Coroner Calls For Laws On Breeding Restricted Breeds

[steamboat]

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?

Well there you go.

I didn't realise primary producers were using bull breeds as working dogs?

maybe you should reread the post & see what it actually said.

Sorry to spoil a good old fashioned beat up.

[Plan B]

I'm getting in early placing bets that steamboat is m-sass reincarnated.

I don't think anyone's game enough to bet against you there.

[steamboat]

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? :/

I.M.O.....which isn't valid of course. Mainly because it addresses the problem head on, at the source....the owners/breeders who are doing the wrong thing.

the same owners who simply surrender their dogs to the needle & go & get another one. The breeders who are milling puppies & supplying a thriving black market.

Once a dog is declared to be a restricted breed the onus is on the owner to prove otherwise.

Give them seven days & if nothing is forthcoming charge them with keeping a restricted breed contrary to the legislation & fine them $5k for a first offence.

$10k & six months in the nick for a second & so on & so forth.

Now go your hardest.....care factor zero.

[steamboat]

I'm getting in early placing bets that steamboat is m-sass reincarnated.

I don't think anyone's game enough to bet against you there.

I'll have as much of that as you can afford.

[steamboat]

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.

What are the solutions that will actually improve public safety of which you speak I wonder? Do you have a valid opinion that hasn't yet been tried?

The story so far.....

Blame the deed not the breed?.....fail.

Ban certain breeds from importation....fail

Impose restricted ownership of APBT & their crosses....fail

Compulsory desexing & definitive requirements for the housing & handling of the restricted breed....fail

Restrictions on the breeding/selling/trading/giving away the restricted breed....fail

How about criminal legislation against the owners/handlers/breeders of declared restricted breeds that contravene/ignore/disregard the regulations for owning them?

Hey.... Now there's a plan.

At least it's worth a try.

Then again. Maybe not. Why not just muddle along with the same old same old & nail down the lid so there is no hope left.

BTW,

People charged with theft are obliged to prove their innocence.

They have to answer the charge & refute the evidence.

Man owns dog I.Ded as a restricted breed by panel of acknowledged certified breed experts. Let him produce evidence it isn't or face criminal charges.

I did consider answering Cosmolo at the time, however I initially thought it was a troll, a hypothetical. not worthy of the time. Then I considered even if it wasn't, BSL has been legislated for so long either he knew the risks at the time or his dogs are getting on in age & if he hasn't been doing the ''bogan'' up until now he never will & his dogs are home free.

As are all the dogs with loving responsible owners. ( I know three families with pitties btw.)

I still reckon he was just stirring the pot, as are all the other similar comments.

The almost sure fire solution to the I.D conundrum is the Pav Lova hypothetical. Only pure breed ANKC registered dogs allowed.

Although I'm certain he/she doesn't seriously advocate such a scenario, but rather he/she is justifiably concerned at the flack his/her breed is copping because of the enormous number of "xstaffies" suddenly on the scene since APBT was banned.

Staffy bite statistics have rocket from nowhere to #1 since the restrictions have been in place.

His/her advice about buying/rescuing a bull breed without papers is sound advice & anyone so inclined should give it careful consideration.

It could have a heartbreaking finale.

Edited October 18, 2012 by steamboat

[melzawelza]

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? :/

It's done via a visual inspection but there are absolutely no guidelines for what constitutes a restricted breed visually in NSW. The assessors are dogs NSW judges. The whole premise is ridiculous but it does mean that we can definitively ensure dogs are not the targets of restricted breed legislation after rehoming.

The assessment costs $50.

Yes the dog receives a piece of paper stating that it is NOT restricted and it's valid for the rest of its life. The assessment process and outcome is also marked on the dogs microchip so it is immediately accessable by Council officers even if they lose their paperwork.

If its declared a pit x by the assessor and goes on to pass a temp test it also gets a piece of paper clearing it. It is expressly stated in the legislation that a breed assessor's decision is final.

It's not valid in VIC because each state has its own legislation. These dogs are only safe in NSW.

ETA: and can we all please please ignore M-sass? I'm sick of him derailing all the threads. If we don't feed him, he won't keep posting.

Edited October 18, 2012 by melzawelza

[Cosmolo]

It's not a hypothetical at all and i am not a troll. My dogs are real- take a look at my signature. I adopted them when there were restrictions about pure pit bull terriers. My dogs are certainly NOT pure pit bull terriers. What they are unfortunately are dogs that meet this ridiculous standard- introduced VERY recently. The dogs are 5 and 7 years old- shame i didn't have my magic wand or telepathy to see that this standard was going to be introduced.

And it doesn't matter if i am not 'doing the bogan' as you call it. There is no requirement in the standard for the government to consider bogan behaviour or status- it's about visual identification of dogs.

And i am a she.

[Salukifan]

BTW,

People charged with theft are obliged to prove their innocence.

They have to answer the charge & refute the evidence.

Man owns dog I.Ded as a restricted breed by panel of acknowledged certified breed experts. Let him produce evidence it isn't or face criminal charges.

Congratulations.

You've just proven you know very very little about law.

People charged with theft are obliged to prove squat. It is for the crown to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused doesn't even have to GIVE evidence if they choose not to.

Next...

[steamboat]

BTW,

People charged with theft are obliged to prove their innocence.

They have to answer the charge & refute the evidence.

Man owns dog I.Ded as a restricted breed by panel of acknowledged certified breed experts. Let him produce evidence it isn't or face criminal charges.

Congratulations.

You've just proven you know very very little about law.

People charged with theft are obliged to prove squat. It is for the crown to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused doesn't even have to GIVE evidence if they choose not to.

Next...

Sit squat,

Don't contest the evidence.

Do the time.

Stupid statement.

[Salukifan]

Sit squat,

Don't contest the evidence.

Do the time.

Stupid statement.

Yeah, right. Over to you Rumpole - I bow to your superior knowledge of the legal system.

[steamboat]

There is no requirement in the standard for the government to consider bogan behaviour or status-

And i am a she.

Get with the programme.

That is the subject that has the vigilantes on the case.

In my "non" valid opinion, it should be.

Secondly.

Why am I not surprised

[steamboat]

Sit squat,

Don't contest the evidence.

Do the time.

Stupid statement.

Yeah, right. Over to you Rumpole - I bow to your superior knowledge of the legal system.

Common sense, m'lud, just common sense.

One can't incriminate oneself by being silent.

Nor can one defend oneself.

[Aidan3]

What are the solutions that will actually improve public safety of which you speak I wonder? Do you have a valid opinion that hasn't yet been tried?

Actually I do, but even if I didn't do you think it's sensible to continue with a failed approach? There is a long history of BSL around the world, with even more strict laws than Victoria, and it does not improve public safety. The AVA has put forward this case strongly.

This site gives an overview of one approach which has been an outstanding success: http://www.stopcanineprofiling.com/calgary.keys.php

BTW,

People charged with theft are obliged to prove their innocence.

They have to answer the charge & refute the evidence.

They don't have to do any such thing. If they choose to refute evidence, that evidence must be brought forward by the complainant not the defendant. Can you see why this is vastly different to what the coroner has proposed and why it would be such a gross injustice?

I did consider answering Cosmolo at the time, however I initially thought it was a troll

Cosmolo, who has over 8000 posts here? OK then...

[Aphra]

For someone who was complaining about internet bullying because I said I don't think you know what you are talking about, you see remarkably happy make personal comments about people you know nothing about. Cosmolo doesn't need me to defend her; the extent of her knowledge, training and experience with dogs of all breeds and kinds. The fact that you feel free to make personal attacks not on the content of Cosmolo's post but on her as a person says quite a lot about your capacity to argue a rational case.

I'm not answering you in any attempt to change your mind, since that's clearly a fruitless endeavour, but I would hate anyone reading this thread thinking that you're actually making a good argument for your position.

What are the solutions that will actually improve public safety of which you speak I wonder? Do you have a valid opinion that hasn't yet been tried?

The story so far.....

Blame the deed not the breed?.....fail.

Ban certain breeds from importation....fail

Impose restricted ownership of APBT & their crosses....fail

Compulsory desexing & definitive requirements for the housing & handling of the restricted breed....fail

Restrictions on the breeding/selling/trading/giving away the restricted breed....fail

Banning four restricted breeds from importation has clearly worked since they have not been imported. There's no good evidence that there were dogs of four of the restricted breeds in Australia before the importation bans went into effect anyway. So if you're suggesting that their is a spate of people being injured by Japanese Tosa or Fila, you're looking at a different set of statistics to everyone else.

APBT xs are not restricted breeds in the current restricted breed legislation. The legislation says that dogs which fit the "type" of one of the five restricted breeds may be seized by council. If you have an APBT crossed with a Collie and it looks more like a Collie the legislation isn't interested. The restricted breed legislation is on the DPI's website if you'd like to read it.

I'm not sure why you assume that opposing restricted ownership of APBTs has failed, since there's no sensible measure of success. Fatal dogs attacks on people are so rare that the only way of actually preventing them altogether would be to ban all dogs. The rate of fatal attacks by dogs on humans has remained at the rate of 0-2 a year for three decades; the introduction of BSL has not affected any change on those statistics. And those rare attacks are by an whole raft of different breeds of dog and cross-breeds of dog. And Pits or bull breeds of any kind are not heavily represented in the statistics. Dog breed identification is also notoriously unreliable.

The point is that for dogs which kill or seriously injure humans, the commonality is not the breed of dog, but the circumstances in which the dog is kept and managed. Entire males, dogs which are kept chained and dogs which are resident as opposed to family dogs (dogs kept in backyards on chains, dogs which live entirely in kennels, camp dogs and etc). This is not my opinion, this is based on a very considerable body of good research over a couple of decades. If you have not already read the research, you might wish to read the Australian Veterinary Association's "Dangerous dogs - a sensible solution". There are several pages of references and useful statistics.

http://www.ava.com.au/sites/default/files/AVA_website/pdfs/Dangerous%20dogs%20-%20a%20sensible%20solution%20FINAL.pdf

BTW,

People charged with theft are obliged to prove their innocence.

No they are not. Under the Australian legal system, the police must produce evidence which proves, beyond all reasonable doubt, that a person convicted of a crime, has, in fact, committed that crime. The basis of our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty". The defendant does not have to prove innocence, the prosecution has to prove guilt. That is why we have a trial by jury for serious crimes.

Staffy bite statistics have rocket from nowhere to #1 since the restrictions have been in place.

I have no idea where you are getting your information from. For example, In 2010/11 in NSW Staffordshire Bull Terriers were responsible for 650 attacks on humans and/or animals (these figures lump together all attacks including those which result in only minor injury).. But that represents only 0.9 of dog attacks because Staffords are very popular breed of dog. There are more of them than of many other breeds. These figures haven't changed much over the last couple of years.

[Cosmolo]

Do you care to answer my question now that you are aware i am not a troll?

And what do you mean by "Why am i not surprised"? That i am female?

[steamboat]

What are the solutions that will actually improve public safety of which you speak I wonder? Do you have a valid opinion that hasn't yet been tried?

Actually I do, but even if I didn't do you think it's sensible to continue with a failed approach? There is a long history of BSL around the world, with even more strict laws than Victoria, and it does not improve public safety. The AVA has put forward this case strongly.

This site gives an overview of one approach which has been an outstanding success: http://www.stopcanineprofiling.com/calgary.keys.php

BTW,

People charged with theft are obliged to prove their innocence.

They have to answer the charge & refute the evidence.

They don't have to do any such thing. If they choose to refute evidence, that evidence must be brought forward by the complainant not the defendant. Can you see why this is vastly different to what the coroner has proposed and why it would be such a gross injustice?

I did consider answering Cosmolo at the time, however I initially thought it was a troll

Cosmolo, who has over 8000 posts here? OK then...

I'm sure the Chols would would be more likely to agree with the suggestion.

Aswould the general public who pushed the BSL upon us in the first place.

8ooo posts?

wow.....Am I supposed to salute or something?....Phone a friend?...Am I supposed to be impressed?

I aqm actually surprised that members of the tribe seem to be hell bent protecting the very people who have brought about the BSL while they kid themselves they are searching for solution to end it.

I genuinely think you are out of touch with reality.

I have no sympathy for those who flaunt the law & then thumb their noses at their victims.

Hypothetical.

A human had chases a family into their house, snatches away a baby & takes her life by savaging her with a semi sharp serated weapon?

Not Guilty your honour.

I'll just sit here quietly, say nothing, you lot go your hardest!

Give me a break.

[mantis]

I'm getting in early placing bets that steamboat is m-sass reincarnated.

I don't think anyone's game enough to bet against you there.

I'll have as much of that as you can afford.

Yeah, OK Dougie, m-sass, plus your many other aliases over the years.

[Cosmolo]

You still haven't answered my question.

And of course you're not meant to be impressed- but a large number of posts on a forum suggests that the person is not a troll.

Flaunt the law and thumb their nose at their victims? Who do you think is doing that?

I strongly believe that people who own dogs that commit offences should be punished- severely. But pre-emptively going after dogs that look a certain way (we're not even talking particular breeds here- just dogs that fit a set of physical characteristics) does NOT work and punishes people AND dogs who have NOT done anything wrong.

[Salukifan]

SB:

I aqm actually surprised that members of the tribe seem to be hell bent protecting the very people who have brought about the BSL while they kid themselves they are searching for solution to end it.

I genuinely think you are out of touch with reality.

Ah, the first allegation of "group think". Here we go.

The only people I am interested in protecting are those who own dogs that pose no threat to society but who, by virtue of half arsed, ineffective legislation now find themselves with dogs on the wrong side of BSL.

No BSL here in the ACT. You'd think it would be a hotspot for serious dog attacks but it simply isn't. Go figure.

Do yourself a favour before you make a complete goose of yourself and go and read about BSL in Canada and the contrast taken by Calgary - it will show you what REALLY works to keep dangerous dogs out of society.

[Aidan3]

8ooo posts?

wow.....Am I supposed to salute or something?....Phone a friend?...Am I supposed to be impressed?

No, you're supposed to use your brain. If someone has 8000 posts, the odds of them being a troll are slim to none. You might call it 'evidence'.

I have no sympathy for those who flaunt the law & then thumb their noses at their victims.

Such as your three pitbull owning friends? Or have they turned their dogs in?

Hypothetical.

A human had chases a family into their house, snatches away a baby & takes her life by savaging her with a semi sharp serated weapon?

Not Guilty your honour.

I'll just sit here quietly, say nothing, you lot go your hardest!

What point do you imagine you are making with this hypothetical? We should ban semi-sharp knives? Make anyone who owns a semi-sharp serrated knife a suspect until they can prove that it wasn't them?

Here's a challenge that might provide you with some badly needed insight. Prove that you aren't a troll.