Associate Registerattion For Bull Breed Crosses

[megan_]

It is also condemning perfectly good rescue dogs to death because no one will want to adopt them and then leave them. Meanwhile someone who is a dodgy breeder breeding "HUGE, RIPPED, BIG BONED AND GIANT HEAD XXXX" amstaffs gets a whole lot more business just because they passed an simple exam.

[poodlefan]

It is also condemning perfectly good rescue dogs to death because no one will want to adopt them and then leave them. Meanwhile someone who is a dodgy breeder breeding "HUGE, RIPPED, BIG BONED AND GIANT HEAD XXXX" amstaffs gets a whole lot more business just because they passed an simple exam.

To be quite frank, unless they have papers, I doubt they WILL pass a simple exam.

[Quickasyoucan]

It is also condemning perfectly good rescue dogs to death because no one will want to adopt them and then leave them. Meanwhile someone who is a dodgy breeder breeding "HUGE, RIPPED, BIG BONED AND GIANT HEAD XXXX" amstaffs gets a whole lot more business just because they passed an simple exam.

To be quite frank, unless they have papers, I doubt they WILL pass a simple exam.

I think she means people who pass the registered breeders exam can pump out dogs like that and they will be safe? That's what I read it as ie they might not be an ethical breeder, the dogs might be dodgy but they will be safe becuse their dogs are registered.

[megan_]

It is also condemning perfectly good rescue dogs to death because no one will want to adopt them and then leave them. Meanwhile someone who is a dodgy breeder breeding "HUGE, RIPPED, BIG BONED AND GIANT HEAD XXXX" amstaffs gets a whole lot more business just because they passed an simple exam.

To be quite frank, unless they have papers, I doubt they WILL pass a simple exam.

Sorry PF, I meant the breeder has passed a simple exam and has two dogs on main. Therefore their puppies are all okay. Take a look at some of the registered Amstaff breeders on DOL and the web - some make me shudder.

[Staff'n'Toller]

My guess is that lots of dogs were chipped and registered as 'non-restricted breed x' before the amnesty closed yesterday. I saw proof of it while I was at my council offices cashier, and walked out at the same time as said people and saw their car with a Pit Bull decal on it.

BYB's will continue to breed, and once people get to understanding that the council will find their Staffy X's through their chip details they will stop attending Vet Clinics for fear of having to chip them.

Men who buy these dogs as penis extensions do not neuter them, the testicles are just as important as the look of the dog. They won't be bringing them in for neutering, they'll just hope they don't get caught.

Again, the cause of the problem is not dealt with and the education does not happen.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Staff'n'Toller

[megan_]

yip - people who register their dogs are easy targets. They won't go actively hunting out those that haven't.

[Steve]

And why shouldn't someone with a dog on Associate Register who has particpated in ANKC

events, trained their dog etc. Not expect to get some kind of protection for their dog

from an organisation that has been taking their money over the years?

I agree. I said as much. What I object to is the idea that the ANKC should be providing an Ark of protection for dogs and owners based on breed description when that simply cannot be verified. We should be FIGHTING ALL legislation that suggests that breed alone is enough predict whether a dog is 'dangerous' OR 'safe.

I think the ANKC will probably be busy enough keeping the Amstaff out of the firing line.

And a requirement of them having their exemptions for members under the domestic animals act is "statement that the organisation does not represent owners of dogs of a breed whose importation into australia is prohibited under teh customs[prohibited imports ]regulations 1956 of the Commonwealth.

[Steve]

Does the MDBA have a position on these laws and/or is the organisation willing to officially join in action to have the laws overturned?

This incredibly heartbreaking post has been put on the NDTF facebook page today:

Today for the first time in 20 years I am questioning if I still want to do this job. My staff and I are all in tears after having to put down our first Pit Bull under the new legislation. He had been dumped, by an owner who had put in the time for this magnificent dog to be friendly to all, shake hands and worse still licked my face with kisses as he passed. To all the friends that I have made in... the shelter systems and council officers etc over the years, you have my thoughts with you as you too are forced to apply an unjust law. I have no issue with "bad dogs" and bad owners being labelled, but this is not the way to do it. To the unknown dog that now sleeps in the arms of my staff with our tears, may life make you look different next time because in this life that was your only flaw.

https://www.facebook...1909729?sk=wall

Snook The MDBA has always been against BSL and many of the original board of the MDBA were foundation members and board members of the EDBA so we have always been in there boots and all.

6. Position Statement – Breed Specific legislation

The MDBA supports reasonable laws to protect the public from dangerous dogs and opposes breed-specific legislation in any form.

Breed-specific laws target good dogs and responsible animal owners along with the bad. They take away responsible dog owners rights and lead to dogs who have been loyal family pets and who have shown no sign of aggression or dangerous behaviour being killed. They also give members of the public a false impression that unless a dog is of a certain breed that they don’t need to take adequate steps to ensure people’s safety and ensure their dogs have good manners and training.

The MDBA believes the only dog laws that work are the ones that hold owners accountable for the actions of their dogs that use minor or first offences as educational opportunities, and that reward owners who make efforts to do the right thing.

The MDBA favours strong dog laws that are evenly and effectively enforced, with the burden on confinement and control placed squarely on the dog owner.

Effective laws

*Provide serious consequences for owners whose dogs attack people or other pets.

*Offer education and incentives to encourage responsible pet ownership.

The MDBA believes that no dog laws will eliminate dangerous dog problems unless they are followed and supported by the public and entail fair and appropriate consequences, which are strongly and evenly policed and enforced

The MDBA supports nuisance ordinances and dangerous dog laws to protect the community against unruly or dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog owners.

MDBA Policy on Breed Specific Legislation

MDBA policy is to promote conscientious ownership, reward responsible pet owners for their actions and encourage better relationships between dog owners and local authorities.

[Cosmolo]

Thanks poodlefan- i understand where you're coming from and i agree. Unfortunately though i just don't see this stemming the flow of bull breed crosses from BYBs. And i don't think adopters realise how careful they should be when adopting from shelters/ pounds/ rescues either.

Zara, i will (unfortunately) avoid adopting bull breed cross rescues from here on in. But when i adopted my two at no time did i think i would have to prove their parentage.

[poodlefan]

Thanks poodlefan- i understand where you're coming from and i agree. Unfortunately though i just don't see this stemming the flow of bull breed crosses from BYBs. And i don't think adopters realise how careful they should be when adopting from shelters/ pounds/ rescues either.

Zara, i will (unfortunately) avoid adopting bull breed cross rescues from here on in. But when i adopted my two at no time did i think i would have to prove their parentage.

No worries. I appreciate that its hard to read people posting dispassionately when you have a dog or dogs in the firing line.

[zara]

Maybe i am being overly sensitive but am i the only one who is getting tired of hearing things along the lines of 'don't buy dogs without papers' and 'you shouldn't have bought a bull breed cross with no papers'.

Of course we won't do it again- which is sad beause i always thought i would have rescue bull arab types in my life. But its too late now- we already have these dogs that we love and are part of our families.

What Cosmolo said, I have met a fair few people with bull breed x's and the vast majority were rescues quite often via the RSPCA and AWL meaning they would also have been temp tested. A lot of us wanted to save a life and chose a crossbreed dog with a great temperament, 'breed' was not always the first consideration. A lot of us own dogs who have led a blameless life and been a loving family pet. Why should we be penalised for that and is their life worth less because they are not protected by a pedigree certificate.

Honestly to take a harsh stance the Vic pounds should simply stop rehoming bull breed x's or anything likely to meet the standard as they are just lining people up for a whole heap of heartache.

I don't think any dog who temperament tests well regardless of breed or appearance should be penalised and the criteria should be based on temperament and be safe if the temperament is good, the same if a good dog is purchased through the RSPCA or AWL, the owners have done the right thing and the dogs life is as valuable as any other, but I agree also with Poodlefan that in the present situation to buy a Bull cross breed is a choice that could end in tears for the owners and the dogs, personally a choice I would avoid at all costs and something people should seriously consider when choosing a dog, or if someone wants a Bull breed specifically, buy a papered dog from a registered breeder.

I agree but that's not much good to people who have had (and loved) their dogs for years and years...

I guess it depends on how gung ho an animal control officer or ranger is, but will they seize a nice dog that has a good and friendly temperament regardless or give the benefit of the doubt. I can understand the seizure of an obviously nasty dog of Pitbull appearance that the owner lacks control over and shows attack potential, but are they really going to seize a Bull cross breed walking on leash down the street that has a nice temperament and friendly nature? Are they really going to seize someone's pet on the basis of it being a potentially dangerous dog when the dog is friendly towards the ranger well controlled and is obviously no community threat?

Edited September 30, 2011 by zara

[sandgrubber]

I guess it depends on how gung ho an animal control officer or ranger is, but will they seize a nice dog that has a good and friendly temperament regardless or give the benefit of the doubt. I can understand the seizure of an obviously nasty dog of Pitbull appearance that the owner lacks control over and shows attack potential, but are they really going to seize a Bull cross breed walking on leash down the street that has a nice temperament and friendly nature?

Time will tell. Meanwhile, my heart goes out to those who have to worry about whether their much loved family members will be executed.

[zara]

I guess it depends on how gung ho an animal control officer or ranger is, but will they seize a nice dog that has a good and friendly temperament regardless or give the benefit of the doubt. I can understand the seizure of an obviously nasty dog of Pitbull appearance that the owner lacks control over and shows attack potential, but are they really going to seize a Bull cross breed walking on leash down the street that has a nice temperament and friendly nature?

Time will tell. Meanwhile, my heart goes out to those who have to worry about whether their much loved family members will be executed.

I had the impression it was more directed towards dogs of Pitbull appearance who display aggressive behaviour is what they are after, like if someone had a Bull cross breed that barks and snarls at people on leash or tries to go after other dogs, that general obvious aggressive type behaviour. I didn't take the legislation to mean they would target dogs of a particular appearance for no reason?.

A work collegue of mine has a cross breed dog of Rotty appearance which has that nasty temperament, although he is also a much loved pet, he is the type of dog strangers are not safe with and is quite a scary dog, like she has to lock him in the garage if they have friends over for a barbecue, I am sure we can picture the nature of dog I am talking about? This is the temperament type of a dog with Pitbull apperance I assumed is the primary target?

The people owning this Rotty X would say he was a wonderful and loved pet too if he was seized, but he is one example I know of who could potentially be a dangerous dog if he wasn't controlled as responsibly as he is, no way could I imagine him passing a temperament test being such a cranky dog by nature?. Being a loved pet doesn't make a dog not a potential danger to others is what I mean?. I am trying to establish where the line is with seizure, appearance factor alone, or does an appearance + temperament factor play a part in a decision to warrant seizure?

Edited September 30, 2011 by zara

[tdierikx]

The legislation says that ALL dogs that fit a particular "look" MUST be registered with council as a Restricted Breed unless written proof can be furnished declaring the dog NOT of the RB type - this has no relation to what breed mix the dog may actually be, just that it LOOKS like the pictures that have been circulated to the rangers. If they see a dog that fits the pictorial description and it is not registered as an RB, then they can seize it and put a destruction order on it.

There is nothing in the legislation that mentions temperament as a redeeming factor... if it LOOKS like a duck, it IS a duck... *sigh*

Right now I see a lot of councils looking at the obvious revenue raising factor this legislation allows for - and some councils are going to be VERY zealous in enforcing said legislation for that purpose...

T.

[megan_]

Zara - you are assuming what most staffy type owners are assuming, however the legislation gives no discretion to officers and doesn't mention temperament at all. If it looks like a PB/PB cross, then it is automatically a restricted breed. Yesterday was the deadline for rego. The govt has made no secret that low socio-economic areas will be targeted.

[zara]

Zara - you are assuming what most staffy type owners are assuming, however the legislation gives no discretion to officers and doesn't mention temperament at all. If it looks like a PB/PB cross, then it is automatically a restricted breed. Yesterday was the deadline for rego. The govt has made no secret that low socio-economic areas will be targeted.

I meant dogs that are registered already as a Staffy X Labrador for example although may have the "look", if they catch someone walking a dog like this, would they accept what it's registered as and if it's a nice dog, leave it be, or seize it on the off chance it's breed was incorrectly nominated?

[Greytmate]

Most dogs are nice 99% of the time, even ones that are nasty some of the time. A ranger is not qualified to decide whether a dog is nice or not nice.

I don't think they are qualified to determine breed by appearance either, but that is what will happen. The 'standard' they are using describes a bigger dog than your average staffy x.

I don't believe there are a large number of Labrador cross anythings that will be caught out. Most mongrels get labelled as lab x or staffy x or rottie x , because most smooth coated pups look very similar when very young. It doesn't mean that the named breed is actually in the dog.

Only something very much shaped like a stocky pitbull or amstaff is going to match the standard they are using.

I would rather see extremely harsh punishment for people breeding and selling unregistered dogs than have the dogs taken away from the owners later. It really is unfair.

[megan_]

There are still plenty of byb amstaffs being sold on gumtrrr

[sumosmum]

Zara - you are assuming what most staffy type owners are assuming, however the legislation gives no discretion to officers and doesn't mention temperament at all. If it looks like a PB/PB cross, then it is automatically a restricted breed. Yesterday was the deadline for rego. The govt has made no secret that low socio-economic areas will be targeted.

I meant dogs that are registered already as a Staffy X Labrador for example although may have the "look", if they catch someone walking a dog like this, would they accept what it's registered as and if it's a nice dog, leave it be, or seize it on the off chance it's breed was incorrectly nominated?

AS others have said. The council only needs to prove that the dog fits the standard. That is all.

A lot will be determined by how the councils are going to be with this. If a dog is declared as a Restricted Breed, the council needs to put this in writing to the owner within 7 days. The owner then has 28 days from the date of the declaration to apply to VCAT to appeal the decission.

It is up to the council if the dog is seized or left at home during the waiting time for the VCAT date. If left at home, the dog does NOT need to be kept as a Restricted breed under those regs.

[Cosmolo]

I believe the standard does fit your average staffy cross- probably around 75% of the points do. We still don't know how much of the standard the dog needs to meet to be in trouble.

And this has nothing to do with temperament, though i imagine rangers may use their discretion, they are human after all. In the meantime we wait and see- what a great way to live.

On another note though- i received a letter from council the other day informaing me that excess animals permits no linger need to be renewed annually and only need to be renewed if the situation/ number of dogs changes. Interesting that they are relaxing that whilst all these laws come into effect.