Amax-1

Nice videos, loved the puppy one I still reckon a GSD has a nicer head than a Mal though :laugh:

They may "have" to provide papers but they don't. What they do for example is a litter of 6, 3 are sold without papers at a reduced price, meaning the buyers can't breed from the unpapered pups with registered breeding's, so the breeder registers only 3 pups meaning only 3 were born or only 3 lived from the litter. Dogs Vic are none the wiser how many pups were born/lived from the litter and all the breeder has to say if questioned is 3 pups died. The people who own the 3 unpapered pups are not going to dob the breeder in for non compliance, so that's how they sell some papered and some unpapered.

In the 40 years I have been involved in the pure breed dog world it has never been and option to sell with or without papers in Victoria. I know a couple of breeders who still do it in Victoria. Once the litter is sold, they register only the pups people want papered selling on mains or unpapered at a reduced price.

GSD's and Rottweilers are the best deterrent breeds by offender avoidance statistics, with these breeds the offenders are never sure of the training the dog may have on entry even when the dog is seemingly docile. Border Collies are unlikely to deter offenders from serious threat and often results in injuries to the dog by offenders willing to take it on showing guarding instinct. The beauty of GSD's and Rotties is that they don't need to show any aggression as their mere presence is intimidating to potential crime. Crooks know what breeds are most trainable in guarding and protection as dogs are hazardous to their unlawful activities. Dogs used as crime deterrents if not known breeds, need to be large dogs that show aggression or intimidating territorial barking where smallish dogs of watch dog types aside from noise alerting owners are often donged on the head in the crime process. My belief is to use the right breeds for offender deterrent to keep the property and dog potentially safe :)

Yes, that is true. Nothing wrong with fighting for what you believe in. Bad law is bad law. The problem is, it's like having a cannabis plant growing in your front garden. Whether or not they are aware of the cannabis plant's legality or if the intention of the plant is not for the cultivation of drugs doesn't matter in law as the onus is on the person growing the cannabis plant to find out what can be planted in compliance with law. The same applies with restricted breeds, that is the APBT is a restricted breed so when buying a dog/puppy, the onus is on the buyer to comply with the relevant laws by finding out before hand what breeds are restricted. Buying Amstaff type Bull cross breeds that could be perceived as restricted breeds is not a very informed purchase that could sadly result in dramatic consequence for the dog and the owners. The APBT has suffered breed restriction since 1992 and in terms of crossbreeds, it's no different to some countries laws on wolf hybrids, that is you don't by GSD or Husky type crossbreeds that could be perceived as wolf ancestry by appearance as the same thing with seizure results there as it can here with APBT appearance.

I know of an operable guide dog trainer/assessor couldn't sign off on a therapy dog not being Delta accredited.

Unfortunately the dog's temperament isn't the basis of law, it's the perceived breed that governs seizure.

No, it implies that breed selection was taken from the ANKC list implying that the breed is eligible for keeping within the community. The breed was chosen because it was ANKC recognised, that is the owners didn't merely purchase a cross breed or an unrecognised breed. If the breed ended up on the BSL list, the owners can argue a compensation case on that basis. If it's an unrecognised breed then it can be argued that undue diligence on the owner's part led to the purchase. You couldn't be more diligent than selecting a recognised breed from the ANKC list and purchasing a papered dog from a registered breeder. It's the very reason Amstaff's are not on the BSL list determined as Pitbulls. If an ANKC recognised breed was added to the BSL list, Amstaff's will be first with their APBT connection and they are heavily supported with BSL avoidance strategy. As I mentioned earlier, a vets declaration that an unregistered dog is an Amstaff escapes APBT BSL restrictions. The states don't have to implement BSL, but breed banning can only be breeds subject to import restriction, that is a state or municipal district cannot decide to ban Cocker Spaniels overnight for example.

What is your reasoning behind being so adamant that no ANKC breed will ever be added? Seeing as every other country that has implemented BSL has had at least one kennel club registered breed included... Because ANKC recognition implies breed eligibility for unrestricted keeping. Because of the amount of people owning the breed in sheer numbers enables the potential for a easily funded class action law suit to be initiated which the government would be unlikely to win as no ANKC recognised breeds have a breed standard defined as a threat to the community as a family pet. A handful of individual dogs non compliant with the breed standard won't shut down an entire breed to restrictions.

Abolishing BSL means no import restrictions of the listed breeds. No political party will abolish BSL to risk newly imported breeds being involved in serious attacks which the political party cannot control the management of such breeds or individual dogs. All it takes is a Fila or Dogo to kill a child after the abolition of BSL and there will cries of mass anger towards the party responsible for the child's life......none of us are naïve enough not to understand this when no one needs a Fila or Dogo for example to maintain quality of life when there are plenty of other breeds to chose from. There is probably more chance of having the APBT released from the list but total abolition of BSL is not going to happen as the risk of doing so for the little gain if any is not worth the exercise. As far as cross breeds go with restricted breed appearance, they need in my opinion to be temperament tested which is not hard to determine a dog's propensity to cause harm with little provocation. If the dog is actively aggressive and the handler/owner has little control, then the dog needs a second look but if it's a good dog regardless of looks, let it live it's life.

Good question? If a dog has already established a high value for other dogs, the dog needs to genetically be highly driven for food or toy rewards to transition easily from dog to handler focus. It's the reason in working and sporting applications certain breeds and bloodlines are chosen with the greatest genetic likelihood to be adaptable for work/sport required of it. Foundation training from a puppy to create high handler value and focus is the easiest way to achieve strong focus and obedience in the adult dog.

It depends on the individual dog as the more aloof a dog is and the higher the drive, the easier they focus on the handler through distractions and retain obedience with the same foundation training.

They will never place ANKC recognised breeds on the BSL list because ANKC recognition implies that the breed is eligible to be legally owned and kept unless they want mass law suits occurring where the APBT was never ANKC recognised for anything to be substantially argued in favour of their existence. Other breeds like American Bulldogs and the like could be added to the BSL list but it won't happen with ANKC recognised breeds for anyone to be concerned about. It's the very reason why Amstaff's are exempt from BSL when they are closely APBT related to the point a vet declaring an unregistered Amstaff will escape it's seizure to BSL. It's the same as highly defending the blood alcohol limit at .05 is BS and should be .08, the fact that it's law regardless of whether of not it's BS will not help anyone caught driving over .05 likewise with anyone caught with a dog resembling an APBT, best not to drink and drive or take on a Bull cross breed if lessening the risk of dramas is the desired result. No one needs a Bull cross breed as there are plenty of alternatives.

It used to be common having a choice between papered and non papered I think before limited register evolved where non papered pups were cheaper. If the breeders are over 50 odd years old, they may be a bit old school perhaps, or the sire or dam maybe on limited reg and they can't register the litter anyway telling you some BS to justify it?

Other than for breeding, I wouldn't have female dogs at all in a multi dog household and prefer males albeit this experience is mainly with GSD's, but males are easier to handle, learn and accept pack dynamics more easily and don't hold grudges in the even of a scrap that bitches tend to. In a scrap, males tend to apply enough pressure to prove a point and if they can do it with slobber and noise they will over mounting a savage attack. The worse dog fights I have seen in GSD's were always two bitches and one nasty one was a bitch attack on a desexed male wasn't pretty either.

The reason many security people like defence driven dogs is so they don't have to train a dog of stable character to protect. They only need a sharp dog bordering on fear aggressive to light up easily and put on a show is enough deterrent for the average offender to be intimidated by the dog and solve the problem. To achieve a protection dog who won't light up or bite passive people unless commanded to do so takes prey drive to train such a discipline which can't be achieved with a defence driven dog lacking in prey.

It's implied by a particular appearance that the dog is of a restricted breed, but they are breeds listed under BSL not appearances per se. From what I can understand of DNA, it cannot accurately determine breed.......perhaps if the parents were papered and with DNA say a papered Amstaff x Labrador, there would be more leverage in such evidence but crossbreed parents determined by DNA that no restricted breed exists in their ancestry could perhaps amount to who conducted the DNA test with result variations. I had the understanding that DNA for breed determination was a bit all over the place as the reason it was refused in evidence? The problem is, when a law is in place, it doesn't matter that the rationale of the law is nonsense to use as a defence for having a dog who's breed cannot be determined to the satisfaction of the courts. We just need to be careful owning dogs of the "appearance" until such a law is reduced in sensationalism and dogs are condemned by temperament only when possessing the "appearance". You're right that DNA isn't super accurate at IDing breed - but it's almost 100% accurate at ID-ing parentage. Dogs who's DNA-confirmed parents have had the standard applied under the legislation and been cleared as NOT being restricted breeds, can still be declared restricted based on THEIR appearance. The fact that the DNA-proven parents are NOT restricted according to the same legislation cannot be used as an argument to clear the progeny. Parentage doesn't matter - the individual dog's appearance does. The original intention may have been for it to target specific breeds, but in application, it is appearance based legislation, not breed. Has that scenario been tested in court where the parents have cleared the appearance test when the dog in question is confirmed by DNA as the parents progeny? I guess the prosecution would argue that restricted breed cannot be ruled out from the parents when they produce progeny that fails the appearance test or something to that effect?. I don't disagree with the intention of the law to eliminate especially dogs purposely bred for strong aggression that present a danger to the community, but I think they are more bred on aggressive dogs than bred on restricted breeds. Dogs of "type" need to be condemned on failing a temperament test as any dogs with genetically strong aggression presenting community danger can't be masked easily without extensive training, that is dogs with problematic aggression are easily determined in the basic of tests. They need to get off the notion that an aggressive dog of Bull breed origin contains Pit Bull as the cause of aggression. It may well be a Staffy crossed with a fear biting bitch of any breed mixture producing reactive progeny....it's as silly as saying an aggressive GSD or Husky type dog has wolf in it causing the aggression? On that note, some countries grab sable and reverse mask GSD's and Husky type dogs for wolf hybrids if the owners can't prove breed as they do here with Bull breeds.

Not all dogs share equal ability to focus through distractions even in the same breed which is most definitely a genetic component. Working with GSD's bred on imported Schutzhund titled bloodlines compared to locally produced bloodlines, there is a massive difference in the ability to focus and to the extreme of some pups appearing as if they have done it all before in a former life.....Malinois from sporting lines are much the same in focus ability motivated by reward. LAT type training methods IME are best applied to dogs with enough genetic focus to support the method and with dogs short on genetic ability to focus, other training methods provide better results. That's basically what Cesar Milan applies irrespective of choke outs and alpha rolls to achieve restraint, once the dog has given up the fight, relaxation techniques are then used to reinforce calm behaviour.

Did you have the GSD in your signature with Zoe at the same time and she was ok with your GSD? I have had a GSD who was ok with GSDs but not with other breeds. I thought perhaps because he lived with my other two GSD's and was ok with them, he had a breed tolerance. To expand on this, I took him to the GSD club once and his behaviour was fine until he saw someone with a Staffy in the car park and he lost the plot LAT works well with dogs who have drive in the right place to achieve good handler focus.....a working Kelpie I imagine would have that inherent drive, but the reactive GSD's I have experienced that didn't respond to LAT type regimes well, were not good at achieving handler focus in other training areas either and were hard work compared with others to train through distractions.

It's implied by a particular appearance that the dog is of a restricted breed, but they are breeds listed under BSL not appearances per se. From what I can understand of DNA, it cannot accurately determine breed.......perhaps if the parents were papered and with DNA say a papered Amstaff x Labrador, there would be more leverage in such evidence but crossbreed parents determined by DNA that no restricted breed exists in their ancestry could perhaps amount to who conducted the DNA test with result variations. I had the understanding that DNA for breed determination was a bit all over the place as the reason it was refused in evidence? The problem is, when a law is in place, it doesn't matter that the rationale of the law is nonsense to use as a defence for having a dog who's breed cannot be determined to the satisfaction of the courts. We just need to be careful owning dogs of the "appearance" until such a law is reduced in sensationalism and dogs are condemned by temperament only when possessing the "appearance".

At the end of the day BSL is not based on temperament - it is based on solely appearance. BSL assumes that any dog with a certain appearance is dangerous - in the eyes of the lawmakers the dog does not need to be temperament tested - it is dangerous regardless. (Zeus is doing brilliantly in his new home and has an absolutely incredible temperament, especially for a dog that has just been locked up for so long. He is super friendly with everyone and every other dog he meets, and is winning over many hearts in the ACT!) It's not actually based on appearance, the appearance governs speculation of a breed that is outlawed. It doesn't speculate that a dog of certain appearance is dangerous, it speculates that a dog of certain appearance is an outlawed breed. The policing of BSL isn't based on the perceived danger level of specific breeds or individual dogs, it's based on breeds that are banned in a given area thereby the owners of dogs perceived to be of banned breeds are breaking the law.

I don't see how you could set up a reactive dog for flooding exercises without restraint which would add an aversive if the reactive dog is lunging at the end of the leash trying to attack the decoy dog as a reactive dog does in close proximity to another by default unless a fence or the like separated them perhaps. I have seen reactive dogs allowed to fence fight and usually one dog will back off in time which is essentially a win for the other probably reinforcing the behaviour in the winning dog. Having said that, I have seen a stability test conducted with a dog backed up to a fence held in a drop stay with a reactive dog behind the fence going off and what happened there, the reactive dog after 30 seconds or so stopped reacting when the other dog ignored the commotion. When the reactive dog stopped, it appeared by memory to look more confused when the aggressive display on the fence didn't cause the other dog to react or drive it away. I guess it's similar to approaching a fence with a guard dog behind it if you stand at the fence motionless long enough, the guard dog will stop barking and lunging....what mindset is occurring at that point is a good question??

No, I don't think Aidan was advocating flooding either and personally I don't like the concept at all especially with reactive dogs isn't a process I would consider applying.

I have had some dog reactive GSD's in the past some human aggressive also in the era when we had to take the best of what was available for a working dog and some weren't the best in character. I don't believe rewarding calm when the dog is in threshold achieves much as reward or not, the dog is out of the reaction zone. What I do is take the dog into the cusp of the reaction zone right on the edge of threshold until the dog reacts then correct the dog aversively with a command to sit usually. Obviously the dog needs a solid sit behaviour conditioned and when the dog is on the cusp of threshold and he chooses to sit and behave is when I reward.....even with a pat and praise initially if the dog is too stressed to take a treat, then in time you can move closer to the target and introduce treats as the stress level reduces when the dog becomes more confident in the targets closer proximity. A note on corrections and aversives in a law enforcement role where dogs are often amongst the public and other colleges, you CANNOT have lunging dogs taking pot shots at passive people absolutely no way can you have that behaviour exhibited and some over sharp dogs will do that and they are hard to handle and can be unpredictable and corrections and sometimes choke outs are the only training options that provide reliability by extinguishing the behaviour forthwith. Given as I mentioned you CANNOT have aggressive public displays by dogs towards passive people and some dogs will light up on the wrong targets whether you like the training option or not to apply a harsh correction, you have to stop them immediately by protocol which creates the placement of boundaries and consequence by necessity on those respective dogs. Corrective action applied to reactivity most certainly extinguishes the behaviour very well. You can take it a bit more easily on a pet dog's rehabilitation as you don't have to place a pet by necessity before a reactivity target as you do with an operative dog but the same process applies....an aggressive lung IMHO is a high level poor behaviour that requires consequence for the dog to learn that an aggressive out burst isn't handler tolerated but to begin at the lower scale when the dog is on the cusp of reactivity not when the dog has blown right over threshold and lost the plot in the red zone, only a choke out will stop the dog at that point or dragging the dog away to gain composure. If aversives are applied to counter reactivity, it's a good thing IMHO if the dog fears correction because when that happens, the reactivity ceases as the dog to avoid correction behaves.

The purpose of flooding is to expose the dog to the stimulus that triggers the unwanted reaction at a close proximity and through a prolonged time of exposure. Now, how do you expose a reactive dog in close proximity to another without restraint which will create an aversive from self correction at the end of the leash to prevent attack? Flooding without aversive restraint or unless the decoy dog is behind a fence isn't an easily orchestrated exercise to conduct with a truly reactive dog without a serious fight on your hands? I have seen a similar thing done with muzzled dogs allowed to belt each other up which I thought was a stupid exercise to counter reactivity?