bulldogz4eva

I cant comment on the coverage you saw as it may not have been the ssame as I saw.However over the years I have seen the same footage of dogs being baited and jumping at fences with their mouths open to get a reaction.The effect of that is fear in the community about pitbulls.When attacks are reported as pitbulls and then found out not to be do you think they retract it?Of course they dont and then this becomes peoples reality that they are to be feared.When you cross any breed of dog you alter the original temperament and you cannot guarantee the outcome.It is no longer the original product so to speak so how can you call it the same.The dog in question if it was a pitbull mastiff cross it doesnt represent either breed.When you take a very much prey driven dog and cross it with a dog that may be rather defensive you cant guarantee a stable temperament in all cases but all people will see and hear is pitbull as thats all that matters. When I say stats from the US dont matter it is not a throw away statement.I have been to the States several times and you need to understand the lay of the land.I think Texas has the highest recorded number of pitbull fatalatiesTtexas also has the death penalty and has a history written in blood.When you have desperate people who may enter you home to rob or murder you people will do what is necessary to prevent that.People sleep with loaded guns and when you have fences that are only knee high that people can walk over they will make sure they cant make it to the door.If that means chaining a dog in the yard that is what they will do and it will be a dog that will bite and stop people dead in their tracks.The down side of that is when a strange child happens to wander in the yard and the dog doesnt discriminate.Every good ol boy has a pitbull type dog and most arent real pitbulls which is my original point and why those statistics are worthless.This country hasnt descended into that chaos yet.

I can understand what you are saying but for just a moment look at the other side iof the coin. It doesnt matter what kind of dog it was to the poor woman that has lost her beloved child and will now never feel the joy of so many wonderful things in her childs life and will more than likely suffer PTSD becuase of the circumstances.As an owner it matters to me because it was not a purebred American pitbull Terrier as has been found out time and time again when it has been reported in the media.I just watched channel nine news whom I spoke to earlier in the day and discussed this.They new it wasnt a purbred American Pitbull Terrier but still they reported it as such.Do you think that is fair? I am not a blind breed supporter nor do I think every pitbull is a fluffly cuddly toy but I have enough experience to know media beat up when I see it. When you mention statistics.Why dont Ihave the right to refute them when they are statistics from another country.What do stats from the US have to do with Australia?When people have to garner stats from overseas on dog fatalaties becuase they cant find any here what does that say to you?Like I haqve said a million times before no purebred American Pitbull Terrier has been responsible for a fatality in this country in the 30 years they have been here.I amke no apologies for that becuase it is a fact that matters. What happens in the US and what passes for a "pitbull" has no bearing here.If my comments sound defensive its because I have more experience with the dogs than anyone here and I know the difference between a well socilaised well bred well adjusted American Pitbull Terrier.

The moment the public and the systems you voted in 'banned' the Pit Bull as part of BSL that same action also removed any possibility of an organised effort to breed 'good PB' (and as a consequence, good PB mixes.) Banning the breed resulted in the banning of good breeders, who otherwise could have set standards in place. In many ways, this is what you get when you have no professional breeders nurturing a breed and leading the way for new breeders to follow. No professional breeders to be very picky about where their puppies go and to whom no professional breeders to defend their breed and bring in new lineage when needed. (Yes there'd be a handful of professional PB breeders, rightly ducking and keeping beneath the radar, but these smart folk aren't going to put their heads up now, they're keeping their good dogs and good lineage underground where they're safe.) Back above ground: Australia created this sealed cesspool of poorly bred pitbull genes + other breeds bred in add-hoc to fill in the void And now Australia reals in horror when all these mixed goodness-knows-what-combinations go running around biting people. Well really, what did you think would happen, when you ban organised registration systems and breeding standards that only professional breeders can put in place and uphold? Yes the naive and daft still continue to believe in breed bans and that you can sweep up genetic footprints with the assistance of your local ranger ... but really. You wanted a breed banned, well applaud BSL. The registered breeders and the breed are gone. But the dogs and their progeny, their mixed progeny, their owners,and their owners who will breed, they still exist. When you brought in BSL you kicked the PB custodians out, so now all you're left with is the nuff nuffs with no knowledge; and their bad dogs and bad dog mixes that noone can tell apart from the good dog mixes. Every dependable breed of dog in Australia that is held in high regard, is this way because of the organised breed club and professional breeders nurturing the breed. Well said Lilli I couldnt agree more but the government that introduced it will never acknowledge that fact but they have created the breeding underground for those after fast cash and everyone gets lumped into the same category.They thought they would breed them out of existence and they were wrong.Now that it hasnt worked what are they going to do?

Where are the fatalities in Australia genius?There arent any.

Actually I'm a poodle and whippet owning female who's never owned and will never own an APBT and I live in one of the only places in Australia where it is still legal to own one. Matthew, you show me ONE place anywhere in the world where banning breeds has lead to a decrease in dog fatalities. I can tell you now that you won't find one. How is that a "futile" argument? Breed bans don't work. There are no simple solutions to the questions of what makes dangerous dogs. Until we as humans accept our responsiblity for creating such animals, children will continue to die. It's quite simple, even you should be able to understand it. Ban the breed and it ceases to be around to kill or maim people. Yes, the dog was bred to fight other dogs, but in the absence of another dog, it'll attack anything that moves if it's in the frame of mind to do some damage. Your argument is as dumb as that regarding guns. "Guns don't kill people, people do". Take the gun out of the equation and there'd be a massive drop in the homicide rate. Same thing applies to this vicious breed. Take it out and there won't be any pitbulls to attack people. Post edited to correct typo... Sadly you dont understand the fundamentals of dog and human aggression.No a dog aggressive dog wll not automatically transfer its aggression to a person.It depends on the dog.I have separated dozens and necver had any redirect.Stable dogs dont attack people for no reason ecven highly dog aggresive ones.You dont have a clue what you are talking about.

It leaves us in the same place we have always been.The politicians and the media wont let that get in the way.The monster must be burned at the stake becuase it makes great sensationalistic tv and vote grabbing for pollies all the while doing nothing but taking the heat off of other issues.The pitbull takes the blame again and thats all the headlines will say PITBULL PITBULL PITBULL.See if you say it enough times you will believe it too.

Mathew, it would be nice if you actually checked the facts before making such assertions. Here, let me help. OMG - a Beagle was responsible for a fatal attack.. and retriever mixes.. ban them!!!! OMG look at the stats for the Pit Bulls Pit bull TYPES... and lets face it, if its over 20kg, not readily identifiable as another breed, and powerfully built, its a pitbull. All dog attack researchers are very wary of breed attribution and all note that it isn't helpful in understanding what makes a dangerous dog. Its a message few anti pitbull crusaders seem capable of grasping. 131 deaths attributed to the Pit Bull Terrier and 6 deaths attributed to the Pit Bull mixes or possibly types. 131 is by far the majority of fatalities. I think with those statistics and Cesar Milan's popularity the Pit Bull is probably more easily identifiable in USA and Canada than many other breeds. My focus in this forum topic is the Pitbull. Pray tell where are those stats from?The US?What does that have to do with Australia?Do you know how many million pitbulls there are in the US?Do you know what passes for a pitbull in the US?The stats you should be interested in is no PUREBRED AMERICAN PITBULL TERRIER has been responsible for a single fatality in this country.Considering this was a crossbreed that stat is still intact.Why do you think that is?I'll let you do the math.Unfortuantely I dont think you will come up with the answer. pS.I never get sick of posting that stat becuase of you people who actualy believe these dogs are mindless kiling machines.If this was so were are the fatalities here?Not one in 30 years pretty much sums it up.

Sorry buddy but I think you watch a little bit too much tv and whats with the taste human blood thing.They are dogs not vampires.Thats like saying every dog that hunts pigs is unsafe and that would be wrong too.Any dog that tastes human blood and not in the context of protecting owner or property or owned by the services should take a dirtnap. What kind of vicious dogs being owned as pets are we talking about?You cant make this breed a safe breed?Dude you dont know what you are talking about.I have owned them for a long long time I also have small children.Rule number one always surpervise them.Know your own dogs and un derstand animal behaviour and recognise signs.Dont own unstable dogs nor make excuses for them.It does not take just one thing to set them off at all.You make them sound like they are a crazed killing machine and if they were as you described no one would be able to own one as they would be uncontrollable and that just is not the case I am sorry to inform you.You have been blinded by the media sensationalism as have many.The real American Pitbull Terrier is not a child killer.

Yes, I think it wrong that society is ascribing responsibility for the dog's behaviour to the wrong end of the leash. Not every individual in any breed "needs" to be kept in such a manner Ceilidh. I would urge anyone who has pro breed ban views about dogs to read Karen Delise's excellent book Fatal Dog Attacks. Even a cursory browse will educate you that dangerous dogs are MADE, not born and that failure to train, failure to socialise and failure to manage are at the root of each and every one of these tragedies. Failure to supervise children is another very common factor but not in this case it seems. Sadly many will never rad the book or educate themselves just go on beleiving what they see in the headlines.There are many factors that contribute to dog attacks breed being only one of them.

Firstly my heart bleeds for the parents.None should have to go through that.Losing a child is a heartbreaking tragedy but to lose one in this way is indescribable and especially gut wrenching considering the families background.I can not imagine their greif especially as it was in their own home where they should feel safe.I dont know why the dog is still breathing.If I was their neighbour the owner of the dog would have been carrying its carcass home to bury it. What does he mean by this style of dog?Considering it was a crossbreed yes this style of dog as most dog bites if the truth be known are by crossbred dogs becuase they are the most owned dog in the country.I am surprised by the comment s of a so called dog trainer.Most but not all problem dogs are made not born and any dog trainer worth his salt would attest to this.Banning any breed is lulling the community into a false sense of security that dangerous dogs have been removed from the community and this isnt so especially when youare targetting a breed that is not responsible for the majority of attacks. I would ask Steve if he believes everything he sees in the media and also what his experience as a dog trainer is with the American Pitbull Terrier becuase I have a couple of decades of hands on experience with the breed that differs.Unstable dogs are just that regardless of breed and need to be removed from the community.Banning the pitbull australia wide will do nothing to stem dog attacks.Children will continue to be maimed until they start handing out hefty penalties and or jail terms for irresponsible owners regardless of breed.I hope you got soe mileage out of your tv appearance Steve.I too was contacted to appear but declined as you are on a hiding to nothing defending the dogs and I know the truth so no point letting a media outlet twist my words and heavily edit them to distort the truth.

I wouldnt totally blame the ANKC but I think they need to open their eyes a little wider.It wasnt all scaremongering some of it was true.I see a lot of words on their part but how about a bit more action.Instead of saying that breeders undertake stringent health testing how about making it compulsory.If you made it compulsory for full registration dogs to undergo specific health tests before litters can be registered.It would go some way to improving health in pure bred dogs not just saying breeders do it.Because I know for a fact some dont.Their are members here who are ankc registered breeders who dont but dont mind collecting large sums for puppies. The state of the Neapolitan Mastiff in the expose was exposed and shows the reality.A once noble breed on the downhill slide due to improper breeding practices.How about noting the more serious health problems of the breed and forcing people to test for it.Dogs dying and 4 and 5 years old is not acceptable.There are other breeds in a similar position.If you want a reason why some cross breed dogs there it is.I am not getting into the debate which is healthier.All dog breeds and crosses have their problems but who wants a walking vet bill that you paid a few k for. Start practicing what you preach ANKC.

Pretty much does doesnt it. Why would you shoot at a dog someone was holding that was not attacking them?Unless you werent really aiming for the dog.

Are you sure the ad was in Australia?If it was on facebook maybe not.What type of bulldog are we talking about?The only thing I can think of that equates to the 93% is the 15/16th rule.In the States the NKC and a few others I think will register American Bulldogs that are 15/16th's pure which is 93.75%.In other words they can have a pitbull or other outcross 4 genrations back because from the on bred to pure dogs it wont make any difference.Thats the only feasible explanation I can come up with.Unless it is an aussie bulldog with 93% British bulldog blood but I dont know that they show them anywhere.

and I guess you straight away knew it shouldn't be about anything you do or about the fact that some breeders favour HA or DA temperament . . . bull breeds prominent. No problem if its part of the debate becuase you made it part of the debate.You seem to be in shock and aghast since you first discovered that breed standard 12 months ago.Well guess what the Fila has been in the states for the past 30 or so years.Google dog fatalaties and see what you find.You wont find any becuase there arent any so that might tell you what sort of dog they are.Most are not rampant werewolf like animals that will kill any passer by.They guard there space and family with vigour like many guardian breeds do,however they are not handler aggressive like some of the so called guardian breeds may have a tendency toward without a firm hand.They are loyal to the core to their family and thats it.They do not welcome outsiders and that is not a problem if you know how to take basic precautions.Chances are in Claifornia where there are quite a few you may have one living next to you and never know it.Not unless you plant to jump over your neighbours fence.They are not a rebid vicious animal so you need to stop worrying yourself about them. How is it you say the CAFIB standard is the extreme for breeding Human aggression?To attempt to put it into context for you so you may understand.The part about the temperament of the dog is a test at 12 months of age or older.The test is conducting by a stranger and he is acting strangely/suspiciously and approaching the dog and owner with a stick/whip/gun in a diagonal pattern and the dog must at all times keep himself betweeen the attacker and his owner while being willing to go forward and bite him if necessary.Now lets put that in perspective.What do you think Law Enforcement do with a prospective dog to train for police work?At some stage they have to ascertain if the dog will bite to be able to apprehend a suspect.So they undertake some bite work with an agitator.NO DIFFERENT.Do you know what Schutzhund is?It was invented as the Breed Standard test for the GSD.NO DIFFERENT. The TT or Temperament Test for the Fila is no different.The Cafib and CBKC standard are just like the Show GSD people and the Schutzhund GSD people.Some think a dog she just be good for strutting around a ring and looking pretty and others dont.Cafib wants to preserve the rustic old world Mastiff and the others want another show dog tragedy.pretty obvious I would have thought. It is quite obvious from your posts that you have never had anything to do with guardian breeds.I am not trying to be funny but it is obvious.I hope and pray now that you have moved back to the States that you never require such a dog or never suffer an event that makes you understand why people would keep such a dog. Have you ever heard of a Black Russian Terrier?Caucasian Ovcharka? They are guard dogs par excellence and the 'real' ones have a temperament that is not all that different to a Fila.Ask some Neapolitan Mastiff breeders if they have ever had a dog in the ring that wanted to bite the judge or owned a dog they would not take to a show becuase of that reason.Maybe many may not answer honestly but I could name names here of dogs that would have gladly bitten the judge but you have to put things in context and perspective when you talk about breeding for aggression.The Bull Mastiffs history prior to breed standard is not that much different than the Fila for that matter. It has already been spelled out for you.Yes certain breeds will genetically carry certain traits but that is only half of it.the other half is on the other end of the leash and what they do in raising,training,housing,caring for said dog.I personally dont beleive in dumbing dogs down so people can own them.If you dont want certain traits then dont own certain breeds.What breeders should be more focused on is who they sell dogs to and why.Sadly too many are in it for a dollar and dont care who they sell a dog too and that is the problem. As far as bull breeds go.yes as part of their history and make up some will be prone to DA if you dont acknowledge that and dont want it then dont own one.Simple.We shouldnt have to dumb dogs down to please Neurotic owners that want a look instead of a dog.yes dogs should fit into the environment they live in but once again that comes down to breeders being responsible in who they sell dogs to and if they care enough about the breed over the money to make the right choice.As far as breeding for aggression you would first have to understand corrct temperament in the said breed first.Take care and pray you never need a real guard dog.

How does a guard dog guard if no humans are around to 'command' it?? The answer is simple - by instinct. That will involve a genetic predisposition to be DA or HA in most cases. I don't have an issue with dogs that are prepared to be DA or HA as part of their 'jobs' if the job is lawful. What I do have an issue with is people who get such dogs and fail to ensure that they don't become a danger to the community through poor management. Lets not blame such dogs for the fact that their owners are irresponsible, ignorant or criminal. Let me tell you, if I lived in some of the world's most dangerous places, I'd own a Fila in a heartbeat. South Africa would be a case in point. If I lived in Johannesburg I'd probably have several. I'd want people to think twice about the dogs before entering my home and I'd be happy for the dog to step up to protect house or family. Such dogs are only an issue when they're placed in the wrong home. Exactly

If you didnt want the debate to be about a the Fila then you shouldnt have posted the breed standard.when I read the topic I straight away knew what it would be about. I think you need to do a bit mor research and understand the dogs.I never flamed you but you seem to conveniently not answer questions and only read what you want to. The standard adopted by CAFIB was written by DR Paulo Santos Cruz in Brazil in 1946 suffice to say it was a few years ago.They adopted his breed standard when the club was set up to try to save the real Fila instead of turning it into another show dog tragedy in an attemppt to preserve the real Fila.Cfib papers are not accepted by the CBKC as far as I am aware so they are not dual registered as CBKC is recognised by the FCI.(This constantly makes me laugh when so called dog experts come here mouthing off about these dogs being restricted and being made up mutts becuase the Fila is FCI recognised and recognised by the New Zealand Kennel Club).Anyway back to the topic you dont have to worry about those dogs becuase they cant be registered with the CBKC. Now read the standard again.It says "IF" the dog attacks the judge.It should read attempts to becuase they are on lead and the judge is not going to get close enough to get bitten.It says "if" not that it should attack the judge.It just states it should not be disqualified for it.Yes at one year old or above the dog must show aversion to strangers becuase if it doesnt it isnt a Fila that is a temperament test or a TT.What is so hard to understand about that?That is what they were bred for.If you dont like it dont get one.CAFIB is a Brazilian organisation it is not promoting the dogs outside of Brazil but looking to preserve a national dog that is part of its countries history just as the Blue heeler is part of ours.If you have lived in Brazil you might change your mind about the Fila.Their are still places where such a dog comes in handy. Who is delibeartely selecting pups for aggression,I said to you if I wanted to breed a dog like that I could easily do it by doing so.I am not interested in doing so.You need to legislate to put onus on the owner not the dog becuase it doesnt matter what breed it is especially if it is a purposely bred crossbreed.How else are you going to fix the problem pray tell.Every scenario you put up doesnt really matter what dog it only matters who the owner is and how responsible they are and there lies the problem.People not dogs.

Breeders are actively and openly selecting for aggressive temperament? Or breeders are actively and openly selecting for correct temperament? No breed should be watered down to fit someone elses "ideal" IMO. I wholeheartedly agree.Unfortunately too many people want a dog for its looks they dont want a real temperament.Take the Neapolitan Mastiff.It is one of the best guard dogs around and people like the prehistoric look but thats mainly it.They want a dog that has that intimidating size and look about it but dont want a dog with temperament so they water them down or breed from dogs with no temperament at all.Most couldnt handle the real temperament of a Neo and unfortuantely that will make them redundant and the show set will make sure of that.In the last 5 or so years you only have to look at the trend of bigger is better dont worry about temperament.

I knew this topic would turn into another Fila debate.Since you discovered them you still have a bee in your bonnet over them.Have you ever met one yet now you are back in the states?They do not exist here in Australia and they are already banned so it is a nonsensical argument.Why dont you petition them in the States to have them banned and see how far you get.You still havent listened to anything I have had to say on the subject and I do have some first hand knowledge of the dogs.What you read in a breed standard and what the dogs are like today might not be the same thing.As society becomes more urbanised and populated those that cant fit in go by the way side.You would be hard pressed to find a Fila with real temperament in the States anymore.You would have to go to South America to places where they have a real need for them.There they are bred for a reason and still used for that reason.They are a special dog and not a crazed man eater.Not unless you f*** with them and that would be your bad. As I have stated before I could take breeds that are already here and cross them and produce a man killer if I so wanted and I dont.So what are you going to do?Ban every breed of dog over 20 kgs?Put the onus on the owner simple.It really isnt that hard.Once they realise it will be their ass on the line if their dog does something they might think twice about it.Until that happens nothing will change.

Given that more dog attacks occur because the dog has no social bond with its owners, its an interesting observation to make. Dog attacks are not caused by whether or not a dog is allowed inside. Indeed, there are arguments that would tend to suggest that inside is better than isolated from family. If you wanted me to speculate about what happened, I'd lay odds there's been a conflict and the dog has weighed in on the side of the person its most bonded to. Facts are none of us know the circumstances of this attack. Speculation is pointless. I agree and I am not specualting on what happened in this instanceas I said in my post but I am speaking from experience.I have seen it many times before.Many people treat dogs to much like humans and they get a dog that is dominant and possessive and keeping a dog like that in the house and not offering any leadership or discipline is a recipe for disaster so I disagree with you about having a dog inside having nothing to do with it.It depends on the dog and dog with the sort of background as the one in this incident can be that way.Too many people own dogs they shouldnt.I do agree wiht you that maybe there is more to the story and I will hazard a guess dog has sided with one over the other but in they were both bitten so we will never know.I have owned many many dogs that were that way inclined and I have never ever ever had one turn on me.

Sad state of affiars.I feel for the guy and its easy to bag him but things pan out differently in real life and peope do what they have to.I wouldnt have stabbed the dog to death but then again I wasnt there.A breaking stick is good for breaking dogs off of other dogs but not so good when it is dog on human especially if the dog is handler aggressive.You are going to get bitten.If the dog had a collar he should have choked it out.They always let go when they cant breathe anymore,If no collar grab lead and loop it around and choke it then holding the lead lift it off the ground and manhandle it outside. I am sure he wishes it ended differently.Very sad.Let it be a lesson to people about dogs and making choices based on research.Too many peopl obtain a dog because they like the look of a certain breed without knowing much about them.They then proceed to humanise the dog keep it indoors treat it like a child and not read the warning signs.Then one day when the dog has reached maturity and he thinks he is the pack leader and his authority is threatened he assaults the humans and it becomes his fault because owners were too stupid to see what was coming.I am not saying this is what happened here but all too often its the same story.

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. Your first mistake is saying Quarantine facilities have professional staff on hand.Have you ever been to one?The kennel staff are payed minimum wage just like child care workers.They are not professionals.The temperament test is to be conducted before animal leaves in order to pass.Once it is in quarantine it is already here and doesnt matter what quarantine staff think.If the dog is declared dangerous it will have to abide by the restrictions which means it will have to be desexed.I think you need to reread it.the part about dd was in reference to dogs being imported by the services(military) and security personnel.If they are to be used for that purpose they would have to be declared dd.Why would a civilian import a dog and pay $10 000 only to have it desexed.Like we all have money to burn. From your post I can see you are bit out of touch with the import requirements because you have never imported.Everyone that has understands the health tests and requirements that need to be conducted wether it is sperm or live animal and no you cant bring in sperm from a dead dog if it hasnt had the appropriate health tests for this country prior to having the semen taken.Just the same for a live dog.You missed the point once again.What we were talking about is if this is brought in there is no way of temperament testing a dead dog now is there.So in all liklehood they will not allow you to do so.You have misread what is written which is mostly my point.It is open to interpretation.I dont have a huge problem with it as an alternative to BSL but I do if it is put in as an additon and BSL is not removed.i think the wording needs to be a bit clearer as well.

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. That all depends whio is doing the behavioural assessment and what the criteria is doenst it.Know one can import a diseased animal now so that is nonsense talk and I dont know why you bring it up.Dangerous by whose assessment?That is the problem.By reading a breed standard?that is how the Presa Canario got added to the list.No breed is not mentioned but as I said it states exhibit or carry and like I said if they do not want a particular breed to enter that is not already on the list it leaves it open to interpretation. You mustnt have read what I said becuase this is being put forward as an alternative to BSl and that is fine an dandy but if the government runs with this and doesnt rescind bsl it will make it harder for those trying to import current breeds as well as new breeds.If you cant see that I cant help you and yes I have dealt with AQIS and I know what the process is all about. Actually the Presa Canario was added because of the Diane Whipple death and accompanying media circus. They are neither naturally aggressive nor behaviourally or genetically unsound. Meanwhile GSDs and Rottis aren't added despite the numbers they've killed, through idiot owners I might add. That is part of the reason but not the only reason.I do know the background on it and why but I am not going to state it on a public message board.

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. That all depends whio is doing the behavioural assessment and what the criteria is doenst it.Know one can import a diseased animal now so that is nonsense talk and I dont know why you bring it up.Dangerous by whose assessment?That is the problem.By reading a breed standard?that is how the Presa Canario got added to the list.No breed is not mentioned but as I said it states exhibit or carry and like I said if they do not want a particular breed to enter that is not already on the list it leaves it open to interpretation. You mustnt have read what I said becuase this is being put forward as an alternative to BSl and that is fine an dandy but if the government runs with this and doesnt rescind bsl it will make it harder for those trying to import current breeds as well as new breeds.If you cant see that I cant help you and yes I have dealt with AQIS and I know what the process is all about.

Good point and I would think that would be a no you cant import on that basis.

It has been relayed that this is the intention and always was although it is not clearly outlined in the position statement I posted hence my stance.In their positions and policies 6.15 it does state they do not support BSL becuase it is proven not to work.I do support them if this is their push however my apprehension remains.If this is put forward and the government pick it up and run with it and do not rescind BSL we are in a far worse position than before.Not only will it prevent some individuals entering the country it can and will have the ability to stop new breeds from being introduced to this country on a discretionary basis.I would still urge people to contact their vet and ask questions.At the end of the day it still has to be picked up by the minister and I doubt they will rescind BSL.I just hope they dont add this to it as well.