2nd Current Vcat Trial

[Staffyluv]

And he is going home for Christmas as well..

Congrats to DOT Vic, what a simply amazing job they and everyone else has done!!

FB link to the news!

My link

[YOLO]

I have no views one way or the other on these particular dogs.

But I am yet again disgusted that governments cant pass laws that actually WORK.

At the end of the day, the courts have determined that these dogs were NOT prohibited breeds. WHY has this taken years and wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars?

When it comes right down to it, I don't know HOW one would technically determine whether a dog is actually a prohibited breed. But surely that is something the government should have considered when writing the laws.

Whether its DNA testing, or physical assessment by a government vet against an established set of parameters, or whatever, the process needs to clear, concise, and transparent.

I also feel that there should be TWO standards. At the "lesser" standard the only requirement should be that the dog is neutered, registered, and kept in compliance with existing laws. By definition that means that within a generation or so these problematic "borderline" dogs will nolonger be a problem.

To actually cease and kill a dog there needs to be irrefutable proof that the dog is dangerous.

[melzawelza]

I have no views one way or the other on these particular dogs.

But I am yet again disgusted that governments cant pass laws that actually WORK.

At the end of the day, the courts have determined that these dogs were NOT prohibited breeds. WHY has this taken years and wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars?

When it comes right down to it, I don't know HOW one would technically determine whether a dog is actually a prohibited breed. But surely that is something the government should have considered when writing the laws.

Whether its DNA testing, or physical assessment by a government vet against an established set of parameters, or whatever, the process needs to clear, concise, and transparent.

I also feel that there should be TWO standards. At the "lesser" standard the only requirement should be that the dog is neutered, registered, and kept in compliance with existing laws. By definition that means that within a generation or so these problematic "borderline" dogs will nolonger be a problem.

To actually cease and kill a dog there needs to be irrefutable proof that the dog is dangerous.

The problem is that there is zero way to determine the genetic makeup of a dog without pedigree papers (and even then they can be botched). This kind of legislation has been tried in every incarnation where it's been implemented around the world and it's never been able to be workable and without extensive cost to the taxpayer in appeals (and enforcement). DNA testing isn't reliable and does not test for APBT anyway, so we are left with visual ID, which we all know is completely useless and idiotic.

The idea of mandatory desexing for certain 'types' of dogs is certainly much less onerous than the current Vic laws but still completely unhelpful and still ends up with dead dogs. San Francisco has mandatory desexing for 'pit bull' dogs and Chihuahuas, and all it has meant is lots of surrendered dogs to the shelter when their owners can't afford or can't access low cost or free desexing.

It also creates a stigma about the dogs that have 'different' regulations than other dogs, which lessens community safety ('my dog isn't a 'pit bull' so therefore I can trust my kid alone with it unsupervised'), and creates barriers to adoption ('There are too many Chihuahuas and we are overpopulated with them and need to stop them from being bred.' - devalues the dogs and lessens desirability).

And in the case of 'pit bull' dogs the idea of desexing them all so they cease to exist for public safety reasons works off an absolutely ridiculous and inaccurate premise that dogs that are shaped a certain way are disproportionately dangerous to other dogs to the point that they can't be allowed to exist in society anymore.

Mandatory desexing doesn't work anyway - there are never and will never be the ability to enforce it so all you get is people hiding their dogs away from sight because they can't or don't want to desex their dog - this results in less socialised dogs that often are not getting access to vet care or adequate exercise (this is what is happening in San Fran).

Sure, what you're proposing would be a lot less devastating than what is going on in Victoria right now, but it is no less unfounded in fact and would continue to cost stupid money and take up stupid amounts of ranger resources on dogs that don't need it.

Seriously, we know what the answer is - well written, effective breed-neutral dangerous/menacing/nuisance legislation paired with high levels of education and incentives for doing the right thing. On top of that a well resourced low cost desex/vaccination/chipping program for underserved community members.

Almost all of the rest of the world has gotten rid of all BSL and just implemented the above, seeing great results. It's not rocket science put the pollies are resistant to it here because the general public are still uneducated on the topic and believe that focusing on 'breed' is the silver bullet to fix dog attacks. Less and less people are believing this now, though - and it will eventually get to a tipping point, just as it has everywhere else.

[sumosmum]

Sonny was also a big win - so positive. I would be surprised if declarations don't slow up or halt completely after these two.

I heard him speak at the AIAM conference, I tried to get a copy but I was told it was not recorded. I since found out that the man I heard speak was the council prosecutor, not an AMO, and more than one person has said that the rangers at Brimbank are very anti BSL. He didn't do them any favours, that's for sure.

The AMO's at Brimbank CC are not anti BSL. One may be, the others are very pro bsl as was evident when they gave evidence against Mylo.

[YOLO]

At the end of the day, "here's your dog back minus his nuts," whilst sad and annoying, is much better than destruction.

Again, there's a big difference between destroying your family pet, and simply telling you that you can't breed it.

I agree that it's far from ideal. My point is just that IF the govt is going to seize your dog, and label it (by whatever means) as say a "Pit Bull" far better to have it neutered than destroyed.

Also, and I know this may sound harsh, but I have no problem with the non-proliferation of certain types or breeds.

None of my dogs have ever bred. We'd have no problem with certain dogs not being bred due to temperament or non-conformity? Why is it suddenly so terrible to not breed dogs perceived as dangerous?

It's not like these are wild animals contributing to biodiversity.

We all know that the problems with "dangerous" dogs are caused by bad breeders and idiot owners (or worse, scum actually breeding and training them to fight.) Unfortunately, sometimes being part of society means making compromises.

Unfortunately, the issue that needs to be addressed with some breeds, is not "what happens to these dogs in the right hands?" (Ie happy well-adjusted family pets.) BUT "What happens to them in the WRONG hands?"

Now as I have said, if somebody has a wonderful family pet, that just so happens to be a "pitbull type dog," good luck to them.

If somebody goes looking for a(nother) dog, and finds a PTD they want to rescue from a pound, good on em.

But it's when somebody wants a dog, and goes looking for a Pitbull breeder because they WANT that particular breed, then I have a major problem.

[ricey]

Now as I have said, if somebody has a wonderful family pet, that just so happens to be a "pitbull type dog," good luck to them.

If somebody goes looking for a(nother) dog, and finds a PTD they want to rescue from a pound, good on em.

But it's when somebody wants a dog, and goes looking for a Pitbull breeder because they WANT that particular breed, then I have a major problem.

Hi Big D

So, to take your position to its logical conclusion, if somebody went looking for a pug breeder because they WANT a pug, then you'd have a major problem with that?

Pffft!

Unlike a lot of the DOLers who are prepared to rabbit on about pit bulls in verbose detail while actually having no first hand experience of the breed, I have had a reasonable amount of first hand experience of them. I have had the pleasure of sharing my life with an American Pit Bull terrier for over 12 years now, and I have helped in the fostering and rehoming of well over 15 of this much maligned breed.

I have researched this breed very thoroughly; I have a Bachelor of Science degree and I know how to research well without being blinded by popular mythology.

Well bred American Pit Bull terriers make fantastic family and companion dogs, and in this they are no different to well bred examples of just about any other breed of dog (or mongrel) you care to mention. They require good training, and in this they are no different to any other dog. There are far more powerful dog breeds out there, but no one seems to worry very much about these breeds as they are not currently targeted by the popular press. The position that I have come to over the years is that the breed is not the problem but the intentions of the individual human dog owner is.

So, I'd make the point that you could train a standard poodle to be quite an intimidating attack dog (the French Gendarmes used the standard poodle as their police dog for decades) and that you could also train it to be to be a therapy dog. Smart dogs and versatile, those poodles. Just like you can train American Pit Bull terriers for any role that you require of them.

So when my geriatric Pit Bull terrier finally shuffles off, I will probably seek out a pit bull breeder because I WANT that particular breed. I want an American Pit Bull terrier as I know and understand just how great and versatile a dog they can be. I am lucky in that I have a few reliable contacts and sources, so I will end up with a well bred (and well bred in Australia) American Pit Bull terrier puppy that I will train well and care for well.

I am probably right in thinking that you'd have a major problem with that? That I want an American Pit Bull terrier and not some other more socially acceptable breed (or a breed more acceptable to Big D)?

Cheers,

ricey

Edited December 30, 2014 by ricey

[ricey]

I have no views one way or the other on these particular dogs.

But I am yet again disgusted that governments cant pass laws that actually WORK.

At the end of the day, the courts have determined that these dogs were NOT prohibited breeds. WHY has this taken years and wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars?

When it comes right down to it, I don't know HOW one would technically determine whether a dog is actually a prohibited breed. But surely that is something the government should have considered when writing the laws.

Whether its DNA testing, or physical assessment by a government vet against an established set of parameters, or whatever, the process needs to clear, concise, and transparent.

I also feel that there should be TWO standards. At the "lesser" standard the only requirement should be that the dog is neutered, registered, and kept in compliance with existing laws. By definition that means that within a generation or so these problematic "borderline" dogs will nolonger be a problem.

To actually cease and kill a dog there needs to be irrefutable proof that the dog is dangerous.

Hi Big D,

So, you propose two standards. The first standard, neuter any dog that Big D doesn't like; the second standard, 'cease and kill' all dogs that have irrefutable proof that Big D doesn't like them.

Simple really.

Cheers,

ricey

[melzawelza]

But it's when somebody wants a dog, and goes looking for a Pitbull breeder because they WANT that particular breed, then I have a major problem.

What a weird thing to say on a purebred dog forum, do you say that to anyone wanting to obtain a pedigree dog?

[ricey]

But it's when somebody wants a dog, and goes looking for a Pitbull breeder because they WANT that particular breed, then I have a major problem.

What a weird thing to say on a purebred dog forum, do you say that to anyone wanting to obtain a pedigree dog?

Big D's silence is deafening.....

ricey