We Have Been Betrayed

[Rebanne]

Ok, who keeps leaving the door open and letting Dougie back in :laugh:

I know, so annoying :D

[zoendy]

What about those that still "tip" the tail in Australia, so it is not as long as normal. There is a way around everything. I am from NZ and would be sad to see our right to dock taken away. There are some here that don't dock for personal reasons and that is fine. There is no watchdog on the back yard puppy breeder about docking their puppies here even though there is legislation to cover it. Only pedigree breeders are required to be registered tail dockers in order to register their puppies.

[feenix]

In the words of the immortal Eric Morcombe.

ROOBISH.

For instance.

When was BSL legislation introduced?

Probably with the import ban on GSDs in 1928. I would have to do research to see if this was the first.

ETA in Australia

Even if you were right, which your not.

The law requiring greyhounds to be muzzled when off their owners property, as in being walked or racing, was introduced in 1927.As previously requested....do your homework before you jump in.

Yarracully

Wikipedia is a contributor driven site....not unlike D.O.L.

Did you read where in another thread where the general consesus was you can't educate fools?

Don't be included.

Read the link I previously provided.

You'll be informed....for a change

You asked when BSL was introduced and I see you use the example of Greyhounds being muzzled as BSL. Yet in an earlier post when I mentioned the muzzling of greyhounds you stated that this was not Breed Specific Legislation.

A real BSL is the attempt to eradicate a specific breed by prohibiting the breeding, selling, buying swapping, trading or giving away memebers of that breed.

In fact you made a similar statement in an earlier post

& Greys wearing muzzles is more a requirement under the "dangerous dog" legislation than BSL.

yet they were required to wear muzzles long before the Dangerous Dogs legislation was introduced.

And yet even earlier again

BSL refers to banned & restricted breeds.

Now make up your mind, either muzzling of greyhounds is or is not BSL. Muzzling a grey has nothing to do with banning it or restricting the breeding. Whatever you decide doesn't matter IT IS BSL by definition

I have read your links and one of them is by definition BSL as it identifies a specific breed. That being greyhounds and only greyhounds are specified.

As for wikipedia since the definition has been there since 2009 and no-one has edited or altered it it must be a correct definition according to the masses. Same one used by the following:

Animal Legal and Historical Centre-A branch of Michigan State University of Law

ASPCA

RSPCA

There are more but I really couldn't be bothered going through the 1 140 000 responses that google found.

As for trying to educate fools, your right, but at least I tried. Obviously you are the type that doesn't respond to the wisdom of others being shared.

And once more I apologise to all other D.O.L users that this has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic.

I don't apologise.

All falsehoods need to be challenged.

Otherwise they are perpetuated.

You are a prime example of the perpetuation problem.

The BSL wasn't enacted until the end of the last century, early this century (?)

The muzzling of greyhounds is not only not BSL, it is not even breed specific.

Any dogs declared to be dangerous to the public or other animals are required to be muzzled in public, whether they are a recognised pure breedbreed or not.

Unlike BSL affected breeds, greyhounds are only required to be muzzled when they are racing or in public. Except of course the greenhounds which are allowed to be muzzle free.

Greys don't have be kept under any specified conditions, unlike the breeds affected by BSL.

BSL affected breeds are required to be muzzled at all times when they are outside their specifically built childproof enclosures.

Even in the yared. Even in the house.

Read the BSL legislation. See for youself. It can't be that hared surely.

It is specifically to do with banned & restricted breeds.

Even more specifically it was designed to completely eradicate APBT & their declared "types" from our society.

The GSD's were banned from being imported for a while because of the fear they would mate with the dingo & create a super canine that would wreak havoc on livestock.

There was an import ban.

There were no breed specific requirements of the GSD's already here.

No BSL.

[Steve]

Ok, who keeps leaving the door open and letting Dougie back in :laugh:

I know, so annoying :D

I like it. i dont want everyone agreeing and being censored - no one ever learns anything that way

Though it would be better if he just learned to play the ball and not the man.

[feenix]

Read, contemplate, try to comprehend.

Specific adj particular, definate.

Specifically adv Specification n detailed description of something to made or done.

Specify v refer to or state specifically.

If this actually gets through, tell where any other breed is mentioned in the BSL except for the banned or restricted breeds.

If the BSL is anything, it is specific.

[mirawee]

What does BSL have to do with tail docking

If this was to go through it would effect every single breed of dog if it happened to injure it's tail and require amputation, regardless of if it is a traditionally docked breed or not.

[OSoSwift]

I have a dog boarding with a naturally short tail, around the length of a Dobe Dock. What happens if someone decides that dog was illegaly docked?

It isn't it is natural - a multi cross breed that was born with a very neat short tail, this however has not been documented as it was not seen as necessary before now so where would her owner stand?

Also I know of a Whippet who lost the last 4 odd cm's of the end of her tail after it was shut in a door. Thie legislation would mean she could no lonegr be shown, trialed do agility or anything??? Just because she tried to slip through a door in the dark and her tail got caught. That doesn't seem right?????

Edited February 11, 2013 by OSoSwift

[Salukifan]

It was never legislation Oso. It was an ANKC Director's motion.

And its dead. It's not going to get enough votes. Indeed, it hasn't got any that I know of.

[OSoSwift]

It was never legislation Oso. It was an ANKC Director's motion.

And its dead. It's not going to get enough votes. Indeed, it hasn't got any that I know of.

Ah okay.

[Airedaler]

Somewhat off topic but just reading through the Feb VicDog and note that the person who submitted the motion this thread is/was about has recently received a reprimand for breaching Regulations 20.1.2 and 20.1.3

20.1.2 A members shall not engage in any behaviour that is contrary to the standards accepted by the community

20.1.3 A member shall display good sportsmanship and conduct at all times so as to reflect credit upon themselves, the ANKC and the Victorian Canine Association Inc.

A bit of a worry when the Vice President of an organisation is in breach of these basic regulations IMO.

[TessnSean]

Somewhat off topic but just reading through the Feb VicDog and note that the person who submitted the motion this thread is/was about has recently received a reprimand for breaching Regulations 20.1.2 and 20.1.3

20.1.2 A members shall not engage in any behaviour that is contrary to the standards accepted by the community

20.1.3 A member shall display good sportsmanship and conduct at all times so as to reflect credit upon themselves, the ANKC and the Victorian Canine Association Inc.

A bit of a worry when the Vice President of an organisation is in breach of these basic regulations IMO.

I heard about the incident at the time but was only told who the judge was. I was very surprised at the penalty.

On another note, it was being well circulated at Bendigo at the weekend that one of those connected to the letter (not the writer) has had anonymous phone calls promising their dogs will be poisoned if this motion passes. Meet someone down a dark lane if that is how pathetic you are but leave the dogs alone.