Immediate Threat To All Dogs And Owners

[apocalypsepwnie]

Agreed, even if you don't own a breed likely to be put on this list - the title has gotten you to click and be aware.

EVERYONE should be concerned and making action to this. It effects EVERYONE in the community. An extremely valid point has been maid by Melzawelza. Councils are state owned and therefore funded by the government. Government regulated bodies simply don't have the money to employ adequate staffing levels to complete all work given within the highest of standard. The quote is 'not gold plating service any longer' which means they believe they can do the bare minimum and are focused on service recovery rather than preventing potential issues. Trust me, I work in one of these places.

So how that effects everyone has been mentioned. Rather than actioning dangerous dog reports on ALL dogs they'll only go for the bigger breeds or when they seriously injure/kill a person. Singular and repetitive minor attack reports will be pushed aside.

Rangers will be busy looking for dogs that fit the description rather than looking for dogs unattended and causing public issue.

They wont be able to monitor already registered dangerous and restricted dogs so those who belong to lax owners pose a greater risk to the community.

Dog owner of any breed or not, this is everyone's issue.

[apocalypsepwnie]

I would also be as passionate if it wasn't a potential or actual target to my dog and prefered breeds. ALL dogs are as valuable as another.

[Salukifan]

Agreed, even if you don't own a breed likely to be put on this list - the title has gotten you to click and be aware.

EVERYONE should be concerned and making action to this. It effects EVERYONE in the community. An extremely valid point has been maid by Melzawelza. Councils are state owned and therefore funded by the government. Government regulated bodies simply don't have the money to employ adequate staffing levels to complete all work given within the highest of standard. The quote is 'not gold plating service any longer' which means they believe they can do the bare minimum and are focused on service recovery rather than preventing potential issues. Trust me, I work in one of these places.

So how that effects everyone has been mentioned. Rather than actioning dangerous dog reports on ALL dogs they'll only go for the bigger breeds or when they seriously injure/kill a person. Singular and repetitive minor attack reports will be pushed aside.

Rangers will be busy looking for dogs that fit the description rather than looking for dogs unattended and causing public issue.

They wont be able to monitor already registered dangerous and restricted dogs so those who belong to lax owners pose a greater risk to the community.

Dog owner of any breed or not, this is everyone's issue.

No, people in the state of NSW should be concerned and taking action. The NSW state government is not going to give a toss what anyone who doesn't vote for them thinks or does.

This is why it's important to focus efforts and not send a whole bunch of people off half cocked before further facts are known. All the "you're breed will be next" and bombarding politicians with pics of kids and restricted breeds and/or abuse failed and failed dismally to prevent the introduction of BSL. Many members of the public regard restricted breeds as the spawn of Satan and are perfectly happy to see them banned.

People have to get SMART about this. As I said earlier, you need cool heads and careful strategy.

Ruthless I admire what Team Dog aim to achieve but I cannot agree with their current methods. The information cut and pasted to form the first post in this thread is what I'm talking about. Promoting hysteria among dog owners does not help here. I will offer whatever support I can via ANKC channels.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Haredown Whippets

[melzawelza]

Agreed, even if you don't own a breed likely to be put on this list - the title has gotten you to click and be aware.

EVERYONE should be concerned and making action to this. It effects EVERYONE in the community. An extremely valid point has been maid by Melzawelza. Councils are state owned and therefore funded by the government. Government regulated bodies simply don't have the money to employ adequate staffing levels to complete all work given within the highest of standard. The quote is 'not gold plating service any longer' which means they believe they can do the bare minimum and are focused on service recovery rather than preventing potential issues. Trust me, I work in one of these places.

So how that effects everyone has been mentioned. Rather than actioning dangerous dog reports on ALL dogs they'll only go for the bigger breeds or when they seriously injure/kill a person. Singular and repetitive minor attack reports will be pushed aside.

Rangers will be busy looking for dogs that fit the description rather than looking for dogs unattended and causing public issue.

They wont be able to monitor already registered dangerous and restricted dogs so those who belong to lax owners pose a greater risk to the community.

Dog owner of any breed or not, this is everyone's issue.

Most Councils barely have the resources to patrol the streets for off leash or escaping dogs adequately as it is. They are totally under resourced already. They can't even get all the pets in the area microchipped, which has been law for over ten years.

Add one semi-popular breed to the list and you easily will add a bare minimum of couple of hundred properties/dogs in the small Councils (many, many more in the larger councils) with a dog microchipped as that breed or cross breed. Just think about the manpower required to ensure that each and every one of those properties have:

1. Dangerous dog signage on every entrance

2. Dangerous dog collars on every dog

3. Ensuring every dog is desexed

4. Ensuring every owner is muzzling the dog in public

5. Ensuring every property meets stringent and total overkill requirements for containing the dog

6. Regular compliance checks of every property (AT LEAST yearly)

7. Battling owners in Court

8. Obtaining warrants and seizing any dog that isn't meeting the above, and transporting them to the pound.

Not to mention all the paperwork involved / letters and emails which is often the bit that takes the most time.

I haven't even mentioned the cost of solicitors and impounding fees.

Adding just one semi-popular breed would essentially mean that Councils are spending almost all of their time doing the above. Almost all of the dogs that come under the above would never have caused a problem.

In the meantime:

1. No patrolling of the streets to pick up people that are walking their dogs unleashed/letting them escape or any other breaches

2. As you said, minor dog attacks would not be adequately actioned due to lack of resources. Actioning these minor attacks carefully and dilligently is one of the biggest ways to prevent the serious dog attacks that happen later from the same dog.

3. No education programs, no visiting the parks and speaking to dog owners about pet ownership

4. No development of educational materials that can be used when dealing with the general public face to face

The result is undoubtedly an increase in dog attacks, quite possibly significantly. It has happened everywhere else in the world that has implemented BSL and it will happen here.

It doesn't matter if you own a tiny companion dog that is unlikely to ever be on the list. This affects you.

Edited February 5, 2014 by melzawelza

[Queen Maeby]

I'm an educated, responsible dog owner and this is my opinion on the subject:

I'm so over bull breed people and the whole BSL drama. I refuse to get caught up in it and it makes me so angry that you think it's okay to manipulate other dog owners into supporting your cause with your scare tactics and emotional blackmail.

I don't give a toss about BSL or bull breeds. I don't want to know about it/them and being a martyr for a cause is not how I'm going to express myself as a dog owner. That's my choice. Deal with it.

So if that's what I really think, imagine what the average numpty dog owner might think? Probably a thousand times worse than I do, but gee I wonder why.

You really need to change your approach if you expect other dog owners to help you.

[melzawelza]

Agreed, even if you don't own a breed likely to be put on this list - the title has gotten you to click and be aware.

EVERYONE should be concerned and making action to this. It effects EVERYONE in the community. An extremely valid point has been maid by Melzawelza. Councils are state owned and therefore funded by the government. Government regulated bodies simply don't have the money to employ adequate staffing levels to complete all work given within the highest of standard. The quote is 'not gold plating service any longer' which means they believe they can do the bare minimum and are focused on service recovery rather than preventing potential issues. Trust me, I work in one of these places.

So how that effects everyone has been mentioned. Rather than actioning dangerous dog reports on ALL dogs they'll only go for the bigger breeds or when they seriously injure/kill a person. Singular and repetitive minor attack reports will be pushed aside.

Rangers will be busy looking for dogs that fit the description rather than looking for dogs unattended and causing public issue.

They wont be able to monitor already registered dangerous and restricted dogs so those who belong to lax owners pose a greater risk to the community.

Dog owner of any breed or not, this is everyone's issue.

No, people in the state of NSW should be concerned and taking action. The NSW state government is not going to give a toss what anyone who doesn't vote for them thinks or does.

The proposals have Federal implications of recommending adding breeds to the Customs Act. If this comes about, this will have the most impact on breeders and showies, of which there are many on this forum.

[Nic.B]

I was not going to respond to this thread. I own a breed who will be sure to be targeted in the future and this scares the life out of me to be honest.

Having said that there needs to be some balance right across the board if anything is to change or move forward.

In terms of Bonnie (bless her soul) the shelter she was impounded at and the council who had to oversee her release worked openly and proactively with the people involved.

It did not assist Bonnie to make bomb threats where the shelter must be evacuated, nor threats to staff or protesters with signs screaming and hurling abuse. It did not assist Bonnie that it was written all over social media that Bonnie was caged for over three months with no interaction at all which is apparently why she failed the temp test, it is simply not true. People saw Bonnie penned during shelter opening hours yes. Along with the majority of every other dog regardless of breed, size or age who is not lucky enough to spend time with volunteers in the two exercise runs.

What the public or others did not see was what happened before opening, during lunch and afterwards for Bonnie. The public do not know how passionate the staff are in their roles, what levels they go to to save the dogs in their care, the crap that they put up with on a daily basis, from rescue, crap dog owners, dog attacks, surrenders, and abuse cases.

I have learnt a lot over the years, and scaring the shit out of people might get you started, though it wont get you the result you need and want for the breeds targeted.

Team Dog were heavily involved in working towards the release of Bonnie and ensured that Hawkesbury staff and volunteers were given the praise that they so deserved in every post about her for the wonderful care of her while she was there. Any person posting disparaging comments about the Pound were corrected and a separate post also put up that was seen by over 10,000 people:

Post thanking Hawkesbury staff and volunteers for all they did

People should be shit scared about these proposals, no matter what dog they own, or even if they don't own dogs at all. It's as simple as that.

Even if it's unlikely your breed will be targeted (pug owners, for instance), these laws have been proven time and time again to actually lessen community safety when it comes to dog attacks. Huge amounts of Council resources are taken up trying to enforce them, which means those resources aren'tbeing put in to the measures that do prevent dog attacks. Just adding one breed to either the menacing or dangerous risk would result in a workload that very few Councils have the resources to carry out effectively. Because this breed stuff is high profile it will be given priority. There won't be Rangers out patrolling the streets for off leash dogs, they'll be knocking on doors making sure that people have put up a 'warning dangerous dog' sign on their property for their dog that will never cause a problem. This means that even as a pug owner, this does pose a risk to you and your dog. Your dog will be more likely to be attacked by other dogs. Your family members or friends will be.

This is a community issue, not a 'big dog owner' issue or 'pit bull owner' issue.

Every time a community has been apathetic and just 'sat and waited to see' when these suggestions start, has ended in BSL. Every time people haven't taken it seriously and moved on it quickly, it has ended in BSL.

The places that have beaten it are the places that get on it at the first whiff of a possibly and take it very seriously, like it should be.

As previously mentioned, Team Dog is currently putting together a campaign. I encourage anyone, dog owner or not, to keep an eye on the page and get involved when it goes up.

Thank you :) You are an inspiration, there is no doubt about that.

The fact is when using social media you are targeting a number of people/groups. You only need one rouge to stir up a bunch of trouble and it is not a good look. All of what I posted happened and if you are associated with that, even via your site you have to admit it is a really poor reflection of what you ultimately hope to achieve.

I dont care (sorry) about your posts praising staff as damage control after what eventuated to them. Too late, staff have already dealt with the issues and threats which takes time away from helping all companion animals in their care. Not just restricted breeds which are a minority in the sceam of things for this shelter.

I agree it is a community issue, I have spoken about that for years.

Though scaring the crap out of people via social media for signatures is not the way to go IMO. Get in touch and network with the bodies who are already involved (other than yourselves) :)

[melzawelza]

I was not going to respond to this thread. I own a breed who will be sure to be targeted in the future and this scares the life out of me to be honest.

Having said that there needs to be some balance right across the board if anything is to change or move forward.

In terms of Bonnie (bless her soul) the shelter she was impounded at and the council who had to oversee her release worked openly and proactively with the people involved.

It did not assist Bonnie to make bomb threats where the shelter must be evacuated, nor threats to staff or protesters with signs screaming and hurling abuse. It did not assist Bonnie that it was written all over social media that Bonnie was caged for over three months with no interaction at all which is apparently why she failed the temp test, it is simply not true. People saw Bonnie penned during shelter opening hours yes. Along with the majority of every other dog regardless of breed, size or age who is not lucky enough to spend time with volunteers in the two exercise runs.

What the public or others did not see was what happened before opening, during lunch and afterwards for Bonnie. The public do not know how passionate the staff are in their roles, what levels they go to to save the dogs in their care, the crap that they put up with on a daily basis, from rescue, crap dog owners, dog attacks, surrenders, and abuse cases.

I have learnt a lot over the years, and scaring the shit out of people might get you started, though it wont get you the result you need and want for the breeds targeted.

Team Dog were heavily involved in working towards the release of Bonnie and ensured that Hawkesbury staff and volunteers were given the praise that they so deserved in every post about her for the wonderful care of her while she was there. Any person posting disparaging comments about the Pound were corrected and a separate post also put up that was seen by over 10,000 people:

Post thanking Hawkesbury staff and volunteers for all they did

People should be shit scared about these proposals, no matter what dog they own, or even if they don't own dogs at all. It's as simple as that.

Even if it's unlikely your breed will be targeted (pug owners, for instance), these laws have been proven time and time again to actually lessen community safety when it comes to dog attacks. Huge amounts of Council resources are taken up trying to enforce them, which means those resources aren'tbeing put in to the measures that do prevent dog attacks. Just adding one breed to either the menacing or dangerous risk would result in a workload that very few Councils have the resources to carry out effectively. Because this breed stuff is high profile it will be given priority. There won't be Rangers out patrolling the streets for off leash dogs, they'll be knocking on doors making sure that people have put up a 'warning dangerous dog' sign on their property for their dog that will never cause a problem. This means that even as a pug owner, this does pose a risk to you and your dog. Your dog will be more likely to be attacked by other dogs. Your family members or friends will be.

This is a community issue, not a 'big dog owner' issue or 'pit bull owner' issue.

Every time a community has been apathetic and just 'sat and waited to see' when these suggestions start, has ended in BSL. Every time people haven't taken it seriously and moved on it quickly, it has ended in BSL.

The places that have beaten it are the places that get on it at the first whiff of a possibly and take it very seriously, like it should be.

As previously mentioned, Team Dog is currently putting together a campaign. I encourage anyone, dog owner or not, to keep an eye on the page and get involved when it goes up.

Thank you :) You are an inspiration, there is no doubt about that.

The fact is when using social media you are targeting a number of people/groups. You only need one rouge to stir up a bunch of trouble and it is not a good look. All of what I posted happened and if you are associated with that, even via your site you have to admit it is a really poor reflection of what you ultimately hope to achieve.

I dont care (sorry) about your posts praising staff as damage control after what eventuated to them. Too late, staff have already dealt with the issues and threats which takes time away from helping all companion animals in their care. Not just restricted breeds which are a minority in the sceam of things for this shelter.

I agree it is a community issue, I have spoken about that for years.

Though scaring the crap out of people via social media for signatures is not the way to go IMO. Get in touch and network with the bodies who are already involved (other than yourselves) :)

Team Dog had absolutely nothing to do with the disgusting behaviour of some individuals in that situation and it's completely offensive to suggest we would. We can't control what other people do and post on facebook, only what happens on our own page. We were just as dismayed and disgusted as you when we heard what had happened late that night, not only because it's unacceptable behaviour but because of how it reflects on the topic as a whole, too.

The post praising Hawkesbury staff and volunteers was posted long before any of that happened, and it's also offensive for you to suggest that it was posted as damage control. It was a genuine, heartfelt thanks for the care of a dog we all grew to love.

[Nic.B]

In Victoria, when laws and then *tweaked* laws and then more *tweaked* laws came in, many people who believed their dogs and their preferred breed of dogs could not and would not be affected, sat back complacently, not really sitting up straight to listen or to help rally against those laws coming in. This has been happening for more than a decade. Well, that decade has now past and we have people who are NOW sitting up straight to listen (and some to help rally against) the laws that have been DONE - because now, in shock, the realisation has evolved that it does affect them and that THEY are the ones who are crying for help and crying for their dogs - dogs that *back then* they never thought would be touched. Too late to argue against the laws coming in the first place. Now they have to deal with the laws and work their way through the Courts and pray like hell that they will win and stop their dogs from being killed. Too late to be able to stop the dogs from being lawfully pulled from their homes and being forced through the stress and trauma of shelter life, and all for doing nothing wrong, for being good dogs.

Whether the thread title topic heading is relevant in some people's minds or not is insignificant. The point is, whether you gasped a breath, realised it wasn't about your dogs (yet) and then got pipped off because you were startled - at least it did get you sitting up straight.

The question now is - will you help do something about it even though it is not about YOUR dog or dog breed, *yet*?

Will you be like the hundreds/thousands of others who didn't think the laws would touch THEM but are (sadly) proven wrong and then all of a sudden, want help from others?

Instead of spending the time talking and writing about the title heading to this thread, what about putting those minutes into some correspondence addressed to the relevant Government department/person and at least putting up your hand in objection.

Try watching a completely innocent dog in complete confused turmoil being torn from its family, rendered a *subject* to be kept in a completely foreign pen in a completely foreign environment for weeks, months, years …. and then being killed.

Not you so doesn't matter?

You want people to help you when it does matter, to you?

I have seen an endless number of dogs imounded and restricted. Many were great dogs, in fact, they temp tested better than any non restricted breeds. I do not agree to ANY dog being pts without an independant assesment.

I do not agree with placing dogs with issues into the community ever, regardless of size, age or breed.

IMO it about getting great people around you, who know what they are doing. Not relying on random facebook posts for support. Nor making threats against the staff who care for the dogs involved.

I know some shelters/staff do not give a crap, though this shelter did.

[Nic.B]

I was not going to respond to this thread. I own a breed who will be sure to be targeted in the future and this scares the life out of me to be honest.

Having said that there needs to be some balance right across the board if anything is to change or move forward.

In terms of Bonnie (bless her soul) the shelter she was impounded at and the council who had to oversee her release worked openly and proactively with the people involved.

It did not assist Bonnie to make bomb threats where the shelter must be evacuated, nor threats to staff or protesters with signs screaming and hurling abuse. It did not assist Bonnie that it was written all over social media that Bonnie was caged for over three months with no interaction at all which is apparently why she failed the temp test, it is simply not true. People saw Bonnie penned during shelter opening hours yes. Along with the majority of every other dog regardless of breed, size or age who is not lucky enough to spend time with volunteers in the two exercise runs.

What the public or others did not see was what happened before opening, during lunch and afterwards for Bonnie. The public do not know how passionate the staff are in their roles, what levels they go to to save the dogs in their care, the crap that they put up with on a daily basis, from rescue, crap dog owners, dog attacks, surrenders, and abuse cases.

I have learnt a lot over the years, and scaring the shit out of people might get you started, though it wont get you the result you need and want for the breeds targeted.

Team Dog were heavily involved in working towards the release of Bonnie and ensured that Hawkesbury staff and volunteers were given the praise that they so deserved in every post about her for the wonderful care of her while she was there. Any person posting disparaging comments about the Pound were corrected and a separate post also put up that was seen by over 10,000 people:

Post thanking Hawkesbury staff and volunteers for all they did

People should be shit scared about these proposals, no matter what dog they own, or even if they don't own dogs at all. It's as simple as that.

Even if it's unlikely your breed will be targeted (pug owners, for instance), these laws have been proven time and time again to actually lessen community safety when it comes to dog attacks. Huge amounts of Council resources are taken up trying to enforce them, which means those resources aren'tbeing put in to the measures that do prevent dog attacks. Just adding one breed to either the menacing or dangerous risk would result in a workload that very few Councils have the resources to carry out effectively. Because this breed stuff is high profile it will be given priority. There won't be Rangers out patrolling the streets for off leash dogs, they'll be knocking on doors making sure that people have put up a 'warning dangerous dog' sign on their property for their dog that will never cause a problem. This means that even as a pug owner, this does pose a risk to you and your dog. Your dog will be more likely to be attacked by other dogs. Your family members or friends will be.

This is a community issue, not a 'big dog owner' issue or 'pit bull owner' issue.

Every time a community has been apathetic and just 'sat and waited to see' when these suggestions start, has ended in BSL. Every time people haven't taken it seriously and moved on it quickly, it has ended in BSL.

The places that have beaten it are the places that get on it at the first whiff of a possibly and take it very seriously, like it should be.

As previously mentioned, Team Dog is currently putting together a campaign. I encourage anyone, dog owner or not, to keep an eye on the page and get involved when it goes up.

Thank you :) You are an inspiration, there is no doubt about that.

The fact is when using social media you are targeting a number of people/groups. You only need one rouge to stir up a bunch of trouble and it is not a good look. All of what I posted happened and if you are associated with that, even via your site you have to admit it is a really poor reflection of what you ultimately hope to achieve.

I dont care (sorry) about your posts praising staff as damage control after what eventuated to them. Too late, staff have already dealt with the issues and threats which takes time away from helping all companion animals in their care. Not just restricted breeds which are a minority in the sceam of things for this shelter.

I agree it is a community issue, I have spoken about that for years.

Though scaring the crap out of people via social media for signatures is not the way to go IMO. Get in touch and network with the bodies who are already involved (other than yourselves) :)

Team Dog had absolutely nothing to do with the disgusting behaviour of some individuals in that situation and it's completely offensive to suggest we would. We can't control what other people do and post on facebook, only what happens on our own page. We were just as dismayed and disgusted as you when we heard what had happened late that night, not only because it's unacceptable behaviour but because of how it reflects on the topic as a whole, too.

The post praising Hawkesbury staff and volunteers was posted long before any of that happened, and it's also offensive for you to suggest that it was posted as damage control. It was a genuine, heartfelt thanks for the care of a dog we all grew to love.

I am not sugesting you did at all

Sorry if I have got it wrong in regard to your post supporting staff at some time during the 3 month stint to help Bonnie.

I agree there is no control via social media, which is what I am concerened about esentially.

When threats are made, it impacts upon shelters, the other animals in care, volunteers and the staff it is not only taking away from dogs like Bonnie, it takes away from the whole shelter equation.

[melzawelza]

I was not going to respond to this thread. I own a breed who will be sure to be targeted in the future and this scares the life out of me to be honest.

Having said that there needs to be some balance right across the board if anything is to change or move forward.

In terms of Bonnie (bless her soul) the shelter she was impounded at and the council who had to oversee her release worked openly and proactively with the people involved.

It did not assist Bonnie to make bomb threats where the shelter must be evacuated, nor threats to staff or protesters with signs screaming and hurling abuse. It did not assist Bonnie that it was written all over social media that Bonnie was caged for over three months with no interaction at all which is apparently why she failed the temp test, it is simply not true. People saw Bonnie penned during shelter opening hours yes. Along with the majority of every other dog regardless of breed, size or age who is not lucky enough to spend time with volunteers in the two exercise runs.

What the public or others did not see was what happened before opening, during lunch and afterwards for Bonnie. The public do not know how passionate the staff are in their roles, what levels they go to to save the dogs in their care, the crap that they put up with on a daily basis, from rescue, crap dog owners, dog attacks, surrenders, and abuse cases.

I have learnt a lot over the years, and scaring the shit out of people might get you started, though it wont get you the result you need and want for the breeds targeted.

Team Dog were heavily involved in working towards the release of Bonnie and ensured that Hawkesbury staff and volunteers were given the praise that they so deserved in every post about her for the wonderful care of her while she was there. Any person posting disparaging comments about the Pound were corrected and a separate post also put up that was seen by over 10,000 people:

Post thanking Hawkesbury staff and volunteers for all they did

People should be shit scared about these proposals, no matter what dog they own, or even if they don't own dogs at all. It's as simple as that.

Even if it's unlikely your breed will be targeted (pug owners, for instance), these laws have been proven time and time again to actually lessen community safety when it comes to dog attacks. Huge amounts of Council resources are taken up trying to enforce them, which means those resources aren'tbeing put in to the measures that do prevent dog attacks. Just adding one breed to either the menacing or dangerous risk would result in a workload that very few Councils have the resources to carry out effectively. Because this breed stuff is high profile it will be given priority. There won't be Rangers out patrolling the streets for off leash dogs, they'll be knocking on doors making sure that people have put up a 'warning dangerous dog' sign on their property for their dog that will never cause a problem. This means that even as a pug owner, this does pose a risk to you and your dog. Your dog will be more likely to be attacked by other dogs. Your family members or friends will be.

This is a community issue, not a 'big dog owner' issue or 'pit bull owner' issue.

Every time a community has been apathetic and just 'sat and waited to see' when these suggestions start, has ended in BSL. Every time people haven't taken it seriously and moved on it quickly, it has ended in BSL.

The places that have beaten it are the places that get on it at the first whiff of a possibly and take it very seriously, like it should be.

As previously mentioned, Team Dog is currently putting together a campaign. I encourage anyone, dog owner or not, to keep an eye on the page and get involved when it goes up.

Thank you :) You are an inspiration, there is no doubt about that.

The fact is when using social media you are targeting a number of people/groups. You only need one rouge to stir up a bunch of trouble and it is not a good look. All of what I posted happened and if you are associated with that, even via your site you have to admit it is a really poor reflection of what you ultimately hope to achieve.

I dont care (sorry) about your posts praising staff as damage control after what eventuated to them. Too late, staff have already dealt with the issues and threats which takes time away from helping all companion animals in their care. Not just restricted breeds which are a minority in the sceam of things for this shelter.

I agree it is a community issue, I have spoken about that for years.

Though scaring the crap out of people via social media for signatures is not the way to go IMO. Get in touch and network with the bodies who are already involved (other than yourselves) :)

Team Dog had absolutely nothing to do with the disgusting behaviour of some individuals in that situation and it's completely offensive to suggest we would. We can't control what other people do and post on facebook, only what happens on our own page. We were just as dismayed and disgusted as you when we heard what had happened late that night, not only because it's unacceptable behaviour but because of how it reflects on the topic as a whole, too.

The post praising Hawkesbury staff and volunteers was posted long before any of that happened, and it's also offensive for you to suggest that it was posted as damage control. It was a genuine, heartfelt thanks for the care of a dog we all grew to love.

When threats are made, it impacts upon shelters, the other animals in care, volunteers and the staff it is not only taking away from dogs like Bonnie, it takes away from the whole shelter equation.

This we can absolutely agree on.

[Salukifan]

The proposals have Federal implications of recommending adding breeds to the Customs Act. If this comes about, this will have the most impact on breeders and showies, of which there are many on this forum.

Yes, I get that. But we don't have any proposals yet to counter. And there may not be any I prefer to keep my powder dry and wait for a concrete proposal rather than speculate and exhaust patience at the Commonwealth level on what might or might not occur.

The focus at this point needs to be on finding out if there ARE any proposals.

[Sandra777]

I'm an educated, responsible dog owner and this is my opinion on the subject:

I'm so over bull breed people and the whole BSL drama. I refuse to get caught up in it and it makes me so angry that you think it's okay to manipulate other dog owners into supporting your cause with your scare tactics and emotional blackmail.

I don't give a toss about BSL or bull breeds. I don't want to know about it/them and being a martyr for a cause is not how I'm going to express myself as a dog owner. That's my choice. Deal with it.

So if that's what I really think, imagine what the average numpty dog owner might think? Probably a thousand times worse than I do, but gee I wonder why.

You really need to change your approach if you expect other dog owners to help you.

Good luck when the AR nutters finally get around to brachy breeds. Suggest you have a look at some the proposals which have already been put forward in Europe.

[Queen Maeby]

I'm an educated, responsible dog owner and this is my opinion on the subject:

I'm so over bull breed people and the whole BSL drama. I refuse to get caught up in it and it makes me so angry that you think it's okay to manipulate other dog owners into supporting your cause with your scare tactics and emotional blackmail.

I don't give a toss about BSL or bull breeds. I don't want to know about it/them and being a martyr for a cause is not how I'm going to express myself as a dog owner. That's my choice. Deal with it.

So if that's what I really think, imagine what the average numpty dog owner might think? Probably a thousand times worse than I do, but gee I wonder why.

You really need to change your approach if you expect other dog owners to help you.

Good luck when the AR nutters finally get around to brachy breeds. Suggest you have a look at some the proposals which have already been put forward in Europe.

Again, more scare tactics. You're acting like a bunch of animal rights nutters.

Edited February 5, 2014 by puggedforlife

[GeckoTree]

I'm an educated, responsible dog owner and this is my opinion on the subject:

I like bull breed people and am appalled at the whole BSL drama.

I refuse to get caught up in it, but it makes me so angry that some people think it's okay to manipulate other dog owners into supporting the misery of Breed Discrimination and emotional blackmail.

I am aware and know what BSL and the Sisyphean battle that a variety of bull breeds and there owners face, have faced, each and every day for the last 23 years in this Country.

I want to know about it/them, and whilst being a martyr for that cause is not how I'm going to express myself as a dog owner. That's my choice. But I choose to support those that do.

So if that's what I really think, imagine what the average numpty dog owner might think?

Probably a thousand times worse than I do.

If you expect other dog owners to help you. Know many of us have, will, and do, because we understand what it's all about and have foresight.

[lovemesideways]

I'm an educated, responsible dog owner and this is my opinion on the subject:

I'm so over bull breed people and the whole BSL drama. I refuse to get caught up in it and it makes me so angry that you think it's okay to manipulate other dog owners into supporting your cause with your scare tactics and emotional blackmail.

I don't give a toss about BSL or bull breeds. I don't want to know about it/them and being a martyr for a cause is not how I'm going to express myself as a dog owner. That's my choice. Deal with it.

So if that's what I really think, imagine what the average numpty dog owner might think? Probably a thousand times worse than I do, but gee I wonder why.

You really need to change your approach if you expect other dog owners to help you.

Good luck when the AR nutters finally get around to brachy breeds. Suggest you have a look at some the proposals which have already been put forward in Europe.

Again, more scare tactics. You're acting like a bunch of animal rights nutters.

:confused:

These aren't scare tactics, these are simple facts based on the information available. BSL makes it more dangerous for you to walk your dog down the street, it wastes your money as a tax payer, it means less safety for you and your family. Even if you're entirely selfish and only care about your own purebred Pugs and your own safety, it still effects you.

Edited February 5, 2014 by lovemesideways

[~Anne~]

Agreed, even if you don't own a breed likely to be put on this list - the title has gotten you to click and be aware.

For me personally yes, it's made me aware of the latest on the issue. However it's turned me off being involved with any groups or people linked to the thread. In the same way that rescuer nutters and animal rights crazies have turned many off wanting to help them.

I still support the cause. I don't support the particular way some people/groups support the cause though.

[BlackJaq]

Ya so anyway, whoever brought up that Bull Arabs might be likely to be considered for the additions is probably not too wrong. If I remember correctly the NSW legislation already considers dogs used for hunting large game to be "dangerous" and needing to be muzzled in public etc. I guess it is only a matter of time until Bull Arabs become representative of those dogs, being the only breed specifically intended for pigging in Australia (most others are mixes of various breeds and a lot harder to sweep up all at once)

Edited February 5, 2014 by BlackJaq

[lovemesideways]

Via Team Dog .

NSW set to add new breeds to current Breed Discriminatory Legislation

Yesterday, the NSW Government's released their response to the recommendations from the Companion Animals Taskforce recommendations from last year.

There are some fantastic recommendations here that the Government have committed to implementing, such as funding more extensive dog –related educational programs for pre-school aged children and new parents, and the development of a community-wide socially responsible pet ownership education campaign, among many others. They have also agreed to the development of a ‘Responsible Pet Ownership Reference Group’, to research and make recommendations to the Government.

Unfortunately, these great initiatives are darkly overshadowed by many recommendations within the report encouraging an extension of Breed Discriminatory Legislation both in NSW and Federally.

These recommendations are:

-The above mentioned Group to consider and advise on applying the new ‘Menacing’ dog category, which has onerous and extensive ownership requirements almost as restrictive as the ‘Dangerous’ category, to other breeds of dog not already restricted. Menacing dogs cannot be rehomed.

- The group to consider whether additional breeds should be added to the Restricted breeds list. Restricted breeds have even more onerous keeping requirements than Menacing dogs, with the addition of the requirement to keep the dog in a purpose-built enclosure in the backyard that restricts who can access the dog and costs easily $3-4k to construct. Restricted breeds cannot be rehomed.

- After deciding on breeds that should be added to the Restricted list, the NSW Government will write to the Federal Government to request a review of restricted breeds listed in the Customs Act 1901 “to encourage a nationally consistent approach to this issue that better reflects the risks posed by certain breeds of dogs”. The Customs Act prohibits the import of certain breeds in to Australia, so this has the potential to end the importation of even more breeds to Australia.

- Consider requiring veterinary surgeons to report to regulatory authorities if they are called to treat / attend to a dog which is a restricted breed which is not microchipped, registered and/or desexed. This will only result in dogs failing to receive veterinary treatment, and therefore eliminate a very important contact for any owner to learn about appropriate care for their dog. The only outcome for this can be more dog attacks resulting from less responsible ownership.

These suggestions are a real and immediate threat not only to owners of currently restricted breeds, but owners of any other breeds that the NSW Government decides are 'high risk'.

The implementation of any of these recommendations would result in the large scale killing of dogs based on appearance, not behaviour, with no real benefit to community safety. This type of legislation is also incredibly costly to enforce, taking funds away from the positive programs specified, and taking Ranger resources away from investigating actual Dangerous dogs, regardless of breed. It has been proven time and time again both here and internationally to be a complete and utter failure at improving public safety, and is currently being repealed all over the world.

Hundreds of thousands of people saw our picture and post about Bonnie, who was killed in a Sydney pound by Breed Discriminatory Legislation only very recently. You, the public, showed us that you want smart legislation, not breed specific legislation through our #BonnieLives campaign. There is now the potential for Bonnie’s story to be replayed over and over again, with dogs that look like her as well as many other dogs that look different to her, too.

Please share this post to bring this immediate threat to dog ownership and public safety in NSW and Australia to the attention of the masses. Please also like our page, Team Dog, to keep up to date, as we will be formulating a plan moving forward to attempt to prevent these recommendations becoming a reality.

Read the full response here:

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/Government%20Response%20to%20Companion%20Animals%20Taskforce%20Recommendations.pdf

Direct link to post here. Please share if you are on Facebook.

This has the potential to end the breeding and showing of breeds in NSW (menacing and restricted dogs must be desexed) and also the import of said breeds in to Australia.

Just repeating the original text and answering my own question with this relevant information from the first post. I've already followed the Team Dog pages and shared this post on a few forums. For now the best thing to do is make others aware of the changes that are going to take place so that once a plan of action has been formulated, people will be willing to help and also understanding of the issues at hand.

Edit: snap Plan B! great minds :laugh:

Edited February 5, 2014 by lovemesideways

[BlackJaq]

Are the legislators taking any feedback from the community?