For All The Unethical (But Responsible) Dog Owners ...

[Purdie]

...so if we know that some breeds get more dumped than others, how about this:

if you want to become a dog owner, you have to apply for registration of the wanted breed upfront. If the breed is one that gets more dumped than others the council will provide a free consultation to inform the owner of the risks - the owner may or may not change his/her mind, but at least can make an informed decision.

would this be practicable?... how long does the waiting period has to be?

A lot of the breeds are on the most dumped list because they happen to be popular breeds that are available in large numbers.

Notice a lot of the breeds on the least dumped breeds list are quite rare or harder to find ,hence less in number less dumped.

If a breed becomes very popular then breeding will increase from all sources to meet demand;shortly after you will see an increase in the disposal rate of that particular breed.

[_PL_]

You know what? I think you guys are looking at the stats on “Breeds” and forgetting that the humans circumstances(the dogs human) plays an important roll it the stats of dumping’s and attacks……Certainly not the breed. I think it’s a no brainer, certain breeds attract certain people for many reasons….

Well……maybe it’s a personal thing too……………………

I really don't think a specific breed is more likely to be dumped or more likely to attack.......Am I wrong? Dunno....but that what I think

Clever :)

I think you'd have to be doing a full time Phd to gather 10 - 15yrs of stats together and come out with something close to accurate, and then assume that 5yrs later all of it would need updating.

It's not all that popular but quite realistic to say that certain breeds attract certain people because it's usually in the context of 'tough' bull breeds and that topic has been done to death. Attack statistics are incomplete because not everything is reported and as far as dog to human; a scratch is enough to set off a menacing dog complaint. Then where was the dog. Who did it bite. What did it bite. How serious was it. And how many of them were around at the time the study was done.

Both bite and dumping have human factors that are multiple; there's the popularity thing. Paris Hilton stage saw a massive spike in pound chihuahuas, movies like Balto set off a whole lot of sibes going to inappropriate homes, pet store white fluffies bought in haste sitting impounded alongside the BYB staffy cross, pigging areas always will have a huge oversupply of bull arab. Labradors because people seem to forget that they are still a large dog who needs managing. My city area is right into oodles and frenchies at the moment. Not sure where all the large brindle pound looking crosses dogs have gone from a few years ago.

Past fads have all had their turn for example cavaliers, blue anything, rottie, pomeranian. You see the numbers go up and down.

Frenchy and brachy are up next.

Then there's the 'dumping' aka reason for being impounded which has hundreds of factors from; mismatched homes, strays & unclaimed dogs that seem to come from nowhere, unwanted; abandoned in the yard or park, dog abandoned at vet or boarding, stolen dogs showing up years later, tying the dog to the pound gate, seizure due to attack, seizure due to cruelty/neglect, owner jailed.

To the truly heartbreaking. Homelessness, family breakdown, mental collapse, spousal abuse, drug abuse, going to nursing home. Death.

We're leaving out the dogs who don't get dumped but handed from home to home; having more than one in their lifetime.

Point is, something so complex and nationwide can't be summed up easily. Hence the long reply :laugh:

[Willem]

http://www.burkesbackyard.com.au/fact-sheets/pets/pet-road-tests/dog-dumpage/#.VzUcsI9OJhF

the data seems to come from the RSPCA so I assume they knew what they are talking about?

Well forgive me for not accepting this info outright (not a fan of the RSPCA stats) but there are many variables in why dogs are dumped and why they attack......not just the breed..... No?

I don't know the protocol the RSPCA adopts; I expect they asked people why they surrender the dog? ...and if a Maltese owner states that the dog shows aggression and the dog might even show this behaviour than this is what they enter in the list. I guess they just record the status quo and don't have recourses to investigate the underlying cause of unwanted behaviour.

[Lhok]

...so if we know that some breeds get more dumped than others, how about this: if you want to become a dog owner, you have to apply for registration of the wanted breed upfront. If the breed is one that gets more dumped than others the council will provide a free consultation to inform the owner of the risks - the owner may or may not change his/her mind, but at least can make an informed decision.would this be practicable?... how long does the waiting period has to be?

My breed is the Akita, they certainly aren't for everyone. We have people coming on our Facebook group asking us about them, that's ok we give them information they tell us about their lives and we see if an Akita would suit. If it turns out that they won't change their lifestyle to suit an Akita they often get snarky and rude. Often they quit the group and get their pup anyway then around 18months to 2 years down the track they have to get rid of their Akita and often do so through Gumtree etc.

No matter how much information you give someone if they want something they will do it. If you add more red tape they will still just do it and ignore the extra stuff (like licenses).

I am not sure how you are going to chance the mentality of that.

--Lhok

[Dogdragon]

http://www.burkesbackyard.com.au/fact-sheets/pets/pet-road-tests/dog-dumpage/#.VzUcsI9OJhF

the data seems to come from the RSPCA so I assume they knew what they are talking about?

Well forgive me for not accepting this info outright (not a fan of the RSPCA stats) but there are many variables in why dogs are dumped and why they attack......not just the breed..... No?

I don't know the protocol the RSPCA adopts; I expect they asked people why they surrender the dog? ...and if a Maltese owner states that the dog shows aggression and the dog might even show this behaviour than this is what they enter in the list. I guess they just record the status quo and don't have recourses to investigate the underlying cause of unwanted behaviour.

Guessing does not contribute to the stats......advertising the studies involved and how they came to these conclusions is expected in presenting this evidence. If its simply breed based then these studies are flawed. If they don't have the recourses to investigate the undelaying causes then they are invalid....................yes?

and yeah......other posters have highlighted the many variables involved in this. I do hope this thread is not taking the turn of breed specific legislation?

[The Spotted Devil]

http://www.burkesbackyard.com.au/fact-sheets/pets/pet-road-tests/dog-dumpage/#.VzUcsI9OJhF

the data seems to come from the RSPCA so I assume they knew what they are talking about?

Well forgive me for not accepting this info outright (not a fan of the RSPCA stats) but there are many variables in why dogs are dumped and why they attack......not just the breed..... No?

I don't know the protocol the RSPCA adopts; I expect they asked people why they surrender the dog? ...and if a Maltese owner states that the dog shows aggression and the dog might even show this behaviour than this is what they enter in the list. I guess they just record the status quo and don't have recourses to investigate the underlying cause of unwanted behaviour.

What people say and what the TRUE reason is are very different things. And yes I've seen the research. This is what I lecture on. I know you are relying on Google but honestly your data and understanding are very limited. And I bet there's not a single well bred pedigree Maltese amongst them. It's like everything being a Mastiff cross just because they're brindle...

And yes Powerlegs, Dalmatians copped it too.

[Dogdragon]

You know what? I think you guys are looking at the stats on “Breeds” and forgetting that the humans circumstances(the dogs human) plays an important roll it the stats of dumping’s and attacks……Certainly not the breed. I think it’s a no brainer, certain breeds attract certain people for many reasons….

Well……maybe it’s a personal thing too……………………

I really don't think a specific breed is more likely to be dumped or more likely to attack.......Am I wrong? Dunno....but that what I think

Clever :)

I think you'd have to be doing a full time Phd to gather 10 - 15yrs of stats together and come out with something close to accurate, and then assume that 5yrs later all of it would need updating.

It's not all that popular but quite realistic to say that certain breeds attract certain people because it's usually in the context of 'tough' bull breeds and that topic has been done to death. Attack statistics are incomplete because not everything is reported and as far as dog to human; a scratch is enough to set off a menacing dog complaint. Then where was the dog. Who did it bite. What did it bite. How serious was it. And how many of them were around at the time the study was done.

Both bite and dumping have human factors that are multiple; there's the popularity thing. Paris Hilton stage saw a massive spike in pound chihuahuas, movies like Balto set off a whole lot of sibes going to inappropriate homes, pet store white fluffies bought in haste sitting impounded alongside the BYB staffy cross, pigging areas always will have a huge oversupply of bull arab. Labradors because people seem to forget that they are still a large dog who needs managing. My city area is right into oodles and frenchies at the moment. Not sure where all the large brindle pound looking crosses dogs have gone from a few years ago.

Past fads have all had their turn for example cavaliers, blue anything, rottie, pomeranian. You see the numbers go up and down.

Frenchy and brachy are up next.

Then there's the 'dumping' aka reason for being impounded which has hundreds of factors from; mismatched homes, strays & unclaimed dogs that seem to come from nowhere, unwanted; abandoned in the yard or park, dog abandoned at vet or boarding, stolen dogs showing up years later, tying the dog to the pound gate, seizure due to attack, seizure due to cruelty/neglect, owner jailed.

To the truly heartbreaking. Homelessness, family breakdown, mental collapse, spousal abuse, drug abuse, going to nursing home. Death.

We're leaving out the dogs who don't get dumped but handed from home to home; having more than one in their lifetime.

Point is, something so complex and nationwide can't be summed up easily. Hence the long reply :laugh:

Yup............absolutely agree there........too many variables involved to base this on breed.

[The Spotted Devil]

It's like my ESS pups - I had at least 5 enquiries for every pup born. But only one suitable home for each of them. Could have sold them for a packet and bred my bitch again. Right now I'm contemplating whether to breed Em again because the right homes are so damned hard to find. Thank goodness she only had 4 pups and I was keeping one!

[Willem]

ok...a breed specific orientated consultancy of potential owners seems to require too many detailed information - how about the 'upfront registration' in general?...responsible breeders with pride in their puppies will do everything to find the right buyers, hence the chances that these puppies will end up in the pound will be significant less. And this is a significant difference to breeder who only aim for the money and who will sell their puppies to everyone as long as they see the money. The chances that these pupps will end up in the pounds seems to be therefore much higher.

So by implementing a mandatory 'upfront registration' for all breeds / dogs with a reasonable waiting period we would create a buffer period in which the councils could provide the checks and consultancy that normally the responsible breeder does?...similar methodology should lead to similar results? ...the councils could even outsource this checks to recognized and authorized breeders (with the right expertise!) if the councils don't have the capacity.

Eta: the suggestion should be seen in context with the currently adopted 6 month period for the official registration (for NSW): if the owner has 6 month to register the dog officially, a lot can happen in this time and the pup might be indeed surrendered to the pound before the expiration of the 6-month period.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Willem

[korbin13]

Who pays for all of this? This is hardly an issue that anybody wants to put money into. Considering they don't put any money into policing current regulations.

[Willem]

Who pays for all of this? This is hardly an issue that anybody wants to put money into. Considering they don't put any money into policing current regulations.

...who pays for the dogs in the pounds?...we can't expect that everything is free. If such an approach would work to relieve the pounds than it should obviously also free up some money there. The biggest part should be carried by the buyer - if he buys a dog from a recognized breeder now, this breeder has to consider this work into the sales price too.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Willem

[Katdogs]

http://www.burkesbackyard.com.au/fact-sheets/pets/pet-road-tests/dog-dumpage/#.VzUcsI9OJhF

I provided this link before, but I just noticed something interesting: have a look at 'The 10 breeds most dumped due to aggression are' figures: if you would let people with less background knowledge guess the first ranks, it is likely that they would mention pit bull breeds first...but the stats show it is just not true!

Eta: also interesting: Maremmas don't bark, are not aggressive, but are on rank 4 of the most dumped dogs!

I didn't click but is that a Burke link?

[Simply Grand]

But what's going to make all the people that don't abide by the current rules - all those who don't register their dogs, who breed without breeder permits, who sell or give away puppies without microchipping and below the minimum age, and those who buy from them without carrying about any of that and do the same things - follow more stringent rules?

And if councils/local governments aren't effectively enforcing the current rules so people get away with doing the above without any consequences, how or why are they going to enforce more stringent rules?

Seems to me it would be making it more difficult for the people who do the right thing, who are not the ones whose pets are causing problems and ending up left in pounds and shelters in significant numbers in my (hands on) experience, and the people doing the wrong thing will just continue to do the wrong things.

[Simply Grand]

http://www.burkesbackyard.com.au/fact-sheets/pets/pet-road-tests/dog-dumpage/#.VzUcsI9OJhF

I provided this link before, but I just noticed something interesting: have a look at 'The 10 breeds most dumped due to aggression are' figures: if you would let people with less background knowledge guess the first ranks, it is likely that they would mention pit bull breeds first...but the stats show it is just not true!

Eta: also interesting: Maremmas don't bark, are not aggressive, but are on rank 4 of the most dumped dogs!

I didn't click but is that a Burke link?

It is. It's a "study" conducted in 2003 by Burke's Backyard and the RSPCA apparently. I just had a quick look through and there's no way that "research" is giving an accurate picture.

First, it says it looked at dogs SURRENDERED to the RSPCA. I didn't look at exactly what that comprised but surrendered could include those that are brought in personally by owners who can't or won't keep them any more and those voluntarily surrendered rather than seized by inspectors. The large number of dogs that are found roaming, brought in by inspectors or members of the public or left by owners in drop off cages anonymously are not actually SURRENDERED so were they counted in the stats?

Secondly, it refers to specific pure breeds, which pound/shelter dogs rarely are and even more rarely actually proven to be (ie. with pedigree papers).

Thirdly, it mentions, among others, the Hamiltonstovare and the Egyption Hound as not dumped at RSPCA at all in 2003 (surprise!) AND SAYS that the breeds not dumped at all are presumably "the best dogs". Yes the fact that there are not many Hamiltonstovare dumped at the RSPCA in Australia is clearly an indication that they are automatically "better" dogs *eye roll*.

Finally, there is no Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Arab, Kelpie or Border Collie in the list of "most dumped dogs". Really? So staffy types and working herding dogs are LESS common at RSPCAs than the "most dumped" breed Maltese? Righto.

I hadn't looked at the link before but I'd say there is no way that is accurate or useful information in this debate I'm afraid.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Simply Grand

[Katdogs]

My city area is right into oodles and frenchies at the moment. Not sure where all the large brindle pound looking crosses dogs have gone from a few years ago.

Past fads have all had their turn for example cavaliers, blue anything, rottie, pomeranian. You see the numbers go up and down.

Frenchy and brachy are up next.

Young Kelpies everywhere I'm looking PL - Henson Park and Sydney Park. I blame Richard Glover :)

[korbin13]

Who pays for all of this? This is hardly an issue that anybody wants to put money into. Considering they don't put any money into policing current regulations.

...who pays for the dogs in the pounds?...we can't expect that everything is free. If such an approach would work to relieve the pounds than it should obviously also free up some money there. The biggest part should be carried by the buyer - if he buys a dog from a recognized breeder now, this breeder has to consider this work into the sales price too.

How would this work? Keeping in mind people don't follow current registration or microchipping laws.

Think about current pound costs, which operate at the leanest that they can (some pounds still euthanize by the bullet), It isn't a priority in the community psyche.

[Willem]

But what's going to make all the people that don't abide by the current rules - all those who don't register their dogs, who breed without breeder permits, who sell or give away puppies without microchipping and below the minimum age, and those who buy from them without carrying about any of that and do the same things - follow more stringent rules?

And if councils/local governments aren't effectively enforcing the current rules so people get away with doing the above without any consequences, how or why are they going to enforce more stringent rules?

Seems to me it would be making it more difficult for the people who do the right thing, who are not the ones whose pets are causing problems and ending up left in pounds and shelters in significant numbers in my (hands on) experience, and the people doing the wrong thing will just continue to do the wrong things.

...usually you can't advertise an AK-47 on eBay, gumtree or over a newspaper (not so sure about Fakebook so) - obviously there are some measures in place that makes shopping for this type of goods pretty difficult. Why not applying those measures to dogs?...Ebay already doesn't allow the sales of dogs (and other pets). Once you start controlling the sales in this environment, you will get the registration numbers up.

I can't see that it would make it more difficult for people that want to do the right thing - for my own dog buying experience not much would have been different, beside that I would have had to send off application papers before we bought the dog.

[dog_fan]

But what's going to make all the people that don't abide by the current rules - all those who don't register their dogs, who breed without breeder permits, who sell or give away puppies without microchipping and below the minimum age, and those who buy from them without carrying about any of that and do the same things - follow more stringent rules?

And if councils/local governments aren't effectively enforcing the current rules so people get away with doing the above without any consequences, how or why are they going to enforce more stringent rules?

Seems to me it would be making it more difficult for the people who do the right thing, who are not the ones whose pets are causing problems and ending up left in pounds and shelters in significant numbers in my (hands on) experience, and the people doing the wrong thing will just continue to do the wrong things.

...usually you can't advertise an AK-47 on eBay, gumtree or over a newspaper (not so sure about Fakebook so) - obviously there are some measures in place that makes shopping for this type of goods pretty difficult. Why not applying those measures to dogs?...Ebay already doesn't allow the sales of dogs (and other pets). Once you start controlling the sales in this environment, you will get the registration numbers up.

I can't see that it would make it more difficult for people that want to do the right thing - for my own dog buying experience not much would have been different, beside that I would have had to send off application papers before we bought the dog.

This strategy will only push the sale of dogs underground with sellers finding other places to sell their puppies.

The people that are doing the right thing are not the problem, the problem is the people who are currently doing the wrong thing as they will continue to do the wrong thing

[Willem]

But what's going to make all the people that don't abide by the current rules - all those who don't register their dogs, who breed without breeder permits, who sell or give away puppies without microchipping and below the minimum age, and those who buy from them without carrying about any of that and do the same things - follow more stringent rules?

And if councils/local governments aren't effectively enforcing the current rules so people get away with doing the above without any consequences, how or why are they going to enforce more stringent rules?

Seems to me it would be making it more difficult for the people who do the right thing, who are not the ones whose pets are causing problems and ending up left in pounds and shelters in significant numbers in my (hands on) experience, and the people doing the wrong thing will just continue to do the wrong things.

...usually you can't advertise an AK-47 on eBay, gumtree or over a newspaper (not so sure about Fakebook so) - obviously there are some measures in place that makes shopping for this type of goods pretty difficult. Why not applying those measures to dogs?...Ebay already doesn't allow the sales of dogs (and other pets). Once you start controlling the sales in this environment, you will get the registration numbers up.

I can't see that it would make it more difficult for people that want to do the right thing - for my own dog buying experience not much would have been different, beside that I would have had to send off application papers before we bought the dog.

This strategy will only push the sale of dogs underground with sellers finding other places to sell their puppies.

The people that are doing the right thing are not the problem, the problem is the people who are currently doing the wrong thing as they will continue to do the wrong thing

...underground means also higher costs (higher risks, higher fines...)...which will benefit the recognized and registered breeders. If I intend to buy a dog, why should I embark on such a risky business where I can get heavily fined and have to pay eventually even more for a dog if I can get my dog without this stress the legal way?

Eta: ...btw, all these arguments against an 'upfront registration' mentioned so far are also valid wrt the de-sexing strategy

Edited May 14, 2016 by Willem

[dog_fan]

But what's going to make all the people that don't abide by the current rules - all those who don't register their dogs, who breed without breeder permits, who sell or give away puppies without microchipping and below the minimum age, and those who buy from them without carrying about any of that and do the same things - follow more stringent rules?

And if councils/local governments aren't effectively enforcing the current rules so people get away with doing the above without any consequences, how or why are they going to enforce more stringent rules?

Seems to me it would be making it more difficult for the people who do the right thing, who are not the ones whose pets are causing problems and ending up left in pounds and shelters in significant numbers in my (hands on) experience, and the people doing the wrong thing will just continue to do the wrong things.

...usually you can't advertise an AK-47 on eBay, gumtree or over a newspaper (not so sure about Fakebook so) - obviously there are some measures in place that makes shopping for this type of goods pretty difficult. Why not applying those measures to dogs?...Ebay already doesn't allow the sales of dogs (and other pets). Once you start controlling the sales in this environment, you will get the registration numbers up.

I can't see that it would make it more difficult for people that want to do the right thing - for my own dog buying experience not much would have been different, beside that I would have had to send off application papers before we bought the dog.

This strategy will only push the sale of dogs underground with sellers finding other places to sell their puppies.

The people that are doing the right thing are not the problem, the problem is the people who are currently doing the wrong thing as they will continue to do the wrong thing

...underground means also higher costs (higher risks, higher fines...)...which will benefit the recognized and registered breeders. If I intend to buy a dog, why should I embark on such a risky business where I can get heavily fined and have to pay eventually even more for a dog if I can get my dog without this stress the legal way?

Regulation does not stop drink driving which is high risk and has high fines.

Regulation does not work.