m-sass

If the cost of the puppy was higher than one from the litter not considered a breeding prospect, the cost difference is most definitely arguable if the puppy didn't turn out. It's not just bad luck that a breeder keeps a fist full of money for supplying a dud priced as a breeding show prospect??.

And the truth is a statutory defence to a defamation case, so if a vet (qualified opinion) tells the owner that their pup has health defect, publishing the breeders name of the defective pup is not defamation unless the breeder didn't supply the pup or the pup isn't defective :) Actually the breeder can still take the buyer to court. It is then up to the buyer to prove that it is true. The breeder can also take Troy to court. Defamation/libel suits are the least successful and is a massively expensive exercise for the complainant. Once a statutory defence is filed in response to the complaint, no lawyers will take on a case like that which will last 30 seconds in court and the complainant gets the defendants costs ordered against them........most defamation/libel cases are resolved out of court.........you can actually publish a retraction also.

how do you know he was not? I assumed he wasn't supervised given that his life was taken, if he was supervised at the time,the mission was sadly unsucessful I guess??.

Yes, that's the line I take in those situations then I ask to see a copy of the publication that may be referred to and unless they can justify the order with validity I ignor them. How arrogant. Do you take this line with the police too? Police have a bit more of an official obligation to know what they are talking about, you would be surprised how many weekend warrior type authoritarians merely work from what someone has told them and often they are wrong in their understanding of law and regulations.

Yes, that's the line I take in those situations then I ask to see a copy of the publication that may be referred to and unless they can justify the order with validity I ignor them.

That's tragic news sorry to hear that, but may I ask why was poor little Sarge not supervised in the back yard knowing the dog next door can jump the fence and Sarge was vulnerable to further incident?

And the truth is a statutory defence to a defamation case, so if a vet (qualified opinion) tells the owner that their pup has health defect, publishing the breeders name of the defective pup is not defamation unless the breeder didn't supply the pup or the pup isn't defective :)

For a dog to do what Ayen's killer did, the dog had a serious case of genetic predisposition for aggression and where the anti BSL argument falls down is the belief that all breeds are on a level playing field gentically, they are not. If all breeds according to many of the anti BSL activists are on a level playing field aggression, courage and gameness wise, the police and military would just use anything of meduin to large size as tactical dogs, they would just use a Standard Poodle, Labrador, Greyhound whatever, same would apply with hunting/pigging dogs, just use anything,they all have teeth,they can all bite, but the problem is, they can't all do the job, Standard Poodles don't have the genetic hardness to take the place of a GSD or Belgian Malinois for tactical work, neither does a Labrador to hunt wild pigs and when people create random BYB mixtures of hard dog breeds like Ayen's killer, it's doesn't take a lot in mismatch of traits in the breeding process to create high level aggression, short nerve foggy headed dogs to perform grave acts of misplaced aggression as occurred in this case. A quality Pitbull is the least of their problems really, it's the BYB crap with mixtures of hard dog breeds randomly put together that don't fit safely into the community IMHO, the owner of Ayen's killer could have had an attack trained Rottweiler or GSD to guard his property which still wouldn't have gone to the extreme that his BYB landshark did, it's not like poor little Ayen wandered across the road and poked the dog in the eye and it reacted, the dog chased someone else to begin with then redirected onto Ayen, even in defensive aggression the dog was a piece of crap having no focus, no clarity and randomly attacking passive targets, even in a protection sense, it wasn't a good dog's toe nail, we all know that??.

Have to comment here though....you seriously think a Lab or GSD couldn't attack and kill a child? Attitudes like yours are the reason other breeds DO attack children, we don't need to worry 'cause it's a Lab, it wouldn't hurt a fly right? You shouldn't have to worry about a dog from across the road charging into your front yard,then into your house killing a toddler inside, do you know of any Labs or GSD's who have done that and does anyone own any dogs of those breeds they would suspect could do the same if they got out?.

I didn't even bother getting involved in the first place :laugh: Probably why the anti BSL crusades are not working when the activists too quickly run out of valid debate.

Of course the BSL law doesn't work if it's not policed........same as speeding and drink driving would be without radar, cameras and RBT's, so what are you prescribing then, because the BSL laws are not policed effectively, may as well drop the law in that case??. The GSD and Rottweiler are renowned and iconic breeds capable of training to attack humans and guard property and the breed especially the GSD is largely represented in the community, collectively the two breeds out number restricted breeds by a county mile, however they rarely feature in serious attacks and given the amount of them out there, there are bound to be morons who own them too, so what's the difference in the fact that most of the serious attacks or deaths are not caused by GSD's & Rottweilers to the extent that they are caused by some Bull come Mastiff variety?? In my experience it's in the genetics of the breed, a reason why professionals in the K9 security business don't use Bull type breeds as their brain power, trainability and potential handler control is vastly limited in comparison.........do you know how much specialised training is required for a GSD, Rottweiler or a Belgian Malinois to do a building search and apprehend an offender??, Ayen's killer did that without training and sadly took down an innocent toddler..........brainless moron of a dog it was, it didn't know the difference between passive and threat in it's unfocused rampage, neither could it stay on target, the dog went from chasing someone else then redirected onto poor little Ayen, the dog was a peice of shit genetically, a crafted piece of excellence configured by a mixture of breeds in a BYB program.....wonderful NOT. If the donkey owner of that dog wanted some K9 protection and deterrent factor in the home and got a proper dog from a proper breeder experienced at configuring correct genetic factors in proper breeds that can defend when "NECESSARY" with a clear head, poor little Ayen's life wouldn't have been wasted like it was IMHO........sure it was the owners fault for allowing the dog to get out, but once out the machinery to kill was in the dog's make up, a fact that too many anti BSL activists choose to ignor. How do you know it was because of its genetic make up and not because of the way it was trained or if it had been abused? So are you saying we should get rid of mastiffs as well? The dog has to have the genetic make up to attack and fight in the first place whether that result be from training, abuse or whatever otherwise under pressure the dog will flee or remain neutral to pressure. A dog with a default behaviour towards active aggression (social aggression) or defence aggression (fear aggression) is a genetic behaviour........noted in the Ayen case, the owner couldn't get the dog to release either meaning that the dog was not clear headed in the fight, in other words just a nutcase who lost the plot in aggressive rage.

Of course the BSL law doesn't work if it's not policed........same as speeding and drink driving would be without radar, cameras and RBT's, so what are you prescribing then, because the BSL laws are not policed effectively, may as well drop the law in that case??. The GSD and Rottweiler are renowned and iconic breeds capable of training to attack humans and guard property and the breed especially the GSD is largely represented in the community, collectively the two breeds out number restricted breeds by a county mile, however they rarely feature in serious attacks and given the amount of them out there, there are bound to be morons who own them too, so what's the difference in the fact that most of the serious attacks or deaths are not caused by GSD's & Rottweilers to the extent that they are caused by some Bull come Mastiff variety?? In my experience it's in the genetics of the breed, a reason why professionals in the K9 security business don't use Bull type breeds as their brain power, trainability and potential handler control is vastly limited in comparison.........do you know how much specialised training is required for a GSD, Rottweiler or a Belgian Malinois to do a building search and apprehend an offender??, Ayen's killer did that without training and sadly took down an innocent toddler..........brainless moron of a dog it was, it didn't know the difference between passive and threat in it's unfocused rampage, neither could it stay on target, the dog went from chasing someone else then redirected onto poor little Ayen, the dog was a peice of shit genetically, a crafted piece of excellence configured by a mixture of breeds in a BYB program.....wonderful NOT. If the donkey owner of that dog wanted some K9 protection and deterrent factor in the home and got a proper dog from a proper breeder experienced at configuring correct genetic factors in proper breeds that can defend when "NECESSARY" with a clear head, poor little Ayen's life wouldn't have been wasted like it was IMHO........sure it was the owners fault for allowing the dog to get out, but once out the machinery to kill was in the dog's make up, a fact that too many anti BSL activists choose to ignor.

All that Australia has done with BSL is adopted other countries breed lists from around the world as most BSL breed lists globally are much the same. We would never know if BSL reduces bite statistics here unless we had the full range of restricted breeds in plentiful supply to determine the damage they caused if any. Having said that though, I would be confident to say that littel Ayen would still be alive if the owners of the dog who killed her had a Standard Poodle, Labrador or GSD instead of the dog they had??

Yes I agree which should also be the concepts of a good trainer. What annoys me generally marketed by positive type trainers is a statement about how they don't use "shock" collars for instance followed by a spiel about how bad "shock" collars are.......their marketing is all about what they don't use and what they don't like instead of marketing what they can do and what they have achieved. I don't think any one method fits all and all methods and tools from clickers to Ecollars have their place on the dogs who respond to those methods and tools the best.

I don't think the OP is actually looking for a guard dog that would actually bite someone :) Simply a large dog that would be a deterrent due to size/appearance/maybe bark. Most dark coloured large dogs would work for this. The OP also said they don't want a Rotty and if they don't want to do a lot of exercise and don't want too much hair, then a GSD is also out. Yes, I do understand that, but my point in a deterrent factor is that potentially harmful crooks are not naive in sizing up breeds they can diffuse and breeds they won't take the chance with?. A cousin of ours is a police officer and was stationed for a few years in an area of a high crime rate was telling us about the effectivness that both GSD's and Rotties particularly provide above all other breeds unless the other breeds display active aggression and viciousness?. He was saying even an unassuming seemingly passive GSD/Rotty left too many boxes unticked for the crook to be confident that the dog will remain passive and homes with especially GSD's and Rotties were the least affected by criminal activity, he said also that some crooks they caught had mud maps with GSD/Rotty homes crossed off their hit list and were the breeds most feared by the criminal sector and were the breeds most known to cause nasty injuries to offenders who did try to enter their territory uninvited? The point my cousin was making in regard to his experience of dog breeds in a family environment was that you didn't need aggression from GSD's and Rotties to provide the same deterrent value as a vicious dog of another breed in regard to how crooks size dogs up..........he has two GSD's himself as family pets and guardians :)

As far as I am concerned, there are only two breeds worthy of genuine intimidation towards potential offenders/intruders which is primarily the GSD and Rottweiler and also probably a Belgian Malinois and Dobermann fits the bill too. Crooks know the trainability levels in guarding/protection that can be attained with these breeds which they fear and they never know what they could be trained to achieve, even a seemingly quite and reserved GSD or Rotty, the crooks can never be sure at what point these breeds may spring into action. Same goes for coming face to face with an intruder, threatening to release a GSD or Rotty to defend has a greater impact on the offender IMHO that the dog may be attack trained than threatening to release a breed that isn't used in those roles. Crooks know what breeds professionals use in guarding/security which provides an added bluff factor, but unless a Mastiff or breeds of that nature are showing strong aggression and gnashing teeth, the crooks know that the dog is no real threat where a GSD or Rotty retains the mystique, will it attack on command, will it attack if they jump the fence or approach the house etc.........I just think if guarding is a role required of a dog, use a breed well known and easily identified as a breed that can do the job properly??

Wouldn't you be better off using a breed proven capable in guarding/protection roles actively used by professionals in the security industry for the best opportunity for people not trying their luck with like the GSD??.

Your mum is best to ask the council for times and dates when her dog was supposedly barking then deny that it was her dog and tell the council there must be some mistake or the complainant is making false allegations.

No, as the dogs were younger than allowed. Dogs born or entering the state after a particular date (I think it was September 2010 from memory) cannot even be registered as restricted breeds and kept in the prescribed way, they MUST be destroyed. It just may have meant that they wouldn't have been on the Council's radar. But had they come to their attention in some other way they'd still have been in the same boat, registered or not. The defence was that they weren't restricted breeds so why didn't the owners register them at 3 months?. Why also did the owner go to the council to make enqiries about the dogs breed eligibility.......why would anyone do that if their dogs breeds are compliant

What about about the genetic factor and the difficulty managing a dog predisposed with aggression.......drop the leash with a dog like that and it will cause harm to a person or another dog/animal. I have never heard so much absolute nonesense that bad owners are the cause of aggression in all dogs.........ask some behaviourists how many human/animal aggressive dogs they work with that has nothing to do with the owners or how the dog was raised, generally the problem is that the owners don't know how to manage an aggressive dog, but give the same owners a genetically stable dog of good temperament, they would have no problems managing a dog like that. You're sounding like the rooster who believes his crow causes the sun to rise each morning. Sure, some people do argue that pitbulls are no more likely to bite than other breeds, but it's a moot point. BSL has repeatedly failed to bring about public safety improvements. Get rid of all the pitbulls and pitbull crosses, you still have a problem. Calgary has had a nett increase in their pitbull population coinciding with a an improvement in public safety outcomes. How do you explain that? I am not debating whether or not BSL is right or wrong........I am speaking purely on the fact that BSL is law and what we need to do for compliance and to minimise heartache and devistation in this present BSL affected climate. Obviously going to a VCAT hearing and telling the panel that BSL is bullshit and my Pitbull X won't hurt anyone and done nothing wrong doesn't overturn the decision to euthanise, neither will quoting statistics from Calgary, but choosing a breed of dog that doesn't comply with the restricted breed standard will avoid seizure and the loss of much loved pets to me is a no brainer, so if you want to play with fire by all means get a BYB Bully crossbreed, if you want to play it safe with a dog the rangers won't be chasing up to seize it, get a papered Bull breed or a crossbreed that doesn't fit the restricted breed standard.....just need to use some common sense really :)

So you believe in keeping the general public ignorant about the evidence which points to how human life can be protected from seriously aggressive dogs? And thereby reinforcing stereotypes that come from lack of knowledge gained from science? While more beneficial ways to ensure dog safety are not followed up on? What you're preaching is endangerment based on omission. That is, failing to address the factors where danger comes from. Which is why you cite not one scrap of evidence for your opinion Your position is part of the problem. No, I believe in reality........it's absolute fantasy IMHO that minority opinion will repeal restricted breed laws as there are too many general dog haters out there to convince and governments are NOT going to repeal laws based on minority opinion in regard to public safety.......it's like raising the drink driving limit, it's not going to happen whether it's right or wrong.

What about about the genetic factor and the difficulty managing a dog predisposed with aggression.......drop the leash with a dog like that and it will cause harm to a person or another dog/animal. I have never heard so much absolute nonesense that bad owners are the cause of aggression in all dogs.........ask some behaviourists how many human/animal aggressive dogs they work with that has nothing to do with the owners or how the dog was raised, generally the problem is that the owners don't know how to manage an aggressive dog, but give the same owners a genetically stable dog of good temperament, they would have no problems managing a dog like that.

Undesired by who? I know plenty of people who enjoy the APBT as a breed, I quite like them as well (if you haven't noticed) :laugh: I think regardless of whether you are a fan of the APBT or not, we all need to work together to remove these laws. The posts in this thread have opened my eyes up with how bad they actually are. In a perfect world Bear and Kooda would be the last dogs that fall victim to these laws. Totally agree. The law needs changing. Nobody is any safer with Bear and Kooda dead. That is what the law is meant to be all about. This system we have at the moment will be changed. No true dog lover would agree with these laws, whether the victim is purebred or a cross. To change the law would mean Pitbull's being removed from BSL is the only way crossbreeds of a Bull variety of unknown parentage that fit the restricted breed standard could be saved.......bearing in mind the dogs involved in incidents for the most part labelled as Pitbull's are crossbreeds according to the Pitbull enthusiasts so who in authority or political influence is going to free up the very type of dog responsible for Ayen's death.........let's be realistic, it's not going to happen in a general public versus Bull crossbreed lovers, Ayen's death would have upset more people than the death of Bear and Kooda, dogs as much as we would like to think so, don't rate above human life, it's just how it works?. It boils down IMHO to the situation can a member of the public avoid placing themselves and their dogs in these terrible situations, do we have to breed and own dogs who fit the restricted breed standard like there are no other options.......of course not, there are hundreds of different breed types and combinations to choose from that are totally safe from BSL, even if people want a dog that matches the restricted breed standard they can have one of them too in a papered Amstaff from a registered breeder, so basically they have clamped down on BYB's and puppy farmers churning out Bull crossbreeds matching restricted breed descriptions.......so what are we fighting for, the ability for BYB's and puppy farmers to flourish is what it amounts to??. What we should be doing IMHO is advising people to avoid BYB bull breeds given the BSL status and directing them towards registered Bull breeders supplying papered dogs, infact the BSL status reinforces a good reason not to support random Bull breedings, BYB's and puppy farmers at the end of the day, that's where these dogs like Bear and Kooda come from??.

Undesired by who? I know plenty of people who enjoy the APBT as a breed, I quite like them as well (if you haven't noticed) :laugh: I think regardless of whether you are a fan of the APBT or not, we all need to work together to remove these laws. The posts in this thread have opened my eyes up with how bad they actually are. In a perfect world Bear and Kooda would be the last dogs that fall victim to these laws. I think many people retain a high enough reflex level to drive a car safely over a blood alcohol reading of .05, like the Pitbull, it doesn't matter if the breed is safe or not or the driver over .05 is safe or not, the law is the law and if you get caught breaking the law expect the consequences is my point. I agree that it is terribly sad what happened to Bear and Kooda but the law is the law and is not without fair warning in regard to the APBT as it has been a restricted breed for 20 years........there is no way in a pink fit that I would own a Bull breed other than an ANKC papered pure breed, neither would I drive after having a few drinks, so what I am saying is that these terrible consequences can easily be avoided with a little fore thought and responsibility.

I'm a bit curious because the appearance of Bear and Kooda puzzled me. They don't look at all pitty to me and given that they have been found to 'comply with the standard', it has made me even more puzzled. I know that crossbreeding is fraught with randomness etc but my question is - is it possible for two dogs that have absolutely no pitbull in them to be crossed and end up with dogs that look like Bear and Kooda? i.e. could crosses derived from Rhodesian Ridgeback/Dane/[other] ever end up with dogs looking like Beer and Kooda if they were combined with a SBT/Boxer/bull mastiff/dogue? It's the "style" of dog they are after is more to the point and not without surprise really given the amoint of anti BSL activists claiming that dogs labelled Pitbull's in media sensationalism are crossbreeds which appears that the Government has taken that on board to now include crossbreeds??. Perhaps if the anti BSL activists and pro Pitbull supporters were not so vocal in protection of their desired breed claiming that everything labelled a Pitbull was an incorrect breed assessment and the dogs involved were crossbreeds, I am thinking the crossbreed may still be safe from BSL possibly??. Personally, I don't think too many people in the greater community could pick a genuine Pitbull out anyway......I have never seen two dogs declared as genuine Pitbull's by their owners that look the same?? Unfortunately, the restricted breed standard doesn't contain a social behaviour component.......ideally it should be the basis of the need for seizure.......interestingly the Tonka case where strangers to the dog broke into the owners home and seized the dog.......if Tonka didn't attack these invaders which he had the rights to do so.......he's a pretty stable dog of little danger to the public in that case........to me he passsed an aggression test at the highest level, but temperament and stability of character is not the criteria??.