Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ricey

Does Anyone Read Or Care About This Topic?

147 posts in this topic

ricey   

Hi all,

To me, breed specific legislation that unfairly targets pet dogs due to their breed or appearance is an important topic. Dogs get targeted and killed by governments and councils because they may be pit bulls, or Dogos , or Filas, or what ever the flavour of the month is for "bad dogs". I am a little saddened that this "BSL" forum gets so little traffic.

I suspect that a lot of owners of pedigree pure bred dogs think that this is not a problem that concerns them, but it should. It can happen to any breed, and it happened in Australia to the German shepherd dog. At the moment the main dog breed targeted by Breed Specific Legislation in Australia is the American Pit Bull Terrier. The APBT is the same dog as the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the AST is at risk also. But AST owners and breeders think that this BSL thing won't get applied to their dogs. Well, why not? If the APBT is such a dangerous dog, surely the AST is as well, as it is the same dog. The only dogs ever used to breed AST's were APBTs, and so the AST is a pure bred APBT. There is no pure bred AST in the world that is not descended from pure bred APBTs.

Anyone who tries to deny this is deluded. So, if all APBTS should be banned, then therefore all American Staffordshire Terriers should also be banned. Anyone out there who'd care to dispute my logic?

ricey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RuralPug   

My logic is a bit more like: if American Staffordshire Terriers are acceptable, then American Pit Bull Terriers should also be acceptable. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet, etc.

This topic may not get a lot of traffic in here, but there are a lot of very active Internet groups, some forums, some social media that I've noted in passing that have very active anti-BSL campaigners posting daily.

My own opinion is that breed specific legislation makes about as much sense as genocide - that is to say, none. By all means have rules in place to deter and punish offenders, once they HAVE offended, but to throw an entire breed or race or ethnic group into a ghetto is self-defeating in the long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teebs   

Nothing wrong with posting and bringing it back up for people to think about ...

I wish I was able to do more, but I'm flat out with work and baby.

I do get to chat to people every day at work about it though. Maybe my info is enough to save a few dogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, not a problem that concerns me, as all of my dogs are ANKC registered animals.

Choose wisely and purchase an ANKC registered dog with corresponding microchip and you won't have an issue with Council and BSL.

Is BSL right, does it work ? probably not

But it's been around a long time now, it's not going to disappear anytime soon and owners have choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who tries to deny this is deluded. So, if all APBTS should be banned, then therefore all American Staffordshire Terriers should also be banned. Anyone out there who'd care to dispute my logic?

ricey

Yes. Me. I don't call it a win for dogs or against BSL. You don't want ABPTs banned. Fighting against BSL by advocating that another dog breed be banned? That's the flaw in your logic.

Any line of argument, as used by the APBT people during the fight to stop BSL, that tries to put other breeds in the crosshairs, is hardly going to endear the wider dog community to the APBT side of the argument.

Don't use the "we're all in this together" argument while shoving other breeds into the spotlight for targetting. That's illogical too. It's also bloody unfair.

Edited by Haredown Whippets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who tries to deny this is deluded. So, if all APBTS should be banned, then therefore all American Staffordshire Terriers should also be banned. Anyone out there who'd care to dispute my logic?

ricey

Yes. Me. I don't call it a win for dogs or against BSL. You don't want ABPTs banned. Fighting against BSL by advocating that another dog breed be banned? That's the flaw in your logic.

Any line of argument, as used by the APBT people during the fight to stop BSL, that tries to put other breeds in the crosshairs, is hardly going to endear the wider dog community to the APBT side of the argument.

Don't use the "we're all in this together" argument while shoving other breeds into the spotlight for targetting. That's illogical too. It's also bloody unfair.

Nope we aren't all in this together, as clearly those who have ANKC registered animals are not subject to BSL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I care even if I don't post about it here. I tend to read the comments and links and sign any petitions. I do so because I think BSL is ludicrous. I am here in QLD, own an SBT but have family with ASTs so do consider we are at risk of being caught up in this nightmare.

Besides the waste of council money and court time, the one thing that offends me about BSL is the unnessecary suffering of some of the dogs who have been caught up in this fiasco; dogs who have not hurt any other living thing to date or shown any signs that they might do so in the future. I believe these dogs deserve protection from the system and if the RSPCA had some balls they could see it fits their mandate and they should be mediating to ensure the needs of seized dogs are met while they are 'incarcerated'. How is it fair on the dog to keep it impounded and without contact with its family for over a year? Unnessecary cruelty is what it is and council's should be called out on it. And under what other legislation in this country is it legal to take a person's property when that property is causing no harm to another living being and is not participating in any illegal activity? This is why council's are losing cases. People who know their rights know this is unacceptable, regardless of the breed of dog.

Meanwhile it is the innocent dogs who continue to suffer.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amax-1   

They will never place ANKC recognised breeds on the BSL list because ANKC recognition implies that the breed is eligible to be legally owned and kept unless they want mass law suits occurring where the APBT was never ANKC recognised for anything to be substantially argued in favour of their existence. Other breeds like American Bulldogs and the like could be added to the BSL list but it won't happen with ANKC recognised breeds for anyone to be concerned about. It's the very reason why Amstaff's are exempt from BSL when they are closely APBT related to the point a vet declaring an unregistered Amstaff will escape it's seizure to BSL.

It's the same as highly defending the blood alcohol limit at .05 is BS and should be .08, the fact that it's law regardless of whether of not it's BS will not help anyone caught driving over .05 likewise with anyone caught with a dog resembling an APBT, best not to drink and drive or take on a Bull cross breed if lessening the risk of dramas is the desired result. No one needs a Bull cross breed as there are plenty of alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   

Anyone who tries to deny this is deluded. So, if all APBTS should be banned, then therefore all American Staffordshire Terriers should also be banned. Anyone out there who'd care to dispute my logic?

ricey

Yes. Me. I don't call it a win for dogs or against BSL. You don't want ABPTs banned. Fighting against BSL by advocating that another dog breed be banned? That's the flaw in your logic.

Any line of argument, as used by the APBT people during the fight to stop BSL, that tries to put other breeds in the crosshairs, is hardly going to endear the wider dog community to the APBT side of the argument.

Don't use the "we're all in this together" argument while shoving other breeds into the spotlight for targetting. That's illogical too. It's also bloody unfair.

Nope we aren't all in this together, as clearly those who have ANKC registered animals are not subject to BSL

Yes Ricey, I also read and care.

I work in my own way to bring change, because I think BSL is just one symptom of the mess the dog world is in, and that there is a common cause. That it affects ALL dogs and owners regardless of affiliation and the only way to over come these problems is to aknowledge that we ARE all in this together.

The K.Cs cant survive with out their grass roots, or foundations. Its their support base, source of growth and new blood. Its made up of all the ordinary people who choose to have dogs in their lives. The current K.C constitution binding members asks us to sign up to a belief there is no legitimacy to what occurs out side of the K.Cs. Passes judgement on its foundations by disallowing them within its membership. Because there can be no separation from your environment,Your definition of yourself and what holds you apart can only narrow.

Its a double closed system with no out side influence permitted on breeds, OR those who breed them. It has ruled negatively on its foundations and therefore as an organization, regardless of the individuals who make up its membership, can only ever have a negative effect ON its foundations. Legislation such as B.S.L is just one way we shrink our environment. Its a symptom.

Ruling negatively on an issue ( such as cross breeding) is a way of restricting the environment you work within. A negative ruling or law can ONLY restrict. It becomes taboo and we don't look too closely at whats taboo. So, when problems are caused by restrictions that make us unviable, we tend to try to restrict them too instead of being able to see where the problem starts. Like a noose, it gets tighter.

A closed environment, such as the K.C, can only shrink, unless its self contained. Its no longer self contained when it rules beyond its own boundaries and a negative ruling can only have negative effects on that.

The K.Cs ruling against members breeding out side of their own charter means that as an organization, they will always hold themselves apart from whats seen as a hostile environment. It will be treated accordingly.

What individuals believe is not relevent to the direction set by the charter. It forms the intent of the organization and rules dictate how the intent is to be achieved. Negative rulings (ie against) limit direction and alter or corrupt intent, positive rulings clarify it.

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MM:

A closed environment, such as the K.C, can only shrink, unless its self contained. Its no longer self contained when it rules beyond its own boundaries and a negative ruling can only have negative effects on that.

Care to provide an example of a Kennel Control ruling beyond its boundaries?

The ANKC has been openly against BSL from the get go and continues to hold that line. The fact that an organisation established in the interests of purebred dog breeding and registration is not in favour of crossbreeding should be a no brainer. Nonetheless has plenty of members wo neither breed, nor own purebred dogs via its Associate register and thought its CC affiliated dog training clubs has done a lot for dog training ordinary pet owners throughout Australia.

Frankly I have no idea what you're on about with all these "rulings". What rulings? confused.gif

Edited by Haredown Whippets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   

MM:

A closed environment, such as the K.C, can only shrink, unless its self contained. Its no longer self contained when it rules beyond its own boundaries and a negative ruling can only have negative effects on that.

Care to provide an example of a Kennel Control ruling beyond its boundaries?

The ANKC has been openly against BSL from the get go and continues to hold that line. The fact that an organisation established in the interests of purebred dog breeding and registration is not in favour of crossbreeding should be a no brainer. Nonetheless has plenty of members wo neither breed, nor own purebred dogs via its Associate register and thought its CC affiliated dog training clubs has done a lot for dog training ordinary pet owners throughout Australia.

Frankly I have no idea what you're on about with all these "rulings". What rulings? confused.gif

Very happy to try H.W. Don't know how this will go since my i.net connection is near zilch atm.So may have to do this over several posts/days even.

I have spent the last 10 years or so trying to figure this out and confirm. I believe I have done so, to my own satisfaction at least. But an explanation won't be done in a few minutes. These rules for writing a successful constitution are not hard to find. I haven't made them up.Seeing how they work in practice is much harder.

1 explains about the effects of negative rulings.

Another the effects of ruling out side of your charter.

You write your charter to set the goals of your organization. In the K.Cs case, to set up a registry for the breeding of pure bred dogs. An organization can ONLY operate on the messages and instructions contained with in that charter, and WILL do so. Language and nuance is critical.

I agree, cross bred dogs have nothing to do with that. Therefore, any ruling concerning cross breed dogs and open lines is out side of K.Cs charter. Its sets up what I believe is called a double negative. Your charter has already set up a registry that does not include mixing breeds, so the ruling against members partaking of the practice is superfluous. If they breed cross breeds, they will not be eligible for registration with K.Cs any way.Cross breeding has no bearing on what the K.Cs do.

That ruling outside of the K.Cs charter means now it DOES affect the K.Cs, The membership has chosen to sit in judgement of the practice.Its seen as antagonistic to K.C goals. So there has been a line drawn between whats done within the K.Cs, and whats done outside of them. The K.Cs can NEVER allow a positive influence to those practices. Because of that, those practices will suffer disadvantage, or a sort of oppression. They are not free to thrive and evolve in a healthy manner.They are always under attack.

The message radiated by the parent body has been corrupted. Those messages inform the intent.Instead of using the registry as means to record whats gone before to make better decisions for the future and work towards betterment of our pure breeds, the message has become that purity and closed lines alone lead to better dogs. You aren't defined by knowledge or your practices. Purity it is. Closing and keeping lines closed is the key to improvement, else why are open lines a threat?

The theory behind the advise not to rule outside of your charter is that an organization takes on a biological life of its own. Its a population. Such a ruling is usualy a ruling against against that organizations environment. The environment for pedigree dogs can be defined as what they grew from. What gave rise to them. So foundations are a better description here. What gave rise to our pure breeds must be retained if they are to remain relevent to their environment.

With out it, they loose their place, purpose or role in their environment.

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amax-1   

Abolishing BSL means no import restrictions of the listed breeds. No political party will abolish BSL to risk newly imported breeds being involved in serious attacks which the political party cannot control the management of such breeds or individual dogs. All it takes is a Fila or Dogo to kill a child after the abolition of BSL and there will cries of mass anger towards the party responsible for the child's life......none of us are naïve enough not to understand this when no one needs a Fila or Dogo for example to maintain quality of life when there are plenty of other breeds to chose from.

There is probably more chance of having the APBT released from the list but total abolition of BSL is not going to happen as the risk of doing so for the little gain if any is not worth the exercise.

As far as cross breeds go with restricted breed appearance, they need in my opinion to be temperament tested which is not hard to determine a dog's propensity to cause harm with little provocation. If the dog is actively aggressive and the handler/owner has little control, then the dog needs a second look but if it's a good dog regardless of looks, let it live it's life.

Edited by Amax-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   

I apologize for my confusing posts. I tend to think in terms of natural or biological law so need to find a way to translate what I see into a more usual language.

Pedigree dogs are inextricably tied to mixed line dogs. They will not survive with out them.

If you eliminate or suppress the cause of your existence, where is the demand for what you have become? What drives you to become more, or decides what "betterment" means? If somethings improvement is not driven by environmental demands, who decides its an improvement?

For an organization/organism to be successful it has to reliably meet the needs of its environment. The most successful will also have the most positive influence on its environment.

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   

H.W (Tried to reply to specific lines in your post and deleted quote tags)

The benefits you mention for associate members with mixed breed dogs are given on condition those dogs genes will not be passed on. The benefits come with an acceptance of suppression.

Breed specific legislation is entirely dependent on recognition of breeds as specific.It has far more to do with pure breeds than their mixes.

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What gets a breed on the banned list?

Moosmum I was wondering the same thing, really if the federal govt wipes the agreement with the ANKC then they have registered pedigrees on a platter. What is there to stop that happening? :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H.W (Tried to reply to specific lines in your post and deleted quote tags)

The benefits you mention for associate members with mixed breed dogs are given on condition those dogs genes will not be passed on. The benefits come with an acceptance of suppression.

Breed specific legislation is entirely dependent on recognition of breeds as specific.It has far more to do with pure breeds than their mixes.

The ANKC isn't suppressing crossbred breeding. It's suppressing its members from doing it. Membership is voluntary and given that ANKC bred pups represent 20% of those born every year, I don't see how its suppressing breeding?

Don't like the rules? Don't join. Not hard really. You won't get an ANKC pedigree for what you breed? Is that "suppression"?

None of the currently banned breeds are or have ever been recognised by the ANKC.

BSL is a utter nonsense. But you can't blame the ANKC for its existence. it has far more to do with purebreeds than their mixes because the people who came up with it know SFA about dogs. Don't sheet that home to an organisation that does not and never has supported it.

Powerlegs:

Moosmum I was wondering the same thing, really if the federal govt wipes the agreement with the ANKC then they have registered pedigrees on a platter. What is there to stop that happening? :(

The Federal Government doesn't have an agreement with the ANKC. There is no federal breed specific legisatiion beyond the placement of 4 breeds on the banned from import list.

Edited by Haredown Whippets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   

Pedigree dogs are a great accomplishment we should all be proud of. they are the culmination and demonstration of good breeding practices. THAT is their biggest selling point, or should be.

They have been leading the way because of that.

They are still gaining members who believe in that.

The best breeders don't breed a dog because its pure, they breed it because its good.

But a line has been drawn. The K.Cs attracts those members of the community who believe in better breeding practices, yes. But you can concentrate knowledge within the K.Cs for only so long. A member of the K.Cs can have little influence on the general public. How many times do we see breeders refusing use of commonly used publications or media because they don't approve of the company?

So while knowledge is concentrated in the K.Cs, Its lost else where. Knowledge isn't shared and spread, its with held. Ignorance outside of the K.Cs increases and thats the base you draw new memberships from.

What message do these ignorant people get from the K.Cs as incentive to join? Are they going to be attracted because they see pedigree dogs as the pinnacle of good breeding? Or because they think a pedigree itself will always demonstrate better breeding?

That is the paradox contained in the charter. People join because they believe the former and thats what they want to promote. The rules and charter say otherwise and favor those who joined for the latter reasons. An organization will, over time, get the culture that is written in to their constitution and rules. Its the culture that always gets the advantage to grow.

What makes a good a good breeder is no longer clear and needs to be constantly redefined. It can't be defined by practices. Practices can't ever be unique to the pedigree itself. Pedigree dogs are the RESULT of Best practices. They can't replace best practices.

Pedigree dogs are the logical conclusion of best practices, but don't always equal them. So breeders are left to define themselves by what they aren't.

I can only explain what I see. I can't swear I'm right, but theres been nothing to tell me I'm wrong so far.

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is that I don't understand the attitude of some in this thread that because their breed is recognised by the ANKC they will never have to worry about BSL.

In every other country that has bsl, recognised breeds have been included. We are the only country that differentiates between the Amstaff and APBT when implementing BSL. In the States the SBT has always been included too.

Of course I hope it never happens but I think it is very silly to sit back and ignore BSL because you have ANKC registered dogs.

NSW was only recently (Nov 2013) created amendments to the Act that allows the minister to declare any breed as Menacing and thus subject to restrictions with the flick of a pen. The fact that they took the time to write this into the legislation implies that they either have a definite intention to do it or they think that it is likely or possible that they will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×