steamboat

But no serious sheep dog handler is going to waste time on "specifically" training dogs that don't have heaps of natural ability. I can't speak for three sheep trialling as I'm not involved in that and it appears to have become more of an exhibition than real work, but I can assure that the majority of yard dogs earn their keep on farms during the week and then go trialling at weekends. Yep, real work is competition practice. I don't know anyone who just keeps kelpies for trials without working them as well. Does anyone here know anyone who competes in any organised, judged competition without practicing? Conformation exhibits are not only products of their breeding but also of hours of training for a couple of minutes of exposure. They need to do the best they can with the little time they have....... Weird eh. As with everything, training is the key to success. Even sheep dog triallers do it....Weird eh There certainly are an over abundance of cynics about.

And yet, very few dogs who ARE performing the true function look anything like this standard. Weird huh? And yet, for herding breeds farmers rarely use these dogs. Weird huh? Geez, you make it all sound so easy. I might just give it a go. I wonder why you don't see more dogs, bred for form in sheepdog trials, (and i mean the ones that dont use trained sheep), weird huh? It's a weird world. Maybe if more farmers did try selective breeding from conformationally correct dogs the towns wouldn't be full of failed working dogs. Those who have made a business of selective breeding are world famous in the working dog world & are paid astonomical amounts for their pups....weird eh?

Of course. nurture & nature doing the business. Not all good working dogs are even pure breeds. Just as not all specific "functions" are performed by a designate breed. Not every sheep dog is a kelpie nor every cattle dog a blue heeler for e.g. Not all good field dogs are good yard dog & vice versa. Nor does being a bred to a standard somehow disqualify a dogs capacity to ''function". Back to nuture. Just as breeding & exhibiting is considered a ''sport'' by the pure breed fraterniy. So are sheep dog trials by that section of the community. It is their recreation & the challenge of getting it right is the goal. Of course, there is some money to be made by those who do it the best.

If you just want to take better pictures, buy a better lens. The worlds most expensive camera with the worlds crappiest lens will take crappy pics.

Wasn't that a labrador which went ballistic last year and attacked its owners ? Or was that a Golden Retriever. More people die from shark attacks and are killed by horses than ever die from dog attacks. Go figure. From memory. Two brothers were fighting in the house & the dog bit one. If sharks & horses were allowed to roam free amongst the general population I would imagine their stats would be much, much higher. There were 36(?) fatal dog attacks in the U.S.A alone last year. I don't know how many fatal horse attacks there were. I would be surprised if it was more than 36 though. I would be surprised if there were 36 fatal shark attacks also. One sure way to prevent shark attacks is to stay out of oceans.

Firstly, form follows function. Dogs employed for specific tasks developed the ideal form to perform the tasks required by selective breeding or through isolation. The attributes of the perfect form of a dog to do a specific task were generally agreed upon by the masters who exploited them & were eventually written down. The description of the perfect specimen. The standard. Most bred to a standard dogs today are companion dogs & not required to function, although their form, generally, is still the ideal for the task. As nature follows nuture, take a pure breed puppy from a well bred, bred for perfect conformation litter & drop it into a ''function'' environment &, generally, it will function well because it is built for the task. The working dogs people marvel at at sheep dog trials aren't just pulled off the farm & plonked in a competition. They are specifically trained to do the exercises required at the trials. Some have never even done a genuine days ''work'' in their lives. They are, for all intents & purposes, show dogs.

Sigh......the further it goes, the sadder it gets. Where did I ever say I agreed with BSL? What I said was "Bad laws are still laws". You would do well to remember that. It's the centre point of the whole sh1t fight. I also said I agree with the coroners splendid idea that owners & not councils, should be responsible for the identification of their breed if it should become an issue. Like after it has chewed a kid to death for instance. That was it. the rest was your mob...up & running. Circling the wagons & chanting the same old same old from the song book of past anti BSL failed strategies. Now we are into "scar tissue of old panics"...what ever the hell that is supposed to mean....sounds like Julia sounding off at Tony again - reds under the beds?, silver bullets & werewolves? It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Any wonder BSL is so firmly entrenched. Your style is not part of the solution, it's part of the problem. B.t.w, I didn't see YOUR measures to ensure public safety. Did I miss them?

You are wrong on all counts. All counts Science has nothing to do with the ''debate''btw, you obviously haven't been paying attention. However, I did miss answering the question regarding the hypothetical & so this space isn't completely wasted. Part one The hypothetical was a metaphor of the ''incident'' that started this witch hunt. But using a different species. If the perpetrator was a human who trespassed the house & inflicted the same shocking, fatal injuries to a baby, (blunt,serated weapon) what do you consider the penalty would be? A long term of incarceration I'll wager. Why then isn't there legislation by which an owner of a identified restricted breed who has ignored the strict requirements for having the breed liable to the same charges as if he/she had committed the hideous act personally? They are just as responsible by their arrogance. Among the requirements of ownership are, if the dog is home it must be confined to a child & escape proof enclosure, if it is out of the enclosure, as in anywhere outside of the enclosure, it must be muzzled. So there are really no excuses that could be offered. Even "it's Tony Abbotts fault" wouldn't cut it here. Part two. If charged & the accused exercised their right to silence they would be convicted on the evidence without ever admitting to the offense. The accused has to present evidence to prove innocence or at least establish reasonable doubt....which is pretty much the same thing when you get right down to it. Ergo, if a dog was determined to be a restricted breed by legally recognised experts it would then fall to the accused to present evidence refuting their findings Boom, boom.

No, you're supposed to use your brain. If someone has 8000 posts, the odds of them being a troll are slim to none. You might call it 'evidence'. Such as your three pitbull owning friends? Or have they turned their dogs in? What point do you imagine you are making with this hypothetical? We should ban semi-sharp knives? Make anyone who owns a semi-sharp serrated knife a suspect until they can prove that it wasn't them? Here's a challenge that might provide you with some badly needed insight. Prove that you aren't a troll. A troll is a post deliberately designed to inflame. My honest opinion has now been deemed to be a troll because people not only did't agree with it, they sought to ridicule it. The subject has now spun out of all perspective to the original concept of a coroners recommendation I had the temerity to agree with, it's now out of control & without a any chance of any reasonable discussion because of the posts & challenges intended to inflame, insult, ridicule & refute the right to a contrary opinion. Therefore, if i'm a troll, so are you & your posse of backup bullies. Given the timing of the challenge by Cosmolo, the post did appear to me to be just another troll post designed to belittle the opinion & inflaame further ridicule. Which it did. Sheer weight of posts does not mean people aren't capable of the occasional ''troll'' This particular topic is testimony to that.....this place is troll central. & we haven't even started with hypocrital side of the ledger yet.. Why would you automatically assume the dogs i mentioned aren't kept according to the regulations? My answer? If your rescue dog, pound hound or dog of unknown ancestory fits the ''type'' & if you really care, do what you think is best to protect your pet. Their safe keeping is in your hands. If the dog does fall foul of the legislation it is your fault, your problem. Reinterate. Bad laws are still laws. Now, moving right along, what is your answer to my question?

Actually I do, but even if I didn't do you think it's sensible to continue with a failed approach? There is a long history of BSL around the world, with even more strict laws than Victoria, and it does not improve public safety. The AVA has put forward this case strongly. This site gives an overview of one approach which has been an outstanding success: http://www.stopcanineprofiling.com/calgary.keys.php They don't have to do any such thing. If they choose to refute evidence, that evidence must be brought forward by the complainant not the defendant. Can you see why this is vastly different to what the coroner has proposed and why it would be such a gross injustice? Cosmolo, who has over 8000 posts here? OK then... I'm sure the Chols would would be more likely to agree with the suggestion. Aswould the general public who pushed the BSL upon us in the first place. 8ooo posts? wow.....Am I supposed to salute or something?....Phone a friend?...Am I supposed to be impressed? I aqm actually surprised that members of the tribe seem to be hell bent protecting the very people who have brought about the BSL while they kid themselves they are searching for solution to end it. I genuinely think you are out of touch with reality. I have no sympathy for those who flaunt the law & then thumb their noses at their victims. Hypothetical. A human had chases a family into their house, snatches away a baby & takes her life by savaging her with a semi sharp serated weapon? Not Guilty your honour. I'll just sit here quietly, say nothing, you lot go your hardest! Give me a break.

Yeah, right. Over to you Rumpole - I bow to your superior knowledge of the legal system. Common sense, m'lud, just common sense. One can't incriminate oneself by being silent. Nor can one defend oneself.

Get with the programme. That is the subject that has the vigilantes on the case. In my "non" valid opinion, it should be. Secondly. Why am I not surprised

Congratulations. You've just proven you know very very little about law. People charged with theft are obliged to prove squat. It is for the crown to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused doesn't even have to GIVE evidence if they choose not to. Next... Sit squat, Don't contest the evidence. Do the time. Stupid statement.

Part of reasoned debate is to provide a counter-argument. It is entirely reasonable for others to point out weaknesses and problems in your argument. It is up to you to validate your own opinions with a reasoned argument in return. You seem to think your opinion is valid regardless of any flaws. Maybe start by answering Cosmolo's concerns? Do you think it's reasonable that responsible dog owners such as Cosmolo should have to live in fear of losing their dog for the sake of a few 'bogans' (as you put it)? What about my 'burden of proof' concerns? Should we apply this to other areas of the law? If I wish to accuse someone of theft, should they be required to prove that they have not stolen? Is the small matter of innocent people being found guilty worth it to put a few 'bogans' off stealing? Pretty soon we'll have prisons full of innocent people, but at least the bogans will show a bit of restraint. It's worth it to not have to worry about actual theft, right? Yes. This is ENTIRELY unacceptable, I agree. That the coroner should seek to bolster laws which, after decades of failure all over the world, have been demonstrated not to improve public safety is terrifying. You would think that this would be a wake up call to legislators to get off their bums and inform themselves of the solutions that do actually improve public safety - rather than just giving the ignorant majority something to froth over. A child died and nothing effective was done. What are the solutions that will actually improve public safety of which you speak I wonder? Do you have a valid opinion that hasn't yet been tried? The story so far..... Blame the deed not the breed?.....fail. Ban certain breeds from importation....fail Impose restricted ownership of APBT & their crosses....fail Compulsory desexing & definitive requirements for the housing & handling of the restricted breed....fail Restrictions on the breeding/selling/trading/giving away the restricted breed....fail How about criminal legislation against the owners/handlers/breeders of declared restricted breeds that contravene/ignore/disregard the regulations for owning them? Hey.... Now there's a plan. At least it's worth a try. Then again. Maybe not. Why not just muddle along with the same old same old & nail down the lid so there is no hope left. BTW, People charged with theft are obliged to prove their innocence. They have to answer the charge & refute the evidence. Man owns dog I.Ded as a restricted breed by panel of acknowledged certified breed experts. Let him produce evidence it isn't or face criminal charges. I did consider answering Cosmolo at the time, however I initially thought it was a troll, a hypothetical. not worthy of the time. Then I considered even if it wasn't, BSL has been legislated for so long either he knew the risks at the time or his dogs are getting on in age & if he hasn't been doing the ''bogan'' up until now he never will & his dogs are home free. As are all the dogs with loving responsible owners. ( I know three families with pitties btw.) I still reckon he was just stirring the pot, as are all the other similar comments. The almost sure fire solution to the I.D conundrum is the Pav Lova hypothetical. Only pure breed ANKC registered dogs allowed. Although I'm certain he/she doesn't seriously advocate such a scenario, but rather he/she is justifiably concerned at the flack his/her breed is copping because of the enormous number of "xstaffies" suddenly on the scene since APBT was banned. Staffy bite statistics have rocket from nowhere to #1 since the restrictions have been in place. His/her advice about buying/rescuing a bull breed without papers is sound advice & anyone so inclined should give it careful consideration. It could have a heartbreaking finale.

I don't think anyone's game enough to bet against you there. I'll have as much of that as you can afford.

I.M.O.....which isn't valid of course. Mainly because it addresses the problem head on, at the source....the owners/breeders who are doing the wrong thing. the same owners who simply surrender their dogs to the needle & go & get another one. The breeders who are milling puppies & supplying a thriving black market. Once a dog is declared to be a restricted breed the onus is on the owner to prove otherwise. Give them seven days & if nothing is forthcoming charge them with keeping a restricted breed contrary to the legislation & fine them $5k for a first offence. $10k & six months in the nick for a second & so on & so forth. Now go your hardest.....care factor zero.

So in your opinion anybody who buys a working dog for any reason other than "loving family companion" is an idiot? Really...? Wow, it seems there are a lot of people growing your meat right now who own sheep dogs and are complete idiots.... Not to mention people with LGDs, working gun dogs or any other kind of working dog who was not primarily acquired as a "loving family dog" So who is the one making the illogical and ignorant assumptions now? Well there you go. I didn't realise primary producers were using bull breeds as working dogs? maybe you should reread the post & see what it actually said. Sorry to spoil a good old fashioned beat up.

It isn't just a case of disagreeing. Disagreement isn't a problem. It is the dismissing opinions you don't agree with as not being valid. That's arrogant. Aussie3's solution? Hit the ignore button. Block out those with differing opinions. Live life in a bubble. The opinion, btw, just in case you have forgotten in all the hype that you generated, was agreeing with a recommendation contained in a coroners submission after the attack & mauling death of young child by an unrestrained dog of dubious heritage. Fine...The worth of childs life? $11,000?....walk away. Get another dog. Tunnel vision? Damn right tunnel vision. Playing the insults card is the last card in the deck.

Whoever gave you the idea that all opinions were valid? Some opinions are indefensible, others are dangerous, others are pointless or benign. Not everyone knows what can and cannot be determined by DNA testing and you were not 'rousted'. You attempted to straw-man my argument to which I responded appropriately. Try not to take it personally. Individuality is to be applauded but not for it's own sake. I promised myself I'd walk from your clique dominated charade. But hey, I.M.O Your response was a reaction to an alternative view you don't agree with, refuse to contemplate, & rejected because you have tunnel vision. Maybe it's time to face up to the fact all your other strategies have failed, dismally. Because....."If you always do do you've always done- you will always get what you've always got". Here we have a recommendation, from a coroner no less, to enact laws to make owners legally obliged to provide proof of breed for a dog i.ded as a ''dog of interest'' & you & your clique go off tangents to disparage & reject a different wrinkle that may just help you achieve your objectives. Targeting the bogan owners might just take the heat off the "type" & help the process of repeal run it's course out of the public eye. Despite posts to the contrary, the public aren't on your side. Being in denial doesn't help.

I must apologise. I always thought all opinions were valid. Sorry. Sorry I was wrong. However, it was not my intention to start a bunfight. I still contend that proof of breed, or not the breed, what ever, should be the responsibility of the owner of a dog that may or may not be a restricted breed that has come to the attention of authorities. That is my opinion. I wont be changing it. One reason why many innocent dogs are now suffering is because they have been used as ''shields'' by the unscrupulous. The onus of resposibility & prospect of likely criminal charges may, just may, be a deterrent to those seeking specific type of dogs as weapons of intimidation. It is my experience that people with a genuine affection for their animals would ensure they stay under the radar. Just one more thing. Everyone knows parentage can be determined by D.N.A. testing. That rousting was a no brainer. However, that is not what I was saying. D.N.A. testing can not determine the breed, or multiple breeds, of a dog. Some do believe this is possible & offer advice to that effect. Now your job is done & crushed individual thought you can all retire to your campfire & let rip with a rousing rendition of Kumbaya

D.N.A alone can't accurately decipher specific breeds. Breeds aren't a cipher. DNA can conclusively determine parentage; if we want to know that two dogs are the parents of another dog, we can determine this without question. If we can then determine that both of those dogs are not restricted breeds, we must necessarily conclude that the dog in question is also not of a restricted breed. The legislation in Victoria will not necessarily arrive at this logical conclusion. DNA can't determine breed or breeds of individual dogs. I doubt unsupervised sample collection would be acceptable if it came down to the nitty gritty. Caveat Emptor. Maybe get a stat dec from the breeder. That would be better than nothing. Protect yourself, protect your dog....how hard could it be if you're really fair dinkum.

D.N.A alone can't accurately decipher specific breeds. sona si latine loqueris

What the coroner recommended & what I heartily agree with is the following. "She also said the onus of proving that a dog is a restricted breed should fall on its owner and not on councils." Which, in, my opinion, is the where the onus of ''proof'' of ''non breed'' should be levelled. The condition of the dog is irrelevent. Excuses are irrelevent. Breed & owners responsibilty is the topic. As Pav Lova said earlier, anyone who buys a bull breed without papers or a bull breed cross is an idiot. I would add to that, or does so for reasons that don't come under the category of '' loving family companion'' Your last line is an illogical & ignorant assumption, typical applied by net bullies to anyone who disagrees with them. My opinion is as valid as yours & as for not having a clue, I seriously doubt you could tell me anything I don't already know.

Which is at the heart of the coroners recommendation. Make the dog owners responsible for their choices. In my opinion, that is a perfectly sensible suggestion & I would support it being enacted into law. Pav lova has expressed an opinion. I agree with his/her opinion in theory, but would not support it being enacted into law because it would make the majority of dog owners law breakers. Most dogs will never, ever be registered with the ANKC. That would be a bad law.

Do only obey the laws that suit you? Do you obey any laws? Are you an anarchist?