Ava Draft Policy On Importation

[john.davey.1960]

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

I haven't yet.

Only those who would seek to import dangerous &/or diseased dogs, banned breeds, ova/sperm from diseased dogs or banned breeds would be affected by this recommendation.

Talk about making mountains out of mole hills.

For the honest, the ethical & the responsible it would business as usual, with little or no extra expense.

We start off by banning one breed, now extended to 5 and look alikes, and now genetically unsound ones (eg brit. bulldog?) Where will it end?

The enforcers excuse - I was only following the law, like at Auschwitz.

Sigh, will the ill-conceived naive animal haters at heart never learn?

[john.davey.1960]

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.

The way it reads to me is, that before approval for individual dogs to be imported into the country they should have to pass a health & behavioural assessment (there's that word again)

What is the problem with that? Good idea. Don't we have enough savage &/or sick dogs here as it is?

Who would wish to import a dangerous &/or diseased dog anyhow?

Breed is not mentioned. Although I would imagine banned breeds & sperm/ova from same would still be banned. Same scenario as switchblades, drugs etc,etc etc. People still try it on though. If they are caught they are prosecuted. That's fair enough isn't it. Not everyone agrees with every law but everyone is still bound by all of them.

Any prospective import must be quarantined before departure anyhow. All the tests can be done then & the paper work accompany the dog from is place of origin.

Wouldn't an animal that displayed cronic health problems while in quarantine be disbarred from importation anyhow.

Behaviour could easily assessed during the quarantine period.

Would any ethical breeder wish to import semen/ova from a diseased dog/bitch?

Not bloody likely.

Humans with criminal convictions aren't issued visa. If they do land here & are detected they are put on the next plane back from whence they came.

Imigration is a subject for a different type of forum. Not a valid argument here.

Unless of course the boat people start bringing their dogs with them. In which case the dogs would be put down immediately.

Which would be something else for the bleeding hearts to whinge about no doubt.

That all depends whio is doing the behavioural assessment and what the criteria is doenst it.Know one can import a diseased animal now so that is nonsense talk and I dont know why you bring it up.Dangerous by whose assessment?That is the problem.By reading a breed standard?that is how the Presa Canario got added to the list.No breed is not mentioned but as I said it states exhibit or carry and like I said if they do not want a particular breed to enter that is not already on the list it leaves it open to interpretation.

You mustnt have read what I said becuase this is being put forward as an alternative to BSl and that is fine an dandy but if the government runs with this and doesnt rescind bsl it will make it harder for those trying to import current breeds as well as new breeds.If you cant see that I cant help you and yes I have dealt with AQIS and I know what the process is all about.

Actually the Presa Canario was added because of the Diane Whipple death and accompanying media circus. They are neither naturally aggressive nor behaviourally or genetically unsound. Meanwhile GSDs and Rottis aren't added despite the numbers they've killed, through idiot owners I might add.

[shortstep]

Wouldn't an animal that displayed cronic health problems while in quarantine be disbarred from importation anyhow.

Wrong again.

Dogs can and do have chronic health problems and are not barred from entry into Australia.

We are not that far gone down the path of big brother yet, but it seems you would like to think we are.

It is only infectious disease that is screened for. If your dog has a heart problem, HD, allergies, it can come in.

Hard for you to believe I am sure.

[Diva]

Dogs should not be imported if they exhibit or carry behavioural characteristics that may inappropriately threaten the safety of human beings or other animals.

I wonder what threat to the safety of 'other animals' means in this context. Dangerous to rabbits? Not safe with cats? Hardly a reason to prevent them entering the country I would have thought - especially as most dogs imported are probably just peoples pets, returning to the country with them.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Diva

[Lowenhart]

How do you do behavioural tests on a dead dog?

You don't. So you can't have that semen.

A young puppy is put in a stressful situation by a bureaucratic vet in it's home country. It's deemed to have a poor temperatment. So you can't have that puppy.

In all seriousness, I'd like to see the data that backs the idea that the temperament of imported dogs directly correlates to incidents. Where are the figures that these imported dogs are causing mayhem here, or their direct decendants (generation 1)?

It's clear that dogs are not welcome in Australia.

[Diva]

How do you do behavioural tests on a dead dog?

You don't. So you can't have that semen.

A young puppy is put in a stressful situation by a bureaucratic vet in it's home country. It's deemed to have a poor temperatment. So you can't have that puppy.

You'd also have to have a pretty good relationship with a breeder to require them to go to the trouble of getting their sire temperament tested to some overseas standard by goodness knows who just so you could import it's semen - I can imagine being told no thanks, just too much hassle. So much for broadening gene pools.

[Are You Serious Jo]

I know all vets aren't like this, but some love BYBers because they breed and this means money. Don't underestimate the level of ignorance among vets about purebreds. I've seen first hand how a cross bred will come in with a problem and need surgery such as lux patella, hips etc, but a purebred came in with the same aliment and the first thing they did was blame the breed.

[Diva]

I know all vets aren't like this, but some love BYBers because they breed and this means money. Don't underestimate the level of ignorance among vets about purebreds.

Yes that's true, there is even one on the local radio here who uses the spot to extoll the virtues of mutts bred by her clinic's clients. I think the last cross she was pushing was DDBxBoxer. And more than one vet has commented on my Salukis or Afghans at the first appointment. Just a shame that my dogs aren't of either breed.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Diva

[OSoSwift]

I know all vets aren't like this, but some love BYBers because they breed and this means money. Don't underestimate the level of ignorance among vets about purebreds. I've seen first hand how a cross bred will come in with a problem and need surgery such as lux patella, hips etc, but a purebred came in with the same aliment and the first thing they did was blame the breed.

I have to say I fully understand what you are saying. One vet got a puppy at 6 weeks of a popular breed, not rego'd and commented about just how much of a baby they are at 6 weeks compared to the 8 weeks of their first dog (registered purebred from an ethical breeder) They said they could now understand why I pushed the puppies staying with their litter until 8 weeks.

None of the people in my vet clinic that I am aware of have a purebred froma rego'd breeder. One is a pound rescue, one is a petshop puppy, one unrego'd BYbred, two are crossbred and I know at least one was paid for but not sure where from, anotehr has a Petshop crossbreed and a rescue crossebreed. As for the rest who knows. I was thought of as strange when I worked there!

If a badly bred dog of a recognisable breed came in it was blame the breed. If it was a mutt it was bad luck.

Riddler

The issue with the testing is some strange person assessing a dogs temperment - particularly guarding and guardian breeds as they may not react favourably in a strange environment with a eprson they do not know. Which part of that is so hard for you to understand????????

[riddler]

Riddler

The issue with the testing is some strange person assessing a dogs temperment - particularly guarding and guardian breeds as they may not react favourably in a strange environment with a eprson they do not know. Which part of that is so hard for you to understand????????

Maybe you haven't read the OP closely enough or comprehended what I have said.

I'll try again.

Firstly, any dog to be imported into Aust must spend a certain amount of time in qurantine (NZ excepted)

Quarantine facilities have professional people on staff.

I would imagine if this proposal was adopted accredited professions would do the testings & be liable for their accuracy. (Think possible litigation for bogus reports)

If, say, a dog is quarantined for three months for e.g. it's temperament/behaviour can be moderated on a daily basis. Not just one poke with a pointy stick & check a box.

If the dog is declared to be dangerous, the way I read the proposal as posted, doesn't necessarily bar the importation from proceeding if the importer agrees to house the dog under the provisions of our DD laws.

Why would any rational people have a problem with that?

Those speaking of TTing sperm & ova (from animals live or dead) shows just how out of touch with reality some are.

The donors are tested for HEALTH problems. It is for the benefit of the importer & their general breed population here.

How would someone like to import sperm in good faith & when problems arise discover the donor had a congenital heart disease or HD problems , entropian, bad mouths, mismatched colouring?

Or worse still, the sperm wasn't taken from the dog they requested & paid for.

Also to prevent sperm from banned breeds being imported covertly.

Repeat, The testings would be for the benefit of the importer & the general dog population of this country.

If you think that is a bad thing, why even bother health & temperament testing here?

If you don't care what is coming in how could you truthfully say you care what you are producing with what you have?

The common sense of this proposal has been tangled in hysteria & misconceptions of the reality of how important it really is to the integrity of our breeding programs.

IMO.

Think logically.

[BJean]

Maybe you haven't read the OP closely enough or comprehended what I have said.

I'll try again.

Firstly, any dog to be imported into Aust must spend a certain amount of time in qurantine (NZ excepted)

Quarantine facilities have professional people on staff.

Quarantine facilities have dog handlers. Not trainers. Not anyone qualified to deal dog behaviour and its assessment.

I would imagine if this proposal was adopted accredited professions would do the testings & be liable for their accuracy. (Think possible litigation for bogus reports)

If, say, a dog is quarantined for three months for e.g.

3 months? That's a big 'if'.

If the dog is declared to be dangerous, the way I read the proposal as posted, doesn't necessarily bar the importation from proceeding if the importer agrees to house the dog under the provisions of our DD laws.

Why would any rational people have a problem with that?

you describe a dog already in Australia quarantine -

where to now if the import process does not proceed???

TT would happen before import, what ya doing with your examples, you're getting them all muddled!

Those speaking of TTing sperm & ova (from animals live or dead) shows just how out of touch with reality some are.

yes indeed

The donors are tested for HEALTH problems. It is for the benefit of the importer & their general breed population here.

How would someone like to import sperm in good faith & when problems arise discover the donor had a congenital heart disease or HD problems , entropian, bad mouths, mismatched colouring?

Or worse still, the sperm wasn't taken from the dog they requested & paid for.

Also to prevent sperm from banned breeds being imported covertly.

Repeat, The testings would be for the benefit of the importer & the general dog population of this country.

If you think that is a bad thing, why even bother health & temperament testing here?

If you don't care what is coming in how could you truthfully say you care what you are producing with what you have?

The common sense of this proposal has been tangled in hysteria & misconceptions of the reality of how important it really is to the integrity of our breeding programs.

IMO.

Think logically.

it's a tough one!

[Diva]

Those speaking of TTing sperm & ova (from animals live or dead) shows just how out of touch with reality some are.

yes indeed

Of course, no-one is talking about temp testing ova or sperm. But the proposal says that:

" Such standards should also apply to any genetic material imported with assessment of temperament of donors of semen, ova or embryos."

So if the sire is dead, the semen could not be imported as the temperament test could not occur.

A breeder would typically assess what temperament a deceased sire is likely to throw by the temperament of his existing progeny, and by what was known of him while he was alive. But that option will go under this scheme, even though judging by what he has produced already is probably the more accurate option for assessing what he is likely to continue to produce, more revealing than a single temp test of the dog himself.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Diva

[bulldogz4eva]

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.

The way it reads to me is, that before approval for individual dogs to be imported into the country they should have to pass a health & behavioural assessment (there's that word again)

What is the problem with that? Good idea. Don't we have enough savage &/or sick dogs here as it is?

Who would wish to import a dangerous &/or diseased dog anyhow?

Breed is not mentioned. Although I would imagine banned breeds & sperm/ova from same would still be banned. Same scenario as switchblades, drugs etc,etc etc. People still try it on though. If they are caught they are prosecuted. That's fair enough isn't it. Not everyone agrees with every law but everyone is still bound by all of them.

Any prospective import must be quarantined before departure anyhow. All the tests can be done then & the paper work accompany the dog from is place of origin.

Wouldn't an animal that displayed cronic health problems while in quarantine be disbarred from importation anyhow.

Behaviour could easily assessed during the quarantine period.

Would any ethical breeder wish to import semen/ova from a diseased dog/bitch?

Not bloody likely.

Humans with criminal convictions aren't issued visa. If they do land here & are detected they are put on the next plane back from whence they came.

Imigration is a subject for a different type of forum. Not a valid argument here.

Unless of course the boat people start bringing their dogs with them. In which case the dogs would be put down immediately.

Which would be something else for the bleeding hearts to whinge about no doubt.

That all depends whio is doing the behavioural assessment and what the criteria is doenst it.Know one can import a diseased animal now so that is nonsense talk and I dont know why you bring it up.Dangerous by whose assessment?That is the problem.By reading a breed standard?that is how the Presa Canario got added to the list.No breed is not mentioned but as I said it states exhibit or carry and like I said if they do not want a particular breed to enter that is not already on the list it leaves it open to interpretation.

You mustnt have read what I said becuase this is being put forward as an alternative to BSl and that is fine an dandy but if the government runs with this and doesnt rescind bsl it will make it harder for those trying to import current breeds as well as new breeds.If you cant see that I cant help you and yes I have dealt with AQIS and I know what the process is all about.

Actually the Presa Canario was added because of the Diane Whipple death and accompanying media circus. They are neither naturally aggressive nor behaviourally or genetically unsound. Meanwhile GSDs and Rottis aren't added despite the numbers they've killed, through idiot owners I might add.

That is part of the reason but not the only reason.I do know the background on it and why but I am not going to state it on a public message board.

[bulldogz4eva]

Riddler

The issue with the testing is some strange person assessing a dogs temperment - particularly guarding and guardian breeds as they may not react favourably in a strange environment with a eprson they do not know. Which part of that is so hard for you to understand????????

Maybe you haven't read the OP closely enough or comprehended what I have said.

I'll try again.

Firstly, any dog to be imported into Aust must spend a certain amount of time in qurantine (NZ excepted)

Quarantine facilities have professional people on staff.

I would imagine if this proposal was adopted accredited professions would do the testings & be liable for their accuracy. (Think possible litigation for bogus reports)

If, say, a dog is quarantined for three months for e.g. it's temperament/behaviour can be moderated on a daily basis. Not just one poke with a pointy stick & check a box.

If the dog is declared to be dangerous, the way I read the proposal as posted, doesn't necessarily bar the importation from proceeding if the importer agrees to house the dog under the provisions of our DD laws.

Why would any rational people have a problem with that?

Those speaking of TTing sperm & ova (from animals live or dead) shows just how out of touch with reality some are.

The donors are tested for HEALTH problems. It is for the benefit of the importer & their general breed population here.

How would someone like to import sperm in good faith & when problems arise discover the donor had a congenital heart disease or HD problems , entropian, bad mouths, mismatched colouring?

Or worse still, the sperm wasn't taken from the dog they requested & paid for.

Also to prevent sperm from banned breeds being imported covertly.

Repeat, The testings would be for the benefit of the importer & the general dog population of this country.

If you think that is a bad thing, why even bother health & temperament testing here?

If you don't care what is coming in how could you truthfully say you care what you are producing with what you have?

The common sense of this proposal has been tangled in hysteria & misconceptions of the reality of how important it really is to the integrity of our breeding programs.

IMO.

Think logically.

Your first mistake is saying Quarantine facilities have professional staff on hand.Have you ever been to one?The kennel staff are payed minimum wage just like child care workers.They are not professionals.The temperament test is to be conducted before animal leaves in order to pass.Once it is in quarantine it is already here and doesnt matter what quarantine staff think.If the dog is declared dangerous it will have to abide by the restrictions which means it will have to be desexed.I think you need to reread it.the part about dd was in reference to dogs being imported by the services(military) and security personnel.If they are to be used for that purpose they would have to be declared dd.Why would a civilian import a dog and pay $10 000 only to have it desexed.Like we all have money to burn.

From your post I can see you are bit out of touch with the import requirements because you have never imported.Everyone that has understands the health tests and requirements that need to be conducted wether it is sperm or live animal and no you cant bring in sperm from a dead dog if it hasnt had the appropriate health tests for this country prior to having the semen taken.Just the same for a live dog.You missed the point once again.What we were talking about is if this is brought in there is no way of temperament testing a dead dog now is there.So in all liklehood they will not allow you to do so.You have misread what is written which is mostly my point.It is open to interpretation.I dont have a huge problem with it as an alternative to BSL but I do if it is put in as an additon and BSL is not removed.i think the wording needs to be a bit clearer as well.

Edited March 22, 2011 by bulldogz4eva

[shortstep]

Firstly, any dog to be imported into Aust must spend a certain amount of time in qurantine (NZ excepted)

Quarantine facilities have professional people on staff.

I would imagine if this proposal was adopted accredited professions would do the testings & be liable for their accuracy. (Think possible litigation for bogus reports)

If, say, a dog is quarantined for three months for e.g. it's temperament/behaviour can be moderated on a daily basis. Not just one poke with a pointy stick & check a box.

If the dog is declared to be dangerous, the way I read the proposal as posted, doesn't necessarily bar the importation from proceeding if the importer agrees to house the dog under the provisions of our DD laws.

Why would any rational people have a problem with that?

Those speaking of TTing sperm & ova (from animals live or dead) shows just how out of touch with reality some are.

The donors are tested for HEALTH problems. It is for the benefit of the importer & their general breed population here.

How would someone like to import sperm in good faith & when problems arise discover the donor had a congenital heart disease or HD problems , entropian, bad mouths, mismatched colouring?

Or worse still, the sperm wasn't taken from the dog they requested & paid for.

Also to prevent sperm from banned breeds being imported covertly.

Repeat, The testings would be for the benefit of the importer & the general dog population of this country.

If you think that is a bad thing, why even bother health & temperament testing here?

If you don't care what is coming in how could you truthfully say you care what you are producing with what you have?

The common sense of this proposal has been tangled in hysteria & misconceptions of the reality of how important it really is to the integrity of our breeding programs.

IMO.

Think logically.

Rubbish.

Just ignoring everything you said yesterday that was pointed out to be wrong? That's right, just plowing on ahead with more rubbish and hope no one notices the untruths. Wrong, we all noticed.

There are 2 choices here. #1 You don't have a clue what you are talking about but are so sure you want to make everybody do it your way. OR #2 You know exactly what you are doing and are on a mission to hurt dogs owners. I go with the later.

Not talking to you now as you will just ignore the truth and are on a mission to make things seem very different to the way they are.

This is for those who do not understand about importing a pet dog to Australia.

First off if a dog is dangerous in quarantine and hurts someone they already can and will take action against the dog. So if that was the intention of this law, then there is no point in this law as that already happens. The 'riddler' is full of it and only trying to cloud the issue with untruths. What they want is to add an additional cost of 3-5 hundred dollars to have a dog screened by a behaviorist as part of the application process prior to getting a permit to import.

This will result in most people saying the cost is just too much and they will leave their dogs behind.

There is still no evidence presented that any imported dogs has attacked anyone, never mind that there is some sort of a trend that imported dogs are dangerous, with out some measurable history why bring in a new law at great expense to pet owners for a problem that is not proven to even exist.

Secondly it is not possible for anyone, and certainly not the government of Australia, to test or to assure that that testing of all dogs imported dogs or stud dogs of semen for all health problems. That is just impossible and just NUTS to even think it could or should be done! There is also no evidence that imported dogs with a health problem is harmful to Australia.

How many of you own a dog with a health problem, should they be refused entry with you into Australian because they have an allergy, heart problem or a joint problem. Again the whole idea is just nuts.

Australia already screens for infectious health problems which it the responsibility of the government.

It is not the responsibility of the government to assure that no dogs with any health problem is allowed into Australian, nor it is their right to take your dog away from you because it has HD or some other non infectious health problem.

Again 'Riddler 'is making a hidden riddle out this. Just twisting things around to make all imported dogs look bad, sick or a danger. The only possible goal of this sort of rhetoric is to promote the banning of importing of pet dogs and to prevent all people from being able to import their pets. Just hurtful, no other word for it.

Further there is no way this so called screening out of all sick dogs can be managed, it would cost a fortune for the government to review all the screening. To do all this health testing would be thousands and thousands of dollars. The poster also knows this and also knows that very very few people could afford this on top of the existing cost of close to $10,000 to import your pet. Again it is just plain meanness and a desire to separate people from their pets that Riddler would sugest such an idea.

Heaven help all dog owners, with people like you running around.

Where is ANKC? Are they doing anything about this?

Edited March 22, 2011 by shortstep

[Tempus Fugit]

I think raising the issue of a dog's health is a red herring as far as this thread is concerned.

In regard to behavioural assessment would the present Protocol for assessing aggression in dogs by veterinarians on behalf of animal welfare groups apply?

In respect of imported ova/ semen, how would you get the sires/ dams tested to this standard?

Is any dog or their sire/ dam with proven ability (titles) in dog sport (Schutzhund, French Ring etc) having a protection component going to be regarded as dangerous, (based on existing Victorian law)?

What about livestock guarding breeds?

[petmezz]

i don't like this policy at all the way it is worded leaves a big open door for the potential to breed out many breeds of dogs. think about it, if BSL was scraped (bet it won’t be ) and this was in, what would be the next step for people on the animal liberation front be???

you can't import that GSD because GSD's are predisposed to be aggressive xyz evidence that it is a character of the breed.

an incident happens in Australia and some one is bitten by a pet GSD media jumps on the story and a knee jerk reaction to declare GSD as DD supported with xyz evidence including the import restriction due to a pre disposition to aggressively respond especially with an unusual (suspect) stranger walking near or to the handler (a growl is coincided an aggressive behaviour) let alone evidence of schutzhound, police dogs ect doesn’t matter what dog savvy people know about schutzhound just showing a dog biting a sleeve will convince the general public with mass support for a complete ban on the breed.

think of all the breeds this could be transferred to.

the other problem is who dose the temperament test??? is their a magical place where dog behaviur is set in stone and is an exact science?? i personally would not trust a vet to do a temp test, sorry they are great with the medical side of things but not so good with the behaviour side of things, their are of course exceptions to this. but the good ones (behaviorists and vetenry behaviorist) are not going to be assessing temperaments for departing dogs, they make way to much money serving local clients with little possibility of a liability law suet following a grumpy importer and local breeder who by this time have already spent thousands and countless hours with paper work, medicals, sales contract, flight detailed ect.

and then their is the development aspect of the dog, their is documented periods of development where a dog will go through a fear period, what happens if the TT happens in this time of development for the dog. a dog that reacts scared could fail the test as scared dogs are more likely to exhibit an aggressive response, if they choose to TT again at a later time valuable training time is lost and the dog could display fearful and potentially aggressive responses from lack of socialization due to a long time in the quarantine kennel with little exposure to new environments.

and if something bad happens to the dog during one of its developmental fear periods in the TT their is a high very high possibility that the dog will always be scared in similar situations, potentially becoming fear aggressive due to past experience. it only takes one stupid person to destroy a good dog.

rant over, think what you want

(love GSD have a working line one with me )

[sandgrubber]

I'm in the US, but lived in Australia for 14 years.

If I hit this regulation, I would simply avoid exporting to Australia. Too much fuss.

I've had a not-entertaining time trying to sell a house I owned in Australia while resident in California. Ended up spending hundreds of dollars and tens of hours of time dealing with the fact that WA officials will not accept a California Notary Public . . . because the California NP can only sign on an attached piece of paper and the WA burocrats require that the signature be on the page being notarised.

In general, Australian bureaucracy is not flexible and is much better at saying 'no' than saying 'yes'. I would not trust lawmakers to write a law that a quality breeder who has little interest in things legal could navigate.

Edited March 22, 2011 by sandgrubber

[Lowenhart]

Those speaking of TTing sperm & ova (from animals live or dead) shows just how out of touch with reality some are.

The donors are tested for HEALTH problems. It is for the benefit of the importer & their general breed population here.

How would someone like to import sperm in good faith & when problems arise discover the donor had a congenital heart disease or HD problems , entropian, bad mouths, mismatched colouring?

Or worse still, the sperm wasn't taken from the dog they requested & paid for.

Also to prevent sperm from banned breeds being imported covertly.

Repeat, The testings would be for the benefit of the importer & the general dog population of this country.

If you think that is a bad thing, why even bother health & temperament testing here?

If you don't care what is coming in how could you truthfully say you care what you are producing with what you have?

The common sense of this proposal has been tangled in hysteria & misconceptions of the reality of how important it really is to the integrity of our breeding programs.

IMO.

Think logically.

Current importing regulations do not screen for hereditary health problems. You just do blood tests and vaccinations to ensure that it does not have a contagious or communicable diseases.

Who cares if someones neutered/spayed pet is a carrier for a heritary problem? Hundreds of non-breeding animals are imported into this country every year. These dogs and our breeding stock are handled exactly the same by AQIS. So they have to have ALL the same temperament and health testing even if they will never contribute to any gene pool. Yeah really logical there.

What if you have a breed that has no listed health problems? I have 2 breeds that don't make the AVAs lists. What "Health" testing do they require?

Import a dog first, THEN maybe you will understand how it works.