Plan B

Right. The owners are lazy, so it's fine a dog died? You can berate them all you like but that's not educating and that's not trying to prevent dogs needlessly being killed in pounds. Nowhere in the article did it say there was anything negative about the dog's behaviour. In fact, the quote from the Council's team leader suggests the only reason this dog was killed is because information didn't reach people in time and: The fact that the Council don't even seem to know the legislation in NSW (even if the dog was declared a "Pit Bull," if owners were able to comply with the requirements of keeping it then the Council would have been obligated to return the dog) is appalling. The fact that they bypassed a breed assessment because of their own prejudices is outrageous. I don't understand why a dog dying, needlessly and without other avenues being explored, is okay just because its owners let it down.

The dog was put down because the owner failed to: a) microchip b) register the dog with Council c) claim it after 7 days I agree with mita. If the above were the reasons the dog got put down, why wasn't the other dog put down at the same time? Maybe the other dog was chipped or registered, or they were trying to locate the owners? Someone has said the other dog wasn't theirs, it was apparently at their house but belongs to someone else. Regardless, the dog wasn't put down because it was un-microchipped, unregistered, and not claimed within 7 days. It was put down because the pound decided they did not like the look of it and, instead of giving it a chance to either a) go home or b) find a new home, they killed it. Telling owners they are irresponsible and have let their dog down is one thing - but letting pounds get away with needlessly killing is another.

I'll never understand what knowing Bull Breeds has to do with anything. If she's not good with smaller animals, there's plenty of non-Bull Breed experienced people who can manage that. It's not exactly an exclusive Bull Breed behaviour. /rawr. She looks like a lovely girl - I'm a sucker for the sadsack faces.

The owners are to blame for their dog ending up there but the pound are to blame for failing to seek other alternatives to death. Given their complete lack of understanding of the law, I wonder how many other dogs are quickly disposed of once they become Council's property. We shouldn't forget that just because a pound operated within the system, it doesn't mean that system is just. And just because the owners failed to chip or register their dog, the dog shouldn't have paid with its life.

Investigation for dog fighting? Could you link me to something official? Being realistic isn't being in denial. Dog fighting is barely a blip on the radar - it's not in every council area, in every state, in every country, all occurring at the same time while the criminals fiddle with their stickers and ribbons.

The statement is worth quoting.

So, you caught the "dog fighters" then? Otherwise, how can you be sure the dog wasn't just mauled by another dog in a non-dog fighting scenario? Until police catch dog fighters and all other scenarios can be ruled out, do you think it wise to state as a fact (as you have above) that some are being taken for dog fighting?

Because they are simply more credible than what someone on a forum is saying about their own experience - an opinion that isn't backed up with recorded data, that doesn't take into account many factors, nor does is include the experiences of the majority across the country.

So, instead of looking at the statistics and data as we know it, regardless of how incomplete or unreliable it may be, we're going to look to anecdotal evidence from a select few to tell us there is a major problem with bull breeds in this country? And then we're going to sit around and discuss the positive steps to take so that this problem, that doesn't actually exist, is solved? I just don't know how someone is supposed to show you the positive steps being taken on a non-issue? Look to rescues, advocate groups, educational programs, maybe? Other countries that have safer communities and implement models that do what they say on the tin (like the Calgary Model). They're mostly all about responsible ownership of dogs (as a whole).

Any. Pick one. Find a statistic that supports the position that we have a major problem with bull breeds. Heck, go with any and all breeds. I am 100% confident we have no major problem with any breed in this country because incidents of attacks across the board are so incredibly low, there cannot be a major problem. Add to the fact people go on and on about how popular bull breeds are and how many there are around and the fact incidents with them are so low shows exactly the opposite of a major problem. When people make statements that we have a major problem with not just one breed, but a collection of breeds and crossbreeds, and cannot provide anything but personal experience to back that position up, there is no credibility. It is just opinion. And let's not forget that the problem is more often with the owner. I agree completely. With great power comes great responsibility. But that's not the point I was trying to get across. My issue is with assumptions and opinions being put forth as facts and when those 'facts' are disputed, people are accused of having their head in the sand, when it's mostly the other way around. I also think that singling out one or several breeds is completely the wrong way to go about educating people about dogs.

What do I need to convince them of? Bad experiences only serve to sway their opinion - but it doesn't make opinion a fact. We do not have a bull breed problem in this country. Every statistic we have shows we don't. Especially when we don't have a dangerous dog problem in this country. What do you possibly have to back up your statements other than you own feelings? I don't think you're making it up. I run into a lot of idiot owners. A few own staffies, a few own kelpies, a few own cattle dogs, a few own maltese. Those (and their crosses) are the top breeds I see with reckless owners attached to them on a daily basis. This doesn't tell me anything other than people can be idiots.

But there really isn't, when you take into the account how many 'bull breeds' [we're talking about a few breeds and, I assume, crosses here] there are that are never a problem and don't make the headlines. I'd love to see accurate statistics that show this country has a major problem with bull breeds, as opposed to a major problem with education and community safety. Every dog, of any breed, attracts incompetent and irresponsible owners. Yes, bull breeds are very popular in general. And the fact they're not in the news multiple times a day attacking someone or something just shows how the majority of owners are capable, educated, and well equipped, and how the majority of dogs are not a problem. We have to remember that bull breeds and their crosses [again, so many breeds in that] aren't some magical unicorn species of the dog world that need extra special ownership. They are dogs, first and foremost. What people need to look at is individual dogs within breeds that may need specific environments and owners. There's no point looking at the pounds to tell us where there's a problem. A huge percentage of dogs in the pounds are crossbreeds of unknown genetics. And then there's the fact a huge percentage of crossbreeds in the pounds are happy, friendly, well-adjusted dogs that go on to find homes, which clearly shows the problem was never with the dog in the first place. So no, I don't believe we have a major problem with bull breeds in this country. I also don't believe we have a major problem with dangerous dogs, considering the percentage of attacks across the board is so low.

It's pretty sad when we have people coming to us asking if we have pugs because they've been searching for one in rescue for a really long time but have been turned down because they both work or they don't have another dog or because their dog is [insert breed here]. We've helped a couple of families find their pugs in the pounds and they have been wonderful families, sending updates routinely, so thankful they were, I guess, given a chance to do the right thing. Ideals are great to have but the individual dog is what matters.

Not really. It was more staff changeover and then needing to redo the letters months after because the Director General was no longer the same, and then a fire at the office. Would love to meet a council that takes a year to research one group.

Yep, don't worry, I had the same "WTF" moment when we first applied. It's relatively straightforward and easy - the worst part is waiting for councils to send their letters of support. One council we applied to took almost a year to send theirs and several reminders. :/

You only need contact the councils for one specific pound. For instance, with Renbury, you need to contact the four councils they are contracted to. Once you've been issued with your Clause 16d, you then just need to show other pounds you intend to work with (or they themselves can check your status). You don't need to contact every council that every pound works with.

It is.

Legal support officer, anyway. Wonder how her employers would feel about that email.

I thought I was pretty clear in comparing myself to the people behind the articles by encouraging people without causing hysteria? If that wasn't clear, then apologies for the misunderstanding.

I don't really know what's going on here. I don't need to live in an area to know that there is very little factual evidence given in the articles widely circulated. Nor do I need to live in the area to read the MP's comments that malign specific breeds in said articles. I don't need to live in the area to see these particular approaches as a thinly disguised assault on specific breeds. I also don't need to live in the area to know about the area, nor do I need to live in the area to speak with police about these cases. And I don't need to live in the area to point out all of these things.

I agree with keeping pets safe (obviously) and reminding people to do that. I don't believe in continuously associating breeds with dog fighting rings that there are no evidence of. Seems ridiculous to me for people to not just jump to conclusions but to also share articles where MP's are quoted as saying Staffies and crossbreeds are vicious and aggressive. You asked what you should do. I said keep your dogs safe. And that by telling you to keep your dogs safe, I didn't need to resort to implying it's because your dogs are going to get ripped limb by limb by 'vicious and aggressive' Staffies. It's a commentary on the articles.

I didn't imply they did? I was referring to the article.

The fact that it's misinformation that is circulated at the expense of an already maligned breed? There's a way to educate that doesn't do this and those methods should always be supported above the ones here. Nic.B, keep your dogs safe. There, I encouraged you to do so without calling Staffies and crossbreeds vicious or aggressive, or insinuating that all they're good for is dog fighting rings.

With evidence, not unsubstantiated claims that not only give owners misinformation, but also continue to malign certain breeds. Specific breeds get stolen because they're popular. It's also worth noting that almost every time there are sudden crime waves that are suspected to be dog fighting rings, there are instances of it happening all over the world at the exact same time. Whether it be England, the USA, Canada, etc. The common denominator is always hysterical people and social networks. It's the whole sticker thing all over again (or, should I say, continued?). There's no doubt in my mind dogs get stolen for dog fighting - it's a very real thing - but it's not around every corner, in every suburb, of every city, of every state. It's not as common as people like to make out. And I'd put money on the fact that so many dogs who are reported as stolen, have actually just escaped, and the owner isn't clued-in enough to realise how the dog got out. In one article, Hawkesbury MP Ray Williams was quoted as saying: That's an article that has been shared countless times. An article with ignorant, damaging words that further perpetuate a dangerous stereotype that sees certain breeds killed, based on looks alone. And an article that has absolutely no evidence to back up any of what has been claimed. Unsubstantiated articles like these are never a good thing.

That was Zinc, who is my foster. Our carer was doing a vet-run for me. Zinc is the pup who had to fight off three infections and was on a drip for a week. Took a long time before she was eating properly again but she's finally there and now growing!