mikebailey

http://goodfordogs.org/blog/2011/09/03/checklist-for-dog-snatchers/ Owners Fear Their Dogs Will Be Wrongly Identified ================================================= An increasing number of Victorians are currently terrified that their family pets will be seized and killed by Council Officers. The Victorian Government wants to rid the state of ‘Pit Bulls’ and has enacted new laws to enable a cull. These laws enable Council officers to seize and kill dogs they believe look like American Pit Bull Terriers. Breed Standards Not Valid For Identifying Breed =============================================== Key to this process is the release by the Minister of the ‘Standard For Restricted Breed Dogs in Victoria’. As we will see below, this is basically a rearrangement and rewording of the official breed standards for the breeds in question. The problem is, breed standards are intended for dog show judges to use when comparing dogs of a known pedigree. That Won’t Stop This Government =============================== The Minister has released an identification standard (download here) created by three individuals who we believe wish to remain anonymous. The work they have produced has not been scientifically validated. No evidence has been provided to allay fears that it will produce false positives. Given its intention is to decide the fates of family pets this is unacceptable. Thinly Veiled Copy of UKC Breed Standard ======================================== Did you ever do a school project by copying text from a single book and simply rearranging sentences and making cosmetic changes to avoid accusations of plagiarism? The authors of our ‘approved standard’ appear to have done just this. The section on American Pit Bull Terriers reads like a thinly veiled reworking of the United Kennel Club’s breed standard for APBT’s. Muzzle ------ Slightly shorter in length to the skull (i.e. 2:3 ratio for muzzle:skull). It is broad, deep and powerful with a slight taper to the nose and falls away slightly under the eyes (refer figure 4). UKC: The muzzle is broad and deep with a very slight taper from the stop to the nose, and a slight falling away under the eyes. The length of muzzle is shorter than the length of skull, with a ratio of approximately 2:3. Skull ----- Large, fairly flat, broad and deep, slightly tapering towards the stop. There is a deep median furrow reducing in depth from stop to occiput. Cheek muscles are prominent but free of wrinkles. When the dog is alerted wrinkles will form on the forehead. UKC: The skull is large, flat or slightly rounded, deep, and broad between the ears. Viewed from the top, the skull tapers just slightly toward the stop. There is a deep median furrow that diminishes in depth from the stop to the occiput. Cheek muscles are prominent but free of wrinkles. When the dog is concentrating, wrinkles form on the forehead, which give the APBT his unique expression. Nose ---- Large with wide open nostrils and may be of any colour. UKC: The nose is large with wide, open nostrils. The nose may be any color. Eyes ---- Medium in size, round in shape and set low in the head – not prominent. Eyes can be all colours except blue. The eye rims are the same colour as the skin colour. UKC: Eyes are medium size, round to almond-shaped, and set well apart and low on the skull. All colors are equally acceptable except blue, which is a serious fault. Haw should not be visible. Neck ---- Moderate length and with great strength, tapering from the head into the shoulders. A slight arch over the crest. The neck must be free from loose skin or dewlap (loose, pendulous skin under the throat). The neck is of moderate length and muscular. There is a slight arch at the crest. The neck widens gradually from where it joins the skull to where it blends into well laid-back shoulders. The skin on the neck is tight and without dewlap. Mocking A Dog Before Killing It? ================================ The breed standard contains photographs of a number of dogs. We’re seeking more information about these dogs but think there’s a reasonable chance they were taken at a Victorian pound and that these dogs were subsequently killed. Second ‘Tough Dog’ collar appears to have been dropped over slip lead. Why? Both collars look super loose and the second “tough dog” collar was obviously dropped over the top of the slip lead. To make him look vicious? Was this his crown of thorns? Are These Verified American Pit Bull Terriers? ============================================== Are they certified American Pit Bull Terriers or are they simply dogs someone thought looked like Pit Bulls? How was the breed of these dogs established? This document will be given to people with no training or qualification in breed identification. Surely it does not include images of dogs from unknown parentage? This dog looks more like a Staffordshire Bull Terrier Who Actually Wrote The Standard? ================================ People do some things under the clover of anonymity that they would never dream of if they had to sign their work. It’s our understanding that the authors were assured their involvement would remain a secret. We Believe Writing Group Consisted Of These People ================================================== We would welcome a response from the writers and would be happy to publish anything they send through. Patricia Stewart, AVA Victorian Branch Glenda Cook, All Breeds Judge and Corgi Breeder An Authorised Officer

Then we should not question the integrity of Matthew Hopkins, Witch Hunter General Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?

ANKC judges aren't qualified in breed identification. Simply wanting something to be possible doesn't make it so. Anti witchcraft laws also required methods to identify witches and you can be sure fraudsters stepped forward to offer 'good enough' solutions. Phrenologists could well have used the your argument to defend their quackery, "Is there a viable alternative for identifying future criminals than to measure the skull?" How long before the ANKC follows The Kennel Club in demanding an end to BSL?

Yes for 2 years then its adios if your dog fit the "standard" whatever that is. But at least it's something for already existing lookalike dogs. Edit, just read your other post about there not being a standard yet..! crikey. Thanks for posting, I am a follower on facebook. It's good to se someone taking steps forward to improve dog ownership, laws etc..! After two 2 years you will still be able to register dogs that were in Victoria prior to 1 Sep 2010 if they have been registered (e.g. as a different breed) previously. So, ensuring your dog is registered is the only way to be sure they won't take it and kill it under the current rules. Microchips: ome Victorian Councils are checking the "breed" specified when the microchip details were submitted. Manningham got a warrant and broken into Ouzie's house after seeing 'pit bull' written on her microchip form (provided to them by CAR). Never mind that 'pit bull' is not a restricted breed (because it's not a breed). The ranger went round when the owner was not home and sighted the dog through the laundry window and came back with a warrant.

They're supporting the myth that you can do visual breed identification. It's fraud.

To view the video in question follow this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jtz-vYKlXk Nathan spoke out last year when there was a change in policy for dogs undergoing behaviour modification. http://www.nbntv.com.au/index.php/2010/09/...s-rspca-policy/ To be honest, I don't know of any Victorian shelters who pay a behaviourist to work with dogs who fail the temp test. RSPCA NSW seems to be ahead of Victoria in that respect? - Mike

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/attack-dog-owner...0308-1blfy.html I was disappointed to hear the Alaskan Malamute Club of NSW president say that if you get a pedigree malamute it's generally placid but if it's mixed with another breed you can get "issues". If there any science to back this up or is it simply another case of ANKC members protecting their own dogs while throwing the rest to the wolves? We see this with papered vs. unpapered AmStaffs in NSW.

That's a pretty inefficient way of achieving change. I think a better idea is: 1. Research the current setup 2. Ask Dogs NSW to clarify a few things If they give reasonable answers then that's it. If they don't, 3. Make membership aware of the situation 4. Inform wider community (media, social networking, etc) 5. Take up issues with Government bodies (challenge course accreditation) I think most Dogs NSW members would be shocked to hear ANKC judges were signing death warrants for dogs based on visual breed identification which I think we both know is a farce. I'm guessing you're a Dogs NSW member and am sorry if drawing attention to abuse by your judges is embarrassing. As a Catholic I know how that feels! I think you'll agree protecting the innocent is more important than protecting feelings.

I don't believe you can reliably identify breed just by looking at a dog. The NSW Government has declared the ANKC judges acting as "Breed Assessors" as infallible and not subject to appeal. "A written statement by an assessor for the purposes of Division 6 cannot be challenged and any assessor who provides any such written statement does not incur any civil or criminal liability for doing so." The full document can be downloaded here: Guidelines for Breed Assessors INDEX 1. Introduction 1.1 Summary of Relevant Legislation 1.2 Notice of Intention to Declare a Dog to be a Restricted Dog 1.3 Outline of Breed Assessment Process 2. Applying to Become an Approved Breed Assessor 2.1 Criteria for Breed Assessors 2.2 Approval Process 2.3 Notification of Approval 3. Procedures to be Followed When Conducting a Breed Assessment 3.1 Prior to the assessment 3.2 The Breed Assessment 4. Responsibilities of Approved Breed Assessors 4.1 Privacy and Confidentiality - Assessors Responsibilities 4.2 Liability 4.3 Privacy and Confidentiality - Department of Local Government responsibilities 4.4 Records Management 4.5 Disposal of Information 4.6 Loss or Destruction of Information 4.7 Your contact details 4.8 Costs and Fees 4.9 Conflict of Interest

Thanks Mita! I'm looking for people to help with a national campaign against breed discrimination. Please get in touch if you want to help. My last campaign, StopTheClock, has been very successful. I think it will be a longer struggle to get rid of BSL but fortunately the US and UK are already in the process so we'll be playing catchup as usual.

I am. I don't believe Diana Fenton (ANKC judge and creator of the 'Course in Breed Identification') can reliably identify whether a dog has APBT in it from visual identification. Further to that, I think Dogs NSW claiming their course enables people to make anything other than a guess at a dogs breed would be dishonest. Let's wait to hear what Dogs NSW come back with. The questions I posed to them (tol be discussed at Committee tomorrow night) are: 1. What is Dogs NSW position on BSL? 2. Is your "Course In Breed Identification" scientifically validated? The Australian Veterinary Association points out that "The biggest problem is determining whether an animal is actually a Pit Bull or Pit Bull cross, or whether it is a cross involving other breeds" - Bill Harkin, Victorian Division President Dogs NSW has sought national accreditation for it's "Course in Canine Breed Identification" which it actively promotes as assisting with identification of Restricted Breed Dogs such as the American Pit Bull Terrier. Do you dispute the assertion that there is no scientifically validated methodology or process for determining the genetic history of a dog from its physical characteristics or that the observation of the physical features of a dog of unknown breeding cannot provide reliable or certain evidence of its actual breed or breed components? Can you provide any evidence that your "Course in Canine Breed Identification" enables students to identify breed with any reliability or certainty? What is the probability of a false negative? What is the probability of a false positive? 3. How are course attendees assessed? Given that a false positive may result in an owners dog being destroyed, how does your "Course in Canine Breed Identification" assess students ability to perform accurate breed identification? 4. NSW Approved Breed Assessors Dog owners who receive a "Notice of Intention to declare dog to be a restricted dog" are also provided with a secret list of "NSW Approved Breed Assessors" who offer a "statement of breed assessment" under section 58C of the Act. Under the Act, dogs they assess as being American Pit Bull Terriers are then removed from their owners and kill. Why do Dogs NSW judges choose provide this paid service? Is there any evidence that their assessments are anything more than "educated guesses"?

The Act provided for dogs already registered in Victoria before it was enacted. There is a 2 year period of grace for those people with restricted dogs in Victoria at the time the Act was introduced to register them. The dogs must be muzzled and leashed at all times when off the owners premises and a suitable enclosure must be on the premises for them. They cannot be walked off the premises by someone under the age of 17 Homes must have warning signs. Section 17 of the Act provides that you cannot register a restricted breed of dog unless it is desexed. Basically, its now illegal to breed or buy an APBT in Victoria now. You seem to have missed the changes that were enacted on 1 Sep 2010. It's now legal to buy and register an APBT in Victoria provided you can prove the dog existed in Victoria prior to 1 Sep 2010

It seems obvious that you can't identify the component breeds of a mixed breed dog just by looking at it. Dogs NSW claim that not only can they do it, they can teach you in 2 days for just $500! I'm preparing a story on their support for a system that kills family dogs with no complaint against them but their looks. I'm expecting them to respond to my questions later this week. I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has had their dog 'Breed Assessed' by Dogs NSW or has other information about their training course. thanks, Mike

See the individual, not the shape of the cranium. We need to change attitudes and then laws.

Thanks for plugging Good for Dogs. I think you're talking about Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness. Here's an article I wrote about Victoria's last ever Restricted Breed Review Panel. As of 1 Sep 2010, any dog that fits the prescribed "Standard" for an APBT is considered Restricted Breed Dog. The "Standard" does not currently exist so anyone buying a dog next week has no way of knowing whether their dog will fall under the "Standard" when it is issued. That's nuts eh?

Watch this episode of Dogtown which tells the story of many of the dogs from convicted dogfighter Michael Vick's kennels. http://www.vimeo.com/15801408 It's interesting to see that American Pit Bull Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers are both considered 'pit bulls' and both used by dog fighters. Are there any Staffie or AmStaff people who speak out to defend 'pit bulls' in Australia?

It's not about laying blame. I'm interested in understanding what causes dogs to attack. If we don't hear what led to the attack we can't increase our understanding of why they happen. This feeds people's fear of dogs as they appear completely unpredictable. Had these dogs been receiving protection training? Is it easy to tell that back at the pound by preventing a bite sleeve? Did the dogs have a history of aggression towards humans? Had the Council received in the past that were not acted on? There are usually events preceding an attack that casts light on the dogs behaviour. In the absence of intelligent analysis we are left with the peanut gallery shouting 'kill all dogs who look like those ones' which doesn't make anyone safer. I don't expect council pounds to have bite sleeves or use them. Council staff are not trained to do what you say is 'easy'. While analysis of the behaviour would be very helpful, there are no resources to do this at a council level, except run an investigation into the incident. Nobody wants to kill all dogs that look like those ones, but plenty of us don't have any time for dogs that act like those ones. Regardless of how they came to act that way. Some dogs are dangerous and removing them from the community does make the community safer. The 'menacing' laws that are relatively new around the country, along with the new Vic law enabling destruction of loose dogs that have previously been declared dangerous, will help make the community safer and have nothing to do with breed. Councils spend massive amounts on dog bite prevention. A lot of it is squandered on strategies have never been demonstrated to work. I was lucky enough to sit in on the last Restricted Breed Review Panel in Victoria and have seen how hard Manningham Council fought to kill those two dogs. The dogs had never been accused of anything except looking like "pit bull types". Victorian Councils sink massive resources (including big money) into fighting these battles. Those two Minter Ellison lawyers in the picture would not have come cheap. Paying experts to investigate after serious attacks is something that could be funded at a State Gov. level. If we don't bother to learn what what the causes of these accidents are we're not going to get better at preventing them.

It's not about laying blame. I'm interested in understanding what causes dogs to attack. If we don't hear what led to the attack we can't increase our understanding of why they happen. This feeds people's fear of dogs as they appear completely unpredictable. Had these dogs been receiving protection training? Is it easy to tell that back at the pound by preventing a bite sleeve? Did the dogs have a history of aggression towards humans? Had the Council received in the past that were not acted on? There are usually events preceding an attack that casts light on the dogs behaviour. In the absence of intelligent analysis we are left with the peanut gallery shouting 'kill all dogs who look like those ones' which doesn't make anyone safer.

Why did the dogs bite the people? Does anyone know what events preceded the attack?

Victorian Councils rarely charge owners if they can avoid the work. They'll scare the owners into a "plea bargain" where they avoid court if they offer up their dogs to be killed. With the money they save they can just go replace the dogs and repeat the whole cycle.

http://manningham-leader.whereilive.com.au...-if-re-elected/ LABOR has promised to abolish the 28-day limit on holding animals in shelters if re-elected. Agriculture Minister Joe Helper today announced that re-elected Labor government would replace the 28-day rule with a case-by-case assessment process. “Extending the maximum holding period for animals in shelters and pounds will allow more animals to be rehabilitated and re-housed,’’ Mr Helper said. “Instead of a time limit, it will move to a case-by-case individual assessment basis and we’re confident that this will mean more animals find new homes and less animals are euthanased.’‘ The announcement comes after pressure from animal welfare advocates pushing for the 28-day rule to be abolished. The Stop the Clock campaign was launched by Mike Bailey from GoodforDogs.org and supported by both the RSPCA and Lort Smith Animal Hospital. Mr Helper also announced plans to ensure animal foster carers would no longer have to be registered as a domestic animal business. He said the change would mean foster carers could continue doing their great work, while ensuring they complied with minimum standards to ensure all animals were protected. Doncaster animal advocate and founder of The Paw Project, Mia McKenzie, said this was brilliant news. “This is a great step forward that will help save hundreds of animals from being unnecessarily being euthanased,’’ Ms McKenzie said.

While it was great to see shelter killing being brought to the public's attention, it's time to stop blaming 'Overpopulation' and address the real causes. We can all help find more homes for shelter dogs (and cats!) by promoting adoption. http://Goodfordogs.org/ http://petrescue.com.au/

Pet Overpopulation It's a myth that there are no enough homes out there to stop necessary shelter killing. Help save lives by promoting shelter dogs (and cats!) http://Goodfordogs.org

http://www.goodfordogs.org/blog/2010/05/27/natural-justice/ The Bill fails to Ensure Natural Justice Part 5 of series examining proposed changes to Victoria’s Domestic Animals Act What is Natural Justice / Procedural Fairness? “The rules or principles of natural justice, also known as procedural fairness, have developed to ensure that decision-making is fair and reasonable. Put simply, natural justice involves decision-makers informing people of the case against them or their interests, giving them a right to be heard (the ‘hearing’ rule), not having a personal interest in the outcome (the rule against ‘bias’), and acting only on the basis of logically probative evidence (the ‘no evidence’ rule).” - ‘Natural Justice/Procedural Fairness’. NSW Ombudsman This Bill Fails to Ensure Procedural Fairness Currently, Councils must hold impounded dogs for 8 days to enable their owners to be reunited with them. The Bill would allow Council officers to kill unregistered dogs found at large after 48 hours on the suspicion that they might commit an offence in future if allowed to roam. Councils would have an incentive to kill dogs after 48 hours instead of keeping them the full 8 days as it would save money and cage space (the ‘bias’ rule). The Bill does not require that owners are notified or given a right to be heard (the ‘hearing’ rule). The Bill doesn’t require any evidence that the dog has or will harm any person or animal for it to be destroyed (the ‘no evidence’ rule). Procedural Fairness Is Part of Good Government Victorian law is meant to ensure Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness. This Bill fails us in this regard. “Decision-makers need to be aware of the requirements of procedural fairness when making decisions which affect a person’s rights or interests. Failure to notify a person of a potentially adverse decision, or to allow them an opportunity to be heard, is contrary to good government, and may result in the decision being set aside by a court.” - ‘Procedural Fairness – The Hearing Rule’ Victorian Government Solicitors Office

(which, although I'm not a lawyer, is suggesting to me that the Government acknowledges that this Bill is one that deserves observation of Procedural Fairness) ; in a number of the responses which have been submitted to Government; and also, I think in some of the posts in this thread (I think I've used the term several times). For those who are not aware of the rules of "Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness" but would like to know and understand more of it I've provided a link below. It is a NSW publication but I couldn't find a better Victorian one. It's not too tedious to read and it isn't too lengthy. Rules of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've just added a post about Natural Justice / Procedural Fairness to Goodfordogs.org http://www.goodfordogs.org/blog/2010/05/27/natural-justice/ - Mike