sandgrubber

I disagree. Anti-cruelty legislation, dating back to the 19th century, has established the concept that animals, particularly dogs, should have certain minimal standards of care, and should not be worked to death (as sometimes happened with spit dogs and cart dogs, horses, donkeys, etc.). The first child welfare laws in the USA were based on anti-cruelty legislation put in to protect work animals. When people take on an animal as a companion, that animal deserves a certain minimal standard of care. Yes, there will be disputes about what that minimum of care is, and it will vary over time and from place to place. What I don't understand is how the Loonies fail to be interested in the execution of dogs because they look wrong. I can't think of a worse violation of rights than mass execution based on suppositions with no scientific basis. As for the vet care question . . . I may not agree with where the lines are drawn: ear and tail docking and removal of dew claws are things that breeders have done for centuries, and there's no question that these things can be done in a humane fashion. I'm not convinced that a bullet is any less humane than the green dream. But I do agree to there being laws. DIY Ceasars and debarking are a step too far (I don't know about Australian kenneling laws . . . but these are practices that have recently been outlawed in some US states after finding them widespread in huge, highly commercial breeding operations).<br /><br />p.s. If anyone can explain what's going on with my posts . . . adding a bunch of /br's and &gt's etc., please help. I have posted in the appropriate forum for this, but I don't think I've gotten a response yet. I removed a lot of junk from this post, but it was a real mess before I did so. I've re-edited it . . . maybe the junk will find its way back in.

Surely, the government has ways to force the trailer company to pay. . . garnish something? take away business licenses?

Lane Cover Rd. Isn't that one of the streets where they play the game, kill the cyclist! I'm not saying the dog was innocent, but that is one nasty thoroughfare.

A bit more on this from the PDE Blog 23 Sept 2011 http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/ PDE provides a link for the BVA / KC joint announcement: http://www.bva.co.uk/newsroom/2460.aspx also notes . . . Elsewhere, there are several other initiatives aimed at helping to further elucidate CM/SM. They include the Foetal Tissue Research Project, the Cavalier Collection Scheme, and Rupert's Fund which funds MRI scans of older Cavaliers (6+). Rupert's Fund has so far met the cost of MRI scans for 50 dogs vital to SM research. If you have a Cavalier, and haven't already done so, please do check out how your dogs could help future Cavaliers by participating in the research.

periannath, could you give sources for the material you're posting. Many of us appreciate the posts . . . but it's always better to know where information comes from . . . thanks

<br /><br /><br />fun article, but anything that says "science proves" is an automatic turnoff to scientists. Sounds more like anecdote than data. Humans are pretty good at misunderstanding animals. It would be more satisfying to know more about the freeloaders. Were they all males (as in human hunter-gatherer societies)? Were they youngsters, perhaps learning the ropes? Or retired wolves, who had done their duties and were serving as backup.

<br /><br />Doesn't a vet certificate of breed identity clear a dog from seizure if declared not a Pitbull or Pitbull X?<br /><br />Are the vets saying they won't declare a dog to be a Pitbull or they won't provide conformation that it isn't?\<br /><br />Ultimately, all anyone need do, is have their vet provide a certificate to say a dog in the firing line is not a Pitbull and the problem is solved isn't it?<br /><br /><br /><br />No, the problem isn't solved. The AVA is saying they want nothing to do with the mess and they advise their members not to play along with the stupid laws. There will be vets who break with party line and agree to certify dogs on the firing line. Some vets may even be happy to use their credentials to certify dogs they know ARE APBTs, just as some doctors were willing to help blokes trying to avoid the draft. But not everyone who adopted a harmless and cute staffy X and got 'caught' by some gung ho animal control officer is going to know the ins and outs of finding a vet who will certify.

This should probably go in General under Studies About Dogs. Academic articles that require subscription/payment to view the full piece don't really belong in News.

Good post! Hey, Ernie, I think you need an adjective before Nanny State . . . stupid, evil, brain-dead? Cruel? If I had more faith in government I'd grind my usual saw about breeders who select FOR aggression. But it would require sophistication to identify such breeders. Breed clubs might be able, but it's too much to expect of government. Personally, I'm wary of Labradors. Those big brown eyes get me. I always want to take them home.

I can understand why SBT people are defensive. In Germany (and I think some other Northern European nations), the SBT is banned along with the APBT. My German friends -- who did a lot of schutzhund training in Germany and were quite comfortable with guarding breeds, were amazed to see Staffies running free on the beach in Australia, cause they regarded them as super aggressive. Which of course, they aren't. But then, neither are the vast majority of APBT's.

Unfortunately "puppy farm" is often a slanderous term that people throw around when they don't like the way a dog breeder is operating. It is essentially an "N' word used in the dog world. A well run large kennel is e a great place, form the dog's perspective. Dogs are social animals. Most love the company of other dogs and if they're allowed to run and play with a regular small pack, they love it. You could argue that it's cruel to keep dogs as singletons, cause they don't get to interact with their own kind. Sure, if you want a house dog, you are better starting a puppy off in the house. But a good breeder, of any scale, interacts a lot with the pups. A very large establishment is likely to have someone on full-time to look after the pups, and will do such things as keep a radio on and having a washing machine in the background. Do you think a woman with a full time job and a hubby that works away is going to be able to give pups as much attention? There are a handful of large scale, highly commercial dog breeding facilities that keep costs down by neglecting the dogs. Such establishments have deservedly been raked over the coals because they neglect their dogs. There were some absolutely horrific things going on in commercial dog breeding establishments in certain US states, though I think legislation now has resulted in correction of the worse cases. There may be a few pretty ugly establishments in Australia. If they are, they're big targets, and could be put out of business by effective enforcement of existing laws. I wish the animal rights people would put more energy into protecting the right to live of the poor dogs who happen to 'look' dangerous.

Fuller description can be found at http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/10/01/news/doc4e8672133b2e6645944751.txt?viewmode=fullstory This case is nothing like the Victorian case. The baby was on the floor, unattended (apparently) and the dogs got out of another room. An aunt was looking after the little girl. Reader comments tell a further story aurie wrote on Sep 30, 2011 10:33 PM:" I'm betting the owner(s) of those dogs have rap sheets involving drugs, burglary, or violence. They should be prosecuted for animal cruelty. 3 energetic pit bulls shouldn't be confined to an apartment. Third floor? Odds are good that they didn't get walked often - too much trouble. Maybe people should be required to get dog-owners' licenses that have to be renewed every so often. These folks aren't fit to own dogs, and no parent should take a child around that many dogs in an apartment. If those dogs were properly raised and trained, and closely supervised, this never would have happened. Poor dogs. Sorry owners. Poor little girl. " Neighborhood mess wrote on Sep 30, 2011 11:30 PM: " This whole neighborhood is turning into a ghetto. I have a friend (wish she'd move) who unfortunatley lives on the next street. This whole neighborhood is loaded with pit-bulls and other attack dogs. The absentee landlords that live elsewhere are also to blame. Most of these drug dealing, pitbull owning thugs have police records and the owners don't care anymore. Just get that apartment rented..who cares cause I don't live in West Haven anyway. The owner of the house is responsible, the owner of the dogs are responsible and most of all this little baby girl's parents are responsible. She didn't have a chance. She was surrounded by idiots. God bless her and may she rest in peace. Poor little innocent angel, what a horrible way to die. Thug brand dogs for thug brain owners. West Haven should enforce some new zoning rules, three family homes should not have that many crazy dogs in it anyway. Where do you think all that waste from them ends up? Oh those poor sanitation workers. Mayor Picard, man up and do the right thing. That whole neighborhood is dangerous now..either no dogs in an apartment, or limit how many killer dogs in one apartment. "

Yes, you did. But it doesn't hurt to repeat the time and place every time you mention an event. People don't remember where, in six pages of a thread, they saw something, and Search can be tedious. Also, a lot of people don't do Facebook, or try to avoid it.

Sorry, I cut and pasted this from the Facebook page cause it frustrates me when people post events and don't provide time and place. The paste didn't exactly work Should read: TAS - Parliament House . . . with no link, then SA on the next line. The main Facebook link is at: http://www.facebook....275080639183977 QLD is still listed as TBA and TAS still listed as Parliament House with no link.

??? I don't think idiot irresponsible owners intended to bring this on. They were just doing their dumb ass macho bloodthirsty thing without regard to the consequences. If responsible owners had been more involved in enforcing control on those who prefer mean dogs and don't properly train or socialise, this awful mess might have been avoided. Governments generally aren't very smart unless they get input from people on the ground who know what is going on. I believe it is a mix and have said many times on here that you only have to look at some of the amstaff breeder adverts on here to see what some of them are breeding and the type they're after.. of course it's going to appeal to the bogan spectrum. Maybe I'm dense, but I still don't get it. There are 39 Am Staff puppy adverts on DOL today. A few (3 or 4) make a big deal of well muscled and big boned with big heads . . . but I'd find similar language describing Labradors. . . some of those advertizing muscle, head and bone also boast Ch/Gr Ch lines. Some people like dogs with big heads and conspicuous muscle. Not necessarily bogan. One bragging about how heavy their studs are, which seems a little weird, but you'll find odd stuff in puppy ads for any common breed.

Some people don't listen. It's usually easier to move on than to convince someone who doesn't want to hear. I breed Labbies and have fielded many questions from people with autistic kids. I hope I've generally responded kindly and am more inclined to say yes than no. But, have to say, it's complicated. Some kids seem more to need something to hug and learn that it's ok to touch . . . and generally develop sympathetic responses. Some kids need a dog that can withstand rough play (no malice, but also, not much empathy) and hyperactivity without striking back at the kid. With a 3 yr old, I imagine you're still figuring out the child's unfolding personality. It may be useful, both to you, and to people who you might approach to sell you a pup or adult dog, to outline the way you envision your son interacting with 'his' dog. btw, Labs are often recommended because many (not all) of them are bomb proof. They tend to have high pain thresholds, high bite inhibition, strong ability to take cues from human body language, and a sort of broody/nurturing nature. This may not be the best thing for your son. But I think it brings up traits you need to consider in choosing a companion to help your son through early development.

In answer to the question, does BSL reduce attack rates. The answer is simple. NO. I'll be happy to eat my words and apologize if you can provide any evidence that BSL (other than import bans, which I, personally, support) has a positive effect. I support import bans, mainly, because there are some breeds out there with high-drive, strong guarding instinct and low bite inhibition. The current mess with regard to the APBT would be much worse if there were a bunch of fila's, dogo's, etc. around, producing hybrid pups. If that were the case, it wouldn't just be AmStaff and SBT x owners in fear. The entire molasser spectrum, and anything vaguely resembling the (quite rare) Tosa. The current witch hunt would be uglier if there were more types of witches.

I think this if barking up the wrong tree. I played around with the Vic 'standard' and found that it copies from various APBT descriptions, adds illustrations, and changes words here and there. True. You could call it plagiarism or unauthorized use of material. You could blow a bunch of money suing for miss-use of intellectual property or something like that. If you got the right lawyer and were lucky with the jury you might win a civil law suit. BFD. The politico's would rewrite the same garbage in their own words and come up with an equally horrific standard. The BIG problem is the idea of using a visual description to decide which dog is going to be dangerous, and which is not dangerous, is laughably stupid. And the consequences are not the least bit laughable. The BIGGER problem is that the public thinks this idiotic law is doing something to make them safer. Sorry. It isn't. And it's causing a huge amount of grief to people who have ended up owning a dog who has the wrong look.

Curious . . . I'd think they'd be using foetal stem cells for allogenic . . . you wouldn't have right to life opposition to using foetal tissue from bitches speyed while preggers. Good to hear this is working and that tissue acquisition is reasonably simple.

The equivalent of sanitary napkins for dogs. More like pampers with a tail hole.

Given that the Lab and SBT are #1 and #2 pedigree dogs in Australia, and given that SBT's are notorious for fence climbing, I'd guess the SBT x Lab is one of the most common mixes in Australia. Lots of 'em show up in pounds and boarding kennels. Many but not all of the X's end out with floppy ears, and thus probably won't be bagged as pit bull look alikes. How stupid can you get. If a pup gets the erect ear gene, it's dangerous. If not, it's safe.

Elysia looks sweet . . . wonderful eyes. I hope your friend appreciates your help . . . and can be brought around to taking your and the vet's advice. Sounds like puppies would be a very bad idea in any case, and doubly bad in that you cannot know anything about the sire. If he is SBT or AmStaff, there's a chance that the pups will be vulnerable to seizure under Vic's dangerous dog laws.

I haven't seen a photo of the dog who killed Ayen Chol and have heard very little about its background. I don't know why this information hasn't been made public. At times he (the dog) has been described as a pit bull x mastiff, in which case there is a good chance he wouldn't have been outlawed by the Victorian standard because the pit bull x mastiff types are often bigger than pits, have hanging skin, and un-pit bull type ears. I've read the same stories as you and think it quite possible that the owner encouraged the behaviour that lead to Ayen Chol's death. I've watched people encourage their dogs to show aggression to dark skinned people. I think doing so should be a criminal offense. I never said you can make any dog aggressive. The slightest sign of aggression will get a dog removed from the gene pool in some breeds . . . at least with a good breeder. You'd have to work very hard to turn a guide dog puppy into a schutz dog . . . and if you succeeded it would probably be via teaching the dog that biting the man in the padded suit is a game. There are high drive dogs with low bite thresholds who are bred and raised to go for blood . . . the traits that make a dog dangerous are to some degree hereditary. There is a good market for macho dogs (internationally) among people who fancy themselves big game hunters, and among dog fighters. Some lines of pit bull are much fancied by these groups, because the pit tends to be a tough, tenacious, fearless dog. Some people are deliberately crossing pits from high drive lines with large/giant breeds to get bigger, badder dogs. I would be all for a law written to focus on this type of person and their dogs, though I would prefer to see good policing and very heavy fines, including manslaughter charges when a dog kills. Any such law needs to respect the rural population, who may need big dogs for stock guarding or hunting feral pigs and / or dogs. The existence of high drive and low bite threshold in SOME dogs from a certain breed does not make the entire breed dangerous. What happens if the next killing is done by some cross that doesn't include or look like an APBT . . . say, for example, an ACD x bulldog (both tough, fearless breeds). Do we expand the ban to include all ACD's and all bulldogs? Who's next? I live in a California town where the majority of the people are Hispanic, and the most common dog types are pit bulls and chihuahuas (I say type, cause few dogs are on any sort of pedigree register). The vast majority of the pitties are good family dogs . . . no more dangerous than the average Staffie. Breed is not the problem. Breeding dogs to be weapons is, especially in urban and suburban settings.

??? I don't think idiot irresponsible owners intended to bring this on. They were just doing their dumb ass macho bloodthirsty thing without regard to the consequences. If responsible owners had been more involved in enforcing control on those who prefer mean dogs and don't properly train or socialise, this awful mess might have been avoided. Governments generally aren't very smart unless they get input from people on the ground who know what is going on.

The Victorian abomination doesn't even qualify as 'breed' specific. It's pure, simple, overt discrimination based on appearance. I do believe that you can breed aggression up or down in dogs . . . and many breeders do so. Fortunately, most work to get aggression down. I'm in favour of putting pressure on those who want to up the aggression levels, particularly in suburbs/cities. Such people have many breeds they could work with . . . aggressive tendencies isn't unique to any breed. Victoria's stupid, stupid law doesn't focus on the guys who promote aggression. Instead it works on the patently false premise that appearance predicts behaviour. Absolutely whacko, crazy, nuts! Many bull-breed type dogs who are endangered by this law, are waggy little monsters, who may be a danger to your shoes, and who might knock a kid down trying to lick his/her face, but pose no real danger to anyone. To top it off, the new laws put little or no pressure on the guys who are legitimate targets. If you've already moved on from an APBT to some sort of molasser x APBT x meanest-dog-around pigdog, you're home free cause your dog won't look like the Vic 'standard'. And everyone - we all collectively need to understand that the current situation should be regarded as one which can and will affect dogs outside of the breeds of which you speak. So my suggestion is that people stop thinking of it as a "breed" specific legislation (even though it remains titled as such) and think of it as a set of laws that give a loose discription and any dog fitting the criteria of that description is "IT" as far as targetting is concerned. This law could affect YOUR best canine friend, or at least one that you know that you least expected could possibly be held accountable just because it comprised of physical attributes the Government listed in its laws. Click to enlarge :