m-sass

I'm a bit curious because the appearance of Bear and Kooda puzzled me. They don't look at all pitty to me and given that they have been found to 'comply with the standard', it has made me even more puzzled. I know that crossbreeding is fraught with randomness etc but my question is - is it possible for two dogs that have absolutely no pitbull in them to be crossed and end up with dogs that look like Bear and Kooda? i.e. could crosses derived from Rhodesian Ridgeback/Dane/[other] ever end up with dogs looking like Beer and Kooda if they were combined with a SBT/Boxer/bull mastiff/dogue? It's the "style" of dog they are after is more to the point and not without surprise really given the amoint of anti BSL activists claiming that dogs labelled Pitbull's in media sensationalism are crossbreeds which appears that the Government has taken that on board to now include crossbreeds??. Perhaps if the anti BSL activists and pro Pitbull supporters were not so vocal in protection of their desired breed claiming that everything labelled a Pitbull was an incorrect breed assessment and the dogs involved were crossbreeds, I am thinking the crossbreed may still be safe from BSL possibly??. Personally, I don't think too many people in the greater community could pick a genuine Pitbull out anyway......I have never seen two dogs declared as genuine Pitbull's by their owners that look the same??

They were sold two dogs as pets, that they brought home and spent 7 months training. It turned out that the dogs were illegal, and therefore not suitable as pets. They should be able to easily take legal action at a basic level to get a refund on purchase price. But if they had a good lawyer I think they could also sue to compensate for the wasted time spent training the dogs as well as suing to recover the all the legal and other costs they had accumulated as a result of being sold two illegal pets. lol what?! The dogs did not have any APBT in them. How does that make them illegal, because someone that went to a 2 day training course on dog identification said so. What a load of bullshit. And even more ridiculous, wanting to sue someone because you purchased an unrestricted breed puppy. I don't think any amount of money will replace the dogs. Some comments on this thread are laughable... Yes, I understand that the law is not a good one, but don't bother having a go at me about it. I never wrote the law and I don't support it. But the law said that these pups met a standard that meant that they were illegal. Under this law, somebody could be held responsible for selling dogs that meet that illegal standard. And suing the breeder will send a message to people that randomly breed and sell dogs for profit that they are responsible for providing pet quality dogs. I believe that you are correct as the sale of anything illegal in common law is prohibited.

So, even if DNA showed they were not restricted breed, it didn't matter because someone looked at the dogs and determined they were a restricted breed. The law is a donkey of indeterminate heritage. For those of you arguing in this thread, can you just stop? You're not helping. DNA would be applicable if for instance one parent was a papered Amstaff and the other was a papered Stafford and the DNA proved that the pups were from those parents, but DNA that is offered by organisations to determine breed is the type of DNA evidence that is not admissable..........I think there are too many questions in regard to the accuracy of these tests??.

My point is that anyone "responsible" shouldn't be breeding dogs that resemble Pitbull's which have been a restricted breed for the most part for 20 years, at best if you got caught with a dog determined a Pitbull, you had to build a secure enclosure to keep the dog, desex it and abide by the leash/muzzle laws etc etc, they have never been a breed of total freedom as a non restricted breed for a long time anyway. Plenty of Pitbull's and I know of 4 or 5 myself are registered as crossbreeds to avoid the restricted breed housing and management requirements......I am also aware of a couple who are apparantly ANKC registered as Amstaff's under falisfied parentage.......so people have been playing ducks and drakes with Pitbull's and getting away with it for years, except for now, things are tightening up to include crossbreeds, but hey........they have had 20 years warning that the Pitbull is an undesired breed yet people/breeders keep pushing the envelope previously through an open door which is now closing. On the flip side of that, we have the irresponsible breeder who probably doesn't give a thought to the fact that the dogs they are producing in BYB Bull breed mixtures are resembling Pitbull's and think they are safe from the restrictions imposed of the breed because they say there is no Pitbull in them so "she'l be right mate"??. Problem is, She's not right mate and the council are now seizing crossbreed dogs of Pitbull type appearances......again we have had 20 years warning that one day the party will draw to a close and the fat lady will sing, yet the BYB's keep pumping out crossbreeds of Bull variety and people keep buying and aquiring them, maybe they do have Pitbull in them, maybe not, but there is one easy way around this mess to avoid having pets seized, VCAT hearings, Supreme Courts and all this nonesense and pain is simply don't breed dogs like that and don't buy them.......get a papered Amstaff or Stafford, Mastiff whatever, but people wake up to yourselves is my message breeders and consumers that "anything" of a Bull variety that can't be parentage proven can potentially take you down this terrible path of devistation, it's too late to flip the skirt and have a whinge when your dog is impounded and facing the music which doesn't have to be this way with a bit more responsibility and forethought about what you are purchasing........again we have had 20 years warning from the day the Pitbull was declared restricted, think about it hey??

In that case owners of dogs potentially complying with the restricted breed standards need to arm themselves with a vet certificate and if a knock at the door occurs, flash the vet certificate and tell the ACO to &$%# off :D

They were sold two dogs as pets, that they brought home and spent 7 months training. It turned out that the dogs were illegal, and therefore not suitable as pets. They should be able to easily take legal action at a basic level to get a refund on purchase price. But if they had a good lawyer I think they could also sue to compensate for the wasted time spent training the dogs as well as suing to recover the all the legal and other costs they had accumulated as a result of being sold two illegal pets. that doesnt make sense if the parents are deemed to be not pit bulls. then how could the owner be sued? its the ranger decided the puppies are??? what a mess The parents would have to not comply with the restricted breed standard with proof beyond a verbal confirmation that the parents produced the pups.

They were sold two dogs as pets, that they brought home and spent 7 months training. It turned out that the dogs were illegal, and therefore not suitable as pets. They should be able to easily take legal action at a basic level to get a refund on purchase price. But if they had a good lawyer I think they could also sue to compensate for the wasted time spent training the dogs as well as suing to recover the all the legal and other costs they had accumulated as a result of being sold two illegal pets. lol what?! The dogs did not have any APBT in them. How does that make them illegal, because someone that went to a 2 day training course on dog identification said so. What a load of bullshit. And even more ridiculous, wanting to sue someone because you purchased an unrestricted breed puppy. I don't think any amount of money will replace the dogs. Some comments on this thread are laughable... Unfortunately a greater balance of evidence is required to satisfy the tribunal beyond someone saying that the dogs had no Pitbull in them it seems??.

The pound should be the pillar of responsibility not to allow the rehoming of an unpapered Amstaff or crossbred dog fitting the restricted breed criteria to innocent members of the public looking to adopt a pet........does the local nursery sell marijunana plants??. The grounds for not breeding on dogs that can be intentified as restricted breeds is that simply restricted breeds and look a likes don't comply with the legislation to keep as a non restricted pet.

Yes, I get it m-sass. I've already told you I do. What you don't seem to understand is that this is a side-issue. We already know they were killed because they looked like pitbulls according to two council officers, that is abundantly clear. What we are discussing is why the legislation is flawed and why two dogs were killed because they looked like pitbulls, even though they were not pitbulls and their parentage was known. I think the dogs were killed because the case wasn't defended properly on the owners part, perhaps they couldn't afford a legal council which is sad but I think personally there were enough grounds for doubt if the case was presented differently. The problem is that the general public and many of the general public hate dogs full stop want the Pitbull/Mastiff type crossbreeds removed from existance so in that concept the legislation isn't flawed I guess, but I don't see anyone of a political stature brave enough to overturn the legilsation of a dog's life versus that of a child when a Pitbull/Mastiff type dog was responsible for poor little Ayen's death??. Crossbreed dogs have no breed standard in terms of temperament and character where as pure breeds do have a standard and global recognition, an aggressive Rottweiler for example can be argued as a faulty dog by the standard, but what standard does an Amstaff x American Bulldog x Bull Mastiff x Staffordshire Terrier represent when it attacks and kills someone.......who can scientifically determine that such a genetic breed mixture produces a great family pet of excellent temperament and character to be safe in the community is what we are up against and at the end of the day, no one needs this type of crossbreed dog to enjoy the effects of a companion animal and pet when there are plenty of other types or pure breed Bull varieties to choose from??.

I didn't say people can breed whatever they like whenever they like, but I see your point. The issues that we are discussing centre around BSL and the procedures legislated to enforce it in Victoria. Neither you or I know why this litter was bred so we can only speculate. If they were knowingly producing dogs likely to end up victims of BSL then you are right, but we don't know that so it remains a side issue. Whether a breeder is knowlingly producing dogs likely to end up victims of BSL or breeding just anything without consideration of consequence in regard to the laws is beside the point, my opinion is that if you intend to breed dogs for family pets, don't breed the type of dogs that are likely to end up victims of BSL as an obligation of responsible breeding practice to avoid the heartache suffered by the owners in this case and the poor dogs. Pitbull's have been a restricted breed since 1992 and most councils throughout Australia have formulated some type of keeping and handling requirements for Pitbull's, in other words, the breed has been marked with a poor future for many years and it's up to breeders to know and understand when they do put random breeds together of the Bull variety that they can cause the owners of their productions massive problems in the light of BSL. We can blame the council for appauling action in this case if we wish, but would the outcome be the same if the people responsible for poor Bear and Kooda's existance crossbred a Husky and GSD or a Labrador and Cocker Spaniel.......I think not, so who's fault is it really for these poor dogs short life span and their owners devistation, the council or the people breeding too close to the line in a BSL infested climate??. Here is a prime example of irresponsible breeding in reference to BSL from the Trading Post: I HAVE AMERICAN STUFFY PUPPYS FOR SALE THERE 9 WEEKS OLD VAXINATED ANS WORMED Lovely...........BYB Amstaff's where are they likely to end up

How is it a side issue when looks determine whether or not a dog is determined a restricted breed?, looks is the "issue" if we like it or not according to the legislation and all the belly aching in the world is not going to change the cold hard facts that if you have a dog that fits the description of a restricted breed and you can't confirm breed origin, then you have a problem, so why are people breeding dogs vulnerable to falling victim of the legislation?? To begin with, these dogs were bred prior to the legislation so it's a moot point. But the main issue is that, now that Victoria has BSL, they should at least have an objective method of determining which dogs are pitbulls or pitbull crosses. If they want to be silly enough to risk public safety providing yet another test case for the BSL hypothesis they should at least ensure that they are killing pitbulls and their crosses. How many non-pitbulls is it acceptable to kill along the way? Whatever reasons people have for breeding dogs that look like pitbulls is their business. People have all sorts of reasons to breed all sorts of dogs, purebred or crossbred. That is not illegal. Obviously if you breed from stock that is unrelated to pitbulls you shouldn't have a problem. Yet we do have a problem, because the legislation is that bad. Apparantly these dogs were born after the amnesty period began?, but no I disagree with the concept that people can breed what they like when ever they like, breeding a Pitbull look a like is just as bad as breeding two dogs with HD, both potentially are vulnerable to a shortened life span and the breeders of dogs like this IMHO need to take responsibility for their actions, plenty of other types to breed that look nothing like Pitbull's and far removed from restricted breed legislation would be a more responsible thing to do??.

How is it a side issue when looks determine whether or not a dog is determined a restricted breed?, looks is the "issue" if we like it or not according to the legislation and all the belly aching in the world is not going to change the cold hard facts that if you have a dog that fits the description of a restricted breed and you can't confirm breed origin, then you have a problem, so why are people breeding dogs vulnerable to falling victim of the legislation??

Although this situation is a very sad one and not that I agree with what the council did, but if the dogs did fit the Pitbull description where I mean obviously they weren't of a completely opposite appearance like a Husky or GSD look, what was the coucil supposed to do under the legislation, let it go because a BYB did a statutory declaration regarding the parents who's pedigrees couldn't more than likely be confirmed anyway??. Personally, I blame the breeders for producing dogs that fit these descriptions, regardless if they are BYB's or not, surely they need to be aware that breeding dogs of Pitbull appearance is asking for trouble given that Pitbull's have been restricted for a long time, they need to be more responsible in their breeding choices not to supply puppies that people aquire and love to have them seized and euthanised.......if they want to BYB, breed something safe from the authorities and legislation....the BYB market is still littered with Bull cross breeds and doesn't appear that these BYB's or puppy farmers or whatever are learning anything from these terrible situations unfolding Are you saying these dogs look like pitbulls? They don't fit the standard. The council only has one or two days training on how to read a standard. I really would not call them experts when it comes to reading and applying a standard. The sire and dam of these dogs are cleared of being restricted breeds. They fit the standard of the type of dogs they are after, it's not like the council has seized dogs that look like a Husky, GSD, or a Greyhound for example claiming they are Pitbull X's, my point is, anything that resembles a restricted breed is vulnerable to seizure and euthanasia under the present legislation so why breed them??. They are breeding crossbreed dogs of Bull origin and of course they can't predict how the pups will turn out which is a testament IMHO for why they shouldn't be breeding dogs in the first place.

Although this situation is a very sad one and not that I agree with what the council did, but if the dogs did fit the Pitbull description where I mean obviously they weren't of a completely opposite appearance like a Husky or GSD look, what was the coucil supposed to do under the legislation, let it go because a BYB did a statutory declaration regarding the parents who's pedigrees couldn't more than likely be confirmed anyway??. Personally, I blame the breeders for producing dogs that fit these descriptions, regardless if they are BYB's or not, surely they need to be aware that breeding dogs of Pitbull appearance is asking for trouble given that Pitbull's have been restricted for a long time, they need to be more responsible in their breeding choices not to supply puppies that people aquire and love to have them seized and euthanised.......if they want to BYB, breed something safe from the authorities and legislation....the BYB market is still littered with Bull cross breeds and doesn't appear that these BYB's or puppy farmers or whatever are learning anything from these terrible situations unfolding

I believe Nathan went to the council when the laws were announced, they agreed for the ranger to come around and assess the dogs, the ranger assessed they were pitbulls therefore could not be registered and seized. So although Bear & Kooda's parents were cleared of having any pitbull in them, their pups were not The legal battle began in September when Mr Laffan heard the dog laws were about to be introduced and contacted Moira Shire Council to ensure his pets would be safe. Pitbull's could be registered up to the 30th of September last year, so if the enquiry was in September, why were the dogs seized instead of having them registered as Pitbull's as per the amnesty entitlement??.

There will be an ongoing investigation...there might be details we are unaware of. I agree with you, if all 6 dogs were involved in the attack, then all six really need to be PTS, but there must be a reason we don't know about...maybe the owners only surrendered three willingly, and are fighting for the others, and there might be red tape involved, or not enough proof of the others involvement...who knows? I read in one of the articles that the other 3 dogs had been removed from the property when the rangers arrived to seize them all. I think they are just delaying the inevitable though, if 3 dogs were put down over the attack it's very unlikely that 3 others involved in the same attack would be let off.I am a bit curious to know what the breed of the 6th dog is though, only because they listed the breeds of the other 5... It depends if the other 3 dogs were actually involved or whether they were merely onlookers.........they are obliged to determine which dogs of a pack did the damage as they don't necessarily all join in??. Apparantly from a report I read, the 3 dogs PTS was the owner's decision for that action to be taken and wasn't the result of a council order?. It's quite a complex case given that the incident occurred on private property. A rangers job is to administer the laws as written. Unless a law exists in the legislation preventing beware of dog signs being affixed to a property, such signs are nothing to do with a ranger's job description to provide interpretations upon.

If you have a sign saying beware of the dog, enter at own risk & someone enters your yard & gets bitten, then you will be sued. I was told that by my local Ranger, he said you are admitting liabilty, by knowingly having a vicious dog on the premises. Another ranger who doesn't know the laws. It's a statutory defence in all states of Australia that a dog is allowed to bite a trespasser on the dog's property unless it's a dog already declared dangerous by council, a restricted breed or a dog licenced as a trained security dog that is not council approved to guard that property. No laws exist that prevents anyone owning or keeping a potentially dangerous pet dog who may bite an intruder, however, if you invite someone into your home or premises, you have the obligation to keep visitors safe from exposure to the dog/s and then if you don't and the dog suddenly snaps at someone being allowed to interact with visitors, then the sign may be used against the owner in admission that the dog knowingly posed a danger to vistors and the owner failed to secure the dog appropriately could be argued I guess? I am assumimg in this case that the delay on charges being laid is that the dogs were on their own property where the attack took place which presents more legal angles to work through than in if the attack happened in a public place and the dogs were not effectively controlled. Rangers often work from what they are generally told in office loose talk as an overview of the laws and can misconstrude vital legislative components and is therefore IMHO essential for "all" dog owners to know the legislation governing dogs in their respective areas.

There appears to be more to this tragic event that suggests the little girl opened a gate where the dogs were enclosed apparantly with a sign attached "beware of the dogs enter at own risk" and the dogs got out into the area of the property where the girl and her father were?

Sorry to hear about your situation, but you need to understand that aggression is in the dog's genetics for the most part, even if the previous owner had taught the dog to fight to some degree, there is fighting instinct in the dog's make up to bring it out in the first place, it's the reason not every GSD or Rottweiler can be trained as a security/guard dog and most that can are bred specifically to inherit the required traits to work in those roles. I too have met and know some wonderful Staffies in fact I know someone well who's Staffy boy is fantastic with other dogs, their girl is massively dog aggressive, same owners, same raising different genetics/temperament between the two dogs of the same breed. Out of interest, are you saying that your dog was declared dangerous from being on leash fighting dogs roaming off leash

Anyone who reserves themselves primarily training with a head collar only I personally can't take seriously as a balanced trainer. A great trainer IHMO is someone conversant with "all" training equipment from a head collar to an Ecollar and everything in between, that's who I consider are "dog trainers" in the true sense of the word, the rest only accomodate the training of dogs suitable for their tools and methodology and taking dogs unsuitable for these people's systems only results in heartache all round and wasting money on poor advice.

No I don't mean landsharks, I mean dogs who's breed identity can be misconstrude as containing restricted breeds creating unecessary dramas for the owners, however, there is an easy way to avoid this situation by either not purchasing dogs of restricted breed likeness or if the choice of breed can resemble restricted breeds, purchase papered dogs. People IMHO need to be educated in this situation to understand the present legislation trends that if you do purchase/aquire a dog of restricted breed likeness that you can't easily prove the dog's ancestory, you may be vulnerable to problems arising is the point I am making.

Were the Rottweilers papered dogs bred by an experienced Rottweiler breeder who breeds to type or were they BYB's or perhaps crossbreeds?? Not sure what difference this would make? From their posts it seems m-sass believes that as long as a dog is a purebred, bred by a responsible breeder there is no chance it could attack. Only cross bred, BYB "landsharks" do that. Dogs who attack passive people generally have a component of insecurity in their make up, breeder experienced with their bloodlines know the temperaments of the dogs they are breeding and what those lines produce and what their ancestors produced, what bloodline experience does the BYB have in comparison by mating just "anything" when they wouldn't know who the ancestors of the parents are let alone what traits they bought to the table, or the BYB is purposely breeding short nerved unstable dogs in their belief demonstrate protective instinct where is in fact what they demostrate is insecuirty and fear aggression and shouldn't ideally be bred on........the dedicated breeder of quality dogs of stable temperaments knows the difference, the BYB doesn't. Little do these dodgy breeders know that the iconic protection dogs of the highest global ratings are safe around passive people, I have seen this in a military display with a GSD and several Belgian Malinois, after their protection routines their handlers were allowing people to pat them, the dogs were actually friendly towards friendly people, suffice to say I could imagine the result if someone tried to attack the handler, by default though, the dogs were not HA or DA in the slightest, stability of temperament was part of their breeding.

Were the Rottweilers papered dogs bred by an experienced Rottweiler breeder who breeds to type or were they BYB's or perhaps crossbreeds?? Not sure what difference this would make? Parentage and bloodline makes a big difference to the outcome of the progeny, stable dogs of strong nerve will generally produce the same likewise the breeding of fear biters of weak nerve will produce the same.........a fine line exists between protective and an insecure/reactive temperament.so in the case of the elderly woman killed by neighbours Rottweilers would be interesting to know the breeding background of those dogs?

The idea of BSL is to eliminate the types of dogs who killed poor little Ayen so when the owners do drop the ball they don't own the type of dog that will go on a killing spree with uncontrollable aggression. There is a good reason why the types of dogs, Pitbull's, Mastiff's etc and cross breeds of these types of dogs are not used by professionals in protection and guarding, there is a reason professionals use GSD's Rottweiler's, Belgian Shepherd's because they have the stability, intelligence and trainability to be a safer option in the community........I am not against people owning dogs for a protective purpose, but they need to get a proper one bred with the stability for that type of role, not the progeny of uncontrollable landsharks from a BYB offered for sale in the Trading Post, crap dogs like this are accidents waiting to happen and ultimately the death of other animals and sadly people/kids. The last person killed in WA by dog attack was an elderly woman mauled to death by a couple of neighbours Rottweilers that were roaming. Were the Rottweilers papered dogs bred by an experienced Rottweiler breeder who breeds to type or were they BYB's or perhaps crossbreeds??

I disagree with this mentality, aggression is in the dog's make up even when tormented and abused to become defensive most dogs will shut down with the default to flee, the dogs that do come through this type of treatment with aggression have an aggressive temperament and the disposition to fight and not all dogs can be made voilent with this treatment unless they have a defensive trait.