Coroner Calls For Laws On Breeding Restricted Breeds

[steamboat]

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.

What the coroner recommended & what I heartily agree with is the following.

"She also said the onus of proving that a dog is a restricted breed should fall on its owner and not on councils."

Which, in, my opinion, is the where the onus of ''proof'' of ''non breed'' should be levelled.

The condition of the dog is irrelevent. Excuses are irrelevent. Breed & owners responsibilty is the topic.

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.

[Aidan3]

"Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" - the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. This is a fundamental assumption of reasoned discourse in law, philosophy, and science.

Shifting the burden of proof to the defendent can be compared, without hyperbole, to a medieval 'witch hunt'; where the defendent is required to prove that they cannot perform witchcraft. Against the standard imposed by Victorian legislation, this would be very difficult and many dogs who are not pitbulls will be found to be pitbulls and crosses despite evidence to the contrary (e.g DNA proof of parentage showing dog is cross between a particular labrador and a particular boxer).

If we accept this sort of legislation and the coroners recommendations, we accept laws which are not legally, philosophically, or scientifically sound.

[steamboat]

"Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" - the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. This is a fundamental assumption of reasoned discourse in law, philosophy, and science.

Shifting the burden of proof to the defendent can be compared, without hyperbole, to a medieval 'witch hunt'; where the defendent is required to prove that they cannot perform witchcraft. Against the standard imposed by Victorian legislation, this would be very difficult and many dogs who are not pitbulls will be found to be pitbulls and crosses despite evidence to the contrary (e.g DNA proof of parentage showing dog is cross between a particular labrador and a particular boxer).

If we accept this sort of legislation and the coroners recommendations, we accept laws which are not legally, philosophically, or scientifically sound.

D.N.A alone can't accurately decipher specific breeds.

sona si latine loqueris

Edited October 17, 2012 by steamboat

[Aidan3]

"Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" - the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. This is a fundamental assumption of reasoned discourse in law, philosophy, and science.

Shifting the burden of proof to the defendent can be compared, without hyperbole, to a medieval 'witch hunt'; where the defendent is required to prove that they cannot perform witchcraft. Against the standard imposed by Victorian legislation, this would be very difficult and many dogs who are not pitbulls will be found to be pitbulls and crosses despite evidence to the contrary (e.g DNA proof of parentage showing dog is cross between a particular labrador and a particular boxer).

If we accept this sort of legislation and the coroners recommendations, we accept laws which are not legally, philosophically, or scientifically sound.

D.N.A alone can't accurately decipher specific breeds.

Breeds aren't a cipher. DNA can conclusively determine parentage; if we want to know that two dogs are the parents of another dog, we can determine this without question. If we can then determine that both of those dogs are not restricted breeds, we must necessarily conclude that the dog in question is also not of a restricted breed.

The legislation in Victoria will not necessarily arrive at this logical conclusion.

[Cosmolo]

I don't believe my dogs are pit bulls or crosses. But based on the standard introduced which as introduced AFTER i got my dogs, they could be in trouble. It's impossible for me to prove otherwise with dogs i had BEFORE this legislation was introduced. If that makes me an idiot and a fool so be it.

What Aphra said.

[Linda K]

NO Steamboat, please do not quite me in making an opposite point, You missed the whole damn point of what I was saying - what she was saying was backing BSL. What I was saying is that continually blaming just the breed of dog is nonsensical, without going into their care and welfare / training etc (which she should have taken the time to do but didn't, a huge education opportunity lost because she stopped just at the breed of dog, and went no further into any of the above.

[Dame Aussie]

I don't believe my dogs are pit bulls or crosses. But based on the standard introduced which as introduced AFTER i got my dogs, they could be in trouble. It's impossible for me to prove otherwise with dogs i had BEFORE this legislation was introduced. If that makes me an idiot and a fool so be it.

What Aphra said.

Yes, and there would be so many other people in this situation also.

[megan_]

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.

How do you prove that a poundie isn't a pitbull cross, especially since Vic law says you aren't allowed to use a DNA test to prove it?

How do I prove that my mini schnauzer rescue isn't a pitbull cross?

Are you saying all dogs that look remotely bullbreed that aren't pedigreed dogs should be seized and destroyed?

In fact, your staffords would be at risk here in Victoria too, as ONLY an Amstaff pedigree can be used as proof of breed, no other bullbreed pedigree is allowed to be used as proof that a dog isn't a pitbull. If they tick the boxes on the list they are a pitbull. Your pedigree papers don't offer any protection under Vic law.

Cos - I think your dogs would be safe based on size alone. That said, it is a tragedy that they could even be targeted because they are the best behaved dogs I have ever met and there is no way you could ever prove that they're not pitbulls.

steamboat - are you saying that all rescue cross bull breeds should be PTS? Are the people like Cos who have bullbreed cross rescues idiots? Does it not matter that they are bomb-proof, well mannered dogs that are a pleasure to have around?

[Linda K]

I could also add, why would an owner want to prove their dog was a restricted breed? - if they don't prove it is a restricted breed, doesn't that mean therefore they are not a restricted breed?

[steamboat]

"Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" - the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. This is a fundamental assumption of reasoned discourse in law, philosophy, and science.

Shifting the burden of proof to the defendent can be compared, without hyperbole, to a medieval 'witch hunt'; where the defendent is required to prove that they cannot perform witchcraft. Against the standard imposed by Victorian legislation, this would be very difficult and many dogs who are not pitbulls will be found to be pitbulls and crosses despite evidence to the contrary (e.g DNA proof of parentage showing dog is cross between a particular labrador and a particular boxer).

If we accept this sort of legislation and the coroners recommendations, we accept laws which are not legally, philosophically, or scientifically sound.

D.N.A alone can't accurately decipher specific breeds.

Breeds aren't a cipher. DNA can conclusively determine parentage; if we want to know that two dogs are the parents of another dog, we can determine this without question. If we can then determine that both of those dogs are not restricted breeds, we must necessarily conclude that the dog in question is also not of a restricted breed.

The legislation in Victoria will not necessarily arrive at this logical conclusion.

DNA can't determine breed or breeds of individual dogs.

I doubt unsupervised sample collection would be acceptable if it came down to the nitty gritty.

Caveat Emptor.

Maybe get a stat dec from the breeder. That would be better than nothing.

Protect yourself, protect your dog....how hard could it be if you're really fair dinkum.

[megan_]

I could also add, why would an owner want to prove their dog was a restricted breed? - if they don't prove it is a restricted breed, doesn't that mean therefore they are not a restricted breed?

Nope. In Victoria, if your dog looks a certain way then it is, by law, a pitbull. The only way to prove that it isn't is via an Amstaff pedigree from the ANKC. No other pedigree can be used to prove the dog isn't a pitbull. No DNA test is allowed. The dog is a pitbull until you prove otherwise.

[megan_]

Caveat Emptor.

Maybe get a stat dec from the breeder. That would be better than nothing.

Protect yourself, protect your dog....how hard could it be if you're really fair dinkum.

Again, what about rescues?

[Cosmolo]

One dog fits every point in the 'standard' and the other is slightly too big- not sure that it would matter though if they met every other point!

How hard could it be steamboat? I have NO idea who bred my dogs- both rescues, one nearly 5 years old the other nearly 7 years old. Foolish and idiotic of me- yes?

[Dame Aussie]

Not to mention the fact they're calling dogs that weigh around 40kg pitbulls....ridiculous. Oh sorry theyre the Pitbull x Mastiffs that seem to be so common....

Edited October 17, 2012 by Aussie3

[Aidan3]

Breeds aren't a cipher. DNA can conclusively determine parentage; if we want to know that two dogs are the parents of another dog, we can determine this without question. If we can then determine that both of those dogs are not restricted breeds, we must necessarily conclude that the dog in question is also not of a restricted breed.

The legislation in Victoria will not necessarily arrive at this logical conclusion.

DNA can't determine breed or breeds of individual dogs.

A DNA test can conclusively confirm parentage. So if neither parent is of a restricted breed, it must follow that neither are any of the pups.

Does that make sense?

So logically, if you have documentation to confirm that neither parent is of a restricted breed, then a DNA test to confirm that this sire and this dam are the parents of your pup should put you in the clear. But under Vic legislation, you are not. Your dog can be killed because it looks like a restricted breed even though you can prove who its parents are, and both parents have documentation stating that they are not of a restricted breed.

Protect yourself, protect your dog....how hard could it be if you're really fair dinkum.

This is precisely the problem...

I doubt unsupervised sample collection would be acceptable if it came down to the nitty gritty.

Supervised sample collection is not acceptable. A stat dec is not acceptable. What is acceptable? It doesn't matter how 'fair dinkum' you are. I am not being hyperbolic when I compare this to the witch hunts, all analogies break down eventually but I'm yet to find that point here.

The assumption of innocence is gone, replaced with an assumption of guilt. It is a deeply flawed process that we should not accept in any part of law. These are fundamental tenets of law being thrown into the blender of hysteria for a hypothesis which no evidence supports (BSL).

Think about that for a moment. Think about the consequences beyond animal welfare and our right to own dogs who have not caused harm and are no more likely to than any other breed of dog.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Aidan2

[Jumabaar]

Breeds aren't a cipher. DNA can conclusively determine parentage; if we want to know that two dogs are the parents of another dog, we can determine this without question. If we can then determine that both of those dogs are not restricted breeds, we must necessarily conclude that the dog in question is also not of a restricted breed.

The legislation in Victoria will not necessarily arrive at this logical conclusion.

DNA can't determine breed or breeds of individual dogs.

A DNA test can conclusively confirm parentage. So if neither parent is of a restricted breed, it must follow that neither are any of the pups.

Does that make sense?

So logically, if you have documentation to confirm that neither parent is of a restricted breed, then a DNA test to confirm that this sire and this dam are the parents of your pup should put you in the clear. But under Vic legislation, you are not. Your dog can be killed because it looks like a restricted breed even though you can prove who its parents are, and both parents have documentation stating that they are not of a restricted breed.

Protect yourself, protect your dog....how hard could it be if you're really fair dinkum.

This is precisely the problem...

I doubt unsupervised sample collection would be acceptable if it came down to the nitty gritty.

Supervised sample collection is not acceptable. A stat dec is not acceptable. What is acceptable? It doesn't matter how 'fair dinkum' you are. I am not being hyperbolic when I compare this to the witch hunts, all analogies break down eventually but I'm yet to find that point here.

The assumption of innocence is gone, replaced with an assumption of guilt. It is a deeply flawed process that we should not accept in any part of law. These are fundamental tenets of law being thrown into the blender of hysteria for a hypothesis which no evidence supports (BSL).

Think about that for a moment. Think about the consequences beyond animal welfare and our right to own dogs who have not caused harm and are no more likely to than any other breed of dog.

Just to make it clearer

A person could DNA parentage their 'Pitbull type dog' and prove categorically that its parents were a pure bred pug and a pure bred boxer but the victorian court will ignore this because the dog fits a physical standard of a pit bull and thus euthanise it- even though there is no relationship at all!

[Skye GSD]

I cannot help but wonder how this would all have played out if the victim had been a child of a prominent AFL player?????

[Salukifan]

I cannot help but wonder how this would all have played out if the victim had been a child of a prominent AFL player?????

And your point is???

[steamboat]

I must apologise.

I always thought all opinions were valid.

Sorry.

Sorry I was wrong.

However, it was not my intention to start a bunfight.

I still contend that proof of breed, or not the breed, what ever, should be the responsibility of the owner of a dog that may or may not be a restricted breed that has come to the attention of authorities. That is my opinion. I wont be changing it.

One reason why many innocent dogs are now suffering is because they have been used as ''shields'' by the unscrupulous.

The onus of resposibility & prospect of likely criminal charges may, just may, be a deterrent to those seeking specific type of dogs as weapons of intimidation.

It is my experience that people with a genuine affection for their animals would ensure they stay under the radar.

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.

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

Edited October 17, 2012 by steamboat

[Dame Aussie]

Excellent post Aidan.

I'm also unsure as to what you mean Skye GSD?