Pit Bull Blitz A Losing Battle For Councils

[TheCheekyMonster]

Someone had posted this on another thread and I thought it was a pretty good example of BSL not being helpful

:)

Awful, just a witch hunt by sadists who need to make themselves feel bigger by hurting and harming innocent dogs. This makes me feel sick

yea its pretty disturbing isnt it! that old mans dog clearly looked like a labx even though his dog is not a dangerous dog who knows the legal fees he now needs to pay in order to just get his dog back absolute pigs!

Edited July 26, 2012 by TheCheekyMonster

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Some people seem to think that people who want BSL over turned are obliged to offer an alternative strategy to curb dog attacks - Wrong.

[Wobbly]

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.

- Thomas Jefferson

Couldn't be simpler IMO.

[Puppoochi]

Some people seem to think that people who want BSL over turned are obliged to offer an alternative strategy to curb dog attacks - Wrong.

obliged? Necessity is the mother of invention.

[Wobbly]

For those who have difficulty understanding Jefferson, maybe try Martin Luther King Jr.

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

Martin Luther King Jr

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Not necessary in any sense of the word. It's analogous to suggesting that someone falsely accused of a crime is obliged to help find the criminal - there's no such obligation.

[geo]

Not necessary in any sense of the word. It's analogous to suggesting that someone falsely accused of a crime is obliged to help find the criminal - there's no such obligation.

Very well put Lo Pan, impossible to argue against.

[Jade~Harley~Bella]

You are not fighting to save certain breeds at all as the dogs people are fighting over are all BYB's of no specific breed as such that have no recognised standard. It's not the beginning of anything as the precident on what will be next was set with the Amstaff's exclusion from BSL although it's essentially a Pitbull of some degree. When a court determines that an Amstaff is a Pitbull and then specifically the Amstaff is excluded from BSL and not added to the list proves the point of where things are heading and confirms that ANKC recognised breeds are safe. If breed restrictions were on the agenda, the Amstaff would have been done and dusted..........and what happened??, the Amstaff being a recognised breed was excluded like any other recognised breed would be in the same instance. If they did for example try and add Dalmations onto the BSL list and ban them suddenly, the Amstaff sets the legal precident to overturn the decision immediately.

Ask the question again what breed could be next?..........any breed or mixture of that is not ANKC recognised, again the choice is in the hands of the consumer if you want a dog that the rangers won't be scooping up, buy papered from a registered breeder or choose a cross breed or un-papered dog that doesn't resemble a restricted breed..........how hard is that seriously??

Both of my dogs are from BYB's, purchased before I knew that was a bad thing. Do they deserve to die because of that? Do they not have a right to exist just because they do not have pedigree papers? It all comes back to education really... something people fighting BSL are all for.

it's not hard at all. The only problem is that a lot of the numb nuts that want to own a "tough guy dog" are rejected as suitable owners by registered ethical breeders of Am Staffs.They have no choice but to go to the BYBs to get their "land shark". BYBs are accountable and should be stopped.

Lol wow apparently I am a numb nuts tough guy too... nice one. Best be careful of my two "landsharks" snuggling with the cat on the lounge.

Honestly, Puppoochi, I find it somewhat puzzling that you would post such opinions on a dog forum given your line of business.

I though this too... not a very good advertisement for your business at all.

[TheCheekyMonster]

You are not fighting to save certain breeds at all as the dogs people are fighting over are all BYB's of no specific breed as such that have no recognised standard. It's not the beginning of anything as the precident on what will be next was set with the Amstaff's exclusion from BSL although it's essentially a Pitbull of some degree. When a court determines that an Amstaff is a Pitbull and then specifically the Amstaff is excluded from BSL and not added to the list proves the point of where things are heading and confirms that ANKC recognised breeds are safe. If breed restrictions were on the agenda, the Amstaff would have been done and dusted..........and what happened??, the Amstaff being a recognised breed was excluded like any other recognised breed would be in the same instance. If they did for example try and add Dalmations onto the BSL list and ban them suddenly, the Amstaff sets the legal precident to overturn the decision immediately.

Ask the question again what breed could be next?..........any breed or mixture of that is not ANKC recognised, again the choice is in the hands of the consumer if you want a dog that the rangers won't be scooping up, buy papered from a registered breeder or choose a cross breed or un-papered dog that doesn't resemble a restricted breed..........how hard is that seriously??

Both of my dogs are from BYB's, purchased before I knew that was a bad thing. Do they deserve to die because of that? Do they not have a right to exist just because they do not have pedigree papers? It all comes back to education really... something people fighting BSL are all for.

it's not hard at all. The only problem is that a lot of the numb nuts that want to own a "tough guy dog" are rejected as suitable owners by registered ethical breeders of Am Staffs.They have no choice but to go to the BYBs to get their "land shark". BYBs are accountable and should be stopped.

Lol wow apparently I am a numb nuts tough guy too... nice one. Best be careful of my two "landsharks" snuggling with the cat on the lounge.

Honestly, Puppoochi, I find it somewhat puzzling that you would post such opinions on a dog forum given your line of business.

I though this too... not a very good advertisement for your business at all.

+1, I know what business I wont be supporting....

[Puppoochi]

Honestly, Puppoochi, I find it somewhat puzzling that you would post such opinions on a dog forum given your line of business.

and what opinions are they? That I would like to see an end of BYBs breeding and selling anything to anyone? Basically that's it, that's my opinion. What's wrong with that?

[Jed]

1343281654[/url]' post='5910908']

1343281243[/url]' post='5910900']

1343279968[/url]' post='5910882']

m-sass, we know how to avoid having our dogs taken away. That is not the point, at least it's not my point.

I understand what you're saying, and I understand the law, point is I do not agree with it. You seem to dislike crossbreeds, I could be wrong but that's how your posts come across. The ANKC is not the be all and end all of dogs, and there is NO excuse as far as I'm concerned, to kill dogs that haven't done anything wrong.

No excuse.

Exactly Aussie3, hatred of crossbreeds seems to be the main point that m-sass has to support bsl. what an awful thing, to condemn a dog simply because it lacks the "right" paperwork seems completely unethical and inhumane.

I know that this is a pedigree dog forum but most people here surely have the compassion not to kill a dog just because it doesn't look like their ideal of a perfect dog.

Looks shouldn't Kill

Funny, I got the impression that m-sass was meaning that if you choose to own a dog that resembles a restricted breed, be prepared for the worst. Please QUOTE m-sass in future, because I do believe you are twisting her/his words and reading into something that hasn't been written.

No, he has said as much in a number of threads

My question is what about the person who bought a lab x staffy from the pound before the rules and now has a dog that fits the registered description?

According to the laws, and previous examples, if the dog is judged to be a pitbull or crossbred, he will be euthanased. No matter what he has done or not done.

That is what is wrong with the laws.

A fox terrier killed a child - in Victoria - I think. So, should all small, short haired white and black or white and brown dogs be singled out and euthed?

[Zhou Xuanyao]

You are not fighting to save certain breeds at all as the dogs people are fighting over are all BYB's of no specific breed as such that have no recognised standard.

APBT's, one of the 'dogs' people are fighting over, are a specific breed - APBT :laugh:

Perhaps I'm missing something (or not). They're not recognised by the ANKC; big whoop, nor are a great deal of other breeds which have standards in other registries around the world (not that recognition by a registry, working or otherwise determines whether or not a given breed exists).

[Dame Aussie]

You are not fighting to save certain breeds at all as the dogs people are fighting over are all BYB's of no specific breed as such that have no recognised standard.

APBT's, one of the 'dogs' people are fighting over, are a specific breed - APBT :laugh:

Perhaps I'm missing something (or not). They're not recognised by the ANKC; big whoop, nor are a great deal of other breeds which have standards in other registries around the world (not that recognition by a registry, working or otherwise determines whether or not a given breed exists).

Exactly.

As I said earlier the ANKC are not the only registry and plenty of breeds aren't recognized. The APBT has been around for yonks and used to be used as a service dog in the military etc. They are working dogs first and foremost and loyal, clever, gentle dogs. Fantastic with kids.

Maybe people who think they're all just a bomb waiting to go off should do some research and meet some well bred dogs.

Making them illegal only means the good breeders are out of the game and the BYBs step in. They have created what they were trying to avoid!

[TheCheekyMonster]

You are not fighting to save certain breeds at all as the dogs people are fighting over are all BYB's of no specific breed as such that have no recognised standard.

APBT's, one of the 'dogs' people are fighting over, are a specific breed - APBT :laugh:

Perhaps I'm missing something (or not). They're not recognised by the ANKC; big whoop, nor are a great deal of other breeds which have standards in other registries around the world (not that recognition by a registry, working or otherwise determines whether or not a given breed exists).

Exactly.

As I said earlier the ANKC are not the only registry and plenty of breeds aren't recognized. The APBT has been around for yonks and used to be used as a service dog in the military etc. They are working dogs first and foremost and loyal, clever, gentle dogs. Fantastic with kids.

Maybe people who think they're all just a bomb waiting to go off should do some research and meet some well bred dogs.

Making them illegal only means the good breeders are out of the game and the BYBs step in. They have created what they were trying to avoid!

I always take Nala to shows with us, she is a good ambassador for the breed and 9 times out of 10 we have a dalmatian and a APBT in the same crate peoples minded are set thinking and questioning what they think they know about the breed.... when we take her for a walk around the venue 9 times out of 10 we are fronted with barking dogs she will not react (99%) of the time and I think thats a pretty darn good effort for any breed, especially one that has been given the image of "dangerous"......its all about education.

[Dame Aussie]

You are not fighting to save certain breeds at all as the dogs people are fighting over are all BYB's of no specific breed as such that have no recognised standard.

APBT's, one of the 'dogs' people are fighting over, are a specific breed - APBT :laugh:

Perhaps I'm missing something (or not). They're not recognised by the ANKC; big whoop, nor are a great deal of other breeds which have standards in other registries around the world (not that recognition by a registry, working or otherwise determines whether or not a given breed exists).

Exactly.

As I said earlier the ANKC are not the only registry and plenty of breeds aren't recognized. The APBT has been around for yonks and used to be used as a service dog in the military etc. They are working dogs first and foremost and loyal, clever, gentle dogs. Fantastic with kids.

Maybe people who think they're all just a bomb waiting to go off should do some research and meet some well bred dogs.

Making them illegal only means the good breeders are out of the game and the BYBs step in. They have created what they were trying to avoid!

I always take Nala to shows with us, she is a good ambassador for the breed and 9 times out of 10 we have a dalmatian and a APBT in the same crate peoples minded are set thinking and questioning what they think they know about the breed.... when we take her for a walk around the venue 9 times out of 10 we are fronted with barking dogs she will not react (99%) of the time and I think thats a pretty darn good effort for any breed, especially one that has been given the image of "dangerous"......its all about education.

Good on you, Nala is exactly the type of ambassador we need and a great example of what lovely dogs APBT's are when raised properly, as with any dog.

Plus she's ultra gorgeous :laugh:

[TheCheekyMonster]

You are not fighting to save certain breeds at all as the dogs people are fighting over are all BYB's of no specific breed as such that have no recognised standard.

APBT's, one of the 'dogs' people are fighting over, are a specific breed - APBT :laugh:

Perhaps I'm missing something (or not). They're not recognised by the ANKC; big whoop, nor are a great deal of other breeds which have standards in other registries around the world (not that recognition by a registry, working or otherwise determines whether or not a given breed exists).

Exactly.

As I said earlier the ANKC are not the only registry and plenty of breeds aren't recognized. The APBT has been around for yonks and used to be used as a service dog in the military etc. They are working dogs first and foremost and loyal, clever, gentle dogs. Fantastic with kids.

Maybe people who think they're all just a bomb waiting to go off should do some research and meet some well bred dogs.

Making them illegal only means the good breeders are out of the game and the BYBs step in. They have created what they were trying to avoid!

I always take Nala to shows with us, she is a good ambassador for the breed and 9 times out of 10 we have a dalmatian and a APBT in the same crate peoples minded are set thinking and questioning what they think they know about the breed.... when we take her for a walk around the venue 9 times out of 10 we are fronted with barking dogs she will not react (99%) of the time and I think thats a pretty darn good effort for any breed, especially one that has been given the image of "dangerous"......its all about education.

Good on you, Nala is exactly the type of ambassador we need and a great example of what lovely dogs APBT's are when raised properly, as with any dog.

Plus she's ultra gorgeous :laugh:

Hahaha its pretty funny when people ask for a pat and she does the massive bum wiggle and droopy eyes like "Thats right people praise me" hahah people dont expect it and that is what I love about her and others like her, they take a square and put a few dints in their perspective of what a dangerous dog is, I just dont get it, killing someone for their colour is racist but killing a dog for its head size is required?

Edited July 26, 2012 by TheCheekyMonster

[m-sass]

The ANKC is opposed to breed specific legislation

Really.........why won't they recognise the APBT......sound's like they are practicing BSL to me?

Regulate Dog Breeders. Breeders play an important role in the temperament of the dogs they produce and sell. Irresponsible breeding plays a very important role as the mating of two dogs with poor and/or unacceptable temperaments will no doubt result in puppies with unstable temperaments. Moreover, if irresponsible breeders do not screen the individuals they sell their dogs to, you have the potential combination of ill-breed dogs in the hands of irresponsible owners. A disaster in the making.

Yes that's a good idea

My question is what about the person who bought a lab x staffy from the pound before the rules and now has a dog that fits the registered description?

The pound should be responsible enough to know the laws and be in loop of knowing where these things are heading, the spotight has been on the Pitbull for 20 years. Pitbull look a likes have been declared before long before these recent laws with restrictions imposed on them.

yea its pretty disturbing isnt it! that old mans dog clearly looked like a labx even though his dog is not a dangerous dog who knows the legal fees he now needs to pay in order to just get his dog back absolute pigs!

Who's faults that??. The old man could have avoided all of that distress by choosing breed that isn't banned, it still boils down to choices

Edited July 27, 2012 by m-sass

[m-sass]

Gameness in a dog is a trait I consider as an uncontrollable state of active aggression without fear of consequence.

Just as i suspected, you don't understand what the term gameness actually means but you go around spouting about how the gameness in certain breeds is causing attacks, which is a load of nonsense. A large dog attacking a small dog does not show any level of gameness imo. Gameness is the willingness to win no matter what the odds, and it doesn't just relate to fighting.

No matter what the odds is the same as without fear of consequence, I am well aware of what gameness is between a dog that has it the one's who haven't

[Ronda]

The Australian National Kennel Council Limited and its Member Bodies support legislation which seeks to establish objective and clear criteria for determining whether a dog, irrespective of its breed, is dangerous. We also support action for controlling dogs which are proven to be dangerous according to that criteria. We will not support legislation which determines the "dangerousness" of a dog on the basis of breed alone

Straight from the Australian National Kennel Council website.

http://www.ankc.org.au/About-ANKC/DANGEROUS-DOGS-CONTROL-LEGISLATION.aspx

My guess as to why they don't recognize it is because the government wont let them. I don't believe they recognize any of the other dogs on the "dangerous breeds list" either.

And as for the old man in the video. He did pick a breed that isn't banned. He picked what looked to be a lab cross.

[Cat]

1343395681[/url]' post='5912321']

My question is what about the person who bought a lab x staffy from the pound before the rules and now has a dog that fits the registered description?

The pound should be responsible enough to know the laws and be in loop of knowing where these things are heading, the spotight has been on the Pitbull for 20 years. Pitbull look a likes have been declared before long before these recent laws with restrictions imposed on them.

If someone adopted their dog five or ten years ago the pound should have seen it coming? Get real.