More On Zeus The Questionable Breed Dog

[HappyCamper]

Here is a silly question because I keep getting different answers and being told I am being unreasonable. I have a dog here that another group was going to send to qlds now am I crazy or would this dog not have been safe up there should he have been picked up by council? I know you cant say for sure but I guess what I am asking is if you would send this dog to QLDs

I would want that dog in the ACT at a place that will assess it individually regardless of breed, unless it has a fully committed home elsewhere,

Yeah would love for him to go to ACT. I just really didnt think he would be safe in qlds which is where this other "rescue" was gonna ship him off too.

[Amax-1]

And yet many mixed breed dogs without a drop of the legislated breeds are assessed, by their appearance, as being of that breed and therefore subject to restriction or euthanasia.

In practice, BSL is absolutely, 100%, appearance based rather than breed based. If it truly was breed based we would only be seeing dogs from a closed gene pool of the 'american pit bull terrier' subject to restrictions, not mutts of every mix under the sun.

ETA: A good example of this is the fact that there have been dogs in Victoria assessed under the standard as a restricted breed and seized, and yet their parents, proved by DNA, were assessed under the standard as NOT restricted. The fact that the parents are legally not restricted has no relevance in the legislation on the restricted status of the progeny, a d cannot be used to defend the declaration on the progeny. In practise it is 100% appearance based, not breed based.

It's implied by a particular appearance that the dog is of a restricted breed, but they are breeds listed under BSL not appearances per se. From what I can understand of DNA, it cannot accurately determine breed.......perhaps if the parents were papered and with DNA say a papered Amstaff x Labrador, there would be more leverage in such evidence but crossbreed parents determined by DNA that no restricted breed exists in their ancestry could perhaps amount to who conducted the DNA test with result variations. I had the understanding that DNA for breed determination was a bit all over the place as the reason it was refused in evidence?

The problem is, when a law is in place, it doesn't matter that the rationale of the law is nonsense to use as a defence for having a dog who's breed cannot be determined to the satisfaction of the courts. We just need to be careful owning dogs of the "appearance" until such a law is reduced in sensationalism and dogs are condemned by temperament only when possessing the "appearance".

Edited April 11, 2014 by Amax-1

[melzawelza]

And yet many mixed breed dogs without a drop of the legislated breeds are assessed, by their appearance, as being of that breed and therefore subject to restriction or euthanasia.

In practice, BSL is absolutely, 100%, appearance based rather than breed based. If it truly was breed based we would only be seeing dogs from a closed gene pool of the 'american pit bull terrier' subject to restrictions, not mutts of every mix under the sun.

ETA: A good example of this is the fact that there have been dogs in Victoria assessed under the standard as a restricted breed and seized, and yet their parents, proved by DNA, were assessed under the standard as NOT restricted. The fact that the parents are legally not restricted has no relevance in the legislation on the restricted status of the progeny, a d cannot be used to defend the declaration on the progeny. In practise it is 100% appearance based, not breed based.

It's implied by a particular appearance that the dog is of a restricted breed, but they are breeds listed under BSL not appearances per se. From what I can understand of DNA, it cannot accurately determine breed.......perhaps if the parents were papered and with DNA say a papered Amstaff x Labrador, there would be more leverage in such evidence but crossbreed parents determined by DNA that no restricted breed exists in their ancestry could perhaps amount to who conducted the DNA test with result variations. I had the understanding that DNA for breed determination was a bit all over the place as the reason it was refused in evidence?

The problem is, when a law is in place, it doesn't matter that the rationale of the law is nonsense to use as a defence for having a dog who's breed cannot be determined to the satisfaction of the courts. We just need to be careful owning dogs of the "appearance" until such a law is reduced in sensationalism and dogs are condemned by temperament only when possessing the "appearance".

You're right that DNA isn't super accurate at IDing breed - but it's almost 100% accurate at ID-ing parentage.

Dogs who's DNA-confirmed parents have had the standard applied under the legislation and been cleared as NOT being restricted breeds, can still be declared restricted based on THEIR appearance. The fact that the DNA-proven parents are NOT restricted according to the same legislation cannot be used as an argument to clear the progeny. Parentage doesn't matter - the individual dog's appearance does.

The original intention may have been for it to target specific breeds, but in application, it is appearance based legislation, not breed.

Edited April 11, 2014 by melzawelza

[Amax-1]

And yet many mixed breed dogs without a drop of the legislated breeds are assessed, by their appearance, as being of that breed and therefore subject to restriction or euthanasia.

In practice, BSL is absolutely, 100%, appearance based rather than breed based. If it truly was breed based we would only be seeing dogs from a closed gene pool of the 'american pit bull terrier' subject to restrictions, not mutts of every mix under the sun.

ETA: A good example of this is the fact that there have been dogs in Victoria assessed under the standard as a restricted breed and seized, and yet their parents, proved by DNA, were assessed under the standard as NOT restricted. The fact that the parents are legally not restricted has no relevance in the legislation on the restricted status of the progeny, a d cannot be used to defend the declaration on the progeny. In practise it is 100% appearance based, not breed based.

It's implied by a particular appearance that the dog is of a restricted breed, but they are breeds listed under BSL not appearances per se. From what I can understand of DNA, it cannot accurately determine breed.......perhaps if the parents were papered and with DNA say a papered Amstaff x Labrador, there would be more leverage in such evidence but crossbreed parents determined by DNA that no restricted breed exists in their ancestry could perhaps amount to who conducted the DNA test with result variations. I had the understanding that DNA for breed determination was a bit all over the place as the reason it was refused in evidence?

The problem is, when a law is in place, it doesn't matter that the rationale of the law is nonsense to use as a defence for having a dog who's breed cannot be determined to the satisfaction of the courts. We just need to be careful owning dogs of the "appearance" until such a law is reduced in sensationalism and dogs are condemned by temperament only when possessing the "appearance".

You're right that DNA isn't super accurate at IDing breed - but it's almost 100% accurate at ID-ing parentage.

Dogs who's DNA-confirmed parents have had the standard applied under the legislation and been cleared as NOT being restricted breeds, can still be declared restricted based on THEIR appearance. The fact that the DNA-proven parents are NOT restricted according to the same legislation cannot be used as an argument to clear the progeny. Parentage doesn't matter - the individual dog's appearance does.

The original intention may have been for it to target specific breeds, but in application, it is appearance based legislation, not breed.

Has that scenario been tested in court where the parents have cleared the appearance test when the dog in question is confirmed by DNA as the parents progeny? I guess the prosecution would argue that restricted breed cannot be ruled out from the parents when they produce progeny that fails the appearance test or something to that effect?. I don't disagree with the intention of the law to eliminate especially dogs purposely bred for strong aggression that present a danger to the community, but I think they are more bred on aggressive dogs than bred on restricted breeds. Dogs of "type" need to be condemned on failing a temperament test as any dogs with genetically strong aggression presenting community danger can't be masked easily without extensive training, that is dogs with problematic aggression are easily determined in the basic of tests.

They need to get off the notion that an aggressive dog of Bull breed origin contains Pit Bull as the cause of aggression. It may well be a Staffy crossed with a fear biting bitch of any breed mixture producing reactive progeny....it's as silly as saying an aggressive GSD or Husky type dog has wolf in it causing the aggression? On that note, some countries grab sable and reverse mask GSD's and Husky type dogs for wolf hybrids if the owners can't prove breed as they do here with Bull breeds.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Amax-1

[melzawelza]

And yet many mixed breed dogs without a drop of the legislated breeds are assessed, by their appearance, as being of that breed and therefore subject to restriction or euthanasia.

In practice, BSL is absolutely, 100%, appearance based rather than breed based. If it truly was breed based we would only be seeing dogs from a closed gene pool of the 'american pit bull terrier' subject to restrictions, not mutts of every mix under the sun.

ETA: A good example of this is the fact that there have been dogs in Victoria assessed under the standard as a restricted breed and seized, and yet their parents, proved by DNA, were assessed under the standard as NOT restricted. The fact that the parents are legally not restricted has no relevance in the legislation on the restricted status of the progeny, a d cannot be used to defend the declaration on the progeny. In practise it is 100% appearance based, not breed based.

It's implied by a particular appearance that the dog is of a restricted breed, but they are breeds listed under BSL not appearances per se. From what I can understand of DNA, it cannot accurately determine breed.......perhaps if the parents were papered and with DNA say a papered Amstaff x Labrador, there would be more leverage in such evidence but crossbreed parents determined by DNA that no restricted breed exists in their ancestry could perhaps amount to who conducted the DNA test with result variations. I had the understanding that DNA for breed determination was a bit all over the place as the reason it was refused in evidence?

The problem is, when a law is in place, it doesn't matter that the rationale of the law is nonsense to use as a defence for having a dog who's breed cannot be determined to the satisfaction of the courts. We just need to be careful owning dogs of the "appearance" until such a law is reduced in sensationalism and dogs are condemned by temperament only when possessing the "appearance".

You're right that DNA isn't super accurate at IDing breed - but it's almost 100% accurate at ID-ing parentage.

Dogs who's DNA-confirmed parents have had the standard applied under the legislation and been cleared as NOT being restricted breeds, can still be declared restricted based on THEIR appearance. The fact that the DNA-proven parents are NOT restricted according to the same legislation cannot be used as an argument to clear the progeny. Parentage doesn't matter - the individual dog's appearance does.

The original intention may have been for it to target specific breeds, but in application, it is appearance based legislation, not breed.

Has that scenario been tested in court where the parents have cleared the appearance test when the dog in question is confirmed by DNA as the parents progeny?

It couldn't be discussed in court because it's evidence that is not admissible. The legislation doesn't allow for the dog's actual genetics (unless the owner can produce pedigree Amstaff papers), only the dogs appearance.

[melzawelza]

Zeus update from Team Dog at the link

Zeus is settling in absolutely brilliantly in his new home. He is fantastic with other dogs, and extremely social with every person he meets. His owner absolutely adores him.

As if that wasn't enough, Zeus's owner recently took in a tiny, 5 week old abandoned kitten to nurse back to health, and Zeus has decided that he is 'Mr Mum' - cuddling her, sniffing her, wanting to play with her (a little big for that still!) and just generally checking she's ok.

She adores him too, and follows him around demanding his attention.

This dog, brilliant with people, other dogs, and even kittens, was deemed a danger to society by Brisbane City Council based solely on his appearance. Those of us that have met Zeus collectively agree that his temperament is impeccable, especially considering the 8 month stint in the pound he so recently endured.

It cost close to $5,000 and a whole lot of time, effort and heartbreak to ensure that Zeus got to live out his days. Brisbane Council's legal fees would have also been a very large sum. That money, time and and resources could have instead been spent on programs that are proven to reduce dog attacks in the community.

Not only have the Council wasted their ratepayers' money on attempting to kill this dog, they have in fact removed an incredibly stable and non-aggressive dog from their community.

Thank you again to all the groups that made Zeus's release possible - Barristers Animal Welfare Panel, Holding Redlich, Fetching Dogs, BARK QLD and Zeus's previous owner, as well as our supporters that allowed us to play our role, too.

We are all heroes in our community. We are #TeamDog

[JulesP]

Those photos are adorable. Glad Zeus is happy in his new home.

[dancinbcs]

True. But the dog should not have been wandering the streets.

Death isn't an appropriate punishment for a dog escaping the yard.

That depends on the dog. Acting after the event if a dogs attacks a person or animal while at large is of no use to the victim. Why is it that most roaming dogs are SBT, Amstaff or Pit crosses? Because they attract irresponsible owners. If they didn't let so many of these types of dogs roam at large BSL may not even exist. Councils have to PREVENT serious attacks. Any dog can bite but those with strong jaws and the tendency to fight by grabbing and shaking, do a whole lot more damage than a breed that nips and backs off. Punishing the deed is too late. This particular dog has not attacked but he has been caught by council twice and the issue would probably never have come up if they had learnt from the first time. I feel sorry for the dog but not for the idiot owners who bought a red nosed, brindle dog and did not think he might be targetted by BSL if they kept letting him out.

[Pailin]

Zeus update from Team Dog at the link

Zeus is settling in absolutely brilliantly in his new home. He is fantastic with other dogs, and extremely social with every person he meets. His owner absolutely adores him.

As if that wasn't enough, Zeus's owner recently took in a tiny, 5 week old abandoned kitten to nurse back to health, and Zeus has decided that he is 'Mr Mum' - cuddling her, sniffing her, wanting to play with her (a little big for that still!) and just generally checking she's ok.

She adores him too, and follows him around demanding his attention.

This dog, brilliant with people, other dogs, and even kittens, was deemed a danger to society by Brisbane City Council based solely on his appearance. Those of us that have met Zeus collectively agree that his temperament is impeccable, especially considering the 8 month stint in the pound he so recently endured.

It cost close to $5,000 and a whole lot of time, effort and heartbreak to ensure that Zeus got to live out his days. Brisbane Council's legal fees would have also been a very large sum. That money, time and and resources could have instead been spent on programs that are proven to reduce dog attacks in the community.

Not only have the Council wasted their ratepayers' money on attempting to kill this dog, they have in fact removed an incredibly stable and non-aggressive dog from their community.

Thank you again to all the groups that made Zeus's release possible - Barristers Animal Welfare Panel, Holding Redlich, Fetching Dogs, BARK QLD and Zeus's previous owner, as well as our supporters that allowed us to play our role, too.

We are all heroes in our community. We are #TeamDog

Oh those pictures are heart melting <3

I am so glad that Zeus had so many people fighting for him and has gotten his happy ending. He looks like an amazing boy.

[VizslaMomma]

Those photos are adorable. Glad Zeus is happy in his new home.

The very best photo has to be ZEUS guarding the wee kitten.

All the photos made me smile.

Team Dog again on the ball.

[VizslaMomma]

[

That depends on the dog. Acting after the event if a dogs attacks a person or animal while at large is of no use to the victim. Why is it that most roaming dogs are SBT, Amstaff or Pit crosses? Because they attract irresponsible owners. If they didn't let so many of these types of dogs roam at large BSL may not even exist. Councils have to PREVENT serious attacks. Any dog can bite but those with strong jaws and the tendency to fight by grabbing and shaking, do a whole lot more damage than a breed that nips and backs off. Punishing the deed is too late. This particular dog has not attacked but he has been caught by council twice and the issue would probably never have come up if they had learnt from the first time. I feel sorry for the dog but not for the idiot owners who bought a red nosed, brindle dog and did not think he might be targetted by BSL if they kept letting him out.

Might be a tad off topic. I feel sorrier for HazyWal, Maddie & Stan having an attack by two dogs.

[melzawelza]

True. But the dog should not have been wandering the streets.

Death isn't an appropriate punishment for a dog escaping the yard.

That depends on the dog. Acting after the event if a dogs attacks a person or animal while at large is of no use to the victim. Why is it that most roaming dogs are SBT, Amstaff or Pit crosses? Because they attract irresponsible owners. If they didn't let so many of these types of dogs roam at large BSL may not even exist. Councils have to PREVENT serious attacks. Any dog can bite but those with strong jaws and the tendency to fight by grabbing and shaking, do a whole lot more damage than a breed that nips and backs off. Punishing the deed is too late. This particular dog has not attacked but he has been caught by council twice and the issue would probably never have come up if they had learnt from the first time. I feel sorry for the dog but not for the idiot owners who bought a red nosed, brindle dog and did not think he might be targetted by BSL if they kept letting him out.

A few questions to think about:

1.Where is your evidence that 'most roaming dogs are SBT, Amstaff or Pit crosses'. What are you basing that on? Are you saying in YOUR area or Australia wide? Where is the evidence? Why are you lumping three breeds and their mixes together as if they are one?

2. IF you were correct, the SBT is each year either #1 or #2 most numerous dog in this country. Amstaffs are usually about 5 or 6. You seem to be including mixes in your assessment so in that case, it certainly wouldn't be some big revelation or a reflection on the dogs themselves that that of the total 'roaming dog' population, SBT, Amstaffs their mixes (and their lookalikes) would be more highly represented.

3. Where is your evidence that IF 'most' roaming dogs are SBT or Amstaff & mixes - the reason for it is that the dogs themselves attract irresponsible owners as opposed to just being more highly represented in dog numbers overall?

4. Where is your evidence that dogs of these breeds or mixes have a different jaw structure or are somehow different to all other dogs?

I see a lot of assumptions in your post but of all my extensive reading on the topic of dog attacks and the best way to reduce them, I've never seen anything that backs them up. Are you aware that the evidence shows that focusing on breed in legislation when trying to deal with dog attacks actually drives up dog attacks?

Are you totally fine with the fact that Team Dog and other groups had to spend nearly 5k, Brisbane City Council had to spend an enormous amount, and this dog had to be locked up for 8 months - taking up space for other pound dogs - because he had a red nose? This dog that is great with other dogs, people, and kittens? This dog that didn't behave aggressively even when roaming without his owner's supervision?

Of course it is different if a dog has shown aggression.

It it not acceptable to kill a dog for escaping it's property, without behaving aggressively in any way. There are appropriate ways to deal with escaping dogs that include fines and orders, or removal and rehoming of the dog if all other options have been exhausted. To imply otherwise is shameful.

Edited April 17, 2014 by melzawelza

[huck house]

Perhaps one of the reasons for these bully breeds roaming is that they are self-socialises out seeking company ? ;)

[aussielover]

Aww so glad Zeus had a happy ending! He looks very sweet

Who in their right mind would release a dog that looks like him to a state with BSL though??? To most people he would definitely look like a pitbull.

I'm also surprised the old owners didn't learn their lesson about keeping him in the first time. Perhaps they didn't realize the serious consequences?

[Malakita]

What an awesome ever after for Zeus! Tremendous effort by all those involved.

Zeus is a lucky boy :)

[lokelani]

Nawwww! He is a little bit adorable!!!

Beautiful boy :D

[danielleheather]

I haven't seen anyone point this out yet so...

The Queensland government has a 22 point identification with 22 descriptions of a Pit Bull and a rating system of 1 to 3 [ eg. point 4 is the dogs nose red? If it is you rate a 3 if not you rate a 1] so as far as they're concerned that's the way to tell if a dog is a Pit Bull or not. Moreover, the minimum score a dog should receive is a 22 to get it off the hook but a 23 sees it PTS. This 22 point system was used on a Chihuahua and it scored 50 therefore it met the description of an APBT.

The dog that attacked the elderly woman in Toowoomba in 95' which was the spark behind this breed banning was reported to be a Pit Bull but it turned out to be unknown crossbreeds and like many other restricted breeds sold under a different breed name and in this case it was a Lab cross and i'll add in here, i'm not sure if anyone knows this but it's common practice to sell Pit Bulls as Lab x Staff because of this legislation. This pup Zeus, you can clearly see he's a Pit Bull - if you can't, then you have no leg to stand on arguing with people over Pit Bulls or any dog for that matter.

There's no point in arguing, you don't get a say regardless of how poorly put together these laws are. If the dog had been looked after properly in the beginning (that includes making sure the fencing is secure so it can't get out) then this wouldn't have happened. The former owners made other people pay for their lack of proper ownership and although i'm glad he's free.

Edited June 11, 2014 by danielleheather

[melzawelza]

I'm willing to put money that Danielleheather is another incarnation of Amax-1, M-sass and all the other identities he's had. I picked it after one post when he came back as Amax-1, lets see if I've got it right again :laugh:

ETA: at least the bumping of this has reminded me to post that Zeus (now Daxter) has his own facebook page for anyone that would like to keep up with his shenanigans:

https://www.facebook.com/daxterspage?fref=ts

There's some pretty cute pictures on there:

Edited June 11, 2014 by melzawelza

[mita]

Love those pics! :)

[melzawelza]

Adorable, aren't they. He is such an incredibly well adjusted dog, even immediately upon release from 8 months in the pound. Extremely social with dogs, people and other animals. Makes his seizure, the cost to both the Council and the public, and the fact that BCC removed him from their borders even more ridiculous.