Coroner Calls For Laws On Breeding Restricted Breeds

[Sheridan]

1350532728[/url]' post='5990297']

1350385898[/url]' post='5988384']

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.

It's certainly whiffy.

[m-sass]

More people are killed by sharks and horses in this country than dogs.

trouble is, m-sass, that many of the dogs being blamed and vilified are not restricted breeds at all. And your breed - whatever it is - could well be in the same situation with a change in attitude by the government.

BSL has been overturned in a lot of countries, as not working. It will happen here. Unfortunately, these findings do nothing to help prevent another dog attack tragedy.

It is all too easy to see how this could have happened. Too easy to never release photos of the dog, but say it was a restricted breed. Who knows? How disappointing.

I disagree with the fact that other breeds will be next as this has been tested with the Amstaff........if a breed is ANKC recognised it's as safe as houses from the BSL list. No government is going to overturn BSL and release import restrictions on Pitbull's Fila's Dogo's etc, absolute nonesense.

As it is a numpty law which has not prevented any dog bites, and it is the same law which has been repealed in numerous places around the world, I believe it will be overturned.

If it is not repealed, Australia will be the same as other countries, and more breeds will be included in the mix. Newspapers are already speaking of banning staffords and rottweilers.

Do you have any research on import restrictions to allow you to say "absolute nonsense" with confidence, or is that your opinion?

They won't be included in the mix at all, the precident was set with the Amstaff........why did the Amstaff get excluded from the Victorian witch hunt and why wasn't the Amstaff added to the BSL list when the QLD court ruled them a Pitbull with a different name.......anything ANKC recognised is protected and will remain that way........there is no chance of banning Rotts and Staffords, it will never happen.

[m-sass]

I got the same impression reading this article through. It frustrates me to no end that people continue to recycle the "some breeds are vicious no matter how you train them" myth.

Dogs like that need good handlers. Unfortunately, they don't end up with them often enough. I'd blame lack of regulation on dog breeding and sales, not the breed itself. I'd also like to see mandatory dog training classes for first-time owners, and education programs for children about how to approach dogs (and how to avoid them) in schools.

In the right hands, any breed of dog is safe, but breeds or types of dogs that take extreme handling and management to maintain saftey are hardly fit for the average dog owner in an urban community. Seriously what was that dog good for??, it was a thick head that didn't understand it's boundaries, it chased some kids on their front lawn for what reason..........were the kids a threat that needed mauling the stupid thing it was??, So then it chases the kids inside then looses the target and redirects onto a toddler and kills the poor little girl.........what for?? the dog didn't have a brain in it's head and it's not like it killed an intruder coming through a window at 3am using some territorial aggression for a useful purpose....why anyone would want a dog like that is beyond me........a useless animal IMHO.

[huck house]

The dog probably did experience 'extreme' handling . It is not likely the dog was treated in a way most would expect an urban pet dog to be . This is the bigger issue than breed . Note : the owners of the dog had previously owned German Shepard's - when they were deemed the toughest dogs on the block .

[steamboat]

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.

A troll is a post deliberately designed to inflame.

My honest opinion has now been deemed to be a troll because people not only did't agree with it, they sought to ridicule it.

The subject has now spun out of all perspective to the original concept of a coroners recommendation I had the temerity to agree with, it's now out of control & without a any chance of any reasonable discussion because of the posts & challenges intended to inflame, insult, ridicule & refute the right to a contrary opinion.

Therefore, if i'm a troll, so are you & your posse of backup bullies.

Given the timing of the challenge by Cosmolo, the post did appear to me to be just another troll post designed to belittle the opinion & inflaame further ridicule. Which it did.

Sheer weight of posts does not mean people aren't capable of the occasional ''troll''

This particular topic is testimony to that.....this place is troll central.

& we haven't even started with hypocrital side of the ledger yet..

Why would you automatically assume the dogs i mentioned aren't kept according to the regulations?

My answer?

If your rescue dog, pound hound or dog of unknown ancestory fits the ''type'' & if you really care, do what you think is best to protect your pet.

Their safe keeping is in your hands.

If the dog does fall foul of the legislation it is your fault, your problem.

Reinterate.

Bad laws are still laws.

Now, moving right along, what is your answer to my question?

[melzawelza]

There comes all the exact same m-sass arguments all over again. What is wrong with people that they constantly have to make new profiles over and over again to argue the same tired old points easily refuted by science.

Please don't feed the troll guys. You will never, ever get anywhere. It's pointless.

[steamboat]

There comes all the exact same m-sass arguments all over again. What is wrong with people that they constantly have to make new profiles over and over again to argue the same tired old points easily refuted by science.

Please don't feed the troll guys. You will never, ever get anywhere. It's pointless.

You are wrong on all counts. All counts

Science has nothing to do with the ''debate''btw, you obviously haven't been paying attention.

However, I did miss answering the question regarding the hypothetical & so this space isn't completely wasted.

Part one

The hypothetical was a metaphor of the ''incident'' that started this witch hunt. But using a different species.

If the perpetrator was a human who trespassed the house & inflicted the same shocking, fatal injuries to a baby, (blunt,serated weapon) what do you consider the penalty would be?

A long term of incarceration I'll wager.

Why then isn't there legislation by which an owner of a identified restricted breed who has ignored the strict requirements for having the breed liable to the same charges as if he/she had committed the hideous act personally? They are just as responsible by their arrogance.

Among the requirements of ownership are, if the dog is home it must be confined to a child & escape proof enclosure, if it is out of the enclosure, as in anywhere outside of the enclosure, it must be muzzled.

So there are really no excuses that could be offered.

Even "it's Tony Abbotts fault" wouldn't cut it here.

Part two.

If charged & the accused exercised their right to silence they would be convicted on the evidence without ever admitting to the offense.

The accused has to present evidence to prove innocence or at least establish reasonable doubt....which is pretty much the same thing when you get right down to it.

Ergo, if a dog was determined to be a restricted breed by legally recognised experts it would then fall to the accused to present evidence refuting their findings

Boom, boom.

Edited October 19, 2012 by steamboat

[Aphra]

Good point melzawlza, I will try and resist the temptation. :-)

David Marr called legislation like BSL, "the scar tissue of old panics'. He was referring to the kind of junk legislation which has been enacted in the past around points of social outrage (such as anti-Communist legislation during the Cold War era). As I discussed in my blog post, I think the BSL issue is deeply emotional and sub-rational, certainly could be characterised as a panic, particularly if you use the classical definition of panic, which is a sudden, overwhelming, but causeless and unreasonable fear.

Peter Sandman points out that you can't manage outrage with evidence, no matter how robust your evidence-base. I suppose people like steamboat are indicators of that irrational response; certainly it's much easier for people to believe that they are safe because of legislation, even if the legislation is ineffectual, because that provides them with symbolic safety. It's easier to believe legislation is a silver bullet for the (were)wolf amongst us, than to contemplate the real issues.

There comes all the exact same m-sass arguments all over again. What is wrong with people that they constantly have to make new profiles over and over again to argue the same tired old points easily refuted by science.

Please don't feed the troll guys. You will never, ever get anywhere. It's pointless.

[Aidan3]

The hypothetical was a metaphor of the ''incident'' that started this witch hunt. But using a different species.

If the perpetrator was a human who trespassed the house & inflicted the same shocking, fatal injuries to a baby, (blunt,serated weapon) what do you consider the penalty would be?

A long term of incarceration I'll wager.

Greater penalties for negligent actions that lead to injury or fatality should attract a stiffer penalty regardless of breed or the appearance of the dog.

Ergo, if a dog was determined to be a restricted breed by legally recognised experts it would then fall to the accused to present evidence refuting their findings

This is the current position, as it stands today.

Boom, boom indeed.

[WreckitWhippet]

show me where any ANKC registered dog or bitch with corresponding microchip has been siezed and not returned or declared a "restricted" breed in any state ?

It hasn't happened and it's not going to happen, so stop the scare mongering.

If people want a dog that is not going to be affected by BSL then purchase a ANKC recognised breed, with papers and corresponding chip.

[Plan B]

show me where any ANKC registered dog or bitch with corresponding microchip has been siezed and not returned or declared a "restricted" breed in any state ?

It hasn't happened and it's not going to happen, so stop the scare mongering.

If people want a dog that is not going to be affected by BSL then purchase a ANKC recognised breed, with papers and corresponding chip.

I'm a little confused about your posts, and some of the others in the thread, and how they're coming across.

It seems like all you're interested in is condemning certain dogs and the owners/rescues who choose to save and fight for their right to live. As opposed to really caring about the best possible bite prevention and pet management methods, that are already proven more effective than our current Breed Specific Legislation in keeping a community safe.

No offense is intended - it's just how I'm reading it.

[Cosmolo]

I agree with you pavlova- it's what i would do and what i would recommend any of my clients do. But it doesn't help those people who already have dogs pre dating the legislation.

Genuine question- who has more responsibility in the situation where EITHER a BYB or shelter or rescue group rehomes a dog to a new owner that meets the standard? Should the rescues/ shelters not be rehoming these dogs? Or should the adopters 'know better'? How about the people who brought these dogs into the world in the first place? None of this addresses the injustice in the law but it's important to consider how this law is going to be enforced in this way.

[WreckitWhippet]

We're approaching what 7 or 8 years of BSL now ? and there's been no headway made in having the laws repealed, they are here to stay, regardless of what we think of them and I personally don't see any major about faces happening in the next ten years.

So in the mean time, my suggestion is that people who want a bull breed , get themselves a pedigree dog and then they won't have to worry about being caught up in BSL. If it means that people do not take on bull breed rescue mixes, then so be it. They won't have to worry about rangers knocking on their doors, issuing NOI's or siezing their pets.

ETA: The rescues and shelters should NOT be rehoming these dogs. NSW should be considered the exception, as there is a means of breed ID and temp testing that will protect dogs.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Pav Lova

[Aphra]

We don't rehome any bull breed, bull breed x or dog who looks like it might have had a great aunt who once had a brief liaison with a bull breed, anymore. It's heart-breaking to have to say no to lovely, happy, sane dogs, but the risk to the dog is just too great to rehome them in Victoria.

I agree with you pavlova- it's what i would do and what i would recommend any of my clients do. But it doesn't help those people who already have dogs pre dating the legislation.

Genuine question- who has more responsibility in the situation where EITHER a BYB or shelter or rescue group rehomes a dog to a new owner that meets the standard? Should the rescues/ shelters not be rehoming these dogs? Or should the adopters 'know better'? How about the people who brought these dogs into the world in the first place? None of this addresses the injustice in the law but it's important to consider how this law is going to be enforced in this way.

[mantis]

We're approaching what 7 or 8 years of BSL now ? and there's been no headway made in having the laws repealed, they are here to stay, regardless of what we think of them and I personally don't see any major about faces happening in the next ten years.

So in the mean time, my suggestion is that people who want a bull breed , get themselves a pedigree dog and then they won't have to worry about being caught up in BSL. If it means that people do not take on bull breed rescue mixes, then so be it. They won't have to worry about rangers knocking on their doors, issuing NOI's or siezing their pets.

ETA: The rescues and shelters should NOT be rehoming these dogs. NSW should be considered the exception, as there is a means of breed ID and temp testing that will protect dogs.

So you are wanting innocent dogs to be killed? Some dog lover you are.

[steamboat]

Good point melzawlza, I will try and resist the temptation. :-)

David Marr called legislation like BSL, "the scar tissue of old panics'. He was referring to the kind of junk legislation which has been enacted in the past around points of social outrage (such as anti-Communist legislation during the Cold War era). As I discussed in my blog post, I think the BSL issue is deeply emotional and sub-rational, certainly could be characterised as a panic, particularly if you use the classical definition of panic, which is a sudden, overwhelming, but causeless and unreasonable fear.

Peter Sandman points out that you can't manage outrage with evidence, no matter how robust your evidence-base. I suppose people like steamboat are indicators of that irrational response; certainly it's much easier for people to believe that they are safe because of legislation, even if the legislation is ineffectual, because that provides them with symbolic safety. It's easier to believe legislation is a silver bullet for the (were)wolf amongst us, than to contemplate the real issues.

There comes all the exact same m-sass arguments all over again. What is wrong with people that they constantly have to make new profiles over and over again to argue the same tired old points easily refuted by science.

Please don't feed the troll guys. You will never, ever get anywhere. It's pointless.

Sigh......the further it goes, the sadder it gets.

Where did I ever say I agreed with BSL?

What I said was "Bad laws are still laws". You would do well to remember that. It's the centre point of the whole sh1t fight.

I also said I agree with the coroners splendid idea that owners & not councils, should be responsible for the identification of their breed if it should become an issue.

Like after it has chewed a kid to death for instance.

That was it.

the rest was your mob...up & running. Circling the wagons & chanting the same old same old from the song book of past anti BSL failed strategies.

Now we are into "scar tissue of old panics"...what ever the hell that is supposed to mean....sounds like Julia sounding off at Tony again - reds under the beds?, silver bullets & werewolves? It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Any wonder BSL is so firmly entrenched.

Your style is not part of the solution, it's part of the problem.

B.t.w, I didn't see YOUR measures to ensure public safety.

Did I miss them?

[m-sass]

We're approaching what 7 or 8 years of BSL now ? and there's been no headway made in having the laws repealed, they are here to stay, regardless of what we think of them and I personally don't see any major about faces happening in the next ten years.

So in the mean time, my suggestion is that people who want a bull breed , get themselves a pedigree dog and then they won't have to worry about being caught up in BSL. If it means that people do not take on bull breed rescue mixes, then so be it. They won't have to worry about rangers knocking on their doors, issuing NOI's or siezing their pets.

ETA: The rescues and shelters should NOT be rehoming these dogs. NSW should be considered the exception, as there is a means of breed ID and temp testing that will protect dogs.

Pitbull's have been a restricted breed for around 20 years and even though nothing much in the past has been done to police them, still at any time a dog resembling a Pitbull could have been declared if the owners couldn't prove otherwise and then be subject to the housing and muzzle requirements etc.........I recall a couple of cases where that occurred a few years ago.........so Pitbull's have been in the "grey area" for a long time, hence why owners have falsely registered them with council as crossbreeds or something totally unrelated like the Victorian killer registered as a Labrador wasn't it??.

People have known the ramifications of owning Pitbull's for years and sailed under the radar with lies and deception and I am sure half of the supposed Pitbull's anyway are crossbreeds bred by BYB bogan sellers of potentially tough looking dogs...........so really, I don't buy this poor innocent people caught out on legislation condemning their poor innocent restricted breed look a likes which reflects people contemplating the purchase of a dog are merely doing so blindly without any research into what is restricted and what isn't on a she'l be right mate attitude, they don't chase up restricted breed look a likes, just register them as a Labrador now worries??

These situations of scooping up innocent dogs on looks still remains the result of poor choices........no one has to buy a Bully cross breed, plenty of crossbreeds to choose from who look nothing like restricted breeds..........it is the law with the writing on the wall for a long time and anyone who didn't research dog breeds in general enough to get caught in the BSL situation only have themselves to blame when the laws and policing of these types opf dogs became tighter. Only a a couple of months ago my niece bought a new puppy Staffy X Lab........I have had this conversation with her 10 times, she knows, I have told her repeatedly, but she will winge like the rest when council scoop up her dog even if it is genuinely a Staffy x Lab, a prime potential look a like to fit the resticted breed criteria.........it's time people used common sense IMHO.

Edited October 19, 2012 by m-sass

[moosmum]

Good point melzawlza, I will try and resist the temptation. :-)

David Marr called legislation like BSL, "the scar tissue of old panics'. He was referring to the kind of junk legislation which has been enacted in the past around points of social outrage (such as anti-Communist legislation during the Cold War era). As I discussed in my blog post, I think the BSL issue is deeply emotional and sub-rational, certainly could be characterised as a panic, particularly if you use the classical definition of panic, which is a sudden, overwhelming, but causeless and unreasonable fear.

Peter Sandman points out that you can't manage outrage with evidence, no matter how robust your evidence-base. I suppose people like steamboat are indicators of that irrational response; certainly it's much easier for people to believe that they are safe because of legislation, even if the legislation is ineffectual, because that provides them with symbolic safety. It's easier to believe legislation is a silver bullet for the (were)wolf amongst us, than to contemplate the real issues.

There comes all the exact same m-sass arguments all over again. What is wrong with people that they constantly have to make new profiles over and over again to argue the same tired old points easily refuted by science.

Please don't feed the troll guys. You will never, ever get anywhere. It's pointless.

Sigh......the further it goes, the sadder it gets.

Where did I ever say I agreed with BSL?

What I said was "Bad laws are still laws". You would do well to remember that. It's the centre point of the whole sh1t fight.

I also said I agree with the coroners splendid idea that owners & not councils, should be responsible for the identification of their breed if it should become an issue.

Like after it has chewed a kid to death for instance.

That was it.

the rest was your mob...up & running. Circling the wagons & chanting the same old same old from the song book of past anti BSL failed strategies.

Now we are into "scar tissue of old panics"...what ever the hell that is supposed to mean....sounds like Julia sounding off at Tony again - reds under the beds?, silver bullets & werewolves? It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Any wonder BSL is so firmly entrenched.

Your style is not part of the solution, it's part of the problem.

B.t.w, I didn't see YOUR measures to ensure public safety.

Did I miss them?

Yes,you did miss them....links hav been provided which you have obviously not bothered to read.

No one here is saying you should break the law. The contentious issue as you yourself have said is putting onus on the owners of dogs to prove they are not pittbull or crosses of.

Yes,people can choose to own dogs with no bull breed or ANKC registered bull breeds with papers,take precautions to keep dogs safe etc etc.

But you refuse to answer How does a person with any cross breed,unpapered dog prove that it has no pittbull with such arbitrary criteria?

I'm talking about whippet X lab,cattle dog X pointer,greyhound X whatever.None of which have any bull breed yet could produce results that once grown,might have a vague resemblence to a pit cross.If owner and dog have been doing every thing right by the book and the dog is "noticed" for ANY REASON ,even walking calmly on lead with its owner,its at risk.As pups those same dogs may have looked vastly different and people assume if they are doing the right things,they will will be safe.They are not.

You are not trying to rationaly discuss anything.You telling us your argument for onus of proof being on the owners is it.You can't validate anything and won't look at alternate info.that validates any other option.Useless excersise .

Edited October 19, 2012 by moosmum

[m-sass]

Please don't feed the troll guys. You will never, ever get anywhere. It's pointless.

This is essentially a pure breed forum is it not??, personally I don't like crossbreed dogs to the point of owning one, even having a good crossbreed dog, how do you replicate the traits of unknown bloodlines and ancestory to produce good dogs into the future........personally I am not into throwing males and females together to produce lucky dips or neither do I support BYB practices I think it stinks, so perhaps the supporters of crossbreeds anti BSL crusaders which ultimately supports crossbreeds BYB's and breeds unrecognised in the pure breed registries are on the wrong forum??. Why on a pure breed forum are people trolls because they support only pure breed dogs............wouldn't it be common sense to expect on a pure breed forum to encounter people not supportive of crossbreeds and restricted breeds and their look a likes??

Because not everyone supports restricted breeds and crossbreeds doesn't make them trolls, but it's interesting to see debates unfold where the BSL supporters are lost for answers which to me is obvious as a loosing battle, a waste of time I think people need to accept the laws and get on with it and next time don't buy a dog who's breed cannot be proven to satisfy the requirements?

Edited October 19, 2012 by m-sass

[mantis]

Good point melzawlza, I will try and resist the temptation. :-)

David Marr called legislation like BSL, "the scar tissue of old panics'. He was referring to the kind of junk legislation which has been enacted in the past around points of social outrage (such as anti-Communist legislation during the Cold War era). As I discussed in my blog post, I think the BSL issue is deeply emotional and sub-rational, certainly could be characterised as a panic, particularly if you use the classical definition of panic, which is a sudden, overwhelming, but causeless and unreasonable fear.

Peter Sandman points out that you can't manage outrage with evidence, no matter how robust your evidence-base. I suppose people like steamboat are indicators of that irrational response; certainly it's much easier for people to believe that they are safe because of legislation, even if the legislation is ineffectual, because that provides them with symbolic safety. It's easier to believe legislation is a silver bullet for the (were)wolf amongst us, than to contemplate the real issues.

There comes all the exact same m-sass arguments all over again. What is wrong with people that they constantly have to make new profiles over and over again to argue the same tired old points easily refuted by science.

Please don't feed the troll guys. You will never, ever get anywhere. It's pointless.

Sigh......the further it goes, the sadder it gets.

Where did I ever say I agreed with BSL?

What I said was "Bad laws are still laws". You would do well to remember that. It's the centre point of the whole sh1t fight.

I also said I agree with the coroners splendid idea that owners & not councils, should be responsible for the identification of their breed if it should become an issue.

Like after it has chewed a kid to death for instance.

That was it.

the rest was your mob...up & running. Circling the wagons & chanting the same old same old from the song book of past anti BSL failed strategies.

Now we are into "scar tissue of old panics"...what ever the hell that is supposed to mean....sounds like Julia sounding off at Tony again - reds under the beds?, silver bullets & werewolves? It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Any wonder BSL is so firmly entrenched.

Your style is not part of the solution, it's part of the problem.

B.t.w, I didn't see YOUR measures to ensure public safety.

Did I miss them?

Yes,you did miss them....links hav been provided which you have obviously not bothered to read.

No one here is saying you should break the law. The contentious issue as you yourself have said is putting onus on the owners of dogs to prove they are not pittbull or crosses of.

Yes,people can choose to own dogs with no bull breed or ANKC registered bull breeds with papers,take precautions to keep dogs safe etc etc.

But you refuse to answer How does a person with any cross breed,unpapered dog prove that it has no pittbull with such arbitrary criteria?

I'm talking about whippet X lab,cattle dog X pointer,greyhound X whatever.None of which have any bull breed yet could produce results that once grown,might have a vague resemblence to a pit cross.If owner and dog have been doing every thing right by the book and the dog is "noticed" for ANY REASON ,even walking calmly on lead with its owner,its at risk.As pups those same dogs may have looked vastly different and people assume if they are doing the right things,they will will be safe.They are not.

You are not trying to rationaly discuss anything.You telling us your argument for onus of proof being on the owners is it.You can't validate anything and won't look at alternate info.that validates any other option.Useless excersise .

Don't waste your time, people have been having these same arguments with "Dougie" and his other aliases, for many years.

Basically, you may as well do this.