Erny

I'm thinking that it could be a good idea if we each arrange to have a nice chat with our Council member/s. I'd like to start at the top (eg. Mayor/Deputy Mayor) from the point of view of explaining/demonstrating the good that comes from Sch training with an even bigger focus on pointing out therefore that this current case and any potentially perceived future ones being a vast waste of rate-payers' money. Would anyone else be prepared to do likewise? You don't have to be a Schutzhund 'person' to do this, just a concerned dog owner who recognises the benefits of this form of sport/training, as am I. This is, of course, dependent upon my assumption that it is the Council that have brought about the present charges being correct. HR - can you qualify this please? And do you think it would be a good idea (of course, the conversation MUST remain civil, polite and factual) or do you see it as a move which could possibly inflame the present situation?

I could be wrong, however I believe this may have been the case that led to the amendments in the law to cover anything worn or attached to a person. I recall reading a similar comment from the magistrate regarding the increased training level making the dog more stable therefore not a dangerous dog. So it was acknowledged that the training created a more stable dog, yet brought in laws so they could out-law it? ETA: If anyone can find this 'report' it would be handy and quite probably useful

I don't, but it would be great to bring it up. Perhaps HR knows of it?

I have thought similarly today, Vickie. Apart from demonstrating in some way the merits of the training (and the discipline that is required by both dog AND owner), also demonstrating what a waste of tax-payers' good money going after this group is. Schutzhund sport has been the focal attention/target of the authorities for a long, long time now. It is as though they have been waiting for the day until they could evolve the laws sufficiently to be able to 'get' them. That's just my impression. But even if I am only part way correct, that would probably be why you get the feeling of 'secrecy' surrounding these Club sports. My understanding of something in more recent times was that some anonymous person took photo's of the club training one night and reported them to Council (even though the Club had been training on those grounds for something akin to 20 years). Stuff like that would make it difficult to trust anyone. Made worse when you know that at least one of the representatives of one of the 'authorities' says (in conspiritual (sp?) undertones) "can you believe there's a group out there who teaches their dogs to ATTACK !!!!!" When the members within those authorities don't understand what is really occurring and the good that the discipline those dogs go through can and does have, are the same as the ones who are out to 'get' the group and are the ones who get to speak to an audience it's easy to see how MIS-informed public perception can be.

I agree that the stance should NOT to be that one dog-faction or another is to 'blame'. That only serves to alienate rather than to unite and the former is the last thing that any of us need. I think some of the 'cause' for the laws we have is pressure on the Government and certain organisations to be seen to be serving their community. The tough part is that it costs a lot of money especially in terms of man power when it comes to policing the real culprits of irresponsible dog ownership and cruelty, and so the 'soft targets' are sought after because they are 'do-able'.

Sadly, this seems to be the way of it Nekhbet . I don't know. What I do know is that we dog people need to begin to stand up and be counted without division - because it is "division" that has been relied upon by those factions who seek to bring in more and more binding laws. Get the minority - because it is easier. One group by one group, there will always be a 'minority' and they will be targeted singularly - and none from the 'other' groups stand up to help because it "doesn't affect them". Similar to BSL :D:. How has THAT helped in reducing bite stats (which was the hypothesis of their reasoning to bring it in in the first place)?

Sadly, this seems to be the way of it Nekhbet . I don't know. What I do know is that we dog people need to begin to stand up and be counted without division (not duck and leave it to the next person as frequently occurs) - because it is "division" that has been relied upon by those factions who seek to bring in more and more binding, suffocating and nonsense laws. Get the minority - because it is easier. One group by one group, there will always be a 'minority' and they will be targeted singularly - and none from the 'other' groups stand up to help because it "doesn't affect them". We need to be calm. But we need to be assertive. And not quit, roll-over and play dead. As for the OP and the impending Court Case - assuming it only relates to the technicality of the law - what a waste of Tax Payers' money. YOUR money :D: . They'd do so much better by either doing something useful in the name of dog-welfare and community interest. Such as assisting the community with water saving devices. There'd be quite a few of those they could deliver out for free and be better money spent than on some pithy Court Case to dissolve a training sport which to my knowledge has served to hurt no-one - quite conversely, has probably served to help. Similar to BSL.

Does he like his meals? If so, use them (incrementally as you deem the need) to encourage him to get into the car. Assuming it is a sedan, have both rear doors open to start with and don't at first try to block him in or go anywhere.

HR .... have you/they thought about getting a Petition together? I know it's not directly related to the "Court Case" as such, but something like that might help in more ways than one.

I'm a bit the same. I can admire what people do within their chosen sport fields, but that doesn't mean it is my cuppa either. Agree here too. Moreover, I think the 'good' that it does needs to be seriously considered. And that's something that seems to be being 'lost' on the nay-sayers. Yet they do. Consistently. And it is this that I am concerned with. I'm sure this has been tried. There are none so blind as those who will not see. I've raised this as an option once, ages ago. I can't remember the answer - but it wasn't so simple. I think Jeff Jones might have explained it to me. You there, Jeff? (Edited to add : I think it had something to do with having to be employed within the security industry .... )

I agree - we need to know more. To the people who understand this, yes. But many people don't and their personal judgements become warped as a result. That's something we can't help change. If you wear a pink hat, it might deflect the Court's opinion . Ok - this is where I'm lost. How can you sentence without a conviction?

There's another chatsite that I pop in and look at from time to time. It's not moderated and the conversations are not as informative and educational, IMO, as here on DOL as often the threads don't get a chance to 'go' anywhere. Anyway - one of the arguments 'they' (a certain number of its members) use (when it supports what they want) is that when a defendant is convicted, it shows that they were guilty .... they frequently roll that over to mean it was therefore 'wrong'. That's the problem here, IMO. Remember - I'm working on the assumption that the charges are merely technical (and in the absence of more information, that's all I can do). Once the Court Case goes through and if lost, the 'view' of the 'people' will be that the group was in the wrong for what they DO, rather than on the basis of technicality. Sometimes I think you shouldn't compromise yourself when you're right ..... even if it means fighting something that for decades has been legal but due to technicalities (as opposed to real evidence for reason) has been made illegal. I think that if a regulation came in banning me being allowed to wear my pink hat, I'd continue to wear my pink hat. It seems to me that to not do so is so often now viewed by the law-makers as an acceptance of a law and that makes changing that law all the more difficult. As for the regulations pertaining to bite-work ..... I can only guess they were objected to. I didn't know about them until they were 'in'. ETA: I don't really own a pink hat.

Ahh .... I thought you were making reference to things I've written here. Oops.

I agree to an extent with what you've written PF. I think the 'positive approach' is the better as well and I prefer that myself for a variety of reasons. However, when regulations are being introduced, they are generally already written. Public comment is invited, but it still boils down to Govt Body decision and if their mind is made up, there's not much to be done. We've seen that through the BSL fight, the PPCollar objections (2004); tail docking laws; and so on and so forth. There's got to be some essence in a sport which has been conducted for decades and longer -vs- a regulation that the Government slipped in that now gives them the legal 'right' to 'pick them off'. And in the absence of the charges being for anything other than a breach of that regulation (which is something I would like clarification of), the time to oppose the charges has to be now, surely? Are you saying that this is "pissing off other dog folk"? ETA: Just to clarify - this isn't "my" campaign.

I don't think this one is under the guise of dog welfare. I thinks it's a reaction to dog attacks and 'dangerous dogs'. Yes - you're right, Luke W. It's often under the 'guise' of something though. That's a good starting point Luke W. Any ideas to answers, HR? Or can you invite any from others whom are more familiar with the nitty gritty of this training than I?

Not for as long as you might think Cosmolo. Schutzhund wasn't illegal because it was a dog sport where dogs were taught to target an item, not a person. If I'm correct, I believe that's why the authorities were unable to 'get them' in the past. But now they changed the wording in their regulation so now they can 'pick them off'. That's as I understand it anyway. I'm not involved in Schutzhund so I'm only going by some basic understanding that I've read and heard over the while.

PF - You don't think it is about time that frivolous or fruitless laws are fought? Once Schutzhund is 'picked off' it will NEVER get back in again ..... at least I'm sure, not in my lifetime.

HR - I really think it comes back to this though : ie that we need to know the charges that have been made so that the people from whom supportive funds are being sought can determine that the charges have no other basis other than a conflict with the regulation they've recently written in. If it can also be shown there is no evidence/record of Schutzhund trained dogs having caused harm within the community it would more clearly reveal the baselessness for the Government spending whatever $$$$$ of the tax-payers money to take these people to Court.

Better go hide your pink hat, HR. (Refer edit to my above post).

If the activity is now illegal, I'd not be making any such assumption Erny. I'm not making an assumption PF. I'm not the expert but I think it might be being deemed illegal because of more recently introduced regulation. As I understand it, for decades and until recently it hasn't been illegal.

I presume that's what they are doing and why the funds are required. Once they lose this case, it will become precedent and any attempt to seek justice in similar instances will be futile.

Sure PF. But if I've read the above correctly, are you suggesting that we all must roll over and not fight the case (individually or otherwise) whenever a law is changed and we realise that what we've been doing for decades is now out-lawed? Regulations can be written in with the swish of a biro .... the Government set it up that way so that it could, with bearly any formal political process to follow. In discussions pertaining to something else I was working on some while ago, I spoke to a Solicitor about Government regulation and he told me they (the Government) could write a regulation to ban the wearing of pink hats if they wanted to.

That's a good question erny. One that I dont know the answer to. PF They have been calling Schtzhund Dog sport for over a decade. Back in the days that I was involved with the clubs they called it dogsport. HR - Am I right in thinking that the authorities believe they have now 'got them' because of the more recent regulations regarding "dogs not being allowed to bite something being worn"? Prior to that I think the laws were ambiguous and as Schuthund trained dogs are not trained to attack a person, but rather, to bite a particular 'item' that's why the authorities haven't been able to nab them in the past.

I think the "Christmas Card Challenge" (see info by MDBA) is something everyone could do - no matter WHAT their preferences to dog activities they have. Christmas Card Challenge

PF .... you often have good ideas. Any suggestions (bearing in mind the urgency)?