Jump to content

Warning Bull Breed Owners


Nekhbet
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I understand that people don't really trust the DNA testing, and I have seen posts saying that it won't stand up in court. But would getting the vet (as an independent person to say that this DNA comes from this dog)to do a DNA test satisfy council?

If I were a vet, I'd only do this if there were a DNA paternity test that showed both sire and dam were breeds other than pit bull.

The US company marketing breed identification DNA stuff for mutts says on their FAQ: http://www.wisdompanel.com/service/faq/#38

Does Wisdom Panel® Insights™ test for "Pit-bull?"

The term "Pit-bull" does not refer to a single or recognized breed of dog, but rather to a genetically diverse group of breeds. Pit-bull type dogs have historically been bred by combining guarding type breeds with terriers for certain desired characteristics – and as such they may retain many genetic similarities to the likely progenitor breeds and other closely related breeds.

Due to the genetic diversity of this group, we cannot build a DNA profile for the Pit-bull. If a Pit-bull type dog was tested, we might anticipate that Wisdom Panel Insights test detect and report moderate to Minor amounts of one or more distantly related breeds to those used to breed the dog, it is possible that one or more of the following breeds might be detected at moderate to Minor amounts: the American Staffordshire terrier, Boston terrier, Bull terrier, Staffordshire Bull terrier, Mastiff, Bullmastiff Boxer, Bulldog and various small terriers like the Parson Russell. These breeds would be detected because some markers in these breeds have genetic identity at a minority of the markers Wisdom Panel Insights test uses to the breeds in our database.

Some local communities in the United States have put restrictions on Pit-bull ownership. Mars Veterinaryâ„¢ encourages dog owners and care providers to be fully aware of their local laws, which vary across the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this whole thing so upsetting, I'm nearly in tears and I don't even have a pit bull or a cross or a bull dog or a shepperd......I did have my beautiful Zeus, an Amstaff cross for 14 wonderful years.

I heard the radio advertisements advising owners of pitbulls and pitbull crosses that if their dog was not registered by 29th Sept (I'm in Melb) their dog would be siezed and put down. Reading through this thread, the insanity is overwhelming. How can intelligent people who run our society and make our laws be doing something that is so beyond stupid?

Aside from the abject stupidity of what they are doing now, as others have pointed out, when will it stop? Breeds will continue to be added to the list. Does anyone know if some other stupid people in another country have tried this on, and people fought it successfully? We could take their lead. What can I do to help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard the radio advertisements advising owners of pitbulls and pitbull crosses that if their dog was not registered by 29th Sept (I'm in Melb) their dog would be siezed and put down. ...

I have just heard Peter Walsh say that power/authority has been granted to individual Councils to decide as to whether they want to register "these types" of dogs and if they don't they can de-register them (and therefore seize them).

This was via an interview on the radio.

Is this old or new news to anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard the radio advertisements advising owners of pitbulls and pitbull crosses that if their dog was not registered by 29th Sept (I'm in Melb) their dog would be siezed and put down. ...

I have just heard Peter Walsh say that power/authority has been granted to individual Councils to decide as to whether they want to register "these types" of dogs and if they don't they can de-register them (and therefore seize them).

This was via an interview on the radio.

Is this old or new news to anyone?

How HORRIBLE! Put through a Law. Then say councils have permission to undermine the law by withdrawing the very flimsy protection it gives! Peter Walsh deserves public shaming! If the equivalent chain of events had taken place, say with respect to registration of some sort of vehicle everyone would be up in arms.

Banned in two years unless you go on a special register, then banned in one year so hurry up and get on the special register, then a few days before the ban goes in effect . . . hey guys, even if you went on the special register, you're can still get de-registered and banned.

That's NOT FAIR DINKUM!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter Walsh didn't say much about the de-registering .... it was almost like a slide-in comment. I've included a bit of the before conversation so you can follow the gist of the conversation, but the one I'm referring to is "The Minister discusses ban with Neil Mitchell" one.

Neil Mitchell wants to ban the Pit Bull

The Minister discusses ban with Neil Mitchell

And then there was the Talk Back section :

Talk Back

Edited by Erny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter Walsh didn't say much about the de-registering .... it was almost like a slide-in comment. I've included a bit of the before conversation so you can follow the gist of the conversation, but the one I'm referring to is "The Minister discusses ban with Neil Mitchell" one.

Neil Mitchell wants to ban the Pit Bull

The Minister discusses ban with Neil Mitchell

And then there was the Talk Back section :

Talk Back

Wasn't Neil Mitchell the one that said "pit bulls" don't have locking jaws and then proceeded to say it was actually Bull Terriers that had locking jaws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter Walsh didn't say much about the de-registering .... it was almost like a slide-in comment. I've included a bit of the before conversation so you can follow the gist of the conversation, but the one I'm referring to is "The Minister discusses ban with Neil Mitchell" one.

Neil Mitchell wants to ban the Pit Bull

The Minister discusses ban with Neil Mitchell

And then there was the Talk Back section :

Talk Back

I think that interview was just after the incident where the little girl died.

I personally think Neill Mitchell is an idiot, but anyway, from what I can see, they are talking about dogs that aren't registered at all. The way I am reading it, and I hope this is the case, if a dog was already registered prior to Sep 30 as something else, and it is declared restricted by the council, the owners can appeal. If the do appeal and lose, or if they don't appeal and accept it, the dog is then put on the Restricted Breed register and is able to be kept according to the regs.

DPI Restricted breed info

from the above link,

From 30 September 2011 it will be an offence for an owner to keep a restricted breed dog if it does not comply with the following conditions -

Dog was in Victoria prior to 1 September 2010 and

Dog was registered prior to 30 September 2011.

and then this

From 30 September 2011, the Domestic Animals Act 1994 states that the only restricted breed dogs that can be kept or registered are those that were:

in Victoria prior to 1 September 2010 and

registered (as any breed) prior to 30 September 2011.

From that above, I think it is saying that only dogs already here and registered will be accepted, if declared as RB. Any restricted breed dog purchased, or moving here after 1 Sep 2010, can not be a new registration as a RB, and any other dog not registered at all by 30 Sep 2011 who is declared as RB after that date, can not be registered(brand new registrations not accepted).

That is just how I read it.

And once again, in the interview, confusion over Dangerous Dog and Restricted Breed dog. I wish someone would tell that Minister that a Dangerous Dog has been declared due to its actions. A Restricted Breed dog has done nothing wrong, and is being judged by the way it looks only. There is a difference!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is a copy/paste of a post that I also put up in another thread running here in General Forum about the same topic. I'm sorry if I added to the confusion. I'm also confused at where I've said what, as there are many conversations going on in numerous different areas. Again, my apologies.

Hold up everyone. I may have misheard or am mistaken. I've now listened to audio replay of the Minister's conversation with Neil and can't pick up the part where I thought I heard him say the Council could de-register. In my defence, the speaker on my laptop isn't particularly loud and this time I ran the audio replay through twice with my ear almost to the keyboard to hear. Would someone else like to confirm that I was hearing things by double checking word for word what the Minister said? My apologies if I sent anyone into a bigger spin and panic than they already would be. I would run the audio replay through once more but I'm done in for tonight and need to turn off.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:) Nah Erny, I agree the whole thing is just one big mess and very confusing. I have heard so much rubbish from the Gov on this, and they don't know what they are talking about half the time. They won't even answer questions that are quite simple about their own Act that they have rushed through parliament. The reason for this I suspect, is they just don't know the answer. They rushed this through so quickly, and it is a catastrophe waiting to happen IMO.

The above is only what I think it is, but I don't know if it is how it is or not. And of course, this is all open for the councils to also have their own understanding of what it all means, and that is where the real problems will start.

I just hope that owners who may get stung, don't just believe what the councils are telling them until they have fully confirmed it. And if the councils are doing the wrong thing, I hope these owners will take things further and get the facts. That way, eventually, things will have to be looked at again. But all this is going to take a long time I think, and a lot of heartache for some poor owners.

I am not sure, but I think the individual councils can make their own decisions on having certain dogs in their areas. Such as, certain breeds, even the ones that are not restricted by the state government with bylaws. Someone else may be able to confirm that. I think it may have happened in some areas in Queensland maybe.

OT, Erny, I hope you are feeling well and getting stronger. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...