melzawelza

Legal advice for sure. Brett Melke in Vic does pretty much solely dog related cases. He's done a lot of the restricted dog VCAT appeals and a DOLer recently used him in a case involving her dog. He offers free 30 minute consults according to his website. Might be worth an appointment to seek advice. http://www.doglawyer.com.au/

Thanks for all your hard work Simone. This stuff is harrowing and you worked hard to try and resolve it with the council directly for some time. The media is the next step and it's the only thing that has started to see change. Still a long way to go I'm sure but you've started it moving.

That is excellent!

It seems like a lot but they're all completely handmade from scratch (so a lot of time goes in to them) and the quality is amazing - it'll last the lifetime of your dog easily! Mine still looks as good as the day I got it at least 3 years ago.

Another one for Ruthless. My collar and lead are beautiful and really good quality.

When I read this I intended to crack a joke about inferior Labrador genes but my mutt ate an entire value pack of dry weetbix a few weeks ago so I really can't talk - I'm certain she has the same issue! :laugh:

Certainly counters the first point, but I don't think affects the second one - it's not the intention of that section to target this issue and without a victim providing a statement you'd have fat chance of a penalty or declaration succeeding in court.

Oops, gremlins.

So would you take the same action if another type of dog seriously attacked yours as described as KatDogs, or only if ' this type' of dog did? You know that all types of dogs can and do attack, and do so so? It is always disappointing to see someone on a dog forum openly stating they are hostile towards types of dogs. Not dogs that behave a certain way, but dogs that look a certain way. The type of dog that has the tenacity to rip into any other dog and not let go until you block off its airways. So, all dogs then. Try investigating dog attacks for a living before deciding that serious attacks are only perpetrated by dogs of a certain 'type' or appearance. Did you read the whole thread? The dog in the OP was not a Bull Breed. You haven't answered my question as to whether you would lay in to and kill a dog of a different appearance if it attacked your dog in a serious manner - you only said you would do so for a certain type of dog. What would you do if another type of dog seriously attacked your dog? Your words imply it would be different.

I'd argue that isn't the intention of that section of the Act but could *possibly* be used in the manner you have described if a council really had a vendetta and wanted to go down that path. Never been tested in court as far as I know so no idea if they'd be successful. The issue that mostly likely prevents it ever happening here (heaps of people do bitwork including council officers taking a bite when they go for dangerous dog handling training) is that: 1. If a dog is biting a sleeve (not a person) in a controlled training environment it could be argued the dog was not incited to attack a person at all, and quite possibly be successfully argued and; 2. in order to issue penalties for a dog attack or declare a dog dangerous you'd need a report of such from a victim including a statement and the willingness to go to court should a fine or declaration be appealed. Can't see any decoys doing that. Never heard of a council officer attempting to pursue based on that section (and like I said most take bites when doing dangerous dog handling training), and can't imagine any taking the risk of that falling over on appeal as it is fairly clearly not the intention of that section.

So would you take the same action if another type of dog seriously attacked yours as described as KatDogs, or only if ' this type' of dog did? You know that all types of dogs can and do attack, and do so seriously? It is always disappointing to see someone on a dog forum openly stating they are hostile towards types of dogs. Not dogs that behave a certain way, but dogs that look a certain way.

What an awful situation. When a dog (any dog) has bitten and is holding on (as all dogs that are truly serious about hurting another dog do), I find the best possible way to get them to let go is to cut off their air supply. Loop the leash under it's neck, thread the clip through the handle, and pull up and aim to get front feet off the ground (may not be possible with a 50kg). Keep the hold and wait. Dog will eventually let go in an attempt to breathe.

Nope, no such thing in NSW. Dogs used for the purposes of hunting can be declared dangerous based on that, not dogs trained in bitework.

Just on this bit - Greyhounds are certainly not one of the only breeds still selected for a working purpose! Kelpies and Border Collies still work in their original purpose as stock dogs all around the country, and working line dogs are bred for this purpose. German Shepherds, Malinois, Dutch Shepherds have working lines that are bred for protection/security/police and sporting roles. There are working lines in many other breeds as well, Springer Spaniels, Cocker Spaniels etc that are bred for a working purpose and not for appearance or pets only. Sorry, I should have clarified that they're almost exclusively still bred for working purpose (i.e there aren't many appearance/pet purpose Greys around). Of all the breeds you mentioned a good percentage or even vast majority bred are simply for appearance and pets - working lines are unfortunately are less and less common.

Unless you're working under a rock, everything is self promotion, and in this case it's a Pet Rescue initiative and happening all over the place with all different rescues on the cover. Interesting comment. Some people are into self demotion every time they open their mouths or walk down the street. There is an invisible line to be drawn between healthy ego and bragging and imo the article in the OP is about promoting this. https://www.facebook.com/bevspetservices/ Are you saying that all the phone books will feature a rescue organization? Yes. Greyhound Haven Tasmania featured for NE Tasmania books and the local paper also did a write-up. Press releases were sent out by PetRescue and Sensis (for all of Australia) to promote the initiative, it had nothing to do with ego or bragging. Anyways.. The dog on the left is the one and only Idiot Dog :D The houndy on the right is a girl I rescued a few years ago, beside her lovely adopted family. He certainly has the derpy face I imagined :laugh:

No probs :) There's really even more that could be discussed and thought about but that's really the core stuff. The core issue though is that it has been shown time and time again to not make societies any safer. In fact, in some areas it seems to have worsened things. This makes sense to me, as if you tell people that some dogs are inherently dangerous then the logical conclusion is that some dogs are inherently safe. People then take big risks with their non-restricted dogs, or ignore warnings signs because it's only those pit bulls that are dangerous. "Labradors/Border Collies/Kelpies/poodles etc etc don't bite"! That has certainly rung true in my many years working in animal management. You'd be really shocked at how many people do really stupid stuff with their dogs and when I try and explain to them why they're putting their dog or other dogs/people at risk they tell me 'don't be silly, it's not like he's a pit bull!'. I've also had owners of dogs that have actually bitten and injured people or other animals tell me I shouldn't take action against them or their dogs because 'it's not like it's a Pit Bull'. The best one was a Golden Retriever X Poodle that kept biting people walking past when left in the front yard. Beautiful fluffy dog. No one walking past was wary of the dog with it's head over the fence because 'it didn't look like a dangerous dog so I didn't think it would bite me', and the owners of the dog (who didn't witness the bites) were incredulous when I told them what happened because 'Groodles don't bite people!!'. If you tell people that a small subset of dogs are 'dangerous' based on the way they look, they'll assume that dogs that don't look like that are no risk/can't bite.

Annual rego is compulsory here - not sure if that weighs in to your comments but - just FYI. I see what you're saying. However, I think in this case it's more of a a knee-jerk reaction - there's been a few really horrific attacks here in the few months I've been here - and the most recent ones have both been "pitty types". I've thought about this a lot - and often thought I'd put my flack jacket on and ask. Maybe today's the day.... If its OK to select a breed based on it's type or traits why is it not OK to also base legislation or controls on them for the same reasons? I own fox terrier types because I like what they offer - in terms of temperament and looks. I think malinois and weimaraners are incredibly handsome dogs but I would never own a Mal based on their breed specific traits - and a good mal breeder would NOT sell one to me. One day I might have another Weim in my life - but I'd have to think long and hard about it I'd never own a Maremma either - based entirely on their breed specific characteristics Greyhounds / sight hounds are muzzled in some cases. Yes- I know that's pretty old fashioned and we've moved away from it I get this is a huge over simplification - but why is one kind of breed selection or discrimination OK but BSL is not? Why is it not OK to ask for Greys to be in muzzles or ... Annual rego doesn't change my comments, whether it's annual or not, if you threaten to enforce restrictions on people's dogs just because of the way they look you're going to end up with people not registering their dogs. Providing an amnesty doesn't help - anyone with half a brain knows it's so they can chase people and their dogs up. I know it's knee-jerk. That's no excuse. There's so much to address in your other comments which I don't have the time to do but basically it boils down to the fact that our obsession with 'breed characteristics' itself is myopic at best, let alone trying to enforce based on these supposed characteristics. Almost all dogs in our society these days, including 'Pit Bull' dogs, are bred for nothing other than appearance and for the purpose of being pets. There is plenty of empirical evidence that shows that even in purebred populations, the variation of behaviour *within* those breeds is just as divergent as behaviour between breeds. And the various breed groups do not show heightened instances of behaviours associated with their original purpose compared to other breed groups. On top of that that nurture and current management has just as much (if not more) impact on behaviour than genetics does. Greyhounds are one of the only breeds these days that are still actively selected for a working purpose and yet look how many are killed/rehomed every year because they're not really that great at it. To then start applying 'breed characteristics' stuff to dogs bred for appearance and suitability as a pet only is a big leap. I know that information isn't popular on a purebred dog forum where the idea of breed traits and characteristics is heavily weighted but it's not borne out by the evidence. Have a read of this great document: http://www.dogwise.com/downloader.cfm?itemid=breedselecting&format=pdf Of course that's only when we talk about purebreds. To then start applying it to 'types' of dogs that you're picking only on their appearance rather than actual proven genetics becomes even more ridiculous. Then of course there's all the other issues of why BSL is useless - expensive, resource heavy (when you're running around chasing 'pit bull' dogs that haven't done anything wrong you're not doing proactive stuff that actually *will* reduce dog attacks), encourages people to hide away their dogs and not comply with other areas of legislation (not registering, not going to the vet, not taking for walks, not going to training).... Honestly it's ridiculous that we're (collective 'we') even still talking about BSL as if it's something worth investing a second of energy thinking about. For more info on the uselessness of BSL see here: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-legislation/breed-specific-legislation-bsl-faq/

Just another council ignoring the evidence regarding the effectiveness of Breed Specific Legislation (it's not effective, it's really expensive, it draws precious resources away from other areas that would be much better at preventing dog attacks) and barging on ahead anyway. They're waiving the amnesty so people register and then they can track them and enforce BSL - while you've got BSL in the mix no one's going to take them up on it. Much better to just offer and promote the $25 chip and desex to ALL community members with no threat of enforcement afterwards..

Well done Bev! Great initiative by PetRescue to get involved with the yellow pages, and it's awesome to see individual rescuers and dogs featured on the front cover - way to bring the thought of rescuing to the forefront of people's minds! Amazing weight loss, too. This made me smile :)

Now that's what I call getting on the front foot. Good on them for recognising there is a problem. Agreed! I'm really impressed.

Norwegian KC admits "we went too far" and pledges to revolutionise 'brachy' health

These programs are excellent but they'll never solve the issue of kittens in pounds unless they are targeted towards unowned cats as well (i.e, a well resourced trap/neuter/return program). A good percentage of the kittens in pounds come from unowned or semi owned mums. Targeting owned cats with desexing programs will do very little to change that situation. The evidence out there shows that the vast majority (95%+) of owned cats are desexed. The issue there is that they aren't desexed early enough. Most vets are still touting 6 months old as the ideal time for desexing however they can already be pregnant by that age. That means a lot of cats are having litters prior to being desexed. Changing the attitude of the vets and the narrative in the cat-owning public of desex age needs to be a priority. ETA: I wouldn't be surprised if even the vets performing these very surgeries for this desex program would be recommending the cats come in 'from six months old'. You see it constantly - low cost/free surgeries but still with vets who can't/won't educate themselves on the importance desexing cats prior to 4 months old (unlike dogs, studies have not found any negative effects of this for cats). People trust their vets and do what they're told and voila - cat has a litter or two before it is eventually done.

When there are issues there are channels to raise them. You don't go running to the press every time something goes wrong and expect management to smile about it. You also have to remember that you are not management. This happened easily six months ago. They've been trying to go through all other channels all that time. If the council doesn't care, then all you can do at that point is make it public.

It's a shame to say it but the Pug X dogs do not suffer the same horrendous brachy-headed issues that many of the purebred pugs do. I love pugs, they're such fun, funky little dogs. And it breaks my heart when I see them living compromised, difficult lives because they simply cannot breathe properly. Not entirely true. SOME Pug crosses have better breathing and better eyes than purebreds, some are just as bad. Absolutely, it's a generalised statement and obviously depends on what they were crossed with - but on the whole they tend to gain a whole lot of face and with it lose a whole lot of brachy head problems. Obviously there may be other health aspects to consider but personally I'd love to see a considered and well thought out outcross and back-cross to correct what has clearly gone much too far. Without a complete change in the culture within the KC and showing scene in general we'd just end up back in the same spot, though. Have you heard of the Retro Mop project? It's a outcross and back cross breeding project in Germany to make for healthier sturdier pugs. There's also the Graussie project for CMSM etc in brussels griffin and the Olde Englishe Bulldogge as a healthier working bulldog... Big dog problems too, there's the modern molasser project - back crossing mastiffs and greyhound to improve health and soundness. So there are some breeders out there working towards healthier dogs. It's a shame there's so much backlash from other breeders for them doing this. Results speak for themselves in the dogs and the studies coming out of them. Had heard of the Molossers but not the Retro Mop project. That's great! Will have to look in to it. You're right that the real problem is the backlash from other breeders. The backlash to LUA was so unbelievably disappointing and quite frankly, disgusting. I'm glad they're finally being registered here. Recent study shows 50% of French Bulldogs suffer from Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syndrome (and the other 50% still don't breathe normally).

It's a shame to say it but the Pug X dogs do not suffer the same horrendous brachy-headed issues that many of the purebred pugs do. I love pugs, they're such fun, funky little dogs. And it breaks my heart when I see them living compromised, difficult lives because they simply cannot breathe properly. Not entirely true. SOME Pug crosses have better breathing and better eyes than purebreds, some are just as bad. Absolutely, it's a generalised statement and obviously depends on what they were crossed with - but on the whole they tend to gain a whole lot of face and with it lose a whole lot of brachy head problems. Obviously there may be other health aspects to consider but personally I'd love to see a considered and well thought out outcross and back-cross to correct what has clearly gone much too far. Without a complete change in the culture within the KC and showing scene in general we'd just end up back in the same spot, though.