nawnim

There are no formal qualifications, but I believe the MDBA has a basic training scheme. The main thing is that a rescue org should be acting on information from and deferring to qualified professionals from a range of areas. A system should be in place. Vets, veterinary behaviourists, lawyers, accountants and other experts provide parameters for rescues to act and develop their policies. You don't need to have all the qualifications yourself, but you need experience and access to a very wide range of knowledge. And by acting in this way a rescue can prove that they have been acting responsibly, should anyone try to take action against them. The rescues in most danger of coming under question are the ones that try to go it alone and do not have a network. Like any small business, the success of the rescue depends on good management. A big range of people skills and dog skills are required, and not everyone who ventures into the business of rescue has the management skills or experience to make their rescue a success. Not just in terms of numbers of dogs adopted, but satisfaction rate with the dogs that they do adopt out and retention of good volunteers. Help is out there, but if you run a rescue you need to take criticism and make the effort to get the information you need, make teh hard decisions, nobody is going to hold your hand and do it for you. Padraic, you have it back to front. Ethical rescue is responsible for making sure the dogs that they sell are of adoptable quality. They are not responsible for the dogs they do not have the resources to rehabilitate, the ones they send to be euthanised. The responsibility for that goes to the dogs' original owner or breeder, because these dogs were marked for euthansia before they were made available to rescue. With the numbers now, rescue cannot rehabilitate every dog they take in, as it will result in long-term kenneling for problem dogs, volunteer burn-out and take resources away from rehoming the highly adoptable dogs. I don't understand why I am being brought into this discussion. Leave me out of it thankyou

I've seen Mum with the pram and the toddler and the toddler with a bag of chips. Some people.

How thoughtful of you! You're a kind soul

I've already referred to research in my posts on this topic. So you've 'heard about it'. What you highlighted was my summary statement that evidence is available. I also pointed out that what was necessary was 'knowledge and effort'. Do as I do....make the effort to locate research on the topic. Okay I get your message. I'm just a lazy old fart.

Comparisons between injuries from human on human assault and dog on human bite/attack are possible. I've read a research paper (Australian) which pointed out that human assaults are far, far higher than dog attacks. By comparison, dogs tend to be amazingly non-aggressive to the humans they live with and around. Statistically, your chances are better with a dog, than a human. :) But dog bites and attacks do happen. Two things that possibly leads to a 'sense' that lot more happen these days are: 1. Dog bites/attacks, when they do occur, are more likely against babies, toddlers, young children or the elderly. There's sound evidence that these are the most vulnerable groups. The nature of these victims & how more easily they can be seriously injured, grab news headlines....which, in turn, promote fear that there's lots of dogs ready to attack the most vulnerable among us. 2. As Australia's population has grown, so do the number of pets, including dogs. And this country has one of the highest dog ownership rates in the world. So there's lots more dogs, living close with humans. Which has increased the chances of attacks/bites. The frustrating thing is that there's good scientific evidence of what prevents dogs becoming human-aggressive.....and also good evidence on how certain people mismanage dogs (& what are 'markers'). But rarely is such evidence referred to, in discussions like this. Simply focusing on breeds per se is not helpful....all dogs are dogs. Smaller dogs can cause damage on the thinner skin of toddlers and the elderly. Larger dogs, being more powerful, can inflict life-threatening damage. Both (all!) types need good socialisation at their base, followed by sound training and management. Full marks to the Rottweiler Club of Victoria in their blunt recognition that breeder/owner responsibility is heightened with increased capacity to cause damage. And they're proactive in supplying guidelines that could apply to any dog. Which is why BSL is not the answer. Knowledge and effort are. Can we please hear more about this research

Sorry to say but what a load of rubbish . Have you ever meet a Komodor in person ?? I gather not & its statements like yours that create hysteria by people who are followers. Komodors have been shown in Australia ,attended Royal Shows with no dramas. There is more to understanding breed than cut & pasting a breed standard & then saying there dangerous . People jump on the band wagon of ban this ban that & many have nevr meet one nor wish to because the hysteria tells them they are bad , Let's keep this discussion calm and reasonable. It's a discussion - I think the Komondor example was used as an example - if a dog is bred to exhibit a particular trait it's fair to consider that it will exhibit that trait. I actually just had a look on dogz online and there aren't any breeders in Australia listed anyway. I read padraic's post as just putting forward a bunch of ideas almost as questions. I don't think he's seriously advocating restrictions on large breed dogs; it's more like thinking out loud about what some of the issues are, that can be grappled with. There are no easy answers or single issues here, there are many intermingled ones all bundled up together. Pulling them apart is important. It's important to be able to have rational discussions about BSL and associated issues. There's no point in jumping down someone's throat for expressing an opinion, it just means they won't come back and you end up with an insular community in furious agreement. That advances no causes and doesn't change anything. To make any headway into affecting change anywhere it's important to be able to speak to people with varying ideas and understandings, from all sides of the fence. That means people with a lifetime of experience with particular breeds, and no experience at all. If you can't do that, you're not going to help anyone or anything. Thankyou yes. My post was just meant to be a bunch of ideas. I am no expert. I am just expressing an opinion on what I think is a very important topic.

BSL is not and never will be the answer. There are good dogs in every breed and bad dogs in EVERY breed. It is not fair to blindly ban or put restrictions on large breeds of dogs simply due to their size. For instance in one gov report i read online a few years back there were more then 38 000 registered GSDs and what percentage of them attacked? .02%. Is it fair to place restrictions on the other thousands of dog owners of the breed and similar breeds just because a handful of people cannot train, socialise or handle their dogs properly? The world's first face transplant was performed on a lady due to her Labrador attacking her if memory serves correctly. Due to that attack then should there be restictions placed on the other thousands of labs due to the actions of a minority? You can have the most perfect fence in the world to keep the dogs in but if the owners are lazy or just generally don't give a damn they won't care if they leave the front gate open for said dog to wonder out. It comes down to individual responsibility, you can punish those who are already responsible and try to make those who are not comply, but if people are not going to be bothered containing their dog the best fences in the world won't help. If I have given the impression that I am advocating BSL I did not mean to do so. Sorry I have not made myself clearer.

Quote from Showdog: Sorry to say but what a load of rubbish . Have you ever meet a Komodor in person ?? I gather not & its statements like yours that create hysteria by people who are followers. Komodors have been shown in Australia ,attended Royal Shows with no dramas. There is more to understanding breed than cut & pasting a breed standard & then saying there dangerous . People jump on the band wagon of ban this ban that & many have nevr meet one nor wish to because the hysteria tells them they are bad , Of course I have never met one. I am just quoting from the breed standard which is saying what temperament the ideal Komondor should have. My post is just some thoughts on the subject which might hopefully promote some rational discussion. I seem to have upset you which was not my intention.

Here's my two bob's worth. Large aggressive dogs are becoming more commonplace in Australia. Because of what happened to Ayen Chol the time has come when something needs to be done to make the suburbs safer for children to grow up in. It is not acceptable to throw up your arms and say there will always be irresponsible owners, or parents should be more accountable. Nor is more education the only answer. Education has its limits. At the moment as the legislation stands your neighbour could purchase a purebred Komondor. According to the ANKC breed standards the following temperament is desirable in a Komondor. "TEMPERAMENT This dog is not suitable for fondling and is tough by nature. He is distrustful. On guarding and protecting, he shows unshakeable courage, and his attack is silent and bold. The territory entrusted to him must not be entered by any stranger." ANKC Breed Standards Utility Group 1994. Anyone can acquire one of these dogs. They are about 70cms tall and weigh on an average 50 kgs. Purebred pups are available on the Internet. Would you like to have one living nextdoor? I know I wouldn't. BSL was introduced to try to make the world a safer place. It is obviously not perfect and is difficult to enforce. (Some people even describe their pitbulls as lab boxer crosses and get away with it.) Seatbelts in cars and fencing of backyard pools were also introduced to make the world safer and I believe they have been successful. We do need some legislation and I am not sure what it should be. Some thoughts: Maybe it should be something to do with size. After all big dogs can maul, while small dogs nip. But what about labs? We don't really want to ban them. Maybe it should be fencing. Fencing should be of a certain standard before anyone is allowed to own a dog. Perhaps childproof fencing similar to backyard pool fencing. This would still not prevent my neighbour purchasing a Komondor. To get rid of the problem of repeat offenders it should be easier to declare dogs dangerous when they do bite someone. It should not be possible for an owner to claim it was not his dog. Today we have DNA and samples should be taken if there is a dog bite to prove which dog was responsible and then appropriate action taken. Just my thoughts on a cold blustery winter's day in Canberra. Hope you find them interesting.

...

...

Also done :)

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...