SpotTheDog

I completely understand where you're coming from on the 'define a puppy farm' debate, however I wanted to put this forward.

Ireland is puppy farming Mecca. If you want to raise hundreds of dogs in sub-standard conditions - the sort of 'puppy farm' most of the public think about, with rows upon rows of stacked wire cages, matted fur, untreated infections, left in urine and faeces for days, never allowed out except to mate, so on - you set yourself up in Ireland.

If you want to make a fortune selling crossbeed small white fluffies, 'teacup' breeds and so on, you set yourself up in Ireland. If you want to do most of your puppy transactions in cash in carparks behind supermarkets, and hand over a six week old puppy in a blanket and say it's vaccinated but you lost the vaccine card, and you'll forward its pedigree papers - you set yourself up in Ireland.

You set yourself up in Ireland (where the animal welfare laws are almost 100 years old and aren't enforced), you advertise your puppies on donedeal.ie and in the free papers, and you fight the rising tide of education (Ireland has a large bulletin board community that itself has an Animals & Pets forum, and the folks on that forum have a checklist as long as your arm on how not to buy a puppy) by answering a few questions the right way.

It's not uncommon in Ireland for puppy farmers [for a given value of 'puppy farmer' meaning an unscrupulous conveyor-belt breeder who is breeding non-health-checked dogs in substandard conditions to produce mongrel puppies and call them hybrid names and is in it all purely for the profit] to place breeding bitches in a suburban home for two weeks before the pups are due to be sold - they move her to suburbia, put a heat lamp and a bale of fresh hay out in the shed and allow people who've been told 'ask to see the mother' to come visit the surburban house where they think 'oh sure, no rows of cages, the shed looks clean, yes this isn't a puppy farm' and away they go with a few hundred euro worth of a genetic timebomb that'll break their hearts.

I have also read and been told that Ireland is supplying much of the small-white-fluffy-teacup demand in Europe from its puppy farms - but I need to google the sources of that information (though I am inclined to believe it).

On the basis that legislation needs to start somewhere, the newly introduced legislation in Ireland is as good a first step as any.

With cats, I'd like to see a far greater onus on restricting their roaming. Your cat doesn't have to be indoor-only - it can have access to the garden if you cat-proof your fence. You can raise an extremely happy cat in this way.

Common myths (and I've been involved in cat rescue) I encounter are:

• I can't keep it indoors, that would be cruel.
  
• Most cats learn to deal with the road.
  
• I should let it have one litter before it's desexed.
  
• It's only just had a litter, it couldn't be pregnant again.
  
• She's too young to be pregnant (we've seen well-fed females come into their first season at 16 weeks, thereby having their first litter at six months).
  

By far and away the most irritating is stuff like 'dogs have owners, cats have staff' or 'cats are unfriendly' or 'a cat will desert you for the neighbours in a second' or 'I don't have to feed it while I go on holidays, they can hunt' and so on.

The biggest difference between cats and dogs is dogs are an amplifier and cats are a mirror. Whatever you put into a dog, he'll return ten fold. Whatever you put into a cat, he will return in absolutely equal measure. If you ignore your cat, he will ignore you. If you allow him to roam all day, he will indeed move in with the neighbour, a little old lady who watches telly with him beside her on the couch and hand feeds him tidbits. Cat body language is extremely subtle, but if you learn a bit about it you'll soon learn you can read moods, emotions, mischeviousness, moodiness and willingness to play, all in the angle of an ear and the position of a tail.

I wish people would take better care of their cats. They are such a rewarding pet if you just take the time to learn what to do.

Two dog attacks in two days in the Age - one a toddler bitten by the family's malamute, the second a child on a swing bitten by the family's Staffie.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/second-child-mauled-by-pet-dog-20111014-1lnsq.html

Deary me, I thought this new legislation was changing everything? I thought it was solving the 'dog bite problem'?

A four-year-old girl has been taken to hospital after her pet dog bit her on the head in Melbourne’s outer east this morning, the second dog attack on a young child in as many days.

Paramedics said the girl was playing on a swing in her backyard in Mooroolbark when the dog, believed to be a Staffordshire terrier, attacked her just before 11am.

‘‘The dog briefly latched onto the girl and caused quite a deep wound on her forehead which extends into her hair,’’ advanced life support paramedic Margaret Harris said.

Advertisement: Story continues below ‘‘Her mother remained very calm which helped keep the girl calm until we arrived.’’

Ms Harris said the girl was given pain relief through an inhaler and nasal spray to calm her down.

‘‘The pain relief drugs helped settle her and she was actually sleepy as she was taken to the Royal Children’s Hospital in a stable condition,’’ Mrs Harris said.

It comes less than 24 hours after a toddler was bitten on the top of the head and on her cheek by her family’s pet dog at a home in Werribee.

The 16-month-old girl suffered a five-centimetre gash to the top of the head and a one-centimetre wound under her left eye.

That dog is believed to be a Malamute and is understood to have been a long-time pet of the family’s.

Paramedic Michael Garland said the girl’s parents used face washers to stem the bleeding before help arrived about 5.30pm.

‘‘As you could imagine both the mother and father were very upset along with the child,’’ Mr Garland said.

‘‘We loaded the girl and her mother into the back of the ambulance before dressing the wounds to the child’s head with a pad and bandage.

‘‘Once we had controlled the bleeding our biggest concern was trying to console the child as much as possible and keep her nice and calm.

‘‘With her mother’s help we managed to calm her and she actually slept most of the way to the Royal Children’s Hospital.’’

Mr Garland said the incident could have been a lot worse given the circumstances.

‘‘Thankfully her mother was with her at the time it happened. So it wasn’t as though she had been left alone with the animal either. As her mother said, it all happened so quickly,’’ he said.

The attack comes two weeks after the end of an amnesty period for owners to register dangerous dog breeds in Victoria.

The state government introduced the amnesty after the death of four-year-old Ayen Chol, who was killed by a neighbour’s pitbull mastiff after it ran into the girl’s St Albans house in August.

SpotTheDog this is not the opinions of the OP but of someone she is trying to talk some sense into. Not sure if you are aware of this or not, just the way you answered made it seem as if you were talking to her, not the moron who wrote this stuff

Nope, I know it's not the OP, I was writing as a direct response to the idiot the OP is quoting.

Actually I was ranting. LOTS of ranting.

/has her rantpants on.

Dear John Bryson

Shove your ID card up your jacksie.

Yours

Owner of a sweet natured crossbreed of uncertain parentage that doesn't deserve to be destroyed under arbitrary legislation.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND, rant over.

I'm going to get a stiff drink.

Would I own one? No, but that is because I have a preference for Huskies and Shepherds.

Did you know both of these dogs are restricted breeds in other countries? I look forward to seeing you with your dog leashed and muzzled in public in a few years.

Would I let my young defenceless children interact with one? No, again because the risk isn't worth it, but then I wouldn't let my young defenceless children interact with any dog, regardless of breed, unless I knew that particular dog very well, and of course only under my very close watch.

So it really doesn't matter what the breed of dog is then, does it?

I've no doubt there will be collateral damage as this new legislation is enforced, but in my opinion, the collateral damage in this case is worth it, and whilst I certainly feel for those who may lose their beloved family pet I make no apologies for valuing a human life above that of a canine, and that includes my Diesel and Gypsy.

Personally I feel worse about the collateral damage that will be the people who continue to be killed and maimed by badly controlled dogs of all shapes and sizes whose behaviour will continue while the wardens and the government spend their time and our money addressing the wrong end of the leash.

They may be highly valued members of my pack, but at the end of the day they are canines and if they were to ever threaten a human life I wouldn't hesitate to protect that human life at all costs - including Diesel & Gypsy's lives. Of course I'd be devastated after the fact, but ultimately it would have been through choices I made that they were in a position that cost them their lives.

If you're that worried about the choice you're going to make that will put your dogs in a position to hurt someone, why don't you euthanise them right now and sleep easy from here on out?

It's a long time since I've read an argument that contradicts itself so thoroughly as yours - that's impressive, well done.

We all make choices, and with choices there are consequences.

And Confucious say, he who go to bed with itchy arse wake up with smelly finger.

Wether that choice is to own a restricted breed, a yap yap dog, a dog that has been crossed with a restricted breed, to not report the cute little yap yap dog that attacked your sweet timid loving staffy, to not adhere to the legislation, to not raise and train your dog in the best interests of society, and I could go on. Bottom line is, you and you alone made that choice.

Unless you adopted your dog of unknown parentage as a puppy from a pound or rescue with no knowledge of what the dog would look like as an adult. In that case the only choice you made was to own a dog.

Any dog has the potential to be a loving, loyal, affectionate dogs that just want to be someone's friend, just like any dog has the potential to be a killer.

This is correct.

However history has shown that the breeds on the restricted list find themselves in the news for being killers.

This is not correct.

We may have to have a serious discussion about the difference between fact and hearsay. You might want to delve some into the contribution of the media to dog attack hysteria too. PS: again with the request for statistics please?

And as I keep saying, I'd much rather be around any number of other breeds than a Pit Bull if it were to snap, as I've no doubt that the consequence to me of a Pit Bull snapping and attacking me are highly likely to be far worse than had it been a different breed.

I would rather be attacked by a small dog than a large dog. I'd also rather be tickled with a feather than hit by a truck. Your point is?

I've got nothing against responsible owners who have chosen to own a restricted breed. The key word being responsible.

How about responsible owners of non-restricted breed dogs who will have their pets seized and classified as restricted because of appearance and who will then lose their pets under this new legislation?

I'm beginning to think you really don't understand the ins and outs of this, do you.

Would I let my pack interact with it? Absolutely, but only after I'd made an informed decision based on the owner, the individual dog in question and of course, on how my dogs interact with others.

AHA! So you're actually discriminating against PEOPLE and dogs. That makes it ALL better.

God help me, but...

They are not destroying dogs based on what they look like. They may destroy dogs based on their breed , either pure or cross. And how does one identify a breed? Initially, by the way it looks. So the looks is the initial means to identify the breed. The breed that they are looking to have tighter control over due to the number of fatal attacks on Human Beings.

So they're not destroyed dogs based on what they look like, but they're destroying them based on the breed they look like? Genius.

If you have a restricted breed and have done what is required by law then you wont lose your dog. If you have a restricted breed and haven't done what is required by the law then you should lose your dog as it is a risk to your family and to society and it's all about risk management. In this case the risk is serious injury and/or death to a human which as far as I'm concerned is a risk I'd like to see everything done to minimise.

And if you have a mongrel dog which you have registered as a mongrel dog, a warden can decide the dog is not correctly registered based solely on its appearance, not its breed, and can confiscate and euthanise that dog. Who's going to manage that risk?

Of course it is breed discrimination, but for a very good reason - threat or potential threat to human life.

And over 20 years of breed discrimination in the UK has had no impact on the threat or potential threat to human life. Will it take you two decades to cop on to that as well?

People are not voting to have hundreds of innocent family pets destroyed.

Indeed, people are not voting at all. The legislation has been passed without referendum. Undemocratic much?

Those pets, whose owners haven't done what is required by law to control their restricted breed, will be removed from those owners. People who have done the right thing and put the appropriate measures in place, as required by law, will not lose their innocent family pet.

And people with mongrels of dubious parentage who are arbitrarily decided to be 'of type' will have their dogs seized based purely on appearance and not behaviour.

I've not doubt it will be gutwrenching to you, but again, they are not culling an entire breed based on its appearance, they are looking to control a breed based on its breed, which has a proven track record of being a threat to human life.

They are looking to restrict four separate breeds, using legislation which was passed without referendum, which opens the gate to adding more selected breeds to the restrictions without referendum, and I would like to see, please, a number of reliable scientific studies and collated statistics to support your claim that any breed has a proven track record of being a threat to human life.

Why? Because of its genetic make up. All the training in the world can't change the fact that your Pit Bull is still a Pit Bull, and the 1 time it snaps, and it only takes the 1 time, I know I wouldn't want to be around it, let alone someone more fragile/defenceless than I.

This argument actually contradicts your initial argument of how appearance is the first step in identifying breed. Because if the breed doesn't have pitbull genetics in spite of its appearance, by your own logic it will be euthanised even though it's apparently not a danger to anyone.

If everyone who has said they or their dogs have been attacked by a poodle/Chihuahua/staffy/dobe/Labrador/yap yap dog had reported these attacks to the appropriate authorities then action would be more likely to be taken about controlling all dogs (and their owners), not just the ones that we are currently talking about.

How interesting that you manage to identify something sensible in the midst of your drivel.

Agree with Erny above.

Greytmate, I'm not laying blame for this at the foot of the ANKC or Staffy Club or anybody other than the politicans who responded hastily and with poor thought to the death of a child.

What frustrates me at the moment is the apparent lack of a cohesive response. I tried to see if I could get The Australian interested in a feature that drew a parallel between Australia and the UK - because we do take a lot of our legislation from there. In the UK between 1989 and 1991 there were a couple of savage dog attacks on children. The UK passed the Dangerous Dogs Act. Initially the Act functioned very similarly to what we now have in Victoria - family pets 'of type' seized and euthanised. Six years later the UK repealed that part of the Act because it was so very unpopular.

Now, 20 years later, DEFRA in the UK have conducted a public consultation on the Act. Their response is still to come, but generally the Act in the UK is felt to be hasty, poorly thought out and fairly useless because there is still a problem with antisocial behaviour in dogs. Coupled with the problem that the Act has apparently done little to address over two decades, there is the additional burden on the taxpayer of funding things like kennelling for dogs of alleged type while their owners fight to have them reclaimed (and also until they're euthanised) - which has cost in excess of AUD $6-7 million over the last decade (taking into account exchange rates).

However, in spite of doing the research and providing an angle, newspaper articles, sections of legislation and scientific reports (as opposed to people's own personal websites), I haven't had a nibble.

You know the way people cite the "Calgary Model" as a solution to all things? Well I've been up past midnight a number of nights reading the Calgary animal bylaws, and the Calgary local government's annual reports and I can tell you - the Calgary animal bylaws, while a major step in the right direction, also don't work to reduce bite statistics because of a number of other factors (insufficient laws to control dog breeding and Calgary becoming a dumping ground for dogs 'of type' because they're no longer illegal).

So I've done a bit and am now lost at where to turn to do more or use what I've done. I still have the information and the time to offer anyone who's interested, but who do I offer it to?

Against that backdrop, it yanks my chain massively when I read an attitude that appears to say 'Don't expect the pedigree societies, agencies or organisations to get involved with your problem with your feral mutts. This isn't their fault.'

Breed specific legislation is everybody's problem. It's even a problem for people who don't own dogs - because even if you don't own a dog, your tax dollars go towards funding this pointless solution, your tax dollars go towards funding the health service that continues to treat people injured by dogs, and you still walk the streets going about your business and you and your kids are at the same risk from poorly controlled dogs that you were before the legislation was passed. You'll also fund the judicial system that gets tied up for days, weeks, months and even years as determined pet owners tramp through the courts trying to have their family pet released back to them - regardless of whether you believe the test cases are legitimate, they still cost money.

Arguably, you, tax-paying non-dog-owning Joe Public, are at even greater risk walking the streets going forward, because people who own dogs 'of type' may become lax about socialising them and making them into well adjusted dogs because before every walk they think 'Do I really want to fight the good fight today, defend my dog to people who make comments and ignore the folks who cross the road to get away from me just because of how my dog looks?' And then they hang the lead back on the hook and think 'oh, maybe not today'. A dog like that gets out of its yard in a one-off incident and it can wreak havoc.

So yes, while I understand that the current legislation is not the fault of any pure breed organisation, society or governing body, I am frustated that as yet, those bodies haven't come together to use their clout and their credibility as 'dog experts' to fight this legislation on all of the scientific and historical grounds on which it can be fought. There is massive potential to take an evidence-based approach to fighting this legislation.

Who denigrated another breed? The only quote on this page refers to a pitbull's head being larger than a staffy head. That isn't denigration, it is fact.

This really has nothing to do with the ANKC. There has been other laws regarding other breeds in the past, and it is the people that own the breed that have got laws changed. The ANKC is a registering body for purebreeds, and that is about it.

The language throughout that article seeks to promote one breed as better, safer and more reliable than another. Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

The rush to amend legislation after the Chol tragedy worries Reece Fry, president of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Victoria, who has embarked on a campaign to help people recognise the differences between Staffies and the breeds being targeted.

''It's a knee-jerk thing, a typical government knee-jerk, thinking 'we better do something quickly','' Mr Fry said. ''People see 'bull' in the name and they assume you've got a bad breed. If they are going to do it properly and give council rangers these powers, they need to educate the rangers to recognise the breeds of dog. It's obvious the public has this misconception, and I'd guess many rangers have this misconception as well.''

Reece Fry appears to think the misconception is that Staffies are as dangerous as Pit bulls, as opposed to the misconception being that specific breeds are dangerous and subsequently all animals of a specific breed should be treated universally.

The sort of administration that can pass a law such as the one we're now living under - that administration doesn't have to stretch far to include other dogs.

Sometimes I wonder if pure breed owners believe they're untouchable because of the popularity of their breeds and the money that goes into their dogs. The attacks that prompted the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 in the UK were perpetrated by Rottweilers - yet Rottweilers were not named in the breed specific legislation that followed...

I am most wary of SWF as a collective rather than a specific breed.

Without fail, if we encounter them on a walk, my dog gets rushed at complete with yappy barking and attempts to bite ankles.

This is why I am wary of old english sheepdogs, who I shall from hereon refer to as LWFs.

I find it difficult to understand why someone would try to protect their breed by denigrating another breed.

It just adds to the argument that BSL is somehow justified. It also leaves those of us who own unpapered rescue crossbreeds right up the creek without a paddle.

Regardless of whether or not pitbulls are ANKC recognised, the ANKC need to recognise the potential for legislation to go against the larger guardian pure breeds - rottweilers, dobermans, german shepherds - once BSL has been passed in the first place. You don't have to be pro-pit to be anti-BSL.

Old English Sheepdogs in full coat.

I think it's the lack of eye contact and the fact that body language disappears in a mass of hair. A mass of growling, bristling hair, in my limited experience and poor interactions with the breed.

/edited to add the word 'interactions', because apparently my writing is also poor.

From the UK, who've had these laws for over 20 years:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/blog/2011/sep/30/dangerous-dogs-law-legislation-debate

Beware of the law when it comes to dangerous dogs

Campaigners say the Dangerous Dogs Act is 'irrational' and want the legislation to be changed. But how can the animals be protected while ensuring pet owners are held to account? Rowenna Davis reports on a recent debate

In a rare consensus among police, courts and charities, almost all experts agree that the current laws designed to deal with dangerous dogs should be scrapped. The legislation in mind is the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act. Brought in quickly after a spate of attacks, it has been described as "knee jerk and reactionary" by a dog welfare charity.

The statistics seem to confirm the perceived shortcomings of the act: rates of dog attacks and dog seizures are on the rise; the Communications Workers Union estimates that 6,000 postal workers are attacked by dogs every year; and according to latest figures, the NHS is spending £2.7m annually treating victims of dog bites.

In the wake of this summer's riots, the problem of "status dogs" is also being linked to challenges in the country's inner cities. Animals are being trained to fight, defend and impress, as owning a potentially lethal dog becomes linked to security and social standing.

The suitability of the legislation to deal with such challenges was the topic of a recent roundtable debate, which was hosted by the Guardian and sponsored by Dogs Trust and the British Veterinary Association (BVA). The discussion was held under the Chatham House rule, which allows comments to be reported without attribution to encourage a frank debate.

"It's not worth the paper it's written on," said one participant, kickstarting the discussion in no uncertain terms. "It's hurriedly produced, it fails to make people safe, it blames the dog but asks the owner to do nothing, it takes up useful resources and it's detrimental to animal welfare. I've lost track of the number of times I've raised these issues with ministers. Something needs to be done."

In particular, campaigners dislike section one of the act, which outlaws certain breeds, such as pit bull terriers, and calls for them to be destroyed. "Banning breeds inevitably makes them more desirable for the wrong kind of person," said one contributor. "Pit bulls and Staffie crosses are now so common that people are inevitably moving on to the next thing – huskies, molosos, presca canarios. We can't add every dog to a banned list. We need to look at why people are getting these dogs."

Outlawed breeds

There is also the major issue of animal welfare. Hundreds of dogs have been put down under section one of the act – not because they have any record of wrongdoing, but simply because their breed is outlawed. The cost of this is enormous. According to a debate in the Lords, the Metropolitan police has spent £3m in 10 years trying to kennel dogs that are thought to be pit bulls. Nor is there any room for discretion, the roundtable was told: any officer who fails to take action against a suspected illegal breed can be punished for aiding and abetting. If the dog doesn't go, the officer will.

Another problem with the 1991 act is that it doesn't apply on private property. No matter how irresponsible the dog owner, they can only be prosecuted if the attack happens on public land. This is particularly difficult for postal workers who are legally obliged to deliver mail to every home in the country, as well as midwives and other public servants.

One contributor remembered a colleague falling victim with no recourse to justice. "He was attacked by two dogs, and it carried on for 20 minutes. He was left severely disabled for life. It wasn't tested whether it occurred on public or private land. In the end it was thrown out of court and no charges were brought."

In another odd legal twist, the only legislation that can be used to seek redress in cases such as these – and in dog-on-dog attacks – dates from 1871. This legislation can force dogs that perpetrate attacks on private property to be destroyed but, because it is not a criminal law, there is still no recourse against the owner. The fact that there is no requirement for dog owners to take out insurance means that even if a prosecution is obtained, there may be no resources available to compensate victims.

Campaigners are pushing for alternatives. They want the law to be extended to private property under a new principle. Under the banner "deed not breed", they argue that dogs should be punished on the basis of their behaviour, not their type. Most people who deal with dogs seem to agree. Eighty-eight per cent of people responding to government consultation said that they didn't think that breed-specific legislation was effective at keeping the public safe.

In March 2010, the home secretary at the time, Alan Johnson, launched a consultation on the back of campaigning efforts. It received 4,250 responses, but participants are still waiting for a formal response from the present government. David Cameron has promised to deal with the issue, but exactly how remains unanswered. It doesn't help that the issue falls between Defra – the department for the environment – and the Home Office.

One contributor to the roundtable was pessimistic over the prospect of government action: "The signals are coming out quite clearly. It [dangerous dogs legislation] is likely to be added to antisocial behaviour legislation, a Cinderella policy that could be rolled into a whole raft of other issues, and could take years to implement... It's a sign of political timidity on behalf of the government."

But politicians remain wary of relaxing the law when certain breeds are still perceived as dangerous and strike fear on the streets, the roundtable heard. Other organisations, including the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), remain committed to the ban, not necessarily because dogs like pit bulls are intrinsically designed to attack but because, if they do turn violent, the damage they can inflict is disproportionately bad.

Some authorities are sick of waiting for Westminster to act. The roundtable was told of one borough in south London where all council tenants who own a dog are required to register their pet with the council and have it microchipped, or they risk eviction. Since the free microchipping service was introduced in 2009, 4,000 dogs have been registered and the council says the scheme encourages parents of young dog-owners to take responsibility for their children's pets. Although no tenants have been evicted so far – and authorities insist that it's "an absolute last resort" – there are currently two residents who are refusing to comply.

Such regulation has won high-profile support. Dogs Trust has started the Microchipping Alliance, bringing together a number of welfare charities, veterinary organisations and dog wardens to speak with one voice on this issue. They argue that microchipping is minimal to the lifetime cost of owning a dog – it costs between £5 and £30 – and saves local authorities money on kennelling stray dogs. It is already massively popular on the continent, with nearly half of all EU countries now electronically identifying dogs.

However, one participant said that microchipping ran the risk of "criminalising 2 million dog owners" for simply failing to comply. But it was pointed out that microchipping is part of responsible dog ownership, and also that, as a one-off cost that benefits the owner, it is a better alternative to the dog licence, which some would like to see brought back.

Part of the problem is that microchips can only do so much to help and will not solve the underlying social causes, the debate heard. Status dogs often appear in some of the poorest parts of the country's inner cities. Dogs might be bred and sold for much-needed income or walked on the street for protection.

There was a consensus at the roundtable that any policy on dogs must be seen in context and introduced in partnership with supporting social agencies, with an emphasis on education and prevention. As one contributor put it: "What do you tell a kid who looks to their dog to protect them in a knife fight? How do you make a microchip sexy? We have to figure out how to connect." One solution, it was suggested, is to invest more time and resources into engaging with disadvantaged status-dog owners, through projects such as the advice service City Dogs.

Implementation and enforcement are also key issues, and one participant called for any new legislation to be made a "statutory duty" for local authorities. This would certainly help the inconsistency under the present system. Dealing with dangerous dogs might be a priority for some councils but others, such as Bedfordshire, don't even have a dedicated officer on the case, the roundtable was told. Without ringfenced budgets, campaigners are worried that dog wardens will be some of the first to go when local authorities make cuts.

But there are no signs of them giving up. In the past, the roundtable heard, there has been a concern that campaigners have been divided. Now they are coming together. Believing they now have highprofile political backing, they are turning their attention to letter-writing campaigns, social-networking projects and alliances are growing. As one participant put it, the aim is to "light as many fires under as many places as possible".

In focus

There is a consensus that the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 is in need of reform. It is considered unsafe, inefficient and detrimental to animal welfare. Campaigners want to extend the act to cover private property. At present, owners can only be prosecuted if attacks occur on public land. Most campaigners want to see dog owners prosecuted for their pets' behaviour rather than their type. This is known as the "deed not breed" principle. It's more controversial than the extension of the law to private property.

Most feel microchipping could be a good way to encourage responsibility, although there are concerns about liberty. Issues around education, prevention, implementation and resources also need to be discussed.

At the table

Terry Kirby (Chair), journalist

Harvey Locke, president, British Veterinary Association

Angela Smith, MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge

Trevor Cooper, solicitor, Doglaw

Sheila Crispin, past-president, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

Mark Callis, dog control service manager, Parks Police and Dog Control, Wandsworth council

Peter Chapman, sentencing committee, Magistrates' Association

Kendal Shepherd, veterinary behaviour specialist, Association of Pet Behaviour Consultants

David Cowdrey, head of policy and campaigns, Guide Dogs

Dave Joyce, national health, safety and environment officer, Communications Workers Union

Keith Evans, dog legislation officer, Association of Chief Police Officers

Clarissa Baldwin, chief executive officer, Dogs Trust

Laura Vallance, public affairs manager, Dogs Trust

Mary Creagh, shadow secretary of state, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Sally Burnell, head of media and public relations, British Veterinary Association

This roundtable report was commissioned by Seven Plus and controlled by the Guardian. The discussion was hosted to a brief agreed with, and paid for, by Dogs Trust and BVA. Contact Wendy Miller on 020-3353 2347. For information on roundtables visit: guardian.co.uk/sponsored-content

This article is published by Guardian Professional. Join the Guardian Public Leaders Network free to receive regular emails on the issues at the top of the professional agenda.

The legal loophole is literally the only chance and was probably always the only chance.

I hoped, but never really thought that the judiciary would release Lennox. It's a huge ask to expect someone to gamble their career on the future behaviour of a dog that they were responsible for releasing back into the community. The sheer enormity of the politics around it meant Lennox would never get his chance really. The legal loophole would absolve the judiciary from responsibility for the dog - they could say 'It's not our fault, there was a loophole, a technicality'.

I've been following this, and the case of Bruce before Lennox (Bruce was released into the care of East Galway Animal Rescue in the Irish Republic). All it does it make me wonder what I'd do if the wardens knocked on my door about my crossbreed mutt.

...gutted.

hmm this is interesting i work in customer service and see a heck of alot of people every day, so just chatting to people about it and most are saying what an embarrassment for our country that she's done this. and this is from people that are not that into dogs.

That makes me happy.

I don't have a problem with mongrels. I have a problem with morons who deliberately breed mongrels, totally misrepresent 'hybrid vigour' and breed litter after litter of problem mutts when we kill a quarter of a million pets a year.

I don't have a problem with pure bred dogs, bred by ethical breeders who have the future and health of the breed as their primary interest, who health test and raise their pups at home and under foot and blah blah blah

...I think I'm going to go and hide under the bed with a goonbag.

I wonder how Julia feels about a photo promoting her new puppy breaching flag protocol

Does it really?? Is there somewhere that can be reported??

Urm spot, you might want to edit your spelling. There is a for that. Keep in mind kids have access to this forum

Heh raz, got there before you. Thought the better of it.

let the games begin!

I actually feel like I've been sucker punched. Between Vic's BSL, feeling helpless because in spite of my efforts the media are having none of the information I've sent them to get them to think about the real issues, and now the PM getting an -oodle...

I sat at a lunch for work yesterday and listened as the PA of a consultant wittered on about breeding her staffy with a blue boy and she making 'wrestler' style gurning muscle gestures to describe the size of the boy. I couldn't speak. I froze up. I suppose it's something that the girl beside me, who I've worked with for four years and talked to about 'pet stuff', knew exactly what was going on and tried to change the subject.

It makes me so sad.

/edited because I probably shouldn't swear.

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing to express my deep disappointment at the news that for your 50th birthday, you will be presented with a designer mongrel. I believe you have been told the dog is a Cavoodle. Just to let you know, backyard breeders also call them Cavapoos, because when you're operating outside the guidelines of ethical breeding you really can make up whatever you like.

At a time when we euthanise a quarter of a million companion animals a year, I find it hard to believe you have embraced a crossbreed that represents staple income for puppy farmers. Your choice of designer dog will surely encourage others to seek out crossbreeds and I believe sets a poor example for the nation.

I hope you understand that the act of mating two separate breeds of dog does not automatically create 'hybrid vigour', and is no guarantee of the health of the dog. It is not the case that crossing two breeds cancels out the health problems of both. It is in fact the case that you have as much chance of your dog inheriting the genes that cause the health problems from both breeds. For reference, Cavalier King Charles Spaniels crossed with Poodles tend towards ailments from both parents, including cataracts, epilepsy, progressive retinal atrophy and various ear problems.

Hybrid vigour is a term used to describe offspring that are superior to both parents, but it is a term that can only be applied after the fact. It is not a guarantee. If you cross two breeds and the pups are superior to the parents, that is called hybrid vigour or heterosis, but you also run the risk of the opposite happening. When you cross two dogs and their progeny are inferior to the parents, it's called outbreeding depression.

When President Obama in the US had the opportunity to purchase a dog for the White House, he pulled off a PR coup. Coming under vast pressure to rescue a dog, but also wanting a pure breed because of his daughter's allergies, he managed to adopt a pup that had been returned to its breeder - a practice which ties in with ethical breeding. Ethical breeders should always be willing to accept back a dog that they were responsible for bringing into the world. The White House had its dog, and campaigners for each different agenda - rescue, pure breeding, animal welfare - had something to please them.

In your case, it appears you have allowed your partner to buy into a concept, an industry and a dog that is central to Australia's poor record with puppy farms and companion animal welfare. At a time when Oscar's Law in all over the media, I could hardly believe it when I heard you were getting a designer cross.

For shame, Prime Minister, for shame. You truly have blundered blindly into the midst of an issue of ethics and animal welfare.

I can only hope your new dog brings you joy and enjoys the best of health.

Yours

XXXXXXX

you could kill with a stanley knife if you hit the neck and sever the carotid.

Hah. You're more likely to cut your fingers off than manage to successfully aim for, hit and sever the carotid artery on a dog in the middle of a dogfight.

Then when you've no fingers the attacking dog will probably bite you because you pissed it off. Or eat your severed fingers, omnomnom.

When the discussion paper went out comments were called for and the RSPCA Australia who chaired the meeting invited those groups which had submitted comments to them to attend.

It was held in Canberra and from memory. Dogs NSW,ANKC, MDBA, AAPDB, PIAA,Young lawyers,Deathrow pets, RSPCA Australia ,RSPCA ACT and RSPCA NSW , AVA and AWL.

If I take a bit of time Id be able to dig out dates but for now Id be guessing.

The RSPCA havent dropped the reins and they have made some good progress so far and a major part of the plan is in having breeders out in the open and not hiding away regardless of how many they own or breed to ensure the dogs in their care are being treated as they should be.

We went and banged a drum and tried to get breeders to see they needed DA's and complied with codes and laws even though we dont agree with some of them but then when they do they are beaten black and blue Now anyone who dares to ask if they can breed dogs on their property know they will probably cop some crap and that lots of stress and grief is to follow. The big guys stick it out and appeal and win or go to another shire. The little guys dont dare ask.

Then comes illegal raids and sensationalism and that makes everyone alienated and frightened especially when you get them "dobbing in a puppy farmer" when puppy farmer is defined by a multitude of things.

There isnt any point in pushing for things to happen which are prevented from happening under federal law - It wastes time and is divisive and if cant be seen to look at it and present it objectively its not going to have the same chance of sucess

I agree with you and think you are on the right track though the Clagary model is a good base line I think it needs a small change to work effectively in Australia. dont underestmate the egos and the politics.

Thanks for that info.

So with the definition of a puppy farm - the definition upheld by the RSPCA etc is a useful definition that came out of a working group involving the key stakeholders in the animal care world. I want to be clear on this - the problem then is not the 'official' definition of a puppy farm; you're saying the problem is public opinion and media pressure?

Sorry if I'm not picking it up right - let me go back to the beginning. Has the definition of a puppy farm that came out of that meeting been accepted as a universal definition for use in Australian legislation? If it hasn't, can you tell me where the resistance to upholding the definition comes from (e.g. politics, ego, something else?)

I understand that there are deep complexities around points of view about dog breeding. Some of the most staunchly pro-animal people in the nation will openly savage some of the most ethical and responsible dog breeders in the nation purely because the former believe the latter are "adding to the problem".

With the Calgary model, I've read the bylaws and was very impressed by the clear and rational thinking behind them. However the results in the Calgary 2010 annual report don't uphold what I'd been led to believe about the model being a cure-all for dog attacks - which is how it's presented by many pro-pit factions. (And again in anything I'm trying to learn about and get others interested in, I'm steering away from focusing on pitbull terriers). I've been doing more to figure out why the model hasn't had the effects I've been told it had. Perhaps it did initially, but now there are other problems that need to be investigated and accounted for. (I need to find out if anyone's conducted an evaluation on the Calgary animal bylaws and implementation thereof.) Some problems apparently include that Calgary never dealt with laws around breeding, and by rescinding BSL they've left their region open to abuse from unscrupulous breeders of fighting dogs. The region has also allegedly become a dumping ground for fighting dogs from other regions where BSL is in force. Add a measure of public hearsay to those allegations, and you come up with a dangerous rumour mill about how the Calgary model is full of holes (which I don't believe - I do think it's the most progressive and effective animal control legislation we have to work with). It also lends grist to the pro-BSL mill, who can choose to ignore the really positive outcomes from Calgary and focus on the bad - a tendency that isn't exclusive to critics of that model.

NODS.

Steve, do you have any links to anything I can read up on about how this process went? e.g. the date and time of the meeting, who chaired, who decided who would attend, who was due to run with the definitions and so on, and what happened next?

If the RSPCA were holding the reins, did they drop them? Or was it the influence of the media yet again in policymaking, undoing the work you guys did by giving air time to the Animal Welfare Activists because of the potential pull of such an emotive story?

(Government here, I have seen and heard from those within Departments, reacts strongly to the media - anything that has media coverage is on the minister's desk within minutes.)

I ask because I've opened a right can of research worms myself. Prompted by how I feel about Victoria's rushed dangerous dog legislation, I spent a few pretty long nights reading and following links and trawling through archives and calling people from ages past and getting information about why the legislation as it stands on dangerous dogs won't make a difference. But of course, that sort of approach should always be balanced by what will make a difference.

I'm very careful not to take the information and stances on personal web pages as God's own tears and that has involved me trudging through a lot of legislation from other jurisdictions. (The Calgary Model, for instance. I heard about it, I had views on it, I read about it from personal webpages, I had other views on it, and then I printed up the animal bylaws from Calgary and read them in tandem with Calgary's 2010 annual report, and now I have all SORTS of views on it.)

What I am starting to realise is that animal welfare and control in this country cannot be tackled in bites. If we want to create a safe community for our pets and our children, if we want to prevent wilful animal cruelty and if we want to place a higher value on animals and our moral responsibility towards them as a society, we need to look at the whole pie. That pie starts with who breeds dogs and why and that ties in inextricably to how owners manage their pets and what powers our councils and rangers should have to protect our community and the place of our pets in the community.

So that's where I'm coming from, and any info you have - links, PM, whatever would be most welcome.

PS: Did I say I had a headache?