Immediate Threat To All Dogs And Owners

melzawelza · February 5, 2014

Do you think it would help if plenty of people forward the Team Dog alternative to the relevant people in power? Perhaps if they were sent it enough they would actually read it and give it some thought?

Many many people already did back in August, but unfortunately it seems he's still persisted with these current inclusions. Generic replies were received.

We're currently deciding whether it's a good idea to persist with this again as the main push (Seeing as it's already been done) or go for a different approach.

ruthless · February 5, 2014

The creator of The Calgary Model, Bill Bruce, came to Australia and had extensive meetings with politicians statewide. It doesn't seem to have had an impact yet though. Very disappointing.

Politicians will only care when they feel that votes depend on it.

ETA: Team Dog co-organised Bill's Sydney talks.

Edited February 5, 2014 by ruthless

Nic.B · February 5, 2014

Is anyone able to confirm that Bonnie did not pose a risk to the community? We all feel for Bonnie though why was she failed/pts? You are working with a shelter who is incredible in meeting the needs of dogs and cats in care.

I have taken many of the same breed and assisted with lots of others, all responsibly placed after NOI and assesment.

Three months is a long time to be in care for a dog (Bonnie) esspecially in a shelter environment.

melzawelza · February 5, 2014

Is anyone able to confirm that Bonnie did not pose a risk to the community? We all feel for Bonnie though why was she failed/pts? You are working with a shelter who is incredible in meeting the needs of dogs and cats in care.

I have taken many of the same breed and assisted with lots of others, all responsibly placed after NOI and assesment.

Three months is a long time to be in care for a dog (Bonnie) esspecially in a shelter environment.

I don't think Bonnie is really relevant to this directly and I'm reluctant to go off into a tangent on this one as I feel like this thread has finally gotten back on track.

I will mention briefly that Bonnie was never set to be adopted directly from the pound. A very reputable rescue group was lined up to take her with an experienced foster carer. This group has some of the best behaviourists in Sydney on board with them should they ever need them, and they are not afraid to make the decision of euthanasia if it is the right thing to do.

All pound staff and volunteers were totally confident she would pass the temp test as in three months she never showed any aggression to dogs or people, even dogs that went off at her. One of the main reasons they stuck their neck out for her was for this.

The temperament assessment was performed by a vet in his vet surgery (we all know how some dogs can get at the vets), hardly a neutral place and by someone with no behavioural qualifications. It was performed after the dog had been impounded for three months. Again, not really neutral or fair. She apparently reacted to the other dogs there and was failed based on that.

She deserved further assessment out of the pound environment, like any other dog would have gotten if they had a great rescue lined up to take them, especially after showing no behavioural issues in the pound. There have been numerous studies done in the USA recently showing that the way an impounded dog reacts in a temperament assessment, even a really well researched and performed one, can differ hugely from day to day and generally does not predict behaviour outside that environment.

Unfortunately the legislation set her up to fail and denied her that.

I don't really think Bonnie's specific case is particularly relevant to this discussion and I don't think we should focus on that when continuing this thread, but it does highlight the failings of the current NSW Legislation.

Edited February 5, 2014 by melzawelza

Erny · February 5, 2014

The creator of The Calgary Model, Bill Bruce, came to Australia and had extensive meetings with politicians statewide. It doesn't seem to have had an impact yet though. Very disappointing.

Politicians will only care when they feel that votes depend on it.

Yes - it is a real shame that they all seem to be turning their backs on this to the point as though it doesn't exist.

Is it helpful if we write to our MP's with a two-liner asking why the Government won't acknowledge Calgary Model and don't look at adopting it when current laws and laws they've implemented to follow have only proven failure and increased bite stats?

I do find that the longer the letter, the more detail ….. the more the Government have to work with. If the Government's letter is relevant in response at all (usually a standard print off letter), keeping a letter succinct where there is no denying or escaping the question less possible to squirm away from (and makes that "squirming" more evident).

Nic.B · February 5, 2014

Is anyone able to confirm that Bonnie did not pose a risk to the community? We all feel for Bonnie though why was she failed/pts? You are working with a shelter who is incredible in meeting the needs of dogs and cats in care.

I have taken many of the same breed and assisted with lots of others, all responsibly placed after NOI and assesment.

Three months is a long time to be in care for a dog (Bonnie) esspecially in a shelter environment.

I don't think Bonnie is really relevant to this directly and I'm reluctant to go off into a tangent on this one as I feel like this thread has finally gotten back on track.

I will mention briefly that Bonnie was never set to be adopted directly from the pound. A very reputable rescue group was lined up to take her with an experienced foster carer. This group has some of the best behaviourists in Sydney on board with them should they ever need them, and they are not afraid to make the decision of euthanasia if it is the right thing to do.

All pound staff and volunteers were totally confident she would pass the temp test as in three months she never showed any aggression to dogs or people, even dogs that went off at her. One of the main reasons they stuck their neck out for her was for this.

The temperament assessment was performed by a vet in his vet surgery (we all know how some dogs can get at the vets), hardly a neutral place and by someone with no behavioural qualifications. It was performed after the dog had been impounded for three months. Again, not really neutral or fair. She apparently reacted to the other dogs there and was failed based on that.

She deserved further assessment out of the pound environment, like any other dog would have gotten if they had a great rescue lined up to take them, especially after showing no behavioural issues in the pound. There have been numerous studies done in the USA recently showing that the way an impounded dog reacts in a temperament assessment, even a really well researched and performed one, can differ hugely from day to day and generally does not predict behaviour outside that environment.

Unfortunately the legislation set her up to fail and denied her that.

I am well aware of the temp test and the vet involved. Why did it take you three months to have Bonnie assesed? A NOI and assesment is a fairly straight forward process. It would have taken a couple of days max.

BlackJaq · February 5, 2014

So perhaps instead of addressing the politicians we should address the public with TV ads that show in a simple and concise manner why these recommendations are better than what the government proposes? I'm thinking something along the lines of a view through the eyes of a dog, running through common scenarios with a go pro attached under the dog's chin or similar to make it hard to tell what breed the dog is. Perhaps it could then be explained in idiot proof terms what approach would be successful in preventing this situation and how the owner is being irresponsible and should be targeted.

Perhaps we could have a friendly dog rush people in an excited manner, who then react fearfully. Bogan owner could be in the background yelling that "he is friendly and just wants to play". Perhaps we can emphasize that the owner is at fault, not the dog, by explaining some training and a simple leash could have prevented this incident and that existing leash laws simply need to be enforced to deal with these kind of incidents.

I duno, something along these lines. I think the message needs to be on the same level as the current media campaigns, simple and easy to understand, preferably with lots of pictures. As soon as people have to think about it the message is lost because most people either don't want to or are simply unable to think it through....

I'm sure people can probably come up with a better story line for the ad, too, I am just offering a general outline of what my thoughts are here...

Edited February 5, 2014 by BlackJaq

melzawelza · February 5, 2014

Is anyone able to confirm that Bonnie did not pose a risk to the community? We all feel for Bonnie though why was she failed/pts? You are working with a shelter who is incredible in meeting the needs of dogs and cats in care.

I have taken many of the same breed and assisted with lots of others, all responsibly placed after NOI and assesment.

Three months is a long time to be in care for a dog (Bonnie) esspecially in a shelter environment.

I don't think Bonnie is really relevant to this directly and I'm reluctant to go off into a tangent on this one as I feel like this thread has finally gotten back on track.

I will mention briefly that Bonnie was never set to be adopted directly from the pound. A very reputable rescue group was lined up to take her with an experienced foster carer. This group has some of the best behaviourists in Sydney on board with them should they ever need them, and they are not afraid to make the decision of euthanasia if it is the right thing to do.

All pound staff and volunteers were totally confident she would pass the temp test as in three months she never showed any aggression to dogs or people, even dogs that went off at her. One of the main reasons they stuck their neck out for her was for this.

The temperament assessment was performed by a vet in his vet surgery (we all know how some dogs can get at the vets), hardly a neutral place and by someone with no behavioural qualifications. It was performed after the dog had been impounded for three months. Again, not really neutral or fair. She apparently reacted to the other dogs there and was failed based on that.

She deserved further assessment out of the pound environment, like any other dog would have gotten if they had a great rescue lined up to take them, especially after showing no behavioural issues in the pound. There have been numerous studies done in the USA recently showing that the way an impounded dog reacts in a temperament assessment, even a really well researched and performed one, can differ hugely from day to day and generally does not predict behaviour outside that environment.

Unfortunately the legislation set her up to fail and denied her that.

I am well aware of the temp test and the vet involved. Why did it take you three months to have Bonnie assesed? A NOI and assesment is a fairly straight forward process. It would have taken a couple of days max.

The dog was declared a restricted breed already prior to being impounded due to a failure of the owner to have the dog assessed years earlier when an NOI was issued. It required a Council resolution from the Council that declared the dog to revoke the restricted breed declaration, and then a new NOI to be issued by the impounding Council, and the assessments to be organised. All this smack bang in the middle of December and Christmas - Council shutdown. As you can imagine a Council resolution takes time.

If you have further questions I suggest you either talk to the Council that impounded her or PM me. It's not relevant to this topic and I'm not going to be involved in it getting derailed again.

Edited February 5, 2014 by melzawelza

ruthless · February 5, 2014

So perhaps instead of addressing the politicians we should address the public with TV ads that show in a simple and concise manner why these recommendations are better than what the government proposes? I'm thinking something along the lines of a view through the eyes of a dog, running through common scenarios with a go pro attached under the dog's chin or similar to make it hard to tell what breed the dog is. Perhaps it could then be explained in idiot proof terms what approach would be successful in preventing this situation and how the owner is being irresponsible and should be targeted.

Perhaps we could have a friendly dog rush people in an excited manner, who then react fearfully. Bogan owner could be in the background yelling that "he is friendly and just wants to play". Perhaps we can emphasize that the owner is at fault, not the dog, by explaining some training and a simple leash could have prevented this incident and that existing leash laws simply need to be enforced to deal with these kind of incidents.

I duno, something along these lines. I think the message needs to be on the same level as the current media campaigns, simple and easy to understand, preferably with lots of pictures. As soon as people have to think about it the message is lost because most people either don't want to or are simply unable to think it through....

I'm sure people can probably come up with a better story line for the ad, too, I am just offering a general outline of what my thoughts are here...

This would be great, but TV ads cost several thousands. Team Dog doesn't have any rich sponsors or benefactors :/

ruthless · February 5, 2014

Is it helpful if we write to our MP's with a two-liner asking why the Government won't acknowledge Calgary Model and don't look at adopting it when current laws and laws they've implemented to follow have only proven failure and increased bite stats?

Who knows Erny. I think we're all trying to find that thing that will finally strike a chord across the board.

It certainly wouldn't do any harm. People are lazy and apathetic though. You can give them a form letter and email addresses and it's still all too hard.

Salukifan · February 5, 2014

My personal view is that the moment opponents to BSL start talking about the threats to dogs and dog ownership, their argument is sunk. You have to focus on the purpose of BSL, not the "victims".

The aim of BSL is to improve community safety. You have to phrase your arguments in those terms.

A significant proportion of society doesn't give a toss about dogs or dog ownership. More folk think banned breeds ARE dangerous dogs.

You have to lead them down the path of explaining carefully and succinctly how the banning of certain dog breeds fail to improve everyone's safety.

Rallies with dogs, the usual "my dog is a big marshmallow" stuff and rattling on about dog owner's "rights" (we don't have any) marginalise this as a "dog issue". It isn't.

Don't make it one - you do, you fail.

The best way to improve community safety is to target responsible dog ownership with education. See, not a "breed" mentioned - no hunting down dogs just focus on making sure that dogs are carefully bred, selected, socialised and trained.

When a dog attack happens, ask the hard questions - how WAS the dog bred, selected, socialised, trained and managed. If a chil was involved, was there adequate adult supervision? Not argument about what breed or breeds it was. And for God's sake, no blaming the victim or excusing the dog's behaviour.

I respect the passion of bull breed owners but they are often their own worst enemies. You can't fight this on a "but the dogs aren't nasty" basis. You have to get beyond it.

It was me that coined the term "BSL targets the wrong end of the leash" . Don't make the mistake of doing the same thing in trying to get rid of BSL.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Haredown Whippets

shmoo · February 5, 2014

Is anyone able to confirm that Bonnie did not pose a risk to the community? We all feel for Bonnie though why was she failed/pts? You are working with a shelter who is incredible in meeting the needs of dogs and cats in care.

I have taken many of the same breed and assisted with lots of others, all responsibly placed after NOI and assesment.

Three months is a long time to be in care for a dog (Bonnie) esspecially in a shelter environment.

I don't think Bonnie is really relevant to this directly and I'm reluctant to go off into a tangent on this one as I feel like this thread has finally gotten back on track.

I will mention briefly that Bonnie was never set to be adopted directly from the pound. A very reputable rescue group was lined up to take her with an experienced foster carer. This group has some of the best behaviourists in Sydney on board with them should they ever need them, and they are not afraid to make the decision of euthanasia if it is the right thing to do.

All pound staff and volunteers were totally confident she would pass the temp test as in three months she never showed any aggression to dogs or people, even dogs that went off at her. One of the main reasons they stuck their neck out for her was for this.

The temperament assessment was performed by a vet in his vet surgery (we all know how some dogs can get at the vets), hardly a neutral place and by someone with no behavioural qualifications. It was performed after the dog had been impounded for three months. Again, not really neutral or fair. She apparently reacted to the other dogs there and was failed based on that.

She deserved further assessment out of the pound environment, like any other dog would have gotten if they had a great rescue lined up to take them, especially after showing no behavioural issues in the pound. There have been numerous studies done in the USA recently showing that the way an impounded dog reacts in a temperament assessment, even a really well researched and performed one, can differ hugely from day to day and generally does not predict behaviour outside that environment.

Unfortunately the legislation set her up to fail and denied her that.

I am well aware of the temp test and the vet involved. Why did it take you three months to have Bonnie assesed? A NOI and assesment is a fairly straight forward process. It would have taken a couple of days max.

Hi Nic, shoot me a PM if you want more details, but just quickly (I don't want to derail) she was impounded for 2.5 months, it was about 2 weeks into the impound time that the rescue group found out she was there and they sprung into immediate action. There was much paperwork to be done behind the scenes and was dependent on Blacktown Council and the DLG. She was breed assessed by a person appointed by the DLG who declared her a Pitty x, which meant she had to undergo evaluation by another person appointed by the DLG (which was the vet), and it was at this point she failed.

Erny · February 5, 2014

My personal view is that the moment opponents to BSL start talking about the threats to dogs and dog ownership, their argument is sunk. You have to focus on the purpose of BSL, not the "victims".

The aim of BSL is to improve community safety. You have to phrase your arguments in those terms.

A significant proportion of society doesn't give a toss about dogs or dog ownership. More folk think banned breeds ARE dangerous dogs.

You have to lead them down the path of explaining carefully and succinctly how the banning of certain dog breeds fail to improve everyone's safety.

Rallies with dogs, the usual "my dog is a big marshmallow" stuff and rattling on about dog owner's "rights" (we don't have any) marginalise this as a "dog issue". It isn't.

Don't make it one - you do, you fail.

The best way to improve community safety is to target responsible dog ownership with education. See, not a "breed" mentioned - no hunting down dogs just focus on making sure that dogs are carefully bred, selected, socialised and trained.

When a dog attack happens, ask the hard questions - how WAS the dog bred, selected, socialised, trained and managed. If a chil was involved, was there adequate adult supervision? Not argument about what breed or breeds it was. And for God's sake, no blaming the victim or excusing the dog's behaviour.

I respect the passion of bull breed owners but they are often their own worst enemies. You can't fight this on a "but the dogs aren't nasty" basis. You have to get beyond it.

It was me that coined the term "BSL targets the wrong end of the leash" . Don't make the mistake of doing the same thing in trying to get rid of BSL.

Absolutely agree with this. Focusing on the unfairness to dogs (which I agree, BSL very much is) only targets to people who care about other people's dogs or their own and whose hearts melt for the sake of dogs. It cuts out the huge sector of the public who aren't into dogs or don't feel their own dogs are a target and so don't care. It also loses the VERY RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT POINT OF LAWS - IE. TO MAKE THE COMMUNITY A SAFER COMMUNITY.

Why do we want laws that work? Because WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE BEING HURT BY DOGS. Who the heck could possibly argue with that?

Erny · February 5, 2014