Comment Made By Rspca Chief Executive Mr. Michael Link

[Moselle]

But why did you ask for other people's opinions if you were just going to shout them done as being wrong because they differed to yours?

I asked for people's opinion out of curiosity and accepted their point of view. As for the rest of the thread I was constantly scrutinised and questioned simply because I was not prepared to change my mind! Perhaps you should pose the same question to other posters that were unable to accept the way I interpreted Mr. Linke's statement.

I am really getting pissed off with the hypocrisy around here, there are quite a few wonderful people here but heck some of you are downright hypocritical and nasty. I am not one of the sheep and do not intend to conform to the majority simply to be a part of the herd! And I still do not agree with HIS statement and as for the rest of you, you are more than welcome to interpret his statement any way you wish, I really don't give a damn! As I said BEFORE, to each their own! Now leave me the f*** ALONE and get a life and stop turning an innocent question into some kind of saga!

Edited July 22, 2010 by Moselle

[kendall]

But why did you ask for other people's opinions if you were just going to shout them done as being wrong because they differed to yours?

I asked for people's opinion out of curiosity and accepted their point of view. As for the rest of the thread I was constantly scrutinised and questioned simply because I was not prepared to change my mind! Perhaps you should pose the same question to other posters that were unable to accept the way I interpreted Mr. Linke's statement.

I am really getting pissed off with the hypocrisy around here, there are quite a few wonderful people here but heck some of you are downright hypocritical and nasty. I am not one of the sheep and do not intend to conform to the majority simply to be a part of the herd! And I still do not agree with HIS statement and as for the rest of you, you are more than welcome to interpret his statement any way you wish, I really don't give a damn! As I said BEFORE, to each their own! Now leave me the f*** ALONE and get a life and stop turning an innocent question into some kind of saga!

Obviously, this is an area where everyone can get really worked up and passionate.

Edited July 22, 2010 by kendall

[tarope]

Don't really care what the R$PCA says, as they are two faced and always have a hidden agenda.

[Earthdog]

Train wreck anyone??

[j]

All cats have four legs. My dog has four legs, therefore, it must be a cat.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

But why did you ask for other people's opinions if you were just going to shout them done as being wrong because they differed to yours?

I asked for people's opinion out of curiosity and accepted their point of view. As for the rest of the thread I was constantly scrutinised and questioned simply because I was not prepared to change my mind! Perhaps you should pose the same question to other posters that were unable to accept the way I interpreted Mr. Linke's statement.

I am really getting pissed off with the hypocrisy around here, there are quite a few wonderful people here but heck some of you are downright hypocritical and nasty. I am not one of the sheep and do not intend to conform to the majority simply to be a part of the herd! And I still do not agree with HIS statement and as for the rest of you, you are more than welcome to interpret his statement any way you wish, I really don't give a damn! As I said BEFORE, to each their own! Now leave me the f*** ALONE and get a life and stop turning an innocent question into some kind of saga!

wow now that is a bit much when you started the saga

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

All cats have four legs. My dog has four legs, therefore, it must be a cat.

my dog breathes, i breathe therefore i must be my dog

[WoofnHoof]

All cats have four legs. My dog has four legs, therefore, it must be a cat.

my dog breathes, i breathe therefore i must be my dog

Sorry haven't read the thread but that is soooo deep dude

[RottnBullies]

Now leave me the f*** ALONE and get a life and stop turning an innocent question into some kind of saga!

Don't play with fire If you can't stand the heat!

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

All cats have four legs. My dog has four legs, therefore, it must be a cat.

my dog breathes, i breathe therefore i must be my dog

Sorry haven't read the thread but that is soooo deep dude

thought we needed a change of pace

Edited July 22, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[Robbi]

The ACT RSPCA has been very fair minded with its dealings with APBT's unlike every other state, Michael Linke has the respect of many knowledgeable and ethical people in the dog world.

I feel there is an agenda in the OP's mind as she has now been making a prolonged attack and misinterpreting Mr Linkes comments over the course of days regardless of the fact that time and time again her arguement has been debunked

Who is the real victim of such vitriol, Mr Linke or yet again our poor APBT's

Edited July 22, 2010 by Robbi

[Red Fox]

All cats have four legs. My dog has four legs, therefore, it must be a cat.

my dog breathes, i breathe therefore i must be my dog

Sorry haven't read the thread but that is soooo deep dude :p

Jaxx'sBuddy you crack me up. However you type, your dog does not type, therefore you cannot be your dog.. or perhaps when you breath you become your dog..

On a more serious note I have not read the entire thread but I found no problem with the initial comment (made by Michael Link).

All he is saying is that the dogs could have been anything and that a more common mastiff type, staffy type or cross breed dog could have easily been mistaken for an APBT by a member of the general public.

Given that true, purebred APBT's are pretty rare the likelyhood that it actually was one is pretty damn low. Thats a fact.

Perhaps it was, perhaps it was even a cross bred pitt or perhaps it was a red nosed staffy/mastiff/dogue cross. Could have been anything really and that is all he's saying. It would make no sense for him to say "it could have been a Kelpie, poodle, Lab or dalmation" which along with a generic staffy or mastiff cross are all fairly common breeds - BUT they are breeds that are extremely unlikely to be mistaken for a pitt by someone who doesn't know any better

[Moselle]

All cats have four legs. My dog has four legs, therefore, it must be a cat.

my dog breathes, i breathe therefore i must be my dog

Hell, and I thought I was dealing with a modicum of intelligence, what an absolutely idiotic attempt at making a comparison Why dont you, at least, try comparing oranges with oranges, lol.

[Sandra777]

It would make no sense for him to say "it could have been a Kelpie, poodle, Lab or dalmation" which along with a generic staffy or mastiff cross are all fairly common breeds - BUT they are breeds that are extremely unlikely to be mistaken for a pitt by someone who doesn't know any better

Got to call you on that one. In NZ there was a a really bad dog attack, it sparked the current BSL really. The dog was originally described by eye witnesses as a chocolate Labrador. The dog eventually PTS (and owner jailed) for the attack was on TV and was a red ("tan") dog registered with the council as an Amstaff. I don't recall if it was a liver ("rednose") but it's coat colour was a reasonably bright red (tan), not dull Labrador yellow (and not Labrador chocolate either)

So no, not every member of the public can tell the difference between a Labrador and a "pitbull"

[Moselle]

The ACT RSPCA has been very fair minded with its dealings with APBT's unlike every other state, Michael Linke has the respect of many knowledgeable and ethical people in the dog world.

I feel there is an agenda in the OP's mind as she has now been making a prolonged attack and misinterpreting Mr Linkes comments over the course of days regardless of the fact that time and time again her arguement has been debunked

Who is the real victim of such vitriol, Mr Linke or yet again our poor APBT's

I think you are seeing shadows, lol. What agenda would I possibly have :p

I have not been making prolonged attacks on Mr. Linke, in fact I have not been attacking him at all; all I am guilty of is not seeing things from your point of view and sticking to my original interpretation of his statement, why don't you just shoot me for it? Oh, the argument has not been debunked either, LOL.

[Moselle]

All cats have four legs. My dog has four legs, therefore, it must be a cat.

my dog breathes, i breathe therefore i must be my dog

Sorry haven't read the thread but that is soooo deep dude :p

Jaxx'sBuddy you crack me up. However you type, your dog does not type, therefore you cannot be your dog.. or perhaps when you breath you become your dog..

On a more serious note I have not read the entire thread but I found no problem with the initial comment (made by Michael Link).

All he is saying is that the dogs could have been anything and that a more common mastiff type, staffy type or cross breed dog could have easily been mistaken for an APBT by a member of the general public.

Given that true, purebred APBT's are pretty rare the likelyhood that it actually was one is pretty damn low. Thats a fact.

Perhaps it was, perhaps it was even a cross bred pitt or perhaps it was a red nosed staffy/mastiff/dogue cross. Could have been anything really and that is all he's saying. It would make no sense for him to say "it could have been a Kelpie, poodle, Lab or dalmation" which along with a generic staffy or mastiff cross are all fairly common breeds - BUT they are breeds that are extremely unlikely to be mistaken for a pitt by someone who doesn't know any better

He is NOT saying that at all! He did not say that the attack on the maltese could have been carried out by "anything." He is not even saying that the attack could have easily been mistaken for a "staffy type." He is saying that the attack could have been carried out by a staffy, mastiff or crossbreed....The word "type" does not figure into his statement at all!

[poodlefan]

He is NOT saying that at all! He did not say that the attack on the maltese could have been carried out by "anything." He is not even saying that the attack could have easily been mistaken for a "staffy type." He is saying that the attack could have been carried out by a staffy, mastiff or crossbreed....The word "type" does not figure into his statement at all!

Moselle, I fail to understand why:

* you'd take a reporters view of what Mr Linke said as gospel - its not like you heard him comment yourself. You don't know what else he said and how selectively he may have been quoted or even misquoted. Anyone who has dealt with media knows what people say and what journalists report don't necessarily match. The fact of the matter is you're interpreting a media report and have no idea about the intent of Mr Linke's words. It doesn't seem to matter to you at all that the local RSPCA did not put the boot into pitbulls. Believe me when I say that your local RSPCA CEO would have done so in steel capped Doc Martins.

* you continue to use a second hand report of a statement to infer conclusions that you cannot support.

* you are so heated about this.

Edited July 23, 2010 by poodlefan

[Curlybert]

I think you are seeing shadows, lol. What agenda would I possibly have

I have not been making prolonged attacks on Mr. Linke, in fact I have not been attacking him at all; all I am guilty of is not seeing things from your point of view and sticking to my original interpretation of his statement, why don't you just shoot me for it? Oh, the argument has not been debunked either, LOL.

In the original "In the News" thread you said Michael Linke was "full of shit". In this thread you have (among other things) called him shallow, so you HAVE been making a prolonged attack on him and an unfounded one at that.

[Red Fox]

Ok..

"RSPCA ACT Chief executive, Michael Linke, who owns an american pit bull terrier, said it was a much maligned breed and that the dogs which attacked Harry could have been mastiffs, staffordshire bull terriers or cross breeds. He said ACT Legislation requiring people to hold a licence in order to keep a dog that had been declared dangerous by the DAS registrar was better than a blanket ban on any particular breed.

He said "could have been".

Definition of could: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/could

v could [kud] 1 past tense of can They asked if I could drive a car; I said I couldn't; She asked if she could go.

2 used to express a possibility I could go but I'm not going to; I could do it next week if you helped me.

As the verb could is an expression of a possibility he is absolutely correct - it could have been an APBT, it could have been a DDB (ie a mastiff "type"), or it could have been a staffy x lab with a red nose.

He also said: "ACT Legislation requiring people to hold a licence in order to keep a dog that had been declared dangerous by the DAS registrar was better than a blanket ban on any particular breed"

I agree with this. Would you prefer a blanket ban on ALL bull/mastiff breeds simply because people can't tell the difference? Or a ban on all large breeds since they can do damage? Or a ban on all DOGS simply as they have teeth?

I certainly wouldn't!

Sooo... should we ban APBT's? Have them all pts (because this may have been yet another involved in an attack) or should we accept that dogs are dogs, all dogs have the ability to be dangerous - ie to bite, regardless of breed? And that it really could have been any dog involved in this attack but was most likely a dog which resembled an APBT because lets face it- the chance that it was a purebred pitt is small (though of course possible) and the chance that it was a staffy, mastiff or cross breed which resembled an APBT is more likely -Not because they are a breed more likely to attack but because they are a breed which is often mistaken by the general public for a pittbull.

And the chance that it was a Standard Poodle maquerading as an APBT is zilch!

Any dog is capable of any act, irrespective of its breed and that type of legislation (as exists in the ACT) doesn't single out any one breed as being more dangerous than any other, he said.

He said "Any dog is capable of any act, irrespective of its breed"

This is correct. I'm quite sure my old Kelpie could have easily done a lot of damage if she had wanted too. As could my brothers (very docile) Amstaff, my aunts nasty old poodle x, my neighbours purebred (and adorable) staffy girl or my own Rhodesian Ridgeback.

If it's a DOG and it has TEETH then it can bite - breed had nothing to do with it.

We are 100 per cent opposed to vicious dogs in our community...

Pit bulls are subject to ownership restrictions in NSW, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria"

He said "We are 100 per cent opposed to vicious dogs in our community..." This to me says that NO vicious dog shall be tollerated - whether it is a restricted breed (ie an APBT), a common breed (ie. a SBT or a Lab), a large breed (ie. a Mastiff), or a small breed (ie. a Maltese, Cav, Toy Poodle).

You said:

The word "type" does not figure into his statement at all!

No type is MY word which in this case I am using to decribe a group of dogs. Ie, Anatolian Dougue De Bordeaux, Bullmastiff, Neopolitan mastiff, Boerboel etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastiff if you want more) for mastiff "types"

Or Bull Terrier, SBT, AmStaff, APBT, etc for staffy "types"

What Michael Linke said was not a throw away "it could have been anything" comment. It was a rational "lets not all jump on the pittbull wagon and presume without knowing the facts" comment. And I really can't see what your problem is sorry.

eta, what PF said

Edited July 23, 2010 by SecretKei

[Red Fox]

Actually no maybe you're right and he shouldn't have named the mastiff, SBT or cross breed as a possibility. What he should have done is rattled off the entire list of ANKC breeds, along with every possible cross so as not to offend anyone.

Hey considering it was only a snippet of a statement that was published perhaps he did

*edited because I can't spell today

Edited July 23, 2010 by SecretKei