Does Anyone Read Or Care About This Topic?

[Steve]

You won't see an ANKC breed added to BSL, not going to happen. I know it as do countless other owners of ANKC breeds with papers and corresponding chips. The only people that can't see it are those with generic brindle pound mutts, wannabe's without papers that owners refer to as Amstaffs and those who have come under council scrutiny.

We need to be concerned about BSL for survival of the BYB cross breed industry and the illegal breeding of APBT's for what reason? The people breeding these dogs that are not APBT related but fit the looks criteria need to take more responsibility for what they are breeding and selling IMHO. No one needs to breed Amstaff X Labradors selling them to naïve people who become attached to their pets for the council to seize them is gross irresponsibility on the breeders part.

Better to ask why they see the need to do it in the 1st place. Why do they feel their needs can't be met through the K.Cs?

Well that would be because what they do is different - is this a trick question?

[Steve]

By the way - yes I care but Im not up for throwing any purebred legal breed under a train in order to try to change the law .

[ricey]

BSL is legislated by the individual states, the Feds the import restrictions.

You might see cross breeds added to the states BSL lists or more "types" of dogs but you aren't going to see any ANKC recognised breeds with ANKC papers targeted. Anyone with an ANKC registered dog with corresponding microchip has nothing to fear from BSL.

Stating " your breed could or will be next" is bullshit and scaremongering.

Don't buy a cross bred or a dog without ANKC papers and you won't have anything to be concerned about.

Hi all,

I did not mean to upset so many people as I obviously have by my original post. I just asked why this subject didn't get much traffic, as I personally consider it important to dogs, and I consider that dogs are important. Having read most (not all) of the subsequent posts (I only log on to DOL once or twice a month) I feel I need to reply to some of the posts I have read.

WreckitWhippet, many kennel club breeds have been targeted by breed specific legislation in other countries, and the German Shepherd dog has the all time world record for the length of time being a banned dog here in Australia, so I fail to see how your points have any substance. Stating that "your breed could or will be next" is not scaremongering, it is just pointing out what has happened in the other countries that have gone down the BSL track. It is certainly not bullshit; this targeting of other breeds (including kennel club breeds) has been amply demonstrated as the next logical step in most of the jurisdictions in the world that have implemented BSL. To deny this is to deny the facts.

I don't have a problem with our kennel club here in Australia in particular, or kennel clubs in general. They do a fine job in looking after the interests of their breeds. That is their job and I would not ask kennel clubs to do anything else.

I do however have a problem with people who deny that the problem of BSL could ever target their chosen kennel club sanctioned breed; they are living under a false sense of security if they do. Those of us who have been involved in dealing with various state governments over the last 10 or more years know how close some Australian governments have come to legislating against kennel club breeds.

I don't suppose that you live in Queensland, WreckitWhippet?

Me, I care little about whether a BSL targeted breed is a sanctioned Australian Kennel Club breed, or a breed sanctioned by some other kennel club, or whether it is a recognised breed at all. I care about the individual members of the species "canis lupus familiaris" and I'd like to point out that we humans have a responsibility to this species as we got them into this mess.

Believing that this BSL stuff couldn't possibly affect ones own chosen breed is a bit like thinking "racism does not affect me because I am white".

ricey

[melzawelza]

Ricey, I think a lot of people have abandoned DOL when it comes to discussing or working on BSL issues because of the mind boggling responses that are often received and flood the threads (WIW posts are a perfect example, and of corse Amax-1, m-sass and all the other names he has gone under). It's sad that a dog forum is one of the least productive places for discussion and action on BSL but that is the case nonetheless.

[Steve]

Well that's not why I stopped.

[WreckitWhippet]

I got sick of the one in all in attitude from the anti-BSLers, the you'll be next threats and the fact that 10 years down the track it's still all about the APBT. Nothing was learned when it was all cocked up in the beginning, but rather than try a different tact it's the same old same old.

The anti-bls folk kept screaming your dog will be next, more breeds will be added to the list, when in NSW it simply wasn't true.

[moosmum]

You won't see an ANKC breed added to BSL, not going to happen. I know it as do countless other owners of ANKC breeds with papers and corresponding chips. The only people that can't see it are those with generic brindle pound mutts, wannabe's without papers that owners refer to as Amstaffs and those who have come under council scrutiny.

We need to be concerned about BSL for survival of the BYB cross breed industry and the illegal breeding of APBT's for what reason? The people breeding these dogs that are not APBT related but fit the looks criteria need to take more responsibility for what they are breeding and selling IMHO. No one needs to breed Amstaff X Labradors selling them to naïve people who become attached to their pets for the council to seize them is gross irresponsibility on the breeders part.

Better to ask why they see the need to do it in the 1st place. Why do they feel their needs can't be met through the K.Cs?

Well that would be because what they do is different - is this a trick question?

I guess it is if you aren't interested in looking at any other POV. Or is that a joke?

[Jed]

BSL is legislated by the individual states, the Feds the import restrictions.

You might see cross breeds added to the states BSL lists or more "types" of dogs but you aren't going to see any ANKC recognised breeds with ANKC papers targeted. Anyone with an ANKC registered dog with corresponding microchip has nothing to fear from BSL.

Stating " your breed could or will be next" is bullshit and scaremongering.

Don't buy a cross bred or a dog without ANKC papers and you won't have anything to be concerned about.

What verification do you have to support that theory, (bolded) WIW?

[Jed]

Ricey - I still care, as much as I did, but nothing which was effective/is effective ever originated from this forum. Once it was worth sharing an opinion....when BSL was first introduced.

Now it hardly seems worth it, it is not opinions which are necessary now, it is action.

There is action, but it is not discussed on this forum, and few, if any, on the forum have any part in it.

It's a wrong law, and no matter who says what, nothing will change that fact. Killing dogs for no good reason except it negates your insurance liability, and you can, sucks big time. I will continue to oppose BSL, and to try to be of some use in that regard.

I would also like to point out that the CCCQ facilitated the introduction of BSL in Queensland, hand in hand with the state government of the time. The CCs will do what they see as most expedient for them. This was a board decision, and it seems that the majority of members did not approve.

Moosmum - KC membership is voluntary, breeding purebred dogs is voluntary, it is a hobby, a fancy, for those who are interested. As badminton clubs, or snooker clubs, or beer guzzling clubs are a hobby so is the KC.

No big deal.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Jed

[WreckitWhippet]

BSL is legislated by the individual states, the Feds the import restrictions.

You might see cross breeds added to the states BSL lists or more "types" of dogs but you aren't going to see any ANKC recognised breeds with ANKC papers targeted. Anyone with an ANKC registered dog with corresponding microchip has nothing to fear from BSL.

Stating " your breed could or will be next" is bullshit and scaremongering.

Don't buy a cross bred or a dog without ANKC papers and you won't have anything to be concerned about.

What verification do you have to support that theory, (bolded) WIW?

The fact that Dogs NSW aren't worried about it and there are no calls to action. The deal was done a long time ago, way back when and ANKC dogs with corresponding papers and chips were excluded.

As I said it's scaremongering and the one in all in attitude is not winning one when it comes to BSL reversal. The Pit Bull people are on their own.

[moosmum]

Ricey - I still care, as much as I did, but nothing which was effective/is effective ever originated from this forum. Once it was worth sharing an opinion....when BSL was first introduced.

Now it hardly seems worth it, it is not opinions which are necessary now, it is action.

There is action, but it is not discussed on this forum, and few, if any, on the forum have any part in it.

It's a wrong law, and no matter who says what, nothing will change that fact. Killing dogs for no good reason except it negates your insurance liability, and you can, sucks big time. I will continue to oppose BSL, and to try to be of some use in that regard.

I would also like to point out that the CCCQ facilitated the introduction of BSL in Queensland, hand in hand with the state government of the time. The CCs will do what they see as most expedient for them. This was a board decision, and it seems that the majority of members did not approve.

Moosmum - KC membership is voluntary, breeding purebred dogs is voluntary, it is a hobby, a fancy, for those who are interested. As badminton clubs, or snooker clubs, or beer guzzling clubs are a hobby so is the KC.

Jed,

I know you worry about the future of pedigee dogs. So do I. I took a good, long and hard look BECAUSE of that, Not because I disagree with with peoples right or choice of hobby, but to preserve those rights.

Where else SHOULD this be discussed ? No, I think this is the right place. Otherwise I'm just perpetuating a dumb cycle of attack and counter attack that doesn't accomplish any thing.

If this theory turns out to be totaly wrong, so be it and thank Dog. But if I'm right we are in bigger Sh*T than people know. No one so far has shown me faults in this theory, only demonstrations of it at work.

All it takes to find out is a more enquiring mind than an amoeba.

No big deal.

[Salukifan]

From a purely cynical perspective, I think what will save the ANKC recognised breeds is the popularity of one of them.

The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is an extremely popular pet (ANKC registered and otherwise). Any move to target the SBT, as Australia's most popular bull breed will affect not just serious breed fanciers but Jo and Joanne Average and their family.

ABPTs got targetted because of bad media coverage (mostly US based), whipped up hysteria, poor defence tactics (IMO) and public apathy. The SBT would see a lot of dog owners affected. Its a vote loser. Do the math - its what any politician would do.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Haredown Whippets

[~Anne~]

I still very strongly disagree with BSL. Similarly to Wreckit's comments in an earlier post, I gave up discussing and actively supporting the anti BSL movement because it was too frustrating. Lessons weren't learnt. The strategies and tactics still haven't changed I don't believe although it's been long while since I had any real involvement.

Will BSL spread to ANKC breeds? Personally, I think there is a good chance it might. The SBT seems to be inching closer to the firing line every day although I do see the logic in the comments of the post above.

[moosmum]

I hope H.D.W is right, and I agree targeting SBT would certainly bring out some opposition!

I can't help but come back to the logic that a pedigree is where breed specific originated. While pedigrees are based on exclusion, how can we expect legislation to be any different?

If K.Cs world wide lead the way in all things dog, isn't B.S.L a logical conclusion?

Exclusion brings improvement, doesn't it? Isn't it whats makes pedigrees what they are?

They are exclusive?

Edited June 12, 2014 by moosmum

[Jed]

WIW

The fact that Dogs NSW aren't worried about it

I love it. I wouldn't have thought you would be that naive!!

[moosmum]

Take a good, long, hard look people because we are talking about the future of dogs. No divisions here.

Can any one deny that the value society places on dogs is dangerously low?

How does that NOT affect pedigree breeders? Isn't that what makes Reg. breeders become ever more "exclusive"? Who will be left to breed FOR?

Its self perpetuating cycle thats gaining momentum. How much more exclusive can you still get?

This is a whole lot bigger than pedigree dogs.

The examples of how this is working against us all are near endless if you need more but the bottom line is that this isn't going to work unless the community can work together to show and encourage the value of well bred dogs, not just pedigree papers because that works against you too. The papers can't be more important than the dog if good solid breeding practices are the purpose behind them.

Look at the old movies like Lassie and Rin Tin Tin, read the famous quotes about dogs through out history made by well known historical figures. Its changed for the worse and that should not have happened with the advent of an organization set up to maximize good breeding practices. It should only have had a positive influence.

Good breeding practices and open discussion of what a good dog is and how to maximize that are forgotten. Its all about a pedigree. Not a dog.

If no one can show where I am wrong, and all these pieces keep slotting together to complete the puzzle I can't just sit on it. Does any one understand this, or do I need to write a book after all?

Edited June 15, 2014 by moosmum

[Salukifan]

I hope H.D.W is right, and I agree targeting SBT would certainly bring out some opposition!

I can't help but come back to the logic that a pedigree is where breed specific originated. While pedigrees are based on exclusion, how can we expect legislation to be any different?

If K.Cs world wide lead the way in all things dog, isn't B.S.L a logical conclusion?

Exclusion brings improvement, doesn't it? Isn't it whats makes pedigrees what they are?

They are exclusive?

Pedigrees are about history. The history of a dog's antecedents. People used to give a damn about such things and they valued their dogs enough to record ancestry. They cared enough about dogs and the roles they performed to selectively breed dogs for certain roles. Until not that long ago, that was pretty common.

Pedigrees are NOT the problem. They did not cause BSL. What caused it is the fact that people are so isolated from dogs and breeding that they give no thought to the parents of the pups they buy. Many no longer see them. They don't understand dog behaviour and they don't care enough about their dogs or their community to socialise and train their dogs to make them safe.

The problem doesn't lie with the dogs and the sooner you grasp that, the sooner you'll stop blaming the KCs for the problem. It's people who breed and buy irresponsiblly and who think dogs are "just a dog".

That doesn't describe the pedigree dog world who neither cause nor enshrine the legislation that perpetuates the myth that dangerous dogs are born, not made. They also cannot control the behaviour of people who choose to breed or buy dogs with no regard to their inherent characteristics.

Write your book but as far as I'm concerned you are barking up the wrong tree. Stop blaming dogs and pedigrees and start looking at the kind of people who have dangerous dogs and the kind of people too stupid to create legislation to deal with them.

[Whiskered]

I hope H.D.W is right, and I agree targeting SBT would certainly bring out some opposition!

I can't help but come back to the logic that a pedigree is where breed specific originated. While pedigrees are based on exclusion, how can we expect legislation to be any different?

If K.Cs world wide lead the way in all things dog, isn't B.S.L a logical conclusion?

Exclusion brings improvement, doesn't it? Isn't it whats makes pedigrees what they are?

They are exclusive?

Pedigrees are about history. The history of a dog's antecedents. People used to give a damn about such things and they valued their dogs enough to record ancestry. They cared enough about dogs and the roles they performed to selectively breed dogs for certain roles. Until not that long ago, that was pretty common.

Pedigrees are NOT the problem. They did not cause BSL. What caused it is the fact that people are so isolated from dogs and breeding that they give no thought to the parents of the pups they buy. Many no longer see them. They don't understand dog behaviour and they don't care enough about their dogs or their community to socialise and train their dogs to make them safe.

The problem doesn't lie with the dogs and the sooner you grasp that, the sooner you'll stop blaming the KCs for the problem. It's people who breed and buy irresponsiblly and who think dogs are "just a dog".

That doesn't describe the pedigree dog world who neither cause nor enshrine the legislation that perpetuates the myth that dangerous dogs are born, not made. They also cannot control the behaviour of people who choose to breed or buy dogs with no regard to their inherent characteristics.

Write your book but as far as I'm concerned you are barking up the wrong tree. Stop blaming dogs and pedigrees and start looking at the kind of people who have dangerous dogs and the kind of people too stupid to create legislation to deal with them.

Thankyou HW. What a great post.

[moosmum]

I hope H.D.W is right, and I agree targeting SBT would certainly bring out some opposition!

I can't help but come back to the logic that a pedigree is where breed specific originated. While pedigrees are based on exclusion, how can we expect legislation to be any different?

If K.Cs world wide lead the way in all things dog, isn't B.S.L a logical conclusion?

Exclusion brings improvement, doesn't it? Isn't it whats makes pedigrees what they are?

They are exclusive?

Pedigrees are about history. The history of a dog's antecedents. People used to give a damn about such things and they valued their dogs enough to record ancestry. They cared enough about dogs and the roles they performed to selectively breed dogs for certain roles. Until not that long ago, that was pretty common.

I agree completely. Just what I thought I was saying.

[moosmum]

I hope H.D.W is right, and I agree targeting SBT would certainly bring out some opposition!

I can't help but come back to the logic that a pedigree is where breed specific originated. While pedigrees are based on exclusion, how can we expect legislation to be any different?

If K.Cs world wide lead the way in all things dog, isn't B.S.L a logical conclusion?

Exclusion brings improvement, doesn't it? Isn't it whats makes pedigrees what they are?

They are exclusive?

Pedigrees are NOT the problem. They did not cause BSL. What caused it is the fact that people are so isolated from dogs and breeding that they give no thought to the parents of the pups they buy. Many no longer see them. They don't understand dog behaviour and they don't care enough about their dogs or their community to socialise and train their dogs to make them safe.

No pedigrees are not the problem. They have been a terrific inovation in dog breeding. Again, I have no problem with the pedigree system.

The isolation IS the problem. I agree. So why continue with a rule that causes that isolation when it would have NO EFFECT on the pedigree system ? That single rule isolates pedigree breeders from their foundations, and their foundations from pedigree breeders.

It is a double closed system.It isolates both sides from the other.

No legislation is going to solve that problem.

I Don't blame the dogs. But I can't entirely blame people either. How can they understand when they are kept at a distance?

Blaming people is easy. Both sides of this argument do that as 1st resort. So it continues.

Edited June 17, 2014 by moosmum