bulldogz4eva Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Cross posted from another forum.this policy is currently being drafted by the AVA and is open to comments by veterinarians until 15 April 2011.Anybody who has imported or thinking of importing and owns guardian breeds should contact their vet and make their opinion known.If this is enacted it may be the end of the working dog in this country.Who is going to asses the dogs?Some government know nothing that has no real knowledge of the breed in question.Sad state of affairs. Importing dogs - behaviour considerations Position statement Candidates for importation should be subjected to behavioural assessment as well as physical examination before they are permitted to enter Australia. Dogs should not be imported if they exhibit or carry behavioural characteristics that may inappropriately threaten the safety of human beings or other animals. The establishment and enforcement of behavioural standards for all dogs whose owners apply for their importation into Australia is strongly supported. Such standards should also apply to any genetic material imported with assessment of temperament of donors of semen, ova or embryos. If exceptions are to be made, e.g. for guard dogs, efence dogs and drug detecting dogs, then special conditions should apply to the release of those animals into Australian territories and these animals should be identified as dangerous individuals, in keeping with local state or territory laws. The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) calls on the Australian government to effect changes to the importation regulations and permit conditions to satisfy the need for effective behavioural assessment of imported dogs. Background Current behavioural restrictions on import requirements for dogs are based on specific breeds. A case-by-case assessment of individual dogs is a more effective means of prenting the importation of aggressive dogs and thereby protecting the community. Reference www.daff.gov.au/aquis/cat-dogs Other relevant policies and position statements -6.13 Aggression in dogs -6.15 Breed-specific legislation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortstep Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 So who would pay for this? Who would be qualified to do the test? Can we select the testers? Can dogs be re tested by someone else if the dogs fails the test? Is this part of the government scheme to increase genetic diversity and lower COIs in dog breeding programs in Australia, but discouraging and increasing the already incredibly expensive process of meeting the existing Australian governments requirements to import dogs. What's a few more hundred when it already costs well over $10,000 to bring in a dog to Australia. Oh and BTW, just how many vicious dogs are being imported into Australia? Must be just scores of them for vets across the country to so worry about it that every dog imported needs to be screened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I don't get it, why does the AVA have an interest in this issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirty Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 God I can't stand the AVA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riddler Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 So what is the problem here? It appears the AVA is calling for a ''deed not breed'' type of policy to be implimented. i.e., Dogs to be assessed as individuals, not automatically classified, accepted or rejected, simply because of their breed. Isn't that what the anti bsl push all about? A similar policy applies to humans wanting to enter the country. Why shouldn't the same criterior apply to dogs? Seems like a step in right direction to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkySoaringMagpie Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 So what is the problem here?It appears the AVA is calling for a ''deed not breed'' type of policy to be implimented. i.e., Dogs to be assessed as individuals, not automatically classified, accepted or rejected, simply because of their breed. Isn't that what the anti bsl push all about? A similar policy applies to humans wanting to enter the country. Why shouldn't the same criterior apply to dogs? Seems like a step in right direction to me. When humans enter the country the Customs Officer might make an assessment of their apparent temperament to establish a suspicion of smuggling or illegal importation, but being nervous or tired after a long flight is not a crime and not something you can legally be turned around for. So your analogy doesn't work. Yes, you can be turned around if you have a prior criminal conviction, but the case isn't tried at the border by a temperament tester. I think this is a terrible policy, because there is no way to enact it in a way that doesn't cause welfare issues. Say the dog arrives from Europe. A long, long journey and frightening for most dogs. It is held in kennels, it is tested, it fails and then has to go through it all again to go back home providing the breeder wants it back. What if the breeder doesn't want it back? Who pays? Does the dog then get put down in kennels? What breeder would be prepared to send a dog into that risk? Do you know how much $$$ is tied up in each importation? More if it is a show dog. There are plenty of European and US breeders who right now won't send dogs to Australia because of the distance, this would narrow things even more. FWIW, I have imported a dog, and the AQIS people said she was lovely in kennels. So, I'm not coming from a defensive position here, I just think it's stupid policy. Our aggressive dog problem in Australia is not coming from imported dogs, it's coming from BYBs and the idiots who buy from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortstep Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) I think it would end up you have to hire a certified behviourist who is approved by the government to do these tests. the tersts would be done prior to application for an import permit. I am thinking several hundered dollars for the test and paper work to be done. No test no import oermit. Just another expence for something that I am sure would not do anything to prevent dog attacks in Australia. It is any wonder things just keep getting worse. First question has to be; Just how many dogs that have attacked someone have been imported dogs? That would have made front page news. I bet the answer is none. Just another way to discourage importing dogs, as we know that is on the list of things the animal welfare people want to ban, the import and export of all domestic animals. BTW have the quarrantine stations got their leases sorted out yet, or are they just planning on closing some or all of them? Edited March 20, 2011 by shortstep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortstep Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) A similar policy applies to humans wanting to enter the country. Oh good then maybe those people up on christmas island will be refused entry because of the agressive behaviour they have displayed towards Australians. Not a chance. Edited March 20, 2011 by shortstep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkySoaringMagpie Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 If the test is to be done before the dogs enter the country then my welfare objections disappear. All this amounts to is another expense and/or barrier and/or box to tick with no outcome in terms of policy goals. $$$ talks and temperament testing is a much fuzzier science than "does this dog have titres". If the price is right, dogs will pass no matter what their temperament. They don't say who would certify, but I assume they mean a vet would do it, rather than a trainer. Perhaps they are practice building for their overseas cousins. It would be interesting to know if other countries' veterinary associations are proposing something similar. The fact remains that the the vast majority of dogs who attack are born in the country and most people who spend $$$ on importing a beloved family pet or sought after show dog are not going to let it roam and attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casowner Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) Who defines inappropriate? "Dogs should not be imported if they exhibit or carry behavioural characteristics that may inappropriately threaten the safety of human beings or other animals." LGD breeds are supposed to carry behavioural traits that would threaten people or animals if the human or animal inappropriately came onto their territory. Who defines what threaten means? Is threatening barking, growing, defensive pose or attack? And what is to happen to these animals if they fail the assessment? is the importer reimbursed for the thousands of dollars that they have lost? Edited March 20, 2011 by casowner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 If I understand the policy correctly, assessment would not only apply to a dog/ puppy being imported, but also to the foreign sire/dam? Such standards should also apply to any genetic material imported with assessment of temperament of donors of semen, ova or embryos. Given the anti-schutzhund law in Victoria, would the proposed AVA policy mean that any imported puppy or puppy born locally from the semen/ ova of a dog/ bitch with a Sch title would automatically be banned or import restricted? If exceptions are to be made, e.g. for guard dogs, defence dogs and drug detecting dogs, then special conditions should apply to the release of those animals into Australian territories and these animals should be identified as dangerous individuals, in keeping with local state or territory laws. I never realised drug sniffing dogs were aggressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john.davey.1960 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 There are many determinants of aggression, breed not being one of them so sounds OK to me. Perhaps a fail should simply result in mandatory behavour modification of the offending dogs, rather than death, a better outcome all round. I thought all imports had to undergo some form of testing already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldogz4eva Posted March 20, 2011 Author Share Posted March 20, 2011 So what is the problem here?It appears the AVA is calling for a ''deed not breed'' type of policy to be implimented. i.e., Dogs to be assessed as individuals, not automatically classified, accepted or rejected, simply because of their breed. Isn't that what the anti bsl push all about? A similar policy applies to humans wanting to enter the country. Why shouldn't the same criterior apply to dogs? Seems like a step in right direction to me. I think you totally miss the point.they want their cake and eat it too.If there was no bsl then maybe but bsl still stands and now they want to chip away at what is left.Reread what is proposed.It is not just temperament.It states exhibit or carry.What does carry mean?It means the triats that they have as a breed.So if it is breed x y z bred ofr the intended purpose it will carry certain traits.Who deems that inappropriate.SAy dog barks at another dog at the vets while getting its blood taken.Said vet deems that inappropriate and you have done your money.Dog takes exception of strange man sticking cold thermometer up his bum and growls,vet deems that inappropriate you have done your money.Dog barks at someone in quarantine.Vet dems that inappropriate says dog should be deemd dangerous and desexed before release from quarantine.Where does that leave you.i think this is bs.People need to contact their vet and express there concerns before April 15th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Wait a moment - are we going off half cocked? According to this AVA web page we are talking about an AVA policy that was ratified by the AVA in January 1997? Is this policy something the facists in the Urban Animal Management movement (an unholy alliance of vets and dog catchers) are now trying to push through the Federal Minister for Ag, Fish & Forestry or is the 1st post a furphy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldogz4eva Posted March 20, 2011 Author Share Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) Wait a moment - are we going off half cocked? According to this AVA web page we are talking about an AVA policy that was ratified by the AVA in January 1997?Is this policy something the facists in the Urban Animal Management movement (an unholy alliance of vets and dog catchers) are now trying to push through the Federal Minister for Ag, Fish & Forestry or is the 1st post a furphy? No I can assure you it is no furphy.What I originaly posted has been sent to all vets that are AVA members as a position paper for their comment before April 15.Once submisions have been received a policy will be drafted and submitted to the government to change the current regulations on importing dogs into Australia.It is no furphy I dont post rumours. ETA. Just becuase something was rattified in 97 doesnt mean anything other than they discussed it and agreed with it in principle as a group (AVA).Of course it will have to go through the Minister for Agriculture as it is his portfolio that oversees the importation of goods/animals into the country.I had reason to contact him not that long ago about a query and maybe that is peoples best bet to send emails directly to him becuase at the end of the day it is his desk it will eventually come across. Edited March 20, 2011 by bulldogz4eva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekhbet Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 oh FFS What about importing semen then? It's going to get to the state they poke the little guys with a needle and if they fight back declare that dangerous too? So moving overseas when I can. This country is losing the plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJean Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 So what is the problem here?It appears the AVA is calling for a ''deed not breed'' type of policy to be implimented. i.e., Dogs to be assessed as individuals, not automatically classified, accepted or rejected, simply because of their breed. Isn't that what the anti bsl push all about? A similar policy applies to humans wanting to enter the country. Why shouldn't the same criterior apply to dogs? Seems like a step in right direction to me. Do you import? NB: The assessment would take place prior to the dog arriving in Australia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortstep Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) Spoke to my vet this morning who is a member of AVA. He has not received any notification of this vote. He promises to look into it but I plan to remind him again in a few days. Please speak to your vets about this as they too may not have been notifed of the vote. Edited March 21, 2011 by shortstep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Sounds stupid to me. As if people would allow dogs they have spoend thousands on roam around and attack people or animals. When are these people going to get it through their brains that the highest amount of dog attacks come from babdly bred and raised dogs. Usually from litters pupped out in BYards in nnot very good conditions, then are owned by people that are either down right bloody stupid and want a tough dog or have no idea about the dog they have in their back yard and don't do the appropriate training and socilisation. I can understand why people who's interest lies in the guardian and workings breeds are very concerned. These dogs are not supposed to be everyones friends, but it sure does not mean they pose a danger to us and our animals. arrgghhh I am getting so frustrated with the crap that goes on in regard to dog these days. Why don't "they" do a recording of data of all the dogs that are euthed for dog attacks ie where have they come from, what training etc has been done as well as all the dogs that end up in the pound system. Well I do know why because they want to keep picking on the people who breed the least amount of dogs and where a majority do the right thing. Why? because they are the easiest to pick on and the only ones who have a paper trail to follow.!!!!!!! Cranky and going to move away from the computer now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkyTansy Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 What a joke... I suppose that would also end the importation of semen of deceased dogs, since you can't temperament test them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now