tybrax

I thought you were one of those that were in the camp that believed that one of the problems with BSL is that ranger training is woefully inadequate, and that dogs that are in no way pitbull are misidentified. So you think rangers are better at dog ID now then? There is no one in Australia with qualifications that can identify an APBT or x and thats being proven in a court of law. Not NSW rangers, Qld, WA or Vic. All they do is go on assumptions and beliefs that the dog is that breed. N.S.W. breed identifiers are not experts. All breed judges are not expert, there are no APBT judges or American Amstaff in Aus. So can someone tell me when an all breed judge has ever id a APBT the answer is never, they do not exist in Australia they are not recognised. So how can they legislate a law thats based on fraud????? tybrax

I would bet my left knacker that warley knows a pitbull better than the rangers do. :D

Breaking: Britain’s Ban on Pit Bulls Extended to Previously Legal Breeds March 26, 2009 by Alison Green An anti breed specific legislation group has reacted in horror to the confirmation that previously legal dog breeds and cross breeds are to be caught up in the net designed to outlaw ‘Pit Bull Terrier type dogs’. Legislators in the UK have put together a piece of law which will ban previously legal breeds and cross breeds. The bill will, it is promised, see Britain free from dog attacks by ‘the dangerous dog breeds’. Legislators behind the bill claim it will “eradicate the more dangerous dogs that can inflict injury upon children” and will better protect the public from serious, fatal dog attacks. They go on to set out the grounds of the new bill and exactly which dogs could fall foul of the new legislation. Any dog weighing in excess of 20kgs. Any dog in excess of 16” of height to the shoulder. Dogs carrying liver, black, white or brindle markings. The bill will not take in to account parentage, breed or DNA profiles. Any dog weighing over 20kgs or taller than 16” to the shoulder could be banned. It is acts regardless of the behaviour exhibited by the dog meaning any dog that fits the criteria above will be in breach of the new bill. Any dog who falls within the above criteria must be neutered, tattooed, chipped and kept on lead and muzzled at all times in public. Owners must also ensure their dog is covered by special third party liability insurance. The bill also makes it illegal to be in possession of, sell, give away, allow to stray or advertise an un-exempted dog fitting the illegal criteria. Owners in breach of the law will find themselves liable for prosecution, which could lead to a fine, criminal record and up to six months in prison. The dog will also be seized and destroyed. With the bill finalised the authorities will spend millions of pounds building up teams to enforce the law and ensure dangerous dogs are taken and destroyed. For those who may be affected by the new legislation the following information may be useful. Still reading? I’ll bet you are. The bill I’m talking about is actually the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act. It’s not new. We’ve had it for a while. And I apologise if it caused you to gulp as a result of the manner in which I presented it. Your dogs aren’t illegal. Well not most of them anyway. Some of you may have a dog that someone pushes into “pit bull type” and sadly you’re not safe. But I am willing to bet some people’s hearts were a flutter. Welcome to the world of anyone who owns a dog that *might* catch the attention of an over zealous DDA enforcer who sees a large, shall we say for example, Staffy x Boxer and decides he’d better nab it and get it off the streets ‘just in case’. If that seems cruel, indiscrimnate and likely to tear people’s lives apart, it’s because it is and it does. So technically, and make no mistake about this, previously legal (and still legal) breeds and cross breeds ARE being caught up in the vicious ‘pit bull net’. How cruel it is to tell people their dog’s illegal because it’s a bit tall or a bit heavy. But remember that lump you had in your throat for a moment back then, thinking it might be your dog about to get caught in the DDA dragnet, that’s the daily life for many owners of perfectly legal dogs as they live in fear. Fear about walking their dog. Fear about taking their dog to the vets. Fear every time the door is knocked. And why? For no other reason other than they own a dog which happens to look a certain way. Good people, just like you, the person reading this, have their dogs removed because it doesn’t look right. You may be a little bit hacked off at me right about now but you know what? Be grateful you got a second chance to own your pet without fear. BSL is similar to cancer. It spreads. If you want to keep a hold of your feeling of security help repeal the law. It’s not your dog today and in all probability it won’t be your dog tomorrow, but someone’s dog is going to be taken and someone else’s dog will lose its life - purely because of how it looks. This can’t go on. http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/2165/b...y-legal-breeds/ tybrax

Very upsetting indeed, l hope the old dog pulls through. tybrax

R.I.P. Mahli, l am so sorry for your loss tybrax

http://www.fox8.com/wjw-news-pit-bull-story,0,5350775.story Proposed legislation in the Ohio State House would remove pit bulls from the definition of a "vicious dog" in the state of Ohio. House Bill 79, which was introduced by Rep. Barbara Sears, (R - Sylvania) last week, looks to amend section 955.11 of the Revised Code. Under Ohio law, pit bulls are deemed dangerous and vicious based on their breed, not based on if the dog has killed, caused serious injury to any person or killed another dog. "In the 1970's it was German Shepherd, in the 80's Dobermans, in the 90's it was Rottweilers, now it's Pit Bulls. Breed specific legislation does not accomplish the goal." said Sears, "We want to take the focus of the law away from the breed and have it on the behavior of the animal, then hold the owner of the animal accountable." Under the proposed legislation the following section of the Ohio Revised code would be removed: "(iii) Belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog. The ownership, keeping, or harboring of such a breed of dog shall be prima-facie evidence of the ownership, keeping, or harboring of a vicious dog." The proposed legislation has had one staunch opponent in Lucas County Dog Warden, Tom Skeldon, who e-mailed Rep. Sears a case report regarding Pit Bull mauling deaths in Detroit, Michigan over a 19-year period. The email contained an autopsy picture of a child who had been mauled to death by a pit bull. Skeldon tells Fox 8 News the picture was necessary to show what the animal is capable of doing. "The [Vicious Dog] law has been a valuable tool in protecting the public, it puts restrictions on Pit Bulls, requires the dog to be fenced or caged and requires owners to have liability insurance." said Skeldon, "That would all go away with this law. This proposal is totally reactive, there is no proactive element involved. The law is proactive, it prevents accidents." Skeldon says his agency impounded 50 pit bulls in 1993, in 2007 that number was 1354. If you have an opinion on this proposed change to Ohio's vicious dog law, let us know about it in the message board and poll below. tybrax

Something's Missing There's something missing in my home, I feel it day and night I know it will take time and strength before things feel quite right. But just for now,I need to mourn My heart- it needs to mend, Though some say "it's just a pet", I know I've lost a friend. You've brought such laughter to my home, and richness to my days. A constant friend through joy or loss with gentle loving ways. Companion,friend and confidante. A friend I won't forget, You'll live forever in my heart, My sweet forever pet. l am so sorry for your loss lillypilly, sending heaps of R.I.P. beautiful one :rolleyes: tybrax

Dog kills 2-week-old baby girl More Mesa and Phoenix Local News MESA -- A family dog attacked and killed a Mesa 2-week-old baby girl when her mother stepped away for just a moment. Baby was in bassinet It happened at about 7 p.m. Wednesday at a home near Warner and South Mountain roads. According to police, the mother, who is a police officer with the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, stepped away from the baby for a moment to use the bathroom. She left the baby in a low-lying bassinet or crib. When she returned, she discovered the dog, a Chow, had severely bitten the infant. The frantic mother called 911. The first officers to arrive at the home said the baby girl had obvious bite wounds to her head. When Mesa paramedics got there, she was unresponsive. She was pronounced dead on the scene. Det. Steve Berry of the Mesa Police Department said this story hits especially close to home because the baby's father is a Mesa police officer. He was on duty at the time of the attack. It's not known how long the family had had the dog, which was quarantined at the county facility. The dog was euthanized Thursday. A neighbor of the family said she had a similar situation with her own dog, a Pit Bull-Chow mix, and her daughter. "He did bite her," Amy Axtell said. "He put his jaws around the top of her head and pulled her out the back door. When she started crying, the dog almost got killed, so we took it to the pound." Mesa police say they will treat last night's incident as they would any other case, but they say at this time, it does not look like there was any wrongdoing. "All indications are that this is just one of those very unfortunate tragic accidents that we deal with in this job sometimes," Berry said. Two other dogs were taken from the home by a man who knows the family, but it's not clear if the dogs belong to them. http://www.azfamily.com/yahoo_rss/stories/...py.7f97e3a.html TYBRAX

Dangerous legislation for family dogs Posted By: Peter Wedderburn at Mar 4, 2009 at 17:13:54 [General] Posted in: UK Correspondents Tags:Dangerous Dogs Act, dog, dog attack, dog bite, Police The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA) was brought in by John Major's government, in a kneejerk reaction to some well-publicized attacks by dogs on humans. The aim of the act was laudable: who can argue against any measure to prevent the pain and injury of innocent humans at the hands of bloodthirsty fighting dogs? Some aspects of the Act work well and do assist the police in protecting the public's safety. The problem is something that was mentioned in the comments to my blog on anti-hunting legislation: the law of unintended consequences. The first part of the DDA deals with types of dogs that are bred for fighting. The fighting dogs named by the Act are the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Fila Braziliero. The last three are virtually non-existent in the UK, so it's the Pit Bull that's been the focus of attention. Possession of such a dog is illegal unless it is placed on a register after the owner has had the dog microchipped, tattooed, neutered and insured, then has obtained a certificate of exemption following a report from a police expert or behavioural specialist that the dog is not dangerous. Such dogs then have to be muzzled and on a lead in public places and be in the charge of someone who is at least 16 years old. This all sounds sensible and reasonable, until the details of implementation are followed through. The problem is the definition of the "Pit Bull Type" of dog. A Staffordshire Bull Terrier can be accused of being a "Pit Bull Type", and if this is not successfully contested, the owner may be pressurized to have their dog destroyed, regardless of its nature and history. An article in K9 Magazine this week reported on just such a case. The burden of proof seems to be the reverse of the normal expectation of justice, meaning the dog is "guilty" unless it can be proven not to be a pit bull type, rather than there being a need for the police to prove their case. Owners don't always realize that it's possible to contest such an accusation. When a dog is reported to the police as an illegal type, they have two options: they can leave the dog in its home until the case comes to court, or they can seize the dog. There's a lot of regional variation on what happens to the dog, with different police forces taking different stances. Different types of owners may also be treated differently: some research by a behavioural specialist recently demonstrated that people's perception of the nature of a dog is tempered by the appearance of the owner of the animal. A dog with a tattooed skinhead owner is likely to be seen as much more dangerous than an identical dog belonging to a lady in a suit. If a dog is conceded as being a "Pit Bull Type", but with good temperament, it's usually neutered, tattooed and microchipped while in custody and placed on the register before being returned to the owner. Again, this sounds reasonable until some aspects of implementation are looked at: this dog had a tattoo carried out that seems bizarrely huge and unnecessarily damaging. Was some type of point being made by the person doing the tattooing? Section 3 of the DDA covers all dogs (not just "Pit Bull Types"), if they are accused of being "dangerously out of control". This can of course be genuine, but it could also refer to a harmless dog barking loudly, reported by someone with an antipathy to dogs. Again, there's a delay while the case comes to court, and while behavioural reports are carried out. If a dog is seized during this time, it's taken to an undisclosed location: owners are told nothing and cannot get their dog back. In 1997, the average length of incarceration for a dog in these cases was two years and four months. According to a Freedom of Information query, last summer, every week around thirteen dogs were seized by the Metropolitan Police, and around two dogs died each week in police custody, of unspecified causes. A number of owners feel strongly that their dogs have been treated badly while in police care: a Facebook site called "Cruelty to dogs in police care" has over 2000 members. Non-dog lovers may think "what's the big deal?" - but when a family pet is the subject of this type of treatment, the emotional trauma for those involved can be very significant. Has the DDA prevented dogs being used by drug dealers and for dog fighting? The word on the street is that it's happening more than ever, with the breed of choice evolving to include breed types that are not mentioned in the legislation, such as the Canary dog and the Bully Kutta. Has the DDA prevented dog bite injuries in humans? There are still regular reports of such incidents, although the risk of injuries caused by dogs needs to be seen in perspective. As many as 18000 children may have been injured while playing on trampolines last summer, yet the level of debate about "trampoline control" is non-existent compared to the emotional furore that follows incidents involving dogs. Dogs can only be kept safe through informed and responsible ownership, and that's where the focus should be. Draconian laws that drag innocent parties through the same convoluted machinery as genuinely dangerous animals can hardly be the answer. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/peter_wedderb...for_family_dogs

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queen...4632800824.html The man behind the new dog laws retires. The mind boggles lol............

Little to late for many families in Qld that have had their dogs wrongfully id, seized and killed, or thrown out of the state. tybrax

Poor little mites R.I.P. tybrax.

Hi Max you can e-mail me through my website. http://www.victimsofbsl.com/ tybrax

There has never being new blood introduced, same genetics. tybrax

The Kennel Club has joined the praise for the RSPCA for publicly speaking up for a repeal of legislation that bans breeds or types of dogs. Last week the RSPCA publicly supported an appeal from DDAWatch and C-fidos for the UK to repeal section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, the part of the legislation which bans dogs by type and breed. In a statement provided to the Coalition of Improved Dog Ownership Standards (C-fidos) the Kennel Club say: "The Kennel Club has, for a number of years, been lobbying the government and politicians to repeal the current legislation and believes that it is the breed specific nature of current legislation that has caused it to fail. The Kennel Club is secretariat of the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG), a wide-ranging group comprising animal welfare organisations, local authorities and representatives from the veterinary profession, who have come up with proposals to repeal the DDA and whose position reflects that of 'deed not breed'. Section 1 of the DDA is highly flawed and we believe that certain types of dogs are not inherently dangerous and that the actions of dog owners and a dog's training have more of an impact on a dog's behaviour than breed. Focusing on individual breeds has not prevented a large number of dog attacks." In 2008, the Kennel Club came in for criticism from anti BSL campaigners when they said the “political climate” prevented a repeal of BSL. Asked to give clarity to that quote, they told us: “It became obvious that after many meetings with politicians and DEFRA they could not be persuaded to repeal Section 1 due to the strength of public feeling. Given this and the government's intention to keep section 1, we felt that the most appropriate action to pursue was to push for the index to be re-opened to owner led applications. Obviously this is by no means the ideal scenario, but would have meant many dogs that were seized purely because of their type, wouldn't have to languish in police kennels and their owners having to go through the court process. We are glad C-fidos objective is also to remove BSL and hope with ever mounting pressure the government will repeal the DDA and replace it with much better legislation.” C-fidos, DDA Watch, the National Dog Wardens Association, RSPCA and Endangered Dogs Defence and Rescue have already added their voice to the calls for repeal of section one of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 which has not better protected the public. It is now imperative that other organisations and individuals step forward to help put pressure on the government. When asked if they would encourage others to come forward for repeal the Kennel Club stated “Yes there needs to be a strong show of support for BSL to be repealed.” Ryan O’meara Chief Executive of C-fidos, says: "It is excellent news that there now appears to be some genuine momentum gathering on the specifics of this issue. I have said for some time now that being anti BSL in theory or as a concept is laudible but we need to focus on the vey speific issue which is section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act - the BSL part. The Government needs to hear loud and clear that the leading voices involved in dog affairs, the likes of the RSPCA, the KC etc, are all against the legislation." http://www.petparliament.com/viewarticle.p...=142&aid=96 tybrax

Bilbo baggins I really feel this dipstick has no idea. how rude l am speechless. I think Sydking may have left the building, good l thought this place was to help people not call names and be dictated to. Good luck with your pup Sydking. tybrax

Here's the link. http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/stor...5001030,00.html Not good at all. tybrax.

Done and dusted, never. :p tybrax

Dangerous Dogs Act Breakthrough: RSPCA Back Calls For Immediate End to BSL January 7, 2009 by Alison Green In a landmark event, the UK’s largest animal welfare charity the RSPCA has joined forces with DDAWatch and the Coalition For improved Dog Ownership Standards (C-fidos) to publicly call for an end to the unfair law that results in dogs being deemed ‘dangerous’ as a result of their physical appearance. For the first time, the UK’s most prominent animal welfare organisation has been prepared to publicly support calls for a repeal of section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) - Section 1 is the part of the legislation which bans dogs based on their breed or type. Section 1 of the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act is a highly controversial and widely criticised clause that promotes breed specific legislation. Many experts, law makers and dog lovers from around the UK and globally have seen the devastation caused by breed specific legislation - which outlaws dogs by ‘type’, meaning a dog is deemed ‘dangerous’ and illegal simply based on what it looks like and not because of any offence caused by the dog. As a result of breed specific legislation (BSL) in the UK, many innocent dogs have lost their lives since the law was brought in by Ken Baker in 1991. Now the RSPCA has set the wheels in motion for other prominent welfare groups to come out and publicly call on the law makers to end section 1 and replace it with fair, effective dog laws which do not condemn dogs to death based on what the look like. The UK can put itself in a position to follow the example set by the Netherlands in repealing section 1 in favour of a law that will place the burden of responsibility on owners rather than terminating the lives of dogs who are guilty of nothing more than looking a certain way. The move comes about following a productive and engaging meeting between the RSPCA’s Government Relations Manager, Claire Robinson, DDAWatch and the C- fidos at the end of 2008. The RSPCA public backing for repeal gives anti BSL campaigners the boost they have been waiting for while sending a clear message to the Government that section 1 of the DDA is a failed, unfair concept that needs to be reformed without delay. DDAWatch - an anti BSL campaign group - has congratulated the RSPCA on the decision to call for action having been previously disheartened to hear many organisations publicly state anti BSL positions but falling short of actually calling for an immediate repeal of section 1. Alison Green of DDAWatch: “We are so thrilled to see the RSPCA step up to the plate on such an important issue that has cost the lives of many innocent dogs. For those people who have been actively involved in fighting section 1 cases, for those of us who’ve seen dog owner’s lives ripped apart by this appalling law, which has not protected the public at all, this announcement from the RSPCA will hopefully herald the start of many more calls for repeal and eventually the repeal itself. Now owners and anti BSL campaigners alike have some hope to cling to after so many false dawns. Now we have the opportunity of a lifetime to finally get the Government to see sense. They need to listen to the RSPCA and make the right call. Section 1 has been an unmitigated failure and an animal welfare disaster. It is such a relief to hear the RSPCA being brave and honest enough to publicly call for a repeal where other influential and supposedly anti BSL organisations have fallen short, instead citing ‘political climate’ as a reason to keep BSL.” Ryan O’Meara, chief executive of C-fidos: “This is truly great news. It seems such a simple thing to do, to publicly support an end to BSL - especially given that the RSPCA and other major animal welfare organisations have publicly stated their position as being anti BSL - but despite the anti BSL positions held by many organisations and individuals we still have BSL and we have it because we still have section 1 of the DDA. The way to end BSL is to end section 1 and replace it. The RSPCA coming in with public support for the position held by C-fidos and DDAWatch gives legitimacy and momentum to campaigners to call on their government to end BSL. It’s no longer a concept, being anti BSL, it’s a real, tangible opportunity to call the government to account over a highly unfair, unpopular and completely unsuccessful law.” http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/1645/d...ate-end-to-bsl/ tybrax

Excellent well done Mizzpiggy great news tybrax

R.I.P beautiful one to you Kimoliverelka. tybrax

So Sorry R.I.P. beautiful ones. tybrax

Golden Memories They say memories are golden, well, maybe that is true. We never wanted memories, We only wanted you. A million times we have cried. If love alone could have saved you, you never would have died. In life we loved you dearly, in death we love you still. In our heart's you hold a place no one else could fill. If tears could build a stairway and heartache make a lane. We would walk the path to Heaven and bring you back again. Our family chain is broken, and nothing seems the same. But as God calls us back one by one, the chain will link again. Precious pippin at rest with his dad. Sending heaps of :nahnah: and Chop. tybrax and tyra

I am so sorry for your loss Bella. R.I.P. Asher tybrax

Ci l am so sorry for your loss sending heaps of tybrax R.I.P. Zeke