steamboat

Are you a parent? I assume you are. I wonder if your attitude would be the same if you witnessed your baby ripped to bits in your own living room by an unknown intruder? I wonder if those here who aren't parents would have the same attitude if their oodle or swf was ripped to pieces in front of them in their own home? BTW, I can't ever recall hearing of a horse or a shark charging into a persons home & killing anyone? Silly analogy for BSL...IMO. Horses, sharks, cars, food poisoning? What do any of those have to do with BSL ffs. You'll have to do better than that. I don't support BSL, however, purely from the ''saving the dogs'' perspective, I am more concerned about the damage those who breed &/or actively seek out these dogs & then masquarade them as cross breeds of recognised pure breeds are doing to those recognised pure breeds future chances of not being dragged into a mire not of their making. It has happened o/s I am more concerned for those pure breeds implicated, my own preferred breed in particular, than I am for any crossbreed mongrel. Hard? Yep. But one has to prioritise.. I don't want to see any dog go down, but losing entire breeds is my greatest fear. I'm a pure breed kinda person you see.....& have been for a very long time. I disagree with just about everything you said. But you disagree me. So that just makes it even. I truly do believe making owners responsible for the ''crimes'' of their dogs would be a great step forward in winning over the public. BSL will never be overturned without public support. Any politician who proposed it now would be out of a job at the next ballot. Also, I give more credibility to those that are directly affected by BSL than those with nothing to lose. But not those who have deliberately flaunted the law. They are the problem. Definately no credibility - at all - in my view. Edit. Walk into a car joint & plonk down the bucks order the car. They wont give a ratz if you have a license or not. Ditto with a dog. Guns? There seems to be a squillion of them around Sydneys outer suburbs, so who needs a license?

Ironic that Steamboat is screeching about valid opinions while directing people that opinions are not on topic. If people stop responding then Steamboat can shout about it all he/she likes in the vacuum which will be the only existence on this forum for him/her. Agree. Edited to add, on a Footy forum I'm a member of, they have an "ignore" function, where you put members who's crap you don't want to read on, it's fantastic, would be good if DOL had it. They have. Please avail yourself of it.

What's wrong with a bit of creative management........we are talking box tickers here......what would you need to produce for a ranger to leave happily without your dog on a seizure mission In my experience (which is more than you would think), a switched on and Hitleresque lawyer!! m-sass And do you think it is fair, reasonable and equitable that someone should acquire a cute puppy which is the product of two crossbred dogs - neither of which have any pitbull - and when it grows up, it is tan with light eyes, it never does anything wrong, and it is sitting on the lawn one day, minding its own business when the ACO comes and grabs it, and the council will not let the owners see it again, or have the body returned after they have knocked it off? Can you tell me why that dog should die? It's not a pitbull. It has never done anything wrong. It should be killed, why? Someone who only thinks purebred dogs should continue to live, is not, imho, a true dog lover. Mantis, of course you are correct. Its even worse when they actively promote and support B.S.L to that end.Thats more than just not caring,or prefering Pedigrees.Thats hate. Extremism. I also think they are who they say.Different styles.Even scarier. I keep trying to find a way to say it with out offending any one.I can't but that attitude is fostered here on Dol.(and else where )There has to be a better way to bring change than labeling anyone who breeds out side of the KCs as irresponsible.Mostly it may be so, but its not a given.Its taught to be a given.These guys believe it whole heartedly enough to cheer on a slaughter. If the KCs could find a way to include non pedigree dogs, (Appendix registries? Novelty show events? Something?)They could be gaining new members who learn about goals and purpose. The Kcs would gain a big voice.And be given some thing new to to measure themselves against,even if only in novelty events. Otherwise,there are new registries popping up that cater only for D.D and commercial farms who are just as extreme,or more, towards the KCS. They will take up the slack and the KCs will suffer for that. If I get booted for these views,so be it. Who said that?

Nice looking dog - but a Bull Mastiff X Boxer? I think the " It's all Tony Abbotts fault'' defence could work agains the victim here unless he has an independant winess..

Ironic that Steamboat is screeching about valid opinions while directing people that opinions are not on topic. If people stop responding then Steamboat can shout about it all he/she likes in the vacuum which will be the only existence on this forum for him/her. Actually, I agreed with the sentiment & then pointed out that, howevr, it wasn't the topic. But don't let the truth get in your way, you haven't so far so I expect it wont happen in the future.

There again, we have yet another opinion.

One out of three ain't bad. You are improving.

I guess I am defending the dog in that I think that the whole incident was caused by the owner or person who was responsbible for looking after the dog. Banning that type of dog (even if you could adequately define that) will not solve the problem of bad owners. I'm arguing with your definitions of "provocation". And I'm suggesting that dog bites could be prevented by other means than banning a whole "breed". In the UK and Italy and a lot of other places - they have found that banning certain breeds (Italy banned 95 different breeds before they twigged) - does not reduce the incidence of dog attacks (provoked or not doesn't really matter to me). So why are you advocating banning a whole breed - a law that cannot be enforced fairly - because we currently have no reliable way of identifying what breed a dog is. It's already known on most places other than Victoria that the problem lies with the owner. It's the same with cars. They're lethal when not managed responsibly. There's plenty that people can do to avoid accidents but mostly it comes down to the safety and responsibility and competency of the driver. And we do consider drivers need training and a licence that can be taken away from them if they don't act responsibily with their potentially lethal weapon. Hopefully cars will one day require a valid licence before they will operate - or maybe we'll get cars that drive themselves safely - I'm hanging out for that one. But for dogs - I think the owners should be licenced, pass some sort of basic competency test, and have the licence (and dog) removed if they're found to be irresponsible and dangerous with their management of their dog(s). This would work much better than something breed specific. Because it would apply equally to all dogs and their owners. The point is, I haven't advocated banning entire breeds at all. Read my posts, not the posts of my small but persistent band of antagonists.. My opinion is that owners be responsible for their dogs & everything to do with their dogs, including breed/s I.D if push comes to shove. If this dog was a declared breed, which the owner would deny, as they all do, but couldn't prove otherwise, the owner be held responsible for the death of the baby, be charged with malicious assault causing death & face the penalties associated with the charge. Twenty years incarceration or what ever it may be? As it is, a child is dead, the dog is destroyed & the bloody owner just walks away with a lousy $11 K fine. Where's the justice in that? Don't you consider if owners were held more accountable people would be more responsible? Responsible owners with "suspicious'' looking dogs wouldn't have to sweat it every time they took bowser for a walk. BSL is the law, & until it is repealed, if ever, I would advocate adding a criminal offense aspect in relation to any injuries caused by a restricted dog. Malicious assault causing death Malicious assault causing injury etc,etc,etc. Right down to what the terminologies for death or injury to animals are. While licensing all owners sounds good, I consider it to be totally impractable. You can buy a car without a license for e.g. It's if you are caught driving it is when the shit hits the fan. edit. B.J. You did say pet MALE. I did reply, job done.

If indeed the dog had been declared a dangerous dog before the incident, restrictions of ownership include being under effective control & muzzled when in public. The dog will pay the price for the owners arrogance. Again.

Which is your opinion. All opinions are valid.

But i'm not about about trying to eradicate a "type'' of dog at all. If you want to get right the nitty gritty, i'm about making owners responsible for their dogs. For everything concerning their dog. As for the neutering thing, consider this. Only registered breeders be allowed to keep entire dogs? Neuter every pet dog & bitch, not just the dogs. Why do people think just throwing any old dogs together makes them a ''breeder''. At least the ANKC has a code of ethics that expects registered breeders to breed for the benefit of the breed. i.e. to breed with the integrity of the breed as their main objective.

Nothing to add except a piece of info... it's called a brace lead. Not a coupler. Keep abusive replies to no more than ten lines please folks.

Again. That is now. & yet again, That is not the topic. Have you read the coroners proposal? If so, have you given it any impartial & rational consideration? Assuming you have & don't agree with the proposal. That is your opinion. I agree with the proposal. That is my opinion. How would you react if I told you your opinion was not valid because it didn't agree with mine, & my like minded group attacked every post you submitted to try & discredit you? Incidentally, Imagine you were prosecuted for keeping a restricted breed contrary to the law & three certified, accredited experts testified for the prosecution in the affirmative to a court. You would be required to discredit their evidence to escape the consequences. You would need to prove your dog was not of the restricted ''type'' or at the very least establish reasonable doubt. A declaration & subsequent silence would not be considered proof of innocence. Lawyers aren't about justice. Lawyers are about winning.

On the contrary, the vast majority of posts made by me are in response to questions put & the clumsy & irrational attempts to discredit my answers. Do you support moosmum ridiculous statement that the ANKC, their state bodies & members support the BSL & therefore agree withe ''slaughter'' (her words, not mine) of innocent dogs? Can you show where I have ever voiced the opinion only ANKC registered pure breeds be allowed to live? Disgusting misinformation proffered by a disgusting & irrational poster..

Regardless of your views on the BSL? That is not the topic. The topic is the coroner of the Chol inquest recommendations. One of which she recommends owners, not councils, be liable to provide evidence of their breed/s ancestory when dogs are declared to be of the restricted "type'" by an authorised council officer.