Coroner Calls For Laws On Breeding Restricted Breeds

[Cosmolo]

But steamboat, what should people do who adopted cross breed dogs with no known parentage prior to the introduction of the laws? What do they do NOW. They didn't do anything illegal, they had no way of knowing the dog they bought may match some standard in the future. How do they deal with it now?

[Aidan3]

I must apologise.

I always thought all opinions were valid.

Sorry.

Sorry I was wrong.

Whoever gave you the idea that all opinions were valid? Some opinions are indefensible, others are dangerous, others are pointless or benign.

Just one more thing.

Everyone knows parentage can be determined by D.N.A. testing. That rousting was a no brainer.

However, that is not what I was saying.

D.N.A. testing can not determine the breed, or multiple breeds, of a dog.

Some do believe this is possible & offer advice to that effect.

Not everyone knows what can and cannot be determined by DNA testing and you were not 'rousted'. You attempted to straw-man my argument to which I responded appropriately.

Now your job is done & crushed individual thought you can all retire to your campfire & let rip with a rousing rendition of Kumbaya

Try not to take it personally. Individuality is to be applauded but not for it's own sake.

[Salukifan]

DNA can only prove parentage IF the parents are known. That leaves quite a few dogs out in the cold.

It is extremely difficult to prove a negative. How can I prove that my unpapered, rescue dog is NOT a pitbull. DNA sure won't do it.

But all of this is a crock anyway. BSL doesn't make communities safer. End of story. What makes communities safer is educating dog owners and penalising those who fail to live up to their responsibilities. Sadly a prohibition on a few breeds is a hell of a lot cheaper and gives the uneducated the very real misapphrension that politicians are actually doing something to solve the problem of dangerous dogs.

[Aidan3]

DNA can only prove parentage IF the parents are known. That leaves quite a few dogs out in the cold.

Yes, I really only brought that up to make the point that even if we could provide conclusive evidence that the dog was not a pitbull or pitbull cross, the dog would still be destroyed for looking like a pitbull cross. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous.

[steamboat]

I must apologise.

I always thought all opinions were valid.

Sorry.

Sorry I was wrong.

Whoever gave you the idea that all opinions were valid? Some opinions are indefensible, others are dangerous, others are pointless or benign.

Just one more thing.

Everyone knows parentage can be determined by D.N.A. testing. That rousting was a no brainer.

However, that is not what I was saying.

D.N.A. testing can not determine the breed, or multiple breeds, of a dog.

Some do believe this is possible & offer advice to that effect.

Not everyone knows what can and cannot be determined by DNA testing and you were not 'rousted'. You attempted to straw-man my argument to which I responded appropriately.

Now your job is done & crushed individual thought you can all retire to your campfire & let rip with a rousing rendition of Kumbaya

Try not to take it personally. Individuality is to be applauded but not for it's own sake.

I promised myself I'd walk from your clique dominated charade.

But hey,

I.M.O

Your response was a reaction to an alternative view you don't agree with, refuse to contemplate, & rejected because you have tunnel vision.

Maybe it's time to face up to the fact all your other strategies have failed, dismally.

Because....."If you always do do you've always done- you will always get what you've always got".

Here we have a recommendation, from a coroner no less, to enact laws to make owners legally obliged to provide proof of breed for a dog i.ded as a ''dog of interest'' & you & your clique go off tangents to disparage & reject a different wrinkle that may just help you achieve your objectives.

Targeting the bogan owners might just take the heat off the "type" & help the process of repeal run it's course out of the public eye.

Despite posts to the contrary, the public aren't on your side.

Being in denial doesn't help.

[Aidan3]

I would encourage intelligent alternatives, but not politically motivated pandering.

Not agreeing with you is not the same as having 'tunnel vision' or belonging to a clique. If you can't come up with a reasoned rebuttal, throwing insults around won't make your argument any more compelling.

[Dame Aussie]

I would encourage intelligent alternatives, but not politically motivated pandering.

Not agreeing with you is not the same as having 'tunnel vision' or belonging to a clique. If you can't come up with a reasoned rebuttal, throwing insults around won't make your argument any more compelling.

I've just hit ignore :laugh:

[Salukifan]

Your response was a reaction to an alternative view you don't agree with, refuse to contemplate, & rejected because you have tunnel vision.

Maybe it's time to face up to the fact all your other strategies have failed, dismally.

Because....."If you always do do you've always done- you will always get what you've always got".

Here we have a recommendation, from a coroner no less, to enact laws to make owners legally obliged to provide proof of breed for a dog i.ded as a ''dog of interest'' & you & your clique go off tangents to disparage & reject a different wrinkle that may just help you achieve your objectives.

Targeting the bogan owners might just take the heat off the "type" & help the process of repeal run it's course out of the public eye.

Despite posts to the contrary, the public aren't on your side.

Being in denial doesn't help.

I'm sorry. Which part of "legislation restricitng dog breeds doesn't make communities safer" aren't you grasping?

What's always been done is BSL and what's always been achieved is squat. There IS a working alternative but it is more resource intensive than a vote in Parliament.

And quite frankly what the hell does a coroner know about dog behaviour???

Edited October 17, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[steamboat]

I would encourage intelligent alternatives, but not politically motivated pandering.

Not agreeing with you is not the same as having 'tunnel vision' or belonging to a clique. If you can't come up with a reasoned rebuttal, throwing insults around won't make your argument any more compelling.

It isn't just a case of disagreeing. Disagreement isn't a problem.

It is the dismissing opinions you don't agree with as not being valid. That's arrogant.

Aussie3's solution?

Hit the ignore button.

Block out those with differing opinions.

Live life in a bubble.

The opinion, btw, just in case you have forgotten in all the hype that you generated, was agreeing with a recommendation contained in a coroners submission after the attack & mauling death of young child by an unrestrained dog of dubious heritage.

Fine...The worth of childs life?

$11,000?....walk away.

Get another dog.

Tunnel vision?

Damn right tunnel vision.

Playing the insults card is the last card in the deck.

[megan_]

But steamboat, what should people do who adopted cross breed dogs with no known parentage prior to the introduction of the laws? What do they do NOW. They didn't do anything illegal, they had no way of knowing the dog they bought may match some standard in the future. How do they deal with it now?

Asking questions is crushing independent thought!

[BlackJaq]

As Pav Lova said earlier, anyone who buys a bull breed without papers or a bull breed cross is an idiot.

I would add to that, or does so for reasons that don't come under the category of '' loving family companion''

Your last line is an illogical & ignorant assumption, typical applied by net bullies to anyone who disagrees with them.

My opinion is as valid as yours & as for not having a clue, I seriously doubt you could tell me anything I don't already know.

So in your opinion anybody who buys a working dog for any reason other than "loving family companion" is an idiot? Really...? Wow, it seems there are a lot of people growing your meat right now who own sheep dogs and are complete idiots.... Not to mention people with LGDs, working gun dogs or any other kind of working dog who was not primarily acquired as a "loving family dog"

So who is the one making the illogical and ignorant assumptions now?

[moosmum]

Fine,You have a different opinion.You are the one accusing every one else of tunnel vision for not agreeing with you. :laugh:

But you still haven't answered the question just how a person can prove their dog has no pittbull breeding.Dogs that come the attention of the authorities haven't always done so because they or their owners have done some thing wrong.Far from it.

The coroners recommendation is a means of broadening B.S.L to include anything unknown.The way to prevent dog attacks? If in doubt,kill it. Not based on the behaviour of the dog,not based on the owners lack of responsibility or knowledge of specific dog management,but based purely on fear (of what might happen) and ignorance (of how to avoid it)

I.M.O a witch hunt.

Incidentaly,there are many many dogs with no bull breed whatsoever in their breeding that are at risk with this legislation based on looks and fear.Untill the real causes of dog attacks are addressed and tackled,the legislation only only increases the fear and hysteria to no real end.

Edited October 17, 2012 by moosmum

[Aidan3]

It isn't just a case of disagreeing. Disagreement isn't a problem.

It is the dismissing opinions you don't agree with as not being valid. That's arrogant.

Part of reasoned debate is to provide a counter-argument. It is entirely reasonable for others to point out weaknesses and problems in your argument. It is up to you to validate your own opinions with a reasoned argument in return. You seem to think your opinion is valid regardless of any flaws.

Maybe start by answering Cosmolo's concerns? Do you think it's reasonable that responsible dog owners such as Cosmolo should have to live in fear of losing their dog for the sake of a few 'bogans' (as you put it)?

What about my 'burden of proof' concerns? Should we apply this to other areas of the law? If I wish to accuse someone of theft, should they be required to prove that they have not stolen? Is the small matter of innocent people being found guilty worth it to put a few 'bogans' off stealing? Pretty soon we'll have prisons full of innocent people, but at least the bogans will show a bit of restraint. It's worth it to not have to worry about actual theft, right?

The opinion, btw, just in case you have forgotten in all the hype that you generated, was agreeing with a recommendation contained in a coroners submission after the attack & mauling death of young child by an unrestrained dog of dubious heritage.

Fine...The worth of childs life?

$11,000?....walk away.

Get another dog.

Yes. This is ENTIRELY unacceptable, I agree. That the coroner should seek to bolster laws which, after decades of failure all over the world, have been demonstrated not to improve public safety is terrifying. You would think that this would be a wake up call to legislators to get off their bums and inform themselves of the solutions that do actually improve public safety - rather than just giving the ignorant majority something to froth over.

A child died and nothing effective was done.

[mantis]

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

So are people like me who just adopted a rescue "Bull Breed" a fool? Such narrow minded views, especially on a dog lovers forum give me the irrits.

[Dame Aussie]

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

So are people like me who just adopted a rescue "Bull Breed" a fool? Such narrow minded views, especially on a dog lovers forum give me the irrits.

Oh didn't you know mantis, you're just meant to let the bull breed rescues die.

[Salukifan]

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

So are people like me who just adopted a rescue "Bull Breed" a fool? Such narrow minded views, especially on a dog lovers forum give me the irrits.

I think it behoves those rehoming such dogs in BSL states to protect both dogs and new owners by getting them assesssed.

Removes foolishness from the equation. :) There are options beyond letting them die that don't bring heartbreak and legal bills to new owners.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[BlackJaq]

I'm not sure how you could possibly make them safe by assessing them? Assessing them for what?

Unless they have AmStaff papers they are subject to visual identification as Pits in Vic and can be killed.,

Not sure exactly how the other states are handling things at the moment but there is no way of making any bully bred dog safe as far as I know? Unless you have AmStaff papers that is, so that leaves even purebred English Staffies, Bull Terriers and any other dog that looks a certain way a potential cadidate, even if they are ANKC registered so owning only papered dogs does NOT even make them safe after-all!

The only thing possibly keeping them safe might be maybe keeping them out of sight :p Which is what we are doing with ours. Only take them to town for vet appointments or every now and again to a private residence with fences that stop people looking in.

So it seems the only options that rescues have is to not re-home potential candidates who match the guidelines to identifying a "Pitbull". It wouldn't only be actual bully breeds that are affected, any short haired, muscular lab x, Kelpie x, gundog x or greyhound x etc might be identified as a pit, so owners who genuinely do not even own a bully breed might experience the same issues?

Edited October 18, 2012 by BlackJaq

[Salukifan]

I'm not sure how you could possibly make them safe by assessing them? Assessing them for what?

Unless they have AmStaff papers they are subject to visual identification as Pits in Vic and can be killed.,

Breed.

[melzawelza]

I'm not sure how you could possibly make them safe by assessing them? Assessing them for what?

Unless they have AmStaff papers they are subject to visual identification as Pits in Vic and can be killed.,

Not sure exactly how the other states are handling things at the moment but there is no way of making any bully bred dog safe as far as I know? Unless you have AmStaff papers that is, so that leaves even purebred English Staffies, Bull Terriers and any other dog that looks a certain way a potential cadidate, even if they are ANKC registered so owning only papered dogs does NOT even make them safe after-all!

The only thing possibly keeping them safe might be maybe keeping them out of sight :p Which is what we are doing with ours. Only take them to town for vet appointments or every now and again to a private residence with fences that stop people looking in.

So it seems the only options that rescues have is to not re-home potential candidates who match the guidelines to identifying a "Pitbull". It wouldn't only be actual bully breeds that are affected, any short haired, muscular lab x, Kelpie x, gundog x or greyhound x etc might be identified as a pit, so owners who genuinely do not even own a bully breed might experience the same issues?

Very true for VIC. Here in NSW we can have our rescue dogs breed assessed by an official breed assessor and cleared as not being restricted breed before rehoming. This is an official process and the assessors decision is final.

Of course, they can be assessed as restricted but it doesn't happen too often. They may come back as a cross if a restricted breed and it they pass a temp test they are therefore safe.

[BlackJaq]

Ah I see. But how does the person doing the assessing decide whether they are restricted breeds or not? Do they use a visual inspection? Or measurements like Vic?

I really feel the entire idea is ludicrous. How much is charged for such an assessment? Rescue is not cheap as it is unfortunately

Also, do the dogs receive a piece of paper clearing them of being a restricted breed? Is this valid for the rest of the dog's life?

How come they are not valid in Vic? :/

Edited October 18, 2012 by BlackJaq