Aidan3

Deep. Nonsensical. But deep. Look it up, Fonzie.

Someone just jumped the shark :laugh:

Jed was putting forward an example, the dog was not a pit bull.

I've always dealt with this problem fairly easily by teaching the dog to target with their nose. There will be lots of videos on YouTube (suggest kikopup's channel) teaching this. The idea is that you have them do something 'operant', engaging the 'thinking' bits of the brain and keeping those parts busy so they're not thinking about what the 'emotional' parts of the brain are telling them (in theory). Teach targeting away from the tiled areas and build it up to a reasonably strong response before you attempt to have your dog target something requiring him to walk on the tiles. Use his meals to teach this, all dogs are food motivated unless they are very sick.

Yeah? That's pretty crazy :laugh:

I don't think he's the other person, nor a troll. That's what worries me! What we're seeing is not too far from public opinion.

So was the SBT. Aphra asked about the evidence that suggested they were a danger to the public. Wrong again. Facts aren't a biggie here obviously. Oh dear, how about you put the condescension aside until you learn a bit more about the history of the breeds mentioned and the reasons for their banning? The SBT had more "fighting" heritage than the other breeds cited. So the reason you gave is just more waffle. The SBT, as a breed, has been never bred for the pits. And that's a fact jack. No kidding! Care to tell me more about the fila and dogo too? :laugh:

So was the SBT. Aphra asked about the evidence that suggested they were a danger to the public. Wrong again. Facts aren't a biggie here obviously. Oh dear, how about you put the condescension aside until you learn a bit more about the history of the breeds mentioned and the reasons for their banning? The SBT had more "fighting" heritage than the other breeds cited. So the reason you gave is just more waffle.

So was the SBT. Aphra asked about the evidence that suggested they were a danger to the public.

Well now I've heard it all :laugh:

You're a purebreed dog owner who values your dog, do you do all those things? Absolutely. You walk your dog in a muzzle and restricted collar? What would you do if your neighbours weren't on-side?

You're a purebreed dog owner who values your dog, do you do all those things?

I have no idea what you mean. But you're right, Victorians are beyond help.

Apologies, I'd actually misread steamboat's post and thought their pup was not registered but the parents were. You are probably right on this point, does anyone know of any test cases involving a staff?

Not really, There are about 150 recognised pure breeds on the ANKC register. So there's plenty of choice. But it certainly wont say it's a pitbull or any mixture of x breeds & that's a fact Irrelevant. If you tried to register your dog in Vic, presented the documentation you have as proof, your dog would most likely be seized and destroyed. I think part of your feeling attacked is because you don't seem to understand the ramifications of the legislation in Victoria today, and how much worse it will get if the coroner's recommendations are enacted.

I don't know how many times one has to repeat something before it gets through the ingrained bias rife here. But, again. I agreed with the coroner that owners of the suspected restricted dogs should be liable to for the indentification of the breed & not the councils which declare them.. That, & "bad laws are still laws" are the sum totals of my crimes against the rabid mob mentallity. While you all rail against crimes against the ''innocent'' yet practice exactly the tactics you complain about. Starts with an aitch folks a capitol AITCH. Which is a response to ... I don't what the hell it's the response to but it sure ain't a response to my post. No, no, some good points there. A capitol AITCH, I hadn't thought of it that way before. Kind of makes you think.

Good grief, The much lamented 26 point plan has been around in Qld for well over a decade. Of all the states in Australia, Qld has been the most ruthless, & most criticised, destroyer of pit bulls for the longest time. It is hard to imagine anyone in Qld would take on a dog of the "type", sans documentation to the contrary, without knowing the danger they were putting the dog in. Different state, different process. You haven't addressed Cosmolo's argument by this analogy, merely put forward another straw man.

It depends what the problem is, and the best diagnostic test seems to be a 'try it and see' approach. However, and this is important, any trial needs fair and objective measures. Whilst underlying affective states may change, learned behaviours may persist. So it's easy to get 'false negatives' (same with medication, although meds can be stronger and have other effects which are more noticeable). My previous GSD was from working lines and tryptophan quite literally changed her life, so drive isn't necessarily a problem. She still had loads of drive after treatment, also. But yeah, meds often provide the only real solution for truly biological causes of anxious, fearful, and reactive behaviour.

I'll be honest with you, if your dog isn't getting enough of any of these in his diet he has far bigger problems than being reactive. I would save the money. If you want to try a dietary supplement that is likely to provide behavioural benefits, the Troy 'Behave' paste is your best bet. Tryptophan is the likely active ingredient that your dog will benefit from, which is a precursor to serotonin (the neurotransmitter than Endep and Prozac mostly work to increase). If the 'Behave' works, then a cheaper source of tryptophan is 'Good as Gold' which you can buy from horse tack suppliers. 0.1gm/kg of 'Good as Gold' is about right (1 tsp for a large dog).

Greater penalties for negligent actions that lead to injury or fatality should attract a stiffer penalty regardless of breed or the appearance of the dog. This is the current position, as it stands today. Boom, boom indeed.

No, you're supposed to use your brain. If someone has 8000 posts, the odds of them being a troll are slim to none. You might call it 'evidence'. Such as your three pitbull owning friends? Or have they turned their dogs in? What point do you imagine you are making with this hypothetical? We should ban semi-sharp knives? Make anyone who owns a semi-sharp serrated knife a suspect until they can prove that it wasn't them? Here's a challenge that might provide you with some badly needed insight. Prove that you aren't a troll.

Actually I do, but even if I didn't do you think it's sensible to continue with a failed approach? There is a long history of BSL around the world, with even more strict laws than Victoria, and it does not improve public safety. The AVA has put forward this case strongly. This site gives an overview of one approach which has been an outstanding success: http://www.stopcanineprofiling.com/calgary.keys.php They don't have to do any such thing. If they choose to refute evidence, that evidence must be brought forward by the complainant not the defendant. Can you see why this is vastly different to what the coroner has proposed and why it would be such a gross injustice? Cosmolo, who has over 8000 posts here? OK then...

Part of reasoned debate is to provide a counter-argument. It is entirely reasonable for others to point out weaknesses and problems in your argument. It is up to you to validate your own opinions with a reasoned argument in return. You seem to think your opinion is valid regardless of any flaws. Maybe start by answering Cosmolo's concerns? Do you think it's reasonable that responsible dog owners such as Cosmolo should have to live in fear of losing their dog for the sake of a few 'bogans' (as you put it)? What about my 'burden of proof' concerns? Should we apply this to other areas of the law? If I wish to accuse someone of theft, should they be required to prove that they have not stolen? Is the small matter of innocent people being found guilty worth it to put a few 'bogans' off stealing? Pretty soon we'll have prisons full of innocent people, but at least the bogans will show a bit of restraint. It's worth it to not have to worry about actual theft, right? Yes. This is ENTIRELY unacceptable, I agree. That the coroner should seek to bolster laws which, after decades of failure all over the world, have been demonstrated not to improve public safety is terrifying. You would think that this would be a wake up call to legislators to get off their bums and inform themselves of the solutions that do actually improve public safety - rather than just giving the ignorant majority something to froth over. A child died and nothing effective was done.

I would encourage intelligent alternatives, but not politically motivated pandering. Not agreeing with you is not the same as having 'tunnel vision' or belonging to a clique. If you can't come up with a reasoned rebuttal, throwing insults around won't make your argument any more compelling.

Yes, I really only brought that up to make the point that even if we could provide conclusive evidence that the dog was not a pitbull or pitbull cross, the dog would still be destroyed for looking like a pitbull cross. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous.