another address, often a business address or friends address in the same council area. Some don't register the 3rd dog especially if two or the three are the same breed. If someone manages their dogs responsibly with a sneaky dog in the system that they don't want to get caught with, the one's I have known to do this, never bring attention to themselves with the neighbours etc to cause council enquiries. Council complaints against dogs are generally caused by mismanagement on the owners behalf, excessive barking, nuisence etc, so I guess with good dog management, who's really concerned about three well behaved dogs

Dutchies have now been recognised by the ANKC and so dogs with FCI papers can get them registered with the ANKC. I assume this means that they are eligible for SchH now in this country as they would fall under FCI eligible breeds? Dutchies are not listed on the FCI eligible Schutzhund breeds overseas either to my knowledge???. Obviously they would have great sporting potential but I couldn't find any entered in the results of any overseas Schutzhund tournaments???. BREEDS ELIGIBLE FOR SCHUTZHUND TRAINING German Shepherd Dog, Boxer, Dobermann, Rottweiler, Giant Schnauzer, Airedale Terrier, Bouvier Des Flandres, Hovawart, Belgian Shepherd (Groendael, Malinois, Tervueren, Laekenois), Berger de Beauce, Berger de Brie, Berger Des Pyrenees A Face Rase, Berger Des Pyrenees A Museau Normal, Berger Picard, Lapinkoira, Suomenpystykorva The breeds above are the current FCI listing???

Excellent result In some councils around Australia though, It's often difficult to get a 3 dog permit and you have to actually attain the 3rd dog first then apply for the permit. If rejected, you have to re-home one dog It's not surprising that people often keep a 3rd dog unregistered or have it registered at another address to aviod possible permit rejection when forced to attain the dog before council will accept a permit application.

Hmmm, I am thinking why tell them you have kids if it's held against you???. Because its honest and its the right thing to do?! I would think being honest would be rather crucial in developing a relationship with a breeder that you are hoping will trust you enough to place on of their babies in your home. Good luck with Christian Italmum Not necessarily. Because a breeder has formed a dislike of placing puppies with children families from a bad experience once, the breeder has no rights to tar every children family with the same brush and reject them on that basis. The parents of the children family have more insight into their childs behaviour with animals than a breeder will ever know. Some breeders get too carried away with own opnions which are not always right in the scheme of things. More to the point, this behaviour only drives people to pet shops and BYB's when being open and honest results in rejection and too much hassle. I understand what you are saying and agree to a point. I just think that everyone is entitled to an opinion, particularly when it comes to something as important as determining an appropriate home for a puppy they have bred. As a breeder they have the right to discriminate if they so choose, they know their dogs and progeny better than a prospective buyer. Just as a parent knows their children better than a stranger. I believe its more important to find a breeder and develop an honest relationship. Then if that breeder decides your home is an environment they would be comfortable placing one of their babies it is for the right reasons. In the interest of ongoing support and having the right pup for your family I would much rather tell the truth from the start. Of course you would begin your search truthfully........I too would do exactly that also, but when it becomes a pattern of rejection on the basis of having kids, I would change my tactic. We are talking a Cav, not a high drive large working dog for instance that could be over boisterious with small kids which I would more understand a breeders concern with placement, but what the OP has encountered I think is over the top. How many times has the OP been rejected by the successful applicant who told the breeder what they wanted to hear..........that would be annoying and could have easily happened Discrimination against childern doesn't comply with common law either being rejected on that basis.

The court found that there was enough evidence to prove that he was an AST. It is because he was found to be an AST that the council is now perusing the AST = APBT argument. Although they don't have papers they do have a lot of evidence that the dog is at least in part from Papered AST stock. ETA: Well yes, in the sense that if the dog HAD been papered it wouldn't have made it to the courts in the first place! The AST is an ANKC recognised breed which people have the right to own and breed. There is no argument in that regard.

Hmmm, I am thinking why tell them you have kids if it's held against you???. Because its honest and its the right thing to do?! I would think being honest would be rather crucial in developing a relationship with a breeder that you are hoping will trust you enough to place on of their babies in your home. Good luck with Christian Italmum Not necessarily. Because a breeder has formed a dislike of placing puppies with children families from a bad experience once, the breeder has no rights to tar every children family with the same brush and reject them on that basis. The parents of the children family have more insight into their childs behaviour with animals than a breeder will ever know. Some breeders get too carried away with own opnions which are not always right in the scheme of things. More to the point, this behaviour only drives people to pet shops and BYB's when being open and honest results in rejection and too much hassle.

Hmmm, I am thinking why tell them you have kids if it's held against you???.

Isn't the situation behind the Tango case because they couldn't provide evidence as in pedigree papers to prove he was an Amstaff, not to prove that an Amstaff is not an APBT???. I am assuming should they have been able to provide papers for Tango, this situation wouldn't have surfaced, is that correct???

I'm still listening to hear what the real solution to the problem is. Not letting dogs offleash outside their own yard is not a solution. I'm thinking that you don't acutally have a real solution. So there you go - plenty of listening and thinking happening. Lo Pan has advised to be aware of off leash parks for the obvious reasons which makes perfect sense. The solution provided is not to visit off leash parks and avoid the associated risks. Why is that not sound advice??? Perhaps you didn't read his posts? He has said that any attack that happens to your dog in an offleash park is the fault of the owner of the attacked dog for taking it to the park. He has recommended not to take dogs to offleash areas at all. It isn't sound advice because it's not an option for some people who have nowhere else for their dog to run. We are all "aware" that there is some risk. The point is that we need to weigh up the risks and try to provide a balanced lifestyle for our dogs. One of my dogs in particular just loves the surf and I love watching him throw himself into the waves to fetch a stick. Under Lo Pan's advice I could never ever do this with him again. How is that sound or even remotely practical advice? MOST of the time my dogs don't get attacked (just like most of the time I drive I don't have an accident). Where are people to take their dogs to run if they can't take them to an offleash area? Our yards are getting smaller. What's the practical and sound solution? Lo Pan was talking about taking 11 week old puppies to off leash parks in reference to the thread I thought???. My GSD can be aggressive towards strange dog's with attitude or dogs that rush at him and I wouldn't let him off leash at a designated dog park for that reason with other dogs around. I let him off leash to run in areas or times that other dogs are not in close proximity and leash him if other off leash dogs are heading our way. Same at the beach, just pick your spots and times. Lo Pans' quotes applied generally and not just to puppies. "Dogs are NOT supposed to run around together and socialize. This is a fantasy dreamed up by some in society today. Dogs are said to be social in the sense that in the wild they run in packs, it does not mean strange dogs "socializing". By taking the dog and allowing it to be exposed to an offleash situation with other dogs you are putting it at risk. Now i'm not saying don't do it, i'm just saying do not blame others if there is a problem. In combination with the nature of dogs, we also know that irresponsible owners are frequent, so there should be no ground for complaining if your dog is attacked at an offleash park the risks are clear." Really you shouldn't be taking your GSD off lead if it has issues. If a puppy rushes up to it you could find yourself in a horrible situation. You can't be aware of every dog in the vicinity and the young, immature dogs who find it a game to run a kilometre from their hysterically chasing owner is pretty much the same dog who will delight in bowling up to your dog. I feel completely responsible in taking my dogs to a dog park because none of them have aggression issues and I trust them as much as anybody could ever trust a dog. ETA My older dogs have no hesitation in growling and snapping at a young dog to put it in its place but that is as far as it goes - I actually use them to help teach pups manners when my friends get new puppies. In a general dog park, you wouldn't know most of them..............you are obviously talking about arranged meets with friends which is a much different situation. When the general public turn up to a place and randomly let their dogs off leash, you have no idea which dogs may react aggressively, by then it could be too late. The OP didn't know the owner of the dog who attacked her puppy or know the temperament of the dogs present. That's more how I take Lo Pan's posts

I'm still listening to hear what the real solution to the problem is. Not letting dogs offleash outside their own yard is not a solution. I'm thinking that you don't acutally have a real solution. So there you go - plenty of listening and thinking happening. Lo Pan has advised to be aware of off leash parks for the obvious reasons which makes perfect sense. The solution provided is not to visit off leash parks and avoid the associated risks. Why is that not sound advice??? Perhaps you didn't read his posts? He has said that any attack that happens to your dog in an offleash park is the fault of the owner of the attacked dog for taking it to the park. He has recommended not to take dogs to offleash areas at all. It isn't sound advice because it's not an option for some people who have nowhere else for their dog to run. We are all "aware" that there is some risk. The point is that we need to weigh up the risks and try to provide a balanced lifestyle for our dogs. One of my dogs in particular just loves the surf and I love watching him throw himself into the waves to fetch a stick. Under Lo Pan's advice I could never ever do this with him again. How is that sound or even remotely practical advice? MOST of the time my dogs don't get attacked (just like most of the time I drive I don't have an accident). Where are people to take their dogs to run if they can't take them to an offleash area? Our yards are getting smaller. What's the practical and sound solution? Lo Pan was talking about taking 11 week old puppies to off leash parks in reference to the thread I thought???. My GSD can be aggressive towards strange dog's with attitude or dogs that rush at him and I wouldn't let him off leash at a designated dog park for that reason with other dogs around. I let him off leash to run in areas or times that other dogs are not in close proximity and leash him if other off leash dogs are heading our way. Same at the beach, just pick your spots and times.

so you don't have a floating ring than? You would still need a floating ring and be the right length to prevent it slipping down the neck to act the same as a Leerburg DD collar

I'm still listening to hear what the real solution to the problem is. Not letting dogs offleash outside their own yard is not a solution. I'm thinking that you don't acutally have a real solution. So there you go - plenty of listening and thinking happening. Lo Pan has advised to be aware of off leash parks for the obvious reasons which makes perfect sense. The solution provided is not to visit off leash parks and avoid the associated risks. Why is that not sound advice???

I don't think that Dutchies are an eligible breed for Schutzhund competition are they???. Great looking dogs

Does anyone in Aust sell the Dominant dog collars? I have one from Leerburg but it really needs to be a touch shorter but i don't want to pay the huge shipping prices from the US for just one collar I wondered that myself too??? I have seen them advertised much cheaper than Leerburg's but still from US supply. How did you find the Dominant dog collar 4 Paws???. I used a prong on my GSD initially.

The bottom line really Sas, is not about right or wrong, it's about your puppy sustaining an injury or not. Prosecution and blame doesn't turn back the clock

You need to get out more. Irresponsible and incapable owners are attached to the lead of a wide range of breeds, including yours.. and mine. Yes that's true, but are not seen anywhere near as often as some of the other breeds for the general public to form opinions.

I totally agree with your observation LisaB85, it's the same here in SA in the areas I exercise my dogs too. Not a day goes by that I don't think when seeing the most poorly behaved dogs on leash which are always SWF types, had those owners had a GSD, Rotty, Dobe etc behaving in the same fashion as their SWF instead............they would have severe drama's on their hands, but the SWF's can be easily dragged along where a powerful dog cannot. I mentioned in an earlier post as you have also observed that most GSD, Rotty, Dobe type people do appear to have better handling skills with their dogs and encourage good behaviour which from my experience is definitely true, and the medium sized poorly behaved dogs are Bull breeds and often Labrador's and Cattle Dog's, that again I agree. But having said that, it's purely an owner issue not the breed, but does seem to be an emerging patten of breed versus irresponsible ownership which is often seen. The difference being with larger breeds behaving poorly and lunging for the average person is that they are too strong to physically hold onto in a public place and those dogs which also exist are not often seen. Although as I said, your observations I totally agree are true from my perpsective also, but we can't condemn breeds because of irresponsible ownership which is most unfair. The same people would have the same problems and with larger breeds, they would be more than likely never exercised in public and never seen being unable to handle them at all. One thing I will say owning and exercising GSD's, it's the BEST medicine for irresponsible ownership with offleash dogs seeing a GSD loom into the picture for these people to quickly gather up their dogs. Not long ago, I heard one of these offleash owners who lack control yell out to another person with them to grab their unleashed dog as an "Alsation" is coming up the path . None the less regardless if they think a GSD is a threat, they did put their dog back on leash which is ultimately a good thing ;)

Over the last few years, most of the serious more savage attacks reported by the media are Bull breeds of some description and crosses of. I can recall one Rottweiler serious attack reported and a pair of GSD's a few years back. I think in general, there are more Bull breeds owned by irresponsible people and also people wanting the tough Bully type muscled physique of the studded collar brigade that causes most if not all of the Bull breed problems. Owners of Rottweilers, GSD's Dobes etc that could have dangerous capabilities are in my experience, far more respsonsible owners more willing to learn how to train and handle their dogs properly. Many breeds have fighting drive and active aggression if allowed to develop and an irresponsible owner with any breed that displays aggression will be a problem in the community.

I agree. Legislation focuses in the wrong areas IMO. It should be an offence to breed dogs without being a registered breeder. It should be an offence to breed cross breeds without a purpose and permit to do so. It should be a requirement that a litter's sire and dam are pedigree papered. It should be a requirement that registered breeders can breed a maximum of two different dog breeds only. Most of the legislation is focused upon closing the gate after the horse has bolted and needs to be focused from the beginning.

Personally, I would knock that behaviour on the head FAST regardless of the person's looks etc, if they were not acting in a threatening manner, the dog shouldn't take it upon it'self to react. The problem is, the behaviour can escalate if not corrected and before long, they can be lunging with stranger aggression towards anyone they don't know unpredictably. I would keep my eye on that behaviour closely, and if she does it again, she would get a firm NO and a good leash correction if she was my dog.

I am thinking if the 10 year old is shy of dogs, a puppy may be best.........starts off small, non intimidating easier to handle perhaps. Labs and Goldens are similar in personality, similar to look at, one short coat the other longer, either make great pets

The breeders need to take responsibility for the quality of what they are producing instead of blaming the GSDC, the ANKC as the reason they are breeding non tested and titled stock. The breeders can all read a German SV manual and understand the requirements of producing quality dogs in compliance with the breed standards, but choose not to which I can't imagine why in the world any breeders dedicated to the GSD would be satisfied producing sub standard dogs when they could be breeding to world class standards, it makes no sense

The problem is, you (universal "you") read the media reports. Pitbulls look pretty bad. Wouldn't want one living next door. Nasty bloody things, turn in a flash and kill the kids. The majority of pitbulls are simply dogs, with the same attributes for their breed as other breeds. Sure, the boys may want to fight. I know plenty of reputable staffy breeders who tell owners to be careful about the staffy fighting. I tell buyers of boy boxers the very same thing. It is not in the nature of pitbulls to attack people. It never has been. They were never bred as a guarding dog. And the fight has been bred out of most of them anyhow. There are very few dog fighters about, and you wouldn't want to approach t hem as "a peer" anyhow. And the fighting dawgs are unaffected. As ever, they are underground, being abused still, while the nice family pets are the ones bearing the brunt of this. The pitbulls affected by BSL are not fighting dogs, they are simply family pets. Read my lips - it has nothing to do with pitbulls. Pitbulls were simply a breed which was chosen to be the first dog which was banned. THE FIRST DOG. Not because of anything they had done. More breeds have been added to the bans, and more will be added. More will be restricted, as in Germany. The American Pit Bull Terrier and the "media pitbull" about which we hear so much have absolutely nothing in common. Keep researching. I did. It's a shame you wont get to meet some nice pitbulls. I spent a day at an expo with a pitbull - all the kids had a cuddle, all the mums had a pat, and then said "oh, how cute what is it?" "AARRGGH, a PIT BULL!!!" They couldn't believe it. They'd been up close and personal with a PITBULL. Which in truth, was a nice small to medium sized, red dog with a red nose, and a good attitude, and a happy, waggy disposition, happy to meet and greet all comers. The really scary thing of the day was not the pitbull, it was the police GSD's escaping, and coming over to eat us, pitbull and all. There were some scared pitbull supporters and some embarrassed policemen!! Most of the people in favour of the bans have never had anything to do with the breed, so you tend to believe what is in the newspapers. How do you know they were GSD's Jed, did you see their pedigree papers and match the ear tatoo???. They may have been GSD Dutch Shepherd cross with a bit of Belgian Malinios in the mix???. Because their ears stick up, doesn't make them GSD's, and you know GSD's are not supposed to be savage by the breed standard. They must have been some cross breed dogs, couldn't be GSD's, all dogs can bite, it's the deed not the breed!!!. This is a stupid response Jed, but no more stupid than the responses from the APBT supporters which are always on the same lines as this which I have written purely to highlight how silly responses like this look in support of a breed Poor attempt at irony is actually sarcasm, the lowest form of wit. It never stops Justin, same old defence over and over again. I know two APBT breeders well who both have some truely great dogs of their own, but both have PTS several highly aggressive Pits over the years that they believed were no good for the average pet owner and a liability in the wrong hands. And there have been GSD euthed for aggression, and Amstaffs, and LGV,and cattledogs. If this is your argument, I don't think you are on the correct page. This is the page that the APBT supporters should be on if they are seriously looking to release the breed from BSL. Rarely does any APBT supporter ever admit they can be aggressive and it's always as I posted before. A bit of honesty and reality goes along way I think???

The problem is, you (universal "you") read the media reports. Pitbulls look pretty bad. Wouldn't want one living next door. Nasty bloody things, turn in a flash and kill the kids. The majority of pitbulls are simply dogs, with the same attributes for their breed as other breeds. Sure, the boys may want to fight. I know plenty of reputable staffy breeders who tell owners to be careful about the staffy fighting. I tell buyers of boy boxers the very same thing. It is not in the nature of pitbulls to attack people. It never has been. They were never bred as a guarding dog. And the fight has been bred out of most of them anyhow. There are very few dog fighters about, and you wouldn't want to approach t hem as "a peer" anyhow. And the fighting dawgs are unaffected. As ever, they are underground, being abused still, while the nice family pets are the ones bearing the brunt of this. The pitbulls affected by BSL are not fighting dogs, they are simply family pets. Read my lips - it has nothing to do with pitbulls. Pitbulls were simply a breed which was chosen to be the first dog which was banned. THE FIRST DOG. Not because of anything they had done. More breeds have been added to the bans, and more will be added. More will be restricted, as in Germany. The American Pit Bull Terrier and the "media pitbull" about which we hear so much have absolutely nothing in common. Keep researching. I did. It's a shame you wont get to meet some nice pitbulls. I spent a day at an expo with a pitbull - all the kids had a cuddle, all the mums had a pat, and then said "oh, how cute what is it?" "AARRGGH, a PIT BULL!!!" They couldn't believe it. They'd been up close and personal with a PITBULL. Which in truth, was a nice small to medium sized, red dog with a red nose, and a good attitude, and a happy, waggy disposition, happy to meet and greet all comers. The really scary thing of the day was not the pitbull, it was the police GSD's escaping, and coming over to eat us, pitbull and all. There were some scared pitbull supporters and some embarrassed policemen!! Most of the people in favour of the bans have never had anything to do with the breed, so you tend to believe what is in the newspapers. How do you know they were GSD's Jed, did you see their pedigree papers and match the ear tatoo???. They may have been GSD Dutch Shepherd cross with a bit of Belgian Malinios in the mix???. Because their ears stick up, doesn't make them GSD's, and you know GSD's are not supposed to be savage by the breed standard. They must have been some cross breed dogs, couldn't be GSD's, all dogs can bite, it's the deed not the breed!!!. This is a stupid response Jed, but no more stupid than the responses from the APBT supporters which are always on the same lines as this which I have written purely to highlight how silly responses like this look in support of a breed :D Poor attempt at irony is actually sarcasm, the lowest form of wit. It never stops Justin, same old defence over and over again. I know two APBT breeders well who both have some truely great dogs of their own, but both have PTS several highly aggressive Pits over the years that they believed were no good for the average pet owner and a liability in the wrong hands.