WreckitWhippet Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Well, I'm just speechless. I knew it was extreme prejudice, but I didn't realize it was THAT extreme. So you could have a dozen people on your side saying, we saw them mate, we saw her whelp, we saw them raised and we saw this person purchase this puppy, here are our sworn declarations...which in most circumstances would constitute adequate evidence of the facts there in... Along comes a council 'official'...with 5 minutes training, who probably doesn't know a dogs pad from a notebook. And your evidence isn't good enough. I would like to say more...but I'd just be really incoherent. It counts for nothing, if you have always kept your dog in it's own yard, have invested time and effort into raising a good canine citizen, love it to bits and consider it to be part of the family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 And thats what makes me so furious. My dogs are extremely obedient, well socialised, much loved and have never caused annoyance to ANYONE- and it counts for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staranais Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 What do they accept as proof of parentage? If you bought a cross breed from a backyard, would a stat dec signed by the 'breeder' be sufficient? No. Only pedigree certificates or a certificate from your vet is sufficient. However, the AVA does not support BSL and is recommending that vets have no part in this. The issue is though that many dogs will suffer as a result of them not participating. How are vets supposed to tell if a bully-x-type dog is part pitbull or part stafford either, though? It's not like they have lectures on it at vet school! So not surprising that the AVA have wanted vets to have no part in it, beyond saying that they don't approve of BSL. It could only ever blow up in their faces. That's not to say that individual vets aren't still allowed to certify dogs, however, just that the AVA won't have their back if they decide to do so. That is an avenue I would pursue if I was in Cosmolo's situation, and had a good relationship with my vet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 And thats what makes me so furious. My dogs are extremely obedient, well socialised, much loved and have never caused annoyance to ANYONE- and it counts for nothing. Agree Cosmolo. Did you get an answer from the Minister? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Nope and i haven't even had an answer from my own council. However- they did send me a letter yesterday (which scared the hell out of me when i saw the logo on the envelope) telling me that my excess animals permit no longer needs to be renewed annually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Nope and i haven't even had an answer from my own council. However- they did send me a letter yesterday (which scared the hell out of me when i saw the logo on the envelope) telling me that my excess animals permit no longer needs to be renewed annually. I received an answer to my questions. If you would like me to send it to you, with other stuff, please let me know an email address. I can't post it, as it has my name and address on it, and also a Solicitor has given an opinion, and written about it, so don't want to do the wrong thing. But, happy to forward info that I have. If anyone else would like, please send let me know. Pleas don't post it though. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 That'd be great [email protected] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
periannath Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Just a thought, maybe we should be looking at a tattoo system flank or ear that would hopefully be ANKC (so OZ wide) but if not, by breed clubs so that a pure breed staffy or any bull breed could be immediately identified as a purebred dog from a registered breeder and not a 'dangerous dog'? Microchipping should in theory be able to be used the same way through ANKC. Pounds and rescue could use a similar system if they could have the dogs pass 'identification 'criteria before being rehomed. Apologies if this has been discussed before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Just a thought, maybe we should be looking at a tattoo system flank or ear that would hopefully be ANKC (so OZ wide) but if not, by breed clubs so that a pure breed staffy or any bull breed could be immediately identified as a purebred dog from a registered breeder and not a 'dangerous dog'? Microchipping should in theory be able to be used the same way through ANKC. Pounds and rescue could use a similar system if they could have the dogs pass 'identification 'criteria before being rehomed. Apologies if this has been discussed before Good thought, but a couple problems. 1) It would be easy to counterfeit, so the authorities probably wouldn't accept the system. 2) what happens to black dogs? Maybe a second microchip? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
periannath Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Officers would have to be able to tap into ANKC if they had any doubt but surely in this techo age it should be able to be done ?They could also add some sort of year code or something similar that would make it difficult for jo average to copy.Tattoo's would be visible inside ear or inside flank on most bull breeds regardless of colour.Not a lot of fluff or hair underneath on most bull breeds .Uk breeds still tattoo as well as microchip. Microchips would work if all states were in line and all microchips were on rego's and search could run on chips..Again would have to be accessible to council officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I think it should be on temp testing. All dogs can bite depending on the owner and how they train, control and treat their dog. Purebred and crossbred dogs, all are capable of causing trouble if not owned correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I don't think it should be on temp testing- no one can even agree on what makes up a reasonable temp test. Why should a dog with issues that is well managed die while another that 'has a good temperament' and is owned by an irresponsible person is fine. Once again the responsible are punished. Maybe i would feel differently if i didn't have a dog with issues. 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