The-war-on-terrier-perfect-pet-or-killing-machine

[DerRottweiler]

I find it difficult to understand why someone would try to protect their breed by denigrating another breed.

It just adds to the argument that BSL is somehow justified. It also leaves those of us who own unpapered rescue crossbreeds right up the creek without a paddle.

Regardless of whether or not pitbulls are ANKC recognised, the ANKC need to recognise the potential for legislation to go against the larger guardian pure breeds - rottweilers, dobermans, german shepherds - once BSL has been passed in the first place. You don't have to be pro-pit to be anti-BSL.

It is dog eat dog so to speak. APBTs are pretty much doomed, Staffy/AmStaff owners don't want their breed to go down that same route.

I don't think it is fair to ban the APBT, but I can see the logic in protecting your own breed in the furtherance of self-interest.

I agree vis-a-vis your second point, guardian breeds are def. next on the list. Especially in Victoria- The Kneejerk State.

I dont think you would find ONE Amstaff owner who has an education above year 7 that will throw the APBT to the Sharks. As an Amstaff owner, and actively involved in BSL I can tell you that its a large proportion of Stafford people, and those with other breeds that are happy to do it. AST owners are fighting tooth and nail to have ALL BSL overturned, because right now in Vic we are exempt simply by ONE line of text, a line of text that the Government gave permission for ONE person to strike out whenever they want to, without it having to go through the normal channels.

AST owners dont see it as 'lets martyr the APBT to save ourselves', we see it as "we have to fight, because we are next".

On the contrary, I know many Amstaff owners who have left the APBTs for dead.

I'm sure your anecdotal evidence has it's weight, but I've seen directly the opposite as well.

I agree with your stance however, action should be taken against the concept of BSL and not just in the interests of self-service for a particular breed. That said, I don't blame those who have opted for the latter.

[DerRottweiler]

Let's not be divided by breed passion/preference. Stand united. The current but recent regulations in Victoria have transcended BSL. The BSL Laws here have now grown tentacles that transcribe as "it's how the dog looks". And don't think for a second that other breeds will not be added to the list in your lifetime.

There are people campaigning and fighting against these laws even though their breed choice and preferences are not the breeds/types of yours. Don't exclude these people, and do take into account that they are the ones who demonstrate to you that division to breeds is irrelevant. "Division" between the people is EXACTLY what the Government rely on. You going to given them that?

Well said Erny.

The only way we're going to win this is for everyone to stand together regardless of preferred breed or which state we live in.

Agreed, well said.

[zuri]

And when it comes to nailing a particular breed she is worried mistakes inevitably will be made.

''It's nearly impossible to say with any certainty,'' she says. ''And there is no DNA test that can tell with any certainty. This is not an exact science. Vets are saying, 'We're not going to do it.' It's too fraught.''

Doesn't a vet certificate of breed identity clear a dog from seizure if declared not a Pitbull or Pitbull X?

Are the vets saying they won't declare a dog to be a Pitbull or they won't provide conformation that it isn't?\

Ultimately, all anyone need do, is have their vet provide a certificate to say a dog in the firing line is not a Pitbull and the problem is solved isn't it?

[sandgrubber]

<br />

And when it comes to nailing a particular breed she is worried mistakes inevitably will be made.<br /><br />''It's nearly impossible to say with any certainty,'' she says. ''And there is no DNA test that can tell with any certainty. This is not an exact science. Vets are saying, 'We're not going to do it.' It's too fraught.''

<br /><br />Doesn't a vet certificate of breed identity clear a dog from seizure if declared not a Pitbull or Pitbull X?<br /><br />Are the vets saying they won't declare a dog to be a Pitbull or they won't provide conformation that it isn't?\<br /><br />Ultimately, all anyone need do, is have their vet provide a certificate to say a dog in the firing line is not a Pitbull and the problem is solved isn't it?<br />

<br /><br /><br />

No, the problem isn't solved.

The AVA is saying they want nothing to do with the mess and they advise their members not to play along with the stupid laws. There will be vets who break with party line and agree to certify dogs on the firing line. Some vets may even be happy to use their credentials to certify dogs they know ARE APBTs, just as some doctors were willing to help blokes trying to avoid the draft. But not everyone who adopted a harmless and cute staffy X and got 'caught' by some gung ho animal control officer is going to know the ins and outs of finding a vet who will certify.

[SpotTheDog]

Agree with Erny above.

Greytmate, I'm not laying blame for this at the foot of the ANKC or Staffy Club or anybody other than the politicans who responded hastily and with poor thought to the death of a child.

What frustrates me at the moment is the apparent lack of a cohesive response. I tried to see if I could get The Australian interested in a feature that drew a parallel between Australia and the UK - because we do take a lot of our legislation from there. In the UK between 1989 and 1991 there were a couple of savage dog attacks on children. The UK passed the Dangerous Dogs Act. Initially the Act functioned very similarly to what we now have in Victoria - family pets 'of type' seized and euthanised. Six years later the UK repealed that part of the Act because it was so very unpopular.

Now, 20 years later, DEFRA in the UK have conducted a public consultation on the Act. Their response is still to come, but generally the Act in the UK is felt to be hasty, poorly thought out and fairly useless because there is still a problem with antisocial behaviour in dogs. Coupled with the problem that the Act has apparently done little to address over two decades, there is the additional burden on the taxpayer of funding things like kennelling for dogs of alleged type while their owners fight to have them reclaimed (and also until they're euthanised) - which has cost in excess of AUD $6-7 million over the last decade (taking into account exchange rates).

However, in spite of doing the research and providing an angle, newspaper articles, sections of legislation and scientific reports (as opposed to people's own personal websites), I haven't had a nibble.

You know the way people cite the "Calgary Model" as a solution to all things? Well I've been up past midnight a number of nights reading the Calgary animal bylaws, and the Calgary local government's annual reports and I can tell you - the Calgary animal bylaws, while a major step in the right direction, also don't work to reduce bite statistics because of a number of other factors (insufficient laws to control dog breeding and Calgary becoming a dumping ground for dogs 'of type' because they're no longer illegal).

So I've done a bit and am now lost at where to turn to do more or use what I've done. I still have the information and the time to offer anyone who's interested, but who do I offer it to?

Against that backdrop, it yanks my chain massively when I read an attitude that appears to say 'Don't expect the pedigree societies, agencies or organisations to get involved with your problem with your feral mutts. This isn't their fault.'

Breed specific legislation is everybody's problem. It's even a problem for people who don't own dogs - because even if you don't own a dog, your tax dollars go towards funding this pointless solution, your tax dollars go towards funding the health service that continues to treat people injured by dogs, and you still walk the streets going about your business and you and your kids are at the same risk from poorly controlled dogs that you were before the legislation was passed. You'll also fund the judicial system that gets tied up for days, weeks, months and even years as determined pet owners tramp through the courts trying to have their family pet released back to them - regardless of whether you believe the test cases are legitimate, they still cost money.

Arguably, you, tax-paying non-dog-owning Joe Public, are at even greater risk walking the streets going forward, because people who own dogs 'of type' may become lax about socialising them and making them into well adjusted dogs because before every walk they think 'Do I really want to fight the good fight today, defend my dog to people who make comments and ignore the folks who cross the road to get away from me just because of how my dog looks?' And then they hang the lead back on the hook and think 'oh, maybe not today'. A dog like that gets out of its yard in a one-off incident and it can wreak havoc.

So yes, while I understand that the current legislation is not the fault of any pure breed organisation, society or governing body, I am frustated that as yet, those bodies haven't come together to use their clout and their credibility as 'dog experts' to fight this legislation on all of the scientific and historical grounds on which it can be fought. There is massive potential to take an evidence-based approach to fighting this legislation.

[BJean]

I find it difficult to understand why someone would try to protect their breed by denigrating another breed.

It just adds to the argument that BSL is somehow justified. It also leaves those of us who own unpapered rescue crossbreeds right up the creek without a paddle.

Regardless of whether or not pitbulls are ANKC recognised, the ANKC need to recognise the potential for legislation to go against the larger guardian pure breeds - rottweilers, dobermans, german shepherds - once BSL has been passed in the first place. You don't have to be pro-pit to be anti-BSL.

It is dog eat dog so to speak. APBTs are pretty much doomed, Staffy/AmStaff owners don't want their breed to go down that same route.

I don't think it is fair to ban the APBT, but I can see the logic in protecting your own breed in the furtherance of self-interest.

I agree vis-a-vis your second point, guardian breeds are def. next on the list. Especially in Victoria- The Kneejerk State.

There is no logic in protecting your own breed

if your own breed cannot be determined from the breed you want to be distanced from.

The 'logic' is evidenced by fact that no one can determine an Amstaff from a APBT with accuracy.

AmStaff breeders/owners seem to think their ANKC pedigree papers will shield them.

They are mistaken. As always.

How can you say your dog is different WHEN IT LOOKS THE SAME.

Staffies yeah they look a bit different. but to most who dont own the breed or dogs, they look similar.

[klink]

As I have previously stated on earlier posts, this is not just about APT, and anyone who really thinks' that it is, you are really kidding yourselves.

Ask yourselves this question, why has the state goverments elected out of hand world wide evidence from other countries that a ban on any breed is not the answer. They just bring in another law to satisfy the panic and public concern , just enforce the current laws re dog responsible ownership.I hasten to add that I do not own APTs.

My serious concern is the overall dog world,and whilst everyday as I read the DOL forums I simply see the same comments and sadly from all of us no action.

The governments know that we are disorganised and cannot unite about anything that does' not affect us directly..EG the banning of tail shortening. How about a National rally ??? or maybe too busy .

[melzawelza]

Klink - there are rallies being set up right now. Take a look here http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/226962-dogs-in-the-community/

[Chris the Rebel Wolf]

I can understand why SBT people are defensive. In Germany (and I think some other Northern European nations), the SBT is banned along with the APBT. My German friends -- who did a lot of schutzhund training in Germany and were quite comfortable with guarding breeds, were amazed to see Staffies running free on the beach in Australia, cause they regarded them as super aggressive. Which of course, they aren't. But then, neither are the vast majority of APBT's.

This example really concerns me - because it shows exactly where we are headed. So over here, the Staffy is regarded as one of the most popular family pets, and in Germany the average person is viewing them as steel-jawed killing machines? This shows that the Pit Bull is only going to be regarded as more and more dangerous in time

[Chris the Rebel Wolf]

Breed specific legislation is everybody's problem. It's even a problem for people who don't own dogs - because even if you don't own a dog, your tax dollars go towards funding this pointless solution, your tax dollars go towards funding the health service that continues to treat people injured by dogs, and you still walk the streets going about your business and you and your kids are at the same risk from poorly controlled dogs that you were before the legislation was passed. You'll also fund the judicial system that gets tied up for days, weeks, months and even years as determined pet owners tramp through the courts trying to have their family pet released back to them - regardless of whether you believe the test cases are legitimate, they still cost money.

That's a really excellent point. I hadn't actually thought of it in those terms before now. This is another reason that everybody should be standing together on this issue. Thanks for putting that into words Spot

[Chris the Rebel Wolf]

Ultimately, all anyone need do, is have their vet provide a certificate to say a dog in the firing line is not a Pitbull and the problem is solved isn't it?

Unfortunately Zuri, vets are just another victim in all of this mess. They can get into trouble both ways - if they certify that a dog is NOT a Pit Bull, and it does bite somebody and the new laws starting screaming 'It's a Pit Bull!' they could be legally accountable. On the same level if they say a dog IS a Pit Bull and it's seized and destroyed, they could also be accountable. The AVA is currently seeking legal advice about the situation, but it's one of those doubled edged swords for the vets

[Erny]

Doesn't a vet certificate of breed identity clear a dog from seizure if declared not a Pitbull or Pitbull X?

Are the vets saying they won't declare a dog to be a Pitbull or they won't provide conformation that it isn't?\

Ultimately, all anyone need do, is have their vet provide a certificate to say a dog in the firing line is not a Pitbull and the problem is solved isn't it?

The Vets won't issue Certificates to attest that any dog is or isn't a restricted breed. Even if the dog has been issued with an ANKC Certificate to evidence breed. Why the heck the Government has put that in the law without checking to see if this would be possible, is completely beyond me.

There is MUCH wrong with these laws. MUCH. Zuri - have you read the laws and actually studied what the words actually say, rather than put in assumption of what you think it means to say? When push comes to shove, the Courts can only go by what the law says. That is important not to forget.

[Erny]

I can understand why SBT people are defensive. In Germany (and I think some other Northern European nations), the SBT is banned along with the APBT. My German friends -- who did a lot of schutzhund training in Germany and were quite comfortable with guarding breeds, were amazed to see Staffies running free on the beach in Australia, cause they regarded them as super aggressive. Which of course, they aren't. But then, neither are the vast majority of APBT's.

This example really concerns me - because it shows exactly where we are headed. ...

You're so right, Chris the Rebel Wolf - it does. Problem is, there are always going to be some people who refuse to believe it. Perhaps until their own dog is caught up in the net, or perhaps a friend's or someone else's that they know. Only THEN will they believe and understand that the horror of what the majority of people here foresee, is indeed a reality, just as it is now. I only hope they open up their eyes and minds and see.

[Steve]

Let's not be divided by breed passion/preference. Stand united. The current but recent regulations in Victoria have transcended BSL. The BSL Laws here have now grown tentacles that transcribe as "it's how the dog looks". And don't think for a second that other breeds will not be added to the list in your lifetime.

There are people campaigning and fighting against these laws even though their breed choice and preferences are not the breeds/types of yours. Don't exclude these people, and do take into account that they are the ones who demonstrate to you that division to breeds is irrelevant. "Division" between the people is EXACTLY what the Government rely on. You going to given them that?

This

[Steve]

there is also one fact which has to be given consideration as well - in Victoria in order for the VCA to be able to be an applicable organisation they have to agree to this - so at best they can advocate for no breed specific legislation but they cant advocate on behalf of pit bulls or their owners.

© the organisation does not represent owners of dogs of a breed whose importation into Australia is prohibited under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 of the Commonwealth.

[zayda_asher]

© the organisation does not represent owners of dogs of a breed whose importation into Australia is prohibited under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 of the Commonwealth.[/size]

Just want to make sure I have this clear: the bit quoted above, that is from the Vic dog act / legislation somewhere? Is it new, or has it always been in there?

[Steve]

© the organisation does not represent owners of dogs of a breed whose importation into Australia is prohibited under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 of the Commonwealth.[/size]

Just want to make sure I have this clear: the bit quoted above, that is from the Vic dog act / legislation somewhere? Is it new, or has it always been in there?

its always been there and it's part of the legislation and eligibility criteria for any one to gain recognition in Victoria as an applicable organisation.

5A Applicable organisations and recognised organisations

(1) The Minister may declare, by notice published in the Government Gazette, that an organisation is an

applicable organisation if—

(a) the organisation has applied to the Minister to be declared an applicable organisation; and

(b) the Minister is satisfied that the organisation meets the criteria set out in the relevant guidelines; and

© the organisation does not represent owners of dogs of a breed whose importation into Australia is prohibited under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 of the Commonwealth.

(2) An application to be an applicable organisation or a recognised organisation must include—

(a) a copy of the organisation's annual report of the preceding year; and

(b) the organisation's code of ethics and details of how the code is enforced; and

© the outcome of any disciplinary action taken by the organisation for breaches of the ethics code during the preceding year; and

(d) any other information required by the Minister.

[Alyosha]

It's Commonweath Law - http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page4369.asp - has been in place for years.

[zayda_asher]

It's Commonweath Law - http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page4369.asp - has been in place for years.

No, I wasn't talking about the import ban, that's old news indeed... I was talking about the being recognised as an "applicable organisation" in relation to the ban

[Steve]

It's Commonweath Law - http://www.customs.g...te/page4369.asp - has been in place for years.

Yes but anyone can represent owners of one of these breeds as long as they are not seeking approval in Victoria as an applicable organisation - that's state law.