Help Needed To Repond

[Rainy]

Ok guys im about to loose my cool with a person regarding the new Vic laws and BSL. I need some solid links and information and help with the reply so i figured id ask the DOL brains trust to give me a hand.

Below is his latest spiel.

They are not destroying dogs based on what they look like. They may destroy dogs based on their breed , either pure or cross. And how does one identify a breed? Initially, by the way it looks. So the looks is the initial means to identify the breed. The breed that they are looking to have tighter control over due to the number of fatal attacks on Human Beings.

If you have a restricted breed and have done what is required by law then you wont lose your dog. If you have a restricted breed and haven't done what is required by the law then you should lose your dog as it is a risk to your family and to society and it's all about risk management. In this case the risk is serious injury and/or death to a human which as far as I'm concerned is a risk I'd like to see everything done to minimise.

Of course it is breed discrimination, but for a very good reason - threat or potential threat to human life.

People are not voting to have hundreds of innocent family pets destroyed. Those pets, whose owners haven't done what is required by law to control their restricted breed, will be removed from those owners. People who have done the right thing and put the appropriate measures in place, as required by law, will not lose their innocent family pet.

I've not doubt it will be gutwrenching to you, but again, they are not culling an entire breed based on its appearance, they are looking to control a breed based on its breed, which has a proven track record of being a threat to human life. Why? Because of its genetic make up. All the training in the world can't change the fact that your Pit Bull is still a Pit Bull, and the 1 time it snaps, and it only takes the 1 time, I know I wouldn't want to be around it, let alone someone more fragile/defenceless than I.

If everyone who has said they or their dogs have been attacked by a poodle/Chihuahua/staffy/dobe/Labrador/yap yap dog had reported these attacks to the appropriate authorities then action would be more likely to be taken about controlling all dogs (and their owners), not just the ones that we are currently talking about.

We all make choices, and with choices there are consequences. Wether that choice is to own a restricted breed, a yap yap dog, a dog that has been crossed with a restricted breed, to not report the cute little yap yap dog that attacked your sweet timid loving staffy, to not adhere to the legislation, to not raise and train your dog in the best interests of society, and I could go on. Bottom line is, you and you alone made that choice.

Any dog has the potential to be a loving, loyal, affectionate dogs that just want to be someone's friend, just like any dog has the potential to be a killer. However history has shown that the breeds on the restricted list find themselves in the news for being killers. And as I keep saying, I'd much rather be around any number of other breeds than a Pit Bull if it were to snap, as I've no doubt that the consequence to me of a Pit Bull snapping and attacking me are highly likely to be far worse than had it been a different breed.

I've got nothing against responsible owners who have chosen to own a restricted breed. The key word being responsible. Would I let my pack interact with it? Absolutely, but only after I'd made an informed decision based on the owner, the individual dog in question and of course, on how my dogs interact with others. Would I own one? No, but that is because I have a preference for Huskies and Shepherds. Would I let my young defenceless children interact with one? No, again because the risk isn't worth it, but then I wouldn't let my young defenceless children interact with any dog, regardless of breed, unless I knew that particular dog very well, and of course only under my very close watch.

I've no doubt there will be collateral damage as this new legislation is enforced, but in my opinion, the collateral damage in this case is worth it, and whilst I certainly feel for those who may lose their beloved family pet I make no apologies for valuing a human life above that of a canine, and that includes my Diesel and Gypsy. They may be highly valued members of my pack, but at the end of the day they are canines and if they were to ever threaten a human life I wouldn't hesitate to protect that human life at all costs - including Diesel & Gypsy's lives. Of course I'd be devastated after the fact, but ultimately it would have been through choices I made that they were in a position that cost them their lives.

[Rainy]

Forgot to add that the person also bashed my parenting skills for letting my daughter play with a vicious dog after posting this pic,

[poodlefan]

Don't bother. Seriously.

He ain't going to listen. We've had plenty of good example of that here. Closed minds aren't interested in learning.

[lappiemum]

You can't argue with stupid - they'll defeat your logic and reason every time - sad but true!

[Odin-Genie]

I have a preference for Huskies and Shepherds.

Does this guy know that if BSL is allowed to go on GSDs may be next on the list?

[spyke88]

knob...

your "vicious dog" is stunning btw as is your daughter

[SpotTheDog]

God help me, but...

They are not destroying dogs based on what they look like. They may destroy dogs based on their breed , either pure or cross. And how does one identify a breed? Initially, by the way it looks. So the looks is the initial means to identify the breed. The breed that they are looking to have tighter control over due to the number of fatal attacks on Human Beings.

So they're not destroyed dogs based on what they look like, but they're destroying them based on the breed they look like? Genius.

If you have a restricted breed and have done what is required by law then you wont lose your dog. If you have a restricted breed and haven't done what is required by the law then you should lose your dog as it is a risk to your family and to society and it's all about risk management. In this case the risk is serious injury and/or death to a human which as far as I'm concerned is a risk I'd like to see everything done to minimise.

And if you have a mongrel dog which you have registered as a mongrel dog, a warden can decide the dog is not correctly registered based solely on its appearance, not its breed, and can confiscate and euthanise that dog. Who's going to manage that risk?

Of course it is breed discrimination, but for a very good reason - threat or potential threat to human life.

And over 20 years of breed discrimination in the UK has had no impact on the threat or potential threat to human life. Will it take you two decades to cop on to that as well?

People are not voting to have hundreds of innocent family pets destroyed.

Indeed, people are not voting at all. The legislation has been passed without referendum. Undemocratic much?

Those pets, whose owners haven't done what is required by law to control their restricted breed, will be removed from those owners. People who have done the right thing and put the appropriate measures in place, as required by law, will not lose their innocent family pet.

And people with mongrels of dubious parentage who are arbitrarily decided to be 'of type' will have their dogs seized based purely on appearance and not behaviour.

I've not doubt it will be gutwrenching to you, but again, they are not culling an entire breed based on its appearance, they are looking to control a breed based on its breed, which has a proven track record of being a threat to human life.

They are looking to restrict four separate breeds, using legislation which was passed without referendum, which opens the gate to adding more selected breeds to the restrictions without referendum, and I would like to see, please, a number of reliable scientific studies and collated statistics to support your claim that any breed has a proven track record of being a threat to human life.

Why? Because of its genetic make up. All the training in the world can't change the fact that your Pit Bull is still a Pit Bull, and the 1 time it snaps, and it only takes the 1 time, I know I wouldn't want to be around it, let alone someone more fragile/defenceless than I.

This argument actually contradicts your initial argument of how appearance is the first step in identifying breed. Because if the breed doesn't have pitbull genetics in spite of its appearance, by your own logic it will be euthanised even though it's apparently not a danger to anyone.

If everyone who has said they or their dogs have been attacked by a poodle/Chihuahua/staffy/dobe/Labrador/yap yap dog had reported these attacks to the appropriate authorities then action would be more likely to be taken about controlling all dogs (and their owners), not just the ones that we are currently talking about.

How interesting that you manage to identify something sensible in the midst of your drivel.

[SpotTheDog]

We all make choices, and with choices there are consequences.

And Confucious say, he who go to bed with itchy arse wake up with smelly finger.

Wether that choice is to own a restricted breed, a yap yap dog, a dog that has been crossed with a restricted breed, to not report the cute little yap yap dog that attacked your sweet timid loving staffy, to not adhere to the legislation, to not raise and train your dog in the best interests of society, and I could go on. Bottom line is, you and you alone made that choice.

Unless you adopted your dog of unknown parentage as a puppy from a pound or rescue with no knowledge of what the dog would look like as an adult. In that case the only choice you made was to own a dog.

Any dog has the potential to be a loving, loyal, affectionate dogs that just want to be someone's friend, just like any dog has the potential to be a killer.

This is correct.

However history has shown that the breeds on the restricted list find themselves in the news for being killers.

This is not correct.

We may have to have a serious discussion about the difference between fact and hearsay. You might want to delve some into the contribution of the media to dog attack hysteria too. PS: again with the request for statistics please?

And as I keep saying, I'd much rather be around any number of other breeds than a Pit Bull if it were to snap, as I've no doubt that the consequence to me of a Pit Bull snapping and attacking me are highly likely to be far worse than had it been a different breed.

I would rather be attacked by a small dog than a large dog. I'd also rather be tickled with a feather than hit by a truck. Your point is?

I've got nothing against responsible owners who have chosen to own a restricted breed. The key word being responsible.

How about responsible owners of non-restricted breed dogs who will have their pets seized and classified as restricted because of appearance and who will then lose their pets under this new legislation?

I'm beginning to think you really don't understand the ins and outs of this, do you.

Would I let my pack interact with it? Absolutely, but only after I'd made an informed decision based on the owner, the individual dog in question and of course, on how my dogs interact with others.

AHA! So you're actually discriminating against PEOPLE and dogs. That makes it ALL better.

[SpotTheDog]

Would I own one? No, but that is because I have a preference for Huskies and Shepherds.

Did you know both of these dogs are restricted breeds in other countries? I look forward to seeing you with your dog leashed and muzzled in public in a few years.

Would I let my young defenceless children interact with one? No, again because the risk isn't worth it, but then I wouldn't let my young defenceless children interact with any dog, regardless of breed, unless I knew that particular dog very well, and of course only under my very close watch.

So it really doesn't matter what the breed of dog is then, does it?

I've no doubt there will be collateral damage as this new legislation is enforced, but in my opinion, the collateral damage in this case is worth it, and whilst I certainly feel for those who may lose their beloved family pet I make no apologies for valuing a human life above that of a canine, and that includes my Diesel and Gypsy.

Personally I feel worse about the collateral damage that will be the people who continue to be killed and maimed by badly controlled dogs of all shapes and sizes whose behaviour will continue while the wardens and the government spend their time and our money addressing the wrong end of the leash.

They may be highly valued members of my pack, but at the end of the day they are canines and if they were to ever threaten a human life I wouldn't hesitate to protect that human life at all costs - including Diesel & Gypsy's lives. Of course I'd be devastated after the fact, but ultimately it would have been through choices I made that they were in a position that cost them their lives.

If you're that worried about the choice you're going to make that will put your dogs in a position to hurt someone, why don't you euthanise them right now and sleep easy from here on out?

It's a long time since I've read an argument that contradicts itself so thoroughly as yours - that's impressive, well done.

[SpotTheDog]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND, rant over.

I'm going to get a stiff drink.

[german_shep_fan]

God help me, but...

They are not destroying dogs based on what they look like. They may destroy dogs based on their breed , either pure or cross. And how does one identify a breed? Initially, by the way it looks. So the looks is the initial means to identify the breed. The breed that they are looking to have tighter control over due to the number of fatal attacks on Human Beings.

So they're not destroyed dogs based on what they look like, but they're destroying them based on the breed they look like? Genius.

If you have a restricted breed and have done what is required by law then you wont lose your dog. If you have a restricted breed and haven't done what is required by the law then you should lose your dog as it is a risk to your family and to society and it's all about risk management. In this case the risk is serious injury and/or death to a human which as far as I'm concerned is a risk I'd like to see everything done to minimise.

And if you have a mongrel dog which you have registered as a mongrel dog, a warden can decide the dog is not correctly registered based solely on its appearance, not its breed, and can confiscate and euthanise that dog. Who's going to manage that risk?

Of course it is breed discrimination, but for a very good reason - threat or potential threat to human life.

And over 20 years of breed discrimination in the UK has had no impact on the threat or potential threat to human life. Will it take you two decades to cop on to that as well?

People are not voting to have hundreds of innocent family pets destroyed.

Indeed, people are not voting at all. The legislation has been passed without referendum. Undemocratic much?

Those pets, whose owners haven't done what is required by law to control their restricted breed, will be removed from those owners. People who have done the right thing and put the appropriate measures in place, as required by law, will not lose their innocent family pet.

And people with mongrels of dubious parentage who are arbitrarily decided to be 'of type' will have their dogs seized based purely on appearance and not behaviour.

I've not doubt it will be gutwrenching to you, but again, they are not culling an entire breed based on its appearance, they are looking to control a breed based on its breed, which has a proven track record of being a threat to human life.

They are looking to restrict four separate breeds, using legislation which was passed without referendum, which opens the gate to adding more selected breeds to the restrictions without referendum, and I would like to see, please, a number of reliable scientific studies and collated statistics to support your claim that any breed has a proven track record of being a threat to human life.

Why? Because of its genetic make up. All the training in the world can't change the fact that your Pit Bull is still a Pit Bull, and the 1 time it snaps, and it only takes the 1 time, I know I wouldn't want to be around it, let alone someone more fragile/defenceless than I.

This argument actually contradicts your initial argument of how appearance is the first step in identifying breed. Because if the breed doesn't have pitbull genetics in spite of its appearance, by your own logic it will be euthanised even though it's apparently not a danger to anyone.

If everyone who has said they or their dogs have been attacked by a poodle/Chihuahua/staffy/dobe/Labrador/yap yap dog had reported these attacks to the appropriate authorities then action would be more likely to be taken about controlling all dogs (and their owners), not just the ones that we are currently talking about.

How interesting that you manage to identify something sensible in the midst of your drivel.

SpotTheDog this is not the opinions of the OP but of someone she is trying to talk some sense into. Not sure if you are aware of this or not, just the way you answered made it seem as if you were talking to her, not the moron who wrote this stuff

[SpotTheDog]

SpotTheDog this is not the opinions of the OP but of someone she is trying to talk some sense into. Not sure if you are aware of this or not, just the way you answered made it seem as if you were talking to her, not the moron who wrote this stuff

Nope, I know it's not the OP, I was writing as a direct response to the idiot the OP is quoting.

Actually I was ranting. LOTS of ranting.

/has her rantpants on.

[german_shep_fan]

SpotTheDog this is not the opinions of the OP but of someone she is trying to talk some sense into. Not sure if you are aware of this or not, just the way you answered made it seem as if you were talking to her, not the moron who wrote this stuff

Nope, I know it's not the OP, I was writing as a direct response to the idiot the OP is quoting.

Actually I was ranting. LOTS of ranting.

/has her rantpants on.

No worries, sorry just wasn't sure.

Rant away! But morons like this have a skull so thick you can never talk any sense into them

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

i think I would question every sentence - how do you know that? where is the research and data to back that up? How does getting rid of a particular looking dog make a difference? Are rottweilers next? Then GSD, then Airedales then ACD then Dingos then .... where does it stop? And for what gain?

If you're talking about reducing human death - aren't there other things we should be more focussed on - eg quad bikes - killed 17 people this year (and the year isn't even over) including 4 children, way more than dogs have.

In reality dog attacks are proportional to the number of dogs owned - ie getting rid of the most popular breed might have an effect on reducing death tolls, as would getting rid of the most popular car brand.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/10/05/3333153.htm?site=melbourne

Lemme see - brick wall, quadbike and train - no dog.

[Brennan's Mum]

I don't think it is worth the time and energy spent to respond. This guy comes across as a 'know it all' type, his mind is clearly set. All you are doing is wasting time trying to convince some one whose mind is made up. Better to save the energy for some one who is interested and willing to listen to what you have to share .

OR

You could direct him to DOL and let him see how far he gets on here

Edited October 6, 2011 by Brennan's Mum

[Guest donatella]

Forgot to add that the person also bashed my parenting skills for letting my daughter play with a vicious dog after posting this pic,

what a beautiful picture! that dog has nothing but sooky in his eyes

[Erny]

Excellent responses, Spot the Dog. Whilst the responses might not make a difference to anyone who has the misfortune to have an iron-clad mind and a strong resistance to learning, the time and effort to produce those responses is not wasted as this is a public forum. It reveals to the general public who wish to read here, at least, what attitudes are out there and how flawed those attitudes actually are.

One additional and I think, major point, to make is that the Breed Specific Legislation that we have had for the past 10 years, along with the extension of that regulation that the current Government has groped through to fruition against advice from those it has in the past held on high grounds for excellent opinion, is and will be a dismal failure. The very danger of BSL and "type" specific legislation is that it leaves an opening for the very danger of injury it purports to try to stop, just like an ugly gaping wound begging for infection.

Bite injuries have not and will not improve and serves to provide the unknowing public with false education.

[Poodlecrazy]

Forgot to add that the person also bashed my parenting skills for letting my daughter play with a vicious dog after posting this pic,

I would just like to say what a beautiful picture of two best friends

I personally would blow that up and frame it just priceless

[WillowGirl]

I'm with Spot, that quote was rife with contradiction.

That picture is priceless and anyone who would say anything negative about that has a problem. A problem I would not bother addressing.

Edited October 6, 2011 by WillowGirl

[Rainy]

Hay all, thanks for the replys.

Spot the Dog, that was awsome id love to post it but can guarntee id be booted for sure (much more restricted then here)

I know im probabely hitting my head against the wall with this particular person but there are alot of people on this other forum (for want of a better term) that will be able to learn from what i can post as thier are ownly a few dog owners on there.

What about info from when the german shep was "banned" and why that was revoked

things like that would be very helpfull.

Thanks for the compliments on the pic its deffinatly one of my favorites and will be on the wall as soon as i can find someone to do a little photo shoping on it for me.