Need To Update List Dogs That Kill In Aust

[stone]

I don't know that keeping entire dogs contributes largely to litters bred by accident

Not largely,no

Entirely. ......no pun intended.

How many accidental litters have been whelped by neutered dogs .

The key word in the statement is ACCIDENTAL. I think most BYB dogs are bred on purpose.

On the contrary, the key word is ''largely''

Entire dogs aren't ''largely'' responsible for "accidental" litters they are completely & absolutely responsible for all litters, ''accidental'' or otherwise.

Which brings us back to the question -

Only approved,licenced, ANKC registered/working dog register breeders allowed to have entire dogs?

Which wont stop puppy millers of course, there are any amount of ANKC registered breeders who fit the description.

Some advertise right here on DOL, as those who regularly visits their breeds advertised litters would know.

But it would greatly, if not entirely, reduce the amount of BYB's & ''accidental'' litters.

Edited November 20, 2011 by stone

[geo]

On the contrary, the key word is ''largely''

Entire dogs aren't ''largely'' responsible for "accidental" litters they are completely & absolutely responsible for all litters, ''accidental'' or otherwise.

Which brings us back to the question -

Only approved,licenced, ANKC registered/working dog register breeders allowed to have entire dogs?

Which wont stop puppy millers of course, there are any amount of ANKC registered breeders who fit the description.

Some advertise right here on DOL, as those who regularly visits their breeds advertised litters would know.

But it would greatly, if not entirely, reduce the amount of BYB's & ''accidental'' litters.

Ok I think we're on 2 different paths here of course entire dogs are responsible for all litters but i was getting at the fact that "accidental' litter aren't the norm. Your second paragraph is what i agree with you on and have said lots of times on this forum.. ANKC breeders pumping out litters and not always of the best quality or in the best interest of the breed, and it gives decent breeders a bad name.

I still would like the choice and would happily comply with any rules to keep a dog entire if i choose to do so.

[stone]

I still would like the choice and would happily comply with any rules to keep a dog entire if i choose to do so.

Why?

Any specific reason other than just because you want to?

Animal rights?

The pounds are full of unwanted dogs that wont need any rights in the near future.

That rationale has nothing much to do with "animal rights" at all.

[geo]

I still would like the choice and would happily comply with any rules to keep a dog entire if i choose to do so.

Why?

Any specific reason other than just because you want to?

Animal rights?

The pounds are full of unwanted dogs that wont need any rights in the near future.

That rationale has nothing much to do with "animal rights" at all.

Do you just read the part of my posts you want to disagree with?

Nothing to do with animal rights, that is not my rationale and I didn't say so, not sure how you got that from reading my post?

My last 3 dogs have all been rescues. How about yours?

"If" I Chose or a breeder I chose to buy from wanted to keep a dog entire, then that would be entirely my perogative, and absolutely nothing to do with anybody else. :D

[stone]

I still would like the choice and would happily comply with any rules to keep a dog entire if i choose to do so.

Why?

Any specific reason other than just because you want to?

Animal rights?

The pounds are full of unwanted dogs that wont need any rights in the near future.

That rationale has nothing much to do with "animal rights" at all.

Do you just read the part of my posts you want to disagree with?

Nothing to do with animal rights, that is not my rationale and I didn't say so, not sure how you got that from reading my post?

My last 3 dogs have all been rescues. How about yours?

"If" I Chose or a breeder I chose to buy from wanted to keep a dog entire, then that would be entirely my perogative, and absolutely nothing to do with anybody else. :D

post #91 that began -,

It's about the rights of an animal not just about what we think we should do because of BSL

suggested it.

My last 3?

All my dogs since the '60s have been from registered breeders or home bred.

'rescues"?

Aren't they usually either dumped or surrendered victims of over population?

the lucky ones, the minority, the very, very small minority are ''rescued''.

Thousands upon thousands ain't that lucky.

Edited November 21, 2011 by stone

[geo]

post #91 that began -,

It's about the rights of an animal not just about what we think we should do because of BSL

suggested it.

My last 3?

All my dogs since the '60s have been from registered breeders or home bred.

'rescues"?

Aren't they usually either dumped or surrendered victims of over population?

the lucky ones, the minority, the very, very small minority are ''rescued''.

Thousands upon thousands ain't that lucky.

Yes rights as far as not being judged on appearence but on behavior. Nothing to do with my comments on desexing or not, hope that clears up that one.

Prior to the last 3, they were home bred, registered and shown.

[stone]

i bet you are a good tap dancer geo.......

[geo]

i bet you are a good tap dancer geo.......

Just because you assumed my comment on animal rights was about desexing not BSL as it clearly states, you accuse me of "Tap Dancing". How is that That is entirely to do with your ability to not "comprehend" peoples statements, not just in this thread, but all since you've started posting.

One liners aren't your forte.

[stone]

Have ever considered doing Australias Got Talent?

A scuba wearing tap dancer. Now I would like to see that.

Maybe you could work up an act as the human chameleon, you certain try to change your ''colours'' quickly enough to suit the situation.

[geo]

Have ever considered doing Australias Got Talent?

A scuba wearing tap dancer. Now I would like to see that.

Maybe you could work up an act as the human chameleon, you certain try to change your ''colours'' quickly enough to suit the situation.

I see age hasn't made you a better person.

Maybe you should try reading peoples posts before you comment, not just throwing assumptions about the place.

Your agenda may well be to stir people up, who knows but when you start being constructive with your argument maybe someone will take you serious.

[stone]

Those with consistent, honestly help opinions that I may not necessarily agree with still have my respect.

Inconsistent, self contradictory persons don't.

Age, experiencs, knowledge has made the two easily recognisable.

[Keira&Phoenix]

Boys can we stop with the insults and stay on topic. You are derailing *another* thread.

[P.W.]

Vicious dogs always sells, blaming owners would take thought and investigation as slander etc applies to owners not the dogs, they can be slandered with no threat or repercussions and after an attack has occurred they are not to likely to admit anything which could incriminate them as being in any way to blame, he has never shown any signs of aggression is regularly stated, what a load of, either there was signs or they failed to seer them either way who is to blame and where has blaming dogs and breeds taken us in terms of effective legislation? Which I am sure is the aim of both pro and anti dog sides, never be fooled that people sighting bsl are only after 4 breeds.

Certain political parties are inherently prone to follow the media for short term vote gains. We must never forget to place the blame at these parties feet, to remind them that when ever they feel the need to legislate like this we the dog owning voters through the long term will be there regardless of time with long memories to hold them accountable, Beattie may be gone but the party is still there and must be accountable for his actions, which were knee jerk, expensive, flawed, ineffective and now have been proven to be as such to say the least. Reminding them how they could have listened to those with knowledge of dogs, US, but chose not to, asking what they have achieved, nothing, what could have been a decade of improvement in overall attacks and dog ownership education and control on owners.

NO BODY BUYS A KING CHARLES IF THEY WANT A VICIOUS DOG, THEY OBTAIN WHAT EVER IS PERCEIVED AS VICIOUS IN THE MEDIA, THIS IS PROVEN THROUGH THE DECADES.

BLAME THE DEED NOT THE BREED!!!

[P.W.]

(((I would like to see the attack stats for ANKC papered pure breeds purchased from registered breeders, anyone have those statistics on hand?)))

It so strange how similar this poster sounds to the once upon a time BORDO, unfortunately many in the ANKC still do, it seems there are still some people who are so deluded as to think that being a pure breed “makes them safe”. Or do they really believe this nonsence? This being the case, WHY are so many breeders of the ANKC and rightly so, worried about who obtains their breed to the point of near paranoia? Do they really believe this?

Any breed or cross is more then capable of attacking, who is behind the leash is more of the issue, who is drawn to certain breeds and WHY? Back yard breeders will get more breeds and pure breed them and cross them, papers or not will not negate the breed unless focus is on WHY did it attack then knowledge can be obtained and used to further educate owners and punish those who neglect and train dogs till they are vicious or through their own misgivings fail to obtain the knowledge to raise a dog properly as a companion. Then and only then will irresponsible owners fear the law!

Do you think when there is a market people will not become registered breeders to enable them to peddle, do you think there are no peddlers already in the ANKC?

To examine attack stats one needs to look much deeper then this, however you will not be too likely to see this from many in the ANKC bubble world. As a person with a long history with many breeds, I can say I believe pure breeds are less likely to attack mostly from the environment they are raised in, eg Rotties have in this country in the past been directly in the spotlight, but due to a past when people were more inclined to listen to conmen sense then knee jerk reactions both Rotties and Bullies were saved from this by the appearance of the APBT on the scene. There have been calls in the media to ban both these breeds in the past in Australia, and still are in other countries where they hit the media, what will save them in the future? How limited is the breed history or memories of owners of these breeds and all dog owners? If we do not learn from history it is bound to repeat it self.

DO you honestly think that a person who wants a vicious dog or miss treats a dog will be likely to get an ANKC papered one, not unless they have to. CCC sold out APBTs to save their own by producing back yard ID books long before any state law ch 17A existed to gain favor with councils because of their own fears of extension.

When all the APBTs are gone and people are still allowed free rain to get what ever dog is needed either from neglect or intension there will still be the one breed seen as vicious and it will be what ever the media says it is. When your breeds head is on the block it will be added to the list, then everything you stated for APBTs will be for you to follow will you be so high and mighty then?

If all owners do not unite and get a common voice and APBT owners and their many supporters give up and fail as many in the ANKC want more will follow. Many in the bubble world will say sell out everything but the pure breeds, but attacks will continue, then they have NO leg to stand on as they supported the law 17A which has scope for breeds to be added, what’s good for one vicious breed is good for em ell. Or are they so supportive because they hope that more money will be there to be made from a controlled market of dogs of which many are very expensive? Rules of supply and demand will kick in and breeds will still get the chop.

As for ethics i think so many in the ANKC fail to take off thier blinkers with regards to the genetic problems they have enflicted upon nearly every breed on their registery in chasing some ever changing breed standard at the whim of judges interpretations, cruelty comes in many formes,i am sure to now hear endless bleating about how they are working doing this and that to eliminate such problems, far too little far too late the damage is done so many pure breeds are seen as undeririable by the general public, one who lives in a glass house should not throw stones!If this is ethical and in the betterment of thier supposidly chosen breeds WAKE UP FOOLS!

Edited December 11, 2011 by P.W.

[Kippy]

(((I would like to see the attack stats for ANKC papered pure breeds purchased from registered breeders, anyone have those statistics on hand?)))

It so strange how similar this poster sounds to the once upon a time BORDO, unfortunately many in the ANKC still do, it seems there are still some people who are so deluded as to think that being a pure breed “makes them safe”. Or do they really believe this nonsence? This being the case, WHY are so many breeders of the ANKC and rightly so, worried about who obtains their breed to the point of near paranoia? Do they really believe this?

If you examine the types of dogs featuring in attacks, most are crossbreeds and the one's that aren't I would guarantee are unpapered breedings. This is because these types are dogs are too easily attainable and attractive to irresponsible people who shouldn't owns dogs in the first place. I don't believe for a second these same people would have a dog if they had to pay the price for a registered breeding and prove to a responsible breeder they are responsible enough to be sold a dog. It's not that pure breed dogs are safer, the process of obtaining a pure breed dog from a registered breeder safeguards dogs against falling into the hands of the irresponsible better than a freebie crossbreed out of the Trading Post does.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Kippy

[P.W.]

It would be a grave mistake to think that being a member of the ANKC is any kind of safe guard to stop dogs of any breed falling into the hands of the wrong people, it works to a degree at the moment because there is options pure breed, pet shop free etc.

First you have to realize the many mindsets of these people, there are those that would steal dogs, illegally breed them regardless of the law, (then the defence of it was from a unregistered breeder will hold less water then a sive, if it needs such controls ban it isnt it inherintatly vicious?) like any prohibition the more something is restricted the higher the price then people will see there is money to be made and want to get some, it does not need to be many to start the ball rolling and get a breed into the media spotlight then the circle will begin again and breeders and their dogs will ALL fall into the spotlight.

We also need to look at when the APBT first arrived here you could not get one for under a couple of grand, (which is cheep compared to many ANKC breeds at the moment) at the time of banning they were going for virtually nothing.

There is always going to be those in the community who wish to have a vicious dog for protection of their illegal business or them selves because of their personality flaws who can easily afford and obtain any breed and will through their connections, then due to the price might want to get some coin back so breed it sell em to me mates who are also scum! Far to many in the ANKC live thinking they are in an ideal world.

There is nothing the ANKC can do to stop any one who really wants to from becoming a breeder / peddler, and there are many laws which they will find they are contravening if they tried to discriminate without reason. So there for if you think unscrupulous people will not still be able to peddle you will be very wrong. It is so false to think that there isn’t already peddlers inside the ANKC.

Furthermore one needs to look out side of their own bubble world and see how the general public perceive the ANKC and their pure breeds, its totally the fault of the ANKC and its breeders for the rise in popularity of designer breeds (also how did these dogs become available for such breeding if the ANKC is such a safeguard?), due to the lack of genetic and temperament stability right or wrong.

If you think for a second that the government is going to give the rights to breed all dogs to the ANKC you are so deluded (this to me would seem a breach on anti competive legislation) and failing to see the other groups and people who oppose such moves, (Hugh Wirth, Don Burke, PETA are all far from friends of the pure breed dog world just to name a few) these groups are far more powerful then the ANKC, both in following and most importantally cash, also such a move would be even more flawed then the ID systems developed by the ANKC and its sub groups. If BSL is supported by the ANKC for one breed they should support it for all others that are involved in attacks or how does this appear to the general public? If a breed is so dangerous you need to be careful who obtains it then why shouldn’t it be banned to for the protection of the public and to save the children from being mauled? Or should we be promoting responsible choice of dog based more on size and energy levels and promoting responsible ownership, which means to me you should be legally responsible for the actions of your dog, not just responsible for feeding it!!!

All dog owners need to stop this petty rubbish about my breed bleat is better this and that, get your head out of your and start seeing the bigger picture, you are falling into the trap that’s been set by the media and many others and start promoting responsible ownership. Stop bleating about pure breeds being safer and start highlighting the real reasons and directions that need to be taken. Stop promoting welfare issues as going to stop dog attacks, with a hidden motive. Stand together and educate the general public about the real causes of attacks. Loose the toffy nose towards crossbreeds or pure breeds you may choose not to own while you have a choice, the dislike shown by some ANKC people towards cross breeds and other pure breeds makes one wonder why they are truly in the dog world at all. I like all dogs even those that are so abused that they must be PTS I still feel sorry for them and see why they are in this situation, not see it as though they deserve it or that they are vicious because they are a cross.

Its true, no one needs to own an APBT for any reason FACT, nor do they need a guarding breed, hunting breed, gun dog or really any dog at all, its like you aren’t going to die when all dogs are gone.

Look and see what breeds or pets in general PETA want you to own, and oh yes they are regularly in consultation of animal welfare and control laws, shame the ANKC usually are not!!! Double shame when they are they support BSL for breeds that aren’t theirs.

Unless BSL is fought constantly until it is overturned it spreads in every country. It would be here to unless people like moko moko fought to prove its known flaws.Due to unyealding dedication BSL has been overturned in other countries and with luck will be in the UK then as it was used to promote the introduction here it can be used as a reason for its demise here.

UNITED WE FIGHT DIVIDED WE ALL WILL FALL!!!

[melzawelza]

Great post P.W!

[tybrax]

Great posts P.W

[Dobecrazy]

very very good post, I would be focusing on educating the Council and public that irresponsible BYB's are probably causing most of these attacks...when you really think about it, what "wrong type" is going to pay $3000 for a purebred pup with conditions when they probably want to jam two $150 pups together to make a buck, not knowing the outcome temperement or health wise.. thats another thing bloody RSPCA concentrating on tail docking but not on BYB's because as long as there are mutts and strays the RSPCA gets $$$$$$$$$$$ for putting them to sleep. The whole system is just stuffed,