YOLO

In almost every single town and city in the USA (less than 2% of the Country now has BSL), and in fact sixteen states now have preemptions which means that no town or city within that state can ever implement BSL.

Yes, because Americans believe that being a ____wit is their God-given (and constitutional) right. Most states also allow any halfwit to own assault rifles, excuse violent pornography as "freedom of speech," have active chapters of the KKK, and armed militia dedicated to the destruction of the Federal government.

So anti-BSL protesters are phoning in bomb threats to the RSPCA. Yes, clearly these are right-minded people who should be listened to.

And once again somebody trots out the old "all dogs are dangerous" horse____.

I remember many moons ago in WA, there was a "move" to require all "large dogs" to be muzzled. Obviously stupid, but that's one of the alternatives.

People need to ACCEPT the basic premise that we need to eliminate (or greatly reduce) the danger of dangerous dogs (whichever dogs they may be.)

THEN suggest what is the best way to achieve this.

At the end of the day, "here's your dog back minus his nuts," whilst sad and annoying, is much better than destruction.

Again, there's a big difference between destroying your family pet, and simply telling you that you can't breed it.

I agree that it's far from ideal. My point is just that IF the govt is going to seize your dog, and label it (by whatever means) as say a "Pit Bull" far better to have it neutered than destroyed.

Also, and I know this may sound harsh, but I have no problem with the non-proliferation of certain types or breeds.

None of my dogs have ever bred. We'd have no problem with certain dogs not being bred due to temperament or non-conformity? Why is it suddenly so terrible to not breed dogs perceived as dangerous?

It's not like these are wild animals contributing to biodiversity.

We all know that the problems with "dangerous" dogs are caused by bad breeders and idiot owners (or worse, scum actually breeding and training them to fight.) Unfortunately, sometimes being part of society means making compromises.

Unfortunately, the issue that needs to be addressed with some breeds, is not "what happens to these dogs in the right hands?" (Ie happy well-adjusted family pets.) BUT "What happens to them in the WRONG hands?"

Now as I have said, if somebody has a wonderful family pet, that just so happens to be a "pitbull type dog," good luck to them.

If somebody goes looking for a(nother) dog, and finds a PTD they want to rescue from a pound, good on em.

But it's when somebody wants a dog, and goes looking for a Pitbull breeder because they WANT that particular breed, then I have a major problem.

I have the utmost respect for the Registered Breeders of Pedigreed dogs. ALL my Flatties have been Pedigrees. (Can never be 100% sure about Jasper. If "Goofball" was a breed, then I'd think he was a cross.)

Nor do I want to turn this into an RB bashing thread. It's just that they can have quite specific foci, and whilst the ANKC may be the best body to represent them, it cannot (almost by definition) represent the majority of dog owners (or "breeders.")

I'm not sure, but I suspect that therein lies another problem? I suspect that RB's and the ANKC want the term "Registered Breeder" to apply exclusively to breeders of Pedigreed dogs, registered with the ANKC and its affiliates? The last thing they want to see is pet stores claiming that all their puppies "come from registered breeders." However without some form of registration and regulation, we can't hope to control the puppy farms and BYBs.

Smoking is a disgusting and filthy habit, and in the days it was less controlled I hated when inconsiderate people would smoke near me. I still dislike it when smokers congregate around the only entrance to a building. In many airports there are designated smokers lounges behind sealed doors. Smoking is not mandatory, and anybody can go in there. But I'd have to be some sort of lunatic to enter a designated Smoking lounge and then complain about the smoke.

On the Swan river, there are designated areas for water skiing, and others for PWCs/Jet Skis. Again, anybody can sail, paddle, or swim through those areas, but if they do they shouldn't complain about skiers using the areas correctly.

Royal Perth Golf Club was (and maybe still is) a public park. Members of the public were allowed to walk and use the park. However spreading your rug on the 9th green and having a picnic is not advisable.

I certainly don't see Dog Beaches as being exclusive, I could care less if others use the beach. (Frankly I am MORE worried about a minority of idiot dog-owners.) But again, if people object to dogs using the beach for its designated purpose, they should go elsewhere.

What particular concerns me is that they are contracted to provide the pound services for many of our local councils.

From what I observed, either the number of dogs being impounded and surrendered has miraculously plummeted, or the majority of those dogs are just not being given a second chance.

I was actually kinda hoping that somebody would weigh in, tell me I must have caught them on a bad week, and that they are still adopting out lots of dogs.

You'll NEVER get a single body to speak for all, the views are just too divergent.

One of the biggest problems is that organisations such as the Kennel Clubs (or Canine Associations, or whatever they're called this week) their feeder associations, and the "breeders" they represent, see themselves as the bastions of all that is good and correct in the dog world. When in reality they represent an increasingly small minority. It's the age old problem of the Aristocracy trying to rule the Proletariat because they believe they know better.

The vast majority of dog owners have no interest in dog shows, and most of the dogs wouldn't be eligible even if they did. They don't buy their dogs from registered breeders, they buy them from pet stores or from Gumtree.

I don't know if pet stores, puppy farms, or large commercial breeders have their own representative body, but given that politicians are all about "engagement" and "dialogue," they would be more likely to talk to them, than the ANKC.

Then of course you have the well-funded (and strangely well-respected) organisations who seem to be interested in animal welfare, but actually harbour the view that ANY domestication of animals is evil.

Depends on breed, training, and neutering.

Flat Coats (and most of their cousin retrievers) are very late to mature. Probably don't start to grow up until at least 5 years old.

Neutering obviously dials the hormones down, but I suspect it can delay other ageing signals as well.

Some behaviour that we tolerate in puppies just needs to be trained out.

I don't know about where you are, but the South-Western coast of WA is basically one giant collection of beaches. Some are good for surfing, some for fishing, some are great for little kids (no surf.) We even have Swanbourne where all the strange old men hang out. (Right next to the SAS headquarters, go figure.) And yes we have a dog beach. I am always very careful, because there are d___heads with dangerous dogs, but by and large its ok. There are plenty of other beaches for people who don't like dogs, and the dog beach is well signposted.

I wouldn't worry about the lowlifes you encountered, and certainly not about the way you reacted. But perhaps a bit of a lesson there, that such idiots do unfortunately exist and its as well to exercise a bit of caution. Most normal people will respond positively to a friendly dog, but there are just enough drunken idiots around to ruin it for everyone if we let them.

When its time to reintroduce exercise, ask your vet about swimming. Generally its recommended because it strengthens muscles without being weight bearing. Good for hips and I THINK lower back.

Sorry if you didn't see my comments as serious. Have you tried smackos, there is something in them that really gets some dogs going. I wouldn't normally advocate them, but if you can't get your dog to eat, it might help. Perhaps broken up and mixed with other food?

I understand your boy isn't well, but is food-play an option? My dogs will swallow pills if I just tease them a bit and toss the pill in the air. Could you try that with little pieces of food? Even just waiving it under his nose, before putting it in his mouth.

I've also heard that a lot of dogs love the smell and taste of freshly cooked bacon.

We once had a dog that literally did go "whacko for Smackos." I always assumed they added some particular aromatic.

Now I have two Flat Coats. They will eat anything, especially if they think the other will get it.

To give them pills, I just make a game of it, and toss it in the air. They will snaffle it without thinking.

I have no views one way or the other on these particular dogs.

But I am yet again disgusted that governments cant pass laws that actually WORK.

At the end of the day, the courts have determined that these dogs were NOT prohibited breeds. WHY has this taken years and wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars?

When it comes right down to it, I don't know HOW one would technically determine whether a dog is actually a prohibited breed. But surely that is something the government should have considered when writing the laws.

Whether its DNA testing, or physical assessment by a government vet against an established set of parameters, or whatever, the process needs to clear, concise, and transparent.

I also feel that there should be TWO standards. At the "lesser" standard the only requirement should be that the dog is neutered, registered, and kept in compliance with existing laws. By definition that means that within a generation or so these problematic "borderline" dogs will nolonger be a problem.

To actually cease and kill a dog there needs to be irrefutable proof that the dog is dangerous.

I agree that it is an uphill battle but there are those of us that really don't fit the stereotype of the 'typical' pitbull owner.

If there is one thing I have learnt, its that PEOPLE create the problems.

Even if you look at particular breeds as being a "problem," WHO created those breeds? If dogs have an "aggressive" temperament, WHO bred them to be that way?

I love my Flatties, and I am a great extoller of the breed as a family pet, yet I have seen what abuse can do to even one of these passive gentle dogs.

Even if you have a "dangerous" dog, a responsible owner will go overboard to ensure their property is secure, and that the dog is always secured in public.

Irresponsible owners who buy poorly bred dogs, don't train them or properly house them, and let them run amok are a problem nomatter what the breed is.

Personally, I believe the only place a dog should EVER be off the leash is in your own home or back yard.

The dog beach is ok provided its not busy and we can keep our dogs corralled in the water. If I see ANY dog off a leash in a park, I am straight on the phone to the Rangers.

That said, the problem again is irresponsible owners.

Does Anyone Read Or Care About This Topic?

The problem is that's its the SAME argument, over, and over, and over again.

BSL proponents believe that certain dog breeds are a danger to the community (especially in the hands of irresponsible owners) and that banning those breeds outright is the the only effective way to remove the danger.

Opponents believe their dogs are just cute & cuddly family pets. Debating the subject ad nauseum doesn't change anybody's PoV.

Personally, and this is just my personal gripe, I don't think BSL opponents do their argument any favours with some of the utterly stupid comments they come out with. Not saying that there isn't merit in their overall position, just that when you're already arguing off the back foot, coming across like a nutter doesn't help your cause.

I think one of the biggest challenges is trying to win over public opinion that is already heavily biased against these dogs.

And I'll give you an example:

I have only met (in the flesh) one pitbull and his owner. The boyfriend of a work colleague. He was an idiot, and a macho d___head who viewed his dog as an extension of his p___s. (Yes, she could have done a lot better.) He should not have been allowed to have a pet rat, much less a dog.

The problem is that if people encounter such a person with a Poodle, they think "what a d___head." But when they encounter him with Pitbull, they think "OMG a PIT-BULL aahhh."

As always, it is invariably the OWNER who is at fault, but the dog gets the bad rap.

We got Jasper from the RSPCA in Malaga around 5~6 years ago. They were great.

In those days we would go there quite often looking for a dog. There were plenty of dogs available for adoption, all with signs up explaing details about the dog, and always lots of families looking, and the staff (/volunteers?) could not have been more helpful. When we spotted Jasper, they encouraged us to bring down our existing bitch for a visit, and one lady spent a long time with us socialising the dogs.

Recently, before we got Chloe, we went there again hoping to repeat our good fortune.

Firstly we got told off, and instructed that we needed to go to the office and if they had a suitable dog it would be brought to us. So we went to the office and waited, and waited, and waited. Finally the most disinterested person came, looked at us like we had two heads when we expressed an interest in adopting, and finally shrugged their shoulders and told us there was one row (of one side) of kennels we could look at. There were maybe half a dozen dogs there, most without any signage so we weren't even sure they were all available.

We've never been back.

Did we just catch them on a bad week? Or has there been some fundamental change there?

I've not always agreed with 100% of their policies, but in the past they seemed genuinely committed to re-homing as many dogs as possible.

On our last visit they seemed completely disinterested, and from their low numbers I can only assume that far more dogs are being PTS.

This is what bugs me about new laws. It shouldn't matter how many dogs an individual owns. If they are on land zoned as suitable for that many dogs, if the dogs have suitable housing and fencing, adequate vet care, appropriate food and stimulation then who am I to say they can't have more than 20 dogs (because we've had this discussion before and clearly some people do have valid reasons for having that many dogs)? Laws already exist to protect them against neglect and abuse and instead of moaning about the plight of puppy farm dogs I would prefer the RSPCA (and state governments) doing more to police and prosecute. Hit back yard breeders and hoarders and dodgy rescues and pet shops and yes, puppy farms in their back pocket so that it is no longer viable to own and breed dogs. Honestly, if you and I can search online and find a backyard breeder and puppy farm then why can't the RSPCA? Why do conditions need to be so deplorable that some of those animals have to be pts when they are 'saved' before they do anything?

The only thing this newly proposed legislation will do is make some more money for the government. The people who operate under the radar or who lie or find loopholes will continue to do so. Those who do the right thing (and who always do the right thing) are not the people causing the overall problem.

It makes no sense to me that they want to identify more potential wrong doers when they are not even stopping the ones they already know about.

Agreed, that is always the problem with dog laws. There's not enough resources to adequately police the laws we have, so more laws only burden law-abiding dog owners. Unless legislation is adequately resourced to allow it to be enforced on EVERYONE it is pointless.

Also agree about arbitrary numbers. A BYB with 10 bitches being bred to death in appalling conditions is a far bigger menace than a legitimate breeder with 20 dogs.

Furthermore many breeders operate kennels and take in boarders and re-homes. If that takes them over some 20 dog limit how do authorities distinguish?

Maybe, at the end of the day, we need to be paying MORE for our puppies???

I too have a big problem with increased legislation/regulation that only captures legitimate reputable law-abiding people.

Maybe we simply need a law that it is illegal to breed or sell puppies without a license, also make it illegal to accept adverts from unlicensed breeders, and ensure that pet stores can only buy from licensed breeders.

Then if it costs $X,000 to properly breed, care for, and sell a puppy maybe that's what we should all be paying. (or if it COSTS $X,000, we should be paying ~$X,500?)

Licensing fees should be paid per puppy bred.

Apart from the primary goal of ensuring all breeders operate in the correct manner, higher prices would reduce margins for pet-stores, discourage poorly considered purchases, and encourage more people to consider rescues.

This will be devastating for animals in areas only serviced by Qantas. The WA rescue group SAFE have started a petition please find time to take a look and sign if you agree.

It will now be cheaper for me to hire a car and drive the 1300km to Perth if my dog requires any specialist treatment

Actually this does not represent a change for us.

For as long as I can remember pets have been banned from the Perth terminals, meaning that they had to be sent via freight.

BCPuppy is referring to the freight cost increases:

From the link in their post:

"Homeless animals in Australia's North West, which would have previously been saved and rehomed by being flown throughout Australia by a statewide animal rescue group, now face little chance of survival as a result of a massive increase (400-1000+%) in freight charges introduced by Qantas last month.

Examples of the price increases include the following: to fly a 45kg dog from Karratha to Perth now costs $421, where prior to the rate charge it was $79, and to transport a 10kg dog from Kununurra to Perth is now $354, previously it was $33."

oh ok, my bad.

Whilst I believe in "user pays" those new rates seem extreme. Depending on when you book there are probably cheaper "human seats" available on those flights.

The old rates may have been a little low, but at the end of the day the dog cage is just freight with some special care required. Hard to see how that extra care equates to such high prices.

I have no idea, but I wonder if maybe insurance/ liability issues have something to do with it?

Jasper has given up trying to hump, its just they suddenly get extraordinarily playful and start rolling, play-biting, and making funny noises. It's very out of the ordinary for them. However, I suspect that these occurrences (whilst rare) are more frequent than 5~6 monthly.

And no, I haven't noticed any spotting or bleeding.

I thought the tatooing was a universal, but I guess if some vets don't do it, then her's probably didn't.

Don't get we wrong, I would never leave a child with ANY dog I didn't know and trust.

Unfortunately I have seen a poor flattie who had been abused and was quite psychotic. I put my hand through the mesh so he could sniff me, and he went nuts and BIT me. Fortunately being a flattie I escaped with only scratches. (Of course I'm a grown man with big tough hands, a child would have been less fortunate.)

So I wouldn't buy any dog and just assume he's going to be ok. However Ralph was with us for around 14 years. Despite being entire, and quite old, he retained the most beautiful temperament, and "wrestling" with a toddler was just his speed.

I have also met some Rottis with beautiful temperaments, including one who was the most placid dog I've ever met.

The difference is that IF a Rotti wants to hurt you, he can do real damage. Our neighbour would bring his young Rotti over to socialise with our kids, but he always had her on a strong leash, and he was a big strong guy capable of controlling her if need be.

The biting problems with Goldies & Labs does stem from their abundance as family pets and the fact that they are so trusted. Personally, I HAVE seen Goldies, particularly older ones, get a bit snappish with children. Fact still remains though that if a dog is going to bite you, a retreiver will do a lot less damage than some other breeds.

That said, my biggest love is still Flatties' temperament, and for that reason they generally make ideal family pets and companions.

the downside is that they don't make good "kennel dogs" or "leave at home" dogs for working couples.

Chloe is a re-home. She was around 18~24 months old when we got her. She had been returned to the breeder as her owners were leaving the country, and we were told that she had been sterilised.

It did not matter to us, as Jasper is definitely neutered and we had no plan to breed Chloe.

I was in two minds over whether to have a bitch sterilised for health reasons, so this relieved me of the decision.

As a general rule, Jasper and Chloe ignore each other (except if there is food on offer) and if anything are a little jealous.

However, periodically they will go through periods when they get quite "amorous," and it reminds of when our previous bitch Coco went on heat. (Dear Coco had her own health issues, so we never subjected her to sterilisation.)

And here's the thing, Chloe has no tattoo in her ear.

I suppose a Vet can tell, I'll just have to ask next time.

I'd suggest start using a crate, place his bed in there, feed him in there, give really good treats in there. Gradually work up to closing the door and increasing time in there.

That way probably by next storm season you could do adaptil + small dose valium and he will probably be a lot more comfortable. I find mileage varies with thundershirts (if the dog likes being cuddled that tends to indicate they will do well in a shirt). Adaptil I find good results for most dogs too.

Jasper is getting on a bit, and suffers severe separation anxiety. Flatties generally don't handle seperation well, but can obviously be trained fro crates, but I think we have left it far too late to tray anything like that with Jasper.

Unfortunately its not a laughing manner.

In the US every halfwit rentacop carries a gun, and usually their firearms training consists of "Hi, here's you gun."

Unfortunately all the crims have guns too, so its just a sad recipe for death.

I watched a couple of episodes of one of those ultra-low budget "reality" shows on 7-3, the ones that show pawn shops etc, this one was about a gun-shop.

It was REALLY scary. Halfwit hillbillies buying and selling assault rifles. In one episode some redneck bought in his SEVEN year old daughter to buy her "first gun."

This will be devastating for animals in areas only serviced by Qantas. The WA rescue group SAFE have started a petition please find time to take a look and sign if you agree.

It will now be cheaper for me to hire a car and drive the 1300km to Perth if my dog requires any specialist treatment

I'm not sure how big a change this is for Perth.

When last I looked at bringing a dog in, they were banned from the Perth terminals and so they HAD to travel as freight anyway.

Animals require (and I hope receive) specialised handling. I would hate to see "fluffy" flying down the conveyor and then being hurled into a cargo pod like my suitcases.

It is unreasonable to expect not to pay for that service.