shiner

@Snook. I agree, and am aware, this is the point. The dog will be less inclined to go the human, and if it does I'm prepared for that. Either way, the result is my dog/s have no blame directed at them whatever happens. This is my main concern, my dogs.

@tlc, Its all about good manners, IMO, some people don't have them, so their dogs don't either. Thats life. We can't change it. We have to deal with it. I have had dogs in the past that were "breedist". A Rotti, who raised hackles and growled, at the sight of any bull breed, even 100 mtrs away. Yet she was the best social dog in mixed company. I owned her from whelp, and don't remember any incident that would explain it. She never wanted to play with them. I currently have an AST Who reacts similarly to GSD's, I have always called it 'racism', but 'breedism' is a better word. @Sandra777 Wise words.

I hear you, Kavik. I have been there before many times. I have broken up/ become involved in many dogfights. Even when its not my dogs. I can't stand by and watch what they do to each other. It is heartwrenching. I lost a Rotti as a result of a fight, years ago. Had three fingers broken getting her out the other ( unknown) dogs mouth. Life sucks sometimes. We live and learn. P.S. back to the OP, yes breed makes a lot of difference. So does size.

I totally agree, it is a very unconfortable, and often explosive situation. But I am not scared. Fear achieves nothing. Make the Approaching dog, if not fear, at least be very wary. Dogs read body language, puff up your chest, straighten your back, lower your voice, growl, and maintain eye contact. If you do this convincingly, you take the upper hand. It also gives your dog/s more confidence, lessening their anxiety. If everyone is calmly confident, the 'rusher' loses confidence. This is not a guarantee, but it works for me.......sometimes. Ranting about irresponsible owners is not addressing the issue. The best trained dog, when alone and loose, (escaped) is very likely to forget his training, and employ his natural instincts. One more time, I have not tried to justify this. The dog I mentioned is a trained hunter, and is never allowed to approach unknown dogs. Unless they trespass. She hunts "close range" which means she will be in hearing or sight range (up to 100mtrs) in open land and (<50mt) in thick bush. I can call her off anything, unless it is attacking her. To train this dog to not rush, or any dog with her intense game drive, that will be a hunter, would be to crush her spirit. A dog without spirit? No thanks. But it does seem to be an ideal for some. They should own cats. Edit: As such, I liken owning these dogs, to owning firearms. I consider them weapons, and take appropriate measures. They never escape. They are muzzled and short leashed in public, And they socialize very well with many breeds, big and small. They only get to 'play' with other pig dogs, as my experience tells me its the non-hunters that usually start the trouble and end up hurt. (off topic, I know, but I feel the need to defend myself for some reason).

And I'm sick of sanctimonious ranters, who take things out of context, and think they are saying something important. Strawman.

I suppose since this is a thread about the ethics of a rescue group my comment isn't really off-topic. I'd be interested in you explaining this comment a bit further. I'd be disappointed if, as a very recent participant in the rrescue forum, you are led to believe that on less-than-satisfactory group is an indicator of the whole. It's also a rather large generalisation in a forum full of people who work incredibly hard to try and do rescue well and probably deserving of some further detail. I'd like an explanation of the "easy and profitable" part. Rescue, done properly, is neither. Sorry for the generalisation, I get upset when dogs are condemned to death. I have added a short comment in the quote above, to qualify my thoughts on the matter. The reality is some rescue orgs are profit and result driven. But I admit, to state this is the majority, is wrong, because my experience is with a handful. My sincere apologies to any who were offended by my emotional comments.

Thankyou for posting that. What is the 'standard'? a link will be fine if you have explained this before. I am brand new to the internet world of Dogs. I wasn't aware this ridiculous legislation had been put into practice. Has it been tested in court yet? Again a link is fine. Never saw myself becoming politically active before, but I think thats going to change. What would my first step be? Cheers.

@Greytmate, again I agree with most of what you say. Notice my use of the word most. Just like when I stated "Most behavioural problems are a direct result, etc…" If you read it the way it was written, half your argument is gone. The rest isnt worth responding to.

Sorry, I was sort of led there, but I got it. I'll try not to let it happen again.

I disagree. I believe the problem starts with unrestrained dogs who rush, and owners with no control over their dogs. It is threatening to be rushed by a dog. Train it, contain it or keep it on a leash. There's no excuse for allowing your dog to rush others, no matter how well-intentioned you believe it to be. My dog would likely rush up to other dogs if given the choice. I don't give him free reign to do so. He meets others on my terms, and isn't given the opportunity to botch it up and frighten anyone. Of course, that goes without saying. I was only trying to stay on topic. When I mentioned my dog rushing I meant in controlled off leash situations (Known dogs on friends properties, Hunting,etc) I don't go to dog parks, because you don't know who or what will be there. Who being the operative. I wasn't trying to justify rushing dogs, just rationalise it.

I can only agree with your points on resale, ethics etc. This isn't in the best interest of the dog. It is keeping things easy and profitable. I won't accept that the majority of "rescue" orgs are ethically minded as the facts do not support this. Aggression can be fixed, but obviously this is not a rule. I didn't state that aggression is "purely" a result of bad environment. But that it is an underlying cause in the majority of cases. Dogs don't generally breed themselves, so I think it is valid to blame humans even for bad genes. My statement "Aggressive dogs have their place", indicates that I do credit genetics with aggression also. Questions 1. A very good understanding of dog behaviour in general. This can only come from much experience in letting dogs be dogs, not treating them and expecting them to act like good children. ................2. Simple........I didn't say that. .................3. Yes. Rotti's, Cattles, Amstaff's, and SBT's. (20 so far) These dogs were all placed into security roles, and all show improved behaviour, from positive, but careful management Some were and still are very "strange people" aggressive. This is only a dogs natural instinct. And an asset in security work. Some where bullied and mauled by larger, older dogs, etc, etc. Others caged and abused. We all know what goes on, yet we want the dog to be at fault because its an easy option. When I decide to rescue a dog, the owner is told by me that I will take the dog or press charges........sometimes. And sometimes I just tell tell them I'm taking it. Many people on this planet should have tattoo on their forehead that says "KEEP AWAY FROM ANIMALS". This applies to many "breeders". Heres some more opinion for dissection. Too many people play god with genetics. What gives anyone the right to decide what is "ideal" genetics?. We produce a litter of pups and they don't meet a standard, so we destroy them? Sanctimonious hypocrisy. Almost no-one breeds dogs for the dog. They do it to serve themselves, be it profit, or public profile, or self satisfaction in playing god. I am not a dog breeder, btw, just as passionate,lifelong owner, who understands them a lot more than most breeders I know. P.s. I believe dogs should be treated as companions, not assets, and have never taken payment for a dog in my life.

This is a tragic story, and my heart goes out to you and Pookie. The more I think about this the more convinced I am that the council in question, is in trouble here. I wouldn't rely on what the pound workers have told you though. Good news; Staffys and Sharpeis will lay in the way described, I've also seen Jack Russels, Pugs and Cavaliers, and a few other breeds doing the same thing. Bad news; Apbt's and Amstaffs will do it too. Please don't use it as a defence. Its sad that so called "experts" would misinform you in that way. A breed assessment sounds like a good way to go. What about a DNA test? Surely that would settle the argument on breed, which seems to be the main issue. In my opinion the council has no evidence to support the claim, that Pookie is Pit Bull, so they should provide evidence. I.e. Pay for the DNA test. Please keep us informed as this travesty unfolds. FREE POOKIE!

So my understanding from reading this is, they have used 2(b). As no proof other than heresay (not a proof) has been established. I believe 2(b) is unconstitutional; it relies solely on the council rangers discretion, and therefore should be easily challenged by an efficient legal council. I am not a lawyer, but I do know how to read.

@cryptic: Thanks for the heads up. I somehow missed that one. @dogmad: Apologies for the half-cocked reply. My opinion. Aggressive dogs have there place. They just need a bit more understanding. Most undesirable traits can be sorted with the right approach. Admittedly time and resources are lacking in most situations. Its unfortunate that most behavioural problems are a direct result of poor human handling, and not a personality defect in the dog, as many would have us believe. All in all a sad state of affairs. I will keep my thoughts on the incident and PR to myself. As many have expressed similar.

No investigation, no proof of anything, seizure based on a phone call? In Australia? Even your admission is no proof, you weren't there. Get a good solicitor and make the mongrels pay! FREE POOKIE!