Angeluca

Why is there a six page thread on this just putting forward lots of opinions with no actual data to back them up, when we already have a successful model of animal management in existence that dramatically reduces dog attacks in the community? Hint - the system does not focus on breeds, or breeding.

Team Dog - the Solution

for your question on why is there 6 pages of opinions, cause that is what the thread is for not one of us are in a position (that we admit to) to enact any ideas. Lots of people have an idea on why some things are the way they are. It's not just attacks it is all dog issues from attacks to irresponsible breeding eg puppy farms and BYBs, current laws, new proposals and the failure in both and so on

I can't list them all in topic heading as there is not enough room so I put the 2 most serious and put AND not causing.

I stated in my opening topic that I think crossbreeds cause most the attacks.

Your link does look like a great solution to the attack problem, but not the bad breeding practices and the genetic component which regardless of if it is a minority reason, Some genetics does cause a higher risk then others and that crossed with bad ownership = human death. Most dog attacks don't result in serious injury let alone death this would be the example of majority environmental component.

Most dogs would never set out to Kill a human, these ones that maliciously do regardless of breeding style are badly bred on the genetic component, to ignore that is a failure to those who have died and a failure to those who will be killed.

In my opinion....

Dogs do nothing maliciously, they are not human and do not have human emotions.

Malicious isn't an emotion.

oxford meaning=

adjective

characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm:

he was found guilty of malicious damage

a hotbed of rumour and malicious chit-chat

the transmission of malicious software such as computer viruses

I would class rushing into the home of that little girl malicious.

When someone is malicous they intend to do harm, the human emotion behind it could be interpreted as Nasty, mean, spiteful or unpleasant.

I recieved an email this evening which still has me alternating between hysterical laughter and absolute wonderment that people are so stupid..... or simply look for any excuse to breed their mongrel dogs !!

In part, it said the following

I'm wondering if you can help me or put me in the right direction myself.

I have a cocker spaniel x retriever girl.

I have attached a photo

I want to breed her but obviously as she isn't a purebred cocker I'm not sure how to go about it.

I didn't intend on breeding, however she came on heat at only 7 months so I've missed that opportunity for her not to pine for something she knows nothing about.

She is about to turn 1 in early September.

I have sent her an "informative" reply but doubt that it will get through what must be a pretty thick cranial vault. I bet that she will advertise on Gumtree for a stud in the next few weeks.

OMG!

I know one of my girls get period cramps, I know this cause occasionally during a period she winces and licks her stomach and occasionally just makes sooking sounds, Vet check said that was most likely reason due to perfect health.

poor dog has to push out pups for a idiot

well hope everything ends up ok for her.

Why is there a six page thread on this just putting forward lots of opinions with no actual data to back them up, when we already have a successful model of animal management in existence that dramatically reduces dog attacks in the community? Hint - the system does not focus on breeds, or breeding.

Team Dog - the Solution

for your question on why is there 6 pages of opinions, cause that is what the thread is for not one of us are in a position (that we admit to) to enact any ideas. Lots of people have an idea on why some things are the way they are. It's not just attacks it is all dog issues from attacks to irresponsible breeding eg puppy farms and BYBs, current laws, new proposals and the failure in both and so on

I can't list them all in topic heading as there is not enough room so I put the 2 most serious and put AND not causing.

I stated in my opening topic that I think crossbreeds cause most the attacks.

Your link does look like a great solution to the attack problem, but not the bad breeding practices and the genetic component which regardless of if it is a minority reason, Some genetics does cause a higher risk then others and that crossed with bad ownership = human death. Most dog attacks don't result in serious injury let alone death this would be the example of majority environmental component.

Most dogs would never set out to Kill a human, these ones that maliciously do regardless of breeding style are badly bred on the genetic component, to ignore that is a failure to those who have died and a failure to those who will be killed.

In my opinion....

You're assuming that shelter dogs are damaged dogs. That's simply not true as anyone one of the experienced rescuers in the rescue forum will be able to tell you. Shelter dogs are, for the most part, just like all the other dogs in the community. The vast majority go on to be safe, stable, happy citizens.

Haredown Whippet's point that thoughtfully bred dogs are important - whether crossbreed or not.

Why not get a shelter dog? cause why should someone have to be responsible for someone else's f*** up. As it is their kids and their neighborhood is the firing line if something goes wrong because of their history. It takes a dedicated rescue to home a abused/neglected/abandoned dog in the right home and sometimes this isn't getting done. If it does, that home then has to become as dedicated as a breeder (time and money)so that said dog is publicly sound. Some good homes couldn't even manage that, it is a big task and credit needs to go to those who do it. I know most probably don't need this but that is a risk one takes any dog is happy to get out of a cage. Some take weeks or months to show potential problems.

You are either Skimming my statements or just not reading then I don't think I wrote the word Bogan in this thread yet. But to inform you oxford dictionary meaning

bogan, n. An unfashionable, uncouth, or unsophisticated person, esp. regarded as being of low social status.

Low social status meaning those undesirable to a social environment.

This would go on to be interpreted as those disruptive to a community, lacking of social rules and further lack of any regard to actual laws.

I said Morons which I have stated what my idea of a moron is in a previous post and you can find it as there where quite a few examples

This above statement was to a question 'why not just get a shelter dog' = Answer 'Why should we have to' and see above in bold to state i know most probably don't need that sort of care but it is a chance one takes even if odds are good.

Making stuff up! one of my post actually state this is HYPOTHETICAL, Based on opinions, and both unsubstantiated and substantiated experiences. (This does not call people liars but unless witnessed it is heresay) The purpose of this thread is to get people this dog forums opinions on current dog issues.

we are not writing a proposal.

Whatever you find distasteful is you opinion. If you want clarification of my meaning by all means ask, and dislike it or disagree if you please (point of this topic is to state ones own opinion), But please don't place words within my comments 'bogan and working class' never mentioned in fact socioeconomic status wasn't mentioned.

one of my actual but of cause unsubstantiated experiences was with a home owner (the shar pei breeding) But economic status was left out for the reason of irrelevance.

I have mention in a few comments now my statement was extreme to entice the discussion as I have seen people passionate about these issues and it is usually going of topic to those topics so I started one based on opinion.

Sounds rather excessive for being underweight, no water and 6 cases of hookworm.

You'd get less for killing someone in this state

Maybe one of those example for deterrence cases.

A dog that is dangerous should never be mated full stop. I don't see how mating it with a different breed or the same breed would make any difference.

It might make a difference if you bred for lowered reactivity, higher bite thresholds and higher bite inhibiton and you ruthlessly culled any sign of HA.

However, "culling" is a dirty word to animal rights types, even if it doesn't mean the death of any dog. It conjurs up images of seal pup hunts and that is part of the problem.

In the "old days" a pet dog that displayed any sign of aggression off its property to people in the community got a bullet or worse. Nowadays that also is a dreadful suggestion to a lot of people. They find excuses for the aggression (seen plenty of that here) and line the pockets of behaviourists, most of whom know damn well that raising thresholds to aggression doesn't cure it.

Fact is, we've got ignorant dog owners buying dogs from ignorant dog breeders and failing to raise them and contain them as they should. The only cure for ignorance is education. Penalties tend to educate one owner at a time - and we need to do better than that.

There are too many people with the opinion that these dogs inflicting serious injury in unprovoked attacks are caused by the owner and the environment which is total bullshit......the owner is at fault for allowing their dog to attack yes, no arguments there, but the dogs themselves are not fit in temperament and character to be part of urban community......these morons do not train these dogs to attack old ladies, joggers or nail kids, the dogs are genetically aggressive and are a handful to manage at best because they instinctively want to bite people or attack other dogs.....aggression and fight has to be born in the dog to begin with for training or environment to bring it out......it's the reason you can't use just any dog in working roles that requires the ability for a dog to attack, defend and protect even in the guardian breeds renowned for those roles around 70% are not genetically capable anymore from result of selective breeding and establishing more suitable candidates for pet environment and community safety. As much as I hate the way the GSD has been watered down in working trait, pet wise and stability in the community the GSD folk do produce some pretty stable environmentally sound examples of the breed.........back in the guard dog era in the early 80's there were some shockers in GSD's and Dobe's bred on fear biters, dogs that would attack anyone they didn't know and were purposely bred for guard dogs, that is you could put them in a yard untrained and they would be frothing at the mouth to kill anyone who approached.....no doubt people here would remember the old guard dog era when every second commercial yard had one and what those dogs were like?

Call me darft but I think I now understand some of your comments on other threads.

Any dog can bite when cornered or having things jammed down their ears. And some people and kids do the play fighting with dogs that teaches the dog to bite but not in a malice way but in play. But most serious attacks especially with multiple dogs are not a warning bite or territorial overpowering or warning (such as a normal guard dog bite and release).

Your saying a Malicious dog in the act of deliberately killing human or dog either has to be genetic or deliberately train to. And regardless of mismanagement by the average owner this is not the training situation.

I can see your point I have seen GSDs behind a fence loosing their minds while I walk past their yard. Have also seen the same dogs loose 4 or 5 doors down look at me and trot off as if I were a tree. Or another instance Bark once or twice before bolting back into their yard then start the aggressive growl (scares the SH*T out of ya) but they don't proceed past the gate threshold until your a distance away then trot back out and go back to what they were doing.

And I've heard of dogs tormented/misstreated by owners or children doing the bite and release. Which i suppose would be the majority of dog bite hospital records (and the ones not reported by media).

Some of these attacks, the little girl in her home, the boy in Perth where the neighbors dog jumped a shared fence, Are Malicious attacks. And a lot of what is getting reported regardless of identification, they have this in common.

Politicians need votes therefore the mass of uneducated yet opinionated morons as previously stated would out weigh any fact or reason."

We can't even agree whether there is a need for a crossbreed.

You started off by saying "cross breeding is responsible for the majority of dog attacks, we need to do something about it". Many people have come on here to argue against that, and if you took a look at Steve's article you would find statistics against your claim. I may have read this wrong but then you seem to go onto "well, we don't need crossbreeds anyway, so actual danger or not let's ban their breeding and get rid of them." I find this line of thinking dangerous and I do not agree with it. "Need" is a very subjective word: as long as there is demand (for pure and cross breeds), you can argue a "need" for it. Like I said before, if we went along with your thinking who's to stop someone from saying "hey, actually, we don't need purebreds, look at all the dogs in shelter!

As for your comment about "uneducated yet opiniated morons"

A dog that is dangerous should never be mated full stop. I don't see how mating it with a different breed or the same breed would make any difference.

Yes i said crossbreeding is responsible for most dog attacks

My definition of cross bred is no proof of parentage so that would also include the 'un-papered pure'.

how many dogs on that list as pure provided proof? and as stated how many on that list were accurately identified?

The genetic reason for attacks is bad breeding how do you stop that, my already admitted extreme idea 'stop the breeding.

Most cross bred dogs shouldn't be bred either due to lack of knowledge of owner or incompatible breeds. So why not stop those ones being bred regardless???

Never said anything about getting rid of the dogs in existence even stated a rescue should be the ones to raise any badly/illegally bred dogs and home them appropriately.

Also said those who do cross breed (for a good reason) have the right to home any puppies but obviously responsibly.

It isn't really a matter of why shouldn't there be BYB crossbreds, its a matter of we can't actually stop them.

Why not have purebreds?, they are historically defined for the most part by good breeders and as stated still now being developed by good breeders at the expense of their free time and finances it's called dedication and if the research went in before buying a dog these are the only ones who would sell dogs.

Why not get a shelter dog? cause why should someone have to be responsible for someone else's f*** up. As it is their kids and their neighborhood is the firing line if something goes wrong because of their history. It takes a dedicated rescue to home a abused/neglected/abandoned dog in the right home and sometimes this isn't getting done. If it does, that home then has to become as dedicated as a breeder (time and money)so that said dog is publicly sound. Some good homes couldn't even manage that, it is a big task and credit needs to go to those who do it. I know most probably don't need this but that is a risk one takes any dog is happy to get out of a cage. Some take weeks or months to show potential problems.

As for the moron comment it's defined by -

people who think puppy farms are ok cause pig farms are ok.

Activists like PETA who just do things just to be annoying and disruptive.

Bogans who think mean dogs fill out their anatomy.

people who think just cause it isn't illegal they should have a go and make a buck.

People like hoons/bikies who think the law isn't for them.

Puppy farmers in general.

Breeders who knowingly breed poorly bred dogs (ok this one is going to get peoples back up but it is meant by a person for example breeds a 2 yr old dog with HD cause it's pretty)

this list can go on and on....

Hopes this clarifies my opinion, but I also said it was meant to be extreme and totally hypothetical to start the ideas rolling.

Thanks Steve, I think it is a great topic too.

I've been reading more specific topics for months and they all seem to go 'off topic' so to speak. I think all these Issues I raised are related and while most other topics seem to focus on an actual event or person, this is completely hypothetical.

I am a studying lawyer and I know my extremes are 1 over the top, 2 unenforceable, and 3 easily taken advantage of by corrupt selfish people even if it was drafted by those knowledgeable to ownership of dogs. I have stated it before I have witnessed show ring corruption.

Basically we would never get something that could actually be good for the history of the purebred dog and the dedicated people who got them here for us because like it was just said there are more crossbreeders out there and politicians need votes therefore the mass of uneducated yet opinionated morons as previously stated would out weigh any fact or reason. We within the dog world could never agree on a draft anyway. Vets suppose to be professionals are out there mixing it up by not being on the same page which you'd think would be to the benefit of the animal. I know a vet nurse 3 yrs ago crossed her English mastiff with her colleague's (vet)great dane because her girl lacked size. this was the third attempt at mating because twice before she absorbed the pups.

Vets are out there saying purebred's are inbred buy cross they are healthier. Don't feed treats, have a litter of puppies it will be good for her, getting breeds wrong, getting diagnoses wrong then getting offended when proven wrong.

They can't even agree even though they basically all do the same 6yr + educational course.

Even the education will fail because people will disagree with the person who delivered it and some may be right too. And some people can simple not be told they are wrong example puppy farmers who believe it's ok to do what they do cause pig farmers do it.

We can't even agree whether there is a need for a crossbred. I believe Mainly it is because those who have them and love them get offended that their existence is being questioned. And I honestly do understand this anyone would have trouble not taking this idea personally, but that is just like all the Bull owners at the moment who under fire from the BSL, the previous GSD ban years ago and so on. I have recently posted in reply to Santos on another thread about my sister's 'bull arab' and how well behaved by nature he is and great with my 5 yr old nephew. But I have said to her

'Muttley is a great dog no doubt but you have used up all your lucky stars in him regarding his breeding, don't breed him and look for a well bred pure next cause you'd honestly be hard pressed finding another good dog out of bad breeding' I think muttly's dad is rebel. Muttley wasn't bred by mike hodgens but is in association to him. Some of you may have read a bit about this person.

personally I have owned crossbreds but to my own flaw as a person I just stop thinking that there is a better dog out there for me. I haven't experience serious sickness in any dog one of my nicest dogs while growing up was a cross. A GSDx Rottie. He was trainable and caring, but so very very timid. Just not what either of those breeds are suppose to be. They are supposed to be confident and Strong willed and strong personality, I knew this at 16 yrs old cause with the exception of about 5 years I had always had a pure GSD or pure Rotty or Pure Doberman. just so happens I now own and Breed golden retrievers that show similar traits as that cross my goldens are softer by nature but not timid. I love the breeds I grew up with and hope to one day own another one but at the moment this is where I am.

I believe they need to follow up the breedings on these crossbreeds involved in serious attacks for example, if the breeder of the dog involved has the bitch there who's off her head in aggression then what's the dopey breeder expecting in the pups which needs to be accountable if you are breeding on unstable or excessively aggressive dogs and one of your pups bites someone, they need to answer why they breeding on dogs like that for suburban living........we know why they are to cater for the bogan market and they need to be stopped. It's not the answer to scoop up Bull cross breeds who are nice dogs, they need to target the people breeding aggression purposely and if their dogs don't pass a temperament test give them the green dream.

Yes but how do we track those down without outlawing backyard breeding, A lot of these people who buy the dogs 5 mths later can't remember where from but if they do the persons were renting and probably moved (probably due to complaints). Which is why my idea stared with the outlawing or random breeding, imposing large fines on those breeding illegally and those who buy the dog, giving the option of a smaller fine if they give up the breeder , de sex and socialize the dog.

I was in the thought it shouldn't add any more fees to the current breeder, just require the action of current rules that the registering body already has to be an approved body. Breeders don't need any more fees they just need to be required to comply with current rules (those who do it right already do) of their registering body.

Apart from what everyone else is said how do you propose that those of us who don't have easy access to dog training schools comply with that portion of your plan? I have two very well trained dogs but only one attended training(and that was more for my enjoyment than because the dog needed it), I live 40 minutes from the closest training school and they are only there on a Wednesday night, not exactly practical for someone who lives alone with three young children(also clashes with my emergency services training if by some miracle my husband is home to care for the kids). Going to formal training isn't the only way to get a well behaved dog.

All well and good for city peeps who have options, not so workable for those of us in regional and rural areas

If you mean by the free registration part?

that wasn't a condition more of an incentive for those who do it. But I see what you mean it may be considered unfair to those whom can't attend. Maybe it could be arranged that if the dog could past an assessment test that a dog who has done the course could pass, even without attending a class it would still receive the certificate? and therefore the free registration cause your still basically the owner of a socially well adjusted and responsive dog?

An effective restriction on breeding will have most crossbreeding stamped out leaving only the few ethical crossbreeders. Which I personally think is a good idea, why do we need random cross breeds there are thousands of breeds you'd be hard pressed not to find one to fit almost every purpose.

Still haven't found my short-haired lapphund equivalent breed, or my long-legged Vallhund breed. You do realise breeds were developed from crossbreeding, right? Some breeds are only a few decades old. Some are still in development now. And there are some really amazing dogs out there that came from reasonably random crosses. For some people, a pedigree is not that meaningful and may not even be what they want. Shouldn't they have the opportunity to get what they want in a dog?

Furthermore, registered breeders don't breed enough dogs to meet demand. Why should owner screening be a breeder's job if that's truly what would make a big difference?

I've tried 3 times tonight to reply to you I'm sorry but every time my laptop reverts to the previous page loosing about half an hour of typing.

basically breed development if done properly is fine, as they may try random breeds but the dogs they use should be tested for health and temperament. And only someone very knowledgeable in breeds and handling should be doing this.

And due to a modern age recording should be done therefore still presenting a parentage.

in my Idea this would be approved in the panel idea and puppies certified as a legal breeding.

what I'd like to stop is the people who have 2 dogs and breed them. Sometimes this is done for greed, sometimes by accident, sometimes it is done for the love of dogs but if they love dogs then they should go about it properly with good stock that is tested, an understanding of the breed being used.

I know a person who loves animals and spends every cent on them, her breed shar pei, from a backyard breeder cause their cheaper, watches these dogs grow, taking them to the vet every month for skin allergies and arthritis (at the age of 9 mths) yet still believes it's a good idea to breed those 2 dogs. Does cute puppies sells them, 2 months later crying on facebook because the sire died aged 2 due to massive spinal infection from repeated abscesses. Gets another boy this time a bull arab and going to do it all again.

These people need to be FINED or arrested or bloody something!!!! 9 people out there with puppies from this sort of breeding. these Puppies will either die young, get dump due to the horrid small of allergies or be the heartbreak of a real good person who spends thousands to make them comfortable.

This person takes care of their animals fed socialized, health care so under current laws, legally they have done nothing wrong.

So... You think if they were only permitted to breed pedigree dogs, they would do it right?

Nope honestly I think if it was illegal they wouldn't bother, because to get a litter registered health tests would need to be submitted. And that's where when I explain what I do (breed golden retrievers) to them they think it's all just too much trouble eg if a dog doesn't pass they can't breed those dogs and still out the money for what is then an irrelevant test. They have the idea if it's not against the law then they have the right to do it.

An effective restriction on breeding will have most crossbreeding stamped out leaving only the few ethical crossbreeders. Which I personally think is a good idea, why do we need random cross breeds there are thousands of breeds you'd be hard pressed not to find one to fit almost every purpose.

Still haven't found my short-haired lapphund equivalent breed, or my long-legged Vallhund breed. You do realise breeds were developed from crossbreeding, right? Some breeds are only a few decades old. Some are still in development now. And there are some really amazing dogs out there that came from reasonably random crosses. For some people, a pedigree is not that meaningful and may not even be what they want. Shouldn't they have the opportunity to get what they want in a dog?

Furthermore, registered breeders don't breed enough dogs to meet demand. Why should owner screening be a breeder's job if that's truly what would make a big difference?

I've tried 3 times tonight to reply to you I'm sorry but every time my laptop reverts to the previous page loosing about half an hour of typing.

basically breed development if done properly is fine, as they may try random breeds but the dogs they use should be tested for health and temperament. And only someone very knowledgeable in breeds and handling should be doing this.

And due to a modern age recording should be done therefore still presenting a parentage.

in my Idea this would be approved in the panel idea and puppies certified as a legal breeding.

what I'd like to stop is the people who have 2 dogs and breed them. Sometimes this is done for greed, sometimes by accident, sometimes it is done for the love of dogs but if they love dogs then they should go about it properly with good stock that is tested, an understanding of the breed being used.

I know a person who loves animals and spends every cent on them, her breed shar pei, from a backyard breeder cause their cheaper, watches these dogs grow, taking them to the vet every month for skin allergies and arthritis (at the age of 9 mths) yet still believes it's a good idea to breed those 2 dogs. Does cute puppies sells them, 2 months later crying on facebook because the sire died aged 2 due to massive spinal infection from repeated abscesses. Gets another boy this time a bull arab and going to do it all again.

These people need to be FINED or arrested or bloody something!!!! 9 people out there with puppies from this sort of breeding. these Puppies will either die young, get dump due to the horrid small of allergies or be the heartbreak of a real good person who spends thousands to make them comfortable.

This person takes care of their animals fed socialized, health care so under current laws, legally they have done nothing wrong.

In all seriousness we have a great piece of legislation in NSW but it was set up to fail from the get go because it could never be enforced in such a way as to make it effective and there just hasn't been the education to go along with the enforcement.

We have laws that say you can't drink and drive or speed, but at the same time we have a lot of resources used to enforce and education campaigns. Government didn't just introduce the legislation, leave it at that and then claim it doesn't work, so lets get tougher.

Average Joe would be able to tell you that it's illegal to drink and drive, they'll also be able to give you some basic facts about why it's dangerous, the risks associated with it and probably some stats. There are still those out there who ignore the legislation but for the majority of people they know it's wrong, dangerous and punishable.

If you asked every day folk on the street how do you effectively care for a dog and what basic requirements you need to meet, you wouldn't have many get past feeding and watering it. There's a hell of a lot of educating and work to be done in this area. They simply cannot associate dog attacks with a lack of socialization , containment, mental stimulation , exercise and knowledge of canine behavior. Ask average Joe why a dog attacks and you'll most likely here, because they are a Pit Bull, large breed, pig dog and the like, all the things that the media deems to make a dog dangerous.

Your logic is understated, and it would just take up to much room to comment and agree with everything you said. Maybe one of the Biggest problems is everyone in control our lacks any knowledge in the area as well.

We have a premier here in qld who doesn't believe there is a puppy mill problem, that same minister is not going to put any funding in any animal education program when he just made major cut to hospital services before reinstating the hold on ministerial pay raises that the previous government had on hold. We will not get another ranger if we can't have nurses.

We would do better if someone who had knowledge in the area was in control of implementing regulations as if it was in the constitution and above the governments head. And Unicorns were given to all the good little children.

Wow, lol well i got my discussion I was after! Yes I do not have enough people around me to talk about dogs with.

:laugh:

I will be back after i cook dinner !!!

Too many assumptions are being made for your proposal to be logical or sensible.

The biggest and worst is the assumption that cross breeding is creating aggressive dogs, purebred breeders all know what they're doing and that the introduction of intensive controls, legislation and policy can be implemented and costs recovered through payment of fines.

Your right, but many intensive regulations have been successfully implemented. Not sure how banning unregulated breeding would be any harder then banning a specific breed or cross breed.

Maybe more tests need to be implemented before breeding licence handed out.

As for aggression in both pure and crossbred dogs, I do very much agree, but Most breeders screen there puppy owners, and there is far less recorded attacks in a registered pure dog then a crossbred. BYBers usually don't even get a phone number of the person who just gave them the money for the dog they just sold.

I know this is a FAR OUT idea and it would require the co-operation of the entire nation's state governing bodies, the dog registration organizations, Local councils, Vets and specialist, breeders and the RSPCA and other rescuing bodies and that itself is where it would all fall apart. I think every other issue could be discussed and resolved to the best interest of dogs. just can't get and authority to co-operate.

But I am interested in finding out what others either think of my idea or their ideas.

ideal world would be more dog friendly instead of increasingly unfriendly as is happening now. generalisation i know but well socialised dogs have got to be a better bet regardless of breed - or cross

so very very true

And cross breeding won't be stopped.

It isn't aimed at stopping cross breeding but the breeding of potentially dangerous and unstable dogs does need to be addressed. The only way to do that would be to stop breeding by any individual who thinks it's a cool idea and leave it to those who actually understand bit more about the animals in question.

No it won't stop those who are determined just like marijuana growers, but deter the majority.

Shouldn't the overall aim then to be discourage irresponsible breeding (rather than targeting it through banning cross breeding)? In my mind those are two separate issues. Responsible breeding can be done through health/temperament testing, pure or cross bred (though obviously the forum is for promoting pure breeds). There are irresponsible breeders for pure and cross breeds, so if you only target cross breeds you are missing half the equation.

An effective restriction on breeding will have most crossbreeding stamped out leaving only the few ethical crossbreeders. Which I personally think is a good idea, why do we need random cross breeds there are thousands of breeds you'd be hard pressed not to find one to fit almost every purpose.

As for the purebred registered dodgy breeder, the approved governing bodies would have to step up and start investigating complaints and acting on those found guilty, Vets would have access to the breeder details and governing body via the microchip and could also advise breeders what they have found cause some just loose contact with puppy buyers. And Vets could also report the incident to the governing body, who will keep track of these incidents and complaints and investigate properly.

Another issue I thought of during typing is the price of a purebred. Yes we are justified in our price due to our council restrictions and litter outlay, testing ect. But most can't afford an up front cost like that which is why they buy the $50 pup on the notice board. But this could be helped by discounts to vets, councils, feed suppliers. to make rearing a litter cheaper, Payment plans with breeders. but it also comes down to the upfrount price is usually a fraction of what the dog will cost over it's life.

And cross breeding won't be stopped.

It isn't aimed at stopping cross breeding but the breeding of potentially dangerous and unstable dogs does need to be addressed. The only way to do that would be to stop breeding by any individual who thinks it's a cool idea and leave it to those who actually understand bit more about the animals in question.

No it won't stop those who are determined just like marijuana growers, but deter the majority.

The problem with the current laws are:

Funding, they can't even fix the roads where would the $55000- $75000 per annul income to hire just one more ranger then provide another vehicle.

They don't enforce because there is usually a descent amount of people with outstanding rates in the $1000s to follow up rather then chase down an $150- $250 fine. Same reason behind confiscating dogs while the owner fixes the fences which would be the only way to force them to do it without chasing fines.

one I idea would be to refer unpaid fines to the spur agency or set up a similar system. but anyone can pay off $20 a fortnight and it hasn't stopped people speeding or drink driving.

The idea I propose is have fines from illegal breeding bypass other government sections and is paid directly to the local council for incentive to chase up.

And puppy farming because it's a business comes under commercial laws, But the practices need reviewing to enforce better practices, eg health tests, compulsory micro-chipping with the farm of which they came before being sent onto a shop , vets ticking the 'sighted health tests of parents box' and the 'clear health of puppy' on commercial micrchipping forms. fines for noncompliance $15000+. Shops getting prosecuted and fines for accepting unmicrochipped dogs also $15000+

Dog attacks come under state or federal control so fines will always head that way but that is also under the control of the police to have out those fines or make an arrest.

Genetics are only one part of the puzzle that makes a dog prone to acts of violence or not...

T.

Very Very true but take 90% to 100% of genetics out by good judgement in breeding and traceable parentage and siblings and your left with an uninformed or idiot owner or a very sick dog.

Sickness is easy enough to test for in majority of cases.

besides current ideas are getting nowhere so why no start at the begining. Where are these dogs coming from?

I beg to differ there... many (if not a larger proportion than not) mixed breed dogs are perfectly fine family pets and decent canine citizens - and healthy as well.

These attacks are by a minority of the BREEDS they represent in the community. However - the majority of dogs that HAVE attacked seem to be owned by a certain subset of the community... often reared with little socialisation, little stimulation, and absolutely no training whatsoever - is it any wonder that they are a menace when they get out into a public space?

A dog is not born "bad" because it's of a certain breed or breed mix... how it is reared also plays a huge part in whether it is more or less likely to be a menace or downright dangerous.

T.

Do you mind if I copy your comment to the other thread as well?

My thought is the media/ community are blaming the dogs breed for the attacks eg (BSL) (banning of certain breeds on planes). Usually specifying one of many or a complete wrong identification of the breed. And people are having their dogs confiscated due to this even tho those specific dogs aren't a problem.

If a dog has attacked and whether it is crossed or pure it is traceable to a health and temperament test and all the siblings and parents aren't showing this sort of aggression due to a good home and training. Then the Breed itself can't be blamed only That dog and It's owners. Taking out the genetic component that has caused the hype and breed slander?

I have taken My original Comment to the general forum as an opinion topic

and provided a link back to this threat for comments already made.

I made this comment in the News section under another dog attack

I would like other people opinions and discussions on the topic and I thought I bring it here because it's turning in to an opinion piece.

I get that the Ideal world isn't this one but unenforced laws are doing anything either nor are they sufficient to over population in rescues , It is more of a a topic on ideas on what us dog people think would help in Attacks, overpopulation and cruel breeding practices.

Some valid comments have already been made in the thread and can be traced back in this link.

http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/251473-attack-at-guilford/page__pid__6283375#entry6283375

By My Idea it self was:

But in an ideal world, The idea of cross breeding any dog without true purpose or reason would be outlawed.

To clarify I believe that there a very few reason out their that justify a cross breeding, Things like 2 purebred real perfect working dogs that they want to keep the traits from. Should go to a Volunteer panel. This panel would include governing bodies of the registry in which each dog is registered, (ANKC, Working registry), a Reproduction specialist Vet, a well regarded behaviorist. These would obviously hold known experience with the dogs in question and could actually assess the application. Others like a government rep and a rspca rep may demand a presence but those other dog world professionals would have majority say. A Cert given out so that the puppy owners know it was a warranted breeding.

For those who x breed to be fined minimum $3000- $10000 on the spot pending breed and litter size (the cost of an average C-section + raising of a litter for a rescue + desexing of mother)and seizure of litter and mother, Mother returned on de-sexing (which would be included in the fine).

The rescue to receive min 50% of fine to raise and re-home puppies.

(this would be drawn up eg, $4000 fine, $1500 to local council for seizure and de sexing of mother and $2500 to rescue for litter of 5 medium breed dogs)

for those who obtain a x bred puppy $1500 - $2500 on the spot fine pending on co-operation in reporting where they obtained the dog. with an return of $500 upon de-sexing cert and puppy pre-school completion cert. (paid to local council for registration and follow up)

This should be advised to residences by mail box drop,on registration form /renewal, website and TV/radio campaign to avoid the I didn't know Bullsh*t. And the allocation of the fine going directly to local council should cut out the funding bullsh*t.

Free registration to de-sexed dogs with a cert of completed 12mth Approved obedience course.

X bred to be determined by any dog not on a approved purebred registered body.

An approved registered body, all current bodies to go through an assessment as to how they register a dog how many generations of parentage, ethics, and so on.

And I like the Idea of the part of the QLD proposal of the Breeder and Bitch extensive details recorded in the compulsory micro-chipping with accurate breed recording. Or rescue details and Compulsory de-sexing at rescues.

In Dog attacks micro-chipped owner would be fine/jailed pended severity (just like if you sell a car with rego and it gets a speeding fine your responsible unless you provide a receipt and a transfer paper).

There would never be a dispute as to breed due to chip, And if it was a recent (with in 6 mths) rescue dog, the rescue would come under review as to why an unstable dog was re-homed.

Can't think of anything else right now lol.

Genetics are only one part of the puzzle that makes a dog prone to acts of violence or not...

T.

Very Very true but take 90% to 100% of genetics out by good judgement in breeding and traceable parentage and siblings and your left with an uninformed or idiot owner or a very sick dog.

Sickness is easy enough to test for in majority of cases.

besides current ideas are getting nowhere so why no start at the begining. Where are these dogs coming from?

Yeah well just because some people think cross breeds don't deserve to exist doesn't mean it will ever happen. Who gets to decide one dog is better than another? No one I think you'll find.

I really don't think the breeding is what needs to be focused on.

It's not about the x bred dogs personally,but the way they are bred,It is very very rare that temperament is assessed before mating 2 different breeds, nor is any of the health testing.

Crossing crosses is how you end up with dogs like the bull arab being taken to be American pitbulls and How we end up with a unrecognizable style of dog attacking and a single BREED getting the blame.

I do not propose killing any crossbred dog, just make them subject to an assessment for compatibility and purpose and subject to health and temperament testing. If there is a good reason such as a outstanding assistance dogs, obedience masters, development of a breed or opening of a gene pool to a rare breed ect then Cross breed away,

But joe and mary down the road who have a staffy x mastiff and a ridgeback x great dane think is a great way to get a few hundred bucks cause there are a lot of pig hunters in the area. No those puppies shouldn't exist. And if they do joe and Mary should be fined and the puppies taken so that knowledgeable people could raise and assess them and give them to homes suitable to their personal needs.

Why should Good hobby breeders keep getting the blame for over flowing shelters when they breed a litter when they have done everything possible to provide a well adjusted dog to a selected home.

This would also subject puppy mills to a more select breeding program, health testing, and a accurate recording of each breeding by a vet at micro-chipping. (They wouldn't do it cause the profit and simplicity would diminish). So there would be fewer farms. Reducing unwanted dogs in shelters.

Officers made patrols of surrounding streets and located two large dogs believed to be American Pitbulls

Here is another one, the old Bully BYB again........the deed is getting done by the same type of dog from what I have seen a lot of is these Bully/Mastiff/Pitbull/Bulldog BYB morons are breeding for aggression in the first place to supply moron owners who want tough dogs. These type of dogs should never be bred IMHO.........no one needs a breed concoction of unstable temperaments which is exactly what these fools are breeding that reach the hands of foolish owners who can't handle and contain them properly for the level of aggression these breeding's have. They need to regulate the breeding of random concoctions and make the breeders of these dogs accountable along with the owners of them.

For the most part I agree with you. But in an ideal world, The idea of cross breeding any dog without true purpose or reason would be outlawed.

To clarify I believe that there a very few reason out their that justify a cross breeding, Things like 2 purebred real perfect working dogs that they want to keep the traits from. Should go to a Volunteer panel. This panel would include governing bodies of the registry in which each dog is registered, (ANKC, Working registry), a Reproduction specialist Vet, a well regarded behaviorist. These would obviously hold known experience with the dogs in question and could actually assess the application. Others like a government rep and a rspca rep may demand a presence but those other dog world professionals would have majority say. A Cert given out so that the puppy owners know it was a warranted breeding.

For those who x breed to be fined minimum $3000- $10000 on the spot pending breed and litter size (the cost of an average C-section + raising of a litter for a rescue + desexing of mother)and seizure of litter and mother, Mother returned on de-sexing (which would be included in the fine).

The rescue to receive min 50% of fine to raise and re-home puppies.

(this would be drawn up eg, $4000 fine, $1500 to local council for seizure and de sexing of mother and $2500 to rescue for litter of 5 medium breed dogs)

for those who obtain a x bred puppy $1500 - $2500 on the spot fine pending on co-operation in reporting where they obtained the dog. with an return of $500 upon de-sexing cert and puppy pre-school completion cert. (paid to local council for registration and follow up)

This should be advised to residences by mail box drop,on registration form /renewal, website and TV/radio campaign to avoid the I didn't know Bullsh*t. And the allocation of the fine going directly to local council should cut out the funding bullsh*t.

Free registration to de-sexed dogs with a cert of completed 12mth Approved obedience course.

X bred to be determined by any dog not on a approved purebred registered body.

An approved registered body, all current bodies to go through an assessment as to how they register a dog how many generations of parentage, ethics, and so on.

And I like the Idea of the part of the QLD proposal of the Breeder and Bitch extensive details recorded in the compulsory micro-chipping with accurate breed recording. Or rescue details and Compulsory de-sexing at rescues.

In Dog attacks micro-chipped owner would be fine/jailed pended severity (just like if you sell a car with rego and it gets a speeding fine your responsible unless you provide a receipt and a transfer paper).

There would never be a dispute as to breed due to chip, And if it was a recent (with in 6 mths) rescue dog, the rescue would come under review as to why an unstable dog was re-homed.

Can't think of anything else right now lol.

yes it does but they also have this co-funded petition going with labor to 'stamp out puppy farms'

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/regional-areas-breeding-ground-puppy-farms/1981885/

Quote from the linked article.....

"The best way of stamping out puppy farms is for people to only buy puppies from accredited industry pet shops," he said.

FFS!! So both the RSPCA & The PIAA openly support 'accredited, ethical' puppy factories that supply accredited pet shops. Have any other organisations hooked their wagon on to the ethical puppy farm train as it rolls out across the nation??

That's what the Qld premier Campbell Newman stated. He is the Liberals, Labor is opposition at the moment since last state election.

Labor states they had a legislation that was 'about to be put through' before labor was voted out.

In the article Labor states

'The proposal, which have support from Dogs Queensland and the RSPCA, includes mandatory consultation of intensive dog breeders, regular monitoring and compulsory microchipping.' Another longer version of this article states that the Bitches details and breeder details be put onto the microchip.

All was all brought about by the Royal show 'ekka' and a political stunt. Tho the footage at the bottome of that link has what seems to be an RSPCA member/office standing beside her. Well it says RSPCA on his shirt.