Cross Breeding And Dog Attacks

[Angeluca]

I made this comment in the News section under another dog attack

I would like other people opinions and discussions on the topic and I thought I bring it here because it's turning in to an opinion piece.

I get that the Ideal world isn't this one but unenforced laws are doing anything either nor are they sufficient to over population in rescues , It is more of a a topic on ideas on what us dog people think would help in Attacks, overpopulation and cruel breeding practices.

Some valid comments have already been made in the thread and can be traced back in this link.

http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/251473-attack-at-guilford/page__pid__6283375#entry6283375

By My Idea it self was:

But in an ideal world, The idea of cross breeding any dog without true purpose or reason would be outlawed.

To clarify I believe that there a very few reason out their that justify a cross breeding, Things like 2 purebred real perfect working dogs that they want to keep the traits from. Should go to a Volunteer panel. This panel would include governing bodies of the registry in which each dog is registered, (ANKC, Working registry), a Reproduction specialist Vet, a well regarded behaviorist. These would obviously hold known experience with the dogs in question and could actually assess the application. Others like a government rep and a rspca rep may demand a presence but those other dog world professionals would have majority say. A Cert given out so that the puppy owners know it was a warranted breeding.

For those who x breed to be fined minimum $3000- $10000 on the spot pending breed and litter size (the cost of an average C-section + raising of a litter for a rescue + desexing of mother)and seizure of litter and mother, Mother returned on de-sexing (which would be included in the fine).

The rescue to receive min 50% of fine to raise and re-home puppies.

(this would be drawn up eg, $4000 fine, $1500 to local council for seizure and de sexing of mother and $2500 to rescue for litter of 5 medium breed dogs)

for those who obtain a x bred puppy $1500 - $2500 on the spot fine pending on co-operation in reporting where they obtained the dog. with an return of $500 upon de-sexing cert and puppy pre-school completion cert. (paid to local council for registration and follow up)

This should be advised to residences by mail box drop,on registration form /renewal, website and TV/radio campaign to avoid the I didn't know Bullsh*t. And the allocation of the fine going directly to local council should cut out the funding bullsh*t.

Free registration to de-sexed dogs with a cert of completed 12mth Approved obedience course.

X bred to be determined by any dog not on a approved purebred registered body.

An approved registered body, all current bodies to go through an assessment as to how they register a dog how many generations of parentage, ethics, and so on.

And I like the Idea of the part of the QLD proposal of the Breeder and Bitch extensive details recorded in the compulsory micro-chipping with accurate breed recording. Or rescue details and Compulsory de-sexing at rescues.

In Dog attacks micro-chipped owner would be fine/jailed pended severity (just like if you sell a car with rego and it gets a speeding fine your responsible unless you provide a receipt and a transfer paper).

There would never be a dispute as to breed due to chip, And if it was a recent (with in 6 mths) rescue dog, the rescue would come under review as to why an unstable dog was re-homed.

Can't think of anything else right now lol.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Angeluca

[korbin13]

To be honest, the ideal world isn't the real world. And cross breeding won't be stopped.

Dog management and community education would be a better route to go down, in my opinion. And I don't mean enforced obedience training, I live about 400km from the nearest dog club and even then as you have to have your dog in a halti, I wouldn't be going.

How about more rangers to enforce the rules we already have? Checking to make sure dogs are registered? Maybe they could even enforce proper fencing? More rangers to drive around and enforce leash laws? Ranger to go out and pick up roaming dogs, no matter what the hours are?

I do like the idea of fining owners, no matter the circumstances, if a dog attacks another dog. Might encourage people to keep their dogs contained and under control. I know incidents occur outside peoples control but the majority are preventable.

[Staffyluv]

In an ideal world, only ethical registered breeders who knew what they were doing would breed, temperament and health tested dogs to improve their chosen breed..

We can all hope for Utopia but it is never going to happen.. The powers that be don't police/enforce most of the laws surrounding dogs now. They introduce more stupid laws as a knee jerk reaction to every dog attack there is and then Joe Public comes out jumping up and down demanding the death of all the bull breed crosses/pigging dogs/pit bulls/sbt etc etc..

Perhaps if they could police the laws they already have - registration of ALL dogs in a principality would be a good start..

[Angeluca]

The problem with the current laws are:

Funding, they can't even fix the roads where would the $55000- $75000 per annul income to hire just one more ranger then provide another vehicle.

They don't enforce because there is usually a descent amount of people with outstanding rates in the $1000s to follow up rather then chase down an $150- $250 fine. Same reason behind confiscating dogs while the owner fixes the fences which would be the only way to force them to do it without chasing fines.

one I idea would be to refer unpaid fines to the spur agency or set up a similar system. but anyone can pay off $20 a fortnight and it hasn't stopped people speeding or drink driving.

The idea I propose is have fines from illegal breeding bypass other government sections and is paid directly to the local council for incentive to chase up.

And puppy farming because it's a business comes under commercial laws, But the practices need reviewing to enforce better practices, eg health tests, compulsory micro-chipping with the farm of which they came before being sent onto a shop , vets ticking the 'sighted health tests of parents box' and the 'clear health of puppy' on commercial micrchipping forms. fines for noncompliance $15000+. Shops getting prosecuted and fines for accepting unmicrochipped dogs also $15000+

Dog attacks come under state or federal control so fines will always head that way but that is also under the control of the police to have out those fines or make an arrest.

[Angeluca]

And cross breeding won't be stopped.

It isn't aimed at stopping cross breeding but the breeding of potentially dangerous and unstable dogs does need to be addressed. The only way to do that would be to stop breeding by any individual who thinks it's a cool idea and leave it to those who actually understand bit more about the animals in question.

No it won't stop those who are determined just like marijuana growers, but deter the majority.

[Sandra777]

ideal world would be more dog friendly instead of increasingly unfriendly as is happening now. generalisation i know but well socialised dogs have got to be a better bet regardless of breed - or cross

Edited August 24, 2013 by Sandra777

[ann21]

And cross breeding won't be stopped.

It isn't aimed at stopping cross breeding but the breeding of potentially dangerous and unstable dogs does need to be addressed. The only way to do that would be to stop breeding by any individual who thinks it's a cool idea and leave it to those who actually understand bit more about the animals in question.

No it won't stop those who are determined just like marijuana growers, but deter the majority.

Shouldn't the overall aim then to be discourage irresponsible breeding (rather than targeting it through banning cross breeding)? In my mind those are two separate issues. Responsible breeding can be done through health/temperament testing, pure or cross bred (though obviously the forum is for promoting pure breeds). There are irresponsible breeders for pure and cross breeds, so if you only target cross breeds you are missing half the equation.

[~Anne~]

Too many assumptions are being made for your proposal to be logical or sensible.

The biggest and worst is the assumption that cross breeding is creating aggressive dogs, purebred breeders all know what they're doing and that the introduction of intensive controls, legislation and policy can be implemented and costs recovered through payment of fines.

[WreckitWhippet]

In an ideal world those who own a dog would make sure they secure the dog in it's own yard and meet the dogs requirements in terms of nutrition, exercise, companionship and mental stimulation.

The end

[~Anne~]

In an ideal world those who own a dog would make sure they secure the dog in it's own yard and meet the dogs requirements in terms of nutrition, exercise, companionship and mental stimulation.

The end

I have to say that this sums it up in a nutshell.

[ann21]

Too many assumptions are being made for your proposal to be logical or sensible.

The biggest and worst is the assumption that cross breeding is creating aggressive dogs, purebred breeders all know what they're doing and that the introduction of intensive controls, legislation and policy can be implemented and costs recovered through payment of fines.

I agree.

[megan_]

That's got nothing to do with cross breeding. I have seen fearful purebred dogs bred because they have nice markings.

And cross breeding won't be stopped.

It isn't aimed at stopping cross breeding but the breeding of potentially dangerous and unstable dogs does need to be addressed. The only way to do that would be to stop breeding by any individual who thinks it's a cool idea and leave it to those who actually understand bit more about the animals in question.

No it won't stop those who are determined just like marijuana growers, but deter the majority.

[Angeluca]

ideal world would be more dog friendly instead of increasingly unfriendly as is happening now. generalisation i know but well socialised dogs have got to be a better bet regardless of breed - or cross

so very very true

And cross breeding won't be stopped.

It isn't aimed at stopping cross breeding but the breeding of potentially dangerous and unstable dogs does need to be addressed. The only way to do that would be to stop breeding by any individual who thinks it's a cool idea and leave it to those who actually understand bit more about the animals in question.

No it won't stop those who are determined just like marijuana growers, but deter the majority.

Shouldn't the overall aim then to be discourage irresponsible breeding (rather than targeting it through banning cross breeding)? In my mind those are two separate issues. Responsible breeding can be done through health/temperament testing, pure or cross bred (though obviously the forum is for promoting pure breeds). There are irresponsible breeders for pure and cross breeds, so if you only target cross breeds you are missing half the equation.

An effective restriction on breeding will have most crossbreeding stamped out leaving only the few ethical crossbreeders. Which I personally think is a good idea, why do we need random cross breeds there are thousands of breeds you'd be hard pressed not to find one to fit almost every purpose.

As for the purebred registered dodgy breeder, the approved governing bodies would have to step up and start investigating complaints and acting on those found guilty, Vets would have access to the breeder details and governing body via the microchip and could also advise breeders what they have found cause some just loose contact with puppy buyers. And Vets could also report the incident to the governing body, who will keep track of these incidents and complaints and investigate properly.

Another issue I thought of during typing is the price of a purebred. Yes we are justified in our price due to our council restrictions and litter outlay, testing ect. But most can't afford an up front cost like that which is why they buy the $50 pup on the notice board. But this could be helped by discounts to vets, councils, feed suppliers. to make rearing a litter cheaper, Payment plans with breeders. but it also comes down to the upfrount price is usually a fraction of what the dog will cost over it's life.

[GeckoTree]

Sounds citycentric, and even then not in any way feasible to outlaw crossbreeding in cities let alone the whole of Australia. Should've, would've, could've, if's, but's and maybe's are just not fact is's. Fact is's are dogs can be a danger when they are mismanaged and that's about it.

[Sandra777]

An effective restriction on breeding will have most crossbreeding stamped out leaving only the few ethical crossbreeders. Which I personally think is a good idea, why do we need random cross breeds there are thousands of breeds you'd be hard pressed not to find one to fit almost every purpose.

As for the purebred registered dodgy breeder, the approved governing bodies would have to step up and start investigating complaints and acting on those found guilty, Vets would have access to the breeder details and governing body via the microchip and could also advise breeders what they have found cause some just loose contact with puppy buyers. And Vets could also report the incident to the governing body, who will keep track of these incidents and complaints and investigate properly.

Another issue I thought of during typing is the price of a purebred. Yes we are justified in our price due to our council restrictions and litter outlay, testing ect. But most can't afford an up front cost like that which is why they buy the $50 pup on the notice board. But this could be helped by discounts to vets, councils, feed suppliers. to make rearing a litter cheaper, Payment plans with breeders. but it also comes down to the upfrount price is usually a fraction of what the dog will cost over it's life.

More restrictions on breeders is just another step along the path so eagerly laid by PETA & the like.

Isn't it about time personal responsibility was brought back in to fashion.

Why do I need to be regulated up the wahzoo when I'm doing the right thing?

Why do I need to pay (oh yes you better believe it, there will be a financial cost) for the idiot next door who owns two GSD-types which are never walked, never inside, never off the property who bark and bark and bark and bark and bark and bark and rush at the fence all day every day (except when they're locked in the garage). Dog rangers can do nothing despite having had repeated complaints and multiple visits. The day they get out a child will probably die, and there are half a dozen under fives in our small street.

Why do I need to pay for the idiot over the back who has two BC types & an ACD type, which do the same except they have actually got out and attacked a child.

Why do I need to pay for the idiot in Perth who can't socialise their dogs, keep them on their property and make them civilized animal worthy of living in modern society?

[WreckitWhippet]

Why make it so much more complicated than it needs to be. Not everyone wants a pedigree dog and why turn someone into a criminal just because they choose to breed outside of the ANKC ?

It's very simple, although some fail to grasp that dogs of all breeds and crosses require certain things to be met, companionship, nutrition, vet care, exercise and mental stimulation and being kept in their own yard. If we can work towards having owners meeting those requirements, regardless of what breed or cross they choose, then naturally the attacks on people and other animals will decrease.

You're not going to ever see bite stats and attacks on animals eliminated.

We already have legislation that says you keep your dog in your yard and under effective control or leashed when outside of it, we have laws regarding chipping and registration, legislation regarding how they should be cared for. What we don't have is Councils that educate and enforce.

NSW is about to see yet another piece of legislation introduced, we've already got the CAA, BSL and the introduction of further dangerous dog legislation after the death of Tyra Keune but it's useless if there isn't anyone policing it.

The CAA used to be a well written, simple piece of legislation that was fair to dog owners and the wider community, why we require anything beyond that leaves me shaking my head.

[Aphra]

Having rehomed a few hundred dogs over the last few years, 99% of which were crossbreeds, I'd argue with your assumption that crossbreed dogs are ipso facto more inclined to be unstable or unsafe. The vast majority of dogs, both purebred and crossbred are safe members of the community. The more punitive, restrictive, difficult and social unacceptable we try to make dog breeding, the more we hand control over breeding into the hands of the large scale, commercial breeders and those care-for-nothing, random breeders who aren't interested in anything but a quick buck.

An effective restriction on breeding will have most crossbreeding stamped out leaving only the few ethical crossbreeders. Which I personally think is a good idea, why do we need random cross breeds there are thousands of breeds you'd be hard pressed not to find one to fit almost every purpose.

[ann21]

ideal world would be more dog friendly instead of increasingly unfriendly as is happening now. generalisation i know but well socialised dogs have got to be a better bet regardless of breed - or cross

so very very true

And cross breeding won't be stopped.

It isn't aimed at stopping cross breeding but the breeding of potentially dangerous and unstable dogs does need to be addressed. The only way to do that would be to stop breeding by any individual who thinks it's a cool idea and leave it to those who actually understand bit more about the animals in question.

No it won't stop those who are determined just like marijuana growers, but deter the majority.

Shouldn't the overall aim then to be discourage irresponsible breeding (rather than targeting it through banning cross breeding)? In my mind those are two separate issues. Responsible breeding can be done through health/temperament testing, pure or cross bred (though obviously the forum is for promoting pure breeds). There are irresponsible breeders for pure and cross breeds, so if you only target cross breeds you are missing half the equation.

An effective restriction on breeding will have most crossbreeding stamped out leaving only the few ethical crossbreeders. Which I personally think is a good idea, why do we need random cross breeds there are thousands of breeds you'd be hard pressed not to find one to fit almost every purpose.

As for the purebred registered dodgy breeder, the approved governing bodies would have to step up and start investigating complaints and acting on those found guilty, Vets would have access to the breeder details and governing body via the microchip and could also advise breeders what they have found cause some just loose contact with puppy buyers. And Vets could also report the incident to the governing body, who will keep track of these incidents and complaints and investigate properly.

Another issue I thought of during typing is the price of a purebred. Yes we are justified in our price due to our council restrictions and litter outlay, testing ect. But most can't afford an up front cost like that which is why they buy the $50 pup on the notice board. But this could be helped by discounts to vets, councils, feed suppliers. to make rearing a litter cheaper, Payment plans with breeders. but it also comes down to the upfrount price is usually a fraction of what the dog will cost over it's life.

I think this is a tricky issue. Righgtly or wrongly, as long as there is demand for them, crossbreeds will exist. You might feel that they are not necessary given all the pure breeds, another person might feel why breed dogs at all when there are so many dogs in the pound. I just don't think there is strong enough justification for a law to be passed banning cross breeding.

[Angeluca]

Too many assumptions are being made for your proposal to be logical or sensible.

The biggest and worst is the assumption that cross breeding is creating aggressive dogs, purebred breeders all know what they're doing and that the introduction of intensive controls, legislation and policy can be implemented and costs recovered through payment of fines.

Your right, but many intensive regulations have been successfully implemented. Not sure how banning unregulated breeding would be any harder then banning a specific breed or cross breed.

Maybe more tests need to be implemented before breeding licence handed out.

As for aggression in both pure and crossbred dogs, I do very much agree, but Most breeders screen there puppy owners, and there is far less recorded attacks in a registered pure dog then a crossbred. BYBers usually don't even get a phone number of the person who just gave them the money for the dog they just sold.

I know this is a FAR OUT idea and it would require the co-operation of the entire nation's state governing bodies, the dog registration organizations, Local councils, Vets and specialist, breeders and the RSPCA and other rescuing bodies and that itself is where it would all fall apart. I think every other issue could be discussed and resolved to the best interest of dogs. just can't get and authority to co-operate.

But I am interested in finding out what others either think of my idea or their ideas.

[Staffyluv]

Why make it so much more complicated than it needs to be. Not everyone wants a pedigree dog and why turn someone into a criminal just because they choose to breed outside of the ANKC ?

It's very simple, although some fail to grasp that dogs of all breeds and crosses require certain things to be met, companionship, nutrition, vet care, exercise and mental stimulation and being kept in their own yard. If we can work towards having owners meeting those requirements, regardless of what breed or cross they choose, then naturally the attacks on people and other animals will decrease.

You're not going to ever see bite stats and attacks on animals eliminated.

We already have legislation that says you keep your dog in your yard and under effective control or leashed when outside of it, we have laws regarding chipping and registration, legislation regarding how they should be cared for. What we don't have is Councils that educate and enforce.

NSW is about to see yet another piece of legislation introduced, we've already got the CAA, BSL and the introduction of further dangerous dog legislation after the death of Tyra Keune but it's useless if there isn't anyone policing it.

The CAA used to be a well written, simple piece of legislation that was fair to dog owners and the wider community, why we require anything beyond that leaves me shaking my head.