bulldogz4eva

Second price rise since the aqcuisition 9 months ago.Time to vote with my wallet.Good bye Black hawk it was fun but you got greedy and now its over.

I see you found google and beat me to it.Pitter pats have been around for a long time and just another cross aimed at a smaller working dog not a cash grab gimmick and not that common.If the truth be known the pit cross was done along way back as a certain breeder that used to breed both had some very suspiciously big patterdales back in the day.So no need to worry yourself they aren't the next killer dog just another verminator.

Doesnt exactly instill much faith to do the right thing does it.Especially when you get shafted anyway.

I think the problem is becuase you registered him as a bandogge cross and maybe the over zealous ranger is thinking he is doing the right thing becuase one of the parents had a scrap with another dog.In the end they have to prove he has pitbull in him so I wouldnt lie down and take it from them.I dont understand the declaration if the mother is bullmastiff obviously she is not restricted breed and declared dangerous becuase of her actions.How can the father be declared dangerous if he was not involved?How can your dog be declared dangerous if it doesnt contain any restricted breeds and hasnt done anything,bizarre.I would tell him to f*** off.I have a bullmastiff bitch that is exactly the same,she is same sex aggressive does not tolerate other bitches at all.

They have to prove dog has restricted breed and if the sire came from who I think it did just call them up as they can confirm it.I think they eexpect you to accept it but you dont have to, they have nothing.

last month I answered an ad online selling Boerboel puppies in Perth.The email I reveived after my first enquiry made it obvious the persons first language wasnt english so straight away it smakcs of scam to me.Also asking how many pups did I want??I said I was looking for 3 but would take 2 if he still had them.Said he only had one left so i asked if I could come and look.He then replied he was in Brisbane.I asked why the ad stated he was in Perth.he said he would ship the pup and I said I was still keen.I told him what a stroke of luck as my brother lives in Brisbane and he can come around and deliver the money and pick the pup up.He wrotes back that he has to fly to NZ the next day and doesnt have time.I ask how will he ship the pup and he says no problem.I asked him how he can ship a pup in less than 24 hours when they require minimum of 48 hours notice.Still keeps asking for the money til I tell him to F*** off and get a real job.You get them all the time wether you are buying or selling.Not hard to pick their use of the english language is a dead give away.

We are moving from our current dairy farm of 200 acres to a more modest property of 52 acres. My father has just completed dog proofing 30 of these acres to contain our dogs. Cost with him supplying labour is about $10,000.

I know this is a lot but to do it properly and effectively that is what it takes. Being farmers and knowing the rules regarding wandering dogs we did not want our dogs venturing onto other peoples properties. Good Neighbourhood relations in a new area for us I hope.

It is just responsible pet ownership. My father has shot dogs that have worried or mauled our livestock in the past. He doesn't like to do it but it had to be done.

I have spent more than that on a property same size for the same reason but I have never had any trouble since I have been here.Most people dont want to spend that money but I dont want mine to get shot either so it was a good investment.It also stops other dogs wandering in that owners are too lazy to contain.

I think I would disappear old mate farmers dog to teach him a lesson in manners.The punishment should fit the crime.Whats a few chooks worth anyway.Its not like they were pulling down a prize bull.yes you can shoot dogs on rural property and I have done myself but you also have to use a little common sense.Some farmers are just wankers.

After having my pet duck savagely mauled and murdered by a dog, don't think for a moment that I wouldn't shoot that mongrel if I got my hands on it. It's not always the cost of what the animal cost you to purchase it in the first place. Daisy was given to me, so technically she cost me no money. I am what you'd call a farmer, so am I a wanker for wanting that mongrel dog dead (The dog would be dead if I got my hands on it BTW). Sorry to seem pissy about it, but this is the exact mentality of our neighbours whose dogs used to be constantly out. My dog got mauled by their cross bred dog (dragged out from under her own fence while she was defending her boundary), few days later Daisy and several other pets had their yard invaded and they lost their lives. They "replaced" the ducks killed and paid Gypsy's vet bill, but what no one ever thought of was the psychological trauma Gypsy went through. She was never the same after that attack

Dog-owner - I'm sorry for your loss. The way he ended this is way over the top.

Sorry for your loss but your not the only one that has ever had an animal killed by a dog.I have had plenty too but it doesnt make what he did right.Becuase you owned a duck your a farmer?Having your dog attacked is a different story.Like I said they are just chooks and chooks to me arent pets they are Sunday roast as they are to most farmers.Its not a big loss and I have lost plenty of them over the years but I dont cry about it.I know dogs will be dogs.Now if a dog strayed onto my land where my dogs are and attacked one(they cant becuase my place is dog proof).They wouldnt have to worry about being shot becuase my dogs dont tolerate strange dogs.

What ever happened to giving people the benefit of the doubt.We are not talking about dogs attacking and maiming large amounts of sheep,cattle or other livestock that is a different story and yes they should get shot and we have shot dogs for this,no problem.If it was a dog you have never seen before and it was hunting livestock and not caused any damage I would return it to owner or find them and tell them what happens to dogs that do that.Then they cant say they werent warned.Everybody makes mistakes and not all farmers are on massive pastoral leases with feral dogs killing large amounts of stock,a couple of chickens isnt going to see him bankrupt.Its not just the killing of the dogs its waht he did afterwards that annoys me and that is indefensible.If he treated my dogs with such disrespect his would disappear also.Shooting them I could accept but not treating them in that way.Plenty of farmers will see it the same way as animals are nothing more than livestock to them and a means to an end but it doesnt mean you have to be a heartless c**t your whole life.I have a dog here I have had for a month she was going to get a bullet for killing sheep so I took her.She is a lovely dog and it is as much the owners fault for allowing her to be put in that situation and I dont think it warrants her life for it but hey thats just me and yes I live on the land too.

Great post

Really? I don't find the highlighted sentence 'great' in any way.

I do. A lot of people tend to forget how much dogs can mean to some dog owners. If someone killed a member of your family in self-defence, you would grieve for them, but still accept it. However, if they not only killed in self-defence but also mocked you with their bodies, you would want to retaliate!!! I don't understand why some people can't see that for some of us dogs are part of the family and losing them can hurt as much as losing a human family member. To have someone mock that loss is inhuman.

Yep, I might well want to retaliate. But I wouldn't victimise a second set of innocent animals, his dogs, as the instruments of revenge. I might punch his lights out. But harm more animals? No. To 'disappear' dogs just to get at their owner? That's just as despicable as what he did. And btw, some people feel about their chickens just as we do about our dogs.

Dog-owner, I am very sorry for your loss and how you and your dogs were treated.

Who said anything about harming them.Just because they disappear and he wont see them again doesnt mean they would be dead now does it.Animals get rehomed all the time not always volountarily.I stand by my comments.If you dont like them thats fine thats why its called freedom of speech and my right to express my opinion.Im not here to win a popularity contest.If he treated me with the same contempt I would teach him a lesson, simple.

Wow sounds like a lot of dog owners need a reality check.

It is not ok for dogs to roam at large and menace, worry or attack livestock.

For those of you that think it is just a few chooks, that is simply irresponsible.

Spend a few months working on the land or for a rural vet and go out to calls for mauled animals.

Just a few chooks

Sorry I dont need a reality check I live on the land and have done most of my life.No its not ok for dogs to roam at large constantly but if old mate had of taken the time to find out he would of seen it for what it was an accident.We are not talking about marauding pitbulls we are talking about a couple of terriers.It was not a prize bull it was a couple of chickens and the article does not even say if they were killed so most likely not.Does that warrant their death to you?I am not a do gooder or a city slicker but I am an animal lover.I dont have any chooks because a few years ago I lost 32 in about 6 months.Mostly to foxes but also had seen the neighbours dog on my property and expect he had his fill as well but as I never saw him I cant say for certain but should I have shot him anyway.He was on my land afterall.

What ever happened to giving people the benefit of the doubt.We are not talking about dogs attacking and maiming large amounts of sheep,cattle or other livestock that is a different story and yes they should get shot and we have shot dogs for this,no problem.If it was a dog you have never seen before and it was hunting livestock and not caused any damage I would return it to owner or find them and tell them what happens to dogs that do that.Then they cant say they werent warned.Everybody makes mistakes and not all farmers are on massive pastoral leases with feral dogs killing large amounts of stock,a couple of chickens isnt going to see him bankrupt.Its not just the killing of the dogs its waht he did afterwards that annoys me and that is indefensible.If he treated my dogs with such disrespect his would disappear also.Shooting them I could accept but not treating them in that way.Plenty of farmers will see it the same way as animals are nothing more than livestock to them and a means to an end but it doesnt mean you have to be a heartless c**t your whole life.I have a dog here I have had for a month she was going to get a bullet for killing sheep so I took her.She is a lovely dog and it is as much the owners fault for allowing her to be put in that situation and I dont think it warrants her life for it but hey thats just me and yes I live on the land too.

I think I would disappear old mate farmers dog to teach him a lesson in manners.The punishment should fit the crime.Whats a few chooks worth anyway.Its not like they were pulling down a prize bull.yes you can shoot dogs on rural property and I have done myself but you also have to use a little common sense.Some farmers are just wankers.

Nice looking dog but sorry to tell you its not an American Bulldog doesnt even look like a scott type.Looks like a straight amstaff or cross.Regardless wether you got paperwork or not whoever sold it to you as such lied to you.

I agree that checking for health is important, and the premise that judges have a responsiblity in this is fair, to a degree (noting they are experts on the standard, and not veterinary health).

However, I think that while at first glance this 'tough stance' taken by the KC appears admirable, I think there are a few questions.

Firstly, why did they wait until after the BOB judging to vet the dogs? I would have thought that, if they were serious about health issues, they would vet the dogs at check in - like you have with cat shows. This way you would be checking all entrants - not just one per breed - and any issues there could be dealt with prior to the show.

By only vet checking the winners, it appaers to me to potentially be more of wanting to appear to be 'doing the right thing' that than actually doing the right thing....so, the question is, was this 'vet check' intended to address the serious issue of breed health, or was it more for publicity and the reputation of the KC (and to allieviate criticism aimed at the KC and Crufts from a certain 'documentary')?

And when talking about reputations, imagine you are the owner/breeder of the disqualified dogs. I understand one is a champion. Not only did the KC media statement name the breeds, but it named the actual dogs too. Now, many people might say, good, they deserve to be named and shamed if they are breeding animals that are in poor health. And on the surface, I would agree. However, this is the opinion of one vet, and if they have opinions that conflict with that assessment from other reputable vets, where does it leave them? Opinion is a grey area, and this may have an effect of the reputation of the kennels they are from.

The KC have taken what they consider to be a strong stance on this issue, but the manner in which they have done so may leave the KC open to possible legal action. Even when agreeing to the rules and conditions of entry, making public a disqualification in such a way that it may effect a breeder's reputation (and future prospects) is not something I would have thought that many would agree to. Maybe I am wrong, but a disqualification and reputation (effectively, moral rights) are two different issues.

Just some points to consider.

I agree it seems more about the KC not wanting egg on thier face again after that documnetary posted pictures of the winners, more so than doing the right thing.

It would be interesting to know why these two breed failed the vet test.

Pam

Have you looked at a bulldog lately.Not hard to see why.Exaggerated fetures are the norm.

Hello Guys

I'm starting this topic to clear some things up about "desexing contracts" and its mainly directed towards any breeders out there and I'd appreciate your personal opinion on the matter.

I've been looking into getting a dog soon after not owning one for several years and I have never acquired one from a pedigree breeder. It seems most breeders of the particular breed I'm after usually specify "desexing contracts" when the dog is purchased.

I'm not personally interested in breeding myself at all and if I got a female I wouldn't have a problem abiding to the "desexing contract" but if I was to get a male I wouldn't agree to cutting off his man hood for my own personal reasons.(sorry if any one finds this sexist ;)

I'd like to know

- do breeders want there pups to be desexed so they personally can have a better / more lucrative position in the market?

- is it because they personally want to keep the breeds gene pool free of problems or some thing of that nature?

-???

I could handle a male dog getting vasectomy but, as breeders would any of you guys be happy with that or be willing to pay the difference if significant?

Im also pretty sure that a desexing contract isn't going to get a start in court especially seeing how my dog would only be for companionship BUT

I personally would never deceive a breeder to acquire a dog with out holding up to my end of the contract.

Thanks for your feedback

Weasel :-)

Lock in A please Eddie.lol.

Dont know if this has been posted but posting anyway for those in Queensland.

http://dlgp.qld.gov.au/local-government/discussion-paper-management-of-dangerous-and-potentially-dangerous-dogs-in-queensland.html

Sorry, but I'm not going to give you any sympathy. You want a right royal kick in the arse. You knew these two did not get along and yet you continued to leave them in the same space. Ever heard of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted? That is exactly what you have done.

And men and their "oh shit...soemthing happened and I was wrong and it's out of my control so I'll go around, yelling and swearing and punching things 'cos I'm a bloke. It scares small children, it scares animals, it f'en scares everyone. Oh but it did make you feel better didn't it so it's okay to do that? I've lived with blokes who punch holes in doors because guess what...shit happens, so it's a good reason to go off.

Who needs the behavourist anyway man or beast?

I'm not one to let fly usually but this time my blood is boiling. You created a most stupid scenario and all because you were running late for court, let me guess, for doing something else completely stupid. (My apologies if you were the magistrate or the barrister. ) :rolleyes:

Arrrrggghhh...men.

It's okay I think I just spontaneously combusted.

you just have to understand men and women are different.i dont understand the stupid things women do either.Go figure

Hi,sorry for your dramas but I have to say I think you have caused it.Dog fights are stressful moments for sure but its how you act that can affect the dogs.Punching and kicking a fully grown adult entire male Neo is not a smart thing to do considering you didnt raise it.You are lucky he didnt go you then and thereBreaking sticks work no matter what dog and is easir to break the hold and tow them away.He bit you becuase of your strange behaviour afterwards and he was still amped.I personally steer away from adult dogs but alos depends on the situation.Even though you have altered both dogs I wouldnt trust that to be the cure as the damage is already done and becuase of so many altercations it will happen again.I think it is best to rehome the labrador if you are not that attached to it.Neo's can be headstrong dogs and dominant/Behaviourists can give you good advice but at the end of the day they wont be there 24 7.Its easier and for piece of mind to move on with the one dog and if you get another get a female from a pup.Just my 2 cents.

Thanks for that. In regards to hitting the Neo, I realize this was not a good idea. I was in a panic because my Labrador was in serious trouble. I have read since to pull them by their back legs or tail (though this risks being bit as well).

I won't be putting them back together unless there has been extensive work done with both dogs, but yeah it may not be possible.

I dont agree with pulling dogs by the back legs.If they have a good hold and dont want to let go you risk causing them injury to their legs by trying to pull them out of the sockets.Easy to make a breaking/parting stick.Go to bunnings get a hatchet handle cut the end off that affixes to the axe head shape it down to a wedge.It will be long enough that your hand wont be near the teeth.Stick it in the back teeth rotate it 180 while you have your other hand in the dogs collar.Dog comes off you wlak away holding the dog.i know they are big strong dogs but it beats trying to beat them off as that doesnt work and you make the situaton worse.Best not to put them back together ou dont want anymore in jury and vet bills to the other dog.Despite what people say I would rehome the lab as you have already said much easier to rehome if you wish to keep the Neo.If you hadnt netered him and you wanted to get rid of the Neo I could have probably given you the number of someone who could have taken him in.

Did you get him from Queensland by any chance?

Ahh I see you are in SA. May I recommend you contact Mark Singer: www.caninetraining.com.au

If anyone in our state can help you, he can.

Id second that.Mark is a good guy and has experence with a variety of dogs.

Hi,sorry for your dramas but I have to say I think you have caused it.Dog fights are stressful moments for sure but its how you act that can affect the dogs.Punching and kicking a fully grown adult entire male Neo is not a smart thing to do considering you didnt raise it.You are lucky he didnt go you then and thereBreaking sticks work no matter what dog and is easir to break the hold and tow them away.He bit you becuase of your strange behaviour afterwards and he was still amped.I personally steer away from adult dogs but alos depends on the situation.Even though you have altered both dogs I wouldnt trust that to be the cure as the damage is already done and becuase of so many altercations it will happen again.I think it is best to rehome the labrador if you are not that attached to it.Neo's can be headstrong dogs and dominant/Behaviourists can give you good advice but at the end of the day they wont be there 24 7.Its easier and for piece of mind to move on with the one dog and if you get another get a female from a pup.Just my 2 cents.

Sad for the dog he will probably get the green dream becuase people dont take adequate precautions.the dog is clearly not a Neapolitan Mastiff as stated.It looks more like a brindle bullmastiff or a cross there of.

Is this still in force?I remember at the time it came in as I was trying to book a dog on a red eye flight on a weekedn and was told they wouldnt as it had come in a few weeks before.I looked up ther website and found the info there but I cant find anything there now.I imagine this is for lodgement only and not pick up?I have to pick up a dog for a friend on a weekend.

This is not uncommon in the Philippines.

I grew up in Metro Manila. I was born / bred in Australia and my dad worked overseas so I moved with him. One of the first shocking things I saw was the poverty. Second - the exploitation of absolutely anything that as the ability to be exploited. Third - the amount of stray feral dogs (and cats) that just roam the streets. You'll never not see a stray dog around and they're fairly vicious as they're hungry and diseased. It's very sad and of course they just keep breading as they don't belong to anyone and they certainly haven't been desexed.

Poor people, and greedy people alike use these types of things to make money. It's really great to hear of organisations like 'PAWS'. They have plenty of operations to try to aid poverty, but it's really great that someone is focusing on the animal problem there (and the people who exploit).

It really is a wonderful country with wonderful people after you get past the poverty and greed (Don't get me started with their police over there.. They would have most likely been involved in the above). The Koreans would have known it was a crime - They would have just had a few police on their side. It's usually the case sadly. Sometimes people go to the Philippines due to the leniency in laws if you have the money to pay.

exactly.Cock fighting is illegal too but it isnt uncommon to see uniformed officers gambling pitside so little worry about geting busted.Its no wonder they took to dog fighting like ducks to water.over there money talks and BS walks not to mention the law of the gun.

My suggestion would be this.

Get a decent kibble, add in the egg a couple of times a week. Also use chicken frames, necks etc.

I wouldn't be starting a puppy on a mince diet especially if he has a bone issue (ie broken) as you can't guarantee the level of vitamins and minerals in it.

My last puppy was fed on a mid line food, chicken frames/necks and she broke her leg at 12 weeks of age. She came good and now at the age of 9 has only just started showing signs of arthritis. Definitely check with your vet though as they are physically seeing the animal and we aren't. They can give you a pretty good picture of whats going on.

Its not the puppy that has a broken leg.She said she has a smaller dog ie. small breed with a broken leg.

Get some chicken necks for your pup plenty of chewable bone in their.I have a 10 week old pup similar to yours.Always feed mine on chicken necks as well as sardines and eggs with the shells crushed.Make sure the smaller dog gets plenty of calcium and maybe supplement with glucosamine and chondroiton as well as enough time in the sun each day.Vitamin d from the sun is essential in healthy bone growth and repair.I had a dog with a fractured leg awhile back and I also gave it deer antler velvet.Its not cheap and cant say categorically if it worked but dogs leg healed fine without any intervention.Hope that helps.

Not recognised by any purebred registry?

Only being recognised by their own membership doesn't count.

Open a registry for ""pure breed" Cavoodles & you will have exactly the same scenario to the establishment of the UKC.

i.e. A club to register dogs that aren't recognised as pure breeds by the countries pure breed registery.

A claytons pure breed registry.

Dogs solely registered by the UKC/ADBA aren't recognised as genuine recognised pure breeds any more than their registery is recognised as a genuine pure breed registry.

Both of those registries are all breed registries not solely APBT registries.There are a lot of other breeds with more checkered pasts that are registered with yours but this ois old ground we have been over it a million times before but you only like to hear the sound of your own voice.

Your truth is not the real truth. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

One truth is the UKC accepts any "breed" onto its registry, just apply, you're in.

Another is the APBT is not recognised as pure breed outside its own registry. Sans ADBA

But even the ADBA has a different perspective of what is a ''genuine'' APBT.

Think cavoodle & you have it. Consistency makes a genuine pure breed. A different ''type'' on every corner doesn't cut the mustard.

You are in a constant state of denial, tub thumping your unsubstantiatable opinions to the naive.

Like I said earlier, if you really are on your feet, step out the shadows & be seen to walk the walk. Talking the talk is only half the job.

The most despised & feared dog on the planet needs more than hyperbole shouted from the temporary safety behind other breeds to put it's case. I say temporary safety because ''you'' are making it so.

The breed had it's chances &, in a typical display of arrogance, the warnings were ignored.

The BSL is on ''your'' head, ''you'' deal with it. Aim up.

Leave genuine recognised pure breeds out of stategy of deception.

Anyhow, this a BSL forum, for the discussion of the BSL, not a pitbull appreciation society.

Not everyone disgrees with the BSL, as a matter of fact, most people agree with the legislation.

And not everyone cares for the APBT. Most don't even want them in society in fact.

Sooner or later the pennies will drop & you will finally realise the more you masquarade your breed as others the more you are alienating former allies.

You, & those like you, aren't the solution, you are the problem.

Sorry champ but Im not the one in denial.How do you know what I do outside of this forum or what I have done for the breed Gary.Just becuase I dont care to know you.I know who you are I just dont care for your opinion.I am not an internet expert like some I have actually owned the dogs over a long period of time but of course to you thats just unsubstantiated.I know enough people here that know me in real life to know thats true I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.I am just here to tell it like it is.

We dont need to hide behind other breeds.The government made the law if they didnt ban amstaffs and staffords that is not my problem.It is the ANKC problem when the time comes and there safety net fails.BSl is not on my head as I never caused it and my dogs have never come up on the radar so I cant help you there.It may be because of the irresponsible but that is always going to happen.I know BSL is never going to be repealed and it doesnt bother me in the slightest becuase as I told you before I saw it coming along time ago and never registered my dogs as something else but you already know that as I have told you many times.Before you say anything that doesnt put the spotlight on anyone as they have never set a foot wrong and never will.Keep on spewing your asinine vitriole for all to read.We know you are a pitbull hater and that doesnt bother me either.You dont have to like them you just have to know they will never disappear from the Australian landscape,so deal with it champ.