Cross Breeding And Dog Attacks

[dog_fan]

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.

Sorry if someone has already picked up on the bit I've highlighted - I've just discovered this thread and haven't been through the whole 8 pages yet.

Federal, state and local govt funds are very seperate pools of money. Pretty much 90% of all application fees or fines simply go back into general coffers at each of these 3 levels. The reason for this is that this money is then invested on the stock market and in other money making efforts to help boost shortfalls. This is why Qld has had to sell off a lot of assets after the GFC and several natural disasters. Govt agencies (or local govt sections) then have to apply for monies to meet certain purposes, fund projects and employ new staff from those who protect these coffers (usually the Treasury depts. at federal and state level). It is rare that the two ever meet, ie that fines or application fees are used directly to fund the same work.

Local govt could apply to the state or federal govt to access funds for a specific purpose (like more rangers to police state legislation) but here too, because of funding shortfalls they are likely to only receive base funding and would have to come up with additional monies through their own pockets to cover all salary and operational costs (vehicle for example) needed for a ranger. Base funding means that while a ranger's salary might range from $80,000 to $95,000 they will only get funded $80,000, so as an employee gains more experience or years of service that extra $15,000 has to be found internally. Operational costs are usually an on top percentage figure of base salaries and this percentage does not necessarily reflect actual operational costs either.

And I have no idea what a ranger's salary is worth - just plucked those figures out of my head.

Ah if only it were all so simple!

Indeed. The motoring lobby have for years been trying to have all monies collected from vehicle registration to be directly put into roads and this hasn't happened for the reasons you have outlined.

Even if it was a possibility, however remote, it would take many years and a great deal of cooperation from government all levels to achieve it.

I think I see a flying pig.

[corvus]

If there was a reliable screening test that could rate the risk of a particular dog regardless of breed or upbringing causing harm, there would be significantly less wriggle room when a dog does something terrible. In that way increasing penalties might work because the onus would be on the owner to have their dog screened if they had an inkling it might be unusual. If the screening was readily accessible and low cost, people could be encouraged to do it, say, when their dog was 12 months old just to be on the safe side. Or when they are thinking about having a baby. Kind of like having cars checked for road-worthiness. To me this would be a voluntary process, because if you made it compulsory you would be doing it for way more dogs than are ever going to need it. But if you opt out, be it on your own head.

[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.

Sorry if someone has already picked up on the bit I've highlighted - I've just discovered this thread and haven't been through the whole 8 pages yet.

Federal, state and local govt funds are very seperate pools of money. Pretty much 90% of all application fees or fines simply go back into general coffers at each of these 3 levels. The reason for this is that this money is then invested on the stock market and in other money making efforts to help boost shortfalls. This is why Qld has had to sell off a lot of assets after the GFC and several natural disasters. Govt agencies (or local govt sections) then have to apply for monies to meet certain purposes, fund projects and employ new staff from those who protect these coffers (usually the Treasury depts. at federal and state level). It is rare that the two ever meet, ie that fines or application fees are used directly to fund the same work.

Local govt could apply to the state or federal govt to access funds for a specific purpose (like more rangers to police state legislation) but here too, because of funding shortfalls they are likely to only receive base funding and would have to come up with additional monies through their own pockets to cover all salary and operational costs (vehicle for example) needed for a ranger. Base funding means that while a ranger's salary might range from $80,000 to $95,000 they will only get funded $80,000, so as an employee gains more experience or years of service that extra $15,000 has to be found internally. Operational costs are usually an on top percentage figure of base salaries and this percentage does not necessarily reflect actual operational costs either.

And I have no idea what a ranger's salary is worth - just plucked those figures out of my head.

Ah if only it were all so simple!

Indeed. The motoring lobby have for years been trying to have all monies collected from vehicle registration to be directly put into roads and this hasn't happened for the reasons you have outlined.

Even if it was a possibility, however remote, it would take many years and a great deal of cooperation from government all levels to achieve it.

I think I see a flying pig.

Agreeing with both of you, little gifts I haven't gone into why it wouldn't in my idea/doesn't with regard to current laws happen but have mentioned that it can't. My example was QLD government cutting hospital funding resulting in a no way in the world would what considered by the community as (steve has mention) a non pressing - non important issue especially in comparison to human health or education.

Or even the same sex marriage issues are considered more important then the enforcement of already existing dog related issues. This is probably because they are louder in the requests and protests.

And I mentioned local councils are more likely put the effort and funding in to the recovery of outstanding rates owed as it would be of more financial value then chasing down unregistered dog or dogs without leads which would probably cost more then they recover.

[Angeluca]

If there was a reliable screening test that could rate the risk of a particular dog regardless of breed or upbringing causing harm, there would be significantly less wriggle room when a dog does something terrible. In that way increasing penalties might work because the onus would be on the owner to have their dog screened if they had an inkling it might be unusual. If the screening was readily accessible and low cost, people could be encouraged to do it, say, when their dog was 12 months old just to be on the safe side. Or when they are thinking about having a baby. Kind of like having cars checked for road-worthiness. To me this would be a voluntary process, because if you made it compulsory you would be doing it for way more dogs than are ever going to need it. But if you opt out, be it on your own head.

Yeah it would defiantly curve a lot of accidental dogs attack due to 'owner didn't know the dog would do that' or the 'it's never done that before' excuses. Then the time and effort could go into to chasing down the 'law doesn't apply to me' idiots and hopefully result in a down turn or more serious attacks.

[BoxerB]

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.

My thought exactly after reading the first couple of sentences.

Sorry if its been answered later on in the thread, but any actual science to support the notion that cross breeds are unstable?

[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.

My thought exactly after reading the first couple of sentences.

Sorry if its been answered later on in the thread, but any actual science to support the notion that cross breeds are unstable?

There is mention of reasoning behind certain breeds being crossed are more prone to the genetic mismatch resulting in a vicious dog. No mention of scientific fact, although some situations speak for themselves.

Having said that there is No notion or suggestion that all crossbreds are unstable and there is the environmental and health factors the have their own roll to play in most situations.

There is mention of purebreds being mismatched to produce the same sort of unpredictable behavior and of course the fore mentioned environmental and health factors would be considered into that assumption as well.

I hope you have a chance to read the whole thread cause the breeding and attacking are also discussed within their own problematic issues.

[Santo66]

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.

My thought exactly after reading the first couple of sentences.

Sorry if its been answered later on in the thread, but any actual science to support the notion that cross breeds are unstable?

Work back on the science and history of what it takes to produce consistently stable dogs then apply that to a BYB cross breeding. Dedicated pure breeders with years of ancestry on tap struggle enough producing type and the most diligent efforts can backfire. With zero effort to produce type as in a random BYB X, how is this essence of breeding anything greater than a complete lucky dip especially with mixtures of powerful breeds of aggressive tendency?

[dog_fan]

It wouldn't matter if ihad a ha or da dog nor would it bea problem for anyone else IF I manage that dog properly and take the responsibility for it.

Eta I don't believe in accidents but I sure do believe in carelessness and inattention.

Edited August 27, 2013 by dog_fan

[moosmum]

This idea does need discussion and will crop up more and more as time goes by and effects of current influences increase.

These ideas are the logical conclusion of, and supported by, current NKCs constitution and rules.

The proposal put forward by Angeluca would speed the process by forcing it on all society, rather than just "the specialists".

If you look at cause and effect, this proposal would finaly take domestic dogs out of the public domain and public interest and knowledge.

Any rules demanded of breeders of cross breed dogs will also be be demanded of pedigree breeders. Including your panel to approve of a mating,for the simple reason that dogs will still be dogs and people to be people and "The Specialists" put forward the idea.

Breeders would be held solely accountable for the actions of dogs and their welfare,since they alone claim to have the knowledge and skill to "produce" dogs that won't cause those problems.

Not only that, but its the ultimate precedent supporting "BSL" .If generic dogs can be the cause of so many problems,if the problems still exsist on their eradication,it must surely be the fault of the breed(s) who are so much more predictable?

Angeluca, Your idea removes personal responsibility from the general public and places it squarely on the producers. Dogs finaly become just another commodity subject to supply and demand and no need for the buyer to understand anything more than their wash and wear instructions.

Dissatisfaction at fault of the producer,( ie: fault after all instructions followed ) will become more prevelant and result in greater licensing restrictions, protocols and eligibility restrictions. Dog breeding as a specialist field would require study,with course material being expanded. Specialist facilities and capital to be assessed with your business plan.

.

Welfare and animal rights won't have to fight against society to eliminate companion animals, only against organizations far out side any thing familiar to the general public. Breeders become an easy target to gain public sympathy for Ar. If the public is not required to understand breeding principles or life cycles? "Those nasty dog breeders, the mother was only 2 yrs old with 6 babies/not enough teats for pups/ fed raw meat" could all sound nasty to the ignorant.

A species whos success was shaped by the societies they thrived best in would now be shaped to a formula agreed by a few.

A breeder would be a licensed producer of a product for the masses,subject to strict quality control. Bred for the people, but not by the people.

Not even for the people realy, because although breeders breed to preserve and improve according to a set, written standard, Breeding is Specificaly NOT for profit (or demand).

Breeders will pretty much have doomed themselves and our pure breeds to extiction, because average Joe will have no idea of the common history between man and dog that used to be taken for granted and gave these pedigree dogs their purpose and value. They will chose a model and follow instruction and over time very few people will see much point in the extra work breeders have to instruct them in for guaranteed success. When buyers are unfamiliar, the set of instructions provided will grow to keep pace with ignorance.

The breeds would stagnate and decline. An organisation needs room to grow to be viable. If you eliminate the foundation of your breeds, you can't grow.

Edited August 27, 2013 by moosmum

[tdierikx]

Well thought out and presented moosmum... thank you!

T.

[Nekhbet]

OK here's a question then...

What if I don't want an overly social dog or to produce them? What if I'm perfectly happy with my very controllable dog but that does not have a family friendly temperament?

[Dory the Doted One]

I dread the day we end up with boring, cookie cutter dogs.

[Dame Aussie]

I dread the day we end up with boring, cookie cutter dogs.

Yeah I agree

[JulesP]

OK here's a question then...

What if I don't want an overly social dog or to produce them? What if I'm perfectly happy with my very controllable dog but that does not have a family friendly temperament?

Then I would hope that you have them well contained. And I mean well contained and not in the average backyard.

[dog_fan]

OK here's a question then...

What if I don't want an overly social dog or to produce them? What if I'm perfectly happy with my very controllable dog but that does not have a family friendly temperament?

In my world go for it as long as you manage and contain your dogs so they don't cause any problems. The more we try to put the responsibility onto breeders and take it off dog owners the more chance we will have very few breeds to choose from as our pets.

[tdierikx]

Ahhh, but there's the thing... nobody is held accountable for their own actions any more - it's always someone else's fault.

I never thought I'd live in a society that had to put tags on clothes saying "do not iron whilst wearing"... but here we are... *sigh*

T.

[moosmum]

Ahhh, but there's the thing... nobody is held accountable for their own actions any more - it's always someone else's fault.

I never thought I'd live in a society that had to put tags on clothes saying "do not iron whilst wearing"... but here we are... *sigh*

T.

So to buck the trend we should accept our foundations. Appreciate them, nurture and mentor them. So they can be understood and valued by every one. We will all make fewer mistakes.

Strong foundations would invigorate pedigree dogs again. If generic cross breeds are the foundation of pedigree dogs, their owners are the foundation for new breeders.If its realy whats best for the dogs, surely thats a strong foundation.

[sandgrubber]

I'm surprised this thread is still spinning away. BAD IDEA! Government does a rotten job of dog control. No way I want to involve government deciding who can breed what. Targeting cross breeds will never fly. The public knows most cross breeds are harmless and a democratic government would laugh a generalized ban on X breeds out of court as a stupid, elitist move by the snobs in the pedigree dog community.

The only variant I can see is a good, well-enforced dog registration system that is able to track problem dogs back to their breeders -- and measures taken for breeders who produce large numbers of problem dogs. But even that's a big ask, given how awful most governments are at enforcing the most basic registration systems.

[Nekhbet]

Then I would hope that you have them well contained. And I mean well contained and not in the average backyard.

And here's where my experiment worked. All I said is they do not have a family friendly temperament so immediately the mind spins to dangerous, lock them up ala prison style. The government has brain washed you well.

Not family friendly does not equate to dangerous.

Not all dogs and breeds are bouncing, slobber all over you for cuddles dogs. That is a fact. Many were bred to be that way. That does not mean they do not deserve a normal life like any other dog if they are controlled.

Ahhh, but there's the thing... nobody is held accountable for their own actions any more - it's always someone else's fault.

I never thought I'd live in a society that had to put tags on clothes saying "do not iron whilst wearing"... but here we are... *sigh*

It's true. I lock my dogs in the house now because little brat shits insist on scaling my high fences to get into my backyard. If something did happen it would be my fault, not the shit that scaled an almost 7 foot fence to get in which is set waaaaaaaaay back from the street. That or retribution will dictate they are poisoned or worst. I can't leave my little dogs outside because they will be stolen. There's no responsibility for action any more, in fact attitudes are flout the law and if there is recourse it's everyone elses fault, not the offenders.

People need to wake up. If you want a dog, get one with a decent temperament. If dogs with shite temperaments were rejected more often, just like anything, money will talk.

I also see too massive a push on rescue dogs to be taken despite still having problems which make them a burden, not a pet. Rescues are popping up like mushrooms, not enough of them actually retrain the dogs properly or have them decently assessed before rehoming. Worst still, rehome breeds they know nothing about. We are losing and have lost a LOT of dog skills and we are accepting it, in fact we're perpetuating it.

[Staffyluv]

Then I would hope that you have them well contained. And I mean well contained and not in the average backyard.

And here's where my experiment worked. All I said is they do not have a family friendly temperament so immediately the mind spins to dangerous, lock them up ala prison style. The government has brain washed you well.

Not family friendly does not equate to dangerous.

Not all dogs and breeds are bouncing, slobber all over you for cuddles dogs. That is a fact. Many were bred to be that way. That does not mean they do not deserve a normal life like any other dog if they are controlled.

Ahhh, but there's the thing... nobody is held accountable for their own actions any more - it's always someone else's fault.

I never thought I'd live in a society that had to put tags on clothes saying "do not iron whilst wearing"... but here we are... *sigh*

It's true. I lock my dogs in the house now because little brat shits insist on scaling my high fences to get into my backyard. If something did happen it would be my fault, not the shit that scaled an almost 7 foot fence to get in which is set waaaaaaaaay back from the street. That or retribution will dictate they are poisoned or worst. I can't leave my little dogs outside because they will be stolen. There's no responsibility for action any more, in fact attitudes are flout the law and if there is recourse it's everyone elses fault, not the offenders.

People need to wake up. If you want a dog, get one with a decent temperament. If dogs with shite temperaments were rejected more often, just like anything, money will talk.

I also see too massive a push on rescue dogs to be taken despite still having problems which make them a burden, not a pet. Rescues are popping up like mushrooms, not enough of them actually retrain the dogs properly or have them decently assessed before rehoming. Worst still, rehome breeds they know nothing about. We are losing and have lost a LOT of dog skills and we are accepting it, in fact we're perpetuating it.

I like this, a lot..

When I have a foster dog, I do my utmost to make sure they go to the right family - sadly, sometimes and it has happened to me once, a family will make all the right moves and say all the right words and you think you have done the right thing by allowing them to adopt.

There was only one foster that went to the first application for the dog - that is because they were long term family friends, I knew them, their home and I knew that the dog would fit in perfectly (and she did).

I tend to focus/foster bully breeds because that is what I know.

I am very fortunate that our obedience club allows me to bring the fosters along and do obedience training with them at no extra cost because my boy goes there.

I took my rescue boy along to obedience because I was having issues with him and I hadn't trained a dog in over 10 years. So much had changed since the last time I was at an obedience class with a dog - I think it is a good idea that all dogs and owners go and at least do the basics and take responsibility for the animals in their charge.