goldchow Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 As mentioned in our front cover story the benefits of the Dog Vic initiative of the Am Staff ID card have become very significant in the past month. With the Queensland government looking at following Victorian legislation I am sure DogsQld members would welcome the same opportunity of protection by their State control. The move by DogsVic is to be applauded and unlike many times in the past, was actually ahead of the legislation. The amount of confusion over identifying breeds by law enforcement officers, council rangers and even the media is unbelievable,and to be able to produce a card, proving that your dog is not a target for them should provide great relief for the responsible American Staffordshire Terrier owners. Dog attacks are a tragedy all around. It should be pointed out that the majority of them that cause real damage are by crossbreds with unpredictable characteristics. There are those out there in the community indiscriminately cross breeding large and dangerous dogs, then not looking after them,effectively unleashing them on the public. These people should feel the full weight of the law that have been devised to combat them. Unfortunately many of these crosses, to the uneducated, can appear of similar type to the American Staffordshire, and this is where the ID card will be so valuable. I was extremely pleased to read the ANKC report in this edition requesting that the RSPCA practice what it preaches in regards to health testing dogs that are rehomed into the community. Families offering a home to surrendered dogs should have the same rights as those afforded to purchasers of ANKC registered dogs, and deserve a healthy dog John Bryson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Rusty Bucket Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Doesn't help me and my dog - a cross breed of uncertain parentage from AWL. The only dogs safe in Victoria are ANKC pedigree dogs or dogs a vet can say with certainty are "a particular breed". No cross breed is entirely safe from being declared by a grumpy or uneducated council ranger or policeman or other authorised officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dog_fan Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Who is this guy? What a callous, pompous and cavalier attitude he has. :mad I thought that there were only 2 forms of identification accepted under this Legislation: 1. ANKC Papers 2. A veterinarian's letter which identifies the dog as a particular breed and as far as I know no AVA veterinarian is prepared to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpotTheDog Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Dear John Bryson Shove your ID card up your jacksie. Yours Owner of a sweet natured crossbreed of uncertain parentage that doesn't deserve to be destroyed under arbitrary legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldchow Posted October 6, 2011 Author Share Posted October 6, 2011 He's the editor of Dog News Australia, its not online, you have to purchase the newspaper at the newsagent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quickasyoucan Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) How very sad that someone who is the editor of a purebred but nonetheless dog magazine should have such a disregard for the lives of many sweet natured cross bred dogs. I understand he wants to protect Amstaffs but its a big leap to say every person who buys a registered dog is automatically a "responsible owner" and everyone who buys a crossbreed is not. I would certainly never buy that magazine whilst he continues to be editor based on those comments, he obviously is not an animal lover. "There are those out there in the community indiscriminately cross breeding large and dangerous dogs, then not looking after them,effectively unleashing them on the public. These people should feel the full weight of the law that have been devised to combat them. So he is effectively saying he is pro-BSl disgusting. Edited October 6, 2011 by Quickasyoucan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dog_fan Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 How very sad that someone who is the editor of a purebred but nonetheless dog magazine should have such a disregard for the lives of many sweet natured cross bred dogs. I understand he wants to protect Amstaffs but its a big leap to say every person who buys a registered dog is automatically a "responsible owner" and everyone who buys a crossbreed is not. I would certainly never buy that magazine whilst he continues to be editor based on those comments, he obviously is not an animal lover. "There are those out there in the community indiscriminately cross breeding large and dangerous dogs, then not looking after them,effectively unleashing them on the public. These people should feel the full weight of the law that have been devised to combat them. So he is effectively saying he is pro-BSl disgusting. He has no regard for who will be paying the price...the poor dogs who have done nothing wrong and their families as they grieve for their loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldchow Posted October 6, 2011 Author Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) The email address is [email protected] I have already emailled them and suggest you do too, this person obviously has no concept of the heartbreak this legislation is/will cause and Quickasyoucan, I totally agree Edited October 6, 2011 by goldchow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Looks to me to be a pretty narrow view and a bit shallow. Surely , honestly no one from the ANKC is really calling for RSPCA to health test dogs are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldchow Posted October 6, 2011 Author Share Posted October 6, 2011 Yes that part is abit of a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RottnBullies Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Why Is the dog world so full of heartless decrepit people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebanne Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Looks to me to be a pretty narrow view and a bit shallow. Surely , honestly no one from the ANKC is really calling for RSPCA to health test dogs are they? most likely not but he has a point, why should breeders be the only ones required to health test and be at risk of being prosecuted if they sell a pup that ends up with a health problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Doesn't help me and my dog - a cross breed of uncertain parentage from AWL. The only dogs safe in Victoria are ANKC pedigree dogs or dogs a vet can say with certainty are "a particular breed". No cross breed is entirely safe from being declared by a grumpy or uneducated council ranger or policeman or other authorised officer. And the "a particular breed" bit is only for American Staffordshire Terriers. I queried the Minister, and that is the answer I got. Poor wording, but that was the intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) Looks to me to be a pretty narrow view and a bit shallow. Surely , honestly no one from the ANKC is really calling for RSPCA to health test dogs are they? most likely not but he has a point, why should breeders be the only ones required to health test and be at risk of being prosecuted if they sell a pup that ends up with a health problem? Basically because only breeders have a clue what to test for I guess. Rescue dont mate the dogs so cant test the parents and dont know who the father is even if they know who the mother is - what would they test the dogs for assuming of course that each dog sold is examined by a vet and cleared to be in good health. Perhaps this is what they meant and something has been lost inthe translation?????? Breeders in the main arent required to health test anyway - there are only a handful of breeds which have mandatory testing . Rescue are as accountable under consumer law as anyone else selling a dog. If it isnt fit for the purpose for which it is sold they have to refund, replace or repair. its interesting that many of the dogs which are now being seen to be un fit as pets and have extra requirements on them to enable people to be able to live - if they are able to live with them because they are pit bull types came from rescue. Perhaps if a class action was started against the RSPCA because they have sold them dogs which were unfit for the purpose for which they were purchased and or their breed was misrepresented BSL may get more people more eager to stand against it. It would appear to me that if I buy a dog from anyone or any rescue/ breeder as - say a staffy cross but council judge it other wise which restricts me in ways i wasnt expecting that someone should be accountable and someone should be asked to pay. As I said that may make animal rights groups, animal welfare groups etc become more interested in yelling louder about what is going on. Deathrow pets etc should be in bangng a drum like mad at the fact that lots of dogs that could be saved can no longer be saved and have to go to God because rescue will be held accountable if the dog grows into something which may resemble a pit bull type by some council ranger. Edited October 6, 2011 by Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Doesn't help me and my dog - a cross breed of uncertain parentage from AWL. The only dogs safe in Victoria are ANKC pedigree dogs or dogs a vet can say with certainty are "a particular breed". No cross breed is entirely safe from being declared by a grumpy or uneducated council ranger or policeman or other authorised officer. Technically, not even all of those. The way the law is worded, the only pedigreed dog who may be exempted from Victoria's prohibitive laws by the production of an ANKC Breed Certificate is the AmStaff. All and any other ANKC dog that could possibly be interpreted by its looks to fit the description type as given by the law does not have the same right of passage. That's absolutely stupid. But that's the law. Is the ANKC active in doing something about that? And I agree - there ARE cross-breeds out there. Beautiful, loving, friendly and loyal companions to the human race. If they fit the "type" description put up by the Government, they're in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCoat Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Doesn't help me and my dog - a cross breed of uncertain parentage from AWL. The only dogs safe in Victoria are ANKC pedigree dogs or dogs a vet can say with certainty are "a particular breed". No cross breed is entirely safe from being declared by a grumpy or uneducated council ranger or policeman or other authorised officer. Technically, not even all of those. The way the law is worded, the only pedigreed dog who may be exempted from Victoria's prohibitive laws by the production of an ANKC Breed Certificate is the AmStaff. All and any other ANKC dog that could possibly be interpreted by its looks to fit the description type as given by the law does not have the same right of passage. That's absolutely stupid. But that's the law. Is the ANKC active in doing something about that? And I agree - there ARE cross-breeds out there. Beautiful, loving, friendly and loyal companions to the human race. If they fit the "type" description put up by the Government, they're in trouble. I am new here and very concerned about the situation with the new laws and where things may be heading. Is it true that an ANKC papered dog of a breed with similar looks to a restricted breed can be seized regardless of the owner producing the dog's ANKC pedigree papers to prove what breed the dog is? There are a couple of breeds that have like appearance to restricted breeds other than the APBT so if an animal control officer suspected someone's dog was a Presa Canario for example and the owner produced ANKC papers to say the dog is of another non restricted pure breed, the officer can still seize the dog? Would that really stand up in questioning the breed when the owner has legitimate papers, a registered breeders confirmation etc versus an animal control officers personal opinion based on appearances only if an incident like this went to court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 "There are those out there in the community indiscriminately cross breeding large and dangerous dogs, then not looking after them,effectively unleashing them on the public. These people should feel the full weight of the law that have been devised to combat them." That says it all doesn't it. Pro BSL through and through 'As long as it doesn't affect our precious papered dogs'. I am all for papers and pedigree, but I am also all for ALL dogs, cross breed or not, being protected from inhumane laws that not only negatively affect dogs and dog owners but do NOTHING to protect the public from dog bite incidents. He will be biting his tongue for agreeing with BSL when they come after the papered Amstaffs. Sigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RottnBullies Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Please e-mail editor and also let them know what you think about this as well, In the same Issue September Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Oh my GOD, they really put that in the magazine?! That is DISGUSTING!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) I'm sorry for being so untactful but ID cards reminded me of the jew stars in that sad era, we've all seen them in doco's.. Reinhard Heydrich recommended that the Jews be forced to wear badges following the Kristallnacht pogrom in November 1938. The German government first introduced mandatory badges in Poland in November 1939. Jews who failed to wear them risked death. On July 26, 1941, the Judenrat (Jewish Community Council) of Bialystok announced that "the authorities have warned that severe punishment — up to, and including death by shooting — is in store for Jews who do not wear the yellow badge on back and front." Edited October 7, 2011 by -GT- 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