BlackJaq Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) I also can't believe that the "autopsy" of the dog was EXTERNAL ONLY. Maybe they suspected that something may have been found and decided it would not help their case to find something OTHER than the breed that might have caused the behaviour... The entire description of the APBT breed was pretty much making it clear they have never even looked at the breed standard in other countries where the breed is recognized and legal... Edited October 12, 2012 by BlackJaq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumabaar Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 The AVA's response http://www.ava.com.au/mediarelease/response-coroners-recommendation-mandatory-reporting-restricted-breeds-vets Response to Coroner's recommendation of mandatory reporting of restricted breeds by vetsFriday, 28 September 2012 Download this media release as a PDF Following the inquest into the death of Ayen Chol, the Coroner today delivered her findings and recommended mandatory reporting of restricted breeds by veterinarians. The death of Ayen Chol was a terrible tragedy. The AVA believes that keeping the public safe from aggressive dogs, regardless of their breed, is very important and requires a coordinated approach to a complex issue. The AVA does not, however, support the Coroner’s recommendation of mandatory reporting of restricted breeds by veterinarians, for the following reasons: It’s not possible to definitively identify a Pit Bull Terrier. DNA testing of pit bulls is not conclusive and research has shown that breed specific identification by visual characteristics is notoriously unreliable The Veterinary Practitioners’ Registration Board of Victoria has been very clear in its advice to practitioners that certification based on appearance alone would not be sufficient to meet its requirements. The AVA strongly recommends that the government investigate the approaches set out in the AVA report, Dangerous dogs – a sensible solution, based on international research and evidence. The AVA does not support Breed Specific Legislation as a strategy to reduce human injury from dog bites. The AVA also strongly believes that all dogs should receive veterinary care. Requirements such as these recommendations by the Coroner could discourage owners from seeking care for their dogs and veterinarians are very concerned that this would lead to dogs suffering needlessly. If the government persists with the current policy, the role and responsibility for identification of restricted breeds must rest with the government itself and not veterinarians. For further information and requests for interviews contact the AVA media office on (02) 9431 5062, 0439 628 898 or [email protected]. The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) is only the national association representing veterinarians in Australia. Founded in 1921, the AVA today represents 7500 members working in all areas of animal science, health and welfare. What hope do we have when the AVA continually takes this stance and is ignored?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJaq Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 None because the government seems to pointedly ignore all reason and choose the approach with the least productive outcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brookestar Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Aphra, thanks for summing it up so brilliantly. I do believe that some dogs are more head strong than others and do need better than average owners, and I do believe that pit bulls are one of those breeds, that does not however mean that all dogs of a particular breed will all be bad. Even if one could say the breed was bad, the simple fact is BSL does not work and is not working. I loved the report that someone recently posted a link to from the AVA about how to deal with dangerous dogs. We know from that what works, and at a minimum it should be tried. It has to be better than what we are currently doing. I lived around the area where that took place up until 6 months before it. No schools in the area had any form of pet education program in schools, and most had refused them and had policies in place refusing them. I moved to an area in a totally different part of the state and the opposite is in case. Not only do school children ALL have pet education programs, each and every year in primary school, preschool kids are also having it. The difference in the way children approach and interact with dogs, the way they ignore them, or ask and then interact correctly is amazing. I wish something could be done to educate there parents, but it is working with children. I would like to see it continued into secondary school to try and ensure that it is maintained. I would also love to see something done with new migrants to help them to learn to interact with dogs properly, way too many of these attacks are on people from other cultures, who often have the least amount of knowledge. Compulsory education of owners of dogs, I would like to see dog owners licenced. Not that I think that will stop everything, way too many will do what is needed to pass and then treat the animal like shit, but it has to be a start. I have noticed in recent years that many shelters are now giving some free or discount on a beginning training class and that is a start. Unforunately they are not the ones who need it most. They had the common sense to go to a shelter, and did not purchase on impulse from a pet shop and/or some backyard breeder selling them for free at a market or any other stupid situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Thanks for posting that link. Very interesting. When you read that, you get a fair idea why it happened. How horrible. However - A Pit Bull? 40kg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluedeer Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 None because the government seems to pointedly ignore all reason and choose the approach with the least productive outcome Unfortunately time and time again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steamboat Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 An opinion of a new member, not new to the world of dogs however. BSL is a very emotive issue that, IMO, will never be unanimously or harmoniously resolved. However, bad laws are still laws & I agree wholeheartedly with the coroner that the onus of breed I.D. should fall completely & absolutely on the owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 steamboat how do you propose owners identify their dogs breed or breeds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I'm getting in early placing bets that steamboat is m-sass reincarnated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steamboat Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 steamboat how do you propose owners identify their dogs breed or breeds? It would be their problem. Which would only be a problem if they came to the attention of those whose job it is to enforce the laws. Which brings me back to my original statement. Bad laws are still laws. I agree with the coroners recommendation, I think it is a good idea. that is my opinion. If you disagree, that is your opinion. Fin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huck house Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Bad laws of any sort should be challenged. BSL enacted without consulting experts is how I have convinced people who don't even like dogs to sign petitions against it . People do not want governments making bad laws based on exploiting the public's fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steamboat Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Bad laws of any sort should be challenged. BSL enacted without consulting experts is how I have convinced people who don't even like dogs to sign petitions against it . People do not want governments making bad laws based on exploiting the public's fear. B.S.L is a bad law. However, until it is repealed it is the law. Did you ask Ayen Chols family to sign your petition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Government says it's a restricted breed or cross and therefore it should be up to the owner of the animal to prove otherwise. It's easy, you buy and ANKC registered puppy or dog with corresponding microchip and you will have all the proof you need. Perhaps people should really think long and hard about what "type" of dog they purchase and where it comes from. BSL is here to stay and if you buy a bull breed cross or a dog without ANKC papers, you are a fool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huck house Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 'Government says' ...........Lost me at that . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steamboat Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 'Government says' ...........Lost me at that . Do only obey the laws that suit you? Do you obey any laws? Are you an anarchist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Government says it's a restricted breed or cross and therefore it should be up to the owner of the animal to prove otherwise. It's easy, you buy and ANKC registered puppy or dog with corresponding microchip and you will have all the proof you need. Perhaps people should really think long and hard about what "type" of dog they purchase and where it comes from. BSL is here to stay and if you buy a bull breed cross or a dog without ANKC papers, you are a fool And rescue dogs? What of people who have acquired them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda K Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 and given the latest opinions of some people on this topic, no wonder we get stuck with ridiculous laws like this - knee jerk laws to sooth people who do not have a clue, but having a law now makes them now feel safer, even though the reality is that they are no safer, as the laws have not tackled the real issue - it is the person at the other end of the lead causing the issues, not the dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steamboat Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 and given the latest opinions of some people on this topic, no wonder we get stuck with ridiculous laws like this - knee jerk laws to sooth people who do not have a clue, but having a law now makes them now feel safer, even though the reality is that they are no safer, as the laws have not tackled the real issue - it is the person at the other end of the lead causing the issues, not the dog. Which is at the heart of the coroners recommendation. Make the dog owners responsible for their choices. In my opinion, that is a perfectly sensible suggestion & I would support it being enacted into law. Pav lova has expressed an opinion. I agree with his/her opinion in theory, but would not support it being enacted into law because it would make the majority of dog owners law breakers. Most dogs will never, ever be registered with the ANKC. That would be a bad law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphra Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 No. Did you actually read the report? The Coroner's judgement relied on the assumption that there is something about Pit Bulls or Pit Bull crosses which makes them inherently dangerous. Making SOME dog owners responsible for identifying the breeds of their dogs, goes nowhere near managing the onus on ALL owners of ALL breeds of dog, to ensure that their dogs are appropriately managed and treated to minimise the risk of that dog hurting someone. It fact it gives the owners of other breeds a free pass to assume that as long as their dog is not "that breed" they don't have anything to worry about. Concentrating on one type of dog flies in the face of all the evidence-based research (evidence-based research as opposed to ill-informed opinion based on myth, supposition and anecdote) which tells us that the way dogs are kept, managed and treated much stronger indicators of their likelihood of causing harm dogs than their breed. If the Coroner had started the investigation looking at the way this dog was kept and managed, instead of eliding that evidence in favour of a breed identification based on visual evidence by one vet, she might have gone some distance toward identifying those factors which make some dogs dangerous. I would have though the fact that this dog, which the owners had had since it was a puppy, had ulcerated pressure sores, some as long as 55 mm on all its joints and hips, might have been evidence that this was not a well-looked after dog who suddenly ran amok because of breed disposition. Really, having an opinion is not the same thing as having a clue. Which is at the heart of the coroners recommendation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 No. Did you actually read the report? The Coroner's judgement relied on the assumption that there is something about Pit Bulls or Pit Bull crosses which makes them inherently dangerous. Making SOME dog owners responsible for identifying the breeds of their dogs, goes nowhere near managing the onus on ALL owners of ALL breeds of dog, to ensure that their dogs are appropriately managed and treated to minimise the risk of that dog hurting someone. It fact it gives the owners of other breeds a free pass to assume that as long as their dog is not "that breed" they don't have anything to worry about. Concentrating on one type of dog flies in the face of all the evidence-based research (evidence-based research as opposed to ill-informed opinion based on myth, supposition and anecdote) which tells us that the way dogs are kept, managed and treated much stronger indicators of their likelihood of causing harm dogs than their breed. If the Coroner had started the investigation looking at the way this dog was kept and managed, instead of eliding that evidence in favour of a breed identification based on visual evidence by one vet, she might have gone some distance toward identifying those factors which make some dogs dangerous. I would have though the fact that this dog, which the owners had had since it was a puppy, had ulcerated pressure sores, some as long as 55 mm on all its joints and hips, might have been evidence that this was not a well-looked after dog who suddenly ran amok because of breed disposition. Really, having an opinion is not the same thing as having a clue. Which is at the heart of the coroners recommendation. Exactly. Well said. 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