Impounded Bull Breed Put Down Before Breed Assessment In Nsw

[Ringo]

I've found a lot of councils don't know very much when it comes to the Companion Animals Act and POCTA - they sometimes need to be hit over the head a few times with how procedures outlined in both are to work before they come round.

[Santo66]

I'll confess to growing a little short on sympathy for people who buy unpapered Amstaffs (if indeed that's what the dog was) in BSL states and end up in this situation. It keeps happening.

It's not rocket science to buy a dog that won't be subject to BSL is it? And these are not new laws.

EPIC fail on the part of the owners for failing to do anything to keep their dog safe.

At great lengths I talked my niece out of buying an unpapered Amstaff for the fear of her potentially loosing it to BSL, so she bought a Staffy X Lab instead and guess what that looks like now at 9 months old We were even going to do a bit of a collection and buy her a papered Amstaff, but she wanted a puppy NOW and took to Gumtree for a BYB.......she was well educated on the matter and didn't listen

[WreckitWhippet]

It is how it has always been at Albury Pound and was, as I understood it when rescuing from there, how it worked with breed specific legislation. If a dog or pup comes in that the rangers ID as a pitbull then it can't be rehomed. Are you saying that if a dog appears to be a pitbull they have to have a breed assessor come in and assess it? I can't imagine many pounds would have that kind of money available?

If a ranger suspects that a dog is of a restricted breed or cross and the dog goes unclaimed, Council can euth the dog. Councils do not release dogs back into the community they suspect are restricted breeds or crosses.

They are also not required to release any dog they suspect to a rescue or anyone else who jumps up and down about it.

Some Councils will allow the release on the provision that the dog is chipped and passes breed assessment.

Councils are not required to call in a breed assessor or temp test any suspect dogs, that part of the legislation is the owner option, if they'd prefer that to a court date.

Councils are required to rehome as many dogs that are suitable for rehoming as possibly, but that's entirely dependent on their resources, community connections, volunteers and the systems they have in place.

[Plan B]

If a ranger suspects that a dog is of a restricted breed or cross and the dog goes unclaimed, Council can euth the dog.

There are many reasons a Council can euthanise a dog. They can euthanise a dog after its required seven/fourteen days of impoundment. When there are other avenues, like existing owners wanting to reclaim, a new home, or even rescue, is that okay to just kill them because they've met their minimum legal requirements?

Councils do not release dogs back into the community they suspect are restricted breeds or crosses.

I know of many major Sydney pounds that do release dogs that would be suspected restricted breeds or crosses (according to whoever you may ask because it's completely subjective). They do this by exploring alternative avenues to euthanising dogs. It's not hard and it's not resource heavy.

They are also not required to release any dog they suspect to a rescue or anyone else who jumps up and down about it.

And if nobody 'jumped and down about it,' we'd have a much higher kill rate in all pounds in NSW than we already do.

Some Councils will allow the release on the provision that the dog is chipped and passes breed assessment.

All pounds in NSW should be ensuring dogs are chipped before leaving their care. That's a legal requirement. Other pounds choose not to breed label dogs of which their genetic history is unknown (or, at least, give them a breed label that will automatically limit their options). Why anybody would voluntarily call a dog a "Pit Bull" is beyond me. Rangers and pound staff are no more knowledgable about the huge variety of dog breeds (and even bigger variety of mixed breed dogs) than anyone else.

Councils are not required to call in a breed assessor or temp test any suspect dogs, that part of the legislation is the owner option, if they'd prefer that to a court date.

Council can have a breed assessment done, if they want to explore alternative avenues to killing.

Councils are required to rehome as many dogs that are suitable for rehoming as possibly, but that's entirely dependent on their resources, community connections, volunteers and the systems they have in place.

Not labelling a dog of unknown genetic history doesn't take up much resources and is probably the most honest thing a pound can do. Nor is arranging a breed assessor resource heavy for those dogs who have been unlucky enough to be impounded as a "Pit Bull" or a "Pit Bull Cross."

Legal requirements are rarely up to scratch. We should be advising pounds about alternative methods and encouraging a progressive attitude. Shouldn't we?

Edited July 18, 2013 by Plan B

[mantis]

And apparently their other dog is still in the pound. I know a fair bit about this story from both sides.

So the dog is not actually dead?

Will there be a breed assessment then?

And why are the owners claiming the dog was killed?

ETA: Re: Owners being away and leaving the dog at home, we do that as well... We do have escape proof kennels and my father in law comes over and feeds everyone and checks on the auto waterer. I am very reluctant to leave my dogs in a commercial kennel or pet hotel when we go away and judging by the threads on that topic on DOL many others also avoid it if possible.

Unfortunately my family lives overseas and we are unable to take pets when we go to see them. I don't think there is anything wrong with leaving pets at home in a familiar environment as long as they are cared for and cannot escape.

I sometimes left Kenny at home alone when I went away for the weekend. He never had access to outside though, I put newspaper down on the concrete floor in the games room, I left him with plenty of food & water.

As for the owners of the poor dog, I can't believe people don't register & microchip their dogs, they save money by not doing it, but as in this case, risk the dogs life.