BJean Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) http://www.gazette.v.../GG2014S022.pdf SPECIAL Victoria Government Gazette No.S 22 Friday 31 January 2014 By Authority of Victorian Government Printer Domestic Animals Act 1994 STANDARD FOR RESTRICTED BREED DOGS IN VICTORIA I, Peter Walsh, Minister for Agriculture and Food Security: a)revoke under section 3(3) and section 3(4) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 the ‘Standard for Restricted Breed Dogs in Victoria’ approved by the Minister on 31 August 2011 and published in the Victoria Government Gazette No. S283 on 1 September 2011; and b) approve under section 3(3) and section 3(4) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 the following ‘Standard for Restricted Breed Dogs in Victoria’. Dated 31 January 2014 Edited January 31, 2014 by lilli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJean Posted January 31, 2014 Author Share Posted January 31, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJean Posted January 31, 2014 Author Share Posted January 31, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 What on earth IS that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amax-1 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) STANDARD FOR RESTRICTED BREED DOGS IN VICTORIA Dog breeds of suspected restricted breed origin may be required to undertake a mandatory companion animal temperament test. Should dogs of suspected restricted breeds fail such a test, the dog may be seized. That's all IMHO that the restricted breed standard needs to be. Unsuitable temperament is what bites, not the bloody dogs tail whether or it's pointy ended and hangs near the hock joint.....thus is just stupid stuff. A couple of years a ago, a friend of mine wanted a GSD that was a bit sharp and would bounce around a bit and bark with intent as a deterrent to intruders entering his property and the dog he got may bite someone entering if the owner wasn't there to control the dog. The reason he wanted a sharper dog as a stronger deterrent was his red nose Pit girl wasn't a guard dog's boot lace.....when she sees people approaching, she wags her tail madly to greet them with not a peep out of her.....she's a nice dog great nerve, great pet, no problems at all, no aggression have I ever seen in her and I know her pretty well. In Victoria, this dog would be seized and PTS, you could not argue that she isn't of a restricted breed origin, but she is great dog and will blitz any temperament test that could be thrown at her. I have seen plenty of Pitty types and Bull crossbreds with massive aggression which I would shed no tears over them on the green dream, but they are character faulty dogs in the first place........it's temperament and character that matters, not what the dog looks like or what breed origin it is, it's either suitable for a companion animal or it's not!! Edited January 31, 2014 by Amax-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Madness. Sheer madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 A 3D generated model using the standards they produced. They could have gone the whole hog and stuck flaming eyeballs and a devil horns on it. It's to ridiculous for words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) The Government commissioned and paid big bucks for those models to be made. They also imported actual skulls of apparent APBT from the USA too. Temperament test of 'restricted breed dogs' is flawed, although arguably better than visual-only based seizure. We have a temp test based system in NSW for dogs that have been deemed as Pit Bull cross breeds. Last month we lost a beautiful dog that was in a Sydney pound to a so called 'temperament test'. The dog came in in absolutely horrendous physical condition, but in three months in the pound never showed an ounce of aggression to people or other dogs. She had a very reputable rescue ready to take her on with behaviourists on board should she need it. She was then taken to a vet surgery after three months impounded and 'temperament tested' there by a vet. She reacted to the other dogs and was failed and killed. Her three months of non-aggression prior was not considered in any way - the legislation prevents this. It's all based on a short interaction (in a vet surgery no less...) There are many studies that show that one-off 'temperament tests', especially in shelter environments, are pretty much useless in predicting behaviour. The dog tests differently in a 24 hour period, and usually completely differently once out of the shelter. So do I support 'temperament tests' for supposed restricted breed dogs? Hell no. But it's certainly at least an improvement on what Victoria has at the moment. Edited January 31, 2014 by melzawelza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) Wondering if people have to take 3d photos and biometrics of dogs now to compare 'The Model' surely if it doesn't match the model 'exactly' then no grounds to restrict? They make good photos anyway. Edited January 31, 2014 by DaffyDuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christina Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) If there was an award for absolutely f**king stupid this would win it. I would like to see the all people who are involved in all dog legislation to have a temperament test & psychiatric evaluation. Haven't they got anything better to waste money on than all this dog legislation Edited January 31, 2014 by Christina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amax-1 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 The Government commissioned and paid big bucks for those models to be made. They also imported actual skulls of apparent APBT from the USA too. Temperament test of 'restricted breed dogs' is flawed, although arguably better than visual-only based seizure. We have a temp test based system in NSW for dogs that have been deemed as Pit Bull cross breeds. Last month we lost a beautiful dog that was in a Sydney pound to a so called 'temperament test'. The dog came in in absolutely horrendous physical condition, but in three months in the pound never showed an ounce of aggression to people or other dogs. She had a very reputable rescue ready to take her on with behaviourists on board should she need it. She was then taken to a vet surgery after three months impounded and 'temperament tested' there by a vet. She reacted to the other dogs and was failed and killed. Her three months of non-aggression prior was not considered in any way - the legislation prevents this. It's all based on a short interaction (in a vet surgery no less...) There are many studies that show that one-off 'temperament tests', especially in shelter environments, are pretty much useless in predicting behaviour. The dog tests differently in a 24 hour period, and usually completely differently once out of the shelter. So do I support 'temperament tests' for supposed restricted breed dogs? Hell no. But it's certainly at least an improvement on what Victoria has at the moment. Ok, have you ever seen or know of a vet who can train a dog or assess it's behaviour??.......I haven't in 30 years and the worst I have seen are vet behaviourists, in fact there is an excellent GSD trained in scent detection as we speak rescued from one these fools recommending it was untrainable and should be PTS strung out on prey drive......a temperament test needs to be conducted by people who know what they are looking at, otherwise you end up with the same scenario as the appearance based legislation with the dog's future based on the opinion of halfwits for a bold exclamation. She had a very reputable rescue ready to take her on with behaviourists on board should she need it. Aside from my behaviourst rant.........do you see something wrong with the above? Dog's that need a behaviourist attached to the rehoming process are not stable enough to be rehomed and sadly we can't keep them all and a line has to be drawn. There is too much of this "environmental factor", dogs reacting badly because of abuse or poor treatment in a former life......a dog of strong genetic stability can bounce through this quickly with good treatment and it's the dogs who lack the genetic strength who keep skeletons in the closet and carry baggage from past experience that they can't rise above easily. I have had dogs in apprehension roles stabbed, kicked, beaten, belted with baseball bats and so on.....some have never been able to recover mentally from these incidents and some can and the one's who can is in the genetics of the dog. You can't successfully train or rehabilitate what's not in the dog in the first place and people need to understand this. It's not until working dogs in extreme roles that this phenomena presents clarity, so perhaps the dog in your example wasn't as genetically stable as you assumed it was to have failed the vet test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 http://www.gazette.v.../GG2014S022.pdf SPECIAL Victoria Government Gazette No.S 22 Friday 31 January 2014 By Authority of Victorian Government Printer Domestic Animals Act 1994 I couldn't get the above link to work. Here's the long version, which works for me. http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2014/GG2014S022.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 An ironic feature of this legislation is that extreme pit bulls (at least in the US) would pass the visual test, while many X-breeds with no pit in them would get caught in the net. See, eg,. http://www.hqbullies.com/males/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) The Government commissioned and paid big bucks for those models to be made. They also imported actual skulls of apparent APBT from the USA too. Temperament test of 'restricted breed dogs' is flawed, although arguably better than visual-only based seizure. We have a temp test based system in NSW for dogs that have been deemed as Pit Bull cross breeds. Last month we lost a beautiful dog that was in a Sydney pound to a so called 'temperament test'. The dog came in in absolutely horrendous physical condition, but in three months in the pound never showed an ounce of aggression to people or other dogs. She had a very reputable rescue ready to take her on with behaviourists on board should she need it. She was then taken to a vet surgery after three months impounded and 'temperament tested' there by a vet. She reacted to the other dogs and was failed and killed. Her three months of non-aggression prior was not considered in any way - the legislation prevents this. It's all based on a short interaction (in a vet surgery no less...) There are many studies that show that one-off 'temperament tests', especially in shelter environments, are pretty much useless in predicting behaviour. The dog tests differently in a 24 hour period, and usually completely differently once out of the shelter. So do I support 'temperament tests' for supposed restricted breed dogs? Hell no. But it's certainly at least an improvement on what Victoria has at the moment. Dog's that need a behaviourist attached to the rehoming process are not stable enough to be rehomed and sadly we can't keep them all and a line has to be drawn. You're a troll with numerous usernames so there's not much point in engaging with you however I will say for the benefit of anyone that may be reading this that this is absolute crap. There is nothing wrong with taking a dog in to a rescue that may need some extra help and working with it until it's rehomable. Reputable rescues do it regularly with great success. If the dog is so badly damaged that even with work it's not able to be rehomed safely - then it isn't rehomed. The absolute majority don't fall into this category. Edited February 1, 2014 by melzawelza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ams Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 The Government commissioned and paid big bucks for those models to be made. They also imported actual skulls of apparent APBT from the USA too. Temperament test of 'restricted breed dogs' is flawed, although arguably better than visual-only based seizure. We have a temp test based system in NSW for dogs that have been deemed as Pit Bull cross breeds. Last month we lost a beautiful dog that was in a Sydney pound to a so called 'temperament test'. The dog came in in absolutely horrendous physical condition, but in three months in the pound never showed an ounce of aggression to people or other dogs. She had a very reputable rescue ready to take her on with behaviourists on board should she need it. She was then taken to a vet surgery after three months impounded and 'temperament tested' there by a vet. She reacted to the other dogs and was failed and killed. Her three months of non-aggression prior was not considered in any way - the legislation prevents this. It's all based on a short interaction (in a vet surgery no less...) There are many studies that show that one-off 'temperament tests', especially in shelter environments, are pretty much useless in predicting behaviour. The dog tests differently in a 24 hour period, and usually completely differently once out of the shelter. So do I support 'temperament tests' for supposed restricted breed dogs? Hell no. But it's certainly at least an improvement on what Victoria has at the moment. Ok, have you ever seen or know of a vet who can train a dog or assess it's behaviour??.......I haven't in 30 years and the worst I have seen are vet behaviourists, in fact there is an excellent GSD trained in scent detection as we speak rescued from one these fools recommending it was untrainable and should be PTS strung out on prey drive......a temperament test needs to be conducted by people who know what they are looking at, otherwise you end up with the same scenario as the appearance based legislation with the dog's future based on the opinion of halfwits for a bold exclamation. She had a very reputable rescue ready to take her on with behaviourists on board should she need it. Aside from my behaviourst rant.........do you see something wrong with the above? Dog's that need a behaviourist attached to the rehoming process are not stable enough to be rehomed and sadly we can't keep them all and a line has to be drawn. There is too much of this "environmental factor", dogs reacting badly because of abuse or poor treatment in a former life......a dog of strong genetic stability can bounce through this quickly with good treatment and it's the dogs who lack the genetic strength who keep skeletons in the closet and carry baggage from past experience that they can't rise above easily. I have had dogs in apprehension roles stabbed, kicked, beaten, belted with baseball bats and so on.....some have never been able to recover mentally from these incidents and some can and the one's who can is in the genetics of the dog. You can't successfully train or rehabilitate what's not in the dog in the first place and people need to understand this. It's not until working dogs in extreme roles that this phenomena presents clarity, so perhaps the dog in your example wasn't as genetically stable as you assumed it was to have failed the vet test? Amax I agree not all dogs are safe to return to the community and I don't think only genetic factors are at play. My experience has been there is a better chance to successfully retrain, rehabilitate and develop appropriate coping mechanisms with dogs out of a pound environment which is why rescue organisations with behaviourists are integral in the process of saving dogs from pounds. I have been in rescue for 5 years and there have been many dogs that have not passed BA in shelters but have been perfectly fine in home environments. I have never taken a dog out of a pound and placed it straight into a foster home. They have all spent time with me in my home first. That doesn't mean they don't show different behaviours in a foster carers home. One dog was transferred to me after 5 months in a shelter and having access to a number of trainers and behaviourists yet when the dog was transferred to me those behaviours were never in existence in a home environment. I have and will euthanised dogs I deem not safe to return to the community but I will give them every chance to prove they are worthy of a chance first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 A bad behavioural assessment is a bad behavioural assessment. That doesn't mean that good basic behavioural assessment cannot be used as a tool to assess dogs. The person assessing needs to have a great deal of knowledge and NO vested interest. Someone with a great deal of knowledge with regards to assessment simply would not test a dog in a vet clinic situation. Quality behavioural assessment instead of the rubbish we have in VIC would be a good thing. Assessments like this would not even have to take place in pounds/ shelters in situations where council were concerned about a dog in their area. They could be done in and around the dogs home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakkjackal Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 An ironic feature of this legislation is that extreme pit bulls (at least in the US) would pass the visual test, while many X-breeds with no pit in them would get caught in the net. See, eg,. http://www.hqbullies.com/males/ Those aren't pit bulls, they are American Bullies. They have nothing to do with today's pit bulls. I agree with your point though, but let's not confuse bullies with APBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I've seen a lot of dogs in pounds, in rescue, and in the community in general... never seen one that actually looks anything like that 3D model. The closest I've seen would be the generic "staffy crosses" - the ones that look quite Staffy, but have longer legs... no purebred blood in any of them... T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) A bad behavioural assessment is a bad behavioural assessment. That doesn't mean that good basic behavioural assessment cannot be used as a tool to assess dogs. The person assessing needs to have a great deal of knowledge and NO vested interest. Someone with a great deal of knowledge with regards to assessment simply would not test a dog in a vet clinic situation. Quality behavioural assessment instead of the rubbish we have in VIC would be a good thing. Assessments like this would not even have to take place in pounds/ shelters in situations where council were concerned about a dog in their area. They could be done in and around the dogs home. Studies have shown that even well researched and put together behaviour assessments are pretty average at not only predicting the behaviour of a dog when transitioning from shelter to home, but even just from day to day in the shelter. http://www.savingpets.com.au/2014/01/sacrificed-on-the-alter-of-temperament-testing/ Remember that any restricted breed temp test is a one-off Pass/Fail test here in NSW and definitely would be the same in Vic if it was implemented. ETA: I understand that you're saying that it could be done in and around the home but we already have all of this legislated carefully here in NSW and it resulted in a Vet being approved by the Department of Local Government to be an 'approved temperament tester' for restricted breed dogs, and that vet deeming it suitable to test a dog that has been in the pound for three months at his vet surgery. The system is flawed, and anything breed-specific is flawed too. Not to mention the resources that go in to it for no measurable benefit. Edited February 1, 2014 by melzawelza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Yes but surely that is a problem with the legislation- i don't extrapolate from the fact that that was allowed to occur that, behavioural assessment is useless? There were plenty of limitations in that link with data collection etc. Again it depends on who is conducting such assessments- not everyone would fail the dog for resource guarding or euthanase a dog that didn't like a doll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now