Australian Pure Bred Dog Forums - Dogz Online: Adba Response Regarding Victoria's Dangerous Dog Laws. - Australian Pure Bred Dog Forums - Dogz Online

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Old topic!
This topic has had no activity for over 365 days. Due to that, you will not be able to reply. Please create a new topic!

Adba Response Regarding Victoria's Dangerous Dog Laws.

#16 User is offline   geo 

  • Forum Regular
  • Posts: 591
  • Joined: 10-October 06
  • Location:Gold Coast

Posted 05 November 2011 - 11:43 PM

View Postsmacka, on 05 November 2011 - 07:12 PM, said:


Cross breeds don't have standards btw.



Did i say that cross breeds have standards? maybe we have our wires crossed.

Edited to add: Yes a blueprint but still an ideal, i'm sure you know not all dogs fit their breed standard.
I agree about the public access but using it as an ID'ing tool as i keep saying is totally flawed as many cross breeds will fit into the standard, and i that's the whole point. Judges can freely judge knowing that what they are judging against is a pure bred dog.
By your reckoning i could use the ADBA standard to judge my dogs, see that they fit the standard (or partly do) and ask for them to be registered as pure breds.
The ABDA is just stating that it is to be used on pure bred dogs only.

If i took my mongrel to the dog show and said look i think he's a staffy i want to show him and breed him, he fits the standard, but he's not a rego'd pure breed, they'd think i'm crazy.. but then i could say hey, you published your standard i demand that you register him... i think they'd tell me where to go!

This post has been edited by geo: 06 November 2011 - 07:26 AM


#17 User is offline   smacka 

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: 02-November 11
  • State:NSW

Posted 06 November 2011 - 08:14 AM

If your dog looked like a ''staffy'' walked like a ''staffy'' & yodelled like a ''staffy'' they would probably concede it was a ''staffy''. (or a derivative of)
Albeit unregistered & poorly bred. They would probably offer you some good advice regarding the breed to boot. Point you in the right direction so as to speak.
Which is precisely why the ADBA standard has the validity to be used as an aid to I.Ding APBTs, be they well bred & well nurtured or unregistered &/or poorly bred. (Or a derivative of)
I will concede the conformation of the breed in general does lend itself to doubt when declared to be of mixed breed.
Anyhow, it seems pointless butting heads over whether or not a standard is an appropiate document for the purpose of breed identification.
I say yes you say no. And never the twain shall meet.
Is an alternative available for the Vics to apply?
Utilise the Queensland 22 point check list perhaps?
Now that would be an even bigger problem for the breed.
It will be interesting to see if anything developes from the ADBAs declaration their breed standard isn't valid when I.Ding their breed though.
Could get really interesting if they have the balls to pursue the matter.
Really interesting.
Messy even.


Edited to add.

Well bred pure breeds do fit their standards.
That's the reason they are so readily identifable. :)

This post has been edited by smacka: 06 November 2011 - 02:47 PM


Share this topic:



Old topic!
This topic has had no activity for over 365 days. Due to that, you will not be able to reply. Please create a new topic!

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


Privacy Policy | Web Site Terms and Conditions