sandgrubber

Hard to know how to help with the cruel mess created by Victoria's new BSL. One thing I think may be useful is documentation that X-breeds who look like pit bulls often aren't and pit bull X's who don't look like pit bulls. I started a collection of links to pictures of APBT hybrids who wouldn't be picked up under the VIC 'standard' to demonstrate how stupid the standard is. Anyone else got examples . . . or, even better, examples of dogs of known non-pit bull parentage who would be in danger under the standard. (For obvious reasons, please, no Victorian dogs unless they are deceased). http://www.redbubble...canines-in-cars pit bull x pug http://www.rocketdog...ue.org/benny-2/ pit bull x basset http://dogs.about.co...otopage3596.htm Lasso Apso/Shitzu and Pit Bull I love this one http://www.dogbreedi...anbulldogge.htm pit bull x bulldog http://www.dogbreedi...bullterrier.htm boston terrier x pit bull http://www.designerm...=37&&srhBrd=620 pit bull x chihuahua American Bandog . . . pit bull x mastiff of various sorts, bred to be BIG and Tough http://blacksheepbul...Index.asp?ID=24 or the European equivalent (scary! They WANT fighting dogs, bigger, greater endurance and use fighting lines) http://bandogmastiffs.blogspot.com/ However, the goal of the Bandogge breeder should not be to improve the Pit Bull Terrier, as this would prove to be futile. However, to improve the mastiff, with their many faults would be a reasonable challenge. Our primary focus would be to improve motor skills, to thicken nerves and capture a higher degree of gameness. One must never loose sight of an important historical fact. It took three hundred years to create the perfect bull and terrier cross. Having said this, it is also safe to assume the larger the dog the longer the journey to perfection.

Having moved from OZ to the US, I'm seeing unfamiliar products. One that I wish I had had as a breeder in Australia was silicone nursing tips to put on syringes. Eg, http://www.jefferspet.com/mothering-kit-nursing-kits-for-small-animals/p/4064/ Are these used in Australia? Anybody used one?

Just sent this to the ABC investigative unit. Attached below is the shot I couldn't send to then. This IS a pit bull X (x basset). No way the new VIC laws would spot it. Cross breed appearance is complicated!!! I'm a dual citizen [uSA/Oz] now living in the USA. I find the current VIC fiasco sooooo frustrating. There are lots of pit bulls around in the area I live in. Most of their owners are minimum wage earners and Hispanic (mostly Mexican). The pit bull here is accepted. The equally popular Chihuahua and chi-x dogs tend to be more vicious, but do no damage above the knee. Some pit bulls are problems cause they're not well socialized and tend to attack other dogs when confronted. But by-in-large, they are no more problem than the Staffie is in Australia. If you check the Australian Kennel Club registration statistics, you'll see that more Staffie pups were registered than pups of any other breed in 2010. If ABC has a spare US reporter around, I'd recommend talking with pit bull rescue folks in the nearest convenient location. You'll find that what are identified as pit bull X dogs in places where there is no breed specific legislation, and thus, where people are not forced to lie to protect their pet, often look nothing like the posted VIC standard. I'm trying to paste in a picture of a basset x pit bull that no one would identify, but the software won't permit me to paste. I'll be happy to provide some photo evidence if you provide a way to do so. You'll also find that most pit bulls are great family dogs, but a few are awful. Most of the 'awful' group have irresponsible owners. A very few seem to have an inbred ferocity. But holy moolie. Are you going to kill 50 beloved family pets to eliminate one dog that has aggression built into its genes? That sucks, especially as the bad genes that drive aggression show up occasionally in many (most?) breeds, including some innocuous breeds like the Golder Retriever and the Cocker Spaniel (do a google search on 'cocker spaniel rage' or 'aggression Golden Retriever' to find links) .

Congrads! Big healthy looking pups and one exhausted looking girl. I had a similar incident in my first litter as a breeder . . . except the pup was born in the car on the way to the vet. Some client came into the surgery reporting that there was a puppy in the car outside. The pup was fine.

If anyone wants to accumulate pictures to show how stupid the standard is, this dog is a pit bull x basset who is in our local (California) shelter. Johnny is a 6-year-old Basset Hound/Pit Bull Mix looking for a new home due to a divorce. He's a very good dog and gets aling great with kids and other dogs. He's totally potty trained and has a great temperament. One front leg has a slight deformity, but that doesn't slow him down. Like a true hound, Johnny can be vocal, so may not be the best match for an apartment-dweller. He's currently in boarding in the Santa Cruz area, and would love to meet you. Johnny is not an AFRP dog. For more information please email Don at [email protected]

I have been wondering about this too. I did ask a few people yesterday, and nobody seems to know at the moment. We will need to find out for sure, and soonish. It is so vague. This is doing my head in! I'd recommend calling Peter Walsh, MLA, Minister for Agriculture and Food Security in Victoria. Might be helpful if he got heaps of calls, making it clear that the ambiguities of the legislation he has sponsored put good dog owners into a state of terror. If you put your name on legislation, you should be willing to clarify it and to hear feedback on how it affects ordinary people.

The AVA came out strongly against the BSL section of the legislation. Dr. Stewart does not represent the AVA. http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/new-dog-laws-victoria “AVA supports many parts of the legislation, but we were particularly vocal against the breed specific regulations. AVA policy is that ‘deed, not breed’ should be the determining factor in the assessment and treatment of dogs. This fact has been well communicated to both the Bureau and the Minister, who are fully conversant with AVA’s position,” said Bill. The AVA’s special interest group for animal behaviour, together with the Australian College of Veterinary Scientists, produced an excellent submission on the proposed legislation, which was submitted to the Bureau of Animal Welfare and to the Minister. The key area of disagreement is over the breed specific parts of the legislation, essentially the restrictions on Pit Bull Terriers. The restricted breeds include: American Pit Bull Terrier (or Pit Bull Terrier), Perro de Presa Canario (or Presa Canario), Dogo Argentino, Japanese Tosa, or Fila Brasileiro. Breeds other than Pit Bulls and their crosses are either unrepresented or nearly so in Victoria. The biggest problem is determining whether an animal is actually a Pit Bull or Pit Bull cross, or whether it is a cross involving other breeds. There is no DNA test which can identify an animal as a Pit Bull or cross, so the determination can only be made on physical appearance. This is a grey area that can, and will be, contested in court.

None. I don't know any staffy that isn't a total love bunny wriggle bum but I can't see bull breeds being alive for very long at all in Victoria. And when they get rid of the bull breeds, they'll move onto the next breed and then the next and the next. I don't think Staffies will have much trouble with the standard. Here's a profile from the standard. I've never seen a staffie with a neck or, for that matter, legs like this.

I hope your Labrador has been neutered. Extremely aggressive anything is not acceptable in the breed standard. Btw. Labrador doesn't have an 'e' on the end. Personally, I think a lot of people should be breathing a sign of relief with publication of the standard. It is very detailed and would let through most bull X's I've met. Moreover, your dog can be exempted given " a certificate signed by a veterinary practitioner stating, or to the effect, that the dog is of a particular breed." Pedigree Am Staffs are also explicitly exempt. It's not good. It is stupid. But it could be a lot worse.

Thanks, Quickasyoucan, for posting the link. I'd be willing to bet that the VIC govt standard for identifying pit bulls is plagiarized. Would be wonderful to put the VIC government in a lawsuit for infringement of copyright . If anyone has the book it was taken from, please report. The format is similar to the format used in The Ultimate XXX series done by Howell dog books (I have the Labrador edition) but if that is the source, the text on the illustrations has been re-lettered. The good side . . . many of you with staffie X's are safe as this is quite specific. Everyone, look at the document. If you have a X-breed and are in fear, download it and print out a copy. It is extremely specific for a well-bred APBT and gives clear guidance as to the look. Not many dogs have this look. The easiest marker to use is the profile. . Tail and head will also rule out many breeds and X breeds. They have, stupidly, only shown males in profile, so it looks like a pit bull MUST have a penis . Also note, pedigree AmStaffs are explicitly excluded and a vet certificate gives you the all clear. Quote: A dog that meets the description of a dog in this Part is an American Pit Bull Terrier; except a dog in respect of which the owner has one of the following certificates stating that the dog is an American Staffordshire Terrier – a. a pedigree certificate from the Australian National Kennel Council; b. a pedigree certificate from a member body of the Australian National Kennel Council; c. a pedigree certificate from a national breed council registered with the Australian National Kennel Council; d. a certificate signed by a veterinary practitioner stating, or to the effect, that the dog is of a particular breed. The stupid side . . . it's so specific that it will probably catch unpapered Am Staffs who fit the standard and pit bulls, but let through poorly bred pit bulls. Thus only poorly bred pit bulls will survive in Victoria. And if you want to do pit bull crosses, all you need to do is breed to something that will fall outside the breed standard, eg, produce an 'incorrect' tail and loose skin around the neck, and bingo, you're safe. And, yes, I'm sure a trade in counterfeit AmStaff pedigrees will develop. IDIOTS!!!!!!! They should be screening based on temperament. There are some lovely, true to breed standard, APBT's. And HEAPS of dogs who don't fit the physical description in the Govt of Vic standard that have inherently aggressive temperaments and that warrant some sort of control, especially in the hands of people who live in high density neighborhoods and who have no credentials for managing dogs with inherent guarding/fighting/prey attack characteristics or unstable temperaments.

The Daily Hansard, the Hon. P. R. HALL (Minister for Higher Education and Skills) tabled the following: After this date [30 Sept 2011] any owner of an unregistered restricted breed dog will be liable for the offence of keeping a restricted breed dog, for which 10 penalty units apply. Furthermore, the restricted breed dog will also be able to be seized under section 79 of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 and ultimately destroyed. This seems to mean, for example, that if you have a SBT or x-breed and don't feel a need to register as a restricted breed dog because you know it is not an APBT, but some official decides your dog is an APBT after reading the standard they are publishing, your dog is likely to be destroyed. I don't think that means totally unregistered . . . and I don't think prior registration, eg, as a SBT, helps. The justification for the law given in the Daily Hansard makes it clear that they are trying to crack down on people who pass off restricted breed dogs as non-restricted breeds.

Have you got any friendly boarding kennels in your area. When I ran one, we always had a slew of staffie X's, and I would have been confident that their owners would be happy to have them filmed for this cause. Most rescue organizations will be in the same situation. For that matter, call your local Rangers and ask what dogs are in detention at the moment. Good chance there are a few that they would have to PTS under the new rules. Make sure to point them to the AVA, which has posted a strong statement against visual standards, as well as a statement that DNA evidence won't work.

The AVA position, however, (see http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/new-dog-laws-victoria) is strongly against the BSL part of the law. Extract: “AVA supports many parts of the legislation, but we were particularly vocal against the breed specific regulations. AVA policy is that ‘deed, not breed’ should be the determining factor in the assessment and treatment of dogs. This fact has been well communicated to both the Bureau and the Minister, who are fully conversant with AVA’s position,” said Bill. The AVA’s special interest group for animal behaviour, together with the Australian College of Veterinary Scientists, produced an excellent submission on the proposed legislation, which was submitted to the Bureau of Animal Welfare and to the Minister. The key area of disagreement is over the breed specific parts of the legislation, essentially the restrictions on Pit Bull Terriers. The restricted breeds include: American Pit Bull Terrier (or Pit Bull Terrier), Perro de Presa Canario (or Presa Canario), Dogo Argentino, Japanese Tosa, or Fila Brasileiro. Breeds other than Pit Bulls and their crosses are either unrepresented or nearly so in Victoria. The biggest problem is determining whether an animal is actually a Pit Bull or Pit Bull cross, or whether it is a cross involving other breeds. There is no DNA test which can identify an animal as a Pit Bull or cross, so the determination can only be made on physical appearance. This is a grey area that can, and will be, contested in court.

See also test published in the Gazette on 30 August. Links are in Sticky's post on p. 49 of Child Killed by Dog thread. These give the legislative discussion / rationalisation of the changes in the Law.

Thanks for posting that, Sticky. I encourage others to download these and then do search on 'pit bull'. They are long documents and 90% -irrelevant to the issue, but the 10% is the core of the issue. My take is that the grounds for legal challenge are HUGE. The law requires that the deprivation of property (ie, seizing a dog) requires standards that are confined and structured rather than arbitrary or unclear, and are accessible to the public and formulated precisely. I see no way that 'pit bull X' can be defined in a way that is not arbitrary or unclear, and publishing the standard in a couple places that 99% of the public is unaware of, one month before the law is enacted hardly passes the test of being accessible to the public. I'm in the US and not in a position to do so, but I think concerned people should begin building a legal fund and fight this monster. I'd guess about 10% of the dogs in Australia will fall in grey areas. Some civil disobedience might also be useful: eg. registering every staffy, staffy X, and other potentially pit bull like dog, also vaguely pit bull looking pedigree dogs who are not at all pit bull (I've had some Labs who would qualify) and swamping the offices in a clearly advertised way. Below are a few of the juicy bits (p. 37 and 38 of http://www.parliamen...August_2011.pdf . The bill will provide that a dog that falls within the ‘approved standard’ that relates to restricted breed dogs in Victoria is to be taken to be a restricted breed dog. The bill will allow the Minister for Agriculture and Food Security to approve the standard and will require publication of the approved standard in the Victoria Government Gazette. The approved standard will also be available on the Department of Primary Industries website. The published standard will provide clear guidance to council’s authorised officers and the general public on what type of dog constitutes a restricted breed. This will make enforcement easier for council officers and remove doubt on the identification of these dogs so as to allow them to be declared a restricted breed in a speedy manner. This is important because councils are seeking certainty that a dog can be declared a restricted breed and that the declaration will be endorsed by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal when challenged. Without this certainty council authorised officers may be reluctant to declare restricted breed dogs and enforce the act. The bill will remove the existing two-year amnesty that was introduced on 1 September 2010 on the keeping and registration of restricted breed dogs. The current amnesty provisions allow registration of a restricted breed dog until September 2012, provided the dog was in Victoria before 30 September 2010. The amnesty also lifted the prohibition on keeping a restricted breed dog during the amnesty period and then following that period if the dog was registered during the amnesty period. The bill will cut short the amnesty period. This means that from 30 September 2011 the possession and keeping of a restricted breed dog will be illegal unless the dog was in Victoria before the start of the amnesty Right to property (section 20) Section 20 of the charter act provides that a person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law. A deprivation of property is permitted if the powers which authorise the deprivation are conferred by legislation or common law, are confined and structured rather than arbitrary or unclear, and are accessible to the public and formulated precisely. The effect of removing the amnesty means that an owner who has failed to register their restricted breed dog before the commencement of this bill may have their dog seized by an authorised officer of the council and ultimately destroyed. In my opinion, this provision does not limit section 20 due to a number of reasons. The current prohibition relating to restricted breeds has been in place since 11 December 2007, is confined to five distinct breeds of dogs, clearly sets out the responsibilities of owners and the seizure powers of authorised officers and has been widely publicised to the community. Also the Domestic Animals Act 1994 requires all dogs to be registered from three months of age so there is an existing requirement for registration under section 10 of that act. The amnesty was enacted in 2010 with the purpose of encouraging the registration of existing unregistered restricted breeds or restricted breeds incorrectly registered as another breed. Owners of unregistered restricted breeds have been well aware that the possession of such dogs is illegal and could not have had a reasonable expectation of the lasting nature of the amnesty. The proposed ending of the amnesty has also been clearly communicated in the media, and will only come into effect on 30 September 2011, giving owners who have failed to take note of the amnesty time to comply with the requirement to register. Any resulting deprivation of property that will result following the ending of the amnesty will in my opinion not be arbitrary, given the significant public safety issues at stake, the limited number of breeds subject and the ability of owners to still comply with their obligations prior to commencement. Furthermore, there are safeguards present in the Domestic Animals Act 1994 to allow an owner to seek return of the seized dog if it is able to be registered and to seek review to VCAT of a refusal of a council to register a restricted breed that is able to be registered or a declaration of an authorised officer that a certain dog is a restricted breed. Accordingly, I conclude that this amendment is compatible with the right to property in section 20 of the charter act.

See the posts under The Bill. The first part of the series of laws has published. Unfortunately, the breed identification issue shunted off into a "a standard that has been approved by the Minister and published in the Government Gazette." Don't know if this has been published . . . or will only show up after the 'amnesty' period ends.

Thinking about it, the analogy holds some water. The anti-pit bull hysteria does have an unsavory 'Final Solution' flavour. I would have bought the line if the word Nazi hadn't been used and the post had decried the search for a Final Solution.

Great shots, Krislin. I don't think dogs have the taste buds for 'hot'. Mine love wasabi peas, and will also eat haberno munchies that are too hot for me (and I like it hot). If it's crunchy and has some fat and protein, they'll eat it.

Boston. Now that I live in the US and they're reasonably available, including some breeders who breed for health. I think it's better not to have dogs that you can't lift. Hope I can lift a Lab into my 70's, but I don't count on 80.

Not at all. Many breeds had similar origins, minus the health tests.

Wonder if a breed club could sue a newspaper for libel for naming their breed, and showing a stock photo of their breed, when the dog was not of their breed? That might slow down the irresponsible journos. Btw, the dog looks a lot like a Rotti x Lab who often stayed at our boarding kennel. She tried to bite me a few times and was ferocious toward others. But once you got to know her she was a big sook.

Laws are enforced (or not enforced) by human beings. I'd say, if your dogs are friendly and obvious non-problems from a behavioural perspective, but might possibly be mistaken for a restricted breed X, talk with your local Rangers. Make your fears transparent. Having your documents organised should help, as the Rangers may need to justify actions they take. Ask them if there is any point to further documentation. It may turn out, in your local area, to be a mountain made from a molehill. I'd guess most Rangers have a list of dogs who have gotten complaint after complaint, and when the sh#t hits the fan they'll go to those addresses first . . . hotline or no hotline.

Thanks, Tempus Fugit. Is this IT? No increased penalties for owners where a dog does harm? No additional regulation of wandering dogs. The breed identification issue shunted off into a "a standard that has been approved by the Minister and published in the Government Gazette." And cutting off the opportunity to register as a restricted breed dog closed at the end of September. What a can of worms! Presumably the approved standard won't be published for a bit of time and information on it will be poorly distributed. So X-breed owners aren't going to know whether or not they need to register until AFTER it's too late to register. The standard is going to be a mess for reasons that have been discussed many times. So publication of the standard will leave things clear as mud. The lawyers are going to have fun with this one!

No. See http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/new-dog-laws-victoria

So, you get a filo. Your neighbours see you have a huge, super-protective dog and stop robbing you. Instead, they all get filos, cause they're as afraid of crime as you are, and what's more, the dog looks cool. Are they all as responsible as you claim to be? Hell no. Oops, now we have 55 kg wandering dogs, bred to be extremely aggressive to strangers. There's a serious domestic and the police are called in. Oops, policeman in the hospital and dog gets shot dead. Your dog needs exercise to remain sane. You go out walking. Oops, the neighbor's fence isn't up to par. OMG!!!! What a dog fight! Oops, somebody stepped in to try and stop it and ended out in the hospital. The filo is a rich person's dog in Brazil, cause they're expensive to feed and manage. From what you say, I'd guess the folks in your neighbourhood aren't flush with cash. Deary deary, they find they can't afford to feed and otherwise care for the pup once it gets past 30 kg. But by that time, it has learned who is in its pack and now attacks everyone outside that circle. What happens when they try to rehome. PTS. If your neighbourhood is so dangerous, why not leave? There ARE dogs who are bred for low attack thresholds, low bite inhibition, and innate dislike of either strange people, strange dogs, or both. The filo is and extreme case where these traits (with respect to strange humans) are written into one of the two breed standards, and a large fraction of the dogs in that branch of breed are up to standard. It is not the breed that's the problem, it a pedigree showing many generations of breeding for dogs that will do 'the deed'. The APBT is not the filo. Sadly, there are pit bull lines bred for what I would call bad temperament, and individuals who manage to get bad temperament out of dogs who should have been fine. A large fraction of the breed is as gregarious and waggy as the average Australian SBT (at least in the California town I live in). And there are dogs who seem fine and then, god only knows why, snap and attack someone (eg, the recent tragic case in Pacifica where the pregnant woman was killed by her own dog . . . the folks concerned were active in pit bull rescue and trying to improve the image of the breed).