Erny

This example really concerns me - because it shows exactly where we are headed. ... You're so right, Chris the Rebel Wolf - it does. Problem is, there are always going to be some people who refuse to believe it. Perhaps until their own dog is caught up in the net, or perhaps a friend's or someone else's that they know. Only THEN will they believe and understand that the horror of what the majority of people here foresee, is indeed a reality, just as it is now. I only hope they open up their eyes and minds and see.

The Vets won't issue Certificates to attest that any dog is or isn't a restricted breed. Even if the dog has been issued with an ANKC Certificate to evidence breed. Why the heck the Government has put that in the law without checking to see if this would be possible, is completely beyond me. There is MUCH wrong with these laws. MUCH. Zuri - have you read the laws and actually studied what the words actually say, rather than put in assumption of what you think it means to say? When push comes to shove, the Courts can only go by what the law says. That is important not to forget.

Have you read the laws? Do you know them well for what they read, or are you reading and conjuring your own interpretation of them? You're incorrect, Zuri. The laws have changed in that dogs fitting a description are targets. The Govt knows PB's don't have a record of DNA markers. Contrary to your assertion, it's not about "blood". You might well trust your Council officer (both present and future and regardless of experience, intent etc) but I'm not gonna. It is wrong to put laws into place where people have no control over whether they can abide by them or not. Think outside the square is my recommendation, Zuri. At the moment, you've boxed yourself in so that you can't see the big picture. ETA: You able to answer to the requests I've posted? IE Links to show evidence of BSL proving to be a success? And also, what State you reside in?

Don't count on your opinion, Zuri. And life with dogs is not all about ANKC recognised breeds. Actually, come to think of it, nor is it all about ANKC. I'm actually for all dogs. Not selective breeds. ETA: Hey, SG ... thanks for the prompt to change Victoria's description in my profile. "Dismal" is an understatement. But yes .... it is depressing, that's for sure. ETA: Oh, and BTW, Zuri - out of curiousity, what State do you reside in?

Slowing down of metabolism, by the sounds. SecretKei .... you know you have to allow about 6 weeks (I'm going from memory, I think that's right) for the implant to have become as effective as it might be?

Hey!! Why doesn't someone start a list of dog breeds that can be dug up and used by the Govt/authorities/media/whoever down the track, that they might use as extra back-up (fallible though it is, but what does the Government care when it's their own point they like to defend) when they're looking for more breeds to pick-on and throw to the slaughter, to escape the heat? Oh . Somebody already did.

Let's not be divided by breed passion/preference. Stand united. The current but recent regulations in Victoria have transcended BSL. The BSL Laws here have now grown tentacles that transcribe as "it's how the dog looks". And don't think for a second that other breeds will not be added to the list in your lifetime. There are people campaigning and fighting against these laws even though their breed choice and preferences are not the breeds/types of yours. Don't exclude these people, and do take into account that they are the ones who demonstrate to you that division to breeds is irrelevant. "Division" between the people is EXACTLY what the Government rely on. You going to given them that?

I'm not wary of breeds of dogs. It's a matter of understanding them; not making assumptions; and knowing there are individuals within breeds. I am wary of politicians in Government and their agenda for the making of laws even though they know from proven fact that they don't work; aren't warranted; and/or make things worse; for their double standards and for their breaches of the rules of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness. There's no understanding them.

Excellent news, Haven. Glad both are home, safe and well. It's nice to have some happy-ending news in amongst all the depressing stuff that the Government is dragging so many people and their dogs through at the moment.

No you shouldn't. Wonder if the Govt would be culpible for "stress" related claims? A law which puts many people in a position where they have absolutely no control over whether they are able to abide by it or not. Surely that's not a law which can be proven tenible by those who bear its weight?

LOL - right on as usual, Erny - and love the bolded bit about the 20 commands :D Lol ... it started as 3, then 5, then some more (I stopped counting for a while) then more still. "Twenty" is a literal number. As I said - horses for courses and they seem happy enough with that. I congratulate the fact that there is no raised voices nor tempers, and they are nice people .

Gawd .... It's like there is no where to turn. The Labor Govt heads? Nope. They brought in BSL in the first place. The Liberal Govt? Nope. Seems, regardless of prior encouraging murmurs that indicated their low opinion of their (back then) opposition, they're now satisfied to not only follow in their opposition's foot-steps, but make it even worse. The Queen of England? Hhhhmmmm ....

This is where thinking of "breed" is causing a mind-blocker to enlightenment. This thread and discussion really isn't about breeds, Zara. But again, perhaps if you go looking back at statistics. Chi's that killed a baby? Kill all Chi's too? If people had EDUCATION it would prove more productive than BSL. And remember - what we have now is about a description. YOU assume it ONLY relates to the dogs of breeds that YOU have in mind. You are assuming. A lot. ETA: Zara - it's not that you ask a silly or bad question, because your question will reflect the same of much of the general public who are led to believe that a majority of injuries are caused by the same dog breeds as you think. It's just that what it seems that you see as the answer is too shallow compared to the reality of the real answer. Point being, BSL is NOT the answer. That is what is proven, and was proven by so many other Countries before the Government of our Country adopted the regime. It was doomed for failure to begin with. We all knew that. Statistics backed our opinions. Our opinions were not baseless. The Government's bloody-mindedness and insistance on a belief in its possible success was. And now worse, these new laws. The only guarantee in these is that it will emotionally kill many dog-owning people along with many innocent dogs.

Well, ok ..... although you haven't answered my question to you. If something doesn't exist then it can't do overt physical damage - that certainly stands to reason and I would suggest almost mocks your question. By your question, are you suggesting that we get rid of all dogs? Ummmm .... and anything else in the world that takes a person's life? Wasn't this questioned answered/given to you earlier? Regardless, are you asking or asserting the answer to this? Genuine question. But turn it around .... how do YOU think it would be possible to "prove" it when replacing it with a completely different individual sentient being? What are the thoughts of the owner of the dog? Why did the owner select the dog that he did? What if the laws focussed on education instead of "breed" .... would the owner know more than he did and thwart the horror that ensued? How can anyone possibly answer such a question as yours without this additional information? Crystal ball, much? Now ..... would you please link to documented scientific facts that prove BSL has been successful .... anywhere? WHERE have bite stats dropped as a result of the introduction of BSL? It's the STATISTICS you need to refer to Zara, not questions that lead to nowhere. That's just a waste of time. Do you have any links to share that supports the points you are endeavouring to have people attest to in favour of your thoughts and opinion?

If it's not too far fetched a suggestion - is it possible that Cougar might lead back to where Lucy and her parted ways? A long shot, but worth trying? Perhaps even back-chain the exercise. Start back from where the people first found Cougar and saw Lucy? Rain won't have helped any scent, though, if that could at all Cougar would want to track Lucy down.

And everyone - we all collectively need to understand that the current situation should be regarded as one which can and will affect dogs outside of the breeds of which you speak. So my suggestion is that people stop thinking of it as a "breed" specific legislation (even though it remains titled as such) and think of it as a set of laws that give a loose discription and any dog fitting the criteria of that description is "IT" as far as targetting is concerned. This law could affect YOUR best canine friend, or at least one that you know that you least expected could possibly be held accountable just because it comprised of physical attributes the Government listed in its laws. Click to enlarge :

Huh? Unless I completely misunderstand you ..... the "debate" and the "opposition" to BSL, both from its inception (2001, I think, as far as Australia is concerned) to now, is because people, including dog-lovers of the breeds which have been, both past and present, targeted under the terms of the legislation (the net for which is so much broader now) do NOT want people being injured by dogs and DO want bite stats to be reduced AND because they know, from WORLD-WIDE statistics who have already tried the BSL, that the legislation is doomed for failure. NOT ONLY doomed for failure, but deemed to make things worse, because it lulls people into false senses of security, gives the wrong impression and MIS-educates. Mind you, I don't know that anywhere in the world has gone so far as turning "Breed Specific Legislation" into "Physical Specific (loosely speaking) Legislation", so can't suggest the World, save for Australia, has gone that mad. Zara - What "factual argument" can you provide a link to that shows BSL is overall successful?

Haven't kept up with the whole thread, but if I were you, I'd quit with repeating the command and hand signals. Say it once, with the hand signal. What you're teaching her is that she needs to drop after the fifth or the tenth or the whatever'th command instruction. You need to teach her she gets one chance or there's no reward. I know some people (not clients) whose dog has them up to 20 repeated drop commands now. But they seem ok with that, so that's the main thing. Got more patience than me, though, lol.

Click to enlarge. ETA: Oh .... and I'm sorry to the OP. I think this thread has drifted a little OT.

Love the Cairns . Friend of mine has one and is so friendly, fun-loving and spritely. They're smart (remember that "smart" means they think a lot, which, if we're not up to it, they can run rings, lol). But yes - neat little dogs and I think if I ever got a small dog, a Cairn would be on the list.

I would suggest you go ahead and apply. "Priority to the most needy" is not the way it works. Ideally, it would be, however practicality dictates the rules on this one. There might be a dog available, but not the right dog for a person with a greater impairment. I can imagine how a breeder might be a bit nervous on the idea of homing one of their pups in your situation and I don't blame the breeder for this. S/he is quite likely wanting to make the responsible decision for both your son and their pup. I'm not so sure it is a great idea to hide the fact of your circumstance either. There are different lines in most if not all breeds of dogs. Some lines of the same breed might not be suitable for the needs/requirements of a family. Another line of the same breed might be. The main person who knows and understands this is the breeder and for the breeder to make an educated decision needs the relevant information. But perhaps if, when speaking to any other breeder, you set out how you raised your current dog and how you manage your son with your current dog, this might have the breeder feeling calmer and more confident about a positive decision. I can hear how much you love your Foxies and I agree it is ideal to take on a breed that the family is happy with, but I ask this genuinely as I've not lived with Foxies and in my line of work have only really been introduced to the more 'difficult' ones (not necessarily the fault of the dog, either) - do you think the nature of the Foxie breed is as tolerant as it needs to be, to be able to grow and develop through the critical puppy period and beyond, with the least liklihood of misfortune as a result of misunderstanding? I don't know how anyone can answer your question directly and succinctly - we don't know how your son behaves; how you manage your time and household around his needs; how much spare time you would have to be teaching/training both son and puppy together, simultaneously, all at once and without being able to take eyes off one or the other (at least initially). Nor do I think that is our business - at least not for people like me who is not an expert in autism, in its varying levels. That's your judgement call, I think. I think the main thing is that you take a refresher on what this breed is like from the get go to mature adulthood. You've acknowledged that they can be a bit nippy (most pups go through phases of being mouthy, but yes, some can be worse than others and some more persistent). Can you manage your son and the pup together always, until both your son matures to the point of being able to be expected to be responsible with the pup/dog and the pup/dog with your son? These are the initial questions I think you should ask. But pardon me, perhaps you have. You sound as though you've put a lot of consideration into this, although there's one thing that I question mark ..... are you sure you've selected the Foxie breed with your son's priority in mind, or because it is the one you fancy? To my knowledge, I think the Tenties have a steadier temperament than the Foxies, but I profess to not have had the privilege to work with enough of them to be able to make this a blanket statement. This post is not meant to offend and I hope it is read in the light I intend it and that its purpose is to perhaps help give insight as to how someone on the 'other side' might read and respond to your plight.

No argument from me as to that fact - but what is driving the woman to think that way? I prefer to imagine that it it is not a blatant disregard for the dog's welfare ..based on adequately processing information. Some people don't want to know info and opinions that don't agree with what they want. I've had people shut their ears to things I have suggested/recommended/advised inside the first few words I've uttered. And it is not as though those people didn't know me. I think sometimes that it is people they respect, and this can often be people they are not so familiar with, who they will stop and listen to. (As an aside, have you ever had someone brush you off on a suggestion, only to have them come back with "great advice" that someone else gave them, that just coincidentally happened to be the same as what you originally told them, except that they didn't bother to listen and therefore treat their new-found revelations as something new, coming from someone who "really knows what they are about"?)

Interesting, OSoSwift .... just to let you know your info is being read and absorbed. Please do post of any further changes you happen to note and believe may be related to the implant.

I have given this little consideration, Cosmolo, because of being busy with matters that require more immediate attention (I hope that makes sense) .... but one of the things I'm NOT going to do is provide a list to make it easier for any authority to read and target. Not saying they'd bother with anything I said, but I'd prefer to be cautious. So I mean no offence to you by declining setting it all out in writing publicly, but happy to speak with you about it direct though, if you want to call me . But yes ... in many respects it might be pure-breeds who are born simply not fitting the standards of their own true breed. ETA: And the thing is, the above is irrelevant. It is the FACT of the extra-ordinarily badly written bad laws that the only dog-breed that fits the "type" prescribed by the Govt that can be excused by a breed-certificate is the AmStaff. I'm pleased for the AmStaffies .... but it remains as a law disgustingly written by Parliament that has been accepted by Parliament. We pay them but they are not working for us - they are unto themselves. ETA: The question wasn't a silly one and sometimes it is difficult to remember that "we" who speak here on DOL are not an exclusive community. Thanks for understanding and editing, K&H.