Rip Bear And Kooda

[Cheyd]

Sorry, still confused. So these dogs weren't registered prior to the new laws coming in? Surely if the breeder mentioned knew these dogs' backgrounds and if they had been registered as crosses of those breeds prior then why were they seized? I feel for the dogs but would like to know what the owners had done to ensure their safety.

I believe Nathan went to the council when the laws were announced, they agreed for the ranger to come around and assess the dogs, the ranger assessed they were pitbulls therefore could not be registered and seized.

So although Bear & Kooda's parents were cleared of having any pitbull in them, their pups were not

[oscamia]

Sorry, still confused. So these dogs weren't registered prior to the new laws coming in? Surely if the breeder mentioned knew these dogs' backgrounds and if they had been registered as crosses of those breeds prior then why were they seized? I feel for the dogs but would like to know what the owners had done to ensure their safety.

I believe Nathan went to the council when the laws were announced, they agreed for the ranger to come around and assess the dogs, the ranger assessed they were pitbulls therefore could not be registered and seized.

So although Bear & Kooda's parents were cleared of having any pitbull in them, their pups were not

I hope there is a massive lash back at the government and council from the Victorian people these dogs deserve justice

[Maxiewolf]

Very terrible for these poor people... Also irrelevant if their dogs where not registered... This stupid BSL That says this can happen to dogs based on how they look... as opposed to any other dog that is found to be unregistered... you pay the fine for having an unregistered dog, you register the dog and you get your dog back. Not have them killed when you try to do the RIGHT THING.

[pebbles]

So if these owners had registered their dogs at the appropriate time none of this would have happened? Can't see how this is irrelevant? I think there was a similar thread about someone in/near Ballarat.

[melzawelza]

Pebbles, no -

It would have made no difference if the dogs were registered or not as they were born after the amnesty date, therefore are not allowed to exist.

[dougal]

This is absolutely disgraceful. So sad for the owners and the poor dogs. There are enough dogs put to sleep each day without homes, now Council's are removing dogs from responsible homes and killing them. It is beyond belief that the council ranger's opinion cannot be challenged. Politicians have gone mad with this legislation.

[melzawelza]

If you really want to be upset about all this then have a look at the below:

http://www.savingpets.com.au/2012/06/the-final-moments/

Bear and Kooda's final moments.

[Jumabaar]

I am not sure about Vic but in NSW you can't register your dog under 6mths of age. The article said they couldn't register them due to their age so not sure if a minimum age for registration applies in their council region.

[melzawelza]

I am not sure about Vic but in NSW you can't register your dog under 6mths of age. The article said they couldn't register them due to their age so not sure if a minimum age for registration applies in their council region.

You can rego under six months, you just don't HAVE to. From memory the age of registration in VIC is 3 months.

[k9angel]

My thoughts are with the owners and ofcoarse the poor dogs who lost their lives because of this. How sad.

What is the world coming to?

R.I.P. poor babies. You deserved better than that.

[k9angel]

If you really want to be upset about all this then have a look at the below:

http://www.savingpets.com.au/2012/06/the-final-moments/

Bear and Kooda's final moments.

Those pics bought tears to my eye's.

[koalathebear]

Aside from the fact that I object to putting pit bulls down on the basis of their breed, even if we accept that the law provides that restricted breeds can be euthanised by the authorities - it's still very disturbing from a procedural perspective. I would have hoped that the authorities would have the onus of proving that the dog was either actually dangerous OR fell within one of the restricted breed categories. How on earth was this guy going to disprove the fact that his dogs were not restricted breeds? DNA tests are unreliable.

From what I can see, based on the way the case was run, if they had grabbed any random crossbreed and said that it was a restricted breed, it would have been very difficult to argue that the dog wasn't a restricted breed except on the basis of appearance. I know that with these dogs, they are large enough and their colouring is close enough for it all to be arguable, but really the basis is the same and still very flawed.

Edited June 15, 2012 by koalathebear

[oscamia]

Aside from the fact that I object to putting pit bulls down on the basis of their breed, even if we accept that the law provides that restricted breeds can be euthanised by the authorities - it's still very disturbing from a procedural perspective. I would have hoped that the authorities would have the onus of proving that the dog was either actually dangerous OR fell within one of the restricted breed categories. How on earth was this guy going to disprove the fact that his dogs were not restricted breeds? DNA tests are unreliable.

From what I can see, based on the way the case was run, if they had grabbed any random crossbreed and said that it was a restricted breed, it would have been very difficult to argue that the dog wasn't a restricted breed except on the basis of appearance. I know that with these dogs, they are large enough and their colouring is close enough for it all to be arguable, but really the basis is the same and still very flawed.

These new laws are crazy, and councils are just taking it upon themselves to play god and murder dogs registered or not I really think the BSL law has to be canned and the councils need a big shake up over this.

[Jumabaar]

I am not sure about Vic but in NSW you can't register your dog under 6mths of age. The article said they couldn't register them due to their age so not sure if a minimum age for registration applies in their council region.

You can rego under six months, you just don't HAVE to. From memory the age of registration in VIC is 3 months.

My council (in nsw) wouldn't take my money

Lifetime registration for your cat or dog is to be completed at 6 months old or a penalty of $165.00 applies to owners failing to comply.

They took this to mean a minimum age.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Jumabaar

[asal]

Aside from the fact that I object to putting pit bulls down on the basis of their breed, even if we accept that the law provides that restricted breeds can be euthanised by the authorities - it's still very disturbing from a procedural perspective. I would have hoped that the authorities would have the onus of proving that the dog was either actually dangerous OR fell within one of the restricted breed categories. How on earth was this guy going to disprove the fact that his dogs were not restricted breeds? DNA tests are unreliable.

From what I can see, based on the way the case was run, if they had grabbed any random crossbreed and said that it was a restricted breed, it would have been very difficult to argue that the dog wasn't a restricted breed except on the basis of appearance. I know that with these dogs, they are large enough and their colouring is close enough for it all to be arguable, but really the basis is the same and still very flawed.

I am very puzzled in that earlier it states the owner of the parents verified they bred the two pups and the parent are not considered to be pit bulls? surely then why wasnt the opportunity taken to dna verify the parentage of the two dogs?

they did not need to be a test for pit bull even if one was available. what they did have was the fact the parents were deemed to not be pit bull, therefore parentage verification is a proven reliable test. why was that not done? no way the council could have put them down with a proven parentage dna test?????

i do not understand didnt anyone tell the puppies owners that this is a hundred percent accurate test?

fathers are doing paternity testing on their children these days so they dont discover they are paying to raise some one elses child.. knew a chap who discovered years down the track only one of 'his' three children was actualy his.. not a happy camper at all.

if its valid for humans it is just as valid for dogs. no australian stud book throughbred 'ASB'can be registed until its first been parentage verified.

these dogs should have been done and thus saved.....

as i said...why were their owners not told?

[aussielover]

Aside from the fact that I object to putting pit bulls down on the basis of their breed, even if we accept that the law provides that restricted breeds can be euthanised by the authorities - it's still very disturbing from a procedural perspective. I would have hoped that the authorities would have the onus of proving that the dog was either actually dangerous OR fell within one of the restricted breed categories. How on earth was this guy going to disprove the fact that his dogs were not restricted breeds? DNA tests are unreliable.

From what I can see, based on the way the case was run, if they had grabbed any random crossbreed and said that it was a restricted breed, it would have been very difficult to argue that the dog wasn't a restricted breed except on the basis of appearance. I know that with these dogs, they are large enough and their colouring is close enough for it all to be arguable, but really the basis is the same and still very flawed.

Looks like they just took the rangers/breed assessors word for it that the dogs were part pitbull. Despite the owner of the parents of the dogs testifying otherwise, and obviously it was accepted that these parent dogs were not pitbull or part pitbull otherwise they also would have been seized and destroyed.

I don't know why the council and other have gone to such lengths to ensure an outcome in their favour. I'm sure an alternative agreement could have been reached as the owners seemed like decent, responsible people.

Do these people seriously think that every pitbull-looking dog is suddenly going to "turn" on people or turn into a killing machine?

[asal]

The parents of these two dogs (they came from the same litter) were cleared of having any pitbull in them, which just makes this tale even sadder

RIP Bear & Kooda

I think people are only now realising that the Vic legislation isn't about whether a dog is a pitbull or not - dogs are deemed restricted based on how they look, regardless of parentage. The fact that these dogs aren't pitbulls means nothing according to the law. The ONLY exception being pedigreed Amstaffs (so, under the law, if you have a pedigreed SBT that met the checklist your dog could be seized and put down too).

The sad irony of this all is that people will soon learn to hide their bull breed dogs, not take them out and socialise them (for fear of getting them seized) and we'll land up with more unsocialised, dangerous dogs.

I do not understand what you just said?

are you saying if a dog is already registered as a Amstaff it is safe.

but if your dog is a pedigreed staffodshire bull terrier, that is deemed to look like a pit bull? it can be seized and put down?

was only speaking to a lady recently whose child was mauled at a show by an Amstaff and still undergoing surgery years later for the damage inflicted, not counting the mental damage to a young child now terrified of any bull looking breed.

I remember when the first Pit's and ?Amstaff's? arrived on our shores, especially remember seeing ads for dual registered Amstaffs/pit bull's available for stud and sale in america. It was pretty obvious to even one who had never seen either in the flesh, in america they are one and the same. This lady told me she firmly believes the same thing.

I am constantly amazed how many people i meet who tell me their dog is a staffie and blind freddy can see there isnt a drop of staffie in their pittie.

ive know staffies since i was a kid they are as different as chalk and cheeze to a pitti and or an amstaff.

think i need to now don flamesuit. considering how many aussies think they are not the one breed with two interchangable lables.

spotted this add for a kennel,, note size and breeds suitablbe for

Deluxe wooden dog kennel house [small dog]

Was: $149.99 Now: $109.99 Code: PWH113a

Suitable for small dogs such as Staffordshire bull terriers, Beagles, Japanese spitz etc.

Please contact us on 02-90299385 to find out when new stock is coming in

yet i bought a Large sized one, second hand from a chap who explained his staffy had grown to large for it. my heart missed a terrified beat when i met his "staffy"??? Yes he was cute and goofy, but when he can stand and look you just about in the eye? an english staffie???????????????????????????

last I looked there is a huge difference in length of leg (let alone sheer size) between Amstaff/Pitty's and the "real", short legged, much smaller English Staffies

Deluxe wooden dog kennel house [Large dog]

Was: $199.99 Now: $159.99 Code: PWH113c

Suitable for large sized dogs such as German shephreds, Rottweilers etc.

Availability: IN STOCK

Edited June 15, 2012 by asal

[*kirty*]

Just want to applaud Cobram Vet Clinic for refusing to PTS these poor dogs. Good on them for making a stand. RIP Bear and Kooda.

[melzawelza]

I am not sure about Vic but in NSW you can't register your dog under 6mths of age. The article said they couldn't register them due to their age so not sure if a minimum age for registration applies in their council region.

You can rego under six months, you just don't HAVE to. From memory the age of registration in VIC is 3 months.

My council (in nsw) wouldn't take my money

Lifetime registration for your cat or dog is to be completed at 6 months old or a penalty of $165.00 applies to owners failing to comply.

They took this to mean a minimum age.

Your Council are wrong. You can get fined if the dog is 6 mths 1 day old and not registered. The legislation states BY the time it is six months old.

Edited July 18, 2012 by melzawelza

[megan_]

DNA testing is unreliable and the law specifically says that it can't be used to prove that a dog isn't a pitbull. Even if it wasn't, Vic legislation says that any dog that looks like a pitbull and meets the checklist is deemed restricted regardless of parentage. The ONLY exception to this is if your dog is a pedigreed amstaff. ANY other dog that looks like a pitbull (and the checklist could describe thousands of dogs) is at risk. The fact that the parents weren't pitbulls makes no difference according to the legislation.