kelpiecuddles Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 A one of a kind tri color pitbull bully male that you cannot find anywhere! He is the ultimate XL tri color pitbull bully that everyone wishes they own with Foundation Bloodlines! He is the most searched Remyline tri color pitbull bully in the world! The guys selling them call them pitbulls Hockz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakkjackal Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 A one of a kind tri color pitbull bully male that you cannot find anywhere! He is the ultimate XL tri color pitbull bully that everyone wishes they own with Foundation Bloodlines! He is the most searched Remyline tri color pitbull bully in the world! The guys selling them call them pitbulls Hockz? Yes of course they do. "Pit bull" sells, but it's the pedigree that dictates what breed the dog is and those are 100% bully blood. Also they are registered with the ABKC (an American Bully registry) and UKC, which have just recognized the American Bully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelpiecuddles Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 OK, so they are just using the term to sell dogs. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amax-1 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. I think it's the best solution as a good dog is a good dog regardless of it's appearance or suspected breed origin and it's not hard at all to conduct a very accurate behavioural assessment and the vet clinic assessment to me is plain stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amax-1 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. I was referring more to dogs released into foster homes with behaviourists in tow, that is dogs that haven't reached a adequate stage of rehabilitation. Environmental factor triggers the behaviour, but the speed of recovery in the rehabilitation process when the dog is properly treated in a good environment is the component of genetics. I imagine through rescue you would have also experienced those great dogs too, the one's who ooze stability and soundness of temperament are the good ones to embrace :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelpiecuddles Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 A lot of foster carers are very experienced in rehabilitating those good dogs who've had a rough start though, and a home environment would have to be a better place to achieve rehabilitation than a pound environment. being in the foster home doesn't mean they are immediately up for adoption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Gifts Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I can't believe the madness continues. Have they not learnt a damn thing from all the court cases this has already caused? How much trauma do they need to cause innocent dogs and their families before they get that their descriptors aren't finding the dogs they think? How do they sleep at night? I don't even want to visit Vic anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruffles Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 The fact that they say that a dog with Blue eyes is definitely NOT an APBT, nor could it possibly be an APBT if it's all white, or Merle really does show that they have no clue about anything. This state is a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amax-1 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 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 Never mind shelters, what about the family pet that has restricted breed appearance as in Victoria they seize the dog and PTS, a perfectly adjusted pet they have probably had from a pup. That dog if it's assumed be to be a risk to public safety because of it's appearance deserves a temperament test to prove otherwise. If it's a good stable dog, then it deserves to live it's life. It's got nothing to do with a shelter dog's ability to be rehomed, it about the seizure and mindless euthanasia of people's beloved pets that needs to be addressed first and foremost IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) I have a Labrador bitch (rather large head) who could be classed as a pit bull under these criteria. And I suspect quite a few Molasser types could be classed as Filas ... A real work of genius, this legislation Edited February 1, 2014 by sandgrubber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 In the end, I suspect, councils will get tired of paying a hundred grand to lose court cases on "pit bulls" which is happening now, and which happened in Q and which is what stopped the mass slaughter of anything and everything. I hope that day happens soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJaq Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 If they put the onus of proof on the owner there will be no more expensive court cases as nobody with a mutt is going to be able to prove what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 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 Never mind shelters, what about the family pet that has restricted breed appearance as in Victoria they seize the dog and PTS, a perfectly adjusted pet they have probably had from a pup. That dog if it's assumed be to be a risk to public safety because of it's appearance deserves a temperament test to prove otherwise. If it's a good stable dog, then it deserves to live it's life. It's got nothing to do with a shelter dog's ability to be rehomed, it about the seizure and mindless euthanasia of people's beloved pets that needs to be addressed first and foremost IMHO. Like I said, it's certainly better than the current appearance-only model, but it's still completely unacceptable, completely unscientific, a waste of Council money and resources and at the end of the day it's still Breed Specific Legislation, which fails at public safety and creates more problems than it solves. In the end, I suspect, councils will get tired of paying a hundred grand to lose court cases on "pit bulls" which is happening now, and which happened in Q and which is what stopped the mass slaughter of anything and everything. I hope that day happens soon. Some of the SE QLD Councils have started seizing again: http://www.savingpets.com.au/2014/01/the-terrible-awful-heartbreaking-story-of-zeus/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ams Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) Brisbane City Council legislation specifies if you ever challenge a Council decision you cannot reclaim costs of litigation even if you win. eta ( I should say it did, I haven't checked it recently but I seriously doubt they would take that out of legislation) Edited February 2, 2014 by Ams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Did anyone read the exemptions ? blue eyes or pure white and they not APBT :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PL_ Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 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. I was referring more to dogs released into foster homes with behaviourists in tow, that is dogs that haven't reached a adequate stage of rehabilitation. Environmental factor triggers the behaviour, but the speed of recovery in the rehabilitation process when the dog is properly treated in a good environment is the component of genetics. I imagine through rescue you would have also experienced those great dogs too, the one's who ooze stability and soundness of temperament are the good ones to embrace :) What do you think rescue is for if it's not to provide rehabilitation? It's called rescue for a reason and that includes giving a chance to the dogs that are sick, old, mentally or physically scarred....and in general the dogs that aren't sold by the pound. The notion that having a behaviourist lined up is somehow a red flag that the dog is unrehomeable is as stupid as saying a dog who needs specialist treatment should not be rescued either because it's sick. The expertise you claim to have, and your theories about rescue reads like bullish!t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) I just caught up with this thread ... & the 'model'. So help me, I thought it was satire. There is something called the Ig Nobel awards for people who present really stupid science. The Government of Victoria & the relevant minister should be nominated. The dog 'model' is based on a 'belief' that went out centuries ago... that is, physical features are predictive of behaviour. This nonsense is exactly the same. Hint to Victorian Government & relevant minister. If it's dog behaviours that concern you, in relation to personal & public safety... start with behaviour in formulating guidelines. No one has ever been bitten or savaged by the shape of a dog.... that has no behaviours. Edited February 2, 2014 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJaq Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) Not sure if this has been posted yet... http://www.sheepbloke.com.au/default.asp?cid=28154&rid=1353&menuid=1353 Does that look familiar? What a joke. Edited February 2, 2014 by BlackJaq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Hahaha holey crap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amax-1 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) What do you think rescue is for if it's not to provide rehabilitation? It's called rescue for a reason and that includes giving a chance to the dogs that are sick, old, mentally or physically scarred....and in general the dogs that aren't sold by the pound. The notion that having a behaviourist lined up is somehow a red flag that the dog is unrehomeable is as stupid as saying a dog who needs specialist treatment should not be rescued either because it's sick. The expertise you claim to have, and your theories about rescue reads like bullish!t. I am referring to rescue, pounds, dogs home or whatever as a collection place for homeless dogs as an access point for which they can be re-homed and sourced by the community. In that collection of homeless dogs, not all will be temperament compromised, in fact there will be some great dogs in there as I have seen in these places and selected dogs from countless times over the years, and also I have seen dogs who are temperament compromised with issues that need work if ever the work in progress will create a well adjusted pet may or may not be achieved, not withstanding the fact the compromised temperament is often the reason dogs have been surrendered into re-homing shelters in the first place. I believe it to be a green flag in selection of a dog who presents sound in temperament in these environments over a dog with rehabilitation of issues in progress. If you believe that a broken dog under the process of repair for simplicity sake is a better prospect than an unbroken dog I disagree, sorry. As a potential owner of one of these dogs, I would recommend a dog that presents well straight up is a better prospect than one that may present well after the rehabilitation process, in fact it's a no brainer really in my mindset? What I think is bullshit which I have seen so many times is this: The dog has been abused so she is timid. She doesn't like cats or blokes who wear glasses and she doesn't like her tail being touched. She's a bit funny with kids, but other than that she is terrific dog with a wonderful temperament who will make a perfect pet. Sad as it is, there are better dogs than this available to enrich the lives of people's enjoyment of canine ownership. We can't save them all unfortunately Edited February 2, 2014 by Amax-1 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