RottnBullies Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 LINK VETS have been advised by their peak body not to certify the breed of dogs without DNA proof in case of future legal action.From next month, restricted breeds such as American pit bull terriers and their crosses can be seized and destroyed if not registered. The laws have sparked fears unrestricted breeds that look similar to pit bulls, such as American Staffordshire terriers, may be mistakenly destroyed. The onus will be on owners to prove their dogs aren't a restricted breed. But David Guest of Casey and Cranbourne Veterinary Hospital said vets were reluctant to certify dogs without categoric DNA proof. He said pit bulls were a "bitzer" comprising various terrier breeds, so it was hard to prove a dog was a pit bull, or conversely that a similar-looking dog was not. "This is the trouble. There is a bit of variation in the look of the animal and we don't have a specific DNA profile for a pure-bred pit bull because of all the breeds and genetic variations involved. "So we have to go on the look of the dog. If it looks like a pit bull, then it will be treated by authorities like a pit bull. But as vets, we can't categorically say what the animal is." The state government has unveiled visual standards as a way of identifying restricted breed dogs. The standards have photos and diagrams showing the proportions of an American pit bull, including the "general shape" of their heads, their jaws, muzzle and neck sizes. Susan Maastricht, state president of the Australian Veterinary Association, said vets could be subject to litigation if they certified a dog was not a restricted breed and it bit a dog or person and was later deemed to be a restricted breed. "Looking at the gazetted standards, one of the pictures of a pit bull looks like any staffie that you see around everywhere. Unless we have categoric evidence, we're recommending that vets don't issue certifications." Under the laws, council officers will use the visual identification standard for seizing and destroying restricted dogs. Last week, Cardinia and Casey councils stated they didn't believe they could identify a pit bull using DNA. A spokeswoman for Agriculture Minister Peter Walsh said the visual standards were used so there was a clearer way to identify restricted dogs "which were escaping visual identification". "It's up to the council officers to gauge how the dogs match up to the guidelines." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 It should really say something to the Govenment of Victoria, but I guess the fact that the AVA isn't prepared to ID a dog on visuals alone, means nothing. It would have been the perfect time for the AVA to stand up and say this is bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RottnBullies Posted September 19, 2011 Author Share Posted September 19, 2011 I agree the AVA needs to take a greater stance on It all, the fact that they're not willing to ID should be sending a clear message though well If they can't ID what makes a council think they can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horse2008 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 This is a governmental balls up. Vets want DNA proof before certification, take the same DNA profile to the council though, and they're allowed to disregard it and claim it's whatever they want it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 It should really say something to the Govenment of Victoria, but I guess the fact that the AVA isn't prepared to ID a dog on visuals alone, means nothing. It would have been the perfect time for the AVA to stand up and say this is bullshit. The AVA has taken a strong stand. They did so in testimony to the committee that was formulating the legislation and continue to take the same stand. http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/new-dog-laws-victoria Dog groups haven't capitalised on this stand. According to the incredible Herald Sun, the AVA continues to hold the same position. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/wrong-dogs-to-suffer-under-law-australian-veterinary-association/story-fn7x8me2-1226139938587 Having stated that breed cannot be determined visually and DNA tests are unreliable, the AVA cannot recommend that its members do breed determinations. They don't seem to be forbidding vets from doing so . . . so finding the 'right' vet may become like finding the right doctor was for avoiding the draft during the Vietnam War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticky Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 It should really say something to the Govenment of Victoria, but I guess the fact that the AVA isn't prepared to ID a dog on visuals alone, means nothing. It would have been the perfect time for the AVA to stand up and say this is bullshit. The AVA has taken a strong stand. They did so in testimony to the committee that was formulating the legislation and continue to take the same stand. http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/new-dog-laws-victoria Dog groups haven't capitalised on this stand. According to the incredible Herald Sun, the AVA continues to hold the same position. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/wrong-dogs-to-suffer-under-law-australian-veterinary-association/story-fn7x8me2-1226139938587 Having stated that breed cannot be determined visually and DNA tests are unreliable, the AVA cannot recommend that its members do breed determinations. They don't seem to be forbidding vets from doing so . . . so finding the 'right' vet may become like finding the right doctor was for avoiding the draft during the Vietnam War. From the AVA 19 Sept 2011 http://www.ava.com.au/11045 S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rottshowgirl Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I applaud the AVA's reiterated stand on the issue, but why use a photo of a Rottweiler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 The AVA's position is not surprising. Vet science has its base in science & 'dangerous' dog is about behaviour, not about appearance. For a few years now, the position of the American Vet Association has been that dog management and control, is not about a dog's appearance, nor breed per se. 'Dogs being dangerous' is connected with behaviour... human inter-relating with canine. Will someone remind the Victorian politicians & councils about the drunk looking under the streetlight for his lost key.....even though he lost it somewhere out in the darkness....because it's easier? If they want effective ways of managing dogs for greater community safety, they're presently looking in the wrong place. Which is what the AVA is effectively saying. 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