Does Anyone Read Or Care About This Topic?

[ricey]

Ricey - I still care, as much as I did, but nothing which was effective/is effective ever originated from this forum. Once it was worth sharing an opinion....when BSL was first introduced.

Now it hardly seems worth it, it is not opinions which are necessary now, it is action.

There is action, but it is not discussed on this forum, and few, if any, on the forum have any part in it.

It's a wrong law, and no matter who says what, nothing will change that fact. Killing dogs for no good reason except it negates your insurance liability, and you can, sucks big time. I will continue to oppose BSL, and to try to be of some use in that regard.

I would also like to point out that the CCCQ facilitated the introduction of BSL in Queensland, hand in hand with the state government of the time. The CCs will do what they see as most expedient for them. This was a board decision, and it seems that the majority of members did not approve.

Moosmum - KC membership is voluntary, breeding purebred dogs is voluntary, it is a hobby, a fancy, for those who are interested. As badminton clubs, or snooker clubs, or beer guzzling clubs are a hobby so is the KC.

No big deal.

Jed, old friend!

There are things happening here in WA at the moment and I hope that we are finally going to get an active pro dog/anti BSL group up and active in WA. It is something that I have trying to have happen for over 10 years now. It is not going to be a strident anti BSL only action group. These single issue groups are doomed to fail. Our group/association/collective/whatever will be more inclusive and encompass wider dog related issues than "just" BSL. BSL is just a part of an "anti dog" agenda (if that is not too strong an appellation) that some of Australia's media seems to be following.

I like dogs; a lot more than I like some people. That statement probably paints me into the corner populated by dog tragics and makes me of a similar ilk to the mad cat lady that lived in the next street. But hey! Aren't dogs worth a bit of passion? They are the only species that have chosen to co-exist with humans. All the other species like cows and horses did not do it by choice. They were forced to do it. Dogs did it by choice.

I have a bit of difficulty discerning the difference between a dog of a breed that the Australian Kennel Club recognises, and a dog of the breed that the United Kennel Club or the American Dog Breeders Association recognises. To me, they are all dogs. No more, no less, no different.

I would be very pleased if we all decided to stop squabbling about which dog breeds are worthy and agreed that dogs are dogs and they are all worthy of our respect and our support.

Too simple really, and therefore too unlikely to happen.

ricey

[huck house]

Yes to the OP - I always check if there is a new post in the BSL section first. Ricey - have you seen what 'Team Dog' are doing and saying in regard to effective advocacy ? Leaving breed out of discussions , they remind us that dogs should be treated as individuals of the one species - the one we love - Canine Familiaris. . . I hope the posts and discussions continue . Even when threads get derailed , it is helpful to understand how others think to refine how I speak on the subject .

[Zhou Xuanyao]

What caused it is the fact that people are so isolated from dogs and breeding that they give no thought to the parents of the pups they buy. Many no longer see them. They don't understand dog behaviour and they don't care enough about their dogs or their community to socialise and train their dogs to make them safe.

This is 'what they want you to think'.

The onus is not on us to do a god damn thing about Pitbulls or their breeders, the whole thing was based on a false and unjust pretence in the first place, and in the face of relentless derision, rebellion and non-compliance the government will back down here just as they have around the world. Pitbull owners and stakeholders have no special responsibility to anyone, it's a bit like a movie about slaves I saw recently; the black guy who'd been kidnapped appealed to his captors, 'but here's my papers!!!'--we don't co-operate much less appeal to their cruel laws in any way, the laws are a reflection on their grubbyness not us.

Edited September 27, 2014 by KungLao

[ricey]

Yes to the OP - I always check if there is a new post in the BSL section first. Ricey - have you seen what 'Team Dog' are doing and saying in regard to effective advocacy ? Leaving breed out of discussions , they remind us that dogs should be treated as individuals of the one species - the one we love - Canine Familiaris. . . I hope the posts and discussions continue . Even when threads get derailed , it is helpful to understand how others think to refine how I speak on the subject .

Yeah, canis lupus familiaris.

A somewhat kinder species than homo sapiens.

At least the dogs have nothing to feel ashamed about.

ricey

[moosmum]

Forbidding K.C members from breeding a dog inelligible for registration - on a

Cultural level,this affects both how the K.Cs are percieved, and how members promote themselves. It serves to de-value un-recognized breed dogs in the eyes of the community. Thats the majority of dogs.

As this proccess continues, fewer appreciate the species or recognize their responsibilities in regards to it. Or have avenues where pride,values and purpose are promoted for the average 'pet dog'.

Pedigree dogs must then be "protected" from an un-caring and ignorant comunity.So pedigree dogs become an ever more specialized field, requiring more protections and becoming more issolated from the mainstream in the process.

Sorry, but I'm convinced more than ever this is what is happening. I truely can't fathom why such fear at the thought of a rule change that will have no effect on the pedigree system at all, other than to make more members welcome to promote socialy responsible dog breeding and attitudes, with purpose.

The science is there to back this theory, but there seems to be a fear of looking at it, even to save pedigree dogs.

Predictability and strength of certain traits will always be valued as long as there are people who value dogs in their lives for any reason or purpose. To promote reason and purpose for ALL dogs can only bennefit the pedigree system and would have huge implications for welfare.

[sandgrubber]

I hope H.D.W is right, and I agree targeting SBT would certainly bring out some opposition!

I can't help but come back to the logic that a pedigree is where breed specific originated. While pedigrees are based on exclusion, how can we expect legislation to be any different?

If K.Cs world wide lead the way in all things dog, isn't B.S.L a logical conclusion?

Exclusion brings improvement, doesn't it? Isn't it whats makes pedigrees what they are?

They are exclusive?

Pedigrees are about history. The history of a dog's antecedents. People used to give a damn about such things and they valued their dogs enough to record ancestry. They cared enough about dogs and the roles they performed to selectively breed dogs for certain roles. Until not that long ago, that was pretty common.

Pedigrees are NOT the problem. They did not cause BSL. What caused it is the fact that people are so isolated from dogs and breeding that they give no thought to the parents of the pups they buy. Many no longer see them. They don't understand dog behaviour and they don't care enough about their dogs or their community to socialise and train their dogs to make them safe.

The problem doesn't lie with the dogs and the sooner you grasp that, the sooner you'll stop blaming the KCs for the problem. It's people who breed and buy irresponsiblly and who think dogs are "just a dog".

That doesn't describe the pedigree dog world who neither cause nor enshrine the legislation that perpetuates the myth that dangerous dogs are born, not made. They also cannot control the behaviour of people who choose to breed or buy dogs with no regard to their inherent characteristics.

Write your book but as far as I'm concerned you are barking up the wrong tree. Stop blaming dogs and pedigrees and start looking at the kind of people who have dangerous dogs and the kind of people too stupid to create legislation to deal with them.

If you're interested in health or temperament, pedigrees do a crappy job of recording history. They tell you breed, birth date, colour, and immediate ancestors back three, five, or if you push it, more, generations. They tell you about which dogs are imported and record titles. THEY DO NOT TELL when the ancestral dogs died or what they died of. They do not tell you anything about the dogs' health or temperament. They do not tell you about siblings and half sibs and whether they lived to a ripe old age or were pts'd for health or temperament problems.

[Steve]

I hope H.D.W is right, and I agree targeting SBT would certainly bring out some opposition!

I can't help but come back to the logic that a pedigree is where breed specific originated. While pedigrees are based on exclusion, how can we expect legislation to be any different?

If K.Cs world wide lead the way in all things dog, isn't B.S.L a logical conclusion?

Exclusion brings improvement, doesn't it? Isn't it whats makes pedigrees what they are?

They are exclusive?

Pedigrees are about history. The history of a dog's antecedents. People used to give a damn about such things and they valued their dogs enough to record ancestry. They cared enough about dogs and the roles they performed to selectively breed dogs for certain roles. Until not that long ago, that was pretty common.

Pedigrees are NOT the problem. They did not cause BSL. What caused it is the fact that people are so isolated from dogs and breeding that they give no thought to the parents of the pups they buy. Many no longer see them. They don't understand dog behaviour and they don't care enough about their dogs or their community to socialise and train their dogs to make them safe.

The problem doesn't lie with the dogs and the sooner you grasp that, the sooner you'll stop blaming the KCs for the problem. It's people who breed and buy irresponsiblly and who think dogs are "just a dog".

That doesn't describe the pedigree dog world who neither cause nor enshrine the legislation that perpetuates the myth that dangerous dogs are born, not made. They also cannot control the behaviour of people who choose to breed or buy dogs with no regard to their inherent characteristics.

Write your book but as far as I'm concerned you are barking up the wrong tree. Stop blaming dogs and pedigrees and start looking at the kind of people who have dangerous dogs and the kind of people too stupid to create legislation to deal with them.

If you're interested in health or temperament, pedigrees do a crappy job of recording history. They tell you breed, birth date, colour, and immediate ancestors back three, five, or if you push it, more, generations. They tell you about which dogs are imported and record titles. THEY DO NOT TELL when the ancestral dogs died or what they died of. They do not tell you anything about the dogs' health or temperament. They do not tell you about siblings and half sibs and whether they lived to a ripe old age or were pts'd for health or temperament problems.

Mine do.

[sandgrubber]

If you're interested in health or temperament, pedigrees do a crappy job of recording history. They tell you breed, birth date, colour, and immediate ancestors back three, five, or if you push it, more, generations. They tell you about which dogs are imported and record titles. THEY DO NOT TELL when the ancestral dogs died or what they died of. They do not tell you anything about the dogs' health or temperament. They do not tell you about siblings and half sibs and whether they lived to a ripe old age or were pts'd for health or temperament problems.

Mine do.

Sadly, as you know, you're the exception that proves the rule.

[Steve]

If you're interested in health or temperament, pedigrees do a crappy job of recording history. They tell you breed, birth date, colour, and immediate ancestors back three, five, or if you push it, more, generations. They tell you about which dogs are imported and record titles. THEY DO NOT TELL when the ancestral dogs died or what they died of. They do not tell you anything about the dogs' health or temperament. They do not tell you about siblings and half sibs and whether they lived to a ripe old age or were pts'd for health or temperament problems.

Mine do.

Sadly, as you know, you're the exception that proves the rule.

Not any more - lots of breeders and owners are registering their dogs with us from here and other countries including yours in order to do exactly that.

[moosmum]

If you're interested in health or temperament, pedigrees do a crappy job of recording history. They tell you breed, birth date, colour, and immediate ancestors back three, five, or if you push it, more, generations. They tell you about which dogs are imported and record titles. THEY DO NOT TELL when the ancestral dogs died or what they died of. They do not tell you anything about the dogs' health or temperament. They do not tell you about siblings and half sibs and whether they lived to a ripe old age or were pts'd for health or temperament problems.

Environmental selection criteria. Or if you prefer, market selection criteria.

That these qualities have been neglected by many within the K.Cs over time also supports Hendrick Gommers theories. The K.Cs become like an encapsulated sub environment. The goals and criteria evolve separately from, but still dependent on, the larger supporting environment.

The messages and demands from the environment within over-ride those from the actual supporting environment from without.

The recording and attention to these details by registries today recognizes that environmental demands are not being met and treats the more obvious symptoms.

That action does not seek out or address the root cause.

Edited October 16, 2014 by moosmum

[Salukifan]

If you're interested in health or temperament, pedigrees do a crappy job of recording history. They tell you breed, birth date, colour, and immediate ancestors back three, five, or if you push it, more, generations. They tell you about which dogs are imported and record titles. THEY DO NOT TELL when the ancestral dogs died or what they died of. They do not tell you anything about the dogs' health or temperament. They do not tell you about siblings and half sibs and whether they lived to a ripe old age or were pts'd for health or temperament problems.

Pedigrees record antecedents. No, they don't tell you anything about a dog's health or temperament or that of its ancestors. They do, however, give you a place to start.

That's one step ahead of a dog of unknown history. With them you have nowhere to start.

[mita]

Agree with the previous post.

There was an article in The Australian about human medical research at one of our leading universities. (was either Sydney Uni or Uni of NSW). A researcher was saying that pedigree dogs are a godsend for two reasons... 1. humans & dogs share many medical conditions and 2. pedigrees allow for investigative tracking back, not only in depth of ancestry but also breadth.

Edited October 18, 2014 by mita

[sandgrubber]

Agree with the previous post.

There was an article in The Australian about human medical research at one of our leading universities. (was either Sydney Uni or Uni of NSW). A researcher was saying that pedigree dogs are a godsend for two reasons... 1. humans & dogs share many medical conditions and 2. pedigrees allow for investigative tracking back, not only in depth of ancestry but also breadth.

Sure. A pedigree is a start. Knowing ancestry has research value. But that value would be much greater if basic health aspects were recorded as well as sire and dam.

[moosmum]

Even better if people understood the real value of a pedigree is in researching more than just how many show ring awards are attached to the ancestry.

There is no other recognized measure for successful breeding practices given such priority within the K.Cs, even if it IS recorded. As I read the situation, allowing members to cross breed would add value to traits not specific to the show ring environment, but to the broader community environment as well.

Making it easier for members to breed for pet homes and situations, broadening gene pools.

Encouraging the environmental demands that are lacking to keep predictability but add RELIABILITY.

Encouraging the greater development of canine sports and activities at a community level to encourage purpose and goals in dog breeding.

And ensure that registered breeders are recognized for the knowledge and purpose they specialize in, not just show ring awards that have little to do with the purpose of dogs.

Giving RESULTS of breeding practices more avenues of display and recognition.

Such an action would bring MORE value and understanding to a pedigree through broader uses and APPLICATION.

And bring back a sense of purpose for dogs in the broader community.

Edited October 21, 2014 by moosmum

[Amax-1]

Stating that "your breed could or will be next" is not scaremongering, it is just pointing out what has happened in the other countries that have gone down the BSL track.

And in this country when having the opportunity to add Amstaff's to the list being essentially a Pit Bull, they exempted papered amstaff's so the "your breed is next" has already been tested.

[moosmum]

Stating that "your breed could or will be next" is not scaremongering, it is just pointing out what has happened in the other countries that have gone down the BSL track.

And in this country when having the opportunity to add Amstaff's to the list being essentially a Pit Bull, they exempted papered amstaff's so the "your breed is next" has already been tested.

And thats the important point to you because?

Ah, You don't care what becomes of domestic dogs. You feel that as long as even pockets of K.C breeders exsist to keep a pedigree going, Anything worth while in the species will be preserved and developed. Through predictability? Domestic dogs can go. You wish to ensure a pedigree can never be confused with a domestic dog.

You can decide that for us all.

ALL dogs have a pedigree. Not all have an accessible recording of that pedigree. As a registry only, The K.Cs were set up as a keeper of those records. Anything else is political and not the place of a registry only.

If the K.Cs are to have real value, its as keeper of those records. The record doesn't bestow the value! Its the knowledge and practice behind them that should be ongoing and valued. It IS ongoing and can only be as good as the membership you can attract.

If "domestic dogs" are to go, the process won't favour a record.

The only thing that can turn this around is for people to recognise the VALUE OF KNOWLEDGE and practice of dogs and breeding. And then the K.Cs real value is self evident.

(edited for punctuation)

Edited November 10, 2014 by moosmum

[YOLO]

Does Anyone Read Or Care About This Topic?

The problem is that's its the SAME argument, over, and over, and over again.

BSL proponents believe that certain dog breeds are a danger to the community (especially in the hands of irresponsible owners) and that banning those breeds outright is the the only effective way to remove the danger.

Opponents believe their dogs are just cute & cuddly family pets. Debating the subject ad nauseum doesn't change anybody's PoV.

Personally, and this is just my personal gripe, I don't think BSL opponents do their argument any favours with some of the utterly stupid comments they come out with. Not saying that there isn't merit in their overall position, just that when you're already arguing off the back foot, coming across like a nutter doesn't help your cause.

I think one of the biggest challenges is trying to win over public opinion that is already heavily biased against these dogs.

And I'll give you an example:

I have only met (in the flesh) one pitbull and his owner. The boyfriend of a work colleague. He was an idiot, and a macho d___head who viewed his dog as an extension of his p___s. (Yes, she could have done a lot better.) He should not have been allowed to have a pet rat, much less a dog.

The problem is that if people encounter such a person with a Poodle, they think "what a d___head." But when they encounter him with Pitbull, they think "OMG a PIT-BULL aahhh."

As always, it is invariably the OWNER who is at fault, but the dog gets the bad rap.

[Staffyluv]

I agree that it is an uphill battle but there are those of us that really don't fit the stereotype of the 'typical' pitbull owner.

My last foster girl was a little Pitbull and she is simply divine - she (and I) changed quite a few people's perspectives on the type of dog at the local leash free park.

Bella now lives with 4 cats (and she is the bottom of the pack) and spends a few nights a week at a kids hostel because her owners is a carer there (and she sleeps overnight 3 nights a week).

Bella has helped numerous new kids settle by just sleeping on their beds and being a pet that they can pat and cuddle up with - she is much loved there and at her home.

The best thing we can do, is simply show people that they can be wonderful dogs and family pets.

You will never win an argument with someone who only believes the media hype about them - the only thing we can do is show them.

Bella

Bella by jamoore photos, on Flickr

Bella with my Ziggy at the leash free park

Ziggy and Bella Doggie park fun by jamoore photos, on Flickr

She is just divine and I am so happy she is living a happy life.

[YOLO]

I agree that it is an uphill battle but there are those of us that really don't fit the stereotype of the 'typical' pitbull owner.

If there is one thing I have learnt, its that PEOPLE create the problems.

Even if you look at particular breeds as being a "problem," WHO created those breeds? If dogs have an "aggressive" temperament, WHO bred them to be that way?

I love my Flatties, and I am a great extoller of the breed as a family pet, yet I have seen what abuse can do to even one of these passive gentle dogs.

Even if you have a "dangerous" dog, a responsible owner will go overboard to ensure their property is secure, and that the dog is always secured in public.

Irresponsible owners who buy poorly bred dogs, don't train them or properly house them, and let them run amok are a problem nomatter what the breed is.

Personally, I believe the only place a dog should EVER be off the leash is in your own home or back yard.

The dog beach is ok provided its not busy and we can keep our dogs corralled in the water. If I see ANY dog off a leash in a park, I am straight on the phone to the Rangers.

That said, the problem again is irresponsible owners.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Big D

[Staffyluv]

I use the off leash park to exercise my dogs and fosters that come into care (once I am sure they are safe and friendly - in saying that, I am yet to have one that isn't great around other dogs and people).

I don't frequent it at the busy times - there is a couple of groups of people with dogs and we go early in the mornings.

All the dogs get on great. Because it is early, we rarely get others bringing their dogs at that time.

All dogs, including my own, here at home are taught good recalls (as well as basic manners). I want to know I can call my dogs back to me at any time - so far, so good.