Aidan3 Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Whether people "should" be breeding dogs that look like pitbulls is a side issue, m-sass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grizabella Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Personally, I wouldn't purchase a bully type breed except from a registered breeder (for me this would be the case even if it wasn't for BSL) for fear of it being seized and put down. I do think it is irresponsible to breed dogs that are likely to fit this standard (except for ANKC registered bully types). Way too much of a risk I think, and cruel to the dogs and the owners who will suffer from BSL. I just can't get over how ridiculous these laws are. Innocent lives taken, and I can only imagine how heartbreaking it must be for the poor owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) Whether people "should" be breeding dogs that look like pitbulls is a side issue, m-sass. How is it a side issue when looks determine whether or not a dog is determined a restricted breed?, looks is the "issue" if we like it or not according to the legislation and all the belly aching in the world is not going to change the cold hard facts that if you have a dog that fits the description of a restricted breed and you can't confirm breed origin, then you have a problem, so why are people breeding dogs vulnerable to falling victim of the legislation?? Edited June 16, 2012 by m-sass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 And one could also ask, why are we putting up with this WRONG legislation? It isn't the dogs that are wrong, it is the law. The law will be changed before the dogs aren't bred, so I wouldn't be belly aching about that, as that is a waste of time.:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Whether people "should" be breeding dogs that look like pitbulls is a side issue, m-sass. How is it a side issue when looks determine whether or not a dog is determined a restricted breed?, looks is the "issue" if we like it or not according to the legislation and all the belly aching in the world is not going to change the cold hard facts that if you have a dog that fits the description of a restricted breed and you can't confirm breed origin, then you have a problem, so why are people breeding dogs vulnerable to falling victim of the legislation?? To begin with, these dogs were bred prior to the legislation so it's a moot point. But the main issue is that, now that Victoria has BSL, they should at least have an objective method of determining which dogs are pitbulls or pitbull crosses. If they want to be silly enough to risk public safety providing yet another test case for the BSL hypothesis they should at least ensure that they are killing pitbulls and their crosses. How many non-pitbulls is it acceptable to kill along the way? Whatever reasons people have for breeding dogs that look like pitbulls is their business. People have all sorts of reasons to breed all sorts of dogs, purebred or crossbred. That is not illegal. Obviously if you breed from stock that is unrelated to pitbulls you shouldn't have a problem. Yet we do have a problem, because the legislation is that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) And one could also ask, why are we putting up with this WRONG legislation? It isn't the dogs that are wrong, it is the law. The law will be changed before the dogs aren't bred, so I wouldn't be belly aching about that, as that is a waste of time.:) Exactly! Whether people "should" be breeding dogs that look like pitbulls is a side issue, m-sass. How is it a side issue when looks determine whether or not a dog is determined a restricted breed?, looks is the "issue" if we like it or not according to the legislation and all the belly aching in the world is not going to change the cold hard facts that if you have a dog that fits the description of a restricted breed and you can't confirm breed origin, then you have a problem, so why are people breeding dogs vulnerable to falling victim of the legislation?? To begin with, these dogs were bred prior to the legislation so it's a moot point. But the main issue is that, now that Victoria has BSL, they should at least have an objective method of determining which dogs are pitbulls or pitbull crosses. If they want to be silly enough to risk public safety providing yet another test case for the BSL hypothesis they should at least ensure that they are killing pitbulls and their crosses. How many non-pitbulls is it acceptable to kill along the way? Whatever reasons people have for breeding dogs that look like pitbulls is their business. People have all sorts of reasons to breed all sorts of dogs, purebred or crossbred. That is not illegal. Obviously if you breed from stock that is unrelated to pitbulls you shouldn't have a problem. Yet we do have a problem, because the legislation is that bad. Good points! And that's why this legislation is so ridiculous - there is no fool proof way to identify whether a dog of unknown parentage is or isn't a Pit Bull. When you add in that Amstaffs are NOT restricted it becomes even more insane and messy. Edited June 16, 2012 by melzawelza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Whether people "should" be breeding dogs that look like pitbulls is a side issue, m-sass. How is it a side issue when looks determine whether or not a dog is determined a restricted breed?, looks is the "issue" if we like it or not according to the legislation and all the belly aching in the world is not going to change the cold hard facts that if you have a dog that fits the description of a restricted breed and you can't confirm breed origin, then you have a problem, so why are people breeding dogs vulnerable to falling victim of the legislation?? To begin with, these dogs were bred prior to the legislation so it's a moot point. But the main issue is that, now that Victoria has BSL, they should at least have an objective method of determining which dogs are pitbulls or pitbull crosses. If they want to be silly enough to risk public safety providing yet another test case for the BSL hypothesis they should at least ensure that they are killing pitbulls and their crosses. How many non-pitbulls is it acceptable to kill along the way? Whatever reasons people have for breeding dogs that look like pitbulls is their business. People have all sorts of reasons to breed all sorts of dogs, purebred or crossbred. That is not illegal. Obviously if you breed from stock that is unrelated to pitbulls you shouldn't have a problem. Yet we do have a problem, because the legislation is that bad. Apparantly these dogs were born after the amnesty period began?, but no I disagree with the concept that people can breed what they like when ever they like, breeding a Pitbull look a like is just as bad as breeding two dogs with HD, both potentially are vulnerable to a shortened life span and the breeders of dogs like this IMHO need to take responsibility for their actions, plenty of other types to breed that look nothing like Pitbull's and far removed from restricted breed legislation would be a more responsible thing to do??. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 The law needs changing, not the dogs. Purebred dogs can also suffer with this law. They don't rock up to pounds as strays with their paperwork. So if a purebred SBT or Amstaff or any other similar breed is at the pound, unclaimed that dog will be destroyed and have no hope of rescue. Microchips are often missed, moved, and info is often not updated. Bear and Kooda didn't even match the Standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 I disagree with the concept that people can breed what they like when ever they like, breeding a Pitbull look a like is just as bad as breeding two dogs with HD, both potentially are vulnerable to a shortened life span and the breeders of dogs like this IMHO need to take responsibility for their actions, plenty of other types to breed that look nothing like Pitbull's and far removed from restricted breed legislation would be a more responsible thing to do??. I didn't say people can breed whatever they like whenever they like, but I see your point. The issues that we are discussing centre around BSL and the procedures legislated to enforce it in Victoria. Neither you or I know why this litter was bred so we can only speculate. If they were knowingly producing dogs likely to end up victims of BSL then you are right, but we don't know that so it remains a side issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancinbcs Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 I am not sure about Vic but in NSW you can't register your dog under 6mths of age. The article said they couldn't register them due to their age so not sure if a minimum age for registration applies in their council region. You can rego under six months, you just don't HAVE to. From memory the age of registration in VIC is 3 months. My council (in nsw) wouldn't take my money Lifetime registration for your cat or dog is to be completed at 6 months old or a penalty of $165.00 applies to owners failing to comply. They took this to mean a minimum age. Your Council are idiots! You can get fined if the dog is 6 mths 1 day old and not registered... your Council must think the only day you have to rego is the exact 6 months day! :laugh: Which Council? I lifetime register mine the day they are microchipped as babies but do it at Transpet, not at the council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) I disagree with the concept that people can breed what they like when ever they like, breeding a Pitbull look a like is just as bad as breeding two dogs with HD, both potentially are vulnerable to a shortened life span and the breeders of dogs like this IMHO need to take responsibility for their actions, plenty of other types to breed that look nothing like Pitbull's and far removed from restricted breed legislation would be a more responsible thing to do??. I didn't say people can breed whatever they like whenever they like, but I see your point. The issues that we are discussing centre around BSL and the procedures legislated to enforce it in Victoria. Neither you or I know why this litter was bred so we can only speculate. If they were knowingly producing dogs likely to end up victims of BSL then you are right, but we don't know that so it remains a side issue. Whether a breeder is knowlingly producing dogs likely to end up victims of BSL or breeding just anything without consideration of consequence in regard to the laws is beside the point, my opinion is that if you intend to breed dogs for family pets, don't breed the type of dogs that are likely to end up victims of BSL as an obligation of responsible breeding practice to avoid the heartache suffered by the owners in this case and the poor dogs. Pitbull's have been a restricted breed since 1992 and most councils throughout Australia have formulated some type of keeping and handling requirements for Pitbull's, in other words, the breed has been marked with a poor future for many years and it's up to breeders to know and understand when they do put random breeds together of the Bull variety that they can cause the owners of their productions massive problems in the light of BSL. We can blame the council for appauling action in this case if we wish, but would the outcome be the same if the people responsible for poor Bear and Kooda's existance crossbred a Husky and GSD or a Labrador and Cocker Spaniel.......I think not, so who's fault is it really for these poor dogs short life span and their owners devistation, the council or the people breeding too close to the line in a BSL infested climate??. Here is a prime example of irresponsible breeding in reference to BSL from the Trading Post: I HAVE AMERICAN STUFFY PUPPYS FOR SALE THERE 9 WEEKS OLD VAXINATED ANS WORMED Lovely...........BYB Amstaff's where are they likely to end up Edited June 17, 2012 by m-sass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuvsDobes Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) What will it take to get the message out en masse to pet owners in Victoria that the laws as they stand do nothing to protect the community? How many innocent dogs and their owners need to be blindsided by these laws before we stand up as one to say 'enough!' How do we take it BEYOND the breed and raise awareness that even if you don't own a PitBull these laws can still impact you? Too many dog owners out there just see it as a PitBull thing, and, as we know from reading the legislation, it is far from that. Unless dog owners stand in one united group, we will watch innocent dogs die for time to come. I applaud the AVA for taking a courageous stand, and I will be supporting them every step of the way. RIP Kooda & Bear, your loss will be felt by many. Edited June 17, 2012 by LuvsDobes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 What will it take to get the message out en masse to pet owners in Victoria that the laws as they stand do nothing to protect the community? How many innocent dogs and their owners need to be blindsided by these laws before we stand up as one to say 'enough!' How do we take it BEYOND the breed and raise awareness that even if you don't own a PitBull these laws can still impact you? Too many dog owners out there just see it as a PitBull thing, and, as we know from reading the legislation, it is far from that. Unless dog owners stand in one united group, we will watch innocent dogs die for time to come. I applaud the AVA for taking a courageous stand, and I will be supporting them every step of the way. RIP Kooda & Bear, your loss will be felt by many. Well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 We can blame the council for appauling action in this case if we wish, but would the outcome be the same if the people responsible for poor Bear and Kooda's existance crossbred a Husky and GSD or a Labrador and Cocker Spaniel.......I think not, so who's fault is it really for these poor dogs short life span and their owners devistation, the council or the people breeding too close to the line in a BSL infested climate?? Yes, I get it m-sass. I've already told you I do. What you don't seem to understand is that this is a side-issue. We already know they were killed because they looked like pitbulls according to two council officers, that is abundantly clear. What we are discussing is why the legislation is flawed and why two dogs were killed because they looked like pitbulls, even though they were not pitbulls and their parentage was known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pebbles Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 I'm probably way off with this but haven't the time nor inclination to go looking up facts so just ignore if I'm wrong (again). Does not the VCA have a register for 'Companion Animals' ie crossbreeds? If they are taking membership monies from these owners then wouldn't they have some obligation to look after crossbreeds interests in general? As mentioned this legislation can also affect some of the papered dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 We can blame the council for appauling action in this case if we wish, but would the outcome be the same if the people responsible for poor Bear and Kooda's existance crossbred a Husky and GSD or a Labrador and Cocker Spaniel.......I think not, so who's fault is it really for these poor dogs short life span and their owners devistation, the council or the people breeding too close to the line in a BSL infested climate?? Yes, I get it m-sass. I've already told you I do. What you don't seem to understand is that this is a side-issue. We already know they were killed because they looked like pitbulls according to two council officers, that is abundantly clear. What we are discussing is why the legislation is flawed and why two dogs were killed because they looked like pitbulls, even though they were not pitbulls and their parentage was known. I think the dogs were killed because the case wasn't defended properly on the owners part, perhaps they couldn't afford a legal council which is sad but I think personally there were enough grounds for doubt if the case was presented differently. The problem is that the general public and many of the general public hate dogs full stop want the Pitbull/Mastiff type crossbreeds removed from existance so in that concept the legislation isn't flawed I guess, but I don't see anyone of a political stature brave enough to overturn the legilsation of a dog's life versus that of a child when a Pitbull/Mastiff type dog was responsible for poor little Ayen's death??. Crossbreed dogs have no breed standard in terms of temperament and character where as pure breeds do have a standard and global recognition, an aggressive Rottweiler for example can be argued as a faulty dog by the standard, but what standard does an Amstaff x American Bulldog x Bull Mastiff x Staffordshire Terrier represent when it attacks and kills someone.......who can scientifically determine that such a genetic breed mixture produces a great family pet of excellent temperament and character to be safe in the community is what we are up against and at the end of the day, no one needs this type of crossbreed dog to enjoy the effects of a companion animal and pet when there are plenty of other types or pure breed Bull varieties to choose from??. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) That's not the issue. Someone should be able to adopt an Amstaff or x breed from the pound without having to worry about what is going to happen to it. You can get a lab x or Shar Pei x and it can fit the standard the officers are using to determine if a dog is a restricted breed - so it is not just bull breeds. It's all well and good to be saying people shouldn't be breeding these dogs, but unless laws are passed to prevent BYBs that is going to keep happening. Pebbles, unless i have read wrong - i think if it fits the standard - no matter what you have registered it as - it can still be seized Edited June 17, 2012 by Cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 I agree with M-sass. Now maybe these owners (victims) will sue the person who sold them these pups as family pets, and that may deter people randomly breeding and selling dogs in future. While the law itself is a really bad one, it's the people that breed dogs in this way that are more likely to be breeding the dogs that cause the problems that this legislation aims to prevent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 how would they sue them? on what grounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 how would they sue them? on what grounds? They were sold two dogs as pets, that they brought home and spent 7 months training. It turned out that the dogs were illegal, and therefore not suitable as pets. They should be able to easily take legal action at a basic level to get a refund on purchase price. But if they had a good lawyer I think they could also sue to compensate for the wasted time spent training the dogs as well as suing to recover the all the legal and other costs they had accumulated as a result of being sold two illegal pets. 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