mita

I don't think this makes sense at all. Something is very wrong in Australia - full stop. In the UK, population of 60M approx, euthanasia rate of about 15,000 dogs per annum. Australia, population of around 21M approx, euthanasia rate of about 150,000+ dogs per annum. Hmmm, I don't think you can blame the pounds/rescues for that statistic. Blame the Australian population for not having commitment to their pets, for believing that dogs must have a litter to be nice, that it's OK to get a new puppy when they are bored with the old dog, to get rid of their dog when they have a baby, move house, change the colour of their loungeroom walls. Or that it's OK to make some quick bucks from breeding their dog with another undesexed dog - breed not an issue. Next you'll be telling me that the dogs in pounds are there because there's something wrong with them. Well said, dogmad. LizT's right in that the argument she quoted is sometimes put about as an 'answer' to the huge dog dumping/euthing problem, in this country. So it's fair enough to have it aired here on DOL & a sound rebuttal given. The U of Q research found very much what dogmad has said.....& their recommendations for action didn't include watering down rescue efforts to seal off an easy dump option. The ease with which some people dump is another issue.

A good blueprint for action. Well said.

Good move, Brooke. ;) It actually makes the point you want to make clearer... rather than risking things getting bogged down in the rights & wrongs of the particular closed thread. I like the cricket analogy.....where you play the ball & not the person. Same with an issue....play to what it's all about, not highly emotional whacks at the person. That still allows for robust debate.....without personal abuse.

Agree. If someone fears that they're being personally trashed, rather than an issue addressed, then they should report it to the Mods. I've found the Mods on DOL do a jolly good job in this regard.....specially given that it's an open public forum with thousands of people using it.

I was talking to the manager of the Samford Pet Resort only last week at a doggie event where I had our 2 Tibbies with me. He made a bee-line for the Tibbies & was on the ground talking to them....and he said they have quite a few Tibetan Spaniels that regularly come to stay. And how they're the most affectionate of breeds. Not surprisingly my 2 Tibbies loved him back! Samford Pet Resort is definitely the only commercial kennels I'd let my Tibbies go to. And I'd use the section where the accommodation is set up to look like a room at home. We used to take our shelties there, years back....when the present manager's mum & dad were in charge. And those blooming shelties used to walk away with the 'dad', tails wagging & not even looking back at their family!!!!! These days we have a system of mutual care with our neighbours, who also own a Tibbie. But if that ever weren't possible, our girls would be off to Samford!

I saw that on TV & Lexy looked as proud as punch to be alongside the 'dad' she'd saved. Good dog, Lexy! I hope there's a Doggie Hero Award coming up.

Yep, definitely a purebred medium poodle, in that mix. Hard to keep a straight face, isn't it! I was doing some 'educating' at a dog event when a woman with a maltese X something from a pet store, asked me about my 2 tibbies. I explained they were purebred dogs....'You know the kind you'll see being shown at the 'Ekka. But their breeder has retired them to me, as desexed pets.' 'Ooooooh!' she said, mighty impressed. Then she called to two of her friends....'Come & look at these little dogs. They used to be models.'

Sorry to be a worn out record in return, but what you've just described is owner behaviour. Owners who breed for the purpose of dogs being unsocial (or acquire dogs for such). Current laws re dog management need to be responsive to picking up people like this. In fact, there has been some work on searching out their profiles. Better to track those people, with prevention in mind. I'm not suggesting it here in OZ....but the French have tried one tack in this direction, by putting restrictions on dog ownership by people with certain types of criminal records. In your first sentence, you appear to be saying that all owners of APBTs breed their dogs to be unsocial & cultivate that image. How is that so, when there are owners of APBTs here on DOL who've documented how their APBTs are family friendly dogs? On my sole case of one female APBT that turned up, lost, on our fenceline....& grown men trembled at the thought of touching her....she turned out to be a highly biddable & good natured dog. Owned by people who didn't fit any stereotype for cultivating a savage image. Worth quoting again....the Spanish study which showed the strength of influence of owner behaviour... And the task force from the US Veterinary Association which also stresses owner behaviour as the key issue (& what ought be tracked)....whatever the dog, whatever the breed.

When our elderly little Grandma Dog had to stay in the vet's overnight, the vet took her home with him & she slept beside his bed. And when we took our shelties to a uni vet clinic, there were living quarters upstairs where some staff stayed over-night. I know another dog owner who hated the thought of her little dog, staying at the clinic over-night, with no one on the premises. She offered to stay there with her dog. But, of course, for sound legal reasons, this was refused. Presently, my hairdresser & her boyfriend rent an upstairs flat from a vet whose clinic takes up the bottom floor. She says sometimes they're woken by a dog, who's not happy, barking during the night.

I agree. The fact that present BSL law is entirely based around breed label means that every case comes down to...'.Is this dog one of those restricted under current law... or not?' So what gets into the courtroom, are ideas about dog breeds. But nothing about individual dogs behaving in ways that would endanger the community...or not. Or owner neglect or irresponsibility in setting dogs up to be a danger. The tragedy is that once BSL comes into the law, everything then hedges on ideas, & even stereotypes, about dog breeds. The fact that Tango has proven over time to be a harmless family pet, is totally irrelevant in the courtroom. All law exists to protect people, not to protect someone's ideas. But what has been found to protect people re managing dogs (from science & case studies) , doesn't come down to waving a breed label &/or having stereotypical ideas about dog breeds. So the current BSL laws are not protecting people, they only lead to fighting over ideas. What would protect people, is getting serious about current dog management laws that insist on registration, containment, leash control in public etc.

Yes, I agree, JM. It's been there as long as the BSL laws were brought in. But not many people know that the Qld councils can legally introduce any laws they like, about restricting any breeds they like. They think the only breeds that can be restricted are the 5 or so named in the State law.

Samford Pet Resort. Run by a family devoted to dogs & cats....now the manager is the 2nd generation. It was the only place we'd ever take our shelties to. They even have one section where the dog accommodation is set up to look like a room at home....so dogs used to being in a house don't feel they're in the clink. They also have a Pick Up service arranged with scores of vet clinics, if owners want to use it. http://www.samfordkennels.com.au/

The most worrying thing is that the Qld Act allows for Qld councils to introduce local laws to cover whatever particular breeds of dogs they like. So, even if negotiations with the State Gov Dpt successfully make the point that Amstaffs (papered) are not interchangeable with Pitbulls, councils can continue to make their own laws about whatever dog breeds they like. Geo posted in another thread a reply from the Qld State Gov Dpt which covers local government matters: Importantly, the State Act gives local councils the autonomy to introduce separate local laws for particular breeds of dogs which is the case with the Gold Coast City Council which has put in place a local law that bans pit bull terriers. The decision to make such a local law is at the discretion of each local government. State Government laws do not force any council to ban any dog breed. When the CEO, RSPCA Qld, first publicly turned against the notion of BSL, he made the point that some councils had exercised the power given them by the Act... to a full extent... resulting in innocent family dogs being PTS. All of which means lobbying/influencing, has to get down to a council by council level.

That's the open-ended nature of the present Act in Qld. Which means councils can add what they like in respect to dog breeds. So negotiation with the State Gov Dpt re ensuring Amstaffs don't get caught up in the 'restricted' list....as a result of the Tango Supreme Court decision...doesn't impact on what the councils decide to do.

I have some hope, RB. Because the BSL laws are individual State laws. So if there's to be any change to those laws, it would come from influences within a State. It helps, too, when the state organisations with some clout, speak with the same voice. And I notice Dogs Qld's press release about the Tango decision uses the same phrase as RSPCA Qld about the need to look at the deeds which produce dogs of danger to the community....not the breed. I'd be hoping both those organisations sit down with the relevant Qld Minister to stop this futility of pursuing breed alone.

Yes, the owner of the attacking dog should be the one being charged.

I do like a lot of the statements made in that media release. It's so good to see the Qld registering body representing purebreds, step up to the plate. And, buried in there, is the statement that what needs to be focused on, are the deeds that make a dog into an unsafe creature....not the breed. RSPCA Qld has said the same thing, when asked for comment, too. I notice that Dogs Qld will be conferring with the relevant Gov Minister to sort any potential problems. I hope it's noted at that meeting, that RSPCA Qld has backed one factor central to their case. So there's a united front on that one!

Tucked away at the end of the Channel 7 Brisbane News was a final comment that the RSPCA Qld had been asked for a comment on the Tango decision re Amstaffs being the same as Pitbulls for BSL purposes. And they'd replied it was the deeds that needed to be focused on, not the breed. But the trouble is... there's wide variance in thought/policies among the various state RSPCAs. 'Deed not breed' sure doesn't come from RSPCA Victoria. Tango would seem to represent what the Qld CEO said, in public, when recanting the BSL laws. An innocent family dog being threatened with PTS for not one sound reason....except for misplaced preconceptions about breed & behaviour. Yet the scientific & case study evidence points to sussing out the 'human' factors in the background & management of dogs that become dangerous to the community. Major bodies, like the US Veterinary Association have reported that going down the breed track only, leads nowhere in preventing dog bites & attacks. And a press release on dog bites from the national Aus RSPCA reflected this US report so closely, that they should have referenced it. In the meantime, Tango remains stuck in the 'go nowhere but to possible PTS' that comes from nit-picking over breed....& not human or dog behaviour. Huge sums of money go down the gurgler that could be better spent in dealing with prevention. I agree with the person who wrote that, while this continues, it can only put all bully breeds in peril. Even having papers won't take away the shadow cast on these dogs as being surely a danger to the community.

Well, my tibbie girl was a chronic 'thrower upper' of most of the commercial kibbles. Either that, or she wouldn't eat them. That's when my vet recommended Advance Turkey & Rice kibble for small breed dogs. She eats every bit & doesn't throw up any more. I mix a ittle lightly cooked chicken breast & some veggies in with it.

So am I. Which is why I used the word 'outdoors'. Where a fair case can be made for including dogs in a specific area. As some cafes did, here. Planes, hotels & motels don't have an 'outdoors', so they'd be another issue.

I have. Because I haven't been talking about dogs being in cafes. But outside cafes....in the outdoor section, where people have to eat along with the birds, bees, moths, beetles, lizards & the general pollution. Many cafe owners kept a part of this section, for anyone with a dog. One cafe, in our general area, even had a barrier separating that part from the rest.

One of my tibbie girls doesn't have great tolerance for wheat-cereal in products. Our good vet recommended Advance Turkey & Rice kibble for small breeds. She & her tib 'sister' have thrived on it. Done better than any other kibble I've given them.

So true, I find the majority of people, even "doggy" people, don't quite get the need for socialization. Sad, very sad Jeanne, I was mainly replying to your point that an understanding of socialisation & experiential learning needs to be got across to the general public. To counter the idea (that's getting some traction) that sanitized puppy farms can be set up.

Both RSPCA & AWL here have activity programs for their dogs in care....& volunteer cuddlers & walkers. RSPCA here, way back, first went public with the fact that lack of early socialisation for puppy farm dogs has long-term adverse effects which can handicap the dogs as much as physical & health defects. Later research at UQ, supported their experience. What is needed is for real-life examples to be got to the general public.... of why & how socialisation (& exposure to real-life experiences) shapes dogs to be successful companion dogs. Best examples I've seen in the media have been the Pet Therapy team from Dogs Vic & the Military Dog training unit in Qld. Many people would think there'd be no comparison. But in socialising their dogs & in exposing their dogs to everyday experiences, both are exactly the same. Person, who represented the Pet Therapy team, described their work on Radio National. The interviewer nearly fell off his chair as she described how the dogs who do the therapy work, are purebred Rottweilers, Great Danes etc (not just tiny fluffy ones). 'How can Rottweilers 'work' among the frail & elderly & sick & young?' The woman (whose own dog is a Rottie in the team) explained how, first, generations of good decision-making goes into producing purebred dogs with temperaments as sound as their good looks. And how raising the puppies & dogs, requires lots of contact with people....& exposing the dogs to all sorts of sights & sounds, within the home & in the wider environment. Yet these dogs still continued their lives as 'show dogs'. In fact, that became a huge interest for the elderly people the dogs visited. They loved seeing the dogs come in....wearing ribbons they'd won, the weekend before, at a show. Overall, she gave the best description of how to raise a companion dog, I've ever heard (as good as that given by the man who raises the military dogs). In doing that, she also shattered preconceptions about BSL. Yes, these wonderful therapy dogs included Rotties....it's how dogs are bred & raised which counts in how they'll interact with humans....not simply their breed. She also shattered the myth that 'show' dogs live a 'cruel', 'undoggie' life. These dogs were the best of showdogs & the best of companion dogs. (I noted the name of this lady....she was brilliant on radio. Calmly spoken & articulate.) The military dog trainer in Qld said all the same things in a magazine here. Military dogs have to foremost be good companion dogs for their handlers. So all the same elements went into their breeding & raising of pups & young dogs....as went into the Dogs Vic therapy dogs. Good decision-making about breeding. Then socialisation from birth....& exposure to real life. First, happy puppy life around an Air Force Base (being pulled off passing ladies' flappy skirts). Then out to be fostered with families in homes.....living a full life as a young family pup. Before returning to the base for full training as military dogs. Some clever producer should make a TV program which highlights both these.... Because both teach brilliantly the need for socialisation/experiences, the follies of BSL, the myths around 'show dogs'...& how companion dogs should be formed (whoever breeds/raises them) http://www.dogsvictoria.org.au/Content.asp?ID=180

An actor I know of, also has a part in 'Red Dog'. By coincidence, she & her family own a little red Tibetan Spaniel. Many of you would have seen her (the actor, not the tibbie) in the Whiskers TV ads. The ones with a the pink cartoon cat whose owner is sitting at a computer.