Ava Draft Policy On Importation

[bulldogz4eva]

So what is the problem here?

It appears the AVA is calling for a ''deed not breed'' type of policy to be implimented.

i.e., Dogs to be assessed as individuals, not automatically classified, accepted or rejected, simply because of their breed.

Isn't that what the anti bsl push all about?

A similar policy applies to humans wanting to enter the country.

Why shouldn't the same criterior apply to dogs?

Seems like a step in right direction to me.

It has been relayed that this is the intention and always was although it is not clearly outlined in the position statement I posted hence my stance.In their positions and policies 6.15 it does state they do not support BSL becuase it is proven not to work.I do support them if this is their push however my apprehension remains.If this is put forward and the government pick it up and run with it and do not rescind BSL we are in a far worse position than before.Not only will it prevent some individuals entering the country it can and will have the ability to stop new breeds from being introduced to this country on a discretionary basis.I would still urge people to contact their vet and ask questions.At the end of the day it still has to be picked up by the minister and I doubt they will rescind BSL.I just hope they dont add this to it as well.

[bulldogz4eva]

What a joke...

I suppose that would also end the importation of semen of deceased dogs, since you can't temperament test them?

Good point and I would think that would be a no you cant import on that basis.

[shortstep]

Can someone let us know what ANKC is doing about this, have they made a statement or posted an opinion?

Has ANKC spoken to the AVA about this and how this will negatively affect ANKC gene pool by only further making more red tape and added expense to import new genetics into Australia?

Perhaps MDBA can help Australian dog owners with this?

[riddler]

So what is the problem here?

It appears the AVA is calling for a ''deed not breed'' type of policy to be implimented.

i.e., Dogs to be assessed as individuals, not automatically classified, accepted or rejected, simply because of their breed.

Isn't that what the anti bsl push all about?

A similar policy applies to humans wanting to enter the country.

Why shouldn't the same criterior apply to dogs?

Seems like a step in right direction to me.

I think you totally miss the point.they want their cake and eat it too.If there was no bsl then maybe but bsl still stands and now they want to chip away at what is left.Reread what is proposed.It is not just temperament.It states exhibit or carry.What does carry mean?It means the triats that they have as a breed.So if it is breed x y z bred ofr the intended purpose it will carry certain traits.Who deems that inappropriate.SAy dog barks at another dog at the vets while getting its blood taken.Said vet deems that inappropriate and you have done your money.Dog takes exception of strange man sticking cold thermometer up his bum and growls,vet deems that inappropriate you have done your money.Dog barks at someone in quarantine.Vet dems that inappropriate says dog should be deemd dangerous and desexed before release from quarantine.Where does that leave you.i think this is bs.People need to contact their vet and express there concerns before April 15th.

The way it reads to me is, that before approval for individual dogs to be imported into the country they should have to pass a health & behavioural assessment (there's that word again)

What is the problem with that? Good idea. Don't we have enough savage &/or sick dogs here as it is?

Who would wish to import a dangerous &/or diseased dog anyhow?

Breed is not mentioned. Although I would imagine banned breeds & sperm/ova from same would still be banned. Same scenario as switchblades, drugs etc,etc etc. People still try it on though. If they are caught they are prosecuted. That's fair enough isn't it. Not everyone agrees with every law but everyone is still bound by all of them.

Any prospective import must be quarantined before departure anyhow. All the tests can be done then & the paper work accompany the dog from is place of origin.

Wouldn't an animal that displayed cronic health problems while in quarantine be disbarred from importation anyhow.

Behaviour could easily assessed during the quarantine period.

Would any ethical breeder wish to import semen/ova from a diseased dog/bitch?

Not bloody likely.

Humans with criminal convictions aren't issued visa. If they do land here & are detected they are put on the next plane back from whence they came.

Imigration is a subject for a different type of forum. Not a valid argument here.

Unless of course the boat people start bringing their dogs with them. In which case the dogs would be put down immediately.

Which would be something else for the bleeding hearts to whinge about no doubt.

[OSoSwift]

I think people are more concerned about the temperment tests required before a dog can be imported. No-one I know would import a dog with a known and potentially genetic health issue.

Many breeds could potentially fail the temperment tests just because of what breed they are and the jobs that they are meant to do. Not all dogs are supposed to be friendly with all people, the should be loyal and frinedly towards people VERY close to them not all like bouncy happy Labradors.

Also who is the person who assess the dogs, what criteria is used??? who deems what is acceptable?? Can a Dobe guard against an unknown person when they are stressed out and in a foreign environment or does that mean they are immediately banned from being imported??

I think this has the possiblity to be abused and cause a large amount of problems. Not all dog breeds are meant to welcome all with open arms but they are still sound animals mentally and physically.

Edited March 21, 2011 by OSoSwift

[riddler]

So what is the problem here?

It appears the AVA is calling for a ''deed not breed'' type of policy to be implimented.

i.e., Dogs to be assessed as individuals, not automatically classified, accepted or rejected, simply because of their breed.

Isn't that what the anti bsl push all about?

A similar policy applies to humans wanting to enter the country.

Why shouldn't the same criterior apply to dogs?

Seems like a step in right direction to me.

I think you totally miss the point.they want their cake and eat it too.If there was no bsl then maybe but bsl still stands and now they want to chip away at what is left.Reread what is proposed.It is not just temperament.It states exhibit or carry.What does carry mean?It means the triats that they have as a breed.So if it is breed x y z bred ofr the intended purpose it will carry certain traits.Who deems that inappropriate.SAy dog barks at another dog at the vets while getting its blood taken.Said vet deems that inappropriate and you have done your money.Dog takes exception of strange man sticking cold thermometer up his bum and growls,vet deems that inappropriate you have done your money.Dog barks at someone in quarantine.Vet dems that inappropriate says dog should be deemd dangerous and desexed before release from quarantine.Where does that leave you.i think this is bs.People need to contact their vet and express there concerns before April 15th.

The way it reads to me is, that before approval for individual dogs to be imported into the country they should have to pass a health & behavioural assessment (there's that word again)

What is the problem with that? Good idea. Don't we have enough savage &/or sick dogs here as it is?

Who would wish to import a dangerous &/or diseased dog anyhow?

Breed is not mentioned. Although I would imagine banned breeds & sperm/ova from same would still be banned. Same scenario as switchblades, drugs etc,etc etc. People still try it on though. If they are caught they are prosecuted. That's fair enough isn't it. Not everyone agrees with every law but everyone is still bound by all of them.

Any prospective import must be quarantined before departure anyhow. All the tests can be done then & the paper work accompany the dog from is place of origin.

Wouldn't an animal that displayed cronic health problems while in quarantine be disbarred from importation anyhow.

Behaviour could easily assessed during the quarantine period.

Would any ethical breeder wish to import semen/ova from a diseased dog/bitch?

Not bloody likely.

Humans with criminal convictions aren't issued visa. If they do land here & are detected they are put on the next plane back from whence they came.

Imigration is a subject for a different type of forum. Not a valid argument here.

Unless of course the boat people start bringing their dogs with them. In which case the dogs would be put down immediately.

Which would be something else for the bleeding hearts to whinge about no doubt.

[OSoSwift]

And , yes we do have enough sick adn vicious dogs here, interestingly the people who pay the required money to import are most likely not responsible for producing them.

Therefore I do not see how bringing this in is going to reduce the incidences involving vicious dogs. Maybe taking idiot owners and breeders out the back and removing their influence may work a little better than stopping ethical people from bringing in new bloodlines to expand their gene pools.

[john.davey.1960]

We already know that non-APBTs are being labelled APBTs and what constitutes a genetically unsound dog, one with no hair? Open to abuse by those who equate pet ownership with slavery. When AVA members stop killing healthy pets I'll take them seriously.

[BJean]

The way it reads to me is, that before approval for individual dogs to be imported into the country they should have to pass a health & behavioural assessment (there's that word again)

What is the problem with that? Good idea. Don't we have enough savage &/or sick dogs here as it is?

Who would wish to import a dangerous &/or diseased dog anyhow?

Breed is not mentioned. Although I would imagine banned breeds & sperm/ova from same would still be banned. Same scenario as switchblades, drugs etc,etc etc. People still try it on though. If they are caught they are prosecuted. That's fair enough isn't it. Not everyone agrees with every law but everyone is still bound by all of them.

Any prospective import must be quarantined before departure anyhow. All the tests can be done then & the paper work accompany the dog from is place of origin.

Wouldn't an animal that displayed cronic health problems while in quarantine be disbarred from importation anyhow.

Behaviour could easily assessed during the quarantine period.

Would any ethical breeder wish to import semen/ova from a diseased dog/bitch?

Not bloody likely.

Humans with criminal convictions aren't issued visa. If they do land here & are detected they are put on the next plane back from whence they came.

Imigration is a subject for a different type of forum. Not a valid argument here.

Unless of course the boat people start bringing their dogs with them. In which case the dogs would be put down immediately.

Which would be something else for the bleeding hearts to whinge about no doubt.

Do you understand the import process?

or do you generally reel off pontifications on scenarios that you know nothing about?

Edited March 21, 2011 by lilli

[riddler]

So what is the problem here?

It appears the AVA is calling for a ''deed not breed'' type of policy to be implimented.

i.e., Dogs to be assessed as individuals, not automatically classified, accepted or rejected, simply because of their breed.

Isn't that what the anti bsl push all about?

A similar policy applies to humans wanting to enter the country.

Why shouldn't the same criterior apply to dogs?

Seems like a step in right direction to me.

Do you import?

NB:

The assessment would take place prior to the dog arriving in Australia

I haven't yet.

Only those who would seek to import dangerous &/or diseased dogs, banned breeds, ova/sperm from diseased dogs or banned breeds would be affected by this recommendation.

Talk about making mountains out of mole hills.

For the honest, the ethical & the responsible it would business as usual, with little or no extra expense.

[riddler]

So what is the problem here?

It appears the AVA is calling for a ''deed not breed'' type of policy to be implimented.

i.e., Dogs to be assessed as individuals, not automatically classified, accepted or rejected, simply because of their breed.

Isn't that what the anti bsl push all about?

A similar policy applies to humans wanting to enter the country.

Why shouldn't the same criterior apply to dogs?

Seems like a step in right direction to me.

Do you import?

NB:

The assessment would take place prior to the dog arriving in Australia

I haven't yet.

Only those who would seek to import dangerous &/or diseased dogs, banned breeds, ova/sperm from diseased dogs or banned breeds would be affected by this recommendation.

Talk about making mountains out of mole hills.

For the honest, the ethical & the responsible it would business as usual, with little or no extra expense.

[riddler]

Do you import?

Not animals

But I have had dealings with AQIS.

I do have a grasp on what is required.

Which is why I don't understand all the wringing of hands.

What is proposed isn't that far removed from what we have now.

Edited March 21, 2011 by riddler

[BJean]

So what is the problem here?

It appears the AVA is calling for a ''deed not breed'' type of policy to be implimented.

i.e., Dogs to be assessed as individuals, not automatically classified, accepted or rejected, simply because of their breed.

Isn't that what the anti bsl push all about?

A similar policy applies to humans wanting to enter the country.

Why shouldn't the same criterior apply to dogs?

Seems like a step in right direction to me.

Do you import?

NB:

The assessment would take place prior to the dog arriving in Australia

I haven't yet.

Only those who would seek to import dangerous &/or diseased dogs, banned breeds, ova/sperm from diseased dogs or banned breeds would be affected by this recommendation.

Talk about making mountains out of mole hills.

For the honest, the ethical & the responsible it would business as usual, with little or no extra expense.

ya reckon?

How about you actually go and learn about the soapbox your on

and then come back to postulate your assessments and grandiose generalisations?

It would save those that care, a lot of time from having to correct your fictitious forecasts!

Thankyou

[riddler]

So what is the problem here?

It appears the AVA is calling for a ''deed not breed'' type of policy to be implimented.

i.e., Dogs to be assessed as individuals, not automatically classified, accepted or rejected, simply because of their breed.

Isn't that what the anti bsl push all about?

A similar policy applies to humans wanting to enter the country.

Why shouldn't the same criterior apply to dogs?

Seems like a step in right direction to me.

Do you import?

NB:

The assessment would take place prior to the dog arriving in Australia

I haven't yet.

Only those who would seek to import dangerous &/or diseased dogs, banned breeds, ova/sperm from diseased dogs or banned breeds would be affected by this recommendation.

Talk about making mountains out of mole hills.

For the honest, the ethical & the responsible it would business as usual, with little or no extra expense.

ya reckon?

How about you actually go and learn about the soapbox your on

and then come back to postulate your assessments and grandiose generalisations?

It would save those that care, a lot of time from having to correct your fictitious forecasts!

Thankyou

The floor is yours!

Let us hear from the maestro.

Tell me where have I gone wrong?

Quarantine there before they come here.

Health checks manditory.

All paperwork can be completed before departure.

What else oh great magnificence?

[shortstep]

The way it reads to me is, that before approval for individual dogs to be imported into the country they should have to pass a health & behavioural assessment (there's that word again)

What is the problem with that? Good idea. Don't we have enough savage &/or sick dogs here as it is?

Who would wish to import a dangerous &/or diseased dog anyhow?

Any prospective import must be quarantined before departure anyhow. All the tests can be done then & the paper work accompany the dog from is place of origin.

Wouldn't an animal that displayed cronic health problems while in quarantine be disbarred from importation anyhow.

Behaviour could easily assessed during the quarantine period.

I have imported a fair number of dogs and never have they been quarantined prior to arriving in Australia.

Which county quarantined your dog prior to it leaving for Australia?

Answer to your question about people importing dogs, no people who import dogs don't give a crap what type of dog they import and look for agressive sick dogs, they want to spend S10,000 to get this type of dog into Australia. Are you for real? Now can we move on to some reality. BTW most of the dogs come over are with peopel when they move and are pets, (yes I am sure you think they are also sick and agressive pets) that they love.

Now moving on in the real world.

These temperament tests will be done prior to leaving by some kind of certified behavioral person or vet. The owner of the dog will have to hire and pay what I am guessing 400 to 600 hundred dollars to get this test done and the paper work written up. Then it will sent as part of the application process.

Right now it coast about $10,000 AUD or more (not including the price of the dog if you are importing to try to improve the breed by bringing in needed new bloodlines) to import your pet dog from the easy countries like the UK. Your talking thousands more plus 5 months wait or boarding from the US Canada and part of Europe and who could guess how much from many other countries.

How are you with affording this cost of importing a pet dog right now? Is it not enough, should it cost more?

Can I ask how many imported dogs you have brought into Australia?

Is there ever going to be a cost level that makes you just say that is enough, I will leave my pooch behind as I cannot afford to bring him with me? Can you tell us how much will just be too much as far as your pocket book goes?

Are you sure that pushing people with financial burdens and a process what goes on for months of hassles and hoops to jump through, paper work, health tests, vet exams, inspections by government vets and so on to the point that they will leave their pets behind, is really going to stop dog attacts in Australia?

Edited March 21, 2011 by shortstep

[BJean]

The floor is yours!

Let us hear from the maestro.

Tell me where have I gone wrong?

Quarantine there before they come here.

Health checks manditory.

All paperwork can be completed before departure.

What else oh great magnificence?

Don't be asking me to waste more of my time explaining.

You still can't read the process from the AQIS site correctly.

Edited March 21, 2011 by lilli

[BJean]

The way it reads to me is, that before approval for individual dogs to be imported into the country they should have to pass a health & behavioural assessment (there's that word again)

What is the problem with that? Good idea. Don't we have enough savage &/or sick dogs here as it is?

Who would wish to import a dangerous &/or diseased dog anyhow?

Any prospective import must be quarantined before departure anyhow. All the tests can be done then & the paper work accompany the dog from is place of origin.

Wouldn't an animal that displayed cronic health problems while in quarantine be disbarred from importation anyhow.

Behaviour could easily assessed during the quarantine period.

I have imported a fair number of dogs and never have they been quarantined prior to arriving in Australia.

Which county quarantined your dog prior to it leaving for Australia?

Answer to your question about people improting dogs, no people who import dogs don't give a crap what type of dog they import and look for agressive sick dogs, they want to spend S10,000 to get this type of dog into Asutralis. Are you for real? Now can we move on to some reality. BTW most of the dogs come over with peopel when they move and are pets, (yes I am sure they are also sick and agressive pets) that they love.

Now moving on in the real world.

These temperament tests will be done prior to leaving by some kind of certified behavioral person or vet. The owner of the dog will have to hire and pay what I am guessing 400 to 600 hundred dollars to get this test done and the paper work written up. Then it will sent as part of the application process.

Right now it coast about $10,000 AUD or more (not including the price of the dog if you are importing to try to improve the breed by bringing in needed new bloodlines) to import your pet dog from the easy countries like the UK. Your talking thousands more plus 5 months wait or boarding from the US Canada and part of Europe and who could guess how much from many other coutries.

How are you with affording this cost of importing a pet dog right now? Is it not enough, should it cost more?

Can I ask how many imported dogs you have brought into Australia?

Is there ever going to be a cost level that makes you just say that is enough, I will leave my pooch behind as I cannot afford to bring him with me? Can you tell us how much will just be too much as far as youir pocket book goes?

Are you sure that pushing people with financial burdens and a process what goes on for months of hassles and hoops to jump through, paper work, health tests, vet exams, inspections by government vets and so on to the point that they will leave their pets behind, is really going to stop dog attacts in Australia?

oh SS, riddler's not even sure about what it is they're espousing!

Edited March 21, 2011 by lilli

[shortstep]

Do you import?

Not animals

But I have had dealings with AQIS.

I do have a grasp on what is required.

Which is why I don't understand all the wringing of hands.

What is proposed isn't that far removed from what we have now.

What sort of deallings with AQIS?

I know a gal that has dealings with AQIS, her mission is to get the banning of all animals for export and import.

[SparkyTansy]

The way it reads to me is, that before approval for individual dogs to be imported into the country they should have to pass a health & behavioural assessment (there's that word again)

What is the problem with that? Good idea. Don't we have enough savage &/or sick dogs here as it is?

Who would wish to import a dangerous &/or diseased dog anyhow?

Breed is not mentioned. Although I would imagine banned breeds & sperm/ova from same would still be banned. Same scenario as switchblades, drugs etc,etc etc. People still try it on though. If they are caught they are prosecuted. That's fair enough isn't it. Not everyone agrees with every law but everyone is still bound by all of them.

Any prospective import must be quarantined before departure anyhow. All the tests can be done then & the paper work accompany the dog from is place of origin.

Wouldn't an animal that displayed cronic health problems while in quarantine be disbarred from importation anyhow.

Behaviour could easily assessed during the quarantine period.

Would any ethical breeder wish to import semen/ova from a diseased dog/bitch?

Not bloody likely.

Humans with criminal convictions aren't issued visa. If they do land here & are detected they are put on the next plane back from whence they came.

Imigration is a subject for a different type of forum. Not a valid argument here.

Unless of course the boat people start bringing their dogs with them. In which case the dogs would be put down immediately.

Which would be something else for the bleeding hearts to whinge about no doubt.

The issue I have with this is that all dogs are different and react differently in different situations. All tests conducted by a person despite their knowledge or qualifications are never going to be as solid and easy to test for as any health issues that are currently screened for. What might be ok for one tester might not be ok by another. There is no one answer for every dog.

[bulldogz4eva]

So what is the problem here?

It appears the AVA is calling for a ''deed not breed'' type of policy to be implimented.

i.e., Dogs to be assessed as individuals, not automatically classified, accepted or rejected, simply because of their breed.

Isn't that what the anti bsl push all about?

A similar policy applies to humans wanting to enter the country.

Why shouldn't the same criterior apply to dogs?

Seems like a step in right direction to me.

I think you totally miss the point.they want their cake and eat it too.If there was no bsl then maybe but bsl still stands and now they want to chip away at what is left.Reread what is proposed.It is not just temperament.It states exhibit or carry.What does carry mean?It means the triats that they have as a breed.So if it is breed x y z bred ofr the intended purpose it will carry certain traits.Who deems that inappropriate.SAy dog barks at another dog at the vets while getting its blood taken.Said vet deems that inappropriate and you have done your money.Dog takes exception of strange man sticking cold thermometer up his bum and growls,vet deems that inappropriate you have done your money.Dog barks at someone in quarantine.Vet dems that inappropriate says dog should be deemd dangerous and desexed before release from quarantine.Where does that leave you.i think this is bs.People need to contact their vet and express there concerns before April 15th.

The way it reads to me is, that before approval for individual dogs to be imported into the country they should have to pass a health & behavioural assessment (there's that word again)

What is the problem with that? Good idea. Don't we have enough savage &/or sick dogs here as it is?

Who would wish to import a dangerous &/or diseased dog anyhow?

Breed is not mentioned. Although I would imagine banned breeds & sperm/ova from same would still be banned. Same scenario as switchblades, drugs etc,etc etc. People still try it on though. If they are caught they are prosecuted. That's fair enough isn't it. Not everyone agrees with every law but everyone is still bound by all of them.

Any prospective import must be quarantined before departure anyhow. All the tests can be done then & the paper work accompany the dog from is place of origin.

Wouldn't an animal that displayed cronic health problems while in quarantine be disbarred from importation anyhow.

Behaviour could easily assessed during the quarantine period.

Would any ethical breeder wish to import semen/ova from a diseased dog/bitch?

Not bloody likely.

Humans with criminal convictions aren't issued visa. If they do land here & are detected they are put on the next plane back from whence they came.

Imigration is a subject for a different type of forum. Not a valid argument here.

Unless of course the boat people start bringing their dogs with them. In which case the dogs would be put down immediately.

Which would be something else for the bleeding hearts to whinge about no doubt.

That all depends whio is doing the behavioural assessment and what the criteria is doenst it.Know one can import a diseased animal now so that is nonsense talk and I dont know why you bring it up.Dangerous by whose assessment?That is the problem.By reading a breed standard?that is how the Presa Canario got added to the list.No breed is not mentioned but as I said it states exhibit or carry and like I said if they do not want a particular breed to enter that is not already on the list it leaves it open to interpretation.

You mustnt have read what I said becuase this is being put forward as an alternative to BSl and that is fine an dandy but if the government runs with this and doesnt rescind bsl it will make it harder for those trying to import current breeds as well as new breeds.If you cant see that I cant help you and yes I have dealt with AQIS and I know what the process is all about.

Edited March 21, 2011 by bulldogz4eva