sumosmum Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 This article states the The AVA advised the bureau that AVA members would not be willing to provide certification of unknown breeds based on a physical examination alone and more evidence would be required before that decision was made. I am trying to contact AVA to confirm this. Does anyone have any phone numbers please? http://www.spec.com.au/?sp=2&id=12452 Dangerous dog legislation is not the whole answer More from the Hamilton Spectator 6 September 2011 LISA CAMERON THE State Government’s new legislation to crack down on dangerous and restricted dogs has been met with some apprehension by south-west veterinarians. Representatives from both Hamilton Animal Health and Hamilton Vetcare said while a definite solution was needed, this alternative might not have a strong effect on such a complex problem. The tragic death of a four-year old girl in Melbourne, after she was mauled by a pit bull cross, has heightened the debate on what to do with dangerous and restricted breed dogs. The State Government introduced new legislation to Parliament this week to better police restricted breed dogs and create a massive incentive for owners to register their animals. Minister for Agriculture and Food Security, Peter Walsh said the legislation was the first of several measures to get rid of restricted breed dogs including pit bulls. “The legislation…ends the amnesty to register restricted breeds on September 29, meaning any dog identified as a pit bull not registered after that time can be seized and destroyed,” he said. “The changes will close legal loopholes to ensure pit bull crosses become a restricted breed and a visual standard for identifying pit bull terriers will be gazetted tomorrow to prevent some of these dogs escaping regulation because of uncertainty over their breed.” Both Hamilton Animal Health’s Dr Kristabel Lewis and Hamilton Vetcare’s Dr Lauren Alexander –Shrive said just focusing on pit bulls was no way to fix the serious problem of dangerous dogs. Dr Lewis said the new planned legislation was focusing on pit bull cross breeds, but it was sometimes very difficult to determine the breed of an animal based on appearance alone. She said all dogs, no matter what breed, could present a danger depending on the situation and how that dog had been raised. “You can’t predict it and you can’t tell which dog it is going to be; it is such a risk particularly to children. “I do worry that if you get rid of one breed then you are going to possibly find that another breed, maybe in ten years or so, will come forward that have been bred to be aggressive. Getting rid of one breed is not going to fix the problem; people have to take more responsibility.” Dr Lewis said it was the responsibility of the owner to ensure their dog was restrained and housed correctly and that it was trained and behaved in a safe matter. She said not just restricted breed dogs could be dangerous with dogs known to attack if their territory was invaded, or if they were panicked or scared. Dr Alexander-Shrive urged all south-west residents to register their dog ahead of September 29 so there would be no chance that their animal would be seized by council. She said the restricted breed issue was serious and unfortunately there was no easy solution that would fix the problem. “Some cross bred dogs look like a dog on the restricted breeds list but they are not. It is really important that people register their dogs so they are not seized by mistake. “This new legislation is a good thing because it will encourage people to register their animals. However a lot more is needed and owners need to ensure they take responsibility of the housing and behavioural training of their animal.” The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) has described the new legislation as a short-term solution with the risk of lulling the community into a false sense of security that the danger is over. AVA Victorian president, Susan Maastricht said the new legislation would do little to address the overall problem of dog bites and attacks. “It’s important to recognise that most dogs don’t bite, and only a tiny proportion of dogs are aggressive,” she said. “However, effective control and management of these aggressive dogs is absolutely necessary through regulation that works. Owners must be held responsible for the education, control and actions of their dogs.” Dr Maastricht said declaring that some breeds were dangerous and others were not was misleading. The AVA was asked, by the Bureau of Animal Welfare, if Victorian veterinarians would be willing or not to examine a seized animal to decide if it was a restricted breed and should be euthanised. The AVA advised the bureau that AVA members would not be willing to provide certification of unknown breeds based on a physical examination alone and more evidence would be required before that decision was made. Southern Grampians Shire local laws co-ordinator, Brain Urwin said the new legislation and any improvement regarding dangerous dogs would be welcomed by the shire. He said council advised people against owning a dangerous dog and welcomed another plan by the State Government to employ more Animal Control officers for Victorian shires. “Council welcomes any initiatives regarding more employment of Animal Control officers in the shire,” Mr Urwin said. “Council does not have a dedicated animal control officer, but has two full-time Local Laws officers and part of their roles/ duties it to attend to animal control issues on an as needed basis.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladedadeda Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 This article states the The AVA advised the bureau that AVA members would not be willing to provide certification of unknown breeds based on a physical examination alone and more evidence would be required before that decision was made. I am trying to contact AVA to confirm this. Does anyone have any phone numbers please? Australian Veterinary Association National Office Unit 40, 6 Herbert Street St Leonards NSW 2065 Phone 02 9431 5000 Facsimile 02 9437 9068 Victorian Office Suite 1219, 401 Docklands Drive Docklands VIC 3008 Phone 03 9600 2930 Facsimile 03 9600 2940 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nattiej1976 Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 http://www.seek.com.au/Job/animal-management-officer/in/launceston-north-east-launceston-north-east/20660244 I just found this job on seek.com being advertised in Tasmania........Something big is going on by the sounds of it. Sorry Henny Penny but Melbourne Council's have been advertising for ACO's - short-term -regularly for well over a year now, possibly longer. Seriously WTF???? I was only sharing information I found. Ahhh f##$ it im not Vic i wont bother giving a S#!* anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keira&Phoenix Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) This article states the The AVA advised the bureau that AVA members would not be willing to provide certification of unknown breeds based on a physical examination alone and more evidence would be required before that decision was made. I am trying to contact AVA to confirm this. Does anyone have any phone numbers please? http://www.spec.com.au/?sp=2&id=12452 Dangerous dog legislation is not the whole answer More from the Hamilton Spectator 6 September 2011 LISA CAMERON THE State Government’s new legislation to crack down on dangerous and restricted dogs has been met with some apprehension by south-west veterinarians. Representatives from both Hamilton Animal Health and Hamilton Vetcare said while a definite solution was needed, this alternative might not have a strong effect on such a complex problem. The tragic death of a four-year old girl in Melbourne, after she was mauled by a pit bull cross, has heightened the debate on what to do with dangerous and restricted breed dogs. The State Government introduced new legislation to Parliament this week to better police restricted breed dogs and create a massive incentive for owners to register their animals. Minister for Agriculture and Food Security, Peter Walsh said the legislation was the first of several measures to get rid of restricted breed dogs including pit bulls. “The legislation…ends the amnesty to register restricted breeds on September 29, meaning any dog identified as a pit bull not registered after that time can be seized and destroyed,” he said. “The changes will close legal loopholes to ensure pit bull crosses become a restricted breed and a visual standard for identifying pit bull terriers will be gazetted tomorrow to prevent some of these dogs escaping regulation because of uncertainty over their breed.” Both Hamilton Animal Health’s Dr Kristabel Lewis and Hamilton Vetcare’s Dr Lauren Alexander –Shrive said just focusing on pit bulls was no way to fix the serious problem of dangerous dogs. Dr Lewis said the new planned legislation was focusing on pit bull cross breeds, but it was sometimes very difficult to determine the breed of an animal based on appearance alone. She said all dogs, no matter what breed, could present a danger depending on the situation and how that dog had been raised. “You can’t predict it and you can’t tell which dog it is going to be; it is such a risk particularly to children. “I do worry that if you get rid of one breed then you are going to possibly find that another breed, maybe in ten years or so, will come forward that have been bred to be aggressive. Getting rid of one breed is not going to fix the problem; people have to take more responsibility.” Dr Lewis said it was the responsibility of the owner to ensure their dog was restrained and housed correctly and that it was trained and behaved in a safe matter. She said not just restricted breed dogs could be dangerous with dogs known to attack if their territory was invaded, or if they were panicked or scared. Dr Alexander-Shrive urged all south-west residents to register their dog ahead of September 29 so there would be no chance that their animal would be seized by council. She said the restricted breed issue was serious and unfortunately there was no easy solution that would fix the problem. “Some cross bred dogs look like a dog on the restricted breeds list but they are not. It is really important that people register their dogs so they are not seized by mistake. “This new legislation is a good thing because it will encourage people to register their animals. However a lot more is needed and owners need to ensure they take responsibility of the housing and behavioural training of their animal.” The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) has described the new legislation as a short-term solution with the risk of lulling the community into a false sense of security that the danger is over. AVA Victorian president, Susan Maastricht said the new legislation would do little to address the overall problem of dog bites and attacks. “It’s important to recognise that most dogs don’t bite, and only a tiny proportion of dogs are aggressive,” she said. “However, effective control and management of these aggressive dogs is absolutely necessary through regulation that works. Owners must be held responsible for the education, control and actions of their dogs.” Dr Maastricht said declaring that some breeds were dangerous and others were not was misleading. The AVA was asked, by the Bureau of Animal Welfare, if Victorian veterinarians would be willing or not to examine a seized animal to decide if it was a restricted breed and should be euthanised. The AVA advised the bureau that AVA members would not be willing to provide certification of unknown breeds based on a physical examination alone and more evidence would be required before that decision was made. Southern Grampians Shire local laws co-ordinator, Brain Urwin said the new legislation and any improvement regarding dangerous dogs would be welcomed by the shire. He said council advised people against owning a dangerous dog and welcomed another plan by the State Government to employ more Animal Control officers for Victorian shires. “Council welcomes any initiatives regarding more employment of Animal Control officers in the shire,” Mr Urwin said. “Council does not have a dedicated animal control officer, but has two full-time Local Laws officers and part of their roles/ duties it to attend to animal control issues on an as needed basis.” With this in mind. This will hurt owners too. Because now how is Melissa Brown (who got the letter from the Council, the letter which is a couple posts above) going to get a Vet Cert saying her dog is an Amstaff and take it to this meeting? So no the AVA won't be helping the Govt but really leaves anyone with crossbreeds in the lurch seeing as they have no one to say there dog isn't a PB. It's a lose lose situation. Edited September 15, 2011 by Keira&Phoenix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
korbin13 Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 I understand that people don't really trust the DNA testing, and I have seen posts saying that it won't stand up in court. But would getting the vet (as an independent person to say that this DNA comes from this dog)to do a DNA test satisfy council? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladedadeda Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 I understand that people don't really trust the DNA testing, and I have seen posts saying that it won't stand up in court. But would getting the vet (as an independent person to say that this DNA comes from this dog)to do a DNA test satisfy council? Have seen statements from Councils saying that they won't accept DNA evidence, but it can be used by a lawyer as breed evidence, so I don't think they would take it even if a vet gave them the same DNA evidence that you could hand them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 This article states the The AVA advised the bureau that AVA members would not be willing to provide certification of unknown breeds based on a physical examination alone and more evidence would be required before that decision was made. I am trying to contact AVA to confirm this. Does anyone have any phone numbers please? http://www.spec.com.au/?sp=2&id=12452 Dangerous dog legislation is not the whole answer More from the Hamilton Spectator 6 September 2011 LISA CAMERON THE State Government’s new legislation to crack down on dangerous and restricted dogs has been met with some apprehension by south-west veterinarians. Representatives from both Hamilton Animal Health and Hamilton Vetcare said while a definite solution was needed, this alternative might not have a strong effect on such a complex problem. The tragic death of a four-year old girl in Melbourne, after she was mauled by a pit bull cross, has heightened the debate on what to do with dangerous and restricted breed dogs. The State Government introduced new legislation to Parliament this week to better police restricted breed dogs and create a massive incentive for owners to register their animals. Minister for Agriculture and Food Security, Peter Walsh said the legislation was the first of several measures to get rid of restricted breed dogs including pit bulls. “The legislation…ends the amnesty to register restricted breeds on September 29, meaning any dog identified as a pit bull not registered after that time can be seized and destroyed,” he said. “The changes will close legal loopholes to ensure pit bull crosses become a restricted breed and a visual standard for identifying pit bull terriers will be gazetted tomorrow to prevent some of these dogs escaping regulation because of uncertainty over their breed.” Both Hamilton Animal Health’s Dr Kristabel Lewis and Hamilton Vetcare’s Dr Lauren Alexander –Shrive said just focusing on pit bulls was no way to fix the serious problem of dangerous dogs. Dr Lewis said the new planned legislation was focusing on pit bull cross breeds, but it was sometimes very difficult to determine the breed of an animal based on appearance alone. She said all dogs, no matter what breed, could present a danger depending on the situation and how that dog had been raised. “You can’t predict it and you can’t tell which dog it is going to be; it is such a risk particularly to children. “I do worry that if you get rid of one breed then you are going to possibly find that another breed, maybe in ten years or so, will come forward that have been bred to be aggressive. Getting rid of one breed is not going to fix the problem; people have to take more responsibility.” Dr Lewis said it was the responsibility of the owner to ensure their dog was restrained and housed correctly and that it was trained and behaved in a safe matter. She said not just restricted breed dogs could be dangerous with dogs known to attack if their territory was invaded, or if they were panicked or scared. Dr Alexander-Shrive urged all south-west residents to register their dog ahead of September 29 so there would be no chance that their animal would be seized by council. She said the restricted breed issue was serious and unfortunately there was no easy solution that would fix the problem. “Some cross bred dogs look like a dog on the restricted breeds list but they are not. It is really important that people register their dogs so they are not seized by mistake. “This new legislation is a good thing because it will encourage people to register their animals. However a lot more is needed and owners need to ensure they take responsibility of the housing and behavioural training of their animal.” The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) has described the new legislation as a short-term solution with the risk of lulling the community into a false sense of security that the danger is over. AVA Victorian president, Susan Maastricht said the new legislation would do little to address the overall problem of dog bites and attacks. “It’s important to recognise that most dogs don’t bite, and only a tiny proportion of dogs are aggressive,” she said. “However, effective control and management of these aggressive dogs is absolutely necessary through regulation that works. Owners must be held responsible for the education, control and actions of their dogs.” Dr Maastricht said declaring that some breeds were dangerous and others were not was misleading. The AVA was asked, by the Bureau of Animal Welfare, if Victorian veterinarians would be willing or not to examine a seized animal to decide if it was a restricted breed and should be euthanised. The AVA advised the bureau that AVA members would not be willing to provide certification of unknown breeds based on a physical examination alone and more evidence would be required before that decision was made. Southern Grampians Shire local laws co-ordinator, Brain Urwin said the new legislation and any improvement regarding dangerous dogs would be welcomed by the shire. He said council advised people against owning a dangerous dog and welcomed another plan by the State Government to employ more Animal Control officers for Victorian shires. “Council welcomes any initiatives regarding more employment of Animal Control officers in the shire,” Mr Urwin said. “Council does not have a dedicated animal control officer, but has two full-time Local Laws officers and part of their roles/ duties it to attend to animal control issues on an as needed basis.” With this in mind. This will hurt owners too. Because now how is Melissa Brown (who got the letter from the Council, the letter which is a couple posts above) going to get a Vet Cert saying her dog is an Amstaff and take it to this meeting? So no the AVA won't be helping the Govt but really leaves anyone with crossbreeds in the lurch seeing as they have no one to say there dog isn't a PB. It's a lose lose situation. It is a lose lose situation. Hard to tell from this article, and I am still trying to contact someone at AVA, but if the BAW asked the AVA prior to the act going through, and already had this answer from AVA, why are they allowed to put this in the act. It is a bit like setting us up to fail in my mind. Very misleading.That is my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
korbin13 Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 I understand that people don't really trust the DNA testing, and I have seen posts saying that it won't stand up in court. But would getting the vet (as an independent person to say that this DNA comes from this dog)to do a DNA test satisfy council? Have seen statements from Councils saying that they won't accept DNA evidence, but it can be used by a lawyer as breed evidence, so I don't think they would take it even if a vet gave them the same DNA evidence that you could hand them Well, I don't think that it will be long until Victoria has it's first court case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladedadeda Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 I understand that people don't really trust the DNA testing, and I have seen posts saying that it won't stand up in court. But would getting the vet (as an independent person to say that this DNA comes from this dog)to do a DNA test satisfy council? Have seen statements from Councils saying that they won't accept DNA evidence, but it can be used by a lawyer as breed evidence, so I don't think they would take it even if a vet gave them the same DNA evidence that you could hand them Well, I don't think that it will be long until Victoria has it's first court case. Hopefully a court case happens sooner rather then later, its been a huge and uneducated knee jerk response to a very tragic and horrific death of a beautiful little girl and personally I think that child should have a better thought out and implemented legislation passed to be remembered by, and hopefully one that will actually make a difference where it is warranted, not by causing so much heartbreak and distress to so many families, I really feel ashamed to live in Victoria at the moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvawilow Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 http://www.seek.com.au/Job/animal-management-officer/in/launceston-north-east-launceston-north-east/20660244 I just found this job on seek.com being advertised in Tasmania........Something big is going on by the sounds of it. Sorry Henny Penny but Melbourne Council's have been advertising for ACO's - short-term -regularly for well over a year now, possibly longer. Seriously WTF???? I was only sharing information I found. Ahhh f##$ it im not Vic i wont bother giving a S#!* anymore. What do you mean WTF - over dramatic much? "Something big is going on" besides jumping to assumptions what other creditable information do you have at hand? You weren't sharing information - you were adding to the hysteria - as bad as the media IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 This article states the The AVA advised the bureau that AVA members would not be willing to provide certification of unknown breeds based on a physical examination alone and more evidence would be required before that decision was made. I am trying to contact AVA to confirm this. Does anyone have any phone numbers please? http://www.spec.com.au/?sp=2&id=12452 Dangerous dog legislation is not the whole answer More from the Hamilton Spectator 6 September 2011 LISA CAMERON THE State Government’s new legislation to crack down on dangerous and restricted dogs has been met with some apprehension by south-west veterinarians. Representatives from both Hamilton Animal Health and Hamilton Vetcare said while a definite solution was needed, this alternative might not have a strong effect on such a complex problem. The tragic death of a four-year old girl in Melbourne, after she was mauled by a pit bull cross, has heightened the debate on what to do with dangerous and restricted breed dogs. The State Government introduced new legislation to Parliament this week to better police restricted breed dogs and create a massive incentive for owners to register their animals. Minister for Agriculture and Food Security, Peter Walsh said the legislation was the first of several measures to get rid of restricted breed dogs including pit bulls. “The legislation…ends the amnesty to register restricted breeds on September 29, meaning any dog identified as a pit bull not registered after that time can be seized and destroyed,” he said. “The changes will close legal loopholes to ensure pit bull crosses become a restricted breed and a visual standard for identifying pit bull terriers will be gazetted tomorrow to prevent some of these dogs escaping regulation because of uncertainty over their breed.” Both Hamilton Animal Health’s Dr Kristabel Lewis and Hamilton Vetcare’s Dr Lauren Alexander –Shrive said just focusing on pit bulls was no way to fix the serious problem of dangerous dogs. Dr Lewis said the new planned legislation was focusing on pit bull cross breeds, but it was sometimes very difficult to determine the breed of an animal based on appearance alone. She said all dogs, no matter what breed, could present a danger depending on the situation and how that dog had been raised. “You can’t predict it and you can’t tell which dog it is going to be; it is such a risk particularly to children. “I do worry that if you get rid of one breed then you are going to possibly find that another breed, maybe in ten years or so, will come forward that have been bred to be aggressive. Getting rid of one breed is not going to fix the problem; people have to take more responsibility.” Dr Lewis said it was the responsibility of the owner to ensure their dog was restrained and housed correctly and that it was trained and behaved in a safe matter. She said not just restricted breed dogs could be dangerous with dogs known to attack if their territory was invaded, or if they were panicked or scared. Dr Alexander-Shrive urged all south-west residents to register their dog ahead of September 29 so there would be no chance that their animal would be seized by council. She said the restricted breed issue was serious and unfortunately there was no easy solution that would fix the problem. “Some cross bred dogs look like a dog on the restricted breeds list but they are not. It is really important that people register their dogs so they are not seized by mistake. “This new legislation is a good thing because it will encourage people to register their animals. However a lot more is needed and owners need to ensure they take responsibility of the housing and behavioural training of their animal.” The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) has described the new legislation as a short-term solution with the risk of lulling the community into a false sense of security that the danger is over. AVA Victorian president, Susan Maastricht said the new legislation would do little to address the overall problem of dog bites and attacks. “It’s important to recognise that most dogs don’t bite, and only a tiny proportion of dogs are aggressive,” she said. “However, effective control and management of these aggressive dogs is absolutely necessary through regulation that works. Owners must be held responsible for the education, control and actions of their dogs.” Dr Maastricht said declaring that some breeds were dangerous and others were not was misleading. The AVA was asked, by the Bureau of Animal Welfare, if Victorian veterinarians would be willing or not to examine a seized animal to decide if it was a restricted breed and should be euthanised. The AVA advised the bureau that AVA members would not be willing to provide certification of unknown breeds based on a physical examination alone and more evidence would be required before that decision was made. Southern Grampians Shire local laws co-ordinator, Brain Urwin said the new legislation and any improvement regarding dangerous dogs would be welcomed by the shire. He said council advised people against owning a dangerous dog and welcomed another plan by the State Government to employ more Animal Control officers for Victorian shires. “Council welcomes any initiatives regarding more employment of Animal Control officers in the shire,” Mr Urwin said. “Council does not have a dedicated animal control officer, but has two full-time Local Laws officers and part of their roles/ duties it to attend to animal control issues on an as needed basis.” With this in mind. This will hurt owners too. Because now how is Melissa Brown (who got the letter from the Council, the letter which is a couple posts above) going to get a Vet Cert saying her dog is an Amstaff and take it to this meeting? So no the AVA won't be helping the Govt but really leaves anyone with crossbreeds in the lurch seeing as they have no one to say there dog isn't a PB. It's a lose lose situation. It is a lose lose situation. Hard to tell from this article, and I am still trying to contact someone at AVA, but if the BAW asked the AVA prior to the act going through, and already had this answer from AVA, why are they allowed to put this in the act. It is a bit like setting us up to fail in my mind. Very misleading.That is my point. Spoke to AVA lady, and she said their vets are advised to proceed with caution and it isn't a good idea to certify breed. She told me to call DPI. DPI Told me that they can certify that a dog isn't a restricted breed, but not have to state a breed. .......don't know about that. She also said that they can tell if a dog is a restricted dog because the tail will not go above the back and they can tell by the teeth!, and she herself has a Amstaff/lab cross! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 I hope the situation in Vic becomes so hysterical people actually stand up for themselves instead of taking it in the ass like they always seem to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 I understand that people don't really trust the DNA testing, and I have seen posts saying that it won't stand up in court. But would getting the vet (as an independent person to say that this DNA comes from this dog)to do a DNA test satisfy council? There is no DNA test for this breed. However there is DNA testing to establish parentage. If a vet did this testing and was satisfied that a particular dog was the progeny of two particular registered microchipped ASTs, then they could supply a certificate saying that the dog has been identified as an AST, without having to show any of their DNA evidence to council. A DNA profile or test result isn't evidence of anything on its own, identity has to be verified and vets may be able to do this in some cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 AVA are saying the wont. don't know if AVA speaks for all vets under their parasol though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 http://www.seek.com.au/Job/animal-management-officer/in/launceston-north-east-launceston-north-east/20660244 I just found this job on seek.com being advertised in Tasmania........Something big is going on by the sounds of it. Sorry Henny Penny but Melbourne Council's have been advertising for ACO's - short-term -regularly for well over a year now, possibly longer. Seriously WTF???? I was only sharing information I found. Ahhh f##$ it im not Vic i wont bother giving a S#!* anymore. I went out of my way to contact geelong Council for clarification on AST and SBT for geelong people who would not/couldn't be f***ed to contact themselves. Even if they are "guests' viewing I hope it helps, Dol warriors saying the sky is falling for you or gasp people with unpapered asts and sbt's don't mean anything. even within their own flock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 AVA are saying the wont. don't know if AVA speaks for all vets under their parasol though. They are not saying they won't they are saying that a physical examination is not enough. The AVA advised the bureau that AVA members would not be willing to provide certification of unknown breeds based on a physical examination alone and more evidence would be required before that decision was made. That is fair enough, because vets have no real training in breed conformation and even if they did, we all know that you cannot identify a pitbull using a "standard". (I'm really amazed that the Vic gov has gone down this path after the embarrassment of councils and points check-list garbage that was discredited in court in QLD.) The council is saying that DNA evidence will not be accepted by them. And that is fair enough too. Only people like vets can legally sign off on all the paperwork necessary to get paternity and identity established, and so if somebody is willing to pay a vet to organise that, the vet's decision should then be accepted by council without the vet having to provide a folder of documents. I think this sort of thing is what the AVA might mean by extra evidence. I can certainly understand why councils would not be willing to deal with people sending in random DNA paperwork, as the council is not really qualified to check the credibility of the documents whereas vets are. Having said all that, how likely is it that somebody with a non-registered amstaff is going to be able to track down two registered amstaff parents to do this testing? I feel sorry for people that bought backyard -bred amstaffs. It's just so horrible that despite all the educating about buying registered dogs that we do here, we have not really been able to reach all of the families that have bought these dogs. They may have bought them in total ignorance but they bought them with the best of intentions of getting the right dog for their family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 A lot would be rescue dogs too. The AVA have said they have advised their vets to "proceed with caution" regarding the certifying of breeds of dogs. That is what they told me today when I called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) Not all of 'us' bought from backyard breeders. Some of us rescued dogs from pounds and shelters not knowing we would ever have to prove parentage. And its not just am staffs in trouble either. Edited September 15, 2011 by Cosmolo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbi Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 It is very easy for people to call for cool heads and rational thinking to prevail but we must understand that it is a very emotive issue and many innocent lives are at risk due to this draconian legislation. I truly believe that we are seeing the thin edge of the wedge in Victoria at the moment and there are other breeds that will be placed on the list. Other countries opened up bsl by adding a couple of breeds and then once they had been in place for a couple of years many other breeds were added to the list until suddenly some countries had DOZENS of breeds on their ban lists Denmark has even banned th Corgi Whilst we have to be careful of misinformation and half truths we have to be vigilant and follow up on all that we hear or read about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeiLuvR Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 (edited) Who's going to the meeting tonight/tomorrow night? Wyndham Council 8pm. I'm very worried about the American staffys that i know, which have no proof of breed or purebreed papers to rely on. Whether purchased from Joe Blow down the road, or the trading post/byb or the hundreds of rescued American Staffys all around Wyndham and geelong etc, how can this possibly end well? I understand the need to Recognize Pitbulls and hav them on file but are dogs with mistaken identity going to be euthanased willy nilly? Are local Vets really going to take responsibility for naming a dog as a suspected 'restricted breed' ? So many questions. I do not own an Amstaff but i will be waiting to hear how the meeting goes. Edited September 20, 2011 by PeiLuvR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now