Cross Breeding And Dog Attacks

[Angeluca]

Wow, lol well i got my discussion I was after! Yes I do not have enough people around me to talk about dogs with.

:laugh:

I will be back after i cook dinner !!!

[Dame Aussie]

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.

I agree with this too.

[WreckitWhippet]

In all seriousness we have a great piece of legislation in NSW but it was set up to fail from the get go because it could never be enforced in such a way as to make it effective and there just hasn't been the education to go along with the enforcement.

We have laws that say you can't drink and drive or speed, but at the same time we have a lot of resources used to enforce and education campaigns. Government didn't just introduce the legislation, leave it at that and then claim it doesn't work, so lets get tougher.

Average Joe would be able to tell you that it's illegal to drink and drive, they'll also be able to give you some basic facts about why it's dangerous, the risks associated with it and probably some stats. There are still those out there who ignore the legislation but for the majority of people they know it's wrong, dangerous and punishable.

If you asked every day folk on the street how do you effectively care for a dog and what basic requirements you need to meet, you wouldn't have many get past feeding and watering it. There's a hell of a lot of educating and work to be done in this area. They simply cannot associate dog attacks with a lack of socialisation , containment, mental stimulation , exercise and knowledge of canine behaviour. Ask average Joe why a dog attacks and you'll most likely here, because they are a Pit Bull, large breed, pig dog and the like, all the things that the media deems to make a dog dangerous.

[corvus]

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.

Still haven't found my short-haired lapphund equivalent breed, or my long-legged Vallhund breed. You do realise breeds were developed from crossbreeding, right? Some breeds are only a few decades old. Some are still in development now. And there are some really amazing dogs out there that came from reasonably random crosses. For some people, a pedigree is not that meaningful and may not even be what they want. Shouldn't they have the opportunity to get what they want in a dog?

Furthermore, registered breeders don't breed enough dogs to meet demand. Why should owner screening be a breeder's job if that's truly what would make a big difference?

Edited August 24, 2013 by corvus

[Angeluca]

In all seriousness we have a great piece of legislation in NSW but it was set up to fail from the get go because it could never be enforced in such a way as to make it effective and there just hasn't been the education to go along with the enforcement.

We have laws that say you can't drink and drive or speed, but at the same time we have a lot of resources used to enforce and education campaigns. Government didn't just introduce the legislation, leave it at that and then claim it doesn't work, so lets get tougher.

Average Joe would be able to tell you that it's illegal to drink and drive, they'll also be able to give you some basic facts about why it's dangerous, the risks associated with it and probably some stats. There are still those out there who ignore the legislation but for the majority of people they know it's wrong, dangerous and punishable.

If you asked every day folk on the street how do you effectively care for a dog and what basic requirements you need to meet, you wouldn't have many get past feeding and watering it. There's a hell of a lot of educating and work to be done in this area. They simply cannot associate dog attacks with a lack of socialization , containment, mental stimulation , exercise and knowledge of canine behavior. Ask average Joe why a dog attacks and you'll most likely here, because they are a Pit Bull, large breed, pig dog and the like, all the things that the media deems to make a dog dangerous.

Your logic is understated, and it would just take up to much room to comment and agree with everything you said. Maybe one of the Biggest problems is everyone in control our lacks any knowledge in the area as well.

We have a premier here in qld who doesn't believe there is a puppy mill problem, that same minister is not going to put any funding in any animal education program when he just made major cut to hospital services before reinstating the hold on ministerial pay raises that the previous government had on hold. We will not get another ranger if we can't have nurses.

We would do better if someone who had knowledge in the area was in control of implementing regulations as if it was in the constitution and above the governments head. And Unicorns were given to all the good little children.

[Angeluca]

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.

Still haven't found my short-haired lapphund equivalent breed, or my long-legged Vallhund breed. You do realise breeds were developed from crossbreeding, right? Some breeds are only a few decades old. Some are still in development now. And there are some really amazing dogs out there that came from reasonably random crosses. For some people, a pedigree is not that meaningful and may not even be what they want. Shouldn't they have the opportunity to get what they want in a dog?

Furthermore, registered breeders don't breed enough dogs to meet demand. Why should owner screening be a breeder's job if that's truly what would make a big difference?

I've tried 3 times tonight to reply to you I'm sorry but every time my laptop reverts to the previous page loosing about half an hour of typing.

basically breed development if done properly is fine, as they may try random breeds but the dogs they use should be tested for health and temperament. And only someone very knowledgeable in breeds and handling should be doing this.

And due to a modern age recording should be done therefore still presenting a parentage.

in my Idea this would be approved in the panel idea and puppies certified as a legal breeding.

what I'd like to stop is the people who have 2 dogs and breed them. Sometimes this is done for greed, sometimes by accident, sometimes it is done for the love of dogs but if they love dogs then they should go about it properly with good stock that is tested, an understanding of the breed being used.

I know a person who loves animals and spends every cent on them, her breed shar pei, from a backyard breeder cause their cheaper, watches these dogs grow, taking them to the vet every month for skin allergies and arthritis (at the age of 9 mths) yet still believes it's a good idea to breed those 2 dogs. Does cute puppies sells them, 2 months later crying on facebook because the sire died aged 2 due to massive spinal infection from repeated abscesses. Gets another boy this time a bull arab and going to do it all again.

These people need to be FINED or arrested or bloody something!!!! 9 people out there with puppies from this sort of breeding. these Puppies will either die young, get dump due to the horrid small of allergies or be the heartbreak of a real good person who spends thousands to make them comfortable.

This person takes care of their animals fed socialized, health care so under current laws, legally they have done nothing wrong.

[moosmum]

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.

Still haven't found my short-haired lapphund equivalent breed, or my long-legged Vallhund breed. You do realise breeds were developed from crossbreeding, right? Some breeds are only a few decades old. Some are still in development now. And there are some really amazing dogs out there that came from reasonably random crosses. For some people, a pedigree is not that meaningful and may not even be what they want. Shouldn't they have the opportunity to get what they want in a dog?

Furthermore, registered breeders don't breed enough dogs to meet demand. Why should owner screening be a breeder's job if that's truly what would make a big difference?

I've tried 3 times tonight to reply to you I'm sorry but every time my laptop reverts to the previous page loosing about half an hour of typing.

basically breed development if done properly is fine, as they may try random breeds but the dogs they use should be tested for health and temperament. And only someone very knowledgeable in breeds and handling should be doing this.

And due to a modern age recording should be done therefore still presenting a parentage.

in my Idea this would be approved in the panel idea and puppies certified as a legal breeding.

what I'd like to stop is the people who have 2 dogs and breed them. Sometimes this is done for greed, sometimes by accident, sometimes it is done for the love of dogs but if they love dogs then they should go about it properly with good stock that is tested, an understanding of the breed being used.

I know a person who loves animals and spends every cent on them, her breed shar pei, from a backyard breeder cause their cheaper, watches these dogs grow, taking them to the vet every month for skin allergies and arthritis (at the age of 9 mths) yet still believes it's a good idea to breed those 2 dogs. Does cute puppies sells them, 2 months later crying on facebook because the sire died aged 2 due to massive spinal infection from repeated abscesses. Gets another boy this time a bull arab and going to do it all again.

These people need to be FINED or arrested or bloody something!!!! 9 people out there with puppies from this sort of breeding. these Puppies will either die young, get dump due to the horrid small of allergies or be the heartbreak of a real good person who spends thousands to make them comfortable.

This person takes care of their animals fed socialized, health care so under current laws, legally they have done nothing wrong.

So... You think if they were only permitted to breed pedigree dogs, they would do it right?

[Sandra777]

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.

Yeah - because that's worked so well absolutely everywhere it's been implemented.

You can't legislate ethics.

[kelpiecuddles]

Apart from what everyone else is said how do you propose that those of us who don't have easy access to dog training schools comply with that portion of your plan? I have two very well trained dogs but only one attended training(and that was more for my enjoyment than because the dog needed it), I live 40 minutes from the closest training school and they are only there on a Wednesday night, not exactly practical for someone who lives alone with three young children(also clashes with my emergency services training if by some miracle my husband is home to care for the kids). Going to formal training isn't the only way to get a well behaved dog.

All well and good for city peeps who have options, not so workable for those of us in regional and rural areas

Edited August 24, 2013 by kelpiecuddles

[Angeluca]

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.

Still haven't found my short-haired lapphund equivalent breed, or my long-legged Vallhund breed. You do realise breeds were developed from crossbreeding, right? Some breeds are only a few decades old. Some are still in development now. And there are some really amazing dogs out there that came from reasonably random crosses. For some people, a pedigree is not that meaningful and may not even be what they want. Shouldn't they have the opportunity to get what they want in a dog?

Furthermore, registered breeders don't breed enough dogs to meet demand. Why should owner screening be a breeder's job if that's truly what would make a big difference?

I've tried 3 times tonight to reply to you I'm sorry but every time my laptop reverts to the previous page loosing about half an hour of typing.

basically breed development if done properly is fine, as they may try random breeds but the dogs they use should be tested for health and temperament. And only someone very knowledgeable in breeds and handling should be doing this.

And due to a modern age recording should be done therefore still presenting a parentage.

in my Idea this would be approved in the panel idea and puppies certified as a legal breeding.

what I'd like to stop is the people who have 2 dogs and breed them. Sometimes this is done for greed, sometimes by accident, sometimes it is done for the love of dogs but if they love dogs then they should go about it properly with good stock that is tested, an understanding of the breed being used.

I know a person who loves animals and spends every cent on them, her breed shar pei, from a backyard breeder cause their cheaper, watches these dogs grow, taking them to the vet every month for skin allergies and arthritis (at the age of 9 mths) yet still believes it's a good idea to breed those 2 dogs. Does cute puppies sells them, 2 months later crying on facebook because the sire died aged 2 due to massive spinal infection from repeated abscesses. Gets another boy this time a bull arab and going to do it all again.

These people need to be FINED or arrested or bloody something!!!! 9 people out there with puppies from this sort of breeding. these Puppies will either die young, get dump due to the horrid small of allergies or be the heartbreak of a real good person who spends thousands to make them comfortable.

This person takes care of their animals fed socialized, health care so under current laws, legally they have done nothing wrong.

So... You think if they were only permitted to breed pedigree dogs, they would do it right?

Nope honestly I think if it was illegal they wouldn't bother, because to get a litter registered health tests would need to be submitted. And that's where when I explain what I do (breed golden retrievers) to them they think it's all just too much trouble eg if a dog doesn't pass they can't breed those dogs and still out the money for what is then an irrelevant test. They have the idea if it's not against the law then they have the right to do it.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Angeluca

[Santo66]

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.

I believe they need to follow up the breedings on these crossbreeds involved in serious attacks for example, if the breeder of the dog involved has the bitch there who's off her head in aggression then what's the dopey breeder expecting in the pups which needs to be accountable if you are breeding on unstable or excessively aggressive dogs and one of your pups bites someone, they need to answer why they breeding on dogs like that for suburban living........we know why they are to cater for the bogan market and they need to be stopped. It's not the answer to scoop up Bull cross breeds who are nice dogs, they need to target the people breeding aggression purposely and if their dogs don't pass a temperament test give them the green dream.

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

Yes, can't see how random cross breeding in the back yard accounts for personal responsibility of the person engaged in such a breeding practice.....no health checks, no ancestry history etc etc........the most irresponsible breeding practices of all time and people are supporting the BYB crossbreed to tell us how good it is......I don't get it

Edited August 24, 2013 by Santo66

[Angeluca]

Apart from what everyone else is said how do you propose that those of us who don't have easy access to dog training schools comply with that portion of your plan? I have two very well trained dogs but only one attended training(and that was more for my enjoyment than because the dog needed it), I live 40 minutes from the closest training school and they are only there on a Wednesday night, not exactly practical for someone who lives alone with three young children(also clashes with my emergency services training if by some miracle my husband is home to care for the kids). Going to formal training isn't the only way to get a well behaved dog.

All well and good for city peeps who have options, not so workable for those of us in regional and rural areas

If you mean by the free registration part?

that wasn't a condition more of an incentive for those who do it. But I see what you mean it may be considered unfair to those whom can't attend. Maybe it could be arranged that if the dog could past an assessment test that a dog who has done the course could pass, even without attending a class it would still receive the certificate? and therefore the free registration cause your still basically the owner of a socially well adjusted and responsive dog?

[Angeluca]

I believe they need to follow up the breedings on these crossbreeds involved in serious attacks for example, if the breeder of the dog involved has the bitch there who's off her head in aggression then what's the dopey breeder expecting in the pups which needs to be accountable if you are breeding on unstable or excessively aggressive dogs and one of your pups bites someone, they need to answer why they breeding on dogs like that for suburban living........we know why they are to cater for the bogan market and they need to be stopped. It's not the answer to scoop up Bull cross breeds who are nice dogs, they need to target the people breeding aggression purposely and if their dogs don't pass a temperament test give them the green dream.

Yes but how do we track those down without outlawing backyard breeding, A lot of these people who buy the dogs 5 mths later can't remember where from but if they do the persons were renting and probably moved (probably due to complaints). Which is why my idea stared with the outlawing or random breeding, imposing large fines on those breeding illegally and those who buy the dog, giving the option of a smaller fine if they give up the breeder , de sex and socialize the dog.

I was in the thought it shouldn't add any more fees to the current breeder, just require the action of current rules that the registering body already has to be an approved body. Breeders don't need any more fees they just need to be required to comply with current rules (those who do it right already do) of their registering body.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Angeluca

[Dogsfevr]

Breeders can breed wonderful dogs ,morons can create monsters .

We have simple doglaws now that people can't follow even DOLERS have posted what they do thats against the rules Because it apparently doesn't apply to them.

You can't have your cake & eat it ,many dog owners suck at taking control of the animals in there hands whether the behaviour be good or bad .

Common sense dog ownership is sadly lacking for many & dog ownership isn't about short cutting your responsabilities.

We also have the the scenario of puppy preschools in some cases giving bad advice we also have some obedience scholls whose methods are there way or no way .Many clubs turn people away who don't wish to use certain methods & above all the methods or choice of equipment are failing the dog,Why should people attend obedience when some put people off so badly or decide the dog is the to hard basket because it may work better on a check chain than a flat collar .

There where 2 families at the show today with Goldies lovely natures but dragging them every where ,they where discussing how feed up they where getting with there obedience classes & not getting anywhere or other advice.Some people there showed a different method & the dogs where so respectful,the owners showed what to try & the dogs worked a treat 10 mins of someone with open mind & they where happy campers /

[kelpiecuddles]

We also have the the scenario of puppy preschools in some cases giving bad advice

We had people in at work today asking if it was OK to train their 11 week old puppy with treats, they were confused because the vet had told them that your should NEVER use treats to train a dog????

[cannibalgoldfish]

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

No. Because no matter how responsible a breeder is, there will always be something they didn't prepare for. Maybe you have had breed A for years, know everything about it ect. All it takes is one dog to change the game. Maybe you end up with a bitch on heat jumping a fence that you have contained many of her breed before and didn't see it possible. Maybe Someone moves in down the road with a dog who goes to any length to get to your girl who you have safely kept seperate for years when she is on heat. Any length, including ones you haven't seen before because it took that one dog to do it.

This is why even if there is a perfect world of pet ownership, there will always be crossbreeds.

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.

Nope. Why do people spend $1000 plus on a byb blue staffy or even more on the latest designer

"doodlowhatsit" Some of those things cost in the thousands. I bought my rare (compared to staffies, blue or otherwise) breed for $800. From a registered breeder, with papers.

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 ?

Yes! Thing is, hundreds of thousands of people have a mutt/crossbreed dog. There isn't thousands of maulings from these dogs. Why? Some of it genetics, but most is owners.

Think about it? The adverage "bogan" or pet owner is not that dog savy. How many times do we hear "my dog has run off, oh wait, I don't have fences" Or "I own a *insert breed* " and it's never done that before!" when said *it* is common to said breed.

If you asked every day folk on the street how do you effectively care for a dog and what basic requirements you need to meet, you wouldn't have many get past feeding and watering it. There's a hell of a lot of educating and work to be done in this area

I agree with this. I have met many everyday folk. I can tell you now, the everyday people teach their dog to sit, maybe even take it to "obedience class" or far more common "puppy school" They don't get that it's on going or it's their fault if they assume that the few weeks of training wasn't enough. I have lost count of how many people I have met who don't have the slightest clue how to care for their breed of dog (that goes for pure bred/cross ect)..... but wait, funny thing, for some reason those who have put the hard yards in, researched and spent time deciding that the breed they want is actually suitable for their situation and are happy to wait for the right breeder rather than getting bored and buying the first byb litter in the local paper don't seem to pop up on the dog attack statistics?

Still haven't found my short-haired lapphund equivalent breed,

Ehem, an example here (which will upset the lapphund breeders no end....) To me. lapphunds look like a pretty mutt. They look like some kinda border collie/malamutey cross. I'm sure you can breed a couple of breeds together and get the same look. Some of the time, maybe. Some of the litter would look like them, some wont. Some might *look* like a lappie, but wont have the years of genetics and characteristics that a lapphund has. But you cant breed these look a likes together and get a lappie. They are their own breed, and not something that can be chucked out in some kinda dog fondue.

what I'd like to stop is the people who have 2 dogs and breed them. Sometimes this is done for greed, sometimes by accident, sometimes it is done for the love of dogs but if they love dogs then they should go about it properly with good stock that is tested, an understanding of the breed being used.

THIS

How do you stop the everyday man from doing this? Seriously... How many times is this? It is not a crime. How many people have a dog/s and love them so much that they must breed them to get a clone of the dog they love, or because he/she would make a great mother/father, or they paid however hundreds for said dog and want to recoup their money back.

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

Snort. Dogs aren't drugs. Breeding them is not illegal, there is no mystery, only profit.

Breeders can breed wonderful dogs ,morons can create monsters .

But sadly some breeders can be morons....

[tdierikx]

While there are not enough people on the ground to enforce the CURRENT laws and regulations, I cannot see any way that any further laws or regulations could possibly be enforced either.

Not everyone wants a dog from purebred lines - and just because one gets a dog from a breeder registered with the CC in their state, doesn't always mean they are getting a "quality product". I could go out today and impulse buy a registered pedigreed dog/pup (let's say a Rotti, a GSD, or an SBT with main reg papers) without any questioning at all about how I am intending to raise/keep that dog/pup - just hand over my money, take home dog/pup. It really IS that simple.

I could also go out and buy myself a crossbreed dog from a pet shop or BYB, and take it home, rear it properly and have myself a perfectly fine canine citizen. Not all crossbreeds are destined to have health or temperament issues.

There is a lot to be said about screening potential puppy/dog buyers - but let's face it - it ain't always going to happen. That's where education of the public to actually think about what they want in a pet BEFORE they go out and get one comes in...

T.

[Steve]

This is a great discussion and needs to be talked about and tossed over heaps.

When we see a problem our first inclination is to make assumptions on what causes it and based on that what we can do about it.

Governments do this all the time and its usually because a group of people all have the same assumptions which usually stem from their own philosophy and belief base and not very often based on reality.This creates bigger problems and it inevitably leads to more and more laws and requirements placed on every one "just in case" .Just in case one person cross breeds two dogs and it produces a litter of cranky dogs ban everyone from breeding cross bred dogs etc.

Identify the problem without the assumptions - Dogs are attacking people and other animals.

Identify the goal - humans want to be able to live in a neighbourhood and move around it freely without fear and be assured they are safe from dogs.

So in order to find the solution we have to throw out the assumptions or at least research what we think is causing the problem and objectively take a look at whether that is what is really happening - and dont complicate it .

Your assumption is that cross breeding is causing at least a major part of this problem - Here is a good place to go to start objectively researching your theory - NSW stats - link below.

The solution for me is a simple one and it covers most assumptions. It doesn't need massive codes and laws and restrictions, fine print about how long a leash has to be, how high a fence has to be, whether we need to feed em in a bowl or cut their toenails every morning etc ,whether we have to desex em etc for ordinary every day people who want to own a dog or two ,who want to breed a dog or who don't like dogs at all etc. We dont need to have laws and all the crap that goes with it which can never be policed or enforced.

Dogs are property and the right to own them and use them and do most of what we want to do with them which doesnt breach cruelty laws was given to us via the Magna Carta - no laws are ever going to be able to prevent a dog owner from being able to mate it with a dog of their choice and no laws are ever going to stop people owning a cross bred dog.People who own cross bred dogs,people who breed cross bred dogs would be the first to tell you how flawed your assumption is and there are far more of them than there are of us too.

Its simple make everyone responsible for their own property.

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/Council%20Reports%20of%20Dog%20Attacks%20in%20NSW%202010-11.pdf

[sandgrubber]

This is a great discussion and needs to be talked about and tossed over heaps.

When we see a problem our first inclination is to make assumptions on what causes it and based on that what we can do about it.

Governments do this all the time and its usually because a group of people all have the same assumptions which usually stem from their own philosophy and belief base and not very often based on reality.This creates bigger problems and it inevitably leads to more and more laws and requirements placed on every one "just in case" .Just in case one person cross breeds two dogs and it produces a litter of cranky dogs ban everyone from breeding cross bred dogs etc.

Identify the problem without the assumptions - Dogs are attacking people and other animals.

Identify the goal - humans want to be able to live in a neighbourhood and move around it freely without fear and be assured they are safe from dogs.

So in order to find the solution we have to throw out the assumptions or at least research what we think is causing the problem and objectively take a look at whether that is what is really happening - and dont complicate it .

Your assumption is that cross breeding is causing at least a major part of this problem - Here is a good place to go to start objectively researching your theory - NSW stats - link below.

The solution for me is a simple one and it covers most assumptions. It doesn't need massive codes and laws and restrictions, fine print about how long a leash has to be, how high a fence has to be, whether we need to feed em in a bowl or cut their toenails every morning etc ,whether we have to desex em etc for ordinary every day people who want to own a dog or two ,who want to breed a dog or who don't like dogs at all etc. We dont need to have laws and all the crap that goes with it which can never be policed or enforced.

Dogs are property and the right to own them and use them and do most of what we want to do with them which doesnt breach cruelty laws was given to us via the Magna Carta - no laws are ever going to be able to prevent a dog owner from being able to mate it with a dog of their choice and no laws are ever going to stop people owning a cross bred dog.People who own cross bred dogs,people who breed cross bred dogs would be the first to tell you how flawed your assumption is and there are far more of them than there are of us too.

It's simple: make everyone responsible for their own property.

http://www.dlg.nsw.g...W%202010-11.pdf

+1

[Christina]

So in order to find the solution we have to throw out the assumptions or at least research what we think is causing the problem and objectively take a look at whether that is what is really happening - and dont complicate it .

The solution for me is a simple one and it covers most assumptions. It doesn't need massive codes and laws and restrictions, fine print about how long a leash has to be, how high a fence has to be, whether we need to feed em in a bowl or cut their toenails every morning etc ,whether we have to desex em etc for ordinary every day people who want to own a dog or two ,who want to breed a dog or who don't like dogs at all etc. We dont need to have laws and all the crap that goes with it which can never be policed or enforced.

Dogs are property and the right to own them and use them and do most of what we want to do with them which doesnt breach cruelty laws was given to us via the Magna Carta - no laws are ever going to be able to prevent a dog owner from being able to mate it with a dog of their choice and no laws are ever going to stop people owning a cross bred dog.People who own cross bred dogs,people who breed cross bred dogs would be the first to tell you how flawed your assumption is and there are far more of them than there are of us too.

Its simple make everyone responsible for their own property.

As above. We have enough in place already it just needs enforcing.

Your ideal world sounds like a communist country or dictatorship.

What comes next ?

People cause a lot of harm & trouble to other people & damage property & destroy land & attack & kill millions of other people.

Maybe they should all have genetic & temperament testing before being allowed to breed.

Then be licensed, have a home check & of course face severe punishment for infringement.

Decisions could be made by childless people in positions of power.

The future of dogs is that they will only be bred as a business because it will be too complex for most people passionate about their breed with a genuine interest & knowledge.

There will still be as many dog attacks, dogs abandoned & surrendered & euthanised & dogs with health & temperament problems.

Education & trying to get people to understand the reality of dog ownership realistically is what is needed more than laws.

Many think a dog is a disposable item or comes already programmed to fit their life.

Then they can't be bothered when they find out they thought wrong.