Dog News Editorial Sept 2011

[RottnBullies]

Yes It actually Is, so much for trying to stand united when we keep getting kicked In the guts so to speak

[Erny]

I am new here and very concerned about the situation with the new laws and where things may be heading. Is it true that an ANKC papered dog of a breed with similar looks to a restricted breed can be seized regardless of the owner producing the dog's ANKC pedigree papers to prove what breed the dog is?

It is a complicating technical hitch in the wording of the law that yes ..... could result in an unfortunate set of circumstances affecting ANKC papered "look-alikes".

Is it likely? .... dunno. Is is possible? Yes. The mere fact that the dog can be seized and the owner then having to go through the legal hoops (and expense) of appeal is bad enough. Not to mention the stress on the animal impounded for the duration.

Are Victorian dog-laws in a mess? Yes.

[geo]

"There are those out there in the community indiscriminately cross breeding large and dangerous dogs,

I agree with most of your post but haven't really come across people doing this, i've come across the stupid people breeding big uncontrollable dogs and not care about where they're going but not "dangerous" what makes a dog dangerous? one that has been labelled by the council? a particular breed? a banned breed? or one who the bogans think they have made aggressive behind a fence?

[melzawelza]

Below is the letter I have just sent to the editor at [email protected] . If anyone would like to take what they can from this email while constructing their own they are more than welcome to.

To the editor,

I would like to express to you not only my absolute disappointment and disbelief, but also my absolute disgust in regards to the comments made by John Bryson and the cartoon signed by 'Rev' in your September 2011 issue.

Mr Bryson's comments, specifically - "There are those out there in the community indiscriminately cross breeding large and dangerous dogs, then not looking after them,effectively unleashing them on the public. These people should feel the full weight of the law that have been devised to combat them.", clearly show that Mr Bryson is in support of Breed Specific Legislation and the recent laws passed by the Victorian Government, as long as it does not affect any purebred, pedigreed dogs.

While I understand that the aim of your magazine is to promote pedigree dogs, an aim that I absolutely do not object to, I find the utter disregard for any dog that does not have the benefit of pedigree papers, and thus are likely to lose their lives quite frankly frightening from someone who is supposed to be a dog lover and supporter. Even more frightening is the fact that a dog dedicated newspaper would also publish these comments.

The dogs that will be affected by these laws did not ask to be born and also did not ask to be killed based on their appearance. Many FAMILIES that will lose their loving pets did not support backyard breeders but instead rescued these dogs from death row. Do they deserve to have their dogs seized and killed based on their appearance, all because they do not have the benefits of a pedigree behind them?

All available scientific literature proves BSL ineffective, and academics and Subject Matter Experts (SME’s) universally acknowledge that BSL does not make communities safer from dog bite incidents. There are World class, science-driven animal management strategies are in use in many areas of the world. These areas enjoy not only extremely low incidences of dog bites, but animal destruction rates that are considered ‘No Kill’ (<10%). To support BSL is to show your newspaper's complete lack of research into the subject, which is again extremely disappointing considering you are a newspaper dedicated to dogs.

In regards to the cartoon signed by 'Rev' published in the same issue, which depicts an angry pit bull running away from someone's leg in comparison to a happy, loving Amstaff with it's ID tag - and to then title the cartoon as 'How to tell a Pit Bull from an Amstaff' is so offensive and disgusting I almost do not have the words to describe how much respect I have lost for your newspaper. May I remind you that in almost every other country that has implemented BSL, both the American Staffordshire Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier - INCLUDING PAPERED DOGS - are included as 'pit bull types' and thus restricted or banned in the same way as the American Pit Bull Terrier.

May I remind you of the saying 'United We Stand, Divided We Fall', and if you or your newspaper feel that offensive, inaccurate, sensationalised cartoons such as this will save any papered breeds from BSL you are gravely mistaken. You will regret printing what you have in September the day that the Amstaff is included on the list, and wish that you took a stand against BSL when you had the chance, rather than furthering the hysteria.

I write to you as a lover of the American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and, yes, the American Pit Bull Terrier. I am a strong supporter of ethical registered breeders, however I am no longer a supporter of your newspaper.

Sincerely,

XXXXXXXXXX

Edited October 7, 2011 by melzawelza

[TheCoat]

I am new here and very concerned about the situation with the new laws and where things may be heading. Is it true that an ANKC papered dog of a breed with similar looks to a restricted breed can be seized regardless of the owner producing the dog's ANKC pedigree papers to prove what breed the dog is?

It is a complicating technical hitch in the wording of the law that yes ..... could result in an unfortunate set of circumstances affecting ANKC papered "look-alikes".

Is it likely? .... dunno. Is is possible? Yes. The mere fact that the dog can be seized and the owner then having to go through the legal hoops (and expense) of appeal is bad enough. Not to mention the stress on the animal impounded for the duration.

Are Victorian dog-laws in a mess? Yes.

Hi Erny, thanks for the clarification, I guess any dog of the wrong look can be challenged as to the authenticity of ANKC papers and seized whilst paperwork confirmation is pending which is most certainly a stressful situation for the dog and owners concerned. It's time to learn these laws and know where you stand what an animal control officer can and cannot do and under what conditions a dog can be seized or not?

[TheCoat]

Who is this guy?

What a callous, pompous and cavalier attitude he has. :mad

I thought that there were only 2 forms of identification accepted under this Legislation:

1. ANKC Papers

2. A veterinarian's letter which identifies the dog as a particular breed and as far as I know no AVA veterinarian is prepared to do this.

I heard this too about AVA vets are not prepared to declare breed to save a dog, the very people able to help prevent the carnage under the new laws don't have the spine to take a risk that can't be proven anyway I find is a total copout? The law doesn't require the breed declaration has to be correct, it requires the dog to have the breed declared by a vet to the effect it's not a restricted breed. If a vet declared a Pitbull X as a Cocker Spaniel it satisfies the law, the dog has a vet certificate declaring the breed is not restricted, with that in hand from what I have read of the present law, an ACO has no legal grounds to seize the dog?

Declaring one as a Cocker Spaniel is a silly example that would raise suspicion, but a vet has the power to declare the dog is not a restricted breed with a multitude of breeds to choose from that could produce a particular look, can't be proven otherwise by DNA so what's the problem?

[Steve]

Lets just take a minute to look at the bigger picture.

We really have set much of this up for ourselves havent we?

Rescue come into this forum all the time asking for people to help them ID what breed or breed cross a dog is and people race in to say what breed type the dog looks to be.

For ever RSPCA and anyone in similar areas has sold dogs off with a breed like description. Our whole canine registration / microchipping system has enabled us to register dogs as any breed we choose to say the dog is or looks like.

Many of us actually choose the dog based on how we think it looks to be a particular breed or type. Our society has acccepted that dogs or breeds can be identified by looks but when its goes against the dog and used to determine which dogs may be at higher risk of a particular behaviour we cry fowl.

Some of us have been coming in when asked what breed do we think a dog is with a standard answer - cant tell - mostly because we saw exactly what is happening now happening in Queensland but then everyone gets bent out of shape because we are spoiling the guess the breed fun. Not able to see the bigger picture coming - which is the fact that its considered acceptable to ID a breed or part breed based on how we think a dog looks.

So there is no point now in saying we dont want someone looking at our dogs and determining what breed they think is in the mix when identifying what breed they think has been in the mix has been part of their job description for years. A question for every dog which is found at large or surrendered or registered has been a box to fill in - what breed?

Go and look at the petrescue site and see how many of them are not described as a breed or breed type. They win.

Then here in the news forum this week we get a news story where some dogs got out and killed the neighbours dog and we fall over ourselves saying how its not possible to be 100% sure we can keep our dogs contained - we tell stories of trees falling on fences etc - that kinda blows out any arguments we want to present about it being an owner responsibility - so if we educate owners or be proactive and ensure people who own dogs have fencing and containment which suits their size and breed that no matter what we can keep our dogs home and not upsetting or worse anyone else in the community. Does this help an argument for not judging a dog on what if - when the intent of the government is keeping the community safe? No- we tell them they are right and no matter how hard we try shit will happen and dogs will get out - better ensure if the dogs get out they are small white fluffies then in case when they get out they eat children. They win.

We have agreed that a method of identifying what breed of dog may be is if it has rego papers we cant now say that papers are not an acceptable method of determining that a dog is not a restricted breed.

Vic dogs seem to have missed that the LEGISLATION talks about breed and breed types but the basis for registered purebreds of these tyupe of breeds to be let off the hook is the presumption that the breeders are breeding well temperamented dogs, they are placing them in well suited homes and even if its the same breed at the end of the day there is an assumed less risk.

Thus you see editorials like this which place the blame on people who are breeding cranky cross breeds. If the Victorian government is going to concede that registered breeders are not policed and they dont breed better, healthier dogs which are placed in better homes then their whole system is shot to pieces .Registered breeders and Vic dogs members have been given financial discounts and exemptions based on this presumption - its not something thats going to be moved out now.

Therefore accept it - Vic dog members are going to be given exemptions and be given the benefit of the doubt over anyone who is not or who has a dog bred by someone other than a Vic dogs member. It is not going to benefit them at all to be seen to be saying that there dogs are not better and using what ever argument they can to promote that - hell they have been doing it forever and animal welfare and animal rights have helped them. How do you fnd a puppy ? Why is a dog from a registered breeder better? Its too late to yell at peope like John Byson now. As a community we have promoted the fact that purebred dogs bred by registered breeders are better - whether that has been true or not its a fact that thi sis how its all been marketed.

We [ MDBA ] argued against Mcgreevy's Lida DATA base because we said unless the dog had stud papers no one could determine what breed a dog was so even though we got no support for that via ANKC and Dogs NSW gave them 30000 to develop the data base which identified breeds based on how they looked and not papers what we argued then still stands - we dont believe you can determine what breed a dog is without stud papers no matter how it looks.

So- If you can only identify what breed a dog is which has stud papers [ which appears to be the premise for the whole carry a card concept] then it shouldnt be a one sided benefit - if you cant identify what breed a dog is without the card or papers then you shouldnt be able to identify a dog with no card or no papers. If its not about the papers but rather about the type then ANKC registered dogs which are of the same type theoretically cannot be excluded.

There fore we cant really yell too much about the fact that if someone has papers to help them protect their dogs, if they do all they can to use them to keep their dogs safe. If carrying cards to say your dog is a registered pedigreed purebred works good for them but we surely we can all see that if you can take a dog out because of its type or its assessed breed that card or not its still that type of breed and sooner or later the same restrictions HAVE to be placed on those with papers - because they are still the same type . If a dog needs a card to prove its bred by a registered breeder because it is so easily confused with dogs which are not at the end of the day anyone Identifying them as that type is off the hook. with or without the card.

The point Im trying to make is that when we agree everyone in the whole world can look at a dog and guess the breed its a bit late to say that someone working on a set of breed criteria isnt able to do so. If we nag about the fact that its not possible now its going to take a hell of a lot of energy, money and a huge publicity push to even try and convice a part of the community . This is a wasted argument - it will not take us to where we want to go.

Accept the fact that dogs will be judged by how they look and if they are bred by a purebred registered breeder and even if DNA can prove one of their parents is a maltese we are not going to win on this point. Accept that in at least 3 states registered purebred breeders are an integral part of an established relationship with government.

Now we need to stand back and look at the politics within the dog world ,how things have come about and work out a relalistic strategy which wont take decades to see results.

In order to gain any ground for the dogs we have to know these politics and work with that knowledge and right now Im afraid we are not.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Steve

[sumosmum]

Who is this guy?

What a callous, pompous and cavalier attitude he has. :mad

I thought that there were only 2 forms of identification accepted under this Legislation:

1. ANKC Papers

2. A veterinarian's letter which identifies the dog as a particular breed and as far as I know no AVA veterinarian is prepared to do this.

I heard this too about AVA vets are not prepared to declare breed to save a dog, the very people able to help prevent the carnage under the new laws don't have the spine to take a risk that can't be proven anyway I find is a total copout? The law doesn't require the breed declaration has to be correct, it requires the dog to have the breed declared by a vet to the effect it's not a restricted breed. If a vet declared a Pitbull X as a Cocker Spaniel it satisfies the law, the dog has a vet certificate declaring the breed is not restricted, with that in hand from what I have read of the present law, an ACO has no legal grounds to seize the dog?

Declaring one as a Cocker Spaniel is a silly example that would raise suspicion, but a vet has the power to declare the dog is not a restricted breed with a multitude of breeds to choose from that could produce a particular look, can't be proven otherwise by DNA so what's the problem?

The Vet certification was only intended for Amstaffs. The wording is vague in the legislation, but I was told that is what was intended.

The AVA have advised their vets that it isn't a good idea to do the Certificates, but I do know that at least one Vet who is not a member of the AVA will do a certificate.

Dr Kim Hooper runs a mobile vet service in the NE of Melbourne.

Dr Kim is a true friend of the dog, a very compassionate and ethical professional, and a supporter of the NDTF.

If you believe you require a vet certificate as a result of the current legislation please take some time to call her on 0434377156 and seek some advice. Kim will be happy to take your call and see if she can help you given your situation and ethical constraints.

Dr Kim is not a member of the AVA.

[Erny]

The Vet certification was only intended for Amstaffs. The wording is vague in the legislation, but I was told that is what was intended.

You're absolutely right that the wording is vague, and I think that adds to what is already a huge problem.

I thought (though) that the Vet Certificates were intended for any dog with fits the description "type" set out by the Government? The intention might only have been for AmStaffs, given that their description is so similar to PB's .... but the Government have been negligent in overlooking the fact that there are many dogs that fit their very loose description list of what constitutes "type". Unfortunately I don't gain a lot of confidence and assurance in the ability to rely on "intent". That needs "trust" and I wouldn't entrust my or anyone's dog to the Government.

Perhaps I'm wrong in this. It's such a muddled mess the Govt have created.

[TheCoat]

The Vet certification was only intended for Amstaffs. The wording is vague in the legislation, but I was told that is what was intended.

You're absolutely right that the wording is vague, and I think that adds to what is already a huge problem.

I thought (though) that the Vet Certificates were intended for any dog with fits the description "type" set out by the Government? The intention might only have been for AmStaffs, given that their description is so similar to PB's .... but the Government have been negligent in overlooking the fact that there are many dogs that fit their very loose description list of what constitutes "type". Unfortunately I don't gain a lot of confidence and assurance in the ability to rely on "intent". That needs "trust" and I wouldn't entrust my or anyone's dog to the Government.

Perhaps I'm wrong in this. It's such a muddled mess the Govt have created.

My understanding is they accept either an ANKC pedigree or vet certificate to confirm breed. In other words if a ranger came knocking and asked what breed of dog was in the backyard and you produced a vet certificate claiming it was a Stafford X Labrador, the ranger would be obliged to accept that and p*%% off :D

[Robbi]

I am beginning to think that in the dog world there are actually very few DOG LOVERS, people that see beyond the breed,type or purpose of the dog and love the dog for what it is. A domesticated animal that has given companionship,love, protection, help whilst hunting.Is a bed warmer, herder and much more.

In return the least we can do, the absolute least, is provide food,shelter, safety, freedom from abuse or persacution. Whilst persacution sounds strong bsl is absolutely persacution, a Bull Breed or Bull breed cross deserves the same rights and protection as any other dog purebred, papered or not

[Erny]

My understanding is they accept either an ANKC pedigree or vet certificate to confirm breed. In other words if a ranger came knocking and asked what breed of dog was in the backyard and you produced a vet certificate claiming it was a Stafford X Labrador, the ranger would be obliged to accept that and p*%% off :D

No - this is where the wording of the law is less than poor. The only breed of dog that is excused by the production of an ANKC Breed Certificate is the AmStaff. They seem to have forgotten about other breeds having a need to be excused as well. And, of course, it is not so easy getting a Vet Certification that your dog is not a restricted breed dog. I know that first hand, even though the dog is ANKC registered as something other than Amstaff or any other "bully" breed type.

[Erny]

I am beginning to think that in the dog world there are actually very few DOG LOVERS ...

There are millions of dog lovers, Robbi - don't be too disheartened. Where our problem stems from is the lack of education to the people; the wrong education impressed upon people for the sake of votes, money and popularity; and the flood of inadequate, ineffectual, and failure-doomed laws.

That's what the current rallies are about. We want the Government to help us turn this around.