Rip Bear And Kooda

[geo]

I am not debating whether or not BSL is right or wrong........I am speaking purely on the fact that BSL is law and what we need to do for compliance and to minimise heartache and devistation in this present BSL affected climate. Obviously going to a VCAT hearing and telling the panel that BSL is bullshit and my Pitbull X won't hurt anyone and done nothing wrong doesn't overturn the decision to euthanise, neither will quoting statistics from Calgary, but choosing a breed of dog that doesn't comply with the restricted breed standard will avoid seizure and the loss of much loved pets to me is a no brainer, so if you want to play with fire by all means get a BYB Bully crossbreed, if you want to play it safe with a dog the rangers won't be chasing up to seize it, get a papered Bull breed or a crossbreed that doesn't fit the restricted breed standard.....just need to use some common sense really :)

Responsible dog owners shouldbe able to choose which ever breed they please. I, as will thousands of others choose bull breeds over any other, including unpapered rescues that are the most at risk.

Excepting ridiculous laws is weak and defeatist and i'm glad there's good people out there trying to change that.

People have already won at VCAT so hopefully more will get the right support.

RIP Bear & Kooda.

[oscamia]

I am not debating whether or not BSL is right or wrong........I am speaking purely on the fact that BSL is law and what we need to do for compliance and to minimise heartache and devistation in this present BSL affected climate. Obviously going to a VCAT hearing and telling the panel that BSL is bullshit and my Pitbull X won't hurt anyone and done nothing wrong doesn't overturn the decision to euthanise, neither will quoting statistics from Calgary, but choosing a breed of dog that doesn't comply with the restricted breed standard will avoid seizure and the loss of much loved pets to me is a no brainer, so if you want to play with fire by all means get a BYB Bully crossbreed, if you want to play it safe with a dog the rangers won't be chasing up to seize it, get a papered Bull breed or a crossbreed that doesn't fit the restricted breed standard.....just need to use some common sense really :)

Responsible dog owners shouldbe able to choose which ever breed they please. I, as will thousands of others choose bull breeds over any other, including unpapered rescues that are the most at risk.

Excepting ridiculous laws is weak and defeatist and i'm glad there's good people out there trying to change that.

People have already won at VCAT so hopefully more will get the right support.

RIP Bear & Kooda.

This BSL law is dangerous Way too many dogs are at risk of being killed by the law

[Tempus Fugit]

In this case the dogs are scapegoats for the government's inability to deal with attacks on racial minorities by humans.

[Crisovar]

Bear & Kooda look like any other large crossbreed dog that can be found in backyards across the country, the parentage of all of them is many and varied. To avoid the BSL crap that snared these two, we would have to eliminate crossbreed dogs and that is as unpalatable to me and many others as BSL itself. The Law is rubbish, it will not stop dog attacks and it will not stop irresponsible owners. It is not as easy as saying avoid bull breed crosses you would have to also toss out the Ridgie crosses, the Lab crosses, it goes on and on. If we have only Purebred dogs left the irresponsible meatheads who do not train, contain and care for their dogs properly will simply move on to cause them to be banned as well. Classifying animals as dangerous based on how some numpty thinks they look is sheer stupidity.

[Sheridan]

In this case the dogs are scapegoats for the government's inability to deal with attacks on racial minorities by humans.

What?

[Silvawilow]

If the owners of the two puppies had registered their dogs with the Council at 3 months (which the way I read Moira's policy as the age puppies/kittens had to be registered) instead of waiting until they were 7 months would that have avoided the animals be seized and destroyed?

[melzawelza]

If the owners of the two puppies had registered their dogs with the Council at 3 months (which the way I read Moira's policy as the age puppies/kittens had to be registered) instead of waiting until they were 7 months would that have avoided the animals be seized and destroyed?

No, as the dogs were younger than allowed. Dogs born or entering the state after a particular date (I think it was September 2010 from memory) cannot even be registered as restricted breeds and kept in the prescribed way, they MUST be destroyed.

It just may have meant that they wouldn't have been on the Council's radar. But had they come to their attention in some other way they'd still have been in the same boat, registered or not.

[m-sass]

If the owners of the two puppies had registered their dogs with the Council at 3 months (which the way I read Moira's policy as the age puppies/kittens had to be registered) instead of waiting until they were 7 months would that have avoided the animals be seized and destroyed?

No, as the dogs were younger than allowed. Dogs born or entering the state after a particular date (I think it was September 2010 from memory) cannot even be registered as restricted breeds and kept in the prescribed way, they MUST be destroyed.

It just may have meant that they wouldn't have been on the Council's radar. But had they come to their attention in some other way they'd still have been in the same boat, registered or not.

The defence was that they weren't restricted breeds so why didn't the owners register them at 3 months?. Why also did the owner go to the council to make enqiries about the dogs breed eligibility.......why would anyone do that if their dogs breeds are compliant

[Sheridan]

Plenty of people don't register their dogs and I think a previous post said the owner became concerned about the dogs. I think a lot of people were concerned at the time and still are that their dogs, although not restricted, may be mistaken for such. From this it appears their concerns are justified.

[melzawelza]

Plenty of people don't register their dogs and I think a previous post said the owner became concerned about the dogs. I think a lot of people were concerned at the time and still are that their dogs, although not restricted, may be mistaken for such. From this it appears their concerns are justified.

Exactly.

I'm not defending the owners for not registering prior. But these laws were highly publicised. The gov was taking out big ads in the paper saying 'IF YOUR PIT BULL IS NOT REGISTERED BY X DATE IT WILL BE DESTROYED', underneath describing the visual identfication. The internet was buzzing with people urging everyone with anything vaguely bull breed to register immediately. The owners obviously took notice of this and tried to do the right thing by registering them.

I'm not 100% happy with the lack of action taken on the owners part in the VCAT hearing but they did try and do the right thing at the beginning of all this and were punished for it.

[sumosmum]

All they should have got was a fine for unregistered dogs.

A lot of the points on the standard they didn't comply with. And also some of them they say they complied with months after they were impounded, they didn't comply with when their were seized. Some measurements were out by 19% and 13% and tails were wrong in length, and sticking out. That is noted by the council "sticking out". Even their eyes, they say did not comply when seized but did a few months later.

Ears, well lets not even mention the ears.

And all of these things that did not comply were admitted by the council. Would have been a different outcome if someone with experience of applying a standard and understanding what the terminology actually meant had given an opinion I think.

With all the things that didn't comply when they seized them, I can't understand how they could justify hanging on to them for so long waiting until they grew to SEE if they might fit. And even then things still didn't comply.

[ChloeEastwood]

Descriminating one based on physical description/standards is so ignorant and uneducated and these poor loved pets suffered for their incompetence. Shall we arrest and detain a group of the population because they fit the targeted description. Then ignore scientific, medical and educated facts dispelling the authority?

Further advances litigated towards heavier penalties and punishment for owners of the offending canine regardless of breed is more productive. Rather than placing an x on the head of all individuals belonging to a particular breed.

One is responsible and should be held accountable for the actions of a dog that's not confined and secured on it's property.

Editing: Removed OP's article decreasing comment size.

Edited June 30, 2012 by ChloeEastwood