riddler

Maybe you haven't read the OP closely enough or comprehended what I have said. I'll try again. Firstly, any dog to be imported into Aust must spend a certain amount of time in qurantine (NZ excepted) Quarantine facilities have professional people on staff. I would imagine if this proposal was adopted accredited professions would do the testings & be liable for their accuracy. (Think possible litigation for bogus reports) If, say, a dog is quarantined for three months for e.g. it's temperament/behaviour can be moderated on a daily basis. Not just one poke with a pointy stick & check a box. If the dog is declared to be dangerous, the way I read the proposal as posted, doesn't necessarily bar the importation from proceeding if the importer agrees to house the dog under the provisions of our DD laws. Why would any rational people have a problem with that? Those speaking of TTing sperm & ova (from animals live or dead) shows just how out of touch with reality some are. The donors are tested for HEALTH problems. It is for the benefit of the importer & their general breed population here. How would someone like to import sperm in good faith & when problems arise discover the donor had a congenital heart disease or HD problems , entropian, bad mouths, mismatched colouring? Or worse still, the sperm wasn't taken from the dog they requested & paid for. Also to prevent sperm from banned breeds being imported covertly. Repeat, The testings would be for the benefit of the importer & the general dog population of this country. If you think that is a bad thing, why even bother health & temperament testing here? If you don't care what is coming in how could you truthfully say you care what you are producing with what you have? The common sense of this proposal has been tangled in hysteria & misconceptions of the reality of how important it really is to the integrity of our breeding programs. IMO. Think logically.

If until you post something current, positive & encouraging? Two?....maybe three lifetimes? What pearls of doom, gloom & deception do you have for us today? Your sidekick is blaming negroes, lebanese, the poor & the disadvantaged. (There's some new territory for you to investigate. google them & see what you can come up with) The RSPCA, hey, everyone blames the RSPCA for everything, so that's not new. P.E.T.A? forget them, they're morons, not worth the trouble. When you run out of ethnics , organisations & other breeds to denigrate, then maybe, just maybe, the pennies will drop & you will realise the real problem is much closer to home. At your front door actually. Physician heal thy self as the saying goes. BTW, Did you answer the simple question? Of course not.

Sigh, "Trust Me I'm an ANKC Judge" just doesn't cut it. Jews and gypsies destined for Auschwitz were also bound by laws and protocols in place by a democratically elected government! The day anyone can determine an APBT from a dual registered APBT/AST then a case may be made, until then, not a chance. Innocent dogs will continue to die.These laws only work because we allow them to. Ignore them and the system would have to change. Can't give a sensible answer to a simple question so off you go again on the Nazi thing. What piece of work you are. BTW. There are no duel registered ASTs. The UKC won't register ASTs these days & the AKC has never registered APBTs. So that rationale is a no brainer. Suits your style. edit. The reason there are/were so many ''dead dogs'' is because the brain dead did ignored the laws. Still are, which is why the breed assessors have a job. There are many thousands of dual registered APBTs and ASTs and even SBTs in the US where they are considered quite rightly to be the same breed. Every 30 odd years AKC has had to open it's stud books to APBTs due to the small gene pool resulting in hideous genetic conditions. If they choose not to in the future then it is the dogs who will suffer. The dead dogs result from a form of racism where US citizens don't want "those" people living in their community. ie lower socio-economic types like blacks and Hispanics who are disproportionately attracted to the breed. In Sydney even the most liberal types will say it's the Lebs who give the APBT a bad name. Unfortunately they can't see they are all in the RSPCA's and PETA's sights! You are a sick puppy. You need to be assessed before you do any real harm. And soon.

Sigh, "Trust Me I'm an ANKC Judge" just doesn't cut it. Jews and gypsies destined for Auschwitz were also bound by laws and protocols in place by a democratically elected government! The day anyone can determine an APBT from a dual registered APBT/AST then a case may be made, until then, not a chance. Innocent dogs will continue to die.These laws only work because we allow them to. Ignore them and the system would have to change. Can't give a sensible answer to a simple question so off you go again on the Nazi thing. What piece of work you are. BTW. There are no duel registered ASTs. The UKC won't register ASTs these days & the AKC has never registered APBTs. So that rationale is a no brainer. Suits your style. edit. The reason there are/were so many ''dead dogs'' is because the brain dead did ignored the laws. Still are, which is why the breed assessors have a job.

Do you import? NB: The assessment would take place prior to the dog arriving in Australia I haven't yet. Only those who would seek to import dangerous &/or diseased dogs, banned breeds, ova/sperm from diseased dogs or banned breeds would be affected by this recommendation. Talk about making mountains out of mole hills. For the honest, the ethical & the responsible it would business as usual, with little or no extra expense. ya reckon? How about you actually go and learn about the soapbox your on and then come back to postulate your assessments and grandiose generalisations? It would save those that care, a lot of time from having to correct your fictitious forecasts! Thankyou The floor is yours! Let us hear from the maestro. Tell me where have I gone wrong? Quarantine there before they come here. Health checks manditory. All paperwork can be completed before departure. What else oh great magnificence?

Do you import? Not animals But I have had dealings with AQIS. I do have a grasp on what is required. Which is why I don't understand all the wringing of hands. What is proposed isn't that far removed from what we have now.

Do you import? NB: The assessment would take place prior to the dog arriving in Australia I haven't yet. Only those who would seek to import dangerous &/or diseased dogs, banned breeds, ova/sperm from diseased dogs or banned breeds would be affected by this recommendation. Talk about making mountains out of mole hills. For the honest, the ethical & the responsible it would business as usual, with little or no extra expense.

Do you import? NB: The assessment would take place prior to the dog arriving in Australia I haven't yet. Only those who would seek to import dangerous &/or diseased dogs, banned breeds, ova/sperm from diseased dogs or banned breeds would be affected by this recommendation. Talk about making mountains out of mole hills. For the honest, the ethical & the responsible it would business as usual, with little or no extra expense.

I think you totally miss the point.they want their cake and eat it too.If there was no bsl then maybe but bsl still stands and now they want to chip away at what is left.Reread what is proposed.It is not just temperament.It states exhibit or carry.What does carry mean?It means the triats that they have as a breed.So if it is breed x y z bred ofr the intended purpose it will carry certain traits.Who deems that inappropriate.SAy dog barks at another dog at the vets while getting its blood taken.Said vet deems that inappropriate and you have done your money.Dog takes exception of strange man sticking cold thermometer up his bum and growls,vet deems that inappropriate you have done your money.Dog barks at someone in quarantine.Vet dems that inappropriate says dog should be deemd dangerous and desexed before release from quarantine.Where does that leave you.i think this is bs.People need to contact their vet and express there concerns before April 15th. The way it reads to me is, that before approval for individual dogs to be imported into the country they should have to pass a health & behavioural assessment (there's that word again) What is the problem with that? Good idea. Don't we have enough savage &/or sick dogs here as it is? Who would wish to import a dangerous &/or diseased dog anyhow? Breed is not mentioned. Although I would imagine banned breeds & sperm/ova from same would still be banned. Same scenario as switchblades, drugs etc,etc etc. People still try it on though. If they are caught they are prosecuted. That's fair enough isn't it. Not everyone agrees with every law but everyone is still bound by all of them. Any prospective import must be quarantined before departure anyhow. All the tests can be done then & the paper work accompany the dog from is place of origin. Wouldn't an animal that displayed cronic health problems while in quarantine be disbarred from importation anyhow. Behaviour could easily assessed during the quarantine period. Would any ethical breeder wish to import semen/ova from a diseased dog/bitch? Not bloody likely. Humans with criminal convictions aren't issued visa. If they do land here & are detected they are put on the next plane back from whence they came. Imigration is a subject for a different type of forum. Not a valid argument here. Unless of course the boat people start bringing their dogs with them. In which case the dogs would be put down immediately. Which would be something else for the bleeding hearts to whinge about no doubt.

I think you totally miss the point.they want their cake and eat it too.If there was no bsl then maybe but bsl still stands and now they want to chip away at what is left.Reread what is proposed.It is not just temperament.It states exhibit or carry.What does carry mean?It means the triats that they have as a breed.So if it is breed x y z bred ofr the intended purpose it will carry certain traits.Who deems that inappropriate.SAy dog barks at another dog at the vets while getting its blood taken.Said vet deems that inappropriate and you have done your money.Dog takes exception of strange man sticking cold thermometer up his bum and growls,vet deems that inappropriate you have done your money.Dog barks at someone in quarantine.Vet dems that inappropriate says dog should be deemd dangerous and desexed before release from quarantine.Where does that leave you.i think this is bs.People need to contact their vet and express there concerns before April 15th. The way it reads to me is, that before approval for individual dogs to be imported into the country they should have to pass a health & behavioural assessment (there's that word again) What is the problem with that? Good idea. Don't we have enough savage &/or sick dogs here as it is? Who would wish to import a dangerous &/or diseased dog anyhow? Breed is not mentioned. Although I would imagine banned breeds & sperm/ova from same would still be banned. Same scenario as switchblades, drugs etc,etc etc. People still try it on though. If they are caught they are prosecuted. That's fair enough isn't it. Not everyone agrees with every law but everyone is still bound by all of them. Any prospective import must be quarantined before departure anyhow. All the tests can be done then & the paper work accompany the dog from is place of origin. Wouldn't an animal that displayed cronic health problems while in quarantine be disbarred from importation anyhow. Behaviour could easily assessed during the quarantine period. Would any ethical breeder wish to import semen/ova from a diseased dog/bitch? Not bloody likely. Humans with criminal convictions aren't issued visa. If they do land here & are detected they are put on the next plane back from whence they came. Imigration is a subject for a different type of forum. Not a valid argument here. Unless of course the boat people start bringing their dogs with them. In which case the dogs would be put down immediately. Which would be something else for the bleeding hearts to whinge about no doubt.

You seem to think a dog would only have to go through the process if it or the owner had done something wrong. This is NOT the case. Someone could be walking their dog down the street in a perfect heel and an 'authorised officer' could drive past and decide that dog was a pit bull and start the ball rolling for the whole process. In fact this is the way it happens the majority of the time. With all due respects, you are missing the point. How the law came into being or how a dog comes to be declared, whether it is actually a restricted type or not & whether you, or anyone else believes the law to be unjust, unfair or discriminatory is not the question. That's BSL. BSL is not the topic. Mike Bailey has criticised the assessment process. He has accused Dogs NSW of profiteering from the BSL by conducting assessor seminars. (& if the $500 dollar fee is accurate I would tend to agree with him on that point, but that isn't the question either), he has been uncomplimentary & even had a shot at ridicule. Which does nothing for the cause. Never has, never will. That's a just ploy to avoid answering a question. My question to him, & you, & anyone else who may have a better way of assessing declared dogs, is simply this, tell me what it is? I believe, MHO, the way the law & the associated system is structured, the current method of ANKC approved assessors acting independently from any statutory body, is, if we need to have an assessment at all, the best system available. One alternative of course, is, the ranger types of which you speak, who apparently snatch harmless pets from their owners when they are out walking, would be the judge & jury.....& executioner? i would really love to hear some, any, sensible, workable alternatives to the government implimented ANKC approved assessor system. Another point to remember, Assessors are rigourously tested on their knowledge of the bull breeds. They are pretty well up the task of recognition. Especially the breeders.. Whether that is good or bad isn't part of the question either.

Smoke & mirrors isn't a solution. Ditto red herrings. The question is out there. Do you have an answer? Repeat. Given the laws & protocols we have in place NOW, at this place in time, give a better alternative than breed assessment by highly experienced dog people. If ANKC approved judges aren't to your liking you could always go for the approved ANKC registered AST/SBT breeders with the required breeds experience option. There are other alternatives open to the dogs owner besides assessment. One not good for the dog, the other not cheap for the owner. The easiest one of course, would have been ensure the suspect dog was properly under control. Which is where it all came unstuck in the first place. BTW. The proposed ''Deed not Breed'' legistlation currently under review in the UK doesn't included repealing the banned breeds laws currently in place. The more things change, the more they stay the same

So what is the problem here? It appears the AVA is calling for a ''deed not breed'' type of policy to be implimented. i.e., Dogs to be assessed as individuals, not automatically classified, accepted or rejected, simply because of their breed. Isn't that what the anti bsl push all about? A similar policy applies to humans wanting to enter the country. Why shouldn't the same criterior apply to dogs? Seems like a step in right direction to me.

Sigh. The old Nazi chestnut. That is very sad argument only used by very sad people. It has no bearing, no relevence & no comparison to the subject. To even suggest such a thing is appalling. True, the BSL was enacted by a government in decline. Also true, & even more disappointing, it was supported by the public & actually enhanced the popularity of that Labor government. "Killing machines on a leash'' thundered Bob. His government was returned btw. & no politician since has had the balls to include anti BSL sympathies in their policies. Just as much off topic, but a personal opinion that may or may not display a neutrality of position to the issue. Imo, the ANKC executive are ivory tower residents & together with their state level colleagues & goodly percentage of ANKC approved judges are an exclusive clique that treat the general membership appallingly. There is/was a move afoot to form a breakaway association such is the dissatisfaction with the current situation. Although I haven't heard anything of it for quite awhile. However, this thread is about the legitimacy of breed assessing. I believe that, at the very least, approved assessors do give a declared dog a much better chance than was previously afforded them. If the ANKC forbade their members from perfoming the task who would fill the void? Would the task revert to the council rangers who declared the dog in first place perhaps? Is that your solution? Sigh. The law & the protocols required are in place. Whether you agree with them or not. So, until they are repealed, if they ever are, give me a better alternative than what is currently employed? Sans sermons please.

I am asking the question ''Is a better, more viable method''. A dog is declared by the council, not by the ANKC, & only after it comes to their notice. Which is the fault of the owner. It is then up to the owner which route they choose go. Being assessed as a restricted breed isn't the end of the section. The dog can then be temperament tested & if it passes it can be kept under the requirements of the BSL. This thread is NOT about the BSL, it is about the legitimacy of the role played by appointed breed assessors. Breed type specialists. So, again, is there a better alternative under the laws as they now stand? There is one thread here lamenting the fact breed assessors, either from compassion or ignorance, are declaring pitbull types to be Staffordshire Bull Terriers. It appears the breed assessors are in a lose, lose situation. damned if they do. Damned if they don't

''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''. Given the protocols demanded by the BSL, (which is a law & whether you agree with it or not is not the issue here) is there a viable alternative other than a visual (& physical) assessment by highly qualified persons? Certainly a better proposition to council employees, breed experience unknown, working from a written description in any case. The owner of a subject dog is given a list of approved assessors from which to choose & must sign an agreement to accept the assessors decision as final prior to the assessment. An owner always has the option of the legal system if the assessment route isn't to their liking. I would suggest approved breed assessors could reliably identify what a breed isn't, which is certainly a step in the right direction. Conflict of Interest? Questioning a persons honesty & integrity without even knowing them is hardly fair.

Could it be the breed named in the article is yet another victim of media breed ignorance perhaps? The American Bulldog is mentioned but the interviewee/dog owner speaks only of x pitbulls.